Theresa May must deliver full-blooded Brexit

Stands Brexit where it stood? What is the current situation, as the humiliated establishment digs deep into its resources to frustrate the will of the entity it most despises and fears: the British people? Although every grudging revelation of the direction in which we might be going is weighted with a dozen new obfuscations, sufficient data are now available to construct a sketchy and tentative map of Brexit.

The first clear and unmistakable development has been the spectacular collapse of the Remain movement. The dwindling numbers attending its increasingly inane demonstrations are evidence of this implosion. Of the supposedly mighty Remain army only its elite unit – the Pink Berets – survives. Remain’s antics have made it an object of derision. Who are the fruitcakes now? In just a few weeks there has been a revolution whereby the Leavers are de facto the new establishment, while the Remainers, who for so long paraded false credentials as sophisticated practitioners of cosmopolitan statecraft, are now seen as a minority of cranks clinging to a lost cause.

No serious person now believes there will be a second referendum, or a general election before 2020, or a vote on Brexit in the House of Commons – how could there be, when all but 105 of 650 MPs voted for legislation whereby they temporarily surrendered their representative powers back to the electorate to determine the Brexit issue directly by referendum?

The polls show that two-thirds of the country has reconciled itself to leaving the EU and their only concern now is to see it done quickly and cleanly. The great weakness of the EU, even in the days of its ascendancy, was that when it was not hated it was still not greatly loved. Only now can we see how soft much of the Remain vote was. It is obvious that, for at least a decade, the only thing that gave the impression of consensus support for the EU was the widespread assumption that so large a monolith could never be overthrown.

Every sensible political instinct for restoring national unity, stabilising markets and forging a great future prescribes immediate withdrawal from the European Union, followed by negotiation of free trade agreements, on equal terms as a sovereign state, with our former political partners. Only the formidable resistance of politicians and civil servants, for whom the national interest is not a serious consideration, is obstructing the path to that common-sense solution.

So, how do things currently stack up? Obviously, the most decisive influence on the way Brexit is conducted will be the Prime Minister, whose views and strategy are singularly opaque. First, though, consider the positions of those ministers principally involved in the Brexit exercise.

David Davis, the lead minister on Brexit, must be regarded by full-blooded Leavers as a safe pair of hands. He is a conviction Leaver who can surely be relied on to fight for complete separation from Brussels. He has, too, a record of resigning on matters of principle, so it is a fair bet that, if he found his efforts obstructed he would not hesitate to do so again, with disastrous consequences for the Government, which would become the focus of distrust, outrage and resentment on the part of a majority of the electorate and a massive majority of Conservative voters.

Liam Fox is also a convinced Brexiteer. The question is: would he roll over if the EU tried to impose even limited free movement of migrants as part of the conditions for a trade deal and the Prime Minister assented? Boris Johnson, if the Foreign Secretary’s recently leaked letter is authentic, has unexpectedly, despite his fundamentally pro-EU instincts, spelled out exactly the red lines the Leave movement must insist on. These four non-negotiable principles are: no further money to be paid into EU budgets, British control of immigration from the EU, no EU law to be applicable to Britain and an end to any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice within Britain.

Boris’s motives most likely include courting support among Tory Party members for a future leadership bid, but those are precisely the red lines that must not be broken if the Prime Minister aspires to deliver anything that might legitimately be termed Brexit to the British people. Overtly, the most aggressive opponent of these clear principles is Philip Hammond, the Chancellor. His support for remaining in the Single Market in some areas but not others is ridiculous. This salami-slicing exercise would trash the red lines and prevent Britain attaining restored sovereignty and control of immigration.

There is an additional issue here. For too long, the Treasury has been a rogue department with a damaging effect on government. For decades it has progressively destroyed Britain’s armed forces, ably seconded by the Ministry of Defence. Since 1997 it has been the power base of warlords exercising an illegitimate and malign influence on government. While Hammond is no warlord, he has slipped into the role of overmighty subject like his predecessors. This needs to be reformed.

As for the Prime Minister, her position remains Delphic. The rhetoric was promising (it always is), but riddled with opaque utterances. “Brexit means Brexit.” Quite. The key issue of immigration was canvassed in weasel terms such as “curb”, “limit”, etc, rather than “control”, which would imply absolute sovereignty over our borders without resorting to any quid pro quos with Brussels.

Now Mrs May has rejected an Australian-style points system for EU immigrants, widely supported by Leavers. Why? Is she, as in her refusal to give guarantees about EU residents in the UK, simply unwilling to disarm herself of any negotiating lever before sitting down to talk? Or is there some other motive?

Above all, why does she not cut through the bureaucrats’ pretence that we need lengthy negotiations (about what?) and sign us out of the EU immediately? Then we could negotiate trade in a more realistic environment, with Brussels disabused of the notion that Britain remains in any way under its suzerainty.

Theresa May has an enormous amount at stake. If she fails to deliver full-blooded Brexit, respecting all the red lines, she will simply be signalling the resumption of the European war that has torn her party apart for decades. This is her opportunity to put the European issue away, once and for all. She would be very ill-advised not to grasp it.