Skip to content 
Search

Latest Stories

Exit strategy deadlock

by SEEMA MALHOTRA

Member of the select committee for Exiting the EU and Labour MP for Feltham and Heston


IN A recent blog in the Huffington Post, I laid out the urgency of ruling out ‘no deal’ because of the economic and social damage it will do as our country is plunged into unprecedented and self-inflicted disruption.

Brexit was never going to be straightforward. Our supply chains are deeply embedded. Our food mutually sourced. Our medicines developed and regulated together. Our living standards as a continent and our commitment to the wellbeing of each other’s nations help raise the bar across the world.

As British citizens, we are also European Union citizens with the many rights that brings, rights that will soon end. Our young people will have fewer rights of work and study than their peers across 27 EU nations, the same people with whom they will compete for employment in the future.

The prime minister could have handled this all so differently. Instead, for two years, she has played – as it has recently been put – to “the bad boys at the back of the class”. With eight weeks to Brexit, what we need is far less populism and far more honesty about the complexities of Brexit.

In recent public information events in my constituency, I have been laying out the key issues – the Northern Ireland (NI) backstop and its importance legally to ensure we meet our responsibilities under the international treaty termed the Good Friday Agreement; a Customs Union and enabling frictionless trade; and greater controls over freedom of movement. They have been important events, attended by those who voted leave and remain, in allowing for dialogue and for people to ask questions of MPs and each other about what they are following in the media.

People may not have changed their minds, but they have felt more informed, appreciating why we have an impasse and why politicians are not playing games. Behind what seem like endless parliamentary debates, we are simply doing our job. We are holding the government’s plans up to scrutiny and challenging them. And when people say to me that they are fed up and want us to get on with it, I tell them that boredom is not the way we should make decisions about our country’s future.

When people decide to move house, they get a survey done on the new property and act on that information, particularly if it highlights structural risks. They don’t purchase until they are satisfied that the issues have been addressed.

If we can do that for a home, we ought to do it for our country. That’s what impact assessments and what scrutiny are for. And that’s why the work of our cross-party select committee for Exiting the EU, on which I sit, is doing such vital work.

But we also can’t afford to leave at any cost, and unless the prime minister shows that she has done the equivalent of a survey (she has yet to publish an economic impact assessment of her own deal) or indeed acted on the risks flagged, she won’t get her deal through parliament.

We cannot and must not deny the reasons that people voted to leave – primarily immigration and sovereignty. Parliament must also look deeper at what other policy responses should be. This is why understanding the causes of Brexit will be the subject of an event in parliament on February 25, led by the new Tribune group of Labour MPs.

The price we are already paying is clear. A new survey this week from Deloitte shows that companies are scaling back spending and hiring plans more ferociously than at any time for nine years. And reports suggest that plans are being drawn up to evacuate the royals in the event of any Brexit riots. We have to ask what we have become and stop pitting citizen against citizen or parliament against the country in our dialogue and debate.

Two weeks ago, after the biggest government defeat in history, the prime minister said, “The government will approach meetings with parliamentarians in a constructive spirit.” In reality, she has only reached out to her own party. The recent Brady amendment supported by the Tories to seek “alternative arrangements” to the backstop was challenged by MPs on the government’s own side as little more than displacement tactics. She has done little more than buy time and will come back to parliament for a vote next Wednesday (13).

Theresa May had 24 months to agree a deal with the EU, but took 22 months to bring her deal to parliament. Since she lost the vote, nothing has changed. To meaningfully engage, she must be prepared to change her own – which are not the country’s – red lines to break the deadlock about how we move forward. Within the strength of views held, parliament is inherently pragmatic. I have argued we will need to move towards a deal that is EEA based and with a Customs Union, and that whatever deal is agreed by Parliament should be put back to the British people for the final choice.

One thing is certain. Labour does not accept the false choice between the prime minister’s bad deal and no deal. Things are a mess not just because of Brexit but because of the government’s handling of Brexit. We need a serious shift and more mature debate going forward, which Theresa May has a responsibility to lead. That’s the only way to bring parliament and the country together.

More For You

One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Sir Keir Starmer

Getty Images

One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.

He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?

Keep ReadingShow less
starmer-bangladesh-migration
Sir Keir Starmer
Getty Images

Comment: Can Starmer turn Windrush promises into policy?

Anniversaries can catalyse action. The government appointed the first Windrush Commissioner last week, shortly before Windrush Day, this year marking the 77th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Britain.

The Windrush generation came to Britain believing what the law said – that they were British subjects, with equal rights in the mother country. But they were to discover a different reality – not just in the 1950s, but in this century too. It is five years since Wendy Williams proposed this external oversight in her review of the lessons of the Windrush scandal. The delay has damaged confidence in the compensation scheme. Williams’ proposal had been for a broader Migrants Commissioner role, since the change needed in Home Office culture went beyond the treatment of the Windrush generation itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh’s ‘Sapphire’ collaboration misses the mark

The song everyone is talking about this month is Sapphire – Ed Sheeran’s collaboration with Arijit Singh. But instead of a true duet, Arijit takes more of a backing role to the British pop superstar, which is a shame, considering he is the most followed artist on Spotify. The Indian superstar deserved a stronger presence on the otherwise catchy track. On the positive side, Sapphire may inspire more international artists to incorporate Indian elements into their music. But going forward, any major Indian names involved in global collaborations should insist on equal billing, rather than letting western stars ride on their popularity.

  Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Keep ReadingShow less
If ayatollahs fall, who will run Teheran next?

Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists, killed in Israel’s last Friday (13) attack, are seen above a road, as heavy smoke rises from an oil refinery in southern Teheran hit in an overnight Israeli strike last Sunday (15)

If ayatollahs fall, who will run Teheran next?

THERE is one question to which none of us has the answer: if the ayatollahs are toppled, who will take over in Teheran?

I am surprised that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has lasted as long as he has. He is 86, and would achieve immortality as a “martyr” in the eyes of regime supporters if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in assassinating him. This was apparently Netanyahu’s plan, though he was apparently dissuaded by US president Donald Trump from going ahead with the killing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Comment: Talking about race isn’t racist – ignoring it helped grooming gangs thrive

A woman poses with a sign as members of the public queue to enter a council meeting during a protest calling for justice for victims of sexual abuse and grooming gangs, outside the council offices at City Centre on January 20, 2025 in Oldham, England

Getty Images

Comment: Talking about race isn’t racist – ignoring it helped grooming gangs thrive

WAS a national inquiry needed into so-called grooming gangs? Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer did not think so in January, but now accepts Dame Louise Casey’s recommendation to commission one.

The previous Conservative government – having held a seven-year national inquiry into child sexual abuse – started loudly championing a new national inquiry once it lost the power to call one. Casey explains why she changed her mind too after her four-month, rapid audit into actions taken and missed on group-based exploitation and abuse. A headline Casey theme is the ‘shying away’ from race.

Keep ReadingShow less