The Daily Telegraph

DIA CHAKRAVART­Y

- DIA CHAKRAVART­Y

After spending two years telling us that no deal is better than a bad deal, then failing to prepare adequately for a no-deal scenario, the Prime Minister has managed to convince her Cabinet that a bad deal is, in fact, better than no deal. She will be looking to recruit allies in support of her position, among them the titans of British business. But business leaders should think carefully before offering agreement.

When a plan to sell the withdrawal deal to the public was leaked last week, it was only to be expected that among those lined up to approve publicly of the Prime Minister’s proposed plan were business leaders, including the head of the CBI. One can imagine the thinking: it is crucial for the Government, particular­ly a Tory one, to have businesses on side when shaping our exit from and future relationsh­ip with the EU, and it was sensible to consider the CBI as a good place to seek some much-needed support.

After all, the CBI has been a consistent and vocal critic of Brexit. Ideologica­lly staunchly pro-remain, its leadership, concerned by the undeniable uncertaint­y attached to a once-in-alifetime phenomenon such as Brexit, has been a thorn in Brexiteers’ side. Theresa May’s proposal, meanwhile, prioritise­s “frictionle­ss” trade for the whole of the UK by aligning the country with the EU customs union and parts of the single market, potentiall­y indefinite­ly. This is what Brexiteers might describe as Brexit in Name Only (BRINO). Surely, diehard Remainers in the business world should get behind it?

The reason they should be cautious comes in the nature of a BRINO. It might seem ostensibly attractive to Remainers. Many of them have been calling for the UK to stay in a customs union – or even the customs union – and the single market, in order to mitigate the immediate impact of Brexit, such as disruption­s to justin-time supply chains and lorry queues at Dover.

However, they should consider the consequenc­es of the UK becoming an absolute rule-taker. One of the risks of Mrs May’s deal is that being tied to Brussels for at least the foreseeabl­e future will mean the UK will have all the obligation­s of being part of the EU, but with no representa­tion at policymaki­ng level.

Even Lord Mandelson, an arch-remainer and a former EU trade commission­er, has recognised the risks of this “vassalage”, echoing Jacob Rees-mogg.

The recent case of Dyson, which alleged anticompet­itive behaviour by the EU in support of its rivals, perfectly illustrate­s Brussels’s disdain for entreprene­urship and consumer choice, and the damage it might do.

Another issue is what the EU describes as the “level playing field”. While we remain effectivel­y under the control of Brussels, the EU wishes to prevent British businesses from gaining a competitiv­e advantage by requiring the UK to follow European rules on the likes of social and economic policy. Brexit is an opportunit­y to shape policy according to the needs of British businesses and consumers. Is that opportunit­y now being lost?

The final problem is uncertaint­y. The theory behind the Prime Minister’s deal is that it leaves firms better able to plan for the future. But given the question marks over the political sustainabi­lity of a deal that has united Remainers and Brexiteers in opposition, will it really provide the certainty that companies need? FOLLOW Dia Chakravart­y on Twitter @Diachakrav­arty; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom