Mrs May must fill the Brexit policy vacuum

The Cabinet’s Brexit “war” cabinet is to gather at Chequers today in the latest attempt by Theresa May to broker a united position among her ministers. Two meetings earlier this month failed to produce any white smoke that would signify agreement, though yesterday in the Commons the Prime Minister remained confident that the Government would secure the deal with the EU it seeks.

Essentially, this revolves around the policies set out in two major speeches, at Lancaster House and in Florence. But while they showed consistency in the Government’s eventual aims, they were bisected by a general election whose outcome made achieving them much more difficult. As a result, what we were assured would be a tough negotiation with the EU has turned into something resembling a capitulation. The withdrawal agreement reached before Christmas to unblock the Article 50 impasse gave the EU side much of what it wanted on three issues: money, EU citizens’ rights and the Irish border. Michel Barnier has since insisted that free movement during transition must be unhindered, although Mrs May wanted a registration scheme; and there has been talk of the EU imposing a sanctions regime should the UK breach any agreements during the period.

While the Prime Minister insists that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, there has been no threat from the UK side to withdraw any of its concessions in the light of a toughening of the EU’S terms. The £39 billion promised to Brussels is a powerful bargaining counter and should be used against the EU, especially over the right to negotiate new trade deals during transition.

The UK has been offered a transition arrangement ending on December 31, 2020 to allow time for Brexit preparations, effectively replacing March of next year as the moment of final rupture. But even this is now starting to unravel. A leaked document, which sets out the Government’s position for talks about the transition arrangements, suggested that ministers want a longer period of about two years – the duration Mrs May asked for in the Florence speech – and possibly longer.

The suggestion of an open-ended transition is likely to be disowned by some ministers, despite the document being shared with EU member states. But Tory Brexiteers are nevertheless getting nervous. What was to all intents and purposes a status-quo transition no longer has their endorsement, judging by the letter they sent recently to Mrs May. They want the UK to be able to change its laws after next March, as well as to negotiate trade deals. But the EU has rejected this; and the Government does not seem inclined to have a fight over it.

Were the Cabinet and the Prime Minister able to agree a post-brexit policy that the party could rally around, these tensions would be eased. In any case, there is little point in Eurosceptics triggering a political crisis over the terms of transition because they do not have a majority in Parliament. Nonetheless, the concern of the Brexiteers – that transition will become a permanent state, with the UK still half in the EU but with no say over its decision-making – needs to be addressed. This requires a specific date to be agreed, even if some flexibility might be required to avoid cliff-edges that will alarm business and the City.

Mrs May also needs to clarify how the aim of keeping the UK close to Europe does not compromise the whole point of leaving. To that end, a clear message has to emerge from Chequers to fill the current policy vacuum. Ambiguity and uncertainty are allowing the Labour Party to get away unchallenged over the contradictions in its own policy. But, worse for Mrs May, they are also stoking unnecessary suspicions among her backbenchers that need to be allayed, given the parlous political position of her administration.

The Prime Minister is said to be contemplating another speech to set out the Government’s agreed position, though the venue and the timing have yet to be settled. Might we suggest that she makes it in the House of Commons – and as soon as possible.

‘Ambiguity and uncertainty are stoking unnecessary and damaging suspicions among Tory backbenchers’