The Brexit policy has caught up with the harsh reality

The last few days have been significant for the UK's departure from the EU, as finally, Brexit's policy has caught up with the harsh reality and political realities.

For two years, there were two separate and distinct Brexit processes. The first is the internal negotiations between Theresa May and the Prime Minister's political supporters in government, parliament and the media. The second is the negotiations between Britain and the EU within the framework provided by Article 50.

Until now, when the two touch each other, there have been enough d & # 39; Vagueness and political agility to repel them, if only for a while. But Friday's Checkers meeting, with its concerted proposal, and the subsequent resignation of three pro-Brexit ministers – David Davis, Boris Johnson and Steve Baker – say that a conflict, which may or may not lead to reconciliation, can not be delayed.

At home, Ms. May needs to keep her government together and maintain the support of backbenchers and the popular press, who is especially supportive of the exit. Almost all Brexit projects, all the expedients, are understandable (if not justifiable) in this national political context. Each of his speeches and ministerial appointments were intended for internal political consumption. The "red lines" of lack of freedom of movement and jurisdiction for the EU courts have been games for the public.

In Brussels, the government has continued to do enough to continue negotiations on Brexit. The United Kingdom has followed the chain of negotiations and post-Brexit financial contributions. And, having no alternative, the country willingly agreed to offer a period of stagnation (albeit called a transition period). He even accepted the December joint document on withdrawal conditions, without appreciating the implications for the Irish border issue. Each of these climbs was represented to the UK media as a triumph.

But at some point, there must have been an account. And since the questions of law and policy dealt with in the exit negotiations are more concrete than the superficial policies of Westminster and Fleet Street, it is always the latter that must yield.

The Checkers proposal was summarized in a three-page document, with a longer white paper expected to be released this week. The summary is the UK's first official document on Brexit correctly to engage with its problems. The position on goods and tariffs has the merit of recognizing that there are problems to be solved with regard to the Irish border, and more broadly the cross-border supply chains. The acceptance of a continuing role for EU case law is sensible and welcome.

Assuming that the white paper agrees with this summary, at least Britain has a negotiating position for an agreement. It is unlikely that the proposal will be accepted by the EU. There is nothing serious about services and freedom of movement, and the mention of a "mobility framework" may just as well be about a Zimmer framework, as it does not mean anything in law. . But it's a start, even though some 15 months after the 50 article's notification.

Because the firm must now address important issues, it's not surprising that there have been ministerial resignations. Creative ambiguity can not take so much reality. There is finally something that a pro-Brexit politician may be against. Withdrawals are a sign that the government is finally tackling the tasks ahead.

Although there is always a risk of not agreeing, there are other possibilities now that Brexit is taking a definitive form. There is a good chance that there may be an extension of the period of Article 50 or the transitional period, or even a revocation of the notification of Article 50 itself. . Such results are still unlikely, as the parliament is determined to fulfill the so-called "mandate" of the outcome of the referendum.

But there is still a gap between domestic politics and the Brexits that are proposed. The fact that one has caught up with the other does not mean that it will be simple for Brexit politics to yield to Brexit's law and political reality. This would require leadership and transparency: two qualities missing in Ms. May's approach to Brexit.

The white paper will be crucial. It must be approved at home and credible for the EU27 – and none can be taken for granted. Already, the resigning ministers and the Conservative backbenchers say that they can not be supported. The EU27 is more conciliatory, but they are waiting to see what the newspaper says and will not be influenced by the three-page summary.

If the white paper fails one or the other of the Westminster or Brussels tests, there will be a major problem. There is little time left for alternatives. And there certainly was no detailed or practical plan from Brexit supporters.

If the white paper pbades the tests, this will only be the beginning of a mature negotiation. Britain should yield to services and freedom of movement. Very quickly, Brexit would be in practice, if not in a pure legal form, indistinguishable from membership in the EU, but without representation or influence. A Brexit of Name Only

It's the prospect now in front of the UK: A Brexit is not worth the time or effort, and does not accommodate the demands of Brexit supporters in the media and politics. The alternatives are not Brexit, a delayed Brexit or no transaction (for which the UK has not made any real preparation). Brexiters are like the dog who has caught the car. Now the dog needs to know what to do next.

David Allen Green, Associate Editor of the Financial Times, is a journalist and practicing lawyer