Friday, 14 July 2017

Week in Review: Theresa May's first year report card 

"He can occasionally see to an enemy," she conceded, "if he manages to get his sword pointed in the right direction and the enemy does him the favour of falling upon it in precisely the right way." - Lynn Kurland, Star of the Morning.
View this email in your browser

On Thursday, we reached the first anniversary of Theresa May's time in Downing Street. During this period she has pursued a hopelessly mangled Brexit strategy, rebranded the Conservative party with hard right-wing nativism, trashed Britain's global reputation and thrown away her own majority in a fit of imperial arrogance. We are unlikely to have to mark her second.

It wasn't like this a year ago. Back then, she appeared to represent order in the chaos. Michael Gove was trying to stab Boris Johnson, who himself would have stabbed anyone if it put him in power, while Andrea Leadsom was jabbering on pathetically about how she was morally superior because she had managed to use her reproductive organs. May looked like a grown-up in comparison. Her politics were dreadful, of course, but at least she was competent and did not appear to be motivated exclusively by self-interest, unlike those around her.

And yet, the clues were all there. At the Home Office she had enforced a 'hostile environment' intended to reject all applications for visas unless there really was no way around it. She initiated the infamous Go Home vans. She made up unspeakable nonsense about cats and human rights law. She left that department in as great a mess as she found it.

In retrospect, all the qualities of her time as prime minister were there from the start: the ineffectual decision-making, the reactionary ideology, the emphasise on looking tough over actually dealing with the issues.

And so it has turned out. May interpreted the Brexit vote as a demand for a reactionary overhaul of British society. She would eradicate freedom of movement, which meant leaving the single market. The economic price of this decision was very grave indeed, but she didn't care. Reducing immigration had become the alpha and the omega of British politics. And there was a cultural dimension to this approach. May engaged in a culture war against anyone with an international sensibility, or who valued diversity, or who had multiple identities, or who was an immigrant, or who was the child of immigrants. This was not said outright, of course, but the message came across loud and clear. "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere," she said.

But the public were soon to find out the chief attribute of nationalists: they have no answers.

May drew a red line for herself on the European Court of Justice - a body which had barely featured in the referendum campaign but which irritated the hardline cabal of Brexit lunatics in the Tory party - and then found that it made whole sections of her Brexit strategy all-but impossible. She ignored and humiliated the devolved governments. She pulled out of Euratom, which manages the supply and treatment of nuclear materials, seemingly without knowing what the consequences were. She overhauled the civil service for Brexit, which wasted time and capacity only to produce a tripartite system which does not properly function. She put disgraced former minister Liam Fox in charge of trade, who then proceeded to spend thousands on foreign trips with no achievements to show for them. She ignored repeated offers from experts to help with Brexit. She sacked a senior civil servant for raising concerns about the scale of the task ahead of her, only to instantly capitulate to the Europeans when the warnings she had failed to heed immediately came to pass. She surrounded herself with two figures - Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill - who failed to build a relationship with journalists, were rude to her colleagues and had no political judgement whatsoever. She sabotaged Britain's standing abroad by installing Boris Johnson in the Foreign Office. She tried to control all decision-making from No.10 without any ability to delegate or allow for the smooth running of government. She floated policies - like the naming and shaming of companies which employ foreign workers - which poisoned our European negotiating partners against us. She threw away her leverage on when to trigger Article 50 seemingly without even realising it was leverage. She failed to address the significant limitations she had in terms of time or negotiating capacity. She was unable to convince the EU team to allow talks to take place in parallel instead of in sequence. She trashed Britain's global reputation by refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. She was treated as a joke by European leaders when they realised how weak her understanding of the issues was. She then accused them,in a fit of nativist hysteria, of trying to subvert British democracy. She threw her lot in with Donald Trump by offering him a state visit, only to then look a fool when she realised British citizens were affected by a Muslim travel ban the US president hadn't bothered to tell her about. She introduced policies, for instance on grammar schools, which she was unlikely to be able to get through parliament. She tried to create a cult of personality around herself, only to look startled when her introverted nature meant it fell apart. She came out with the most ludicrous, dated nonsense, from a distinction between 'boy jobs' and 'girl jobs' to her shame over having run through "fields of wheat". She established no stress-testing function for policy and instead formulated it with her two advisers, only for it to fall apart in an utterly predictable way once it was released. She showed almost no backbone at all when the right-wing press attacked, whether it was due to the Budget or social care. And then when she did U-turn she would do so while leaving questions about the extent of the decision, thereby ensuring that she had not even killed off the coverage. In the case of the dementia tax, she did all this while pretending that "nothing has changed", making her look like a liar as well as a coward. She demanded support for her Brexit plan without deigning to tell the public what it entailed, thereby depriving the country of a reasoned debate. After the election she didn't even appear to acknowledge that anything had changed, so she appeared deranged as well as humiliated. She then sabotaged efforts to solve the impasse at Stormont by stitching up a tawdry backroom deal with the DUP, raising questions about Westminster's ability to act as a neutral arbiter in Ireland.

