Ditchley meeting shows Britain needs to grow up about Brexit

This is Iain Martin’s weekly newsletter, exclusively for Reaction subscribers. 

A Remainer cabal met at Ditchley Park a week or so ago to plot the betrayal of Brexit and step by step return Britain to the European Union. This was the secret summit reported in the Observer. The paper had been leaked information about the event. In Monday’s Daily Mail it made the splash, with commentary from Stephen Glover inside assessing the nefarious goings on. The dastardly enemies of Brexit had met at Ditchley for two days, gorging on fine food and wine while working out a surreptitious route back to the EU. Nigel Farage when he heard was even more furious than usual. Lord Frost, who negotiated the Brexit deal for Boris Johnson, professed himself appalled by the covert attempt to engineer a sell out to Brussels.

But hold on, the picture painted in these reports bore no relation to reality. How do I know? I was there at the Ditchley gathering. It was a praiseworthy event aimed at making Brexit work, improving the current settlement and fostering better relations with the EU. What on earth is wrong with that?

Ditchley was founded in 1958 and for decades has organised such conversations, providing a place for dialogue on difficult problems. Last week there were leading veterans of Vote Leave there. And prominent Remainers. And inbetweeners. Perhaps if there had been more such conversations in private and in public immediately after 2016 the process of leaving and negotiating Britain’s departure might have been conducted in a slightly more sensible manner than turned out to be the case.  

Why was I there? Having written several times of the need for moderates on both sides of the Brexit divide to find common ground, after the exhausting civil war fought over Britain’s departure from the European Union, I said yes to an invitation on the basis this process of getting real about the challenges has to begin somewhere.

We took part on the condition we wouldn’t quote anyone who was there, or detail the discussions. AlI I can do is give my view on the situation having reflected on what I heard.

For me, Brexit was primarily about sovereignty and I am glad Britain gained additional freedom of manoeuvre. That mindset was useful on Ukraine and vaccines, though we can argue about the extent of it. I understand why many of those who voted Remain view it differently and think too much was lost.

Elements of the Brexit deal are not working, clearly. In sector after sector there are complications and worse. There is also uncertainty about whether Britain is going to use Brexit to diverge or get closer and align with the EU to make exports into the rest of Europe easier. This puts business in a difficult position and hits investment.

British policymakers and the rest of us have no choice other than to think about these questions, because one of the lessons of Brexit yet to be learned is that it will never be done. There will always be negotiations and discussions with the EU. This dialogue is a normal fact of diplomatic life outside the EU that we have to get used to.

This is what makes Lord Frost’s objections and criticism of the Ditchley event especially ridiculous. His TCA (Trade and Cooperation Agreement) will have to be reviewed, and elements renegotiated, in 2026. That date is fixed in the provisions and then every five years after that there will be a review by both sides. That being the case, Britain should surely start to work out both what we want and how to deal with this rolling process sensibly. It’s not betrayal. It’s irresponsible to choose performative Brexiteering instead.

In that vein, I can remember the time before Lord Frost was a well-known Brexiteer, when I recall he said Britain would not get a better deal than the one it had when it was in the EU. If I am wrong, and he was always for Brexit, then I’m sure he will point it out.

Now, he is presented by favoured outlets as though he is Brexit made flesh, just because he negotiated the Boris deal. A keeper of the flame. It does not seem to occur to any of his fans that Frost is talking his own book. He’s a former participant battling to burnish, save even, his historical reputation as an architect of the Boris model of hard Brexit with an Irish Sea border, although Frost disliked that element of the deal.

Lord Frost might not want anyone touching his deal, or deviating from it, but so what, who cares? It’s not his to own. There is no reason for the rest of us to avoid attempting to improve the deal for fear he objects.

It is unclear, as yet, what is possible. The British assumption that improved relations will create scope for more EU flexibility on goods checks for example may for the foreseeable future be wrong. The EU may just pocket any concessions and say if Britain wants to align on goods rules to make selling easier then Britain must also align on all the environmental and employment rules on factories and supply chains. Or the EU may offer nothing, unless Britain has something to offer on security, where the UK has some leverage.

Alternatively, if there is a deal on the Northern Ireland Protocol, perhaps in time that will lead to better relations that make further compromises feasible across the board.

We don’t know yet, but we must get ready. There is a calendar of dates for talks and reviews. On the other side of the table will be the European Commission. And my goodness we know from the painful experience of the Brexit negotiations and failures of British statecraft that the Commission will present a broadly united front, and generally be backed by the member states.

The choice facing Britain is either to be well-prepared and realistic about these perpetual talks with the EU, or to thrash around. The US and Japan deal with this by having diplomatic heft in Brussels, with large, confident representations. Britain should staff up and work out where, long term, this responsibility will sit in Number 10 or the Foreign Office. 

All this will evolve and require complex thinking, aligning sometimes where it suits both sides and in Britain’s case (I suggest) avoiding at all costs aligning on financial services. Yet even by 2026 the EU will likely have changed and become more closely integrated. By 2031, who knows?

Dedramatising this as much as possible seems key, although that will be difficult. That means declining to let the debate be dominated by hardliners brandishing simple slogans (both Brexit-ultras and Rejoiners) who are noisier and amplified most by social media.

