The Battle of Beecroft ... to be continued?

Tories suspect consultation is a Lib Dem ploy to shelve plans to scrap some employment protection.

Is the government going to press ahead with plans to allow small businesses to "fire at will" or not? It was the most controversial recommendation in the Beecroft review - a Tory-commissioned report into reforms to employment law - and one that was fiercely resisted by the Liberal Democrats. They argued that a measure likely to make people feel insecure in their jobs would dampen confidence and discourage spending, slowing the economy down further. (They also recognised that it might just make the government look mean.) The Tories are generally persuaded that firms are reluctant to hire if they can't then easily sack under-performing staff. Earlier this week Business Secretary Vince Cable announced that a number of measures to loosen employment protection might indeed be implemented.

This has been reported as a humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems.

In fact the story is more complicated. Cable and Ed Davey, his fellow Lib Dem minister in the Business department, have always been quite sympathetic to the "supply side" case for labour market liberalisation. But the Lib Dem leadership thought "no fault dismissal" was going too far. There has been some pretty ferocious briefing against Beecroft's plan, which aides to Nick Clegg have been quietly denouncing as a shoddy piece of work, commissioned as a favour to a Tory donor (venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft) and, politically speaking, a bit nuts. Have they lost this argument in the "quad" - the foursome of top ministers that runs the coalition? On closer inspection, the Beecroft proposals are mostly being put out for wider consultation. Cable has agreed to "look at the evidence". Some Tories are suspicious that this is a Lib Dem ruse to kick Beecroft into the long grass. David Cameron is known to have a short attention span and the suspicion is that, once the Autumn Statement on the economy is out of the way and some other big events have come along to distract the prime minister - as is inevitable - the fire-at-will idea can be quietly shelved. This, some Tories mutter, is a classic Lib Dem tactic in the coalition. They cite as evidence the way Cameron's tough rhetoric after the summer riots was talked down by Lib Dems and eventually came to nothing. Rightwing Tories accuse the Lib Dems of using the endless demands on the PM's time and his tendency not to concentrate on one thing for long to filibuster ideas off Downing Street's agenda. So the Battle of Beecroft goes on.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

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.