‘Get Brexit done’? Boris is in danger of making May’s mistake

I'd love for James Kirkup to be right when he claims I am wrong about Boris Johnson. And as he knows vastly more than me about Tory party politics, it’s really not easy to disagree. But I must confess I remain to be convinced.

To start with, here's why I want him to be right: I expect the EU to prioritise a deal on tariff-free, quota free trade in goods – with extensive so-called “level playing field” conditionality – and on fisheries. And to “park” many other issues till after 2020.

Michel Barnier duly confirmed exactly that to the European Parliament this week. I am well aware that some will say “take the win, and we are then free”. My point is that 2020 is being set up that way precisely because others see the opportunity of the very tight deadline: the “win” would, in practice, be for the EU side. They would sort the issues of the greatest importance to them, on which they are most exposed and be saying: “trust us: we’ll get round to the rest in due course” – on which we are much more exposed – later.

I can very well see why the EU would want that; but not why the UK should want it. Sequencing matters: if we have learned nothing else from the last three years, I would have hoped we might have learned that. 

So why do I fear James may be wrong? And why might we anyway take a course which is not in our national interest? Of course I don’t doubt the PM’s authority would be much enhanced if he wins the largest overall majority for the Conservatives since the 1980s. But, first, as I said, I think the PM would have, under the Withdrawal Agreement, to reach the conclusion that he needs an extension of transition, by 1 July. That feels rather unlikely to me. Solving this much later in the year looks much easier said than done.

But say PM Johnson reached the late autumn and concluded that signing a “quick and dirty” tariffs and level playing field (plus fish) deal risked dealing with what the 27 most care about, without having sorted key UK offensive objectives. He then has to sell to his party – and the country – a lengthy extension, during which it is clear that we have not “taken back control” of our laws, our money and our trade policy. 

Why? Because during any such extension we will be making major EU budget contributions, will still be subject to laws made when we were not in the room from which we cannot diverge and still be unable to conclude – and bring into force – trade deals with other third countries or trade blocs.

I think a better destination by far, which is wholly consistent with Boris's principles, is still the fuller, more comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. This means leaving both the Single Market and Customs Union, which I have advised from the very start could be negotiated, but would take quite a lot more time.

I would take that time. Why? Because the destination – and being clear what we most want and why – matters much more than the speed. I am just not personally convinced that is what a returned PM Johnson will do.

And, frankly, all the current preparations on the EU side suggest to me that their assessment is that the domestic incentives on him would give them a glorious chance of running the next negotiation in precisely the way they ran the Article 50 one.

Ivan Rogers was Britain's envoy to the EU, 2013-2017