In that context, the Ditchley gathering is surely just the first of many such necessary discussions both public and private led by numerous organisations. It’s not a betrayal of Brexit to treat Brexit as a fact of life to be dealt with.

Kate Forbes, the questions don’t change

What a few weeks it’s been for Scottish Unionists. First, the Scotland rugby team beat England at Twickenham. Then Scotland beat Wales at Murrayfield last weekend. And then, to top it all, on Wednesday Nicola Sturgeon resigned as First Minister and SNP leader. The celebrations I witnessed attending those two Six Nations fixtures were as nothing compared to the partying in Unionist households in the days since the Nationalist leader made her risible resignation statement. Nicola Sturgeon accusing others of fostering division, as she did with a straight face, really takes the biscuit.

Incidentally, not all Scottish rugby fans are Unionists. A great many are, though, and there seems to be a significant overlap between those Scots most pleased at the Six Nations wins and those most pleased Sturgeon is stepping down.

The departure of Sturgeon creates a vacancy, of course. My view is the SNP will struggle to deal with the end of the Salmond-Sturgeon era, a quarter century project that started to disintegrate when Alex Salmond was put on trial. He was cleared. Now Sturgeon, his protege, is history too.

My friend Fraser Nelson says the next leader Unionists should fear is Kate Forbes, the SNP’s young finance minister. There are those who say Forbes, a Wee Free, from a socially conservative denomination, is too much a member of the God Squad to win over the wider electorate.

That is not meant as a criticism, incidentally. There are some Reaction subscribers, I know, who take their religion seriously and think our political life is poorer because it lacks a religious or spiritual component of the kind familiar to the Victorians. But it has been a while since the English, Scots or Welsh were comfortable with overtly religious political leaders. Blair was an exception. This is not to say we are entirely secular, that there is no interest in religion, meaning or the search for the sublime. “It’s organised religion I can’t stand.” That’s what the British tend to say if pressed in the pub, which misses the point that a disorganised religion would be unlikely to get very far. 

I digress.

The problem for Forbes, or Angus Robertson, or whoever wins the leadership race, is in the end the same as it was for Sturgeon. The questions the party cannot answer, so seeks to avoid with a lot of “whatabootery” and denunciations of Westminster, don’t change.

What’s the money going to be after independence if it ever happens? Really, money is quite a big deal. It might be the pound for a while without the Bank of England’s back-up. And then an independent currency and central bank, the most sensible of three suboptimal choices. And then maybe the euro. The SNP – Forbes included – won’t say and there is bluster instead. Scots could end up with three different currencies in a decade, borrowing at the mercy of the markets.

Next, is it a good idea to have a hard border with England, Scotland’s biggest trading partner? The single market we share is 300 years old, much older than the EU single market.

What’s the plan on pensions? There isn’t one, other than to suggest erroneously the English will pay, which they wouldn’t.

What’s the plan on defence? Can it really be that the SNP seeks to leave Britain’s armed forces and intelligence agencies, in this era of renewed European security threats? No real answer is forthcoming.

There is an honest way to answer these questions, and the SNP’s former deputy leader Jim Sillars has long since pointed it out. Of course Scottish independence is possible, but it would involve considerable financial pain for a time. It would involve geopolitical dislocation, trade disruption much worse than Brexit and create insecurity.

The honest way to argue for leaving the UK is to acknowledge this considerable  pain but make the case (I don’t buy it, but others might) that over several decades the pain is outweighed by the gain. This is a hard sell and unlikely to be popular, which is why the SNP chooses the easier though less credible option of flag-waving. 

What I’m watching

Why is Happy Valley so stressful? It’s on TV in the other room and I can hear the characters, led by the brilliant Sarah Lancashire, shouting and crying, in between stabbing each other and committing other gruesome acts, pausing along the way to berate a colleague, counsel a friend or be sick in the street after a night out watching an Abba tribute band. While it is as compelling as the critics and fans say, I have to duck out of the room several times an episode to keep the stress levels from rising.

Look, I know Happy Valley, set in West Yorkshire, is a drama, not a documentary. In a police drama there are, by definition, a lot of murders and disturbing behaviour. Perhaps what’s most unsettling about Happy Valley is the aesthetic and moral realism, the way in which it shines a light on the darker side of Britain that gets surprisingly little attention these days.

This is Happy Valley Britain, the country of human trafficking, cash economy money laundering enterprises, broken lives, the cocaine trade down at county lines level, prostitution, extreme violence and poverty.

The grooming scandal in Rotherham was a glimpse of real life Happy Valley Britain. That wasn’t investigated properly until whistleblowers and several journalists exposed the horror. Similar activities are reported to still be happening, even after prosecutions.

The Victorians would have been appalled and compelled to act. We scroll to the next inconsequential story.

David Cameron, to his credit, in opposition used to talk about these Broken Britain themes. Now, with Brexit and Covid having consumed all the energy and attention, it barely gets mentioned in public discourse. It’s all still there, and in a cost of living crisis probably getting worse even if we choose not to see it. 

What I’m reading

Well, after Happy Valley it’s time to cheer up. Having revisited Lucky Jim a few weeks ago, this weekend I’m about to revisit Waugh’s Sword of Honour and start re-reading the trilogy for perhaps the fifth time. The scenes featuring early 1940s Scottish Nationalists are the funniest.