Peter Oborne
WITH the Prime Minister on holiday, Chancellor Philip Hammond has struck. With rapier-like speed, he has tried to seize control of the Government’s brexit policy.
Mr Hammond — who supported Remain during the eu referendum but has been forced to carry out the will of the british people — is on a mission to enforce his own soft brexit agenda.
His stance seems to be a defiant challenge to the bold vision that theresa May put forward in her lancaster House speech in January about brexit.
she made it crystal clear that a fully independent britain must leave the single Market, take back control of its borders and cut free from the jurisdiction of the european Court of Justice.
yet Mr Hammond has contradicted her, saying he wants to negotiate a two-phase brexit deal — meaning that britain would not be cleanly out of the eu until after the target date of April 2019. Indeed, he speaks of a socalled ‘transitional agreement’ that would last up to the next general election, due in 2022.
significantly, too, he let it slip that the Government will renege on its election manifesto pledge to reduce the number of migrants coming here every year, from current unacceptably high levels to the tens of thousands.
In fact, Mr Hammond wants open borders to be maintained for at least two years after we leave the eu.
What’s more, if the meddling Chancellor has his wish, british taxpayers will continue to pay tens of billions of pounds into eu coffers for the foreseeable future.
No wonder tory supporters of a hard brexit are calling him traitor Hammond.
Indeed, the majority of voters — more than 17 million people — who supported brexit last summer will feel utterly betrayed.
but then Mr Hammond has form, having irritated No 10 with his party conference speech last autumn, for example, when he signalled that control of immigration was not a government priority.
SUBSEQUENTLY, the prickly Chancellor upset Cabinet colleagues with his desire for a lengthy transitional brexit deal, leading to embarrassing leaks of comments he was alleged to have made in Cabinet that public sector workers are ‘overpaid’.
I have a question for Mr hammond: Why don’t you stick to your day-job in charge of the nation’s finances and responsible for reducing the national debt, currently a terrifying £1.75 trillion, and rising by the day?
Particularly since you have, at times, struggled to cope with those duties.
Most notably, of course, Mr Hammond was forced into a humiliating u- turn over his calamitous budget decision to hit the self- employed with higher National Insurance payments.
I wish I had faith in the Chancellor’s abilities, but I don’t.
If this one-time secondhand car dealer — described dismissively by colleagues as ‘spreadsheet Phil’ — had even one quarter of the qualities he himself thinks he has, all might be well.
but, arrogant, smug and very fond of the sound of his own voice, he is, I reckon, the dimmest Chancellor since World War II.
Crucially, for someone with prime ministerial ambitions, he has failed to stand up to smoothtalking treasury mandarins and business lobbyists — all of whom are still in mourning over the vote to leave the eu.
Given the growing unpopularity of ‘ spreadsheet Phil’, it is a surprise that some Cabinet colleagues have sided with him on brexit.
Most high profile of these is ambitious Home secretary Amber Rudd, who wrote an article on thursday for the achingly europhile Financial times in which she, too, went back on tory promises about migration. she urged firms to put their case for a liberal migration policy and said she ‘welcomed those who help make the UK such a prosperous place to move’. Like Mr Hammond, she spoke of the need for a much longer transition period.
the dissenting voices of the Chancellor and Home secretary are stark proof of the divisions that have mired Cabinet discussions on brexit.
And while I believe there arguments for a softer brexit, the real problem is that a transitional period would extend the uncertainty for an extra three years or more and prevent businesses from making the most of the opportunities that will undoubtedly follow from our eu departure.
Also, critics of soft brexit fear, understandably, that three years will slip into four then five, until, guess what, there is no brexit.
Crucially, too, widespread talk of a soft brexit undermines our negotiating power and sends the message to brussels that britain is a pushover.
As for Mr Hammond, there are grave concerns that, at heart, he is still a Remainer.
Rather than helping to lead britain towards a smooth and successful brexit — with, as Mrs May has said, britain remaining a ‘good friend and neighbour’ to the eu — he has always given the impression that he views brexit as a potential disaster and that it his thankless task to attempt to make it less of one.
Above all, the Chancellor has not shown the vision required for the exciting opportunities awaiting a post-brexit britain. Is this the man — the voice of the anti-democratic british establishment — who we want at the helm of the british economy at a time requiring real boldness and daring?
theresa May was right to want to sack him two months ago. she now needs to show who is in charge when she returns from holiday next month.