Morning call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from the Sunday papers

1. Cameron tells us Britain is broken -- but not how to fix it (Observer)

After the horror of the Edlington case, says the Observer editorial, we must search our society for explanations. But there is a gap in Conservative social policy between the big "broken Britain" rhetoric and the little ideas.

2. Sending signals is not enough (Independent on Sunday)

John Rentoul points out that back in 1993 Tony Blair used rhetoric similar to Cameron's. But the Conservative leader's flailing semaphore doesn't address the complexities of "our broken society".

3. This social work by computer system is protecting no one (Sunday Times)

Hundreds of thousands of children are growing up in disorder and neglect, says Jenni Russell, and our system is prepared to deal with only a fraction of them. We must provide early intervention, or intensive support.

4. Marriage just wasn't a choice for my mother (Observer)

The Conservative MP David Davis defends Tory reticence on defining a marriage policy, arguing that it is a complex area. He illustrates this with personal experience, saying he favours marriage, but we must not forget those who are divorced, widowed or abandoned.

5. Apple's Tablet: a gizmo to save the world (Sunday Telegraph)

William Langley looks ahead to the launch of Apple's latest device, the iTablet, and thinks it could rescue our society from electronic servitude.

6. We were too slow in Haiti, and need to know why (Independent on Sunday)

Frank Judd says that wiith disasters likely to become more common, we need beefed-up international bodies that reflect the global public's desire to help.

7. After the Massachusetts Massacre (New York Times)

Neither in action nor in message is Barack Obama in front of the anger roiling the country over a dysfunctional economy and corrupt business culture, says Frank Rich. He must exercise take-no-prisoners leadership to stay in the White House.

8. Barack Obama's banking plan could split the west (Sunday Times)

Picking up the same theme, the Times leading article says that governments collectively can prevent banks from playing the system. Divided, they will end up achieving little.

9. Stop playing politics with our rights and freedoms. They're too valuable (Observer)

The Human Rights Act was used as a fig leaf for attacks on our civil liberties, says Henry Porter. What we need now is a great repeal bill which restores all that Labour has taken from us.

10. David Cameron's dream could end up a nightmare (News of the World)

Fraser Nelson discusses the possibility of a hung parliament, warning that the Tory leader could end up at the mercy of party rebels if he is elected without a large majority.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.