Brexit weekly briefing: hard exit prospects take hit after article 50 ruling | | | Decision that Tories cannot trigger Brexit alone had widespread impact. As sterling soared, the rightwing press was abhorred | | |  The ruling on article 50 prompted fury in some quarters despite sovereignty of the British parliament being what much of the leave campaign was about. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/EPA
| | | Jon Henley and Peter Walker
| | | Welcome to the Guardian's weekly Brexit briefing, a summary of developments as Britain moves in fits and starts towards the EU exit. If you'd like to receive it as a weekly email, please sign up here. Producing the Guardian's thoughtful, in-depth journalism is expensive – but supporting us isn't. If you value our Brexit coverage, please become a Guardian supporter and help make our future more secure. Thank you. The big picture There was only one story in town last week, and quite a story it was: the high court ruled the government on its own could not, despite what Theresa May and her ministers had argued, trigger article 50 to leave the EU, but must get parliament's backing first. Many observers think this could slow the pace of the UK's departure and, by allowing MPs not just scrutiny but perhaps a say over the terms, may also change its nature – a hard Brexit, outside the single market, might now be less likely. | | | The markets certainly saw it that way: sterling soared. But the government said it would appeal to the supreme court, which will hear the case in early December and could deliver a verdict in early January. The government said its Brexit timetable would not be affected and it still intends to begin divorce proceedings before the end of March. The decision was about how, not whether, Brexit would happen: while many suggested parliament could – and perhaps should – now try to push for a soft Brexit with enhanced single-market access, it is highly unlikely to block Brexit altogether. That did not stop a ferocious reaction to the decision in some quarters – despite sovereignty of the British parliament, and the right of British judges to rule on British matters, being what much of the leave campaign was about. Ukip's interim leader, Nigel Farage, said he feared the worst: I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand … I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke. Pro-Brexit newspapers went further, with the Daily Mail declaring the three high court judges "enemies of the people", the Telegraph running the front-page headline: "The judges versus the people" – and the Sun talking of a "loaded foreign elite" setting out to "defy the will of British voters". | | | Rightwing newspapers react to the high court ruling. Photograph: Benjamin Fathers/AFP/Getty Images
| | | Lawyers and politicians urged the lord chancellor, Liz Truss, to defend the independence of the judiciary, which she eventually did, albeit in lukewarm fashion. Both she and May, on a plane to India for difficult talks on a potential new trade deal, refused to criticise the newspapers' attacks. May said: I believe in and value the independence of our judiciary. I also value the freedom of our press. These both underpin our democracy. Addressing parliament on Monday, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, said little we did not already know. He repeated that one reason the government did not want parliament involved too much was so as not to reveal its hand, and accused MPs calling for parliamentary control of the process of wanting to derail Brexit: There's a balance between consulting parliament, and not undermining the government's negotiating position ... If parliament insists on setting out a detailed minimum negotiating position, that will quickly become the maximum possible offer from the negotiating partners ... In other words, the whole approach is designed to wreck the negotiation. It's still far too early to say what the decision will end up meaning for Brexit. Among the possibilities, the government could: a. win its appeal; b. fast-track a simple article 50 resolution through parliament; c. get bogged down in endless amendments; or d. decide to call a snap election (see below). Whichever way you cut it, though, it was a heavy blow for May, whose stock "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" bromides may now prove very difficult to maintain. The view from Europe While there was little official reaction from EU governments or the Brussels institutions, European capitals will certainly now worry that the Brexit process – which all would like to be over as quickly as possible, and certainly before the 2019 European elections – could get complicated. The Dutch finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, explained to Bloomberg: I hope this doesn't cause even more vagueness and more of a delay, because that's bad for the UK as well as for the EU ... One of the biggest risks of this process is that it will lead to a very long period of uncertainty. Privately, several EU diplomats echoed the sentiment. One said the most important thing now was "that we keep on track with the timetable"; another added, with admirable frankness: "We all know that involving parliaments in complicated, detailed, negotiations is not the smoothest way to go." | | | Jeroen Dijsselbloem in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock
