Britain voted for a “clean Brexit”—now let’s stay the course

Since 1945 Britain has largely failed to set a clear national goal and devise a focused strategy to implement it. Leaving the European Union—with its spirit of managed decline and linear momentum toward greater centralisation and regulation—offered a historic opportunity to reverse this failure. It would therefore be a historic mistake for Britain to embark on anything other than a “clean” Brexit.

Since the shock election result on 8^th June, however, there has been talk of doing just that. The thinking being that with May’s hand in Westminster weakened, and with the majority of MPs personally preferring the option, a high degree of integration with the EU is still on the cards.

This is misguided. Britain must leave the single market and customs union and gain the control over immigration, regulation and international engagement necessary to begin a focused effort in the area of our strongest competitive advantage: as the world’s leading country for education, innovation and science.

Immigration was a primary issue of the referendum campaign, and any Brexit that does not give Britain control over its borders clearly does not honour the result. Britain must balance the democratic desire to control (especially unskilled) immigration, while maximising the skilled immigration and labour market flexibility that are vital to economic growth. A new policy could combine actions impossible in the EU (removing certain benefits and NHS use from new immigrants, restricting free movement to those from strategically important sectors like academics, students, scientists and entrepreneurs) with focused openness with the rest of the world (an automatic visa to graduates with top degrees and academics from the world’s top 500 universities, or with critical skills like coding, and to entrepreneurs with a strong track record).

The regulations that mean Britain should leave the EU’s single market are not those on bendy fruit, but the future versions of VATMOSS. This “woefully complex and inadequate” new-ish European legislation on the selling of digital services across the EU makes tech businesses leave for Singapore. Also deeply problematic are the clinical trials rules which destroyed Britain’s world leading position in the healthcare industry and in some instances, put patients’ lives at risk. The coming EU digital single market, announced by Jean-Claude Juncker a couple of years ago, promises to be dominated by bureaucratic corporate interests and political whims.

A Britain outside all of this, offering a regulatory environment that favoured small companies and the open sharing of information, with science decisions protected from politics—in accordance with the Haldane principle—would have huge advantages as a base for start-ups and cutting edge research.

Similarly, Britain must leave the EU’s outdated customs union in order to forge new trading relationships with economies and customers of the future. Enthusiasm for free trade is as important to Britain’s future prosperity as to its historic success. But this enthusiasm is incompatible with an EU that has failed to sign trade deals with so many of the big global economies, and achieved just 11 active non-European trade deals since 1995 (since when Singapore has signed 20, including with all of its top five potential partners).

Outside the EU, Britain must build strong relationships with manufacturing and agriculture focused Asian and African markets that threaten some EU states but are natural partners for Britain’s high tech, service focused economy. Britain also has a deep seated moral obligation to leave, and then pressure for the total abolition of, the EU common agricultural policy that, in the words of one writer, starves Africa into submission.

There is plenty of room within the above outlines for a close trade deal between Britain and the EU. It should offer maximal opportunities in the UK for EU entrepreneurs, scientists and students, and maximal co-operation on science and innovation. Concessions consistent with Britain’s overall strategy but of value to the EU, such as budget contributions, can help deliver one of the very many deals that are better than no deal.

Faced with a hung parliament and a failed election campaign, the temptation to appease all sides while choosing none (no doubt encouraged by the civil service, which tends to dilute things) will be large for the PM. That would be a failure of vision as well as courage. As Britain’s last female prime minister might have put it, now is not the time to go wobbly.