Sherelle JACOBS

At 11pm last night, the country launched itself into a post-eu future. Our writers analyse the challenges ahead

WHAT NEXT FOR THE UNION? Philip Johnston

Will Boris Johnson be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? If the Scottish National Party gets its way, he will. The prospect of the Union’s break-up is the biggest post-brexit constitutional issue facing us in the next five years.

Mr Johnson has formally rejected a request from Nicola Sturgeon for another independence referendum, which must be agreed by the UK government in order to be legal under the devolution settlement. But if the SNP wins a majority in next year’s Holyrood elections on a pledge to hold another vote, it will be hard, if not impossible, for Mr Johnson to hold that position.

That was the conclusion David Cameron reached when he agreed to the 2014 referendum that resulted in a 55.5 to 45.5 vote to stay in the Union. Mr Johnson says the SNP had accepted it was a “once in a generation” decision and should not be rerun.

But Ms Sturgeon makes the point that in 2014, the Scots did not know the UK would be leaving the European Union and should therefore be given another referendum armed with that knowledge.

If the SNP fails to secure a majority in 2021, the issue will go away for a while but, if they win, it will have to be confronted. A recent poll showed a majority of Scots support Holyrood’s right to decide whether to hold another referendum, though this is not the same as a majority for independence. The real battle over the next year, therefore, will be between the SNP and the pro-union parties for control of Holyrood.

Can the march of the separatists be forestalled? One way of doing so might be to devolve more powers from Westminster.

A new Act of Union has been proposed by the Constitution Reform Group, headed by the Marquess of Salisbury, to “stabilise and strengthen” the relationships between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The measure reverses the current position where all powers are centralised unless they are devolved and assumes they reside with the four parts of the UK to be “pooled” by mutual agreement. It would involve the creation of an English parliament and the abolition of the House of Lords, effectively turning the country into a federation with four self-standing national units voluntarily pooling their sovereignty to a central administration.

It would maintain the Union through a constitutional monarch as head of state, with national security, foreign affairs and defence all run from the centre, backed by a supreme court, a common currency, a central bank of the UK, some taxation powers, and the civil service. The rest would be controlled by the nations and regions. This proposal is being considered by No 10.

Even if renewed pressure for Scottish independence is repelled, Northern Ireland’s future is also likely to come under scrutiny. The Brexit settlement will inevitably change the relationship between the two parts of the island which have hitherto moved in lock-step apart from the adoption of the euro in the South.

The religious and demographic balance in Northern Ireland is now close to parity between Protestants and Catholics, though this does not necessarily translate into greater support for a united Ireland.

But if Brexit is seen to have failed or to have made life in the North – which voted to Remain in the EU – especially problematic then the pressure for a border referendum will grow, particularly around the centenary of partition next year. Then again, the Irish are unlikely to want to take the costs of unification or deal with the Unionist backlash against it.

While Conservatives are instinctively suspicious of great constitutional upheavals, the party’s election manifesto promised to review the purpose of the House of Lords, examine Crown prerogative powers, scrutinise the role of the courts and revisit the Human Rights Act 1998. But the purpose of this review is more about reinforcing popular trust in our existing institutions after the battles over Brexit rather than digging them up and rebuilding them.

A repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act looks certain, but this would mark an extension of executive powers and a diminution of Parliament’s. Is this what Brexit was supposed to bring about?

The concept of restoring sovereignty to the country – of “taking back control” – should strengthen Parliament after almost 50 years of seeing many of its functions gradually transferred to Brussels. Yet if MPS meekly allow the executive branch to arrogate more power than ever to itself, much of the purpose of Brexit will have been lost.

Moreover, it will encourage even greater judicial activism which has grown precisely because the balance between the legislature and the executive had tipped too far in favour of the latter. The Tory manifesto, reflecting ministerial irritation over the role played by the Supreme Court in the efforts to frustrate Brexit, says the Government will ensure judicial review “is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays’’.

But who decides whether the courts are playing politics or protecting the rights of individuals against an overbearing state? These are the critical constitutional fights in the coming years: defending the Union and ensuring that one set of undemocratic and unaccountable institutions are not simply replaced with another.

WHAT NEXT FOR POLITICS? Sherelle Jacobs

Last night, Big Ben failed to bong for a Brexit yet to be finished by politicians itching to bury the fine print. But even if Independence Day is a suspension of disbelief, the rise of a new populist politics is genuine. For much of the metropolitan elite, it’s therefore curtains.

One need only listen to the final crustings of cantankerousness from archremainers to grasp the decisiveness of their defeat. While MEP bigwigs moulted their last tufts of rage with “not in my name” petitions, Michael Heseltine and Alastair Campbell became sting-eyed at the prospect of skin contact with a commemorative 50p. How uncomfortably gripping it has been to watch yesterday’s men pickle petulantly in the depths of their own vinegar-like disappointment.

