Why are Brexiteers so quiet about Theresa May’s concessions to Brussels?
Despite a big exit bill and concessions on European judges and the Irish border, Brexit hardliners have kept mum
IT HAS been an up and down week for Theresa May. On December 11th the prime minister basked as pro- and anti-Brexit Tories alike cheered the deal that she had secured on the first phase of Britain’s Article 50 divorce from the European Union. But two days later, as she prepared to head back to Brussels to get an EU summit to approve the deal, Mrs May suffered her first big parliamentary defeat, when 11 of her own MPs joined the opposition to amend the EU withdrawal bill.
Mrs May deserved praise for pushing the Article 50 process forward. Yet it is surprising that Brexiteers were so loud in their approval of the deal. Mrs May has blurred many of their red lines. She accepted a bigger exit bill than they originally envisaged. The agreement on the future rights of EU citizens in Britain gives the European Court of Justice (ECJ) a say for eight years after Brexit. The agreement to avoid a hard border in Ireland implies full alignment with most single market rules. And Brussels insists that transition entails accepting all EU laws plus the ECJ.
This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "The dogs that didn’t bark"
Britain December 14th 2017
- Britain’s buy-to-let boom is coming to an end
- Why are Brexiteers so quiet about Theresa May’s concessions to Brussels?
- Six months on from the Grenfell fire, 100 families still live in hotels
- Care homes are struggling. Blame the odd structure of the market
- Theresa May is borrowing from David Cameron’s back catalogue
- Scottish islands find an innovative solution to a shortage of teachers
More from Britain
Why so many Britons have taken to stand-up paddleboarding
It combines fitness, wellness and smugness
Why Britain’s membership of the ECHR has become a political issue
And why leaving would be a mistake
The ECtHR’s Swiss climate ruling: overreach or appropriate?
A ruling on behalf of pensioners does not mean the court has gone rogue