Unpatriotic passports are a false economy

The passport is an important symbol of national identity, which is why what it looks like and how it is made matter. A Government that is genuinely enthusiastic about Brexit would understand this and would have foreseen the potential embarrassment of its being manufactured by a foreign-owned business. Instead, the new, blue passports were put out to tender and Gemalto outbid British firm De La Rue. Brexiteers are left having to explain the apparent discrepancy between “taking back control” and our very passports being produced by a Francodutch company.

There were two better strategies open to the Government. It could have made the case for outsourcing. Here is evidence that Britain will continue to trade with the continent after Brexit, searching for the best deals for its taxpayers. Britain voted Leave not to make absolutely everything on these shores: it seeks freedom both to import and export in the most profitable manner (De La Rue itself makes passports for Malta and Cameroon). One can imagine Margaret Thatcher coming out swinging for the Gemalto deal, asking its critics: “What public services would you cut to bankroll a British contract?”

Alternatively, the Government might have concluded that the optics of outsourcing were simply unacceptable. There has often been a tension in conservatism between the balance sheet and national pride, and given the significance of the passport to the Brexit debate, this might be one case where patriotism should win out. We all know what France would do: it has a legal monopoly on the production of its identity documents. It’s ironic that France has always regarded itself as being at the centre of the EU while cheerfully breaking either its rules or the spirit of open European competition, while Britain, which has complained mightily of EU meddling since joining the Common Market, has slavishly done as it was told.

Britain is leaving the EU precisely so that it can have greater freedom to decide its own trade regime, and to begin that process with an act of grand acquiescence does not look good. The Government’s lack of sensitivity towards Brexit fundamentals was already plain from its decision to keep EU fishing quotas during the transition. This smacks of another Civil Service decision that was rubber-stamped by politicians. In a healthy democracy, it ought to be the other way around.