Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers

1. Argentina's oil grab is timely retort to rampaging capitalism (Observer)

Cristina Fernández's actions, however clumsy, are part of a worldwide reaction to exploitation by business and the rich, writes Will Hutton

2. The cool Mrs Theresa May is acting like a hothead (Sunday Telegraph)

Peter Oborne writes that Theresa May has not displayed "the cool, calm deliberation one would expect from a Home Secretary"

3. The midterm elections are now crucial thanks to omnishambles (Observer)

The outcome of these contests will make a huge difference to the morale and momentum of the rival parties, writes Andrew Rawnsley

4. Ask politicians about FGM, and lo, they are against it (Independent on Sunday)

Joan Smith writes on the disconnect between words and actions on FGM.

5. Abolishing the Lords would be political vandalism (Observer)

Nadhim Zahawi argues that an elected Lords would fatally injure the Commons

6. We're British, which means Abu Qatada should stay (Independent on Sunday)

John Rentoul writes that respect for "innocent until proven guilty" should extent to Qatada, or it doesn't really exist at all.

7. Forget Ukip, David Cameron and explain what the Government is up to (Sunday Telegraph)

Matthew D'Ancona has some advice for the PM in the lead up to the local elections.

8. Breivik is right — he is not getting true justice (Sunday Times)

Dominic Lawson argues that far from being a sign of the superiority of the Norwegian legal system, the lenience extended to Breivik is deeply flawed.

9. On extracting gas from rock, or putting it in there, the greens are equally confused (Sunday Telegraph)

Christopher Booker doesn't much like low-carbon technologies.

10. Fracking is a highly explosive issue (Independent on Sunday)

DJ Taylor argues that fracking just postpones the inevitable: fossil fuels will run out someday.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496