Delay tactics must not derail EU exit

In the shifting sands of Brexit, the latest battle is between those who are determined that the UK should leave on March 29, come what may, and those equally intent on stopping that happening unless and until there is an agreed deal with the EU. Theresa May has pointed out many times that there already is a deal, one that she painstakingly put together over a period of more than two years.

She says there is a simple remedy for MPS wishing to avoid leaving without a deal and that is to vote for it. But when she asked them for their endorsement, she suffered the worst defeat in modern parliamentary history.

The Prime Minister’s Plan B is essentially to stick with the rejected deal in the hope that concessions from the EU over the Irish backstop will persuade enough opponents on her own side and the DUP to abandon their objections. While there are signs that some Brexiteers are changing their minds, the scale of the 230-vote defeat was such that it is hard to see how enough can be persuaded back into the Prime Minister’s fold, and certainly not unless the EU agrees to change the legal text on the backstop – something which, it says, will not happen. Without such a concession, her deal cannot succeed. As a consequence, stopping a no-deal Brexit has become the main bone of contention.

In the Commons yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, repeated his condition that Mrs May should take no deal off the table before he would enter cross-party discussions about how to get Brexit through. At the moment, this cannot be done because it is written in statute that we leave on March 29. But there are moves afoot for MPS to take control of this process away from the Government and change the law. Labour is expected to give this cross-party move its official support, thereby delaying Brexit possibly until the end of the year.

But to what end? As Mrs May said in the Commons yesterday, a deal still needs to be agreed or we leave without one. The main reason why this latter option causes such alarm is because the preparations for doing so were so perfunctory and half-hearted for too long. While the Treasury has belatedly committed money to the purpose and civil servants have worked hard to put the necessary arrangements together, it is clear that it is the last thing the Government wants.

We need to hear positive assessments from Whitehall about the nation’s readiness for leaving on March 29; yet all we get is Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, telling business chiefs it will not happen and dozens of ministers threatening to resign unless it is ruled out.

It is regularly claimed that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster; but much of this is scaremongering by people who would rather we did not leave at all. As the article on these pages by Xavier Bertrand, president of the Hauts-de-france region, makes clear, the main French ports are ready to ensure “100 per cent fluidity on day one in the event of no deal”.

If there is a problem, it is on this side of the Channel and a failure to co-ordinate preparations. But whose fault is that? While the Prime Minister has often said no deal is better than a bad deal, few have actually believed her because they detected nothing but antipathy towards the option.

Mr Bertrand reveals how he brought together business leaders from across Europe to talk with British and French customs officials and civil servants. Why have we not been doing the same? As Mr Bertrand says, we need to get the divorce over with even if we cannot agree on who gets what. Further delays will add to the uncertainty facing business and others unless the extra time is used to put the legislation in place for a no-deal exit rather than to thwart the referendum result.

Furthermore, if in order to secure a majority in Parliament, Labour’s demand for staying in a customs union is conceded, the opportunities to sign new trade agreements with countries around the world will disappear. As Liam Fox, the Trade Secretary, put it, MPS have created their own quandary, either to stop Brexit or leave without a deal. They will find the consequences of doing the former far graver than the latter.

‘The reason no deal causes such alarm is that preparation for it was so perfunctory and half-hearted for so long’