Theresa May had almost celebrated her second anniversary as a post-referendum prime minister by the time her government got round to deciding its objectives for the Brexit negotiations. The Chequers deal was an attempt to shape a future relationship with the EU somewhere between the Canada and Norway models – more than a free trade agreement but less than the full single market. Yet having taken so long to make up her mind, the prime minister has since done far too little to defend her policy. No wonder it’s now widely been written off – the latest criticism being former Brexit minister Steve Baker’s contention that 80 Conservative MPs would vote against it.
Three major speeches have marked the development of the prime minister’s Brexit thinking – Lancaster House, Florence and Mansion House. There’s been none since the Chequers summit, just a dry white paper. A speech would have allowed May to explain the evolution of her Brexit policy, to defend the change of tack. Instead, Conservative MPs and the public can see that the plan has changed but are left guessing why. The speech could have explained her decision-making, justified the compromise that is central to Chequers and warned parliament, and the EU, of the risks of rejecting it.
For the Conservatives, the prime minister is now indelibly associated with Chequers. Rejecting the plan definitively would risk a leadership race, casting sharp uncertainty over Brexit at a critical moment. The same is true for Brussels, which believes that a May government is its best hope of a reasonable deal. May could draw on this to warn that the choice is her plan or no plan. The implication would be après moi, le déluge.
There’s a strong case to be made for a compromise Brexit. But the government has not really tried. The country voted to leave in June 2016 by 52% to 48%. In June 2017, the Conservatives increased their share of the vote, but lost their majority. The prime minister called that election asking for a strong hand to negotiate Brexit and the electorate rebuffed her. But she has never really levelled with her party or the country and explained that a divided parliament will necessitate a different approach.
A compromise Brexit also has merits in policy terms. Chequers would protect British manufacturing, while recognising that the UK couldn’t be a rule-taker on services. The deal would allow the UK to participate in the single market for goods, keeping the Irish border open, and end free movement. There are elements of the Chequers plan where the government has gone too far, including on customs. But the prime minister should call for an assessment to be made on the basis of the whole plan, and the possibility of delivering an alternative at this late stage.
Some are intractably opposed to the Chequers plan, not just elements of it. But I am struck by how many times I hear people whisper in private that they would be happy with Chequers as an “end state”, although those same critics are now publicly campaigning against Chequers. What they particularly fear is further concessions, above all on free movement. Again, this could have been addressed directly by May, who should point to recent cabinet departures and warn the EU that she had little space to move further.
Rather than trying to explain her thinking after the summit in July, the prime minister seemingly went to ground. There was no proper TV interview until nearly 10 days later and, in the meantime, the news was filled by the drama of the resignations of her Brexit secretary and foreign secretary. And in the run-up to the summit, Downing Street had clumsily briefed newspapers with silly threats that Brexiteer ministers who resigned would have to use a local taxi firm to get home. No wonder a sense of betrayal took hold.
At every stage before Chequers, May managed to win the broad support of her divided party. Now open insurrection has broken out and MPs are descending into ever louder personal clashes. On one side, a group is campaigning to chuck Chequers; on the other, a handful of MPs are flirting with a second referendum. Others are threatening to use parliamentary procedure to block a no-deal exit.
The public know that Brexit involves hard choices. They voted for it precisely because they wanted to upend the status quo. They understand that there are benefits and costs attached to leaving the EU. But these trade-offs are only now coming into sharp focus. It’s past time for the prime minister to dust down her lectern and do us the courtesy of explaining her plan to get us out and why it deserves our support.
• Henry Newman is director of the thinktank Open Europe
