Clegg slaps down Cable on borrowing

Deputy PM comes to Cameron's aid and warns that borrowing for growth would risk a spike in interest rates.

Downing Street has responded to Vince Cable's dramatic intervention in the New Statesman by seeking to paint the Business Secretary as a lone maverick and Nick Clegg has just come to their aid. On his phone-in show on LBC this morning, the Deputy PM said of Cable's call for the government to borrow for growth: 

If you do decide to say: 'to hell with it, let's borrow £40bn – £20bn' –huge amounts of money – because there is no point doing it unless you do it on a big scale – there are risks of course, and I know Vince acknowledges it, you unwittingly make it more difficult for everyone else because interest rates might then go up.

He added: "The question is not whether capital investment is a good thing – everyone in the coalition agrees that – but how do you pay for it? This is where the balance of judgment is; you need to balance the risk."

While Cable argues that the risks of borrowing to invest are now outweighed by the risks of not doing so, Clegg has stuck firmly to the Cameron-Osborne line that deficit-financed stimulus would cause a spike in interest rates. 

Clegg's intervention is helpful for Labour as well as the Tories. Team Balls responded to Cable's essay by similarly portraying the Business Secretary as an isolated figure. "His words today read like they have been written by a Secretary of State who despite being in office, is not in power," said shadow financial secretary Chris Leslie. Clegg's rebuke to Cable means Balls and Miliband can continue to argue that only Labour is offering a genuine plan B. 

Nick Clegg speaks at last year's Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496