Political incompetence heralds new era of Brexit doublethink | John Crace

Suddenly the whole point of David Davis became clear. After first fantasising he read impact assessments that never existed and then managing to contradict himself within 24 hours on whether the interim deal was legally binding, the Brexit secretary has created the perfect framework for all future negotiations. Thanks to his hopelessness and incompetence, there really is no longer any way of telling what is true and what is not. We have entered a post-modern political world where suspension of both belief and disbelief are one and the same.

Theresa May began her statement on last week’s Brexit negotiations by saying she wasn’t after a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, but whatever Brexit she happened to end up with. But as nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed, then there was no real guarantee that any Brexit would happen either. We could still end up with almost anything. She didn’t have a clue herself.

Britain would pay its financial obligations of £39bn to the EU unless it decided at some point in the future that they weren’t obligations. Britain was also committed to magical thinking on Northern Ireland. We were definitely leaving the single market and customs union though were committed to ensuring there was no hard border. And the European court of justice would play no role in the UK except when it did. Regulatory alignment means regulatory alignment. Shades of Brexit means Brexit. And strong and stable.

What are Brexit options now? The four scenarios

If the UK has a change of heart, it could sign up to all the EU’s rules and regulations, staying in the EU’s single market and customs union. Freedom of movement would continue and the UK would keep paying into the Brussels pot. We would continue to have unfettered access to EU trade, but the pledge to “take back control” of laws, borders and money would not have been fulfilled. This is an unlikely outcome and one that may be possible only by reversing the Brexit decision, after a second referendum or election.

Britain could follow Norway, which is in the single market, is subject to freedom of movement rules and pays a fee to Brussels – but is outside the customs union. That combination would tie Britain to EU regulations but allow it to sign trade deals of its own. A “Norway-minus” deal is more likely. That would see the UK leave the single market and customs union and end free movement of people. But Britain would align its rules and regulations with Brussels, hoping this would allow a greater degree of market access. The UK would still be subject to EU rules.

A comprehensive trade deal like the one handed to Canada would help British traders, as it would lower or eliminate tariffs. But there would be little on offer for the UK services industry. It is a bad outcome for financial services. Such a deal would leave Britain free to diverge from EU rules and regulations but that in turn would lead to border checks and the rise of other “non-tariff barriers” to trade. It would leave Britain free to forge new trade deals with other nations. Many in Brussels see this as a likely outcome, based on Theresa May’s direction so far.

Britain leaves with no trade deal, meaning that all trade is governed by World Trade Organisation rules. Tariffs would be high, queues at the border long and the Irish border issue severe. In the short term, British aircraft might be unable to fly to some European destinations. The UK would quickly need to establish bilateral agreements to deal with the consquences, but the country would be free to take whatever future direction it wishes. It may need to deregulate to attract international business – a very different future and a lot of disruption.

This was the prime minister at peak Maybot. Everything could just as equally mean something as nothing. Though almost certainly nothing. Satisfied she had managed to confuse everyone in the house rather, than was more usual, just herself, the prime minister sat down. Job done. Nothing had been said until everything had been said. Nothing had been made unclear till everything had been made unclear. Brexit had been reduced to moral relativism.

Jeremy Corbyn found the prime minister’s statement problematic. Partly because he’s basically not too keen on Brexit yet leads a parliamentary party that is almost 100% committed to remaining in the single market and the customs union, but mainly because he couldn’t bring himself to believe a word that had been said. Even asking Theresa to clarify something was a total waste of time. Because in her world there was no difference between repeating herself and contradicting herself.

“Some doubted we would reach this point in the talks,” Theresa declared. “There’s now a new sense of optimism.” She was talking mainly about and to herself. This time last week she had thought she might be out of a job by Xmas. Now she was safe at least until the spring.

There were few signs of optimism among the Tory benches. Self-preservation appeared to be the order of the day with both leavers and remainers falling over themselves to congratulate the prime minister on achieving the magnificent deal that she hadn’t got. Iain Duncan Smith was at his most creepy and smarmy while Bill Cash mumbled ‘Rule Britannia’ several times until his carers removed him.

Inside the EU, both Ireland and Northern Ireland (as part of the UK) are part of the single market and customs union so share the same regulations and standards.

The only way to avoid a hardening of the border after Brexit is to ensure regulations and standards on both sides remain more or less the same in areas like food, medicines and so on.

This might imply a permanent acceptance of EU rules – something that would be anathema to hardline UK Brexiters and the DUP, who reject anything that would "decouple" the North from the UK.

David Davis told parliament that regulatory alignment would not mean adopting exactly the same rules as the EU but "mutually recognised" rules and inspections.

However, an official in Brussels countered that regulatory alignment would mean that the UK would have to implement rules from Brussels without having any influence over them.

What is the government’s plan for ‘regulatory alignment’?
Davis says the UK could continue to follow some rules of the EU’s single market. This would help avoid a hard border, but would also limit the UK’s ability to diverge from EU regulations.

What does the EU think?
Davis thinks the UK and EU can agree to meet the same aims, while achieving them in different ways. The EU believes this could see its standards on workers’ rights and the environment undercut.

Can it even work?
Parliament cannot bind its successors. This principle would mean a deal would never be completely secure for more than five years – putting its feasibility in doubt.

For weeks now, Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan have talked a good game about holding the prime minister to account over Brexit. Now they just rolled over like a couple of cuddly toys. Theresa was just the best, they cooed. No one else could have pulled off such a magnificent deal. Even though they, like everyone else, didn’t quite understand what it was they implicitly trusted the prime minister. They bowed down before her. They worshipped at her feet. They were not worthy. So brave.

Faced with putting their beliefs or party first, everyone had chosen party. As Edward Leigh observed when he was finally allowed to pay homage, it was far better to suck up any old nonsense rather than take a stand over the government’s incoherence and risk a general election that Labour might win.

And that was pretty much that. Labour MP after Labour MP tried to pin Theresa down on what exactly she had meant, but as neither she nor anyone in the cabinet knew for certain, she just skipped and danced around the dispatch box. Sometimes full regulatory alignment meant full regulatory alignment. Sometimes it just meant regulatory alignment. Who knew? Northern Ireland could be Wonderland. All you had to do was close your eyes, spin round three times, make a wish and the world was yours. They seek her here, they seek her there. That damned elusive prime minister.

John Crace’s new book, I, Maybot, is published by Guardian Faber. To order a copy for £6.99, saving £3,go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min. p&p of £1.99.