Demonstrators with flags protest in London. File
When the prime minister applied for and got a second extension to the Article 50 period, she did so because she wanted to save the country from the disastrous consequences of leaving the EU without a deal. She did the right thing, putting the country first.
Theresa May has known about the consequences of no-deal for years. Paper after paper has crossed her desk, warning her what it would mean. Most recently the Cabinet Secretary – the most senior civil servant in the country – laid these consequences out before Cabinet: food price rises, shortages of some foods, chaos at the ports, the need to stockpile medicines, direct rule for Northern Ireland and, most dangerous of all, a weakening of our national security. No-deal would not only leave our country poorer, but it would also weaken us.
No responsible prime minister could embrace such an outcome. No leader could will these consequences on their own country. But how did we get here? Why was the application for an extension and the rejection of no-deal seen as such a betrayal, not only by Brexiteer Conservative MPs, but by a significant proportion of the population?
For the answer to this, the prime minister need only look in the mirror. In an age of cynicism about MPs people may brush off the latest Boris Johnson article, or switch channels to get away from the latest deliberately outrage provoking outburst from Nigel Farage, but they still listen to their prime minister.
For two years, May has legitimised and normalised a no-deal outcome through her slogan “no deal is better than a bad deal”. She has employed thousands of civil servants making preparations for an outcome no responsible leader could pursue. By keeping the option open she gave the time and space to people far less scrupulous than her to whip up support for this outcome. She portrayed as a bargaining chip a course she knew would involve colossal self-harm for the country. May has spent around £4bn preparing for no-deal. In my constituency I see real and urgent need all the time and there’s so much good that could be done with even a small portion of this money. It could be spent on schools trying to pay for enough staff.
Then, after legitimising this outcome for two years, the May turned up the heat with her “parliament against the people” broadcast a few weeks ago. “I am on your side,” she declared, after listing her view of the publics’ frustrations. “You are tired of the infighting, tired of the political games… Tired of MPs talking about nothing else but Brexit…”
As parliamentarians, we too were on the public’s side, yet we were set against them by the prime minister. She said: “So far Parliament has done everything possible to avoid making a choice. All MPs have been willing to say is what they do not want.”
The implications were not lost on any of us who had been through the “enemies of the people” headlines or the memory, still fresh, of our murdered colleague Jo Cox.
The prime minister didn’t do these things because she is a bad person. She is a doughty, dutiful and diligent public servant. But duty is not just a busy schedule – it is about leadership too. Leadership which meets the moment the country is in and reaches beyond the immediate confines of party. It should not be left to backbench MPs to defend Parliamentary democracy when the leader of our country undermines it and legitimises its rejection.
But perhaps there is a glimmer of light in the cross-party talks she has begun. For in bringing the leader of the opposition into the process she has given him a choice. He can either strike a deal with her to deliver Brexit – and in so doing assume co-ownership of it. Or he can insist that whatever Brexit plan is agreed it is put to the people for their decision. If they endorse an actually existing Brexit proposal, then we leave on that basis. If they don’t and decide to remain after all, then that is also what we do.
For at this time, with no majority in Parliament and no clear route ahead, it is not only the prime minister, but also the leader of the opposition on whose shoulders the call of leadership falls.
The Conservatives didn’t do as badly in the local elections as they might have done. They lost hundreds of council seats, but that is what unpopular governing parties do. Estimates of how the whole of Great Britain might have voted if there had been elections everywhere, including London, Wales and Scotland, suggest that the Tories and Labour ended about equal.
Cut through all the background noise and the facile soundbites, and Theresa May has allowed herself a binary choice between either a customs union or a no-deal Brexit. That amounts to acting either in the least bad interests of the country or, in a desperate bid to keep the Conservative Party intact, knowingly acting in its very worst.
Theresa May defended the decision to leave without a deal. She said it was the only way to implement the 2016 referendum.
Has a small political miracle taken place? For the first time since the Brexit vote, Labour has been able to show a coherent, confident profile on Europe in place of the confused contradictory circumlocutions associated with the Corbyn shadow cabinet’s appearances on the BBC, and in other media.
Humza Yousaf winning the leadership stakes of Scotland National Party (SNP), and consequently the First Minister of Scotland, has much to commend. There are the obvious ones. He is the first coloured person as well as South Asian to head the SNP and to head Scotland with devolved status, a separate parliament
Humza Yousaf, the first Muslim leader of a major UK political party, faces an uphill battle to revive scotland’s drive for independence following the long tenure of his close ally Nicola Sturgeon. The new and youngest Scottish National Party (SNP) leader, 37, says his own experience as an ethnic minority means he will
The very best satire has a remarkable knack for changing absolutely nothing. Harry and Meghan were made to look so perfectly absurd by South Park’s “Worldwide Privacy Tour” episode that the California-based campaigners have evidently concluded that they have been left with little choice but to carry on
The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that exposes the White Castle burger chain to as much as $17 billion in liability because it didn’t get explicit permission from employees to use biometric controls on its time clocks and computers. But don’t blame the courts for the burger joint’s legal costs.