The Guardian view on Brexit policy:
time for Britain to get real
Editorial
By the time MPs get back after the summer, there will only
be a year left to sort the UK’s relationship with the EU. Here is an agenda
that the country could agree on
‘Political debate about Brexit has struggled
to move on from the 2016 referendum and has barely begun to adjust to the
result of the 2017 election.’
Friday 14 July 2017 18.49 BST Last modified on Friday 14
July 2017 22.00 BST
Next week, parliament goes into recess for the summer. Save
for a few days in September, MPs are not scheduled to be back at Westminster
until 9 October. By then, six of the 24 months allotted for negotiating the
UK’s exit from the European Union and Britain’s future relationship with the EU
will have passed. In practice, there will only be a year remaining until all
the big issues are supposed to be provisionally settled and the process of
confirmation begins. As the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, keeps
saying, the clock is ticking.
British politics and British society remain in denial about
what is at stake, about the issues involved, and about the wasted time so far.
Political debate about Brexit has struggled to move on from the 2016 referendum
and has barely begun to adjust to the result of the 2017 election. Many in
Britain continue to refight the referendum. Ministers remain divided, vague and
in too many cases merely flippant. The public remains largely in the dark about
the decisions that ministers are on the verge of having to take. That has to
change. The country’s future is on the line. Millions of livelihoods are
affected.
Summer holidays are not an ideal time to face realities, but
the realities must be faced, and faced now – and be explained and debated.
Before parliament returns in the autumn, Britain must try to clarify the future
relationship it seeks, not just in terms of sovereignty, law and alliances, but
in terms of the economy, jobs and standards of living too. An agenda is required
on which progressive MPs of all parties might broadly agree.
The starting point for this process is to agree to seek as
soft a Brexit as is practically possible. In essence, a soft Brexit puts the
economy first. It requires government to commit to making a deal within the
time available, not allowing the process to drive off a cliff, unfinished, at
the end. That means making it clear that Britain embraces the inevitability of
transitional arrangements.
Having accepted that practicality, the first item of
business is to agree the terms of departure from the EU. The UK has already
conceded that these issues must be dealt with first. Three main items have to
be addressed here: EU and UK citizens’ rights in one another’s jurisdictions;
the Irish border; and the financial bill payable by the UK. On rights, the aim
must be maximal not minimal, and the UK must accept an arbitration system that
does not exclude the European court of justice. On Ireland, the goal must be
identical border practicalities to those that now exist. On the bill, Britain
should pay what it owes to the EU as long as the transitional period continues.
In practice that means paying over a longer period of time.
The next imperative is to secure the British economy and the
prosperity of the public in the long term. That would be best done by remaining
within both the single market and the customs union for the duration of the
transitional period and, perhaps, beyond. That is not at odds with Brexit. The
UK would still cease to be a member of the EU. This would put the UK at a
disadvantage, because it will no longer be a single market rule-maker. That,
though, is what the public voted for in 2016.
Remaining within the single market would, however, mean
accepting freedom of movement broadly as it exists at present. Many assumptions
are made about the public view on this issue. The country now has to decide its
priorities and where it stands. Are economic security and social stability
enhanced or weakened by accepting freedom of movement? Progressives should seek
to win the argument for the former. Even if the decision is to leave the single
market, however, the case for remaining in the customs union endures. To leave the
customs union would be devastating to modern supply chains. Staying is vital to
a positive outcome on the Irish border question. It would also protect the UK
against unfavourable trade deals with countries like the US that could
undermine UK food and farming regulations.
If Britain is to remain inside the single market and the
customs union, while leaving the EU, it must also soften its current resistance
to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. The ECJ is no more a
threat to sovereignty than is any other international arbitration system or
court to which the UK adheres. Only fanatics obsess about the ECJ. There is no
reason for it to be a deal breaker. A more open UK approach to arbitration
solutions and the ECJ would also make it easier for the UK to remain within or
attached to some of the devolved regulatory agencies that the same fanatics
insist on leaving. These include Euratom and the European medicines and
environment agencies.