Still, the real giveaway to the scale of this people’s victory has been the low-key nature of the whole affair. Throughout British history, when the ruling class has been compelled by the people to make drastic changes, it has carried these out with the kind of grumbling drabness that leaves the country feeling curiously underwhelmed.

The muted atmosphere that accompanied the passage of the Withdrawal Act was not unlike the funereal procession of the 1918 Representation of People Act through

Parliament. After much tribal feuding, the latter finally extended the vote to women over 30 and (as overlooked by selective feminist revisionists) all adult men.

Brexit, however, will upend 21st century Britain, just as, a century ago, universal suffrage blew up the status quo. This is because it has united sections of the middle and working classes that were previously divided. These two sides have always shared values in common – from self-help and patriotism to suspicion of jargon-ridden expertise in favour of common sense. But in the last century they have largely been uncooperative: Europe’s flirtation with totalitarianism instilled in the educated a post-freudian paranoia of the manipulable masses. British dabblings in socialism sparked passionately divergent views on taxation and the welfare state.

In a delicious twist, Blairism proved populism’s unlikely saviour. This sticky glue of managerialist verbiage sought to lead from the centre. According to its mythology, we were “all middle class now”, and those who didn’t fit in were either victims or scroungers. In fact, its advocacy of sterile globalism, control freakish bureaucratic procedure and machinic political correctness left millions feeling like cultural outsiders. When they converged in opposition, Brexit was the earthquakish outcome.

The various offshoots of the ruling class know that this people’s alliance imperils their future and they must change to survive. Not least that windowless club of patrician careerists within the Conservative Party. Granted, many MPS may disdain its grassroots. But the Tories are also ruthless at sacrificing personal prejudices on the altar of the Will To Power.

Having just won a landslide, Boris Johnson knows his longevity – and eventual legacy – depends on delivering something that smells like Brexit and making a solid case for conservatism in newly won Northern constituencies.

Although its survival instincts remain entombed in the stiffened bandages of previous glorious defeats, Labour is starting to realise it must change or die. Northern seats once a safe bet are now unignorable election kingmakers. Although the mainstream media takes for granted the party’s eventual recovery, the incompatible politics of north London and Newcastle-under-lyme means its survival is by no means assured. If Labour pulls through, perhaps its reinvention lingers somewhere in the 2030s, a soft-left economic populism that exploits the moral cowardice of the Right, and harnesses rather than hedges Brexit’s sunlit optimism.

There are, of course, more immediate victims of this populist victory. Not least Whitehall, where Dominic Cummings is waging war on the anti-brexit Civil Service machinery. But perhaps the metropolitan elite institution to watch is the BBC.

With Edwardian Puritanism still glutting her marrow, Auntie remains as drably fervent about converting the heathen masses to measured, bourgeois urbanity as she was in the Twenties. This historic tradition of nourishing condescension comes across as patronising snideness in the unforgiving light of our new political dawn. The Beeb’s failure to see the electoral annihilation of Labour coming, as it reproachfully picked over austerity’s legacy and Letterbox Johnson’s “bigotry”, is a professional humiliation from which it will struggle to recover.

And so here we are, at the end of a vicious battle, looking to the future with measured hope. Although the final form Brexit will take is still uncertain, we should be in no doubt that history has been made. Big Ben’s silence marks the grudging ushering in of a quiet British revolution.

WHAT NEXT FOR THE ECONOMY? Liam Halligan

“The country’s finished,” snapped Hugh Grant last week, when asked about developments in the UK since mid-december. While an accomplished actor, when it comes to political and economic analysis the Notting Hill star fluffed his lines.

For, whether Grant likes it or not, Boris Johnson’s emphatic election victory has sparked a burst of business optimism. Clarity on Brexit triggered a strong economic uptick in January and the economy just recorded its best month in more than a year, according to closely watched PMI survey data. Confidence among manufacturers saw its sharpest rise on record. Firms took on more staff, with permanent hiring up in January for the first time since 2018. Ending the Brexit stand-off also inspired consumer confidence, as house purchases and car sales picked up.

This “Boris Bounce” was confirmed by the International Monetary Fund, which has just upgraded its 2020 UK growth estimate, despite lowering forecasts elsewhere. Britain is set to expand 1.4 per cent this year – faster than France, Germany and the eurozone as a whole.

And with the UK high up the G7 growth league, chief executives across the world are channelling a wave of cash towards Britain, seen as an increasingly stable investment in a world of political and economic turmoil.

