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/2017/feb/01/the-guardian-view-on-brexit-more-haste-less-speed

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on Brexit: more haste, less speed The Guardian view on Brexit: more haste, less speed
(about 1 hour later)
In the end, 47 Labour MPs decided to vote against the bill triggering article 50. Two more frontbenchers, Dawn Butler and Rachel Maskell, resigned in order to vote against Jeremy Corbyn’s ill-advised three-line whip. Many MPs, in two days of often deeply felt debate, said they felt bound to honour their voters’ wishes despite their belief that leaving the EU will be a disaster for the economy, and regardless of the majority for remain among people who would normally vote Labour.In the end, 47 Labour MPs decided to vote against the bill triggering article 50. Two more frontbenchers, Dawn Butler and Rachel Maskell, resigned in order to vote against Jeremy Corbyn’s ill-advised three-line whip. Many MPs, in two days of often deeply felt debate, said they felt bound to honour their voters’ wishes despite their belief that leaving the EU will be a disaster for the economy, and regardless of the majority for remain among people who would normally vote Labour.
The difficulty of this vote for the party was etched on the face of the shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, as he wove his way through the mess of conflicting ambitions that constitute current party policy. We would rather that the party had voted with its heart than, as it perhaps did, with an eye on its electoral prospects in leave areas like Stoke and Copeland. We would say the same about the Conservative remainers too. But Labour’s equivocations on Europe long predated the vote and will continue long after. Yet unless it can find a stronger position to unite around on such a central issue, Labour will struggle to be a credible party of opposition. The difficulty of this vote for the party was etched on the face of the shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, as he wove his way through the mess of conflicting ambitions that constitute current party policy. We would rather that the party had voted with its heart than, as it perhaps did, with an eye on its electoral prospects in leave areas like Stoke and Copeland. We would say the same about the Conservative remainers too. But Labour’s equivocations on Europe long predated the vote and will continue long after. Yet unless it can find a stronger position to unite around on such a central issue, Labour will struggle to be a credible party of opposition.
But Labour’s dismal performance is not the real scandal of Wednesday’s vote, and those who pretend it is are playing the leavers’ game. The real scandal is that, with the distinguished exception of Ken Clarke, the Tory party’s many remainers bent the knee. As a result, the government had an overwhelming majority on the second reading of the bill to trigger article 50. Its failure to publish a white paper before the debate went unpunished. This disregard for the most basic of requirements for a decision of such consequence must not be allowed to be a taste of things to come. It is all the more alarming that, as late as Tuesday, it seems no draft had been circulated: the home secretary, a member of the small group of senior ministers who sit on the cabinet committee on Brexit, told MPs she had not seen it. Yet, even as the potentially grim consequences of Brexit become clearer, Theresa May’s timetable for the process of departure remains on track.But Labour’s dismal performance is not the real scandal of Wednesday’s vote, and those who pretend it is are playing the leavers’ game. The real scandal is that, with the distinguished exception of Ken Clarke, the Tory party’s many remainers bent the knee. As a result, the government had an overwhelming majority on the second reading of the bill to trigger article 50. Its failure to publish a white paper before the debate went unpunished. This disregard for the most basic of requirements for a decision of such consequence must not be allowed to be a taste of things to come. It is all the more alarming that, as late as Tuesday, it seems no draft had been circulated: the home secretary, a member of the small group of senior ministers who sit on the cabinet committee on Brexit, told MPs she had not seen it. Yet, even as the potentially grim consequences of Brexit become clearer, Theresa May’s timetable for the process of departure remains on track.
It is not all over, however. Everything is still possible. Now the prime minister must come clean about the choices that lie ahead, and their consequences – and she must convey to the whole of Britain the scale of the task ahead. Even without a white paper, it is clear that she puts controlling borders and repatriating law at the head of her list of priorities. It is also clear, as George Osborne told the Commons, that at the head of the EU’s list is the integrity of the union of the remaining 27 members. Those governing ideas will, unavoidably, make many of the other ambitions that Mrs May set out in her speech a fortnight ago extremely challenging. The negotiations will be just that – negotiations that must be conducted with the intention of reaching an agreement that is acceptable for both sides. It is an irony that Mrs May will not appreciate that the European court of justice from which she so ardently wishes to escape is highly likely to be called in to adjudicate on aspects of the final deal, as its president Koen Lenaerts points out.It is not all over, however. Everything is still possible. Now the prime minister must come clean about the choices that lie ahead, and their consequences – and she must convey to the whole of Britain the scale of the task ahead. Even without a white paper, it is clear that she puts controlling borders and repatriating law at the head of her list of priorities. It is also clear, as George Osborne told the Commons, that at the head of the EU’s list is the integrity of the union of the remaining 27 members. Those governing ideas will, unavoidably, make many of the other ambitions that Mrs May set out in her speech a fortnight ago extremely challenging. The negotiations will be just that – negotiations that must be conducted with the intention of reaching an agreement that is acceptable for both sides. It is an irony that Mrs May will not appreciate that the European court of justice from which she so ardently wishes to escape is highly likely to be called in to adjudicate on aspects of the final deal, as its president Koen Lenaerts points out.
Mrs May talks ominously about no deal being better than a bad deal, and claims to be prepared to crash out on World Trade Organisation terms. This is a terrible strategy. As the SNP’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, put it at prime minister’s questions, Mrs May has made one successful foreign trip in the past week. That was her trip to Dublin, where she and the Irish taoiseach, Enda Kenny, discussed how best to preserve the free trade area and protect the Northern Ireland peace process. She would do well to take the lesson about the value of negotiations conducted in good faith and a spirit of cooperation. A hard Brexit would be ruinous. Every MP should spend the coming week consulting their local businesses on the impact of WTO terms, and calculate their likely impact on jobs and prices.Mrs May talks ominously about no deal being better than a bad deal, and claims to be prepared to crash out on World Trade Organisation terms. This is a terrible strategy. As the SNP’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, put it at prime minister’s questions, Mrs May has made one successful foreign trip in the past week. That was her trip to Dublin, where she and the Irish taoiseach, Enda Kenny, discussed how best to preserve the free trade area and protect the Northern Ireland peace process. She would do well to take the lesson about the value of negotiations conducted in good faith and a spirit of cooperation. A hard Brexit would be ruinous. Every MP should spend the coming week consulting their local businesses on the impact of WTO terms, and calculate their likely impact on jobs and prices.
The referendum itself has been a catastrophe. But if Mrs May continues to treat leaving the EU as if it can be achieved in a couple of years of hard work, she is doing the voters a grave disservice. She knows the cost of making pledges on immigration that are unachievable. Suggesting that Brexit can be done and dusted before the next election is a deceit on a monstrous scale. As Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to the EU, told MPs on the Brexit committee on Wednesday morning, the task ahead was “humongous”. It would, unavoidably, be bloody. This will be a long game, and the government must say so.The referendum itself has been a catastrophe. But if Mrs May continues to treat leaving the EU as if it can be achieved in a couple of years of hard work, she is doing the voters a grave disservice. She knows the cost of making pledges on immigration that are unachievable. Suggesting that Brexit can be done and dusted before the next election is a deceit on a monstrous scale. As Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to the EU, told MPs on the Brexit committee on Wednesday morning, the task ahead was “humongous”. It would, unavoidably, be bloody. This will be a long game, and the government must say so.