What the papers say: Could free movement from the EU end next month?

‘Take back control’ was the mantra of the Brexit bunch during the referendum – but eight months on, Britain is still waiting to be handed the keys. Next month, says the Daily Telegraph, part of the wait could be over. The paper reports that Theresa May is planning to announce an end to free movement for EU migrants when she triggers Article 50 in March. If this is true, we should celebrate the Prime Minister’s decisiveness, the paper says, hailing the plan as both legal – given that it ‘will only take effect after Brexit’ – and ‘sensible’ – to avoid a rush of migrants coming to Britain before the door slams shut. Those who have criticised the PM for her ‘dithering’ or claimed that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ was ‘a formulation that disguised a vacuum’ should be encouraged by this news, the paper says. But there are still question marks hanging in the air for the Telegraph. Is the Border Force up to the job? Will the rush for Britain just happen sooner rather than later? And how ‘will those who ‘overstay’ be removed’, the paper asks. There’s also the fear, the Telegraph says, that this announcement will stir ‘bad blood’ with the EU at a crucial juncture. Given that she has succeeded in calming anxious Brexiteers with this announcement, the PM must ‘now display the same deft talent for calming agitated EU leaders’, the paper concludes.

But we shouldn’t be celebrating too soon, says the Sun. Home Secretary Amber Rudd talked of an ‘end to Freedom of Movement as we know it’ yesterday. But the Sun is worried about what this ‘new catchphrase’ implies, cautioning that her suggestion that a ‘listening exercise’ should set alarm bells ringing. The Sun says that what Britain wants is already obvious – after all, ‘it is clear a majority of Brits want to take back control of our borders’. So while a ‘consultation might buy Ms Rudd time’ it won’t tell her anything new, the Sun argues. Instead, ending ‘fixed-term work visas and ending benefits to migrants’ is what is needed – it’s time for Rudd – and the Government – to get on with the job of delivering.

Brexit is also the talking point in the Mail this morning – but it’s the House of Lords’ debate on the Government’s Article 50 bill which fires the paper up. Is Lord Heseltine pathologically incapable of showing loyalty, the Mail asks, following the Tory peer saying he will defy the Government – and a three-line whip – to vote against the legislation this week. This is nothing more than a ’breathtaking display of vanity, the paper argues, saying that Heseltine will not only be ‘acting directly against the will of the party, but also defying the 17.4 million people who backed Brexit. If that wasn’t enough, Heseltine also seems in danger of forgetting the 400-strong majority with which the Article 50 passed through the Commons. It’s time for Heseltine to go, says the Mail – ‘his political retirement is long overdue’.

Meanwhile, it’s a break up of another sort up which is discussed in the Times this morning. The paper claims that Downing Street is busy preparing for the possibility of a second referendum on Scottish independence; ‘the answer was no’, says the Times, which says there is no ;justification’ for such a vote. Holding a referendum in 2014 was the right decision, says the Times. But for Nicola Sturgeon to opt for a repeat would be ‘an irresponsible breach of constitutional propriety’. Whatever Sturgeon might say, claiming that the Brexit vote counts as fresh impetus for independence just isn’t true. In fact, ‘diverse politics within our Union is a strength, not a life-threatening weakness.’. But if Scotland does hold another vote, there’s a fear about who will lead the campaign against the break-up of Britain, the Times argues; with Labour dead and buried north of the border, there’s no clear answer for ‘who would spearhead the counter-argument’ – and ‘Ruth Davidson, the gutsy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, cannot carry the baton alone’. The EU referendum was ‘coloured’ by ‘Labour’s abdication of responsibility’; we must be wary of a repeat, the Times concludes.