Morning Call: pick of the papers

Ten must-read pieces from this mornings papers.

1. Leveson report: This could spark a new Lib-Lab alliance (Sunday Telegraph)

Matthew D'Ancona sees a new strategic landscape emerging in different party leaders' responses to the idea legislation for press regulation.

2. Cameron discovers a principle as he fights for a free press (Independent on Sunday)

It was a mistake to launch an inquiry in the first place, says John Rentoul, but at least the Prime Minister looks like he believes in something now.

3. George revs up for a fuel duty freeze (Mail on Sunday)

James Forsyth is well briefed ahead of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement next week.

4. With politicians in deadlock, the ball bounces back to the press (Observer)

Andrew Rawnsley probes coalition divisions over Leveson and notes that the public are not minded to cut journalists much slack.

5. Only a free press is democratic (Independent on Sunday)

Leading article rejects state regulation, offers to get last round in last chance saloon.

6. The press must respond in a robust and reasoned manner (Observer)

Leading article takes issue with some of the detail of the Leveson report, recognises the thrust but stops short of accepting the need for legislation. 

7. America's carbon tax offers a lesson to the rest of the planet (Observer)

Henry Porter notes encouraging signs that even conservatives in the US are waking up to the threat of climate change.

8. Ukip may yet gatecrash this private party (Sunday Telegraph)

Nigel Farage's party will storm the cosy corridors of power, says Janet Daley, who, readers might recall, confidently predicted Mitt Romney would win the US election in similar terms.

9. Here endeth the PM's second lesson (Sunday Times)

Martin Ivens cannot resist joining the chorus of columnists celebrating Cameron's decision to oppose statutory press regulation.

10. We have travelled back to 1942. 70 years ago we had soup kitchens, now we have food banks. (Sunday Mirror)

Tristram Hunt marks the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report.

  

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.