Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Xi Jinping and Barack Obama: two leaders facing very different crises (Guardian)

China's new leader faces deeper challenges than the US President, writes Timothy Garton Ash. We must hope they are met: it could be a matter of war and peace.

2. A good day for Cameron, but a rout for the Tory right’s vision (Daily Telegraph)

Cameron and Osborne must learn from Mitt Romney’s defeat and rethink Conservative election strategy for 2015, says Peter Oborne.

3. Obama shattered the GOP’s delusions (Financial Times)

Republicans have been evicted from their state of denial, writes Simon Schama.

4. Barack Obama's second term: change he can believe in (Guardian)

The change that Obama heralded before his first term as president may finally be on its way, says a Guardian editorial.

5. Beware a modern Salem over child abuse (Times) (£)

Pursuing witch hunts is as dangerous as ignoring victims, writes David Aaronovitch. Don’t launch inquiries on the back of lurid claims.

6. President has allies to unlock Congress (Financial Times)

Obama and businesses seeking stability can help each other out of a fix, writes John Gapper.

7. The debate about wealth must start with morals (Guardian)

We often end up arguing for equality on the basis of outcomes, rather than principle, writes Zoe Williams. But decent pay is only fair.

8. It’s time for a Republican Party clear-out (Daily Telegraph)

The party's sound economic policies are being drowned out by the strident voices of dubious fringe figures, writes Anne Applebaum.

9. Obama's victory is a triumph for science over superstition (Independent)

Karl Rove, and the delusional wing of the Republican party, will be forced still deeper into their reality-defying bunker, writes Matthew Norman.

10. New dawn? This looks more like a new dusk (Daily Mail)

The second Obama term will increase the deficit, further diminishing America’s economic power and credibility, says Simon Heffer.

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