Mr Speaker I want to thank you for granting me this opportunity first to pay tribute to the men and women of the FCO

who have done an outstanding job over the last two years

I am very proud that we have rallied the world against Russia’s barbaric use of chemical weapons

with an unprecedented 28 countries joining together to expel 153 spies in protest at what happened in Salisbury

We have rejuvenated the Commonwealth with a superb summit that saw Zimbabwe back on the path to membership – and Angola now wanting to join

and as I leave we are leading global campaigns against illegal wildlife trade and in favour of 12 years of quality education for every girl

and we have the flag going up in nine new missions in the Pacific and the Caribbean and Africa and more to come

we have overtaken France to boast the biggest diplomatic network of any European country

None of this would have been possible without the support of my RT Hon friend the PM

Everyone who has worked with her will recognise her courage and resilience

and it was my privilege to collaborate with her in promoting Global Britain

a vision for this country she set out with great clarity at Lancaster House on Jan 17 last year

a country eager as she said

not just to do a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU

– out of the customs union and out of the single market –

but also to do new free trade deals around the world

I thought it was the right vision then. I think so today

But in the 18 months that have followed it is as though a fog of self-doubt has descended

and even though our EU friends and partners liked the Lancaster House vision

– it was what they were expecting from an ambitious partner, what they understood

even though the commentators liked it, and the markets liked it (the pound soared)

we never actually went to Brussels and turned it into a negotiating offer.

Instead we dithered. We burned through negotiating capital.

We agreed to hand over a £40 bn exit fee, with no discussion of our future economic relationship

We accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court over key aspects of the withdrawal agreement

and worst of all we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border

– which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble –

to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate

No one wants a hard border. You couldn’t construct one if you tried

But there certainly can be different rules north and south of the border to reflect the fact that there are two different jurisdictions.

In fact there already are.

There can be checks away from the border, and technical solutions, as the PM described at Mansion House. In fact there already are.

But when I and other colleagues proposed further technical solutions to make customs and regulatory checks remotely

they were never even properly examined

as if such solutions had become intellectually undesirable in the context of the argument

and somehow after the December joint report

– whose backstop arrangement we were all told was entirely provisional, never to be invoked –

it became taboo even to discuss technical fixes.

So, Mr Speaker, after 18 months of stealthy retreat

we have come from the bright certainties of Lancaster House to the Chequers agreement

Put them side by side

Lancaster House said laws will be once again “made in Westminster”

Chequers says there will be “ongoing harmonisation” with a common EU rulebook

Lancaster House said it would be wrong to “comply with EU rules and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are”

Chequers now makes us rule takers

Lancaster House said we don’t want anything that leaves us “half-in, half-out” and that “we do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave”

Chequers says that we will remain in lockstep on goods and agrifoods and much more besides

with disputes ultimately adjudicated by the ECJ

Far from making laws in Westminster, there are large sectors in which ministers will have no power to initiate, innovate or even deviate

After decades in which UK ministers have gone to Brussels and expostulated against costly EU regulation

we are now claiming that we must accept every jot and tittle for our economic health – and with no say of our own

and no way of protecting our businesses and entrepreneurs from rules that may be not in their interests.

My Rt Hon friend the Chancellor was asked to identify the biggest single opportunity from Brexit

After some thought, he said “regulatory innovation.

Well, there may be regulatory innovation post-brexit, but it won’t be coming from the UK, or not in these areas

We are volunteering for economic vassalage not just in goods and agri-foods

but we will be forced to match EU arrangements on the environment and social affairs and much else besides

and of course we all want high standards, but it is hard to see how the Conservative govt of the 1980s could have done its vital supply side reforms with these freedoms taken away

and the result of accepting the EU’s rule books, and of our proposal of a fantastical Heath Robinson customs arrangement,

is that we have much less scope to do free trade deals – as the Chequers paper actually acknowledges

and which we should all acknowledge

because otherwise we continue to make the fatal mistake of underestimating the intelligence of the public

saying one thing to the EU about what we are really doing, and pretending another to the electorate

and given that in important ways this is BINO or Brino or brexit in name only I am of course unable to support it, as I said in cabinet at chequers, and am happy to be able now to speak out against it.

Mr Speaker, it is not too late to save brexit. We have time in these negotiations

we have changed tack once and we can change again

The problem is not that we failed to make the case for a Free Trade Agreement of the kind spelt out at Lancaster House

We haven’t even tried

We must try now, because we will not have another chance to get this right. It is absolute nonsense to imagine – as I fear some of my colleagues do – that we can somehow afford to make a botched Treaty now, and then break and reset the bone later on

We have seen even in these talks how the supposedly provisional becomes eternal

We have the time, I believe the PM has the support of parliament –

remember the enthusiasm for Lancaster House

and it was clear last night that there is no majority for going back to the customs union

With goodwill and common sense we can address concerns about the NI border and all other borders

We have fully two and a half years to make the technical preparations

– along with the preparations for a WTO outcome, which we should now accelerate

We do not need to be stampeded by anyone

but let’s explicitly aim once again for the glorious vision of Lancaster House

a strong independent self-governing Britain that is genuinely open to the world

not the miserable permanent limbo of Chequers

the democratic disaster of “ongoing harmonisation” with no way out and no say for the UK

We need to take one decision now before all others – and that is to believe in this country and what it can do

because the UK’s admirers across the world

are fully expecting us to take back control, to be able to set new standards for technologies in which we excel, to behave not as rules takers but as great independent actors on the world stage; to do free trade deals for the benefit and prosperity of the British people.

That was the vision of Brexit we fought for; that was the vision the Prime Minister rightly described last year.

That is the prize. And if the PM can fix that vision once again before us then I believe she can deliver a great Brexit for Britain

with a positive and self-confident approach that will unite this party, unite this house and unite the country as well