ALREADY the Tory government’s EU exit transition deal looks to be unravelling as the strings become visible.

In reality, the agreement amounts to continued membership of the big business, “free” market club for 21 months after Brexit but without having any meaningful say in new EU policies that will be binding on Britain until the end of 2020.

The avowed purpose of a transitional arrangement was to avoid economic relations between Britain and the EU falling off a “cliff edge” the day after Brexit on March 29, 2019, as they moved from one basis to another as yet unknown.

The real reason was to extend EU membership in all but name for as long as possible while the British ruling capitalist class and its Tory Party tried to work out a coherent response to a departure from the EU that they neither wanted nor expected.

This was also the rationale behind Theresa May’s decision to delay submitting Britain’s notice to quit the EU and begin exit negotiations for a full nine months after the referendum vote.

The Prime Minister had to find ways to maintain some semblance of unity within her own divided party and Cabinet and with her DUP coalition partners, while also satisfying the demands of her EU business advisory council.

The pro-EU banks and big corporations have made clear their preference for Britain to remain subjected to EU single market rules and institutions if Brexit cannot be reversed altogether. 

This desire is reflected in the position of many in the Parliamentary Labour Party and by the leaders of the LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party.

For all their protests, they would prefer control over fisheries, agriculture, public procurement, state aid and much else to remain in Brussels rather than be repatriated to London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.

The alternative approach would have been to accept the EU referendum verdict, tender Britain’s Article 50 notice within days or weeks of polling day and begin preparing for negotiations to replace EU membership with bilateral arrangements that would be mutually beneficial while also meeting the aspirations of the majority of voters.

There would have been no need for a transition after rather than before Brexit Day.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn proposed such a perspective only to be pounced upon by his own pro-EU MPs and forced into a diversionary second leadership contest. 

In the meantime, Conservative confusion and prevarication, together with EU intransigence and game-playing, have at times turned the exit negotiations into a stuttering shambles.

That’s why news of Tuesday’s agreement boosted sterling and share prices on City markets. 

However, euphoria is likely to be short-lived. It is already becoming clear that the transition deal does not signal any final agreement on alignment with EU single market rules, the jurisdiction of the pro-business and anti-worker EU Court of Justice, trade across the Irish north-south border, City access to EU financial markets or the future of Britain’s hard-pressed fishing industry.

On all these issues, there is a crying need for Britain’s labour movement to put forward a coherent, integrated position on Britain’s future relations with the EU.

Echoing the views and aspirations of the CBI or Michel Barnier doesn’t cut it. 

We need access to the EU single market rather than submission to it, while regaining the freedoms necessary for a left-led Labour government to implement policies that put public services, public investment and planned and balanced economic development before private profit.