Iain Duncan Smith:
The Government has a mandate to secure control of our borders, laws and money
The clock is ticking, and as we settle how the Government will run and what arrangement the Conservatives will make with the DUP to navigate crucial parliamentary votes, one issue in particular hangs over us: the need to get on with the Brexit negotiations.
The question of what kind of relationship we want with the EU has been dominated by some of the most facile commentary imaginable. As a result, we have lurched between talking of hard Brexits and soft Brexits with no real idea of what is meant.
Some say a soft Brexit entails remaining in the single market, or the customs union or both. Now we have a new term, an open Brexit, although perhaps this is more about tone than substance. It all seems so vague as to leave anyone watching perplexed as to what the argument is really about.
Hard or soft, even semi hard or semi soft or open, the Conservative manifesto was very clear. It stated that the purpose of the Government was to give effect to the referendum vote last year, defined as taking back control of our borders, our laws and our money. It was also clear that Britain would not remain a member of the single market or the customs union. “Ah,” I hear people say. “But you didn’t win an outright majority so it needs to be changed.” Well, 13.6million British people voted for it, making the Conservatives the largest party, which is a pretty powerful mandate.
Furthermore, the Labour manifesto was just as explicit and agreed with the Conservative manifesto on this issue. That means some 80 per cent plus voted to support a policy that has us negotiating to get the best possible frictionless access to the single market once we have left the EU. I note also that Messrs Corbyn and Mcdonnell reiterated at the weekend that Labour policy is to leave the single market and the customs union. Surely were either party to change their position now, it would be interpreted as a massive U-turn. Nevertheless, some MPS have called for a kind of cross-party group to negotiate a soft Brexit.
Now, I am all for talking to members of other parties, which in fact goes on all the time. Whips talk to whips, backbench members do as well, and the Prime Minister often consults the Leader of the Opposition on matters of national importance. But I do not believe that a Government engaged in Brexit talks can possibly seek approval from such a group during those negotiations, for that would make it impossible to achieve clarity. Labour has also made it clear that it does not want to engage in such a formal way, for that would mean that its traditional ability to critique the Government’s final agreement would be lost.
Anyway, the Government has already said that it will report back regularly. In that way it can inform but not get bogged down by negotiating in public, by “committee”.
The reality, in any case, is that we shouldn’t assume, as those calling for a soft Brexit do, that we can cherry pick what we want. The EU cannot grant us continued membership of the single market after we have taken back control of our borders as that would breach one of their four freedoms.
Remaining in the customs union would also be the worst of all worlds, for we would have left the EU but would still be subject to its external tariffs without any real chance of influencing them.
More importantly, we would give up the right to set our own trade arrangements with enormous markets like the US or India.
Attempting to modify existing EU arrangements would prolong the negotiations to no purpose. Surely what we should all agree on is that, as we leave, it is in the interests of the EU and the UK to achieve a trade deal that allows firms to continue to do business in the most benign circumstances possible. We should stop the pointless debate about what soft or hard Brexit looks like. Instead we should concern ourselves with what success looks like.
As former US trade negotiator Shanker Singham has said, the biggest gains from Brexit will come as we develop an economic policy based on competition, take advantage of opportunities for trade deals and, of course, secure a good frictionless trade deal with the EU.
This is surely what success looks like, enabling an upbeat Britain to lead the global battle for increased liberalisation and the lowering of trade barriers around the world.