The Cabinet must have a clearer collective idea than it does now of what it wants to gain from a deal – and, in particular, how it intends to handle regulatory divergence.
MigrationWatch has suggested that those EU migrants with skills in short supply should be able to come to the UK for a time-limited period after Brexit.
Britain and the EU are as well-placed as any two parties could be to strike a comprehensive agreement which covers this critical industry.
If we are also out of CAP, CFP and direct ECJ jurisdiction, able to negotiate our own trade deals and in the Single Market, it might not be such a bad outcome after all.
Party member opinion on the negotiations is clearly at the harder end of the spectrum on independence and economics – though not invariably on immigration.
I have said previously that I believe the Government has been pursuing a sensible negotiating approach to date. I maintain that view.
After leaving the EU, we must ensure we are well-positioned in terms of regulation, taxation, immigration and – crucially – foreign languages.
In a no-deal scenario, we must be prepared with a detailed plan which takes into account the trading and regulatory differences between industries.
I would propose that we pay a total of €12 billion as our “divorce bill” – even if there’s no FTA. But subject to three conditions.
It would be the easiest, least disruptive, and most productive way for this country to genuinely leave the EU until we have a bespoke UK-EU deal.
It would be prudent for that to become the presumption. Even if we do end up with a deal, infrastructure improvements will be welcome.
By raising the possibility that EU law could retain its power after March 2019, the Prime Minister risks inflaming the concerns of Leavers.
A sensible solution is achievable, but unnecessary brinksmanship and over-the-top rhetoric helps nobody.