Each time Brexit laws have come before Parliament, MPs have tried to make it harder for ministers to negotiate, writes Nick Timothy
FIRST David Davis, then Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers do not often lose Cabinet ministers in such quick succession, but we live in strange times.
Does this mean Theresa May’s days are numbered? Will more ministers quit? Will the rebels manage to change the Government’s Brexit policy? And does this crisis risk leaving us inside the EU after all?
To answer those questions we need to look at the position ministers find themselves in.
Since voting to put Britain’s membership of the European Union to a referendum — by a margin of ten to one in the Commons — MPs have attempted at every stage to stop or water down Brexit.
Each time Brexit laws have come before Parliament, MPs have tried to make it harder for ministers to negotiate with Brussels, prepare the country for Brexit, or change European laws when we leave.
Many want to keep Britain inside a customs union with the EU, giving Brussels the right to decide our trade policy and countless rules and regulations without any say for Parliament.
Others want to keep us inside the single market, which would leave us paying a vast annual bill to Brussels and having to accept unlimited European immigration.
Ministers have, by the skin of the teeth, won each of these votes. But more votes are coming. And with the deadline for a Brexit deal looming, ministers know that Parliament is itching to take over the negotiating process.
If it does, they know MPs will seek to impose the softest possible Brexit, including membership of a customs union and, perhaps, the single market.
And of course the European Union knows this. So instead of engaging constructively with the British negotiators, the Europeans have been more than happy to play for time, rejecting each proposal made by Britain and pocketing every concession without giving anything in return.
Theresa May’s calculation is that the Government needs to put forward one final generous and credible proposition to the EU. But this proposition — which significantly softens Britain’s policy — is what prompted the resignations of Davis and Johnson and sparked this political crisis.
Leave-supporting MPs and ministers are in a difficult position, however, because while they have occupied the most important Brexit-related jobs — including the Foreign Office, International Trade and the Brexit Department itself — they are in a minority in both the Cabinet and in Parliament.
They can fight for a tougher policy, but ultimately they know they do not have the votes in the Commons.
This is why, when the Cabinet discussed Theresa May’s new policy at Chequers on Friday, the leavers originally agreed with what she proposed.
Summing up their predicament, when Michael Gove was asked on Sunday whether the new policy is everything he had hoped for, he replied: “No, but then I’m a realist.”
Davis and Johnson have taken a different decision.
They seem to hope that by resigning, they might force the Prime Minister to abandon the Chequers policy. And backbench MPs are adding to the pressure by threatening Theresa May with a vote of confidence.
These tactics are dangerous, however, because by risking the security of the Government, the rebels are risking Brexit itself.
Yet their frustration is understandable, because while the Prime Minister is doing her best to deliver for the public in almost impossible circumstances, the Chequers policy is indeed problematic.
Its customs proposal — which would see us collecting tariffs and checking imports for goods bound for the EU as well as Britain — is untested and could, in practice, make it impossible to strike trade deals with other countries.
Its commitment to agree a “common rulebook” for all goods and agricultural products would also make trade deals less likely.
But the rulebook also means Parliament would have to rubberstamp policies agreed in Brussels without our say.
And our courts would, in relevant cases, have to follow the rulings of the European Court of Justice.
Ministers still in post argue that the compromises are worth it.
Manufacturing companies in European supply chains will be protected, and there will be no need for a hard border with Ireland.
And we will be free, they point out, to diverge from European rules on services, which make up 80 per cent of our economy.
But the Chequers plan leaves us with a giant democratic deficit.
It puts us at the mercy of EU rulemakers who will think nothing of damaging British industry to suit French and German companies.
And, remember, this is only Britain’s opening pitch to Brussels, the EU will still demand more concessions.
If Britain wants the single market for goods, they will say, we must make significant annual payments, accept free movement rules and, perhaps, agree a common rulebook for services.
If the Government concedes any of these demands — and yesterday the Prime Minister refused to rule that out — Brexit will not mean Brexit.
So they must be resisted. And that means we must — finally, belatedly — dramatically increase our preparations for a no-deal outcome.
We can argue about why Britain’s negotiating position is not stronger — the failure to plan properly for no deal, the concessions on security cooperation for nothing in return and the naive approach to the Irish border question.
But we are where we are. And Brexit itself is at stake.
The campaigners who want to stop Brexit are completely open that their aim is to bring down the Prime Minister or the Government to force a second referendum or a general election. Leave supporters must not do anything that plays into their hands.
They are right to worry about the substance of the Chequers plan, and about what concessions might follow.
But their duty — to their party and their country — is to stay in post and fight for the best possible deal for Britain.
David Davis and Boris Johnson have gone, but the ministers they have left behind need to make sure Britain leaves the EU as planned next March — and that Brexit really will mean Brexit.
