Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here (Independent)

Robert Fisk discusses the situation in Syria: Look east and what does Bashar see? Iran standing with him and Iraq refusing to impose sanctions.

2. Syria between two massacres: Hama's memory endures (Guardian)

As Syrians find their voice to mark the 1982 massacre, says Wadah Khanfar, their resolve to overthrow this brutal regime is clear.

3. Great expectations? No. Hard times? Yes. Enter Miliband Snr (Daily Telegraph)

The former foreign secretary's blueprint to help a lost generation must be taken seriously, says Mary Riddell.

4. Is Lansley the exception to the no-sacking policy? (Times) (£)

The botched NHS reforms could destroy the Tories at the next election. What they need is a new health secretary, says Rachel Sylvester.

5. The way to cut bonuses: scrap public subsidies for banks (Financial Times)

The public interest in bankers' bonuses lies in the fact that taxpayers underwrite them, says Philip Stephens.

6. The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left (Guardian)

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim, says George Monbiot. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object.

7. All is revealed in Gingrich's fantasy fiction (Times) (£)

The Republican contender is a novelist -- who knew? But, Ben Macintyre explains, his stories are less 'what if' history than 'so what' history.

8. The ice is cracking under Putin (Financial Times)

While nobody is talking of a Moscow spring, there is a definite thaw, says Gideon Rachman.

9. If India doesn't want it, why are we still giving them money? (Independent)

David Cameron's decision to maintain our overseas aid budget was intensely political, says Dominic Lawson.

10. Derailing Bonuses (Times) (£)

Network Rail executives have bowed to public pressure over bonuses. This highlights the need to sort out its status, says this leading article.

Getty
Show Hide image

The SNP thinks it knows how to kill hard Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled MPs must have a say in triggering Article 50. But the opposition must unite to succeed. 

For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, the crowd in the Supreme Court listened as the verdict was read out. Parliament must have the right to authorise the triggering of Article 50. The devolved nations would not get a veto. 

There was a moment of silence. And then the opponents of hard Brexit hit the phones. 

For the Scottish government, the pro-Remain members of the Welsh Assembly and Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, the victory was bittersweet. 

The ruling prompted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to ask: “Is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

Ever the pragmatist, though, Sturgeon has simultaneously released her Westminster attack dogs. 

Within minutes of the ruling, the SNP had vowed to put forward 50 amendments (see what they did there) to UK government legislation before Article 50 is enacted. 

This includes the demand for a Brexit white paper – shared by MPs from all parties – to a clause designed to prevent the UK reverting to World Trade Organisation rules if a deal is not agreed. 

But with Labour planning to approve the triggering of Article 50, can the SNP cause havoc with the government’s plans, or will it simply be a chorus of disapproval in the rest of Parliament’s ear?

The SNP can expect some support. Individual SNP MPs have already successfully worked with Labour MPs on issues such as benefit cuts. Pro-Remain Labour backbenchers opposed to Article 50 will not rule out “holding hands with the devil to cross the bridge”, as one insider put it. The sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, will consider backing SNP amendments she agrees with as well as tabling her own. 

But meanwhile, other opposition parties are seeking their own amendments. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour will seek amendments to stop the Conservatives turning the UK “into a bargain basement tax haven” and is demanding tariff-free access to the EU. 

Separately, the Liberal Democrats are seeking three main amendments – single market membership, rights for EU nationals and a referendum on the deal, which is a “red line”.

Meanwhile, pro-Remain Tory backbenchers are watching their leadership closely to decide how far to stray from the party line. 

But if the Article 50 ruling has woken Parliament up, the initial reaction has been chaotic rather than collaborative. Despite the Lib Dems’ position as the most UK-wide anti-Brexit voice, neither the SNP nor Labour managed to co-ordinate with them. 

Indeed, the Lib Dems look set to vote against Labour’s tariff-free amendment on the grounds it is not good enough, while expecting Labour to vote against their demand of membership of the single market. 

The question for all opposition parties is whether they can find enough amendments to agree on to force the government onto the defensive. Otherwise, this defeat for the government is hardly a defeat at all. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.