The Government, after 10 years of tight spending, is also loosening the purse strings. The budget deficit is down from a ruinous 10 per cent of GDP after the 2008 financial crisis to less than 2 per cent now. That’s why Chancellor Sajid Javid unveiled an extra £14billion in public spending in September, the largest rise in 15 years. With tax revenues recently buoyant and borrowing lower than expected, there’s more to come in next month’s budget.

The Government now needs to lay out its post-brexit policy agenda – as Westminster regains control of Britain’s laws, borders and money. Freed from EU “structural fund” restrictions, an active regional policy can close the productivity gap between the South East and elsewhere. That means far more widespread infrastructure spending – in my view, diverting funds earmarked for HS2 to regional commuter services.

A dozen low-tax “free ports” – stymied under EU rules – would similarly help spread wealth. So too would strong postbrexit agricultural and fishery policies, shifting subsidies towards smaller farmers while reclaiming UK fishing grounds.

Our sovereign industrial policy should avoid “picking winners” and be based on low, simple taxation – slashing business rates to help high-street retailers, amid other carefully targeted tax breaks. As well as world-class transport and broadband

Let’s not be intimidated. The UK was judged ‘best place in the world to do business’ for the past two years by Forbes magazine

We must have clear direction on this issue. There will be no excuses now, no passing of blame to Brussels

we also need, despite incoming migration controls, a steady labour supply – which means better skills. Securing a high-wage, high-productivity economy requires vocational training to be at the heart of the UK post-brexit policy, with a dedicated Cabinet position.

There need not be an erosion of workers’ rights and a regulatory race to the bottom and I don’t believe there will be – not least as our own Parliament will be in charge, with the Tories keen to retain support in newly won former Labour seats.

We need more certainty regarding our ongoing EU relationship, of course. In the forthcoming trade talks, before the nochange “implementation period” ends in December, the UK is well placed.

While negotiating with a hapless Theresa May, the Eurocrats still had a chance to reverse Brexit and were allowed to dictate EU strategy. But with Johnson controlling the Commons and Brexit “done”, EU governments know this is now about damage limitation – and will be more heavily involved.

Leaders of EU member states and their business lobbies know Britain’s £94billion EU trade deficit translates into billions of euros of profit and millions of EU jobs. We need to wake up to our strengths and dismiss attempts at “sequencing”. All issues should be addressed simultaneously, including Britain’s defence, security and intelligence commitment, which in the EU’S eyes is priceless.

Far too much is still made of the EU’S “formidable bargaining power”. Really? Emmanuel Macron is besieged by protesters and lagging hard-right Marine Le Pen in the polls. Angela Merkel is bowing out of public life as Germany’s economy stagnates and her ruling coalition is in tatters.

We want our European neighbours to prosper but let’s not be intimidated. The UK was judged “the best place in the world to do business” by Forbes magazine for the past two years. We boast seven of the top 40 universities on Earth – the EU has none.

“There goes the neighbourhood,” tweeted Hugh Grant on election night, embodying the patronising, anti-democratic attitudes of a cosseted liberal elite.

The rest of the country, meanwhile, wants to roll up its sleeves and show that Britain can shine.

WHAT NEXT FOR DEFENCE? Con Coughlin

THE key to Britain’s future role in the world post-brexit will lie in precisely how the Government comes to define its vision of “global Britain”.

Far from being, as Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach, rudely remarked, reduced to the status of a “small country” following our departure from the EU, there are a number of fundamental reasons why Britain

could and should continue to be a major player on the world stage. Unlike the European Commission, with its pretensions to become a significant force in world diplomacy, Britain retains its coveted position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which presents it with the opportunity to project its diplomatic and political might at a truly global level.

The renewal of the nuclear deterrent means that Britain will continue to enjoy its tier-one military status, while other recent investments in our capabilities, such as the construction of the two new 65,000ton Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the first of which is due to enter service at the end of this year, mean that the British military remains one of Europe’s most potent fighting forces.

Add to this the world-renowned expertise of our intelligence and security services, our membership of the elite Five Eyes intelligence-gathering network, as well as the sizeable contributions made by the foreign aid budget, and it is clear that, both in terms of soft and hard power, postbrexit Britain has much to offer well beyond the narrow confines of future trade deals.

The challenge for the Government, therefore, will be to decide how it intends to marshal these various attributes to our best advantage.

While the priority of Britain’s new global strategy will be to forge trade deals beyond our existing ties with the EU, Brexit also provides us with the ability to form new alliances in other parts of the world that have fallen into neglect as a result of our EU commitments.

Australia, Japan, India and the Gulf states are some of the regions where existing partnerships can be strengthened and deepened. This strategy would enable Britain to expand its network of global alliances beyond the historic contours of the transatlantic relationship.

In addition, it is vital that Britain re-emphasises its commitment to more parochial relationships, such as Nato.

