Leading article

While some may doubt Donald Trump’s claim to be a friend of Britain’s, his intervention in the Brexit debate this week has been timely and depressingly accurate. The deal that Theresa May has brought back from Brussels, and which she will put before the Commons on 11 December, is indeed a good deal for the European Union. Brussels retains control over the British economy but no longer has to deal with the British in its various voting procedures. Britain agrees not to become more competitive through regulatory reform, and its chances of striking trade deals are slim. So Trump was merely saying, in his usual offhand manner, what other world leaders have been thinking. His thoughts are echo-ed in Australia, which had been looking forward to doing a trade deal with the UK.

During last year’s general election campaign, Theresa May declared that ‘You can only deliver Brexit if you believe in Brexit’. Unfortunately, her deal proves this point. It was negotiated by a team of people who imagined their job to be a damage-limitation exercise. They did not see Brexit as an opportunity and this is reflected in the terms put before the cabinet. The deal falls far short of what was promised in May’s Lancaster House speech. She said she’d bring back a clean Brexit, taking Britain out of the Single Market, the Customs Union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The deal she ended up presenting to her cabinet will, in several important regards, fail all of these tests. But May has conveniently forgotten her tests.

What is the point of Philip Hammond? Most chancellors have an agenda, but it’s hard to discern any purpose or direction from the current one. Gordon Brown’s project was to oversee the largest expansion of government spending in peacetime history — which he achieved, albeit with ruinous results. George Osborne spoke about trying to wind this programme back. The results were decidedly mixed, but at least he had an idea about what he sought to achieve. Mr Hammond, by contrast, has spent his time in the brace position preparing for Brexit. When he delivers his Budget on Monday, he might have to admit that the country does not seem to be quite so worried. Companies have been hiring at a rate never seen before. Youth unemployment is at an all-time low.

‘The role of government is not to pick favourites and subsidise them or protect them.’ So says the government’s industrial strategy, published last year — a document which was supposed to distinguish between a free-market approach and the interventionism favoured by Jeremy Corbyn. Yet in one industry, at least, the government is doing exactly what it says it should not: it is showering firms with subsidies in the hope of generating growth. This week the British Film Institute (BFI) published a report making grand claims for the government’s ‘tax reliefs’ for the film industry.

The worst of Britain’s post-war mistakes, ideas we thought long dead, are once more in the air. Yet again there are plans for ‘workers on boards’ (the govern-ment, of course decides who’s a worker), and for mandatory price caps, based on the delusion that government can make things cheaper by diktat. Intelligent people are once more agreed that British employers should pay the highest minimum wage in the developed world — a policy estimated to condemn tens of thousands to unemployment. The tax burden is at a 30-year high, yet many assume we should make that burden still heavier — as if the country can be taxed to prosperity. The Labour party has been pontificating along these lines in Liverpool all week, but these are in fact Tory ideas.

Loyalty, it used to be said, was the Tories’ secret weapon. No longer. Self-discipline has been discarded — along with commitments to lowering taxes, being strong on defence and keeping the streets safe. The Conservatives appear to have abandoned all of their beliefs and transformed into the party of Brexit. But, it seems, they can’t even get that right. Brexit is one of the most important projects any government has undertaken in our postwar history — a task that has been entrusted to Conservative MPs, most of whom voted against Brexit. The Prime Minister and her Chancellor, her Foreign Secretary and her Home Secretary all argued during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU would be a disaster.

On her tour of South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya, Theresa May finally made a positive case for Brexit. For too long her government has tried simply to salvage what they can of Britain’s trading relationship with the EU, overlooking the possibilities that Brexit offers to build trading relations with the wider world.  The tone of this week’s tour, however, was different: a pitch for how Britain can make new alliances. This country will soon have the freedom to do so — no longer bound by its role as the most reluctant member of a 28-nation bloc. The opportunity is to treat African nations as partners and equals, not as risks or charity cases.

By now, the routine is familiar: a lone wolf strikes, roads are sealed off, buildings locked down and a biographical picture begins to emerge. Often, the perpetrator turns out to be born and bred in Britain. His astonished friends and neighbours say they saw no signs that he had succumbed to fanaticism. It later emerges that radicalisation happened incredibly quickly — perhaps inspired by online videos — and the terror plan was so low-tech that interception would have been impossible. How, it might be asked, can any country protect itself against such threats? But Britain has protected itself, both in thwarting such attacks and in blunting their impact. The latest attacker found the House of Commons protected by barriers.

Ever since Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary, it was generally assumed that there would — in time — be a dramatic clash with Theresa May. But it was thought that the Prime Minister would pick her battle over a point of principle, perhaps on Europe, rather than over a joke in his Daily Telegraph column. Boris was defending the right of Muslims to wear what they like in public, but added that he thinks niqabs look like letterboxes. The ministerial reaction has been extraordinary, and deeply unedifying. Boris’s point was that, in banning the niqab, Denmark had passed a surprisingly illiberal piece of legislation — all the more surprising in that it has emerged from a country often viewed as a bastion of liberty.

Ever since Theresa May declared that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ she has seemed to be drifting towards the ‘bad deal’ option. The government has put forward numerous constructive proposals, only for them to be shot down by Michel Barnier — who goes on to warn of ticking clocks and the need for Britain to cede ever more ground. His strategy is logical and amply rewarded: every time he rejects a British plan, more concessions are offered. All along, Barnier’s approach has been to portray a post-Brexit trade deal as if it were a favour to Britain rather than an agreement of mutual interest. Britain, he has asserted, has everything to lose — while the EU could carry on after a ‘no deal’ Brexit as if nothing had happened.

Handling Brexit was never going to be easy for Theresa May, given that the Tories have been fighting a civil war over Europe for at least a quarter of a century. But the past ten days have been so calamitous that there is a real possibility that her Chequers gambit — threatening a general election unless MPs support her watered-down version of Brexit — could lead to the fall of the government and the ceding of power to the most left-wing Labour administration in history. The mood in Parliament is now as anarchic as it was during the last days of the Callaghan government in 1979: the Maastricht crisis in 1992 looks rather tame by comparison.