Imagine a parallel universe in which Brexit decisions made sense | City A.M.
Stop banging on about Europe.
That was David Cameron’s plea in 2006, in those halcyon days before the term “Brexit” had even been coined.
Today, 12 years later, it is difficult to bang on about anything else. Brexit has infiltrated every strand of political discourse.
Read more: Brexit secretary admits food will need to be stockpiled
With a flurry of cabinet walkouts, a proposal for a new relationship that has been universally slammed, and a Brexit secretary promising to stockpile food supplies in the case of a no-deal scenario, it’s worth taking a moment to consider how we got here. Or rather, what could have been done differently along the way to avoid the mad eight-month scramble we now face to cobble together a deal made from desperation and fudge.
In the current atmosphere of panic, one name keeps being hurled about with venom by embittered Remainers and frustrated Leavers alike: Cameron.
Why did the Prime Minister insist on rushing through his haphazard referendum? Why did he then promptly resign, leaving chaos in his wake? Why fail to make any proper contingency plans? And, fundamentally, why come back from Brussels with a worthless “renegotiation” that left Britain with such a weak hand?
Clearly, Cameron’s failure to do his homework had consequences. So let’s consider what we might be looking at now if the “essay-crisis Prime Minister” had put a bit more effort into planning.
Let’s say he came back from Brussels in February 2016 with the same package of non-concessions. But rather than try to sell the deal as a win, say Cameron had been honest about how disappointed he was, and delayed his referendum (not necessary until the end of 2017, after all) another year.
Cameron could – should – have set up a Brexit taskforce, with the remit of working out what would actually happen.
Look at the Irish border and speak frankly about possible options. Delve into the legalities and logistics of trade outside the Single Market. Consult business groups about their priorities. Crunch the numbers. Cost it. Then design a model for Britain outside of the EU that could be taken to the public for a vote. Crucially, work up and cost a contingency plan for a no-deal outcome.
The EU, of course, would publicly slam the new model as impossible, whatever it was. But the plans would do two things.
First, they would give the public a clear idea of exactly what they were voting for, rather than allowing every Leave activist to sell their own personal vision of Brexit (whether Canada-plus, Norway-minus, or land-of-milk-and-honey squared).
They would also show the EU that Britain was serious about the prospect of leaving, and that it had a government willing to make that a reality.
Then, when the British people voted to leave, Cameron would have grounds to stay on to lead the country towards his proposed model, or towards the carefully prepared plan B. No passing the buck, no excuses, and no bloody leadership contest.
It all sounds so simple in retrospect, so much less risky than Cameron’s all-speed-and-no-substance attitude. But before we make him the lazy villain of all things Brexit, it’s worth considering another alternative universe.
There are two sides to any negotiation, and in the post-referendum blame game, there’s been deafening silence where the EU ought to be.
Britain has always been a special case when it comes to Europe. Along with Denmark, it is the only country with specific opt-outs about the euro. With the Republic of Ireland, it is the only country not in the borderless Schengen area. It has always been a voice – sometimes the main voice – of opposition to further integration.
All these were arguments made by Leavers in the referendum campaign. But they should have been aired long before that.
There is a group of core integrationists at the heart of the EU who have been pushing for centralised fiscal policy, formalised EU citizenship, a European finance minister, and even an EU army.
That direction of travel has its opponents – in the anti-migration eastern states, and in the more fiscally responsible Scandinavian nations. These countries could perhaps be cajoled into submission, yes, but the UK was never going to follow the federalist fantasy. And someone in the EU should have acknowledged that.
Imagine if Cameron hadn’t come up against such an iron-hard wall in his negotiations. Picture an EU dominated by more pragmatic voices, who understood that a two-speed EU, with a core group surrounded by more independent countries with privileged trading terms, was necessary to the bloc’s survival.
What if they hadn’t tried to discipline Cameron for the audacity of considering leaving, but worked on convincing the UK to stay? Would the EU now be facing its current existential crisis over whether to jeopardise the economies of member states for the sake of telling Britain “we told you so”?
Of course, this is of little help to Theresa May, who has more serious things to confront, like will British aircraft be able to land and what to do when she runs out of MPs to replace errant cabinet members.
But given that no one is going to stop banging on about Europe anytime soon, we can afford a moment to daydream about parallel universes, where decisions were made by political leaders defined by their diligence and common sense, rather than laziness and ideology.
Read more: Firms are offering pay rises and perks to retain EU talent ahead of Brexit