Tthe relationship between the prime minister and the chancellor is one of the most important in British politics. My old friend Nigel Lawson (Chancellor 1983-89) certainly thought so, which is why he and Margaret Thatcher agonized over whether to put the UK balance on the European Union’s trading mechanism in the 1980s.
Dionysius Healey (chancellor 1974-79) thought so too and once told me that his good working relationship with James Callaghan (prime minister 1976-79) was one of the reasons for the Treasury holding on in tough negotiations with the International Monetary Fund in 1976.
David Cameron (prime minister 2010-16) and George Osborne (his chancellor) also subscribed to this view. They set out to learn about the difficult relationship between Tony Blair (Prime Minister 1997-2007) and his chancellor, Gordon Brown.
Here we are entering deep waters. The general impression – confirmed by the man himself, was Osborne against Cameron’s fatal threat to hold a referendum on the membership of the European Union, but first set the strength of the ministerial relationship with the chancellor. But I have spoken to officials who are questioning whether Osborne will ever really be held against the referendum.
But we are certainly where we are: the defeat of Brexit is clear; daily damage occurs; and Most of you know. Harold Macmillan (Prime Minister 1957-63) once said: “Where do we go from here?”
We know what Keir Starmer he said. We must restore good relations with the EU and “make Brexit work”. But Brexit is not working!
Now I have an account of Starmer, which I know is not good. He is a lawyer. I know the lawyer a lot. Sometimes they accuse, sometimes they defend. They have a cold-blooded attachment to the case.
Starmer has been good, even outstanding, in the cause of the Brexiters. The cause of these was founded on sand, and this he declared resoundingly in his defense of Romain and then of Gaudendi. But he lost his case. Hey there! Another brief meeting: the chance to take on Brexit and make it work.
Well: I’m afraid, great lawyer though he may be, he lost the first case – like many on his side – and now he’s obviously losing the second case.
He recently appointed a straw man – he said it is not necessary to choose between the US and the EU; I need good relations with both. That especially in the defense and security of things.
But when it comes to trade, the idea that we should be removed from the tradition of the union and the single market in favor of some stories with Donald Trump is ridiculous. We would be in a much stronger negotiating position with Trump’s threat that members of the EU are planning a huge trade deal.
In the presence of both France and Germany not leadership problemsThe German economy in particular is not as successful as it once was. But all of them – the UK, France and Germany – could benefit from removing the trade barriers that hinder trade between the Big Two Continentals and us.
Post Newsletter promotion
The first step, as suggested by several presenters, will be for us to re-establish the European Free Trade Association – EFTA, which now includes Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland.
For long-term memories, this would echo the 1950s, when the UK, in its bid to join the six-member European Economic Community, became part of the then seven-member European Union. Hence the joke at the time that Europe was “at six and seven”.
The next logical step, then and now, is to join others, now 27 and familiar with the European Union. Which brings us back to the relationship between the PM and the chancellor. One sees signs of conflict with Rachel Prefect excludes further increases in taxation when speaking of the Confederation of British Industry, and Starmer refuses to be bound by such an obligation.
More tax revenue will be needed to fund so many extended public services. And what is the biggest hit to economic growth and the accompanying revenue? Brexit pure and simple.
The Treasurer must certainly tell the Prefects of this, and the Prefects in turn must tell Starmer. The two need to get their act together.