Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Nick Clegg’s authority is secure, but his party has been hollowed out (Daily Telegraph)

The lack of a grassroots challenge shows how the Lib Dems are putting power before principle, writes Mary Riddell.

2. We still live in Lehman’s shadow (Financial Times)

The bank’s collapse was but a symptom of the looming crisis, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Vladimir Putin can preen himself over Syria but the pressure on him is intense (Guardian)

The Russian leader has cunningly upstaged Obama, writes Simon Jenkins. But now he's the dominant player, his own reputation is on the line.

4. Even if it is a housing bubble, it can bring benefits (Independent)

The story is more complex than whether or not we are entering a bubble, says Hamish McRae.

5. If the Lib Dems join Miliband, they’re dead (Times)

Contrast with the Tories has benefited the party in coalition, but its policies are too similar to Labour’s, says Daniel Finkelstein.

6. Video games are this decade’s art form (Financial Times)

Many bemoan the end of mass TV viewing, but this is the era of mass playing, says Helen Lewis.

7. Lloyds reprivatisation: Back to normality – sadly (Guardian)

The normalisation of Lloyds is a sign of how little progress this government has made in reforming our banks, says a Guardian editorial.

8. Mitchell’s long wait for justice is an outrage (Times)

A year must be enough for the police to investigate one 45-second incident, says Ken Macdonald.

9. Scottish independence: what happens after the flag-waving? (Guardian)

Alex Salmond's vision for an independent Scotland is too narrow, says Alex Bell. We need more than old songs and tired policies.

10. Oh you nearly men - how different history could have been for Vince Cable and his like (Independent)

Vince Cable seems destined to join the great lost leaders in the ghostly halls where political dreams go to die, writes Matthew Norman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Here's what Theresa May could say to save the Brexit talks

The best option would be to invent a time machine, but unfortunately that's not on the table. 

One of my favourite types of joke is the logical impossibility: a statement that seems plausible but, on closer examination, is simply impossible and contradictory. “If you break both legs, don’t come running to me” is one. The most famous concerns a hapless tourist popping into a pub to ask for directions to London, or Manchester, or Belfast or wherever. “Well,” the barman replies, “I wouldn’t have started from here.”

That’s the trouble, too, with assessing what the government should do next in its approach to the Brexit talks: I wouldn’t have started from here.

I wouldn’t have started from a transient Leave campaign that offered a series of promises that can’t be reconciled with one another, but that’s the nature of a referendum in which the government isn’t supporting the change proposition. It’s always in the interest of the change proposition to be at best flexible and at worst outright disregarding of the truth.

Britain would be better off if it were leaving the European Union after a vote in which a pro-Brexit government had already had to prepare a white paper and an exit strategy before seeking popular consent. Now the government is tasked with negotiating the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union with a mandate that is contradictory and unclear. (Take immigration. It’s clear that a majority of people who voted to leave want control over Britain’s borders. But it’s also clear that a minority did not and if you take that minority away, there’s no majority for a Leave vote.

Does that then mean that the “democratic” option is a Brexit that prioritises minimising economic harm at the cost of continuing free movement of people? That option might command more support than the 52 per cent that Leave got but it also runs roughshod over the concerns that really drove Britain’s Leave vote.

You wouldn’t, having had a referendum in inauspicious circumstances, have a government that neglected to make a big and genuinely generous offer on the rights of the three million citizens of the European Union currently living in the United Kingdom.

In fact the government would have immediately done all it could to show that it wanted to approach exit in a constructive and co-operative manner. Why? Because the more difficult it looks like the departing nation is going to be, the greater the incentive the remaining nations of the European Union have to insist that you leave via Article 50. Why? Because the Article 50 process is designed to reduce the leverage of the departing state through its strict timetable. Its architect, British diplomat John Kerr, envisaged it being used after an increasingly authoritarian state on the bloc’s eastern periphery found its voting rights suspended and quit “in high dudgeon”.

The strict timeframe also hurts the European Union, as it increases the chances of an unsatisfactory or incomplete deal. The only incentive to use it is if the departing nation is going to behave in a unconstructive way.

Then if you were going to have to exit via the Article 50 process, you’d wait until the elections in France and Germany were over, and restructure Whitehall and the rest of the British state so it was fit to face the challenges of Brexit. And you wouldn’t behave so shabbily towards the heads of the devolved administrations that Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Carwyn Jones of the Welsh Labour Party have not become political allies.

So having neglected to do all of that, it’s hard to say: here’s what Theresa May should say in Florence, short of inventing time travel and starting the whole process again from scratch.

What she could do, though, is show flexibility on the question of British contributions to the European budget after we leave, and present a serious solution to the problem of how you ensure that the rights of three million EU citizens living in Britain have a legal backdrop that can’t simply be unpicked by 325 MPs in the House of Commons, and show some engagement in the question of what happens to the Irish border after Brexit.

There are solutions to all of these problems – but the trouble is that all of them are unacceptable to at least part of the Conservative Party. A reminder that, as far as the trouble with Brexit goes, Theresa May is the name of the monster – not the doctor. 

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.