We need clarity on Brexit, not confusion

No sooner was it reported that the Cabinet had arrived at a position on Brexit that most Conservatives and, indeed, most MPS, were prepared to support than the cracks began to open once more. Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, indicated last week that an implementation phase lasting until 2022 – three years after Brexit – was now the “broadly” agreed position, or at least one that he and the Treasury were promoting. During the transition period, trade and immigration would continue pretty much as before. Business leaders welcomed this not so much because they agreed with the timetable or even with Brexit itself, but because it seemed to give them the clarity that they need to plan ahead.

Similarly, Opposition parties – whose votes will be crucial when any deal comes before Parliament some time next year – signalled that this was a policy they could work with. However, the talk of consensus was premature. It has rekindled the suspicions among Brexiteers that transition is simply a ruse to stop the UK leaving the EU or for creating a permanent half-way house.

Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, who has been in America performing sterling work seeking a post-brexit trade deal, says he has not been party to any Cabinet discussions on this matter, nor agreed to any continuation of free movement after Brexit, even temporarily. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has also been absent on official duties. He, too, seems to have been wrong-footed by the latest manoeuvrings. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph,

Gerard Lyons, a former adviser to Mr Johnson, said a two-year transition period was sufficient.

It would seem odd to the country if a three-year implementation phase was deemed to be “outside the spirit” of Brexit but a two-year transition period acceptable. Getting it right is what really matters. Even Mr Fox indicated that he might well be happy with the 2022 timetable; he denied that a position had been agreed by ministers, as the Chancellor appeared to suggest. This matter could be easily rectified with a Cabinet meeting, even if it means interrupting holidays to hold one.

For investors and voters, what is most important is clarity and a sense of shared purpose from the Government – something that had been emerging, only to fall apart again. This issue is too important for it to become the focus of a proxy war among ministers exploiting the weakness of Mrs May.