Two years ago this week, Britain voted to leave the EU. One year ago, the chancellor of the exchequer’s annual Mansion House speech was cancelled because of the fire at Grenfell Tower. On Thursday, Philip Hammond went ahead with this year’s speech to the City. And it was almost as if Mr Hammond had mistakenly brought along the kind of speech he might have given 12 months ago, when the Brexit process was in its infancy. But Brexit is not in its infancy. It is approaching the point of no return.
True, Brexit was inescapably central to the chancellor’s prudent case this week. But the content of his speech was of an almost wholly general kind: he wanted a good deal, to protect markets from uncertainty, to uphold low friction borders and open markets, to construct an enduring partnership that recognises that Europe is Britain’s most important trading partner. He could – and would – have said all of this in 2017.
But Brexit is only nine months away. Companies need to make decisions that cannot be put off while Brexiter ministers posture. More is needed from the chancellor if the generalities of his soft Brexit case are to be translated into specific and effective agreements around which the government and parliament can unite if EU exit goes ahead next year. Time is very short. It is no longer enough to talk so laconically, as Mr Hammond did, about mixtures of view and active debates.
Brexit is not some civilised and agreeable postgraduate seminar. It is a battle for the livelihoods and life chances of a nation and its people. If the chancellor is right that Brexit is his most immediate priority then he needs to give a lead on it. Even in a divided government like this, a chancellor has to stand tall for the British economy, for British business and for British jobs. Mr Hammond did not do that on Thursday.
Then the alarm went off. The sagging disjunction between the chancellor’s speech and the real world was exposed the following morning when Airbus confirmed that it is set to pull investment from Britain after losing patience with the indolent progress in the Brexit talks. If Airbus takes the aircraft wings that it currently constructs in north-east Wales and other UK centres and moves production of them to China, the US or elsewhere in Europe, the effects will be profound. Like several other large UK companies, Airbus has been saying these things in private to government for weeks. But government seems all but paralysed over Brexit and Theresa May is not someone who likes to lead from the front.
It was right that Airbus went public. The company employs 14,000 people in Britain and supports a further 100,000 UK jobs in its supply lines. The effect of a relocation on livelihoods, skills, capacity and the national and local economies would be devastating. The jobs would not come back. The effect on wider confidence would be dire. Now it is time for others to go public with their own dilemmas too. It is the only way in which pro-leave ministers, who are shockingly indifferent and reckless about these dangers, can be forced to back a less damaging approach.
This is a pivotal moment not just for Britain but for the Conservative party. The party can choose an ideological course or a pragmatic one. The ideological route involves no deal with the EU, a fantasy future in a Trump-dominated Anglosphere, and a low-tax economy marked by growing inequality between a small number of very rich people and a growing mass of the low-paid working and middle class. The pragmatic route involves a soft Brexit (ideally no Brexit at all), cooperation with Europe, the easing of austerity (figures this week showed borrowing at its lowest level compared to GDP since 2001-02) and a growth strategy to support a more progressive tax regime and efficient public services.
Everything in this is connected. Only the pragmatic route supports industry, steady jobs and an economy and tax base that can pay for the needs of an ageing society in health and social care. At the start of this week, Mrs May committed to spend an extra £20bn on the NHS. It was the right call. But her decision was condemned as “disgusting” by Margaret Thatcher’s biographer. That says it all. The choice could not be clearer – and it is time the government took it.
