The post you are reporting:
Courtesy of the Times.
In pure British political terms Theresa May’s decision to reach out to Jeremy Corbyn is perplexing.
Having made an independent free trade policy the centrepiece of her Brexit sunny uplands pitch, to abandon it now in an effort to win Labour votes runs counter to everything we know about the prime minister. But equally, if it is just a stunt designed to demonstrate that Mr Corbyn can’t be trusted to work in the national interest then the downsides of such a gambit are considerable. The howls of outrage from Conservative Brexiteers who reluctantly backed Mrs May’s deal last week are not confected. By pivoting so late in the day Mrs May has left herself dangerously exposed on all sides.
But there are compelling, less party political reasons why the prime minister’s gambit may be sensible.
The first is that the prime minister badly needs some breathing space. There are real fears in No 10 that European leaders could reject a long extension request next week and increase the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. The EU simply cannot understand why the prime minister has not reached out across party lines before now. They’ve never understood the adversarial nature of Westminster politics, which is so different to that on the continent, and cannot comprehend why in such a national crisis all sides seem so unwilling to talk and compromise. By reaching out to Mr Corbyn the prime minister is sending a message to Europe that an extension might result in something more than further can-kicking. But perhaps more significantly, and often overlooked, is the fact that the political declaration for a future relationship that the prime minister agreed to last year is less far from Labour’s Brexit policy than meets the eye.
On the question of a customs union it states that both sides will put in place “ambitious customs arrangements” in pursuit of “having a trading relationship on goods that is as close as possible”.
It adds that both parties “envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs co-operation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition”. On the question of Labour demands for Britain to continue to align with all new EU environmental and labour rights law, the political declaration is even more specific. It commits the UK to aligning with existing and future regulations covering “state aid, competition, social and employment standards [and] environmental standards” under the so-called “level playing field” provisions. One government source put it this way: “We can’t say this but if you look at the political declaration you could argue that we’ve signed up to a customs union in all but name anyway.”
The source added the big difference was Labour’s demand that the UK had a seat at the table in the negotiation of future EU-wide trade deals. “We don’t think Brussels will offer that. But that is their problem not ours.” In an attempt to narrow the difference at policy level the talks are likely to involve officials as well as politicians. Labour for the first time will have their hands dipped in the “blood” of what is deliverable and what isn’t. Of course, for the obvious political reasons, a compromise is still much less likely than continued deadlock. But if it buys some time from Europe and opens a process of dialogue then it is probably worth a try. And as Mrs May knows, if she can get a deal through the House of Commons then putting the Conservative Party back together again won’t be her problem.