Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. China’s great leap forward hits the wall (Daily Telegraph)

This was supposed to be the Asian century, but the eastern boom is dying of exhaustion, writes Jeremy Warner.

2. Clegg is set to be kingmaker again in 2015 (Times)

The pundits are wrong about the Lib Dem leader, says John Kampfner. He is open to doing a deal with Miliband.

3. Boris wasn’t joking – work is becoming a woman’s world (Daily Telegraph)

Sexual inequality has reversed: fewer boys go to university, get a good job or earn as much, says Fraser Nelson.

4. The imperative that keeps the US in Asia (Financial Times)

By leaving, Washington would invite chaos; by staying it provokes Chinese resentment, says Philip Stephens.

5. Sorting the System (Times)

The IPSA proposals for MPs’ pay need to be protected from attempts to regain political control, says a Times editorial.

6. The Archbishop of Canterbury must wean the Church off its benefit addiction (Daily Telegraph)

Justin Welby understands that welfare benefits do not fix everything, writes Isabel Hardman. Now he needs to educate the Church of England.

7. UK's finest asset, the NHS, is in sick hands (Daily Mirror)

Jeremy Hunt’s advisers found time to give Murdoch market-sensitive information but not to tell an MP her local A&E was being closed, writes Andy Burnham. 

8. My cohabiting generation has not fallen out of love with marriage just yet (Guardian)

Some of us are quite happy to commit, but others can't afford a wedding or would actually prefer a heterosexual civil partnership, says Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett.

9. Russia can’t be allowed to get away with the Magnitsky case (Independent)

The style of "justice" disposed under Putin is becoming more and more baroque, but even next to Litvinenko and Khodorkovsky, the Magnitsky case stands out, writes Peter Popham. 

10. Who let this Gulf on Thames scar London's Southbank? Mayor Boris (Guardian)

Boris Johnson pledged to control the vulgarity of bigness, writes Simon Jenkins. But his city is alone in Europe in its slavery to 'anything goes'.

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