Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

  1. More spending? The coalition may as well build a bridge to the moon (Guardian)
    David Cameron and Vince Cable are both wrong. Infrastructure isn't the answer and nor is QE – money in pockets is, writes Simon Jenkins.
  2. Pay up for Nato or shut it down (Financial Times)
    Being prepared for new threats requires military capabilities but no one wants to pick up the bill, argues Philip Stephens.
  3. The crumbling Coalition is being torn apart by the post-Budget Public Spending Review (Telegraph)
    Deciding the contents of George Osborne's Budget has been relatively straightforward. How to divide the shrinking budgets is a battle that has taken on Bosnian complexity, says Fraser Nelson.
  4. David Cameron's very own magic money tree (Guardian)
    This speech outlines Cameron's strategic gamble of ploughing on with austerity and using quantitative easing as a palliative, writes Richard Seymour.
  5. Benefit tourists are just political phantoms (Times)
    It’s a myth that lazy foreigners are sponging off our welfare state. Our leaders ought to be straight with us, says Philip Collins.
  6. The man at Number 10 is not for turning (Financial Times)
    If the British government’s plan is working, what would a failing one look like, asks Martin Wolf.
  7. Ministerial rows over cuts show how much weaker Cameron and Osborne have become (Independent)
    The Tories now see the reality of public-spending cuts—and they don't like it, writes Steve Richards.
  8. It’s plain what George Osborne needs to do – so just get on and do it (Telegraph)
    The politics are tricky, but the Budget must confront some hard economic choices, insists Jeremy Warner.
  9. The Market Speaks (New York Times)
    Yes, the Dow Jones industrial average has been setting new records this week, but the message from the markets is actually not a happy one, says Paul Krugman.
  10. MPs reading the news? Pigs (and bats) might fly (Independent)
    There was a curious absence at DEFRA questions, writes Donald MacIntyre.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Here's what Theresa May could say to save the Brexit talks

The best option would be to invent a time machine, but unfortunately that's not on the table. 

One of my favourite types of joke is the logical impossibility: a statement that seems plausible but, on closer examination, is simply impossible and contradictory. “If you break both legs, don’t come running to me” is one. The most famous concerns a hapless tourist popping into a pub to ask for directions to London, or Manchester, or Belfast or wherever. “Well,” the barman replies, “I wouldn’t have started from here.”

That’s the trouble, too, with assessing what the government should do next in its approach to the Brexit talks: I wouldn’t have started from here.

I wouldn’t have started from a transient Leave campaign that offered a series of promises that can’t be reconciled with one another, but that’s the nature of a referendum in which the government isn’t supporting the change proposition. It’s always in the interest of the change proposition to be at best flexible and at worst outright disregarding of the truth.

Britain would be better off if it were leaving the European Union after a vote in which a pro-Brexit government had already had to prepare a white paper and an exit strategy before seeking popular consent. Now the government is tasked with negotiating the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union with a mandate that is contradictory and unclear. (Take immigration. It’s clear that a majority of people who voted to leave want control over Britain’s borders. But it’s also clear that a minority did not and if you take that minority away, there’s no majority for a Leave vote.

Does that then mean that the “democratic” option is a Brexit that prioritises minimising economic harm at the cost of continuing free movement of people? That option might command more support than the 52 per cent that Leave got but it also runs roughshod over the concerns that really drove Britain’s Leave vote.

You wouldn’t, having had a referendum in inauspicious circumstances, have a government that neglected to make a big and genuinely generous offer on the rights of the three million citizens of the European Union currently living in the United Kingdom.

In fact the government would have immediately done all it could to show that it wanted to approach exit in a constructive and co-operative manner. Why? Because the more difficult it looks like the departing nation is going to be, the greater the incentive the remaining nations of the European Union have to insist that you leave via Article 50. Why? Because the Article 50 process is designed to reduce the leverage of the departing state through its strict timetable. Its architect, British diplomat John Kerr, envisaged it being used after an increasingly authoritarian state on the bloc’s eastern periphery found its voting rights suspended and quit “in high dudgeon”.

The strict timeframe also hurts the European Union, as it increases the chances of an unsatisfactory or incomplete deal. The only incentive to use it is if the departing nation is going to behave in a unconstructive way.

Then if you were going to have to exit via the Article 50 process, you’d wait until the elections in France and Germany were over, and restructure Whitehall and the rest of the British state so it was fit to face the challenges of Brexit. And you wouldn’t behave so shabbily towards the heads of the devolved administrations that Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Carwyn Jones of the Welsh Labour Party have not become political allies.

So having neglected to do all of that, it’s hard to say: here’s what Theresa May should say in Florence, short of inventing time travel and starting the whole process again from scratch.

What she could do, though, is show flexibility on the question of British contributions to the European budget after we leave, and present a serious solution to the problem of how you ensure that the rights of three million EU citizens living in Britain have a legal backdrop that can’t simply be unpicked by 325 MPs in the House of Commons, and show some engagement in the question of what happens to the Irish border after Brexit.

There are solutions to all of these problems – but the trouble is that all of them are unacceptable to at least part of the Conservative Party. A reminder that, as far as the trouble with Brexit goes, Theresa May is the name of the monster – not the doctor. 

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.