THERESA MAY has shown she has learnt one of the lessons of David Cameron’s failed renegotiation.

If she just asks for what cautious officials think she can get, she won’t get enough to satisfy the voters.

That is why the resignation of Britain’s representative to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers — who frequently argued down what Cameron should ask for   —   is ultimately a good thing.

One Government source complains that the problem with Rogers is he acted as if his advice hadn’t been read, if it wasn’t followed to the letter. Now May must show that she has learnt another lesson from Cameron’s failure.

Cameron’s biggest problem in the renegotiation was that the other side always knew that he wouldn’t walk away. It was always clear that whatever deal the EU offered, Cameron was going to end up arguing to stay in. He compounded this problem when he made clear that he wanted the deal done quickly.

When you’re going to buy a car or a house would you indicate to the seller that you weren’t going to walk away and ask if they could do the deal ASAP? Of course you wouldn’t. But that’s what Cameron did — and with predictable results.

So when May makes her big Brexit speech later this month, she must make clear that she won’t just take what she’s offered.

She should stress that while she wants a good deal and thinks that would be best for Britain and the EU, she will turn down a bad one. She should say that she is prepared to fall back on World Trade Organisation rules if necessary.

Obviously, using WTO rules would not be ideal. Tariffs would be charged on British goods being sold into the single market.

But there are steps that the Government could take to compensate for this. Corporate taxes could be slashed, red tape radically reduced and Britain made a far more competitive place to do business.

The Government is already working on how it would deal with this situation. One No10 source tells me that they are “preparing for all eventualities”.

I also understand that May appreciates that she has “got to be prepared to walk away”. The question inside No10 is whether these positions should be made public.

There are two compelling reasons they should be. First, it would reassure business that there is no “worst-case scenario”, that if tariffs are imposed, Britain will do what’s necessary to make this country more competitive. Second, talking about these steps would MAKE A DEAL MORE LIKELY. Why? Because EU countries don’t want a low-tax, low-regulation country on their doorstep.

Senior sources in the Brexit department tell me that the most frequent demand they get from European politicians is for an assurance that Britain is not going to try to turn itself into Singapore West, post-Brexit. By making clear that the UK is prepared to cut tax and regulation if it can’t sign a good trade deal with the EU, it would make it more likely that a constructive agreement can be reached.

I understand May’s Brexit speech will be about ends, not means. No10’s argument is that if they spell out how they intend to achieve control of immigration and tariff-free access to the single market they make it impossible for both sides to come out of the negotiation claiming victory.

But if they talk about what they want — not how they intend to get it — then “you can get a deal without anyone losing face”.

But May must remember that a good deal will require her making it clear that she is prepared to reject a bad deal.

Related stories

Source: Read Full Article