Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. So you think you know why Blair went to war? (Independent)

Being seen as Bush’s poodle was much safer than being accused of anti-Americanism, writes Steve Richards.

2. Ed Miliband needs to strike home on the mansion tax (Daily Mirror)

The red dividing lines of the 2015 general election are being drawn and the Tories are positioning themselves as defenders of privilege, says Kevin Maguire.

3. Disarmed Europe will face the world alone (Financial Times)

One day Europeans may find that the US military is not there to deal with threats lapping at their frontiers, writes Gideon Rachman.

4. How to turn a housing crisis into a homeless catastrophe (Guardian)

From Westminster to Hull, the bedroom tax is proving to be the ultra-sharp end of three decades of failure to build, says Polly Toynbee.

5. Never mind the rich and poor, what about the middle classes? (Daily Telegraph)

In America, the middle classes are the most courted group in politics, writes Benedict Brogan. But here they have been erased from the debate.

6. Legalising drugs would be the perfect Tory policy (Guardian)

It would save money, aid global security and be tough on crime, writes Ian Birrell. What could appeal to Conservatives more?

7. Supply matters – but so does demand (Financial Times)

The UK needs more innovation, infrastructure and skills, write Robert Skidelsky and Marcus Miller.

8. Manic activity makes for bad government (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron and the Conservatives should embrace 'masterly inactivity’ – it often yields better results, says George Bridges.

9. A Slippery Slope (Times)

A political bidding war over the mansion tax will inevitably end in higher property charges for the middle classes, says a Times editorial.

10. David Cameron should beware this war on ‘soft’ judges (Independent)

The Prime Minister must be watching Theresa May's manoeuvres with mixed feelings, says an Independent 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