The rest of Europe needs to understand that, while Britain might be exiting the EU, it is not turning its back on Europe, and will continue to play a leading role in Nato where, with the exception of France, it remains the only European power with significant military assets.

Britain’s intelligence and security agencies also make an important contribution to safeguarding the interests of our European allies, a factor that needs to be given serious consideration in the forthcoming negotiations on Britain’s future relationship with the EU. Europe certainly has far more to lose than Britain if the current intelligence gathering and sharing arrangements are not sustained.

Maintaining close ties with the US will be important in terms of protecting our national interests in the years ahead, although, as the Huawei controversy has demonstrated, keeping relations between London and Washington on an even footing can present challenges.

It is questionable that the Trump adminconnectivity, istration will carry out its threat to diminish its intelligence-sharing arrangements with Britain as a result of Boris Johnson’s decision to allow Huawei to continue working on the new 5G network, as any reduction in co-operation would be disadvantageous to both countries.

The row does, though, highlight the importance Washington attaches to its socalled “special relationship” with Britain, especially in the sphere of military cooperation. This is certainly one area to which the Government, if it is really serious about making its vision of “global Britain” credible, will need to pay attention in the coming year.

No one is more aware than the Americans of the reductions that have been made to Britain’s war-fighting capabilities during the past decade. While Britain still has among the best Armed Forces in Europe, that has to be assessed against a backdrop where most European countries fail miserably to meet the basic Nato defence spending requirement of 2 per cent of GDP.

From Washington’s perspective, Britain’s value as an ally is measured in its ability to conduct operations without having to rely on American firepower to fill gaps created by budget cuts. For example, it is all very well Britain building two new aircraft carriers, but they will be of little value if they do not have sufficient numbers of warplanes to fly from their decks, which is currently the case.

For “global Britain” to mean anything, Britain must have viable and effective Armed Forces, which will only happen if the Government provides the military with a serious upgrade in its current funding arrangements.

WHAT NEXT FOR IMMIGRATION? Douglas Murray

At any point in the past few decades, you could hear two points raised by members of the public and the commentariat. The first insisted immigration is something we are not allowed to talk about: the one great taboo.

At the same time, a second group of people insisted the opposite: that we seemed to be spending all of our time talking about immigration. It took a while to make sense of these contradictory claims. Until you realised that, over recent years, we spent an awful lot of time talking about immigration but rarely had the conversation that the public wanted.

The talk we had was all about tinkering around the edges of economic theory. Whereas the public saw – and see – immigration as a vast cultural issue into which economics merely intrudes.

All the social attitude surveys show that Britain is a tolerant country. More than almost any other advanced democracy, we are happy with difference and unbothered by issues such as inter-racial marriage. But the polls also show the public are concerned by mass immigration.

That is the kind of immigration that came in a great wave after the deliberate actions and ignorant miscalculations of the Tony Blair government.

Since then the Conservatives and others have got caught out by their failure to enact their own promises. They have, most famously, promised to get net immigration below the magical 100,000 figure but have failed to get anywhere near that.

Now that we have left the EU, there is no other subject of equal importance on which the Government needs to act. Public concerns about immigration have subsided since the referendum, most likely because the public feel that in voting to leave the EU we have in some sense begun to deal with the issue.

The Government must have clear direction on this issue. For there will be no excuses now. No passing on of blame to Brussels. From now on our border and immigration policies will be solely in our hands. On a number of aspects there has already been some wobble.

The first priority is to maintain the salary threshold of £30,000 for those seeking skilled work visas. Brexit Britain should be seeking high-skilled migrants, not lowskilled labour. While immigration can raise the GDP of a country, the benefits accrue almost entirely to the migrant themselves. It is not a right to be in the UK. Those who come ought not to be any financial drain. There is always a temptation to bring in low-skilled labour to fill shortfalls. It is one of the biggest mistakes any government can make.

Yet even when it comes to high-skilled immigration, numbers must be kept carefully under control. Nothing changes the culture of a country as significantly as immigration. Societies are delicate organisms which change over time but to which massive damage can be done by apparently minor tinkering. When demographic change is too fast, all the fiscal excuses in the book do not change the negative perceptions felt by the public.

Even with high-skilled shortages, it is important not to keep hoovering up people from around the world. Far better to put the energy and resources into training up people here to meet skills shortages.

Another aspect to be kept in mind is the issue of who deserves asylum. The Government should make a small but public display of announcing new criteria in this regard. If people are going to come to this country they should share our values and be already adapted to them.

There are many asylum cases which come up around the world (such as the case of the persecuted Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi) which, when they come along, this country should highlight and answer. Previous governments have brought in quite enough people to this country who hate our values. Time to say what this country does not stand for. And to say what it does. And to show it with our actions as well as our words.