It’s goodbye from me and it’s goodbye from him

Today’s news that two of the “big beasts” in Theresa May’s cabinet have quit is all of a piece with the actions of prominent Brexit supporting politicians who, when the going gets tough, also get going – generally in the other direction. Both resigned when it became clear that the rest of the cabinet would not support their version of Brexit, which amounted to nothing more than “let’s just leave and sort out the problems later” despite the chill winds of reality which make it clear that a hard Brexit is an economic non-starter.

Johnson’s resignation letter is a clear illustration of his inability to see the reality of Brexit. It should, he says “be about opportunity and hope … That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.” If the UK were the EU’s economic equal, able to wring concessions by applying its clout, he might have a point. But that has never been the case: The UK was always going to be disadvantaged during the exit process. The ultras only ever see Brexit in one dimension and have totally failed to grasp that the rest of the world may not see the process in quite the same way.

Regular readers will know I have no truck with the positions of Boris Johnson or David Davis on Brexit. But I am both encouraged and depressed at their departure. Encouraged, because I believe the chances have risen that the government will be able to unify around a plan that delivers a softer Brexit than might otherwise have been the case. But the depressing aspect of it all is that it has taken supposedly intelligent people two years to arrive at a position that many of us realised was inevitable five years ago. That said, the Brexiteers are right about one thing: The idea of accepting the plan outlined by the prime minister at last weekend’s Cabinet away-day represents a significant crossing of Theresa May’s red lines which puts the UK in a very awkward position.

Indeed, these red lines which have been set out over the last 22 months have all but been rubbed out. The plan – further details of which are due to be published later this week – calls for a “common rulebook for all goods including agri-food”; adherence to common standards in a whole range of areas and an ongoing role for the European Court of Justice “as the interpreter of EU rules.” In short, the UK is proposing associate membership of the sort enjoyed by Norway. Johnson might be overdoing it when he says “In that respect we are truly heading for the status of a colony – and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that arrangement.” But he has a point in that a policy requiring the UK to remain a rule taker with no say over the drafting of legislation, and which will probably require continued contributions into the EU budget, puts it in a far worse position than it enjoys today.

Furthermore, we have so far only heard from the British side. The EU’s negotiators in Brussels might well view the plan as representing another attempt at cherry-picking by the Brits. For example, the document talks about a trade partnership with the EU whilst simultaneously calling for an end to free movement of labour thus  “giving the UK back control over how many people enter the country.” As an aside, it is worth noting that on latest data through September 2017, the decline in net immigration has come about purely because of a decline in migrants from the EU. Net immigration from non-EU countries – the element that the UK already controls – hit record levels over the preceding 12 months.

Nonetheless, the departure of Davis and Johnson raises the chances that the government will be able to coalesce around a plan for a soft Brexit without having to worry about Davis’ view. Johnson will be more of a problem but since he never cared much about collective cabinet responsibility in the first place, he will simply continue to take a position that is at odds with the government.

Naturally, the press is now full of “crisis talk” and speculation of a leadership challenge. But the rebels do not really have the numbers to mount a challenge. The (inaptly named) European Research Group, which is the bastion of pro-Brexit support within the Conservative Party, has at most 80 members of which only a maximum of around 50 are believed likely to support a change of leader. With the Conservatives comprising 316 MPs, the arithmetic is currently in May’s favour so market talk of a “government crisis“ looks overdone. Johnson may be a charismatic politician with a high degree of public support, but his parliamentary colleagues simply do not trust him. He is not in a position to challenge for the leadership of the Tory party, and as one who has flouted the rule of collective cabinet responsibility over the past two years, many people will be very happy to see the back of him. But as Donald Tusk put it in a Tweet today, ”politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain. I can only regret that the idea of Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson.”