Fight over tariffs shows ministers still clueless on Brexit

The argument between ministers, over the UK’s post-Brexit food tariffs, between Michael Gove, who wants them high (to protect farmers), and Philip Hammond, who wants them low (to protect consumers), tells us two things.

First, nearly three years after we were told that “Brexit Means Brexit”, the government still has not worked out what it means. It cannot agree on the preferred consequences of Brexit, and therefore it cannot agree on what its policy is.

The remark of  Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, that there is a “special place in hell” for the people who pushed Brexit without a plan, was unkind and undiplomatic. But it seems, as we approach the cliff edge without a plan or a policy, uncomfortably close to the mark.

Second, both sides in this debate are deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that we already have a regime which aims to strike some kind of compromise between the interests of farmers and those of consumers: it is called the EU Common Agricultural Policy.

The CAP is not, of course, in any sense ideal. It needs constant readjustment, rethinking and reform. But it is an attempt to strike a balance between a complex nexus of competing interests. What’s more, it is already a good deal more intelligent than the simple-minded binary choice, between high tariffs and low, which Gove and Hammond are championing right now. Baby-thinking of that kind will get us nowhere.

But the only place we can argue for the reform of the CAP, is from inside the EU. And the most democratic way to make sure we stay is by putting the final decision on Brexit to the people.