EUROSCOPE. The final cut’s a tough juggling act

The past week has provided some much needed certainty around Britain’s process of exiting the European Union.

Following two days of debate, MPs voted overwhelmingly to back Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans for exiting the union by the end of March: while in the later stages of the Bill, MPs — and then Lords — may attempt to introduce amendments to shape the direction of Brexit, May’s firm stance on adhering to the timetable seems to have paid off.

The government has also published a white paper, fleshing out — to some degree at least — the vision of Brexit that May set out in her landmark speech last month.

The two events also highlight the tough juggling act that Brexit necessitates, as the government and parliament weigh up the message of last year’s referendum, against what they are realistically able to negotiate with Europe.

The two-day parliamentary debate highlighted many of the tensions that have run through the process: what to make of the referendum result, which was advisory, what was not binding.

Though all but one Conservative MP voted to support the government’s Bill, many were clearly torn and spoke of their frustration of voting against what they believed to be in the best interest of the country, and in favour of what the public had voted for.

Anna Soubry, a Conservative who had campaigned to remain in the EU and has been deeply critical of the direction of government policy since, spoke of the “heavy heart” with which she voted for the Bill, against her “longstanding belief that the interests of this country are better served by our being a member of the European Union”. Others struggled to weigh up the vote of their constituents and the referendum result overall, which in many cases differed.

Another debate centred on the importance accorded to immigration control since the June vote, with many citing this as a determinant factor in the way people voted. “They have prioritised immigration control, which was a clear message from the referendum campaign,” said former chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne.

Even before the white paper was published May made it clear that Britain would have to exit the single market and customs union, and strike new agreements on access to these, in order to be able to introduce immigration control.

“It is absurd to say that every elector knew the difference between the customs union and the single market, and that they took a careful and studied view of the basis for our future trading relations with Europe,” said Kenneth Clarke, a former foreign secretary and the one Conservative MP who voted against the Bill.

Still others questioned the ability of the government to strike free trade agreements with non-EU nations when tight immigration control remained a government priority, highlighting May’s visit to India as an example of the struggles it would have.

The white paper attempted to solve some of the tensions at the heart of the Brexit debate. In a move likely to be welcomed by business leaders, concerned about the impact that restricting the movement of workers would have, the government said that immigration control from the EU was likely to be brought in via a phased process, and only after consultation with businesses and the public, to gauge the impact that controls would have on different sectors of the economy.

Significantly the government also conceded that parliament would have to have a role on the direction of immigration control.

The government also outlined the other ways in which parliament would be involved, including on passing the Great Repeal Bill that will replace European laws with British ones, and getting a final vote on the deal reached between Britain and Europe.

Still, many questions remained unanswered, pointing to the difficult road ahead.

The government acknowledged that returning power to parliament was ultimately what the vote was about, but said that it would only be able to provide the House with limited updates (or in its words: “at least as much information as members of the European Parliament”) along the way as it attempted to secure the best deal possible.

The same is true of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

While the recent Supreme Court judgment that ruled a parliamentary vote on Brexit was necessary did not specifically require the government to put a vote to the devolved legislatures, the government is keenly aware of the risks of not involving them.

The Scottish National Party, for one, has raised the prospect of a second independence referendum. The paper provides little colour on the extent of their involvement, aside from indicating there would be some opportunities to decide on which European laws to keep, amend or repeal.

There are other major unresolved issues, including crucially what the government will do once it leaves Euratom, the EU’s nuclear regulatory agency.

The government’s decision to leave the regulator has already triggered alarm bells and the white paper provides little clarity on what would happen on this issue that will be crucial to Britain’s energy security going forward. Opposition politicians have also honed in on the government’s failure to provide any guarantees for the 2.8 million EU nationals currently in the UK. The paper says its ambition of securing guarantees for British citizens on the continent are yet to be met; without this such a deal is not possible.

Significantly, the paper provides little clarity on contingency planning. It insists that “no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal” and that it would pass “legislation as necessary to mitigate the effects of failing to reach a deal”.

“We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure but anticipating success,” May writes in the foreword to the paper.

The lack of detail on this crucial question is perhaps unsurprising: facing intense public scrutiny — particularly given the fact that she had once campaigned to remain in the EU — May is eager to portray herself and her government as the eternal Brexit optimists hell-bent on securing the best possible deal for Britain.

COMMENT NOW