The EU finally gets the Brexit message
During the referendum campaign, it was an article of faith among Remainers that if Britain were to leave the EU, European leaders would impose the worst possible exit deal on us, and would never consider compromising on the sacred principle of the free movement of people. On that basis, we were told, Brexit Britain would only be able to remain in the single market if we continued to accept European migration. Yet no less a figure than Angela Merkel of Germany now suggests that the EU could indeed compromise on free movement, perhaps putting conditions on when the right would apply. The hint from Berlin comes as another British minister suggests that Britain would be willing to leave the EU’s customs union and strike its own trade deals around the world, rather than be tied to EU trade policy.
Perhaps the message is finally getting through to the European elite: Britain is leaving and has no fear of life outside the EU. Better to strike a sensible deal with one of the world’s great economies than engage in self-harming dogmatism over an immigration policy that is being rejected by voters across Europe.
This tantalising prospect makes it all the more regrettable that judges have involved themselves in what should be the political matter of when and how Theresa May invokes Article 50 on Brexit. The High Court has ruled that she must consult Parliament, something that could wreck her plans to start the process by April – especially if it entails comprehensive new legislation.
That latter prospect is raised in a speech by Lady Justice Hale of the Supreme Court. The judge said she was simply considering the possible outcomes of the Article 50 hearing, and she will doubtless hear the Government’s appeal solely on its legal merits. But her decision to discuss such matters publicly is politically unwise. This case has aroused strong feelings and led some politicians to question the integrity of the judiciary. It is no threat to judicial independence to suggest that judges should take account of such feelings, since their rulings must ultimately command public confidence. The spectacle of a Supreme Court justice openly musing on a ruling that would see the judiciary thwarting the elected Government and dictating terms to Parliament will do nothing to allay fears that judges are in danger of overstepping their proper constitutional role.