Battle of Brexit going strong … and sour

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/battle-of-brexit-going-strong-and-sour

Version 0 of 1.

If anyone expected 24 June to mark the end of a bitter and acrimonious battle over Britain’s place in Europe, they could not have been more wrong.

The battle over Brexit is going strong and with recent briefings – some from cabinet members themselves – a somewhat poisonous atmosphere has emerged in parliament.

Much of the focus is on last week’s cabinet committee meeting about leaving the EU, when Theresa May and her chosen ministers (a balance of leave and remain supporters) discussed three papers on what happens next.

The liveliest issue was unquestionably how far the prime minister would use the “mandate” of the Brexit vote to control Britain’s borders, with Amber Rudd laying out the idea of a visa-entry scheme for highly skilled migrants as part of a free movement report.

Pitched against the home secretary was the chancellor, Philip Hammond, whose decision to urge caution landed him on the sharp end of criticism from some Brexiters who say he is trying to stall the process.

Had this script been written months ago, we would not have been able to predict the individuals taking on the key roles.

The idea that tub-thumping, pro-remain Rudd, whose strength of enthusiasm for staying in the EU made her a Tory rarity during the referendum campaign, would be spearheading the fight for immigration controls would have been bemusing.

Equally unlikely would have been the sight of Hammond – considered a staunch Eurosceptic by his own party just two years ago – banging the drum for a soft Brexit in which economic considerations trump a free-movement clampdown.

Brexiters think the chancellor went soft during his time in the pro-European Foreign Office, with leave campaigners dubbing him “EuroPhil” during the referendum.

But according to civil servants involved in the process, the arguments are more defined by the departments that the individuals are defending rather than their personal views.

To put it crudely, Hammond, as chancellor, will be judged on Britain’s economic performance, while Rudd will have her feet held to the fire over migration numbers. And the battle is raging because so much is still up for grabs.

People have been quick to label as a hard Brexit move May’s promise that the UK will have immigration controls and not be under the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.

But the truth is that, beyond the fact of an EU exit, things are not black and white, but a mass of grey in which economic and free-movement factors could alter dramatically ahead of and during negotiations.

The Guardian understands that Rudd’s work permit idea is not the only option on the table regarding migration controls. Other ideas being mooted in Europe by experts such as the Tory MEP Vicky Ford, who heads an influential Brussels committee on the single market, include an upper break on numbers, or a registration system for EU nationals.

Ford believes the EU 27 would still be open to close economic ties under such a system, and suggests that Britain could also consider checking migrants’ criminal records before they arrive without ruffling too many feathers.

The Guardian has also been told that the issue of whether Britain should remain a member of the customs union – inside which EU countries negotiate trade deals collectively and set uniform external tariffs – is still up in the air.

Although Liam Fox has suggested the UK will have to leave the customs union (perhaps to ensure his job as trade secretary remains viable), ministers did discuss a paper on the pros and cons of the issue last week, with some warning that the administrative costs of leaving could be huge.

Even David Davis’s new adviser, Raoul Ruparel, who believes an EU exit will mean leaving the free trade bloc, has admitted it could inflict a permanent cost of £25bn on the UK’s GDP.

The arguments are dripping out of departments and into the media.

Some senior figures have suggested Davis needs to choose his words more carefully, and be acutely aware of the impact that every twist and turn has on the financial markets. Others have said Hammond is guilty of talking down the economy.

Friends of the chancellor have hit back, however, suggesting it is in his DNA to proceed with caution. After all, what’s wrong with the chancellor acting like an accountant?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Brexit debate, one thing is clear: May’s promise of “no running commentary” will be impossible to fulfil.