Who feels we should have cancelled the Parliamentary summer holiday until our Brexit approach has been clarified?

“Brexit means Brexit” progressed smoothly from Mansion House to Lancaster House, but then there was Chequers.

It was less what the White Paper contained than the scent of subterfuge that lingered around the resignation of David Davis and the suspicion of a Remain coup. Number 10 and special adviser(s) produced another major position paper to the surprise of at least some of the Cabinet. Boris Johnson was next to step off the ministerial bus.

A common rule book for goods and agriculture with a joint committee to consider changes to rules that might have financial consequences sounded far too much on the wrong side of Theresa May’s “red lines” for a Leave voter and Rugby Union fan –?for whom on the line is kicked into touch. Might it be just a little too tempting for the EU to tweak the rules to the UK disadvantage and charge us for rejecting them?

Would we be secure by restoring the Court of Final Appeal to the Supreme Court? Well nearly, except that rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union would remain of advisory influence – similar I assume to the advisory influence of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

I do question how this can operate when UK legal precedent is based on English Law and European precedent on Roman Law? In Europe, interpretation is based on the frequently obscure intent of the law maker, whereas in the UK our judges interpret the written word. Services and digital, which still do not have a common market in the EU despite 40 years of membership, would be the subject of future agreement on principles of international trade.

The remainder of the White Paper is about security and continued co-operation, as one would expect from good neighbours who have established such links.

I am less than thrilled with the possibility of agriculture retaining cross-compliance and statutory management requirements without a commitment to a form of income support that would match the Basic Payment, as this will continue to be paid to our European competitors.

Farmers have been less than impressed with the “level playing field” while in the EU, they do not want to play uphill when we leave.

For a brief moment after Chequers, Brexit ministers became the rebels, then everyone recalled the referendum result and the manifesto commitment to leave the EU.

Juncker, Barnier and Tusk have still not cracked a smile, though EU leaders have let it slip that their industry believe it might actually benefit them to negotiate a trade deal.

Those who voted remain launched Project Fear Mark II and a “People’s Vote”. The people have already voted. Do they seriously believe the referendum majority will accept the three options:

1. Leave with the agreed deal;

2. Leave without a deal, or;

3. Remain?

This would split the leave vote in two but leave the remain vote intact.

The EU frequently quote their four freedoms, and in my view Brexit has its own:

1. Freedom from freedom of movement;

2. Freedom to make our own laws without influence of ECJ;

3. Freedom to make our own trade deals;

4. Freedom from contributions to the EU budget.

As I write, we have just days to the end of the summer recess. The questions on our minds are:

1. Will Theresa May and her ministers return from their European grand tour with a Chequers deal agreed?

2. Will the electorate accept that the Chequers proposal equals Brexit?

3. Will there be a leadership challenge?

My vote is to return to the vision in the Lancaster House speech and leave the EU on World Trade Organisation terms.

I believe the UK has a wonderful future outside the democratic deficit of the EU.

When the EU are ready to talk to us sensibly, we can enter into future trade and co-operation agreements. Which leader will take us there?

Cllr Richard Hosking

South Brent and Yealmpton,

Devon County Council