What the commentators said
We are getting “to the endgame”, said Juliet Samuel in The Daily Telegraph. May has laid out a plan that is very generous to the EU. “It protects its £92bn trade surplus with the UK” and promises our “full obedience to EU goods regulations”. Now we’ll learn what Brussels thinks is more important: European jobs and good relations with a powerful neighbour; or fidelity to abstract principles such as the “indivisibility” of the single market, and “no cherry-picking”. Brussels “believes it has us over a barrel”. But if the prospect of a disorderly Brexit starts to become real, European governments will wake up. “Does the Netherlands really want to risk its entire bacon industry?” Does Germany want a recession in its biggest car export market?
But even if the EU accepts the plan, will Parliament, asked John Rentoul in The Independent. As one minister said, the split in the Tory party now is “not about Leavers versus Remainers any more, it’s about dealers versus no-dealers”. And the Commons arithmetic “looks daunting for May”. There are 60 to 80 Tory members of the “true Brexit faction”, and if May brings back a much weaker final deal, that number will grow. So she may be reliant on 100 or so opposition MPS to approve the Chequers plan. Jeremy Corbyn opposes it. Some Labour MPS would defy him rather than face a disastrous no deal. But will enough of them rebel?
The situation is impossible, said Vernon Bogdanor in The Guardian. “There is no sure majority for any of the various forms of Brexit on offer.” The truth is that the dilemma created by the referendum of 2016 can only be resolved “through another referendum”. In fact, we need two. The first should ask voters whether they still wish to leave the EU. If they answer yes, a second should ask voters to choose their preferred version of Brexit. Not so, said David Smith in The Times. The best solution “is staring us in the face”: the Norway option, keeping us inside the single market, but outside the EU. The EU would accept it. MPS would most likely back it. Yes, we would have to allow free movement, but that could be restricted, legally, within the rules. And it would be far better than the “dispiriting” present choice, between Chequers and no deal.