Would we start from where we are now if we could avoid it?
Absolutely not. The Guardian opposed UK withdrawal from the EU. Brexit is still
the wrong course for this country. But the decision to leave was taken, so it
must be honoured, but honoured in a manner which does least harm to the nation and
its interests, in particular to those who stand to suffer most from it. This
means prioritising the economically vulnerable, whether they are UK or EU
citizens. But it also means being constructive about the concerns of the
devolved parts of the UK that voted remain, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Unless and until the national mood clearly changes, which it
may and which we hope in time that it will, Brexit is a reality. There is no
groundswell for a second vote on the issue at the moment. But nor is there a
groundswell for paying a high economic price for Brexit. The imperatives are to
take the strategic view and to do least damage to the things that matter most.
The leave vote was a vote to withdraw from the EU, but it was not a vote to
become a poorer, less secure or less law-abiding nation. It was not a vote to
build walls against the world, or to turn our back on Europe, of which the
geography and culture ensure we shall always be part.
Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10
would put UK flat on its back – Tony Blair
Former Labour prime minister issues
warning in lengthy article published by his own political institute
Peter Walker Political correspondent
Saturday 15 July 2017 07.01 BST
Tony Blair has warned that the combination of Brexit
followed by a Jeremy Corbyn government would soon leave Britain “flat on our
back”, arguing that a deeply divided country needs a fundamental rethink of its
political ideas.
In another demonstration of his partial return to domestic
politics, the former prime minister praised Corbyn’s performance in the general
election, but argued that greater scrutiny of the Labour leader’s policies
could derail the next campaign. In a lengthy article released by his own
political institute, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, Blair said an
“unchanged Corbyn programme” introduced at the same time as Brexit would prove
disastrous for the country.
“If a rightwing populist punch in the form of Brexit was
followed by a leftwing populist punch in the form of unreconstructed hard-left
economics, Britain would hit the canvas, flat on our back and be out for a long
count,” he wrote.
Blair warned the party he led for 13 years that, however
unexpectedly good the party’s showing in the 8 June election, it could not
automatically expect victory soon. “The Labour party should be cautious in
thinking ‘one more heave’ will deliver victory next time,” Blair said. “The
Corbyn campaign was a positive factor in the election result; but the
determining factor was the Tory campaign.
“The Corbyn enthusiasm, especially amongst the young, is
real, but I would hesitate before saying that all those who voted Labour voted
to make him prime minister, or that they supported the body of the programme
rather than its tone. I think they thought that the likelihood was that the
Tories would be the government, but were determined to neuter the mandate.”
In the next election, Labour’s economic policies “will come
under vastly greater scrutiny”, Blair warned. However, he conceded he “did not
foresee” the Labour gains made in the election, and hailed Corbyn’s role in
this.
“I pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn’s temperament in the
campaign, to the campaign’s mobilisation of younger voters, and to the
enthusiasm it generated,” he said. “His supporters shouldn’t exaggerate it; but
his critics, including me, shouldn’t understate it. He tapped into something
real and powerful, as Bernie Sanders has in the USA and left groups have done
all over Europe.”
Much of the article concerned Blair’s continued opposition
to Brexit, which he has previously called on remain-minded voters to seek to
overturn.
Along with the comments, Blair’s institute has released
polling conducted on its behalf which shows, among other findings, that the
majority of Britons are split on whether they would like a so-called soft or
hard Brexit. “The British people’s attitude to Europe is ambivalent,” Blair
said. “They do think Brexit means Brexit and, for now, there is no groundswell
for a second referendum.
“But they want a strong relationship with Europe. A majority
oppose hard Brexit. The opposition to free movement of people, once you break
it down, is much more nuanced.”
Overall, he concludes, the UK “is deeply divided – between
young and old, metropolitan and outside the cities, better off and worse off”.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário