The mess of Brexit should be blamed on Brexit itself – along with the politicians who oversold it

No one can be at fault for failing to reconcile the irreconcilable, but if Brexit does turn out to be as unsatisfactory as many expect, then scapegoats will inevitably be found

It must rank as something of a record. Brexit is still some 235 days away, but already the blame game for its failure has begun. The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, coupled his estimation that a no-deal Brexit is now a 60 per cent chance, with the claim that that is because of “intransigence” on the part of Brussels.

For its part, the European Commission says it has been working “day and night, 24/7, for a deal”. Not so long ago we heard Boris Johnson, implicitly, blame the prime minister’s indecision for the mess. The prime minister, no less tacitly, indicated her frustration with David Davis and the Brexit department by bringing the talks and most of the staff under her personal control. Some thought Mr Davis lacked application; he felt marginalised.

Others prefer to point to pesky Remoaners who have undermined the British negotiating position. Closely allied to them, in the demonology, are various components of the “liberal” or “metropolitan” elite, often talked of as treasonous or in terms of betrayal: the House of Lords, the Supreme Court, the supposedly Svengali figure of Olly Robbins, the PM’s Europe adviser, the Conservative rebels and, indeed, Labour rebels.

Few it seems, are prepared to lay the blame for the mess of the Brexit negotiations on Brexit itself, and the sovereign British people who voted for it in the referendum. Moreover, having voted for Brexit, they then voted in effect against a hard Brexit in the snap election called by the prime minister a little over a year ago: the worst of all worlds, you might say.

More appositely, nor, even now, with the weight of two years’ experience behind us, do many people on the other side of the divide make sufficient allowance for the fact that Brexit contains certain logical certainties that cannot be undone by even the most brilliant, cunning and persuasive of negotiators. If the EU Commission is “intransigent”, then it is simply telling the UK that it cannot have its cake and eat it. That is not “intransigence” except in the sense that a schoolteacher tells a dim child that two and two only ever make four, and refuses to compromise on the point.

Thus, the UK cannot be both a member of the customs union and outside it. The prime minister’s facilitated customs arrangement attempts, very cleverly, to square that circle – but the technology to operate it hasn’t anywhere been discovered. That the commission is “intransigent” in pointing this out seems odd. Moreover, the commission insist that the taxes owed to the EU are collected by the EU and not a third party. Again, that seems a reasonable request.

There are other logical puzzles in Brexit that cannot be wished away on any legally sound, sustainable basis, simply by forms of words, good faith and lashings of goodwill. The British government, and Theresa May in particular, feel a sincere and special obligation to resolve the Irish border question. So does Michel Barnier, on behalf of the EU27, including Ireland. So do all the parties in Ireland and Northern Ireland. No one wants to have the return of physical infrastructure. All recognise the political dangers and the cost to Irish trade. Of course.

And yet, with all of that momentum behind it, and some of the cleverest people in Europe focusing their vast brain power upon it, no one has yet found the answer to the conundrum. That, again, is not anyone’s “fault”, to which blame may be attached. It is simply inherent in the nature of the exercise.

At least Mr Johnson, we have learned from leaks, is frank enough to admit the inconsistency of the two positions. The EU Commission’s backstop idea, the “economic border” down the Irish Sea that sees Northern Ireland remain in the single market and customs union, is perfectly logical, just as the prime minister’s statement that no British leader could accept it is also a perfectly apparent statement of political reality.

None of that, though, is an answer, and no one can be blamed for failing to reconcile the irreconcilable. Nor, in all fairness, can the British negotiators be expected to achieve much against an economic power 10 times their size. Donald Trump and Jean-Claude Juncker can settle a minor trade war in a matter of days to some mutual satisfaction because they are both huge trading powers.

The UK and the EU27 are far beyond such an even balance of power; the British need the EU, broadly, more than the EU needs Britain. That is not to say the UK has no negotiating cards: the financial contribution and defence are areas where the British have a little muscle. Overall, though, it’s has always been apparent that, rightly or wrongly, the integrity of the single market means more to the EU’s politicians and industrialists than queues at Calais.

Where is this leading?

If Brexit does turn out to be as unsatisfactory as many expect, then scapegoats will be need to be found. For the Brexiteers, a “stab in the back” myth will arise. Mr Johnson has already penned the first few sentence of the tale. A “fog of doubt” has allowed the “dream” of Brexit with all its immense promise to die.

Ukip and Nigel Farage supply the next lines – the Brexit dream was killed by a Remain conspiracy, by a prime minister who was a “secret” Remainer all along, allied to her colleagues such as Philip Hammond and Greg Clark, who made little secret of their contempt for the exercise. In this they were, so the story will run, abetted by some vast conspiracy of the BBC, courts, academics, big business, the Bank of England, Gary Lineker, Sir John Major and others who, it is darkly hinted, have “an agenda”.

This, we are invited to assume, is because they are unpatriotic, do not “believe in the British people”, do not care about those outside their “elite”, wish the UK to be run as a “vassal state” and generally “hate Britain”. From there it is but a sort step to treachery and treason. The underlying reason for this apparent “betrayal” is never explicit. The option that Remainers might simply have a different notion of the national interest is dismissed.

Enoch Powell, who has been much studied of late, said in his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech: “Those the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” This, the British are now engaged upon, enraging themselves with the great myth of Brexit betrayal. To borrow Mr Johnson’s phrase in his resignation speech, it is not too late to save our sanity.

With decades of mutual national recrimination awaiting the British, it is imperative for them to have the final say, to acquit themselves and for them to take the next step in their story with eyes open after a fair and well-informed debate about knowable outcomes. Then the myth of Brexit blame may be laid to rest.