Arch-Remainer Charles Grant on Brexit and populism…
“I certainly hope that EU governments do not conflate Brexit and populism. Though there is a link, many Leave voters were middle-of-the-road, moderate, educated people who (mistakenly, in my view) failed to appreciate the benefits of EU membership.”
Are Remainers finally starting to get it? Guido has spotted three in the last week coming out and saying Brexit won’t be stopped. First Wolfgang Munchau wrote in the FT:
“The probability of a reversal is not technically zero, but close enough to be discarded. The probability of a Brexit without a deal is also not large, but much higher than the probability of a successful revocation. The best strategy for smart Remainers is stop the second referendum fantasies and to focus on the period after Brexit. This is when the debate on the future relationship will get truly interesting.”
Then his colleague at the pink ‘un David Allen Green yesterday conceded: “The three legal paths to stop Brexit are blocked”.
“there seems no serious possibility of such a dramatic reversal. The “mandate” of the referendum will remain, and those who still dispute that there is a mandate are akin to the generals who keep fighting the battles of a previous war.”
The Centre for European Reform’s Charles Grant agrees:
I fear that @davidallengreen is correct in the @FT. Unfortunately the chances of stopping Brexit are minimal; Remainers need to focus on post-March 19. https://t.co/4uZ9X6IqhL
— Charles Grant (@CER_Grant) April 4, 2018
It’s only the cranks still saying Brexit can be reversed…
1/5 The recording of Charles Grant’s Prospect lunch raises more questions about the Treasury’s behaviour #TreasuryGate
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) February 2, 2018
2/5 When Mr. Grant says ‘The Treasury is determined to keep us in the Customs Union’ does he mean the Chancellor or officials? If the Chancellor, it is a breach of collective responsibility, if officials, against their duty to implement Government policy #TreasuryGate
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) February 2, 2018
3/5 When Mr. Grant refers to ‘unpublished papers’ on the Customs Union, who commissioned these and authorised him to be told? Again, if officials, improper for them to tell a partisan think-tank leader before most of the Government or Parliament #TreasuryGate
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) February 2, 2018
4/5 Mr. Grant refers to private conversations with Treasury officials. Have these been authorised by Ministers or are officials freelancing? #TreasuryGate
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) February 2, 2018
5/5 The conclusion must be either the Chancellor or his officials are deliberately trying to frustrate Brexit. Ultimately, Ministers must take responsibility #TreasuryGate
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) February 2, 2018
The Mogg has a point here. As Guido pointed out yesterday, Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform did say that the Treasury is trying to bounce the government into a softer Brexit. That is either a breach of Hammond’s collective responsibility or the civil service’s duty to implement government policy. Isn’t that the more important story?
Jacob Rees-Mogg asks if it is true that “officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than saying in the Customs Union were bad and that officials intended to use this to influence policy” pic.twitter.com/qUTKvAJFi0
— BrexitCentral (@BrexitCentral) February 1, 2018
The big row today is over whether the Centre for European Reform’s Charles Grant did or didn’t tell Steve Baker that the Treasury was deliberately trying to change Brexit policy and keep us in the customs union. Baker says he did. Grant says in a statement:
“I did not say or imply that the Treasury had deliberately developed a model to show that all non-customs union options were bad, with the intention to influence policy.”
Fair enough. But it turns out Grant did say the Treasury was trying to influence policy by forcing the government into a softer Brexit. Publicly, in July:
This piece by @RobertsDan on how the Treasury is pushing UK govt towards a softer Brexit is well-informed: https://t.co/JwSLiWZtRK @CER_EU
— Charles Grant (@CER_Grant) July 2, 2017
Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform… revealed the existence of an unpublished Treasury analysis showing that the costs of leaving without a customs union deal far outweigh any benefits from future overseas trade deals.
“The coalition of forces pushing for a softer Brexit is considerable,” Grant said. “The Treasury, long an advocate of retaining close economic ties to the EU, is newly emboldened.”
Does anyone really think the Treasury doesn’t want a softer Brexit?
