In the heat of victory, it’s easy to forget the losers. The four per cent margin of victory secured by the Leave campaign in 2016 was impressive, but it also resulted in a nation helplessly, bitterly and dangerously divided. The same happened to Scotland in 2014, even though the margin of victory for the Unionists – ten per cent – was significantly greater. Nevertheless, in recognition of the fact that the nationalist cause came within six per cent of victory, the victors agreed that significant new powers should be devolved to Scotland, while maintaining its place in the Union.

Perhaps it’s now time for Leavers to show some similar magnanimity.

The former minister Nick Boles is creating something of a stir in Westminster and beyond by pushing an option for Brexit that may well have the support of MPs, not just from across the political spectrum, but from across the breadth of pro-and anti-Brexit MPs.

The “Norway for Now” proposal does exactly what it says on the tin: it allows for Britain to emulate the relationship that the countries of the European Free Trade association (Efta) – Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland – have with the EU’s single market. Those four countries are part of the single market, but not the customs union. They are therefore free (to a degree) to negotiate their own separate free trade agreements with other countries while having unfettered access to the single market.

Boles, alongside such disparate characters as Frank Field (formerly Labour) and Conservative Nicky Morgan, believe that the Norway option could replace the anticipated transition arrangements that would follow Britain’s departure from the EU next March.

View more!

The problem with the Norway option (which is the one I personally supported during the campaign) was that although it allowed us to be outside the customs union, as well as the Common Agriculture and Fisheries polices, it is tied us to membership of the single market and, therefore, to freedom of movement. Given the priority that voters placed on ending the preferential treatment given to EU citizens over the citizens of the rest of the world to live and settle in the UK, this is a major stumbling block to “Norway for Now”.

However, with a little political courage and a determination, it would be possible to live with single market membership provided the kind of immigration rules that are employed, for example, by Belgium, are put in place. In other words, workers moving to the UK would have to register their arrival – a sensible and good reform anyway – and would have to leave, or be removed by force, if, after three months, they failed to find a job. This would require the government to face down those who make a very large noise on Twitter about the moral righteousness of anyone from anywhere in the word being able to live wherever they like (although in the current debate, what they really mean are white people from largely Christian countries).

That is probably a concession that many Remainers would be able to make in return for a continuation of Britain’s single market membership. The challenge facing Boles is that, in an article today, he repeatedly refers to “continuity in our customs arrangements”. There are two slightly problematic elements here: the first is that Norway is in fact outside the EU customs union, which is why it is able to conclude its own free trade deals. Being inside the customs union (or “a” customs union with the EU) would prevent such a prize being seized.

Secondly, the existing members of Efta are all part of the Schengen area. In other words, EU citizens have the right to cross their borders without passport checks. Both the UK and the Republic of Ireland secured opt-outs from Schengen when it was introduced. One of the warnings given by Remainers is that if the UK ever wanted to rejoin the EU at some future point, it would almost certainly have to waive its Schengen opt-out (as well as its euro opt-out).

Schengen is not a serious option, politically, for the UK. No doubt, Boles has already considered this and has a ripping wheeze whereby Britain can join Efta without accepting Schengen and maintaining “continuity” in our customs arrangements that the other Efta nations do not have.

The Norway option is an attractive option, either for a short-term transition or indeed for the long term. It would be absolutely opposed by hard leavers who believe that any majority is a majority, and that the 52 per cent who voted Leave in 2016 should have the full, final and irrevocable say. But four per cent is not a hefty margin of victory, and it behoves the victors to show some magnanimity. Accepting the Norway option would do that; it would show Remainers that their views are still important and would give leavers most, if nowhere near all, of what they want.

That should be enough for a country as divided as ours.