Trust your admirable instincts, Prime Minister, and reject this absurd fudge— which risks a total breakdown in trust between the public and political elite

AT firsT glance, the agenda for today’s crucial meeting of the Brexit war Cabinet seems almost painfully dull, concerned only with thrashing out Britain’s negotiating position on how we will handle the EU’s protectionist tariff regime after we pull out.

But make no mistake. Today’s discussion will have huge implications for the Brexit that 17.4 million voters demanded in 2016 — and unless those present show great wisdom and skill, it could also open the way to a total breakdown in trust between the public and the political elite.

On the table will be two rival proposals for our future trade dealings with the Brussels bloc. One is favoured strongly by Cabinet Brexiteers, the other by remainers who seek to keep Britain tied as closely as possible to the EU bureaucracy.

True, the first option, Maximum facilitation (or ‘Max fac’ for short), goes by an absurdly cumbersome label. But, in essence, it is simply the way we conduct our commerce with countries outside the EU — which already makes up more than half our total trade, and counting.

All it involves is taking advantage of every modern means — online customs clearance in advance, barcodes, automated numberplate recognition, trusted trader agreements etc — to keep trade flowing across borders as freely as possible.

indeed, it is through means such as these that Britons have so little difficulty in buying goods online from the U. s., while wholesale importers dealing with other non-EU countries encounter minimal hold-ups at British ports.

Best of all, from the point of view of the UK after Brexit, ‘Max fac’ would give us the maximum freedom to strike mutually beneficial trade deals with countries such as the United states and Australia, queuing up to do business with us when our withdrawal is complete.

Which brings us to the alternative option, the so- called Customs Partnership. Here, this paper has the gravest of reservations. Devised by Theresa May’s Europe adviser Olly robbins — a Europhile since his Oxford days, though now a supposedly neutral civil servant — this is a fiendishly complex scheme, which would mean HMrC continuing to act as a tax-collector for the EU.

The idea is that British officials would go on charging tariffs, at rates set by Brussels, on all goods entering Britain from outside the EU.

They would then offer rebates to traders — but only in those cases where the imports in question remain in this country and the UK has agreed lower tariff rates than our soon-to-be-ex EU partners.

in theory, at least, Mr robbins’s proposal would solve the irish border issue, while supposedly leaving us free to strike our own trade deals in the wider world. As for how it would work in practice, that is an entirely different matter.

indeed, this has all the appearance of a disastrous Whitehall fudge — massively bureaucratic and almost 100 per cent guaranteed to prove unworkable.

Leave aside that it would negate many of the advantages of striking free-trade deals with non-EU members. After all, why would American or Australian firms want to do more business with Britain, if it meant going through all the expense and palaver of paying Brussels’s tariffs and then reclaiming them from Whitehall?

The robbins scheme would also mean tracking imports into Britain to their final destinations, so as to ensure that firms claiming tariff rebates were not sneaking the goods into the EU.

Not only would this involve exorbitant costs. The fact is that the infrastructure and manpower alone for such an exercise would take years to put in place, threatening to delay Brexit well beyond the end of the planned transition period (not to mention the next General Election).

As for what would happen in the meantime, the clear risk is that we’d be left languishing in the customs union — perhaps indefinitely. This would leave us in the worst of all worlds, forced to take orders on trade policy from Brussels without any say in deciding the rules.

it would also be a slap in the face to the majority who voted Leave, on the unequivocal promise that it would mean taking back control of our trade, borders and laws.

indeed, this paper is convinced that if all other things were equal, Theresa May would have not the slightest hesitation in rejecting Mr robbins’s too- clever- by- half compromise — described as ‘ bonkers’ by Michael Gove — and opting for ‘Max fac’.

True, she campaigned for remain in the run-up to the referendum. But since then, she has shown a single-minded, clear- sighted determination implement the will of the people.

With great clarity and eloquence — in her speeches in florence, at Lancaster House and elsewhere — she has repeatedly spelt out what this means: for Brexit to mean Brexit, we must sever our ties with both the single market and the customs union. No ifs, no buts.

so how has it come about that the Prime Minister is reported to be leaning towards Mr robbins’s deeply unpromising compromise, which threatens to cross the red lines she has so laudably laid out?

The answer, of course, is that all other things are not equal. On the contrary, since she lost her overall majority in last year’s disastrous election, she has faced nightmare Parliamentary arithmetic, which has given inordinate influence to a hardcore of treacherous, swivel-eyed Tory remoaners in the Commons.

At the same time, an utterly unscrupulous Labour front bench has turned its back on its traditional voters, who backed Brexit in 70 per cent of seats held by their party. sensing political advantage in making as many difficulties as possible for Mrs May, the Opposition has now swung behind keeping Britain tied to EU tariffs.

No wonder the Prime Minister is said to fear that if she pushes for ‘Max fac’ today, Conservative rebels will join in unholy alliance with Jeremy Corbyn to pass a vote obliging the Government to press for remaining in a customs union.

Making her problems worse has been the truly disgraceful behaviour of smug, backward-looking, unelected remainers in the Lords.

showing egregious contempt for democracy, they have sought to throw every conceivable obstacle in the way of implementing the referendum result — undermining our negotiating position in their efforts to leave us at the mercy of Brussels.

How Jean-Claude Juncker and his cohorts must be rubbing their hands with glee over their antics.

it has come to the point where the Prime Minister is said to believe her only hope of pulling us out of the customs union — and so salvaging a Brexit worthy of the name — may lie in backing the robbins compromise.

if so, this paper cannot urge Mrs May too strongly to think again. instead of locking herself into this surely unworkable fudge, she should heed the instincts that guided her so well in that fine speech at Lancaster House.

Like the Mail, she knows that Britain is a great country, the sixth largest economy in the world, with which other nations are falling over themselves to do business.

Mrs May knows, too, that our partners in Europe are as anxious as we are to keep trade flowing smoothly between Britain and the EU — more so, in many cases, since the 27 sell more to us than we do them.

This paper also believes that if the Prime Minister finds the right language, as she has done so often in the past, she will be able to face down the rebels and opportunists in the Commons and persuade MPs to put their country’s interests first.

Yes, Mrs May faces a tough test of nerves. But if she sells out to remainers — incurring the wrath of the British public and raising the strong possibility of a half-baked Marxist Government under Jeremy Corbyn — the risks will be surely far greater than if she stands her ground.