We cannot sensibly leave without knowing which vision is preferred – Tony Blair

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the scale of rejection of the Prime Minister’s deal means she must now change role. Up to now she has insisted on being the advocate for Brexit and for her deal. She must switch political persona and become the facilitator and arbiter to lead us out of the mess.

In the meantime, the discussion with the EU about an extension to Article 50 should begin because the probability is in any event we will need more time to get clarity.

He writes “The May deal is a bad deal. Bad because it ties us legally to the EU Customs Union until the EU releases us while losing us our say over its terms. Bad because our obligations are upfront and those of Europe unspecified or contingent. Bad principally because the deal breaks the undertaking given to Parliament and People that when we voted for the deal we would know the future economic relationship with Europe in sufficient detail to make a proper judgement. It is deliberately opaque. Why? Because she can’t get agreement in Cabinet or the Conservative Party as to what it should be. This is the reason why her frequent repetition that her deal is the way to stop the argument over Brexit and start to debate other pressing matters was always fundamentally flawed. She says her deal brings closure. It won’t. It can’t.”

Commenting about the negotiations, Blair said that “the Brexit negotiation was never a conventional negotiation. Essentially, so far as the future trading relationship with Europe is concerned, it is and always has been a choice.

He said “We can keep close to Europe’s rules and be like Norway. Or make our own rules and be like Canada. The first carries the obvious disadvantage that we become rule takers; the second, that we disrupt UK trade, commercial and investment decisions that have grown up over 45 years of EU membership. This is the Pointless vs. Painful Dilemma that has stalked the negotiation.

“Northern Ireland is just the most acute expression of this Dilemma, visible because of the political commitment to an open border between north and south and because we agreed a solution to the Irish issue would be part of the Withdrawal Agreement. The backstop imbroglio shows we haven’t even truly solved the Dilemma in relation to the Irish question.

Leave with the Dilemma unresolved as to the entire future relationship and we have a world of further agony waiting the other side of March.

The choice has been hostage to the fight inside the Conservative Party. Unwilling to take sides, the Prime Minister tried to negotiate a ‘cake and eat it’ solution, as if Europe was ever going to allow Britain access to the single market and customs union without abiding by the rules.

Finally, faced with reality, she opted in the Chequers proposal for a version of Norway. It flopped.

So, she took refuge in vague wording in the agreement’s political declaration, which could mean our future is either Norway or Canada.

But there is a huge difference between these two outcomes, measured in jobs, living standards and economic prosperity. The choice has vast implications for future policy; for different visions of the future place of the country.

We cannot sensibly leave without knowing which vision is preferred.

Full Blog