Brexit, Elections & Norway

In the name of God, go!

The greatest legacy of the European Union will always be that its members no longer resolve their differences on the battlefield but in the negotiating chamber.

It was, of course, not always so. Not least on the days of 7 and 8 May 1940 when the critical Norway Debate was held in the House of Commons that led directly to the downfall of the ineffective and weak Neville Chamberlain to be replaced by Winston Churchill on 10 May. The context was dangerous for Britain and for Europe: Chamberlain’s appeasement policy lay in tatters, and Britain’s Norwegian campaign had gone badly. The British government lacked a clear vision of foreign policy, military tactics and military strategy.

This was no longer a personal crisis for Chamberlain, or the British government. It was a critical moment for Britain and, as we know now, for the future of Europe. Of course it is Leo Amery’s intervention, quoting Cromwell, which remains the most famous: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

The emergence of Churchill following the Norway debate and, critically, his government of coalition with Attlee’s Labour Party, was the turning point for Britain: the country was now led by a strong leader who had full confidence of both sides of the House to confront the five years of turmoil that lay ahead.

The words of Amery and the emergence of a unity government to confront Britain’s greatest ever threat should make us all pause for thought in the context of Brexit and last week’s general election.

Depending on who you listen to, less than a week after the election, the election was about many things: Brexit, austerity, social care, Theresa May and so on. But is critical to remember the words of Theresa May on the steps of Downing Street when she called the snap election on 18 April:

“Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.

"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.

Brexit was the reason the Prime Minister called the election, and, had she won a landslide, she would have interpreted the mandate as a mandate for her Brexit.

After a year of more detailed and informed debate, the effects of a falling pound making British people poorer, little sign of the extra ￡350m for the NHS, Theresa May’s view that “no deal is better than a bad deal” and her resulting, somewhat panicked, rush to visit President Trump and reciprocal invitation for a state visit, the electorate did not return her with a majority in the Commons. As it happened, the Prime Minister lost her majority in the House of Commons because the electorate ultimately cast a vote against her and snubbed the chance to give her the mandate for Brexit she sought.

It is worth noting here, as an aside, that the “Salisbury Convention,” under which the House of Lords will not oppose a second or third reading of any government legislation promised in an election manifesto, does not apply as the government lost its majority. It is ironic that one of the reasons Theresa May called the election was because the “unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe that because the Government's majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course.” She was really saying that with a hard Brexit in the Tory manifesto, the Lords would need to follow suit – and the Parliament Act would, no doubt, also have been deployed, if needed. Not having her manifesto endorsed by a majority of seats, she will now have emboldened the Upper House.

So, the parallels to those days in May 1940 are uncanny: At no time since then has Britain faced such momentous uncertainty about its future and at no time since then has Britain had such weak leadership: just this Monday, after the general election Olly Robbins, PermSec of DExEU and Tim Barrow, UK EU Ambassador, met with Michel Barnier (thread: https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/874683832523423746) and the EU Chief Brexit Negotiator’s conclusion is that the British government does not get Brexit, no one knows what the British really want and Brussels sees no clear mandate for Brexit. Britain today stands as it did in 1940: no vision, no tactics, no strategy.

Theresa May’s test for parliamentary unity still applies, but the electorate, rather than the PM, has told us what this should look like: a cross-party approach that will deliver Brexit whilst protecting jobs and the economy and ensuring that the UK’s negotiations and long-term relationship with the European Union is positive and constructive and in the interest of all EU citizens.

Norway (again) – Options

The options put forward by the hardest Brexiteers, those who prefer constitutional purity even above economic well-being, had Britain crash into WTO rules on 29 March 2019. Theresa May was, of course, not quite so dogmatic in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January 2017 but her outcomes were still wishful thinking, not least because her vision would still result in a poorer economic settlement for the people of Britain than the one they have now, albeit with a transition period. The red meat she threw to the hardest Brexiteers (free of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, free for Britain to make its own laws and so on) irrationally conflated hard Brexiteer needs with a practical desire to reach an agreement with the EU.

Now the arithmetic in parliament has changed and the people have spoken, it does seem that a national unity government could start to set out a vision for Britain that will respect the democratic will of the British people expressed in the EU Referendum as well as the one expressed in the election on 8 June. This vision should, in the first instance, be based on the “Norway Model.”

It is, of course, clear that membership of the EEA requires acceptance of free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the ECJ, continuing to leave the EU to negotiate trade deals on behalf of Britain and continuing to make financial contributions to the EU. Moving to an EEA model on 29 March 2019 would, in the first instance, provide absolute certainty to the British electorate, British business and the EU what we are moving to. The “falling off a cliff” scenario will have been avoided and this would be a transition state on the roadmap which will have ensured that the UK has definitively left the European Union.

In parallel, specific scenarios can also be worked through, and, as the EU evolves and reforms with fresh leadership from the likes of Emmanuel Macron, the “Norway Model” could evolve into the “UK Model”: for example, by at least remaining in the Customs Union, Britain would not endanger its economic health, nor would it threaten the Good Friday agreement, the EU could begin to find ways to flex its red lines and soften its stance on the jurisdiction of the ECJ and retaining powers to define trade policy.

Inadvertently, once we are able to look beyond the current chaos in Westminster, we might well thank Theresa May for consulting the people once again, seeking a renewed and clear mandate for the Brexit Britain wants. This might well be considered by historians to have been a "Second Referendum."

But one thing is for sure, whenever Britain finds itself on a sticky wicket, Norway seems to rear its head. The British Government and Parliament must start the process of Brexit without further ado. Were Amery alive today, I suspect he would misquote Cromwell thus: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go for it!”

ALL VIEWS MY OWN AND NOT THOSE OF EY.