Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. We don't need secret courts to protect our US relations (Guardian)

The claim that America's intelligence agencies won't share material if our justice remains open is bogus, says David Davis.

2. Britain suffers delusions of weakness not grandeur (Financial Times)

Nowhere is the UK’s imagined irrelevance less true than in the European Union, writes Janan Ganesh.

3. The fight for the centre ground between Clegg and Cameron makes the coalition fragile (Independent)

The Deputy Prime Minister has created tensions that may be his undoing, writes Steve Richards.

4. Today’s challenges go beyond Keynes (Financial Times)

A different kind of growth path is required, says Jeffrey Sachs.

5. In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats (Guardian)

Barack Obama's tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones, says George Monbiot.

 

6. Let us concentrate on real human rights (Daily Telegraph)

The European Court has drifted too far from its principles – and we want to put that right, says Chris Grayling.

 

7. The Leveson report is a charter for control freaks in policing (Guardian)

Lord Justice Leveson's proposals would silence whistleblowers and make the police even more secretive and less accountable, argues Vikram Dodd.

8. Can our leaders find their inner Hercules? (Times) (£)

Obama already embodies a narrative, but Cameron, Miliband and Clegg must find one to explain their actions, writes Rachel Sylvester.

9. Shadow of fear over public's right to know (Daily Mail)

The message sent out by the arrest of a police officer is that the public ought to have been kept in ignorance of Andrew Mitchell’s tirade, says a Daily Mail editorial.

10. A not-so-new dawn in Japan (Independent)

The patriotism that Abe is keen to nurture can easily develop into a dangerous nationalism, says an Independent leader.

Getty
Show Hide image

The SNP thinks it knows how to kill hard Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled MPs must have a say in triggering Article 50. But the opposition must unite to succeed. 

For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, the crowd in the Supreme Court listened as the verdict was read out. Parliament must have the right to authorise the triggering of Article 50. The devolved nations would not get a veto. 

There was a moment of silence. And then the opponents of hard Brexit hit the phones. 

For the Scottish government, the pro-Remain members of the Welsh Assembly and Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, the victory was bittersweet. 

The ruling prompted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to ask: “Is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

Ever the pragmatist, though, Sturgeon has simultaneously released her Westminster attack dogs. 

Within minutes of the ruling, the SNP had vowed to put forward 50 amendments (see what they did there) to UK government legislation before Article 50 is enacted. 

This includes the demand for a Brexit white paper – shared by MPs from all parties – to a clause designed to prevent the UK reverting to World Trade Organisation rules if a deal is not agreed. 

But with Labour planning to approve the triggering of Article 50, can the SNP cause havoc with the government’s plans, or will it simply be a chorus of disapproval in the rest of Parliament’s ear?

The SNP can expect some support. Individual SNP MPs have already successfully worked with Labour MPs on issues such as benefit cuts. Pro-Remain Labour backbenchers opposed to Article 50 will not rule out “holding hands with the devil to cross the bridge”, as one insider put it. The sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, will consider backing SNP amendments she agrees with as well as tabling her own. 

But meanwhile, other opposition parties are seeking their own amendments. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour will seek amendments to stop the Conservatives turning the UK “into a bargain basement tax haven” and is demanding tariff-free access to the EU. 

Separately, the Liberal Democrats are seeking three main amendments – single market membership, rights for EU nationals and a referendum on the deal, which is a “red line”.

Meanwhile, pro-Remain Tory backbenchers are watching their leadership closely to decide how far to stray from the party line. 

But if the Article 50 ruling has woken Parliament up, the initial reaction has been chaotic rather than collaborative. Despite the Lib Dems’ position as the most UK-wide anti-Brexit voice, neither the SNP nor Labour managed to co-ordinate with them. 

Indeed, the Lib Dems look set to vote against Labour’s tariff-free amendment on the grounds it is not good enough, while expecting Labour to vote against their demand of membership of the single market. 

The question for all opposition parties is whether they can find enough amendments to agree on to force the government onto the defensive. Otherwise, this defeat for the government is hardly a defeat at all. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.