Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten best comment pieces from today's papers.

1. Mali needs more than a call to arms (Guardian)

West Africa's al-Qaida clones are neither religious nor political. The world is facing viral mutations of the human psyche, writes Wole Soyinka.

2. Britain in knots over infrastructure (Financial Times)

Big projects need clear plans and honesty about who pays, writes Dieter Helm.

3. Vote ‘no’ and you will blush to remember it (Times)

MPs who opposed civil partnerships are now all for them. The Right will soon embrace same-sex marriage too, writes Matthew Parris.

4. Man made our landscape. He can change it (Times)

Those who bemoan the arrival of HS2 should remember there is nothing primeval left in the British countryside, writes Alan Garner.

5.  The one thing plotters hate more than coalition is the PM (Independent)

Cameron lacks the authority that an outright win in 2010 would have given him, writes Andrew Grice.

6. Can you succeed if you go to a comp? (Times

So much for social mobility: 80 per cent of Britain’s leaders went to an elite school, writes Janice Turner.

7. Hilary Mantel: author in tune with the times (Financial Times)

The novelist brings a modern sensibility to a pivotal point in history, writes Peter Aspden.

8. The Lib Dems abandon a founding father of voting reform (Telegraph)

When Nick Clegg opposed a Bill for fair votes, he cut all political ties to an illustrious predecessor, says Graeme Archer.

9. I don’t envy the Rebecca Adlingtons of sport – they peak too soon (Telegraph)

Never mind jobs for life - athletes barely have their jobs for a quarter of their lives, writes Bryony Gordon.

10.  If the Chinese dragon is so mighty, why is it trembling inside? (Guardian)

 Beijing's alleged hacking of the New York Times is a sign of both the regime's huge power – and its fear of a Chinese spring, writes Jonathan Freedland.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496