This was the weekend that the Brexit dream died

Here was a chance for change of a magnitude that Eurosceptics of a previous era could not have imagined: to reboot the nation, to introduce deep reforms to our political structures, to rediscover our legal independence, to reorient our economy and geopolitical strategy away from a decaying Europe, to find a new role for ourselves and, after a few inevitable bumpy years, to become a richer, freer country. With laser-sharp focus, a strong leader who believed in the project, and a Reagan-like figure who could describe the shining future that awaited us while gripping the complex legal details, the government could have forced the EU to accept the new reality and come to a mutually-acceptable new settlement. Brexit’s “losers” could have been compensated with huge tax cuts or help of other kinds, smoothing our way out. The opportunities felt immense and exciting.

Fast forward to this weekend and the dream has been dashed. We are still technically leaving, more or less, but there will be no revolution, no new deal between elites and voters, no great reset. Millions of people have indeed been betrayed, let down by a political class that had promised to implement the referendum in its true spirit: it is now clear that we are en route for associate membership of the EU, a looser, renegotiated arrangement rather than a real break. It is the sort of deal that, in his dreams, David Cameron might have obtained to stop us from leaving, had the Germans been amenable; it will be the most limited of all possible Brexits. The Government’s customs plan offers some weakening of ties, some new freedoms. But this is an opening bid by the UK, so more concessions are likely to come (especially given the Government’s record for giving the EU largely what it wants).

The blame doesn’t lie with the steadfast British voters (polls show they haven’t changed their minds) or with the British economy, which has performed tolerably despite incompetent political leadership and the resultant injection of extreme, unnecessary uncertainty. No, the errors are political. First, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove bungled the Conservative leadership election. Then Theresa May, doubtless taking over the job with the best will in the world, allowed the establishment to seize control of the process, starting even before the disastrous general election. Then she conceded the EU’s view of the Irish question, a fatal move which has led almost inevitably to the current acceptance that we can no longer really leave, and must put up with a phantom version of the Brexit we voted for.

Some, even lots of, compromise would have been fine. But Mrs May committed a strategic error by drawing red lines only to blur and outright cross them again and again, and by refusing to leverage our real economic and military strengths to negotiate properly. The plan clearly guarantees a large role for European courts. The plan promises a “mobility framework” on immigration that could mean, well, just about anything.

Out of the Single Market and the customs union? Technically, yes, but what good is that if we are bound to harmonisation of rules, with the threat of being denied access to the European market if we attempt to go our own way? A truly independent international trade policy, providing greater access to new, growing markets, may now no longer be possible. Every attempt at reasonable divergence and necessary reform will play out like another EU referendum, with an overwhelming bias towards no change from the status quo.

Remember that British Euroscepticism began life as a revolt against petty regulations and controls – and all of those rules governing light bulbs and vacuum cleaners and working hours, however small they might have seemed, were indicative of the EU’s bureaucratic, integrating agenda. How ridiculous then that Britain should leave the EU only to voluntarily tie itself to those same rules. Even worse, we are willingly giving up the right to push through radical free-market or pro-competition reforms by sticking to the EU’s social policies. How can we, as the world’s sixth largest economy, and a major market for the EU, be willing to hobble ourselves in such a way? We won’t be able to have our own competition policy, or energy policy, and we will remain part of a myriad of bodies and schemes. And why this obsession with access for manufactured goods, rather than for the dominant services sector? Why not trade one for the other: after all, that is what any sensible negotiator would have done.

Last Friday felt like a political coup by the establishment, and an abject surrender by the Brexiteers in Cabinet, along with their colleagues who say that they now accept Brexit. By signing up to this plan, they – tragically – become part-responsible for it. How will backbench MPs react? What will Leave voters think? And how much more will the EU now ask for?