It is possible to build a consensus on Brexit
Can the government deliver Brexit? With the TORY-DUP deal in doubt, it looks impossible. But despite appearances, there is a growing consensus on Brexit, and if the Government can survive it should be able to broker a compromise that can get through Parliament.
The compromise involves negotiating a transitional arrangement, such as several years’ membership of the European Economic Area, that gives Britain and the EU extra time to strike a long-term trade deal. This wouldn’t deliver any Brexit priorities instantly, like immigration controls or an end to massive EU budget payments. But so long as it’s temporary, this approach would deliver Brexit over time while avoiding the economic shock of a chaotic exit without a deal.
Most importantly for the Government, it stands a good chance of getting through Parliament, which can’t yet be said for the legislation outlined in the Queen’s Speech. A transitional deal would help to defuse the current row over a “soft” versus “hard” Brexit. Instead of choosing one or the other, the Government would start softly while it sorts out permanent terms, such as tariffs and regulatory cooperation, and then exit fully when everything is agreed.
Many Brexiteers won’t voice their support for this position loudly, but behind the scenes, and even occasionally in public, they have always acknowledged its advantages. It removes the cliff-edge of the Article 50 process, which was designed to put the exiting state under maximum pressure, and allows businesses time to prepare for changes.
The Government would probably always have wanted such a deal anyway, but the election has forced its hand by empowering pro-remain MPS. To get a decent outcome, Britain needs to conduct Brexit negotiations with confidence and that means that it needs Parliament on board.
Remain MPS and peers will find it hard to resist Brexit legislation if the Government is explicit about its desire for a soft transition, which would significantly reduce the risk that Britain leaves with no deal. It would also gain support from those who want to keep Britain as close to the EU as possible.
A “soft” Brexit transition isn’t without dangers, of course. It might well suit France and Germany to keep Britain in a halfway house, paying into the EU budget without wielding any power. Many Remainers will no doubt hope we get stuck there. But it’s unlikely that future British governments would put up with such an untenable position and, to insure against it, the transition could be designed with a time limit.
Building this consensus is well within reach. But to get there, the Government has to make a definitive offer to its rivals in Parliament.
Standing in my friend’s kitchen as a pan full of tomatoes sizzled on his hob, I found myself staring, for the second time in a week, at the burntout husk of Grenfell Tower.
My friend lives about five minutes’ walk away, in a pleasant, new-build flat. The council allowed the site to be developed a few years ago to provide affordable homes and is planning a similar demolition and redevelopment of the surrounding Silchester Estate, a neighbouring collection of dreary tower blocks.
Many estate residents are resisting the plans, however. The Grenfell Action Group, the residents’ group for the tower, has campaigned against the Silchester scheme on the basis that it amounts to “social cleansing”, despite the fact that it would provide every existing council tenant with a brand new flat.
The alternative to pulling down the ageing estate is, of course, to refurbish it. Having debated a similar set of options for Grenfell Tower, the council fatefully decided to keep tenants in place and renovate instead of rebuilding, ending up with the catastrophe we saw last week. Now, the latest conspiracy theory doing the rounds locally is that the council deliberately burned the building down so that it could be developed instead.
In reality, councils everywhere are dealing with a legacy of decrepit housing thrown up decades ago. Staring out of the window at the result of the refurbishment, it was clear that the consequences of making the wrong decision stay with us for many years.
He’s had less than two months in government and Emmanuel Macron has already lost three ministers. The youthful French president was elected to bring vigour and renewal to French politics, trading on his status as an outsider to suggest that he would vanquish the useless, corrupt ancien régime. His slate of parliamentary candidates, who just won a majority in the National Assembly, is half made up of total political novices who have never held office before.
The ex-ministers giving Mr Macron such grief are, by contrast, experienced politicians felled by potential ethics issues to do with nepotism or use of public funds.
The hope must be, I suppose, that his brand-new MPS won’t be carrying around such baggage. As Ukip showed, however, political novices come with their own set of vulnerabilities, from off-colour social media posts to funny attitudes about the use of EU money. Mr Macron will be lucky if his current predicament is the only scandal to mar his squeaky-clean image. FOLLOW Juliet Samuel on Twitter @Citysamuel; READ MORE at telegraph. co.uk/opinion