Welcome to the Guardian's weekly Brexit briefing, a summary of developments as the UK stumbles to the EU door marked "exit". If you would like to receive it as a weekly early morning email, please sign up here. You can listen to our latest Brexit Means podcast here. Also: producing the Guardian's independent, in-depth journalism takes a lot of time and money. We do it because we believe our perspective matters – and it may be your perspective too. If you value our Brexit coverage, please become a Guardian Supporter and help make our future more secure. Thank you. The big picture MPs voted by 326 to 290 to proceed with the EU withdrawal bill, a key legislative component of Brexit that will bring EU laws and regulations into the UK statute book and allow them to be edited after 2019. The victory gave some relief to Theresa May following a week dominated by the furore surrounding a Home Office document leaked to the Guardian that suggested the government planned to end free movement immediately after Brexit. Variously denounced as "completely confused", "economically illiterate" and "a blueprint for how to strangle London's economy", the proposals include introducing tight restrictions to deter all but highly skilled EU workers from trying to move to Britain. Only seven Labour rebels defied a three-line party whip to vote against the withdrawal bill, which Labour, the Lib Dems – and even a few Conservatives – argue gives ministers huge executive powers to amend laws without parliament's approval. But while a contingent of unhappy Tory MPs were willing to help the bill clear its first hurdle, the real challenge for the prime minister will be to stave off a raft of amendments already being tabled for when parliament debates it line by line in October. A source said Tories on both sides of the Brexit divide aimed to force the government into concessions, with the fiercest opposition centred on the bill's so-called Henry VIII powers. The former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve called the bill an "astonishing monstrosity". On the opposition benches, Keir Starmer, Labour's Brexit spokesman, said it was fatally flawed: This bill is an affront to parliamentary democracy and a naked power grab by government ministers. It leaves rights unprotected, it silences parliament on key decisions and undermines the devolution settlement. During a bruising Commons debate on Thursday, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, indicated he would be willing to accommodate improvements – although he and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, subsequently said blocking the bill would mean a "chaotic" Brexit.
The view from Europe EU-UK relations continue to deteriorate. The bloc's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said Britain seemed to back-pedalling on its Brexit financial settlement, as hopes of the two sides reaching agreement on a divorce deal by the autumn hit rock bottom:
It seems to be backtracking on the original commitment of the UK to honour its international commitments. There is a problem of confidence here. You cannot have 27 countries paying for what was decided by 28. As the EU published five combative new position papers, demanding among other things that the UK fix the problem of the Irish border and defend "protected status" foods, Guy Verhofstadt, the EU parliament's Brexit coordinator, warned the Home Office that its immigration plans would make a transition deal impossible: A number of the leaked proposals would breach EU free movement law if implemented during any transition period, for example the proposal to discriminate between 'high-skilled' and 'low-skilled' workers. Nor does the prime minister seem particularly keen on improving relationships, rejecting an invitation to address the parliament in public and instead insisting she will only talk to its leaders behind closed doors. Meanwhile, back in Westminster Away from the wrangling over the EU withdrawal bill, the home-front political debate on Brexit this week was dominated primarily by voices from the recent past, including one particularly well-known one. In comments that inspired rage among many leave supporters, not to mention mixed feelings for many remainers, Tony Blair re-entered the fray by declaring a "renewed sense of mission" to fight against Brexit Having presided when in office over a significant rise in migration from elsewhere in the EU, Blair proposes clamping down on numbers arriving using domestic legislation, without the "sledgehammer" of having to leave the bloc. In a similar vein, Andrew Adonis, a junior minister under Blair and now a semi-professional Brexit malcontent, suggested the decision to leave the EU could be reversed if other European nations changed their stance on the free movement of people. Lord Adonis's view is that the House of Lords could attach an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill requiring another referendum before Brexit happens, with the options of accepting the deal or staying in the EU. Is this all just so much wishful thinking by people who can't accept that their side of the argument will not prevail? Possibly. But if politics has taught us anything over the last 18 months or so, it's never to rule anything out. You should also know … Read these: In the Guardian, Joris Luijendijk lays out in terms even the most ardent Brexiter should understand exactly why the EU27 will not – indeed cannot – cut Britain any kind of "sweet deal" on the single market: Brexiteers are right to argue that the EU will let political considerations be trumped by economic self-interest. Where they go hopelessly, disastrously wrong is to think that EU countries' economic long-term self-interest is served by a special deal for Britain. To be sure, the EU will be damaged if in 18 months Britain crashes out of the EU – the way your suit is ruined with blood stains if the person standing next to you decides to shoot themselves in the foot. But does the British political class genuinely believe that EU member states are going to jump in front of that bullet and undermine the very existence of their single economy in order to safeguard the privileges of a country that over the past decades has lost no opportunity to disparage, undermine and blackmail them? Britain already had a sweet deal – it's not getting any sweeter. In the Financial Times (paywall), Janan Ganesh argues that Brexit sets Britain on a stable path of relative decline, comparing the country to an under-fuelled plane "gliding to its fate somewhere over the horizon": Imagine a Britain that misses out on tenths of a percentage point in economic growth, year after year. Businesses go uncreated. Investors commit their marginal pound elsewhere. Financial services are on-shored to the continent in small parcels. Just as slowly, old rigidities in the labour market and in industry that were banned under European law start to return. Wunderkind graduates from around the world consider Britain but make their careers on the continent, North America and Asia instead. At no point will any of this feel like a crisis but, over a generation, the build-up of little failures amounts to the same thing: a diminished country ... It ends around 2035 as the average Briton, perhaps standing in the infinite non-European queue of a Mediterranean airport, looks around and notices something about the French and German travellers. They are not just collecting their bags already – they are noticeably better off. Tweet of the week It's a point of view, I suppose. John Redwood gives his considered opinion of the European Union (withdrawal) bill: | 
Posts
Participants in an anti-Brexit march in London on Saturday. Photograph: Amer Ghazzal/Barcroft Images 
No comments:
Post a Comment