Whenever questions address the economy, Mrs May says the outcome “will work for everyone”. Mr Davis ploughed the same furrow this week, saying his task was “to negotiate a deal for exiting the European Union that is in the interests of the entire nation”.
Should the government favour a domestic company that would benefit from new British product standards, or help the multinational that would be harmed by duplicate regulations? Are British citizens who want to deny residency to new EU migrants worth more than their fellow nationals who will no longer be able to seamlessly work or retire on the continent? Are the potential problems of customs checks on the internal Irish border sufficiently serious to necessitate Britain remaining in the European customs union?
These are just three simple binary trade-offs related to Brexit. Ministers need to acknowledge countless more.
Even then, there is no simple method of comparing competing interests. Should the US investment bank find it easier to gain a work permit for a highly paid and taxed French banker in London, or should the South Coast lettuce agribusiness be given preference for employing low-paid and taxed migrant labour from eastern Europe? If gross domestic product is the only arbiter, the likes of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will prevail, but if the priority is reducing local inequalities, the lettuce farmer would hold the trump card. Since Mrs May has made both strong growth and a reduction in regional inequality priorities for her administration, pity the official trying to draw up new work permit regulations.
It is only when ministers drop the pretence that they will make the country “work for everyone” that government can think seriously about how to deal with the costs of Brexit and decide which are the prices worth paying. It might find, for example, that it makes sense to offer to pay into the EU Budget in a bid to keep the European Medicines Agency in London and stay part of European regulation of medicines.
All Mrs May says to date is that she will negotiate the “best” deal for the UK — a phrase which both displays a lack of seriousness, since no one would expect her to strive for a substandard deal, and an arrogance that Number 10 will determine the trade-offs without bothering to have a public debate.
Most worrying of all was the rebuke her office gave Mr Davis for saying it was “very improbable” Britain would remain in the single market if free movement of people was a prerequisite. The minister deserved criticism for announcing he favoured migration restrictions over single market membership, but was criticised for acknowledging there was even a trade-off.
The prime minister deserves a period of indulgence. People understand she is determined to press ahead with Brexit, but they also want a better rather than worse Brexit. That can happen only if she becomes clear about the trade-offs, both domestic and international.
The first step is to stop saying the result will benefit everyone, since it will not. It gives the impression the prime minister does not understand nor care about the losers’ plight. Remember, they always shout louder than winners.