Focus on our strengths, not negotiation tactics

The behaviour of EU officials during the Brexit talks only validates the vote to leave. Britain’s approach is flexible and rational: tie any financial settlement to a free-trade deal that benefits us all. Europe prefers melodrama. It says that Britain must pay up to €100 billion gross, even though there is no legal basis for such a figure. Britain might be kicked out of Europol, warned chief negotiator Michel Barnier, even though the European Commission contradicted him. And in the very building where these talks take place, Jean-claude Juncker greeted Tony Blair with a kiss – their meeting emblematic of the elitist politics that British voters rejected in 2016.

Much of what we see of the negotiations is for show; Mr Barnier and David Davis square up like boxers at a weigh-in. But it can affect morale. British media often repeats EU claims without questioning them and the Government has failed to present an alternative narrative. Mr Davis is doing his best, but he needs support on three fronts. First, the Tories have to remind the public why Brexit is a good thing. The Government’s obsession with minimising risk has resulted in some bad ideas – such as a permanent transition, which has now been dropped – and a “steady as she goes” economics that limits our ability to compete.

Secondly, the Tories should be talking up the UK’S strengths, which were on show during Theresa May’s visit to Japan. Nissan and Toyota have both invested in the UK since Brexit; Aston Martin has just announced a £500 million agreement between Britain and Japan. And, yesterday, Mrs May secured a formal agreement to replicate any Eu-japan trade deal with an equivalent for the UK. In addition, Mrs May’s pledge to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Tokyo against North Korea is a reminder of the UK’S diplomatic and military significance.

Finally, the Government has to prepare the voters for the possibility that Britain will pay something as part of Brexit, if not as much as the Eurocrats want. Mr Davis has suggested that while Britain owes nothing, it is mindful of its “moral obligations”. Failure to explain that concept, combined with failure to explain the upsides of Brexit, could lead many voters to ask what the point is. The point is that Brexit is a reassertion of self-government that could, if exploited correctly, make Britain even richer. The case for it needs to be made over and over again.