| | | The European press was harsh. Die Welt declared the high court decision a "triumph over an unauthorised executive", saying the "obstinacy with which parliamentarians will now seek clarity" over the government's Brexit plans is "exactly what the prime minister had hoped to avoid". Separately, the commission said it would examine the secret deal Britain struck with Nissan to make sure whatever induced the Japanese carmaker to stay in Britain and build its next two models in Sunderland did not infringe state aid laws. That one could, eventually, get interesting. And Germany's top five economists said the best outcome of talks between the UK and the EU would be for Brexit not to actually happen. Meanwhile, back in Westminster After the chaos and division of the June referendum and the political upheavals of its aftermath, it's perhaps time for a period of quiet contemplation. And what better to encourage that than a snap general election? | | | Or maybe not. For understandable reasons, not too many MPs seem keen. But the prospect edged a bit closer following the high court's article 50 ruling, which some pundits speculated could push May towards seeking a more specific endorsement for her Brexit plans. Adding to the impetus was another reduction in May's already slim working Commons majority of 16 after the Lincolnshire MP Stephen Phillips resigned. It came just over a week after Zac Goldsmith quit over Heathrow expansion plans to fight again for his seat, this time as an independent. Phillips stepped down over several issues, but also cited the lack of consultation over the Brexit process, even though he was a leave supporter. His move was seen as likely to embolden Brexit malcontents within May's ranks of MPs, such as the already-vocal former minister Anna Soubry. And what of Labour? Aside from the fact that the party's MPs would be significantly less keen on a snap election than even their Conservative colleagues – the latest opinion polling has the Tories on a 14-point lead – it has yet to refine its Brexit strategy. | | | Corbyn faces May at PMQs on Wednesday. Photograph: PA
| | | At the weekend, Jeremy Corbyn appeared to tell the Sunday Mirror that Labour would seek to block a Commons vote on article 50 if certain conditions were not met, only for his deputy, Tom Watson, to immediately say this was not the case. The truth appears more nuanced, not least as it's arguable whether Corbyn's quotes were even anywhere near as definite as the Sunday Mirror billed them. On Monday the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said Labour would not try to vote down article 50 but would demand answers on May's Brexit position in advance. This might seem a slightly contradictory position, and possibly is – with so much at stake, Labour seems to have opted for the classic political position of deliberate ambiguity. You should also know that: Read these In the Guardian, Martin Kettle argues that in the wake of the article 50 ruling, parliament must seize its opportunity: Until now, May has combined secretiveness with hinting that a tough negotiation stance on migration would make single market access difficult. That approach will not withstand the impact of the need to consult parliament. She must face the likelihood that both the Commons and the Lords will focus on securing single market access in ways that could split the cabinet and provoke resignations. The courts have left May little alternative but to change course on the most important issue of her premiership. Polly Toynbee goes further, calling for a full-scale parliamentary rebellion: There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests, their own interests and the views of their constituents. That may risk being voted out, but they may earn more respect by standing up for the national interest as best they can determine: that's what representative democracy is for. Brexit is the greatest threat to national wellbeing since the war, and this will test the mettle not just of individual MPs, but of the nature and purpose of a representative democratic system. In the Financial Times (paywall), Tony Barber argues that Brexit raises the stakes for the rest of the EU, which he describes – citing an University of Athens professor – as resembling "an unhappy marriage held together by fear of incalculable divorce costs": In March EU leaders will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the bloc's founding treaty of Rome. The 27 will pay tribute to the ideal of integration that has given Europe its longest era of peace and prosperity in history. They will affirm that the EU does not imprison or weaken nations but multiplies their strengths when they act together. Above all, they will pledge to save their marriage because they regard the alternative as unbearably worse. Back at the Guardian, Zoe Williams looks forward, saying that while she has "so far found it extremely difficult to engage with what a post-Brexit Britain should look like", regretful remainers and sane leavers now need to concentrate not on the Brexiter tantrums but on what needs to be achieved post-Brexit – because no one is going to stop it:
No technicality will be found to stop Brexit, nobody will snap their fingers and wake us up. It's not enough to point to looming catastrophes and say what we don't want; it's not enough to concentrate on what we might lose. We need to consider what could be better, in a Brexited Britain. That is dauntingly open-ended until we establish whose and which interests we want to press. Tweet of the week Didn't fully understand that article 50 ruling? Here's the beginner's guide: | | | | |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment