Peers haven’t made themselves popular by voting for an amendment to the Government’s Article 50 bill. They’ve been called ‘contemptible’, accused of an ‘insidious plot to thwart democracy‘ and threatened with abolition. But is there a chance they were right to try and make MPs think again? That’s the argument made in the Times this morning, which says in its editorial that if you felt uncomfortable watching unelected peers meddling with the business of elected MPs there’s a simple reason: the peers had a point. The role of the Lords is to ‘request that the Commons should further reflect’, says the Times. And in calling for MPs to think again on the Article 50 legislation, the Lords was doing just that. The Lords’ discussion of the issue of the rights of EU citizen to stay put in Britain after Brexit was particularly important for the Times, which says that while the PM has vowed to wait until the start of negotiations to put this issue to rest, she is wrong to do so. Yes, there’s little for now the Government can do ‘to assuage the fears of Britons abroad’. But the PM can do something to reassure Europeans living in Britain. The reasons for doing so are not simply altruistic: after all, says the Times, ‘no country, including this one, would benefit from losing its inhabitants born elsewhere’. Of course, there will be stages of these Brexit talks in which Theresa May must play hard ball. ‘But this is not one of them,’ says the Times; if the PM were to guarantee the rights of EU citizens it will be a welcome signal that these Brexit talks will be a ‘dialogue between friends’. For once, the Commons should take the Lords advice, concludes the Times.
The FT agrees with the Times in saying that on the point of EU citizens living in the UK, the Lords was right to stand its ground. There’s a clear moral case for ensuring that those who have come from Europe to live in Britain aren’t used as ‘bargaining chips,’ the paper says. There’s also an economic reason: ‘The UK is — and will remain — more dependent on its ability to attract and retain high-quality European workers than vice versa’. For those in ‘construction, farming and hospitality’ in particular, the FT says its vital that these industries are reassured that they will be able to ‘retain employees’. There’s also a third reason, says the FT: diplomacy. The talks ahead will be ‘gruelling’ but the Government can do itself no harm by getting this ‘vexed issue off the table’ as soon as possible. ‘Mrs May is likely to win this battle,’ says the FT. ‘But the Lords were right to make the Commons think again’.
It’s clear, says the Sun, that there are a minority of people – including the likes of Tony Blair and ‘Brexit blocker’ Gina Miller – who ‘are still fighting the war they lost last June 23’. The decision by ‘unelected peers’ to vote against the Government on its Article 50 bill also shows that there are some in Parliament who share that mindset. But they must drop their fight, says the Sun. Next week, when the bill goes through Parliament again, MPs and peers ‘MUST reject both amendments’, the paper says. It’s vital that the PM’s ‘negotiating powers’ aren’t compromised. The Sun implores MPs and peers not to change a word of the Government’s Article 50 bill, saying it must go through ‘as it was written’.
What’s next for the Labour party? After their ‘drubbing’ in Copeland, it looks to be business as usual, says the Daily Telegraph. ‘Jeremy Corbyn and his socialist band’ are still in charge. And their latest ‘silly’ offering comes from the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, who said yesterday that ‘taxpayers earning at least £1 million a year should be forced to make their tax records public’. ‘This is old-fashioned class warfare,’ says the Telegraph, which calls this policy a ‘swipe at those who work hard’. Once again, Labour has shown it isn’t a party that ’understands how capitalism works’. The only worry, the Telegraph concludes, is that the Tories consider borrowing this foolish idea. They’d be wrong to do so, says the paper, which says that ‘wise leaders’ must remember a simple point: they should ‘liberate wealth creators, not persecute them’.
Comments