A Brexit in name only would be intolerable

Even as a Remainer I can see that the UK would have no say and be little more than a colony of the EU

With the parliamentary Labour Party as split as the Tories – perhaps more so – on what kind of Brexit we should be having, if any at all, the whole process seems to be grinding to an intractable halt, mired in the mud and confusion of backstops, parliamentary amendments, the practicalities of customs arrangements, an uncompromising European Union, and now, almost absurdly, the great existential question at the heart of it all: who governs Britain? Parliament, the Government or Europe?

When Love Island’s Hayley Hughes admitted to not having a clue about Brexit, she appeared to be speaking for the nation, or at least the constantly triangulating Theresa May. The British Prime Minister and her officials have become hopelessly lost in the undergrowth, remorselessly outmanoeuvred and stymied at every stage.

By default rather than design, we seem to be heading towards the worst possible kind of Brexit, one where, thanks to the demands of big business and the Irish border issue, we remain both in the single market and the customs union, but with little or no say over the way they operate.

If Britain’s gripe with the EU is that of too much sovereignty transferred then it will be a double complaint in the limbo that awaits. In this world, the UK becomes little more than a colony of the EU, governed by those we are powerless to influence. It will, as Hugh Gaitskell put it to the Labour Party conference in 1962 when debating whether to go into the European Economic Community in the first place, be the end of a thousand years of history.

I have more sympathy than most for the hapless Mrs May; she’s got herself into a hopeless mess, and is trying to manage it as best she can. But her position is like that of Nasrudin in the Turkish/persian fable. Sentenced to death for some transgression, Nasrudin begs forgiveness, and in desperation promises that given a year’s stay of execution he can teach the king’s horse to sing. Don’t be ridiculous, says his cellmate on hearing of the bargain; you know the horse will never sing. Ah, but a year’s a long time, says Nasrudin. The king might die, I could die, and who knows, the horse might learn to sing.

Playing for time has become the name of the game; it’s not just Mrs May who hopes for a miracle. Uber Remainers bank on the British public, once they realise that the only politically possible form of Brexit is one that is self-evidently worse than staying in, changing their minds and agreeing to reverse the decision.

Conversely, diehard Brexiteers think the reality of taxation without representation, as it were, is so manifestly intolerable that it will eventually embolden parliamentarians to vote for a more meaningful Brexit. Both sides see the no man’s land of a Brexit compromised to the point of worthlessness as but a brief aberration.

I voted Remain, and continue to regard Brexit as a mistake. But if we are going to leave, it should be done properly, so that Britain ends up at arm’s length to the EU, like Canada, Australia, Japan and the United States, and can tailor her domestic and external policies specifically to UK interests. Anything else is going to be politically toxic and therefore wholly unsustainable.

Contrary to what was claimed by some campaigners in the referendum campaign, Britain has in fact been highly influential within the EU during its 45 years of membership, repeatedly preventing the EU’S wilder flights of fancy and gently steering the behemoth towards an economically more liberal future.

Frequently, we’ve had our own way. As Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform points out, the single market was virtually a British invention, enlargement was championed by the UK, we essentially wrote the EU’S competition and state aid rules, and the current wave of European free trade agreements was a largely British-driven phenomenon. Generally speaking, the EU has been a three-way division of spoils – Germany has written the rules on the car industry and manufacturing, France on agriculture, and Britain on finance. Others have had far more reason to complain about lack of influence.

The great danger for Britain in agreeing a Brexit in name only is that, once UK influence is removed, the EU will return to form and deliberately or otherwise start doing things which are positively harmful to British interests. No Remainer can honestly think that to be essentially in the EU but with no powers of veto or input into policy is a good place to be.

If we are to leave, we must face up to the full implications of doing so, and adapt accordingly. It will mean a considerable degree and period of economic dislocation; and it may even result in the break up of the United Kingdom. But if the Brexit vote is to be honoured, it’s the only way to proceed.

Remainers believe they have given the Brexiteers a good hiding this week. I wouldn’t be so sure. Who knows? The horse might indeed learn to sing.