Research

Rees-Mogg asked Steve Baker to “confirm that he heard from Charles Grant of the pro-EU Centre for European Reform that officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union are bad, and that officials intend to use the model to influence policy?” Baker agreed with Rees-Mogg, although their effort to renew their attack on Treasury officials backfired when a recording emerged to show that supposed source Grant had not said the Treasury had developed such a model, instead making the more basic claim that the Treasury was determined to stay in the customs union.

John Springford, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, warned Britain may not have a clean break from the EU. He claimed Britain could remain stuck to the customs union after Brexit, despite Downing Street insisting Britain will "categorically" leave the customs union. Speaking on Channel 4 News, Mr Springford said: “I think it is very likely that Britain will remain in the customs union for longer than the two years of transition, which everybody is talking about.”

Mrs May told reporters last week that the transition deal would be “a period of practical implementation” and denied reports that Mr Robbins had told EU negotiators that Britain wanted it to stretch for three years. “We are not talking about something that goes on and on,” she said. But veteran Europe watchers note that in Brussels, temporary arrangements tend to last longer than first anticipated. “I think three to five years,” says Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform.

Sam Lowe, a trade expert at the Centre for European Reform, said that Mrs May’s call for British rules to stay “substantially” similar to those of the EU made a US deal harder. “Theresa May’s speech suggests that a US-UK deal is not a priority for her. She wants to stay closely aligned with the EU and it will be for future parliaments to diverge.”

In the Commons this week, Jacob Rees-Mogg, famously the gentleman, slandered a studious and respected think-tanker and some identifiable Treasury officials. He did this by repeating a piece of hearsay, echoing it back to the colleague he’d heard it from, so that parliament and the public could hear it too. Mr Rees-Mogg’s question showed signs of careful preparation and there will be speculation that the pair (the colleague was a minister) had colluded in this exchange. Perhaps. The involuntary wince on the face of the Brexit secretary David Davis spoke volumes. The story was entirely false. The House has now heard an apology from Rees-Mogg’s ministerial colleague. But from Gentleman Jake? From the man who published the story? Only slippery evasion.

Rees-Mogg stood by his claim that in drawing up its Brexit plans, the Treasury was trying to influence the argument. He also said that Charles Grant, head of the Centre for European Reform, had been given improper briefings. “He is getting private briefings from the Treasury against government policy,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today. “This is very serious. It is not for officials to invent policy. With the referendum and with the EU, the Treasury has gone back to making forecasts. It was politically advantageous in the past. It is the same for them now. I do think they are fiddling the figures.”Grant said it was perfectly normal for officials to talk to think-tanks. “The Treasury cares about economics so it is naturally pushing for the sorts of Brexit that minimise the economic damage,” he said.

Rees-Mogg suggested officials working in the UK Treasury were seeking to keep the country in the EU customs union, and asked Brexit Minister Steve Baker on Thursday to confirm the allegation based on an off-the-record conversation with think tanker Charles Grant, who heads the Centre for European Reform. Baker on Friday apologized to MPs for saying Rees-Mogg’s account of the remarks was “essentially correct.” Speaking to BBC on Saturday, Rees-Mogg stood by his original claim, saying: “With the referendum and with the EU the Treasury has gone back to making forecasts. It was politically advantageous for them in the past. It is the same now … So yes, I do think they are fiddling the figures.”