This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/the-guardian-view-on-the-commons-brexit-debate-some-gains-but-not-enough
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on the Commons Brexit debate: some gains but not enough | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| As the Scottish National party’s spokesman pointed out in Wednesday’s Commons debate on Brexit, it is nearly six months now since the EU referendum. By contrast, there are less than four months to go before Theresa May has pledged to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to begin the UK’s European withdrawal negotiations. It is extraordinary that so much time has passed without any real clarity about the government’s general aims in those negotiations. Beyond the inanity that Brexit now means a red, white and blue Brexit – a soundbite that must have been dreamed up to discourage Tory defections in Thursday’s Sleaford and North Hykeham byelection – we know almost as little about Brexit aims today as we did on 24 June. Wednesday’s Commons vote just papered over the cracks on both sides of the house. | As the Scottish National party’s spokesman pointed out in Wednesday’s Commons debate on Brexit, it is nearly six months now since the EU referendum. By contrast, there are less than four months to go before Theresa May has pledged to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to begin the UK’s European withdrawal negotiations. It is extraordinary that so much time has passed without any real clarity about the government’s general aims in those negotiations. Beyond the inanity that Brexit now means a red, white and blue Brexit – a soundbite that must have been dreamed up to discourage Tory defections in Thursday’s Sleaford and North Hykeham byelection – we know almost as little about Brexit aims today as we did on 24 June. Wednesday’s Commons vote just papered over the cracks on both sides of the house. |
| It is almost as extraordinary that relatively little time now remains in which to remedy that uncertainty. There are few signs, even now, that the government is close to knowing its own collective mind. As Kenneth Clarke put it in Wednesday’s debate, even Brexiter ministers are not agreed with one another. There have been occasional hints – the welcome pledge to Nissan, the declared readiness to pay the EU for market access and, more recently, Brexit secretary David Davis’s agreement that the UK could continue within the EU justice and security framework. But there is nothing that adds up to a remotely coherent statement of intent commensurate with the seriousness of the issues. Britain is advancing towards Brexit in a fog, like the luckless Russians marching towards Napoleon at Austerlitz. On Wednesday, however, some fog began to lift. | It is almost as extraordinary that relatively little time now remains in which to remedy that uncertainty. There are few signs, even now, that the government is close to knowing its own collective mind. As Kenneth Clarke put it in Wednesday’s debate, even Brexiter ministers are not agreed with one another. There have been occasional hints – the welcome pledge to Nissan, the declared readiness to pay the EU for market access and, more recently, Brexit secretary David Davis’s agreement that the UK could continue within the EU justice and security framework. But there is nothing that adds up to a remotely coherent statement of intent commensurate with the seriousness of the issues. Britain is advancing towards Brexit in a fog, like the luckless Russians marching towards Napoleon at Austerlitz. On Wednesday, however, some fog began to lift. |
| On the west side of Parliament Square in London, the UK supreme court continued to hear the government’s appeal against the high court’s ruling that it could not invoke article 50 by using prerogative powers. Meanwhile, on the east side of the square, MPs finally called on the government to publish its EU withdrawal plans before article 50 is triggered. At last, the great issue of the UK’s future relations with Europe was finally being discussed where it matters most of all, in our elected parliament and in our highest court of law. And in the Commons some progress was made, though not enough. It was a parliamentary day when a deal was struck that allowed both sides to claim victory. The Conservatives believe they have scored a success by ensuring Labour accepted that article 50 must be triggered by 31 March 2017. Labour claimed a victory because the Tories did not oppose Labour’s call for a published plan. Of the two, Labour has the better case for celebration. The Conservatives know that Jeremy Corbyn and many of his backbenchers in leave-supporting seats are not going to oppose triggering article 50, even if some Labour rebels, voting with their conscience, propose to join the Liberal Democrats and the SNP in doing so. The Tories, by contrast, have been forced to make a significant retreat. They conceded on publishing a plan before the article 50 decision because they could not win the vote any other way. The prime minister may have been physically in the Gulf states, trying to drum up trade from repressive oil kingdoms. But her mind was focused on Westminster and Sleaford, where she could not afford defeats. Mrs May blinked. | On the west side of Parliament Square in London, the UK supreme court continued to hear the government’s appeal against the high court’s ruling that it could not invoke article 50 by using prerogative powers. Meanwhile, on the east side of the square, MPs finally called on the government to publish its EU withdrawal plans before article 50 is triggered. At last, the great issue of the UK’s future relations with Europe was finally being discussed where it matters most of all, in our elected parliament and in our highest court of law. And in the Commons some progress was made, though not enough. It was a parliamentary day when a deal was struck that allowed both sides to claim victory. The Conservatives believe they have scored a success by ensuring Labour accepted that article 50 must be triggered by 31 March 2017. Labour claimed a victory because the Tories did not oppose Labour’s call for a published plan. Of the two, Labour has the better case for celebration. The Conservatives know that Jeremy Corbyn and many of his backbenchers in leave-supporting seats are not going to oppose triggering article 50, even if some Labour rebels, voting with their conscience, propose to join the Liberal Democrats and the SNP in doing so. The Tories, by contrast, have been forced to make a significant retreat. They conceded on publishing a plan before the article 50 decision because they could not win the vote any other way. The prime minister may have been physically in the Gulf states, trying to drum up trade from repressive oil kingdoms. But her mind was focused on Westminster and Sleaford, where she could not afford defeats. Mrs May blinked. |
| Yesterday’s outcome, while much better than nothing, is not ideal and may not be deliverable in the way Labour expects. It all depends on what the published plan looks like and how soon it is produced. Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer set out a good list of minimum requirements for inclusion in the published plan – clear statements about the single market, the customs union and transitional issues, and sufficient information to allow MPs, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the devolved governments to make their judgments. But he did not press for, and did not get from Mr Davis, a commitment to a government white paper in January. And Labour has lost something by accepting the 31 March deadline, when autumn 2017 would have been better. The big political problem is that the government will wriggle in every way to get itself off the hook. That’s because, quite simply, it is not in Mrs May’s domestic political interest to be precise. Mr Davis has liberal instincts on transparency but if he, or she, provided the kind of information that Labour has asked for, it could have split the Tory party. A hard Brexit option will not be acceptable to the Tory left, while a soft Brexit option will not be acceptable to the right. Wednesday was a skirmish. But the battles, and the casualties, will come in the new year. | Yesterday’s outcome, while much better than nothing, is not ideal and may not be deliverable in the way Labour expects. It all depends on what the published plan looks like and how soon it is produced. Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer set out a good list of minimum requirements for inclusion in the published plan – clear statements about the single market, the customs union and transitional issues, and sufficient information to allow MPs, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the devolved governments to make their judgments. But he did not press for, and did not get from Mr Davis, a commitment to a government white paper in January. And Labour has lost something by accepting the 31 March deadline, when autumn 2017 would have been better. The big political problem is that the government will wriggle in every way to get itself off the hook. That’s because, quite simply, it is not in Mrs May’s domestic political interest to be precise. Mr Davis has liberal instincts on transparency but if he, or she, provided the kind of information that Labour has asked for, it could have split the Tory party. A hard Brexit option will not be acceptable to the Tory left, while a soft Brexit option will not be acceptable to the right. Wednesday was a skirmish. But the battles, and the casualties, will come in the new year. |