Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. Swine flu was as elusive as WMDs. The real threat is mad scientist syndrome (Guardian)

"Remember the warnings of 65,000 dead?" asks Simon Jenkins. Health chiefs should admit they were wrong -- yet again -- about a global pandemic.

2. John Denham's right: It's class, not race, that determines Britain's have-nots (Daily Telegraph)

White working-class anger has become a force that no politician can ignore, says Andrew Gilligan. To tackle it, we must talk about it.

3. Race to the bottom (Times)

The Times leading article agrees that John Denham was right to say that class matters more for life chances than racial origin. But his statement is a shocking indictment of a failure to enable social mobility.

4. Cameronomics have been tried in Ireland -- and the result? (Independent)

Johann Hari looks at the collapse of the Irish model of low tax and almost total deregulation. Following suit by slashing spending would be a disaster, but Labour has not argued the case for Keynsian economics.

5. Liberty and mendacity (Guardian)

The Tories pledge to replace the Human Rights Act. Their position just doesn't add up, says Charles Falconer QC, and it puts Britain's reputation at risk.

6. Chilcot inquiry unlikely to find the smoking gun that does for Blair (Daily Telegraph)

Former officials' outbursts -- speculative, rather than factual -- have brought us no nearer to knowing the truth about the invasion of Iraq, says Con Coughlin.

7. An Islamic girls' school top of the tables? (Times)

The secret of success is the same for all faith schools, says Jack Straw, following the league table success of the Tauheedul Islam school in his Blackburn constituency.

8. Here's one way to reconnect voters (Independent)

Andreas Whittam Smith attends a "deliberative poll", a subversive form of political marketing that yields surprising results.

9. The Haiti quake must not be dismissed as an "act of God" (Guardian)

Brian Tucker argues that this catastrophe was foreseeable, and suggests that we spend one-tenth of the disaster fund on preparing for future earthquakes.

10. The irresistible rise of the aid industry (Times)

Meanwhile, at the Times, Ross Clark worries about the millions who will give money to victims of the earthquake. Will their cash get to the right place?

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Michel Barnier is Britain's best friend, but the Brexiteers are too shallow to notice

The right's obsession with humilating a man who should be a great British asset is part of why negotiations are in a mess. 

Sam Coates of the Times has the inside track on what Theresa May is planning to say in her big speech in Florence tomorrow: a direct appeal to the leaders of the European Union’s member states over the head of Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator.

I explained some of the problems with this approach in my morning briefing earlier today, but just to reiterate: the major difficulty is that Barnier’s mandate as a negotiator hasn’t emerged fully formed from the mind of some scheming bureaucrat in the European Commissio, but after discussion and agreement by the heads of member states. There are problems with the EU approach to sequencing talks, but the chances of changing it by appealing to the people who set it in the first place seems unlikely, to put it mildly.  

Barnier seems to occupy a strange position in the demonology of right-wing Brexiteers, I suspect largely due to ignorance about how the EU works, and in some cases Francophobia. The reality is that Barnier is the single politician outside of the United Kingdom with the most to lose from a bad Brexit deal.

If the Brexit talks end badly, then that will be the first line of Barnier’s obituary. Back in his native France, the centre-right is in opposition and none of the candidates vying to lead the Republicans are are going to give him a big domestic job to save his reputation.

His dream of parlaying a successful turn as the EU27’s chief negotiator into running the Commission relies not only on the talks succeeding, but him cultivating a good relationship with the heads of government across the EU27. In other words: for Barnier to get what he wants, he needs both to secure a good deal and to keep to the objectives set for him by the heads of member states. A good deal for all sides is a great deal for Barnier. 

As a result, the Brexit elite ought to see Barnier as what he really is: their best friend on the other side of the table. Instead, they are indulging in fantasies about tricking Barnier, undermining Barnier, and overcoming Barnier. In short, once again, they are bungling Brexit because they don’t want to think about it or approach it seriously. 

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.