Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. Watchdogs need not bark together (Financial Times)

Joseph Stiglitz says that, given the difficulties in achieving global financial rules, insisting on such co-ordination may be a recipe for paralysis -- just what the anti-regulation bankers want. It can wait.

2. It may take a Tory Tea Party to make Cameron coherent (Guardian)

The Conservatives are uncertain how much support there is for smaller government. Whether they play it safe or raise totems to party gods, they need to deliver a much clearer message on local control, says Simon Jenkins.

3. A presidential leader in No 10? Bring him on (Times)

Daniel Finkelstein argues that strong party leadership and independent-minded MPs just don't mix. The head must be separated from the body.

4. Brown's insurance against defeat (Independent)

Proposals for electoral reform could be a clever insurance policy, according to Andrew Grice, and could considerably brighten Labour's prospects in the event of a hung parliament.

5. We have failed the university challenge (Daily Telegraph)

Liz Hunt says that it should be difficult to get into university -- and it has taken a reckless and costly experiment with British higher education for ministers to consider returning to a system that worked.

6. Rescue Greece and we help ourselves (Independent)

A eurozone member not repaying its debt would have unthinkable consequences for the rest of the region, says Hamish McRae. Greece must be rescued, on credible terms.

7. Faith in the future (Guardian)

The 35-year debate over allowing women to become bishops in the Church of England has become tortuous, says Christina Rees, a member of the General Synod. But she is confident that, one day soon, there will be female bishops.

8. Cherie Blair is the very model of a modern baroness (Times)

Alice Thomson says that we should ignore the inevitable protests about her possible elevation to the peerage: Cherie Blair understands the lot of modern women and would be a great asset to the Lords.

9. Now is not the time for the police to backtrack on race (Guardian)

There will be another Ali Dizaei, says Herman Ouseley, unless the Met leads with changes to ensure that staff and citizens are treated fairly.

10. Two people of no monetary value -- and so aren't worth saving (Independent)

Peter Popham writes on the government, media and public response to the case of Paul and Rachel Chandler, the British couple held hostage in Somalia. He says we are showing deep indifference to a couple who are not young and not famous.


Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.