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.
British lawmakers endorsed Prime Minister Theresa May’s request to the European Union (EU) to delay Brexit until June 30 at a vote in parliament on Tuesday, adding weight to the pitch she will make to EU leaders in Brussels.
Theresa May defended the decision to leave without a deal. She said it was the only way to implement the 2016 referendum.
Elections can be energising, they can be bruising, and over the past few years the public have been to the ballot box far more often than expected.
It is only just beginning to sink in how disastrous Theresa May’s failure is for the Conservative Party. The opinion polls have recorded huge drops in Tory support. The most recent from ComRes put the Tories on 23 per cent, which may be an outlier but there is no reason why they should not fall further.
While many nations are just starting to think about utilisation of smart technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), the UAE has been fortunate, thanks to visionary leadership, to have already made rapid strides and lead the digitisation race in the region.
President Donald Trump has long said the goal of his trade policy is simply to get better deals for Americans. But as the trade war intensifies, it seems increasingly likely that his policies will lead to something more: a lasting break with China and a new alignment of global power.
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls. “Isn’t that amazing?” exclaimed the American. “Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!”
I never thought “voter suppression” would be a phrase that I’d ever associate with British politics. Unfortunately, the events witnessed on European Election polling day, which left registered European citizens unable to vote, leave me struggling to find the adequate words to describe how much of a mess it was.