If we can’t work together on a deal we must rethink the whole idea of Brexit - Dominic Grieve

Today and tomorrow see the final stages in the House of Commons of two important pieces of legislation. The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and the Trade Bill are both needed because of Brexit. They put in place measures to enable the UK to operate its own trade policy after we have left the EU.

The Trade Bill, for example, is critical to enabling us to continue to benefit from the more than 40 existing trade agreements we have previously participated in as members of the EU and which we are now at risk of losing if we cannot carry them over after our departure. There is, of course, no guarantee that we will get them on existing terms. But without the Bill we can’t implement our end of the changes that will be needed to continue them.

It might be expected, therefore, that enthusiasts for Brexit would back this necessary legislation. But it is being suggested that some of my Brexit-supporting colleagues might vote against these Bills at Third Reading if they can’t secure major amendments to the way the Taxation Bill is drafted.

That this situation has arisen is the result of their response to the Chequers Statement and the subsequent White Paper on the Government’s negotiating position for our future relationship with the EU. That position was adopted as a consequence of the growing volume of disquiet being expressed by those in industry and business who have been emphasising the disastrous consequences of losing frictionless trade with the EU. The extent of that disaster also extends in Northern Ireland to a threat to its place in our Union.

As a result, the Government has made a deliberate choice to try to secure the maintenance of a close economic partnership with the EU. This, it believes, requires a frictionless trade area in manufactured goods and agricultural produce, and this in turn needs a common rule book and the same interpretation here of those rules as in the EU.

As the final arbiter of the regulations of the EU is the European Court of Justice, it must follow that although we will no longer be directly bound by its decisions, we are in practice going to be subject to them in these areas. It also prevents the creation of a hard border in Ireland.

The Government has also set out the need for a close continuing relationship with the EU on law enforcement, counter-terrorism, data exchange, foreign affairs consultation, sanctions, asylum and migration and the many agencies dealing with science, medicines and education. But as the White Paper concedes, all this, too, will need a mechanism to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the rules.

Rather glossed over is the reality that where the EU provides a rules framework for those activities, and this includes many of them, it will again be the European Court of Justice that will set the jurisprudence.

It is this status as rule-takers with little say over how the rules are made, and the extent to which third-country trade deals will in reality be possible, that has raised my colleagues’ objections. But they have offered no workable alternative. As many of us have been saying, during and since the referendum, the idea that we are going to be able to retain the benefits of EU membership without being signed up to the regulations that have made the close co-operation between member states possible is a fantasy because it undermines a key principle under which the EU operates.

The only solution to fall back on is a negotiation for what they still demand, backed by a threat of a “No Deal” Brexit if we don’t get our way. As our economy slows down alarmingly compared to that of our key EU partners and competitors, they seem willing to plunge the country into a serious crisis to achieve the purity of their objective. I can only assume that the suggestion of voting against the two Bills this week is designed as a statement of intent of their willingness to carry this out.

It is not that I don’t have sympathy with some of their criticism. The route chosen by the Prime Minister is far from ideal. The rule-taking is regrettable. And even what we are asking for may not be achievable. It might be easier to stay in a full customs union with the EU and ignore the prospect of third-country trade deals.

The protectionist attitudes of President Trump make the prospect of such a deal with the US very remote. The price that will be demanded of us for trade deals with India or China make them impossible. Those we might get are not going to replace the value of the loss of trade with the EU.

We have also ignored our trade in services. It is not just about banking and fund management in the City but about the many service contracts that go with our hi-tech industries and make their products attractive and everything from engineering and road haulage, on which they rely, possible.

But a single market in services raises the issue of freedom of movement for those services to be delivered, something Margaret Thatcher created and we are now abandoning. We need to consider what the economic impact of this will be.

But the PM’s approach is not invalid. She is doing her best to minimise the damage that flows from the decision to leave the European Union. Every option is unfortunately worse than staying in the EU. But the current government policy is a lot better than the alternative being promoted.

In a deeply divided country we must either work together to get the best deal we can — and this needs compromise — or accept that Brexit cannot be implemented and think again about what we are doing.

• Dominic Grieve QC is the Conservative MP for Beaconsfield