Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Lost illusions on Europe (Financial Times)

Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum, says an FT editorial.

2. Nothing in British politics is harder than welfare reform. The dogfight over it is a distraction (Independent)

The goal of delivering a fair, affordable welfare seems as distant as ever, writes Steve Richards.

3. How to follow the public money in a privatised NHS (Guardian)

Without basic financial transparency from public service contractors we can say goodbye to democratic accountability, writes Zoe Williams.

4. Losing one Lord a-leaping is unfortunate. Losing three at once should make Mr Cameron very worried indeed (Daily Mail)

The chances of the coalition fracturing completely are now perhaps higher than ever, says Simon Heffer.

5. Welfare cuts may bite the UK government (Financial Times)

When incomes rise and the Treasury refuses to raise social security, everyone will complain, says Chris Giles.

6. Europe’s dogmatic ruling class remains wedded to its folly (Daily Telegraph)

Proclamations of the euro’s salvation owe more to ideology than to the facts, says Peter Oborne.

7. Is the millennium’s biggest ego trip over? (Times) (£)

The left fête him as an anti-capitalist, anti-American saviour, but Hugo Chávez is just a strutting narcissist, says David Aaronovitch.

8. Don't dismiss privatised classes (Independent)

In education as in probation, public services must be about practicality not ideology, says an Independent editorial.

9. Tinker, tailor, soldier... and a central banker (Daily Telegraph)

The Treasury’s cloak-and-dagger interviews are hardly an advert for open government, writes Sue Cameron.

10. US energy: state of (semi-) independence (Guardian)

The relationships that America has with the rest of the world are bound to change both in scale and in intensity, says a Guardian editorial.

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