The list of her failures goes on and on. They are moral, political, economic, strategic and presentational. She is a full-spectrum political disaster.

It may be one year in power, but the reality is that May is prime minister in name only. The only reason she is able to stay in Downing Street is because her Cabinet members want to use her as a human shield, taking the political damage for a policy which they themselves also supported. When historians come to write about her, they will treat May as a symptom and a cause of national decline.

Latest Articles

 
 

Small print of repeal bill creates unprecedented new powers for Brexit ministers


 

On Jul 13, 2017 04:11 pm
There has never been a bill like this before. Ministers are about to gain more power than they could have ever dreamed of.
Read more... »
 

PMQs: Thornberry hammers Tories over no-deal Brexit


 

On Jul 12, 2017 01:07 pm
Labour stand-in does strong work against government confusion over Brexit, but her side are essentially in same position.
Read more... »
 

 
 

'It's a trap': Home Office accused of biometrics powergrab over Grenfell amnesty  


 

On Jul 10, 2017 12:14 pm
A Home Office offer of twelve month's immigration amnesty for survivors of the Grenfell disaster has been branded a trap by a leading human rights group.
Read more... »
 


 
 

The Tory-DUP deal makes a united Ireland easier to deliver


 

On Jul 14, 2017 09:54 am
Increased spending in Northern Ireland could start to bring north and south together
Read more... »
 

Euratom is the perfect test case for revoking Article 50


 

On Jul 13, 2017 09:40 am
We urgently need to change course on Euratom - and doing so will prove Brexit can be reversed as well
Read more... »
 

Food prices set to soar as hard Brexit approaches


 

On Jul 12, 2017 08:27 am
Pushing Britain out of the Customs Union will trigger significant price increases at the supermarket check out.
Read more... »
 

We can't negotiate with Europe until we understand it


 

On Jul 11, 2017 09:12 am
The EU doesn't 'need us more than we need them'. It needs political unity - and the sooner we recognise it, the better.
Read more... »
 

Opinion Former videos


 

About the Committee on Climate Change

 

On Jun 28, 2017 05:46 pm
The Committee on Climate Change provides independent advice to government on reducing emissions and preparing for climate change.
Read more... »

Intellectual property – why you should choose the UK

 

On Jun 05, 2017 02:12 pm
Intellectual property rights help businesses to compete on this global stage. To protect your hard work and investment, you need advice from IP professionals who have an international perspective and specialist skills and knowledge. UK IP professionals are respected throughout the world for their ability to deal with complex and challenging matters.
Read more... »
 

Opinion Formers press releases


 
 

Home buyers up 12% in May compared to April


On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, UK Finance data shows that mortgage lending in May rose
Read more... »
 

Taylor may deliver fairness in terms of rights but more work is needed for tax fairness and simplicity


Whilst welcoming the Taylor Review's fairness proposals, the CIOT advises more needs to be done regarding tax outcomes
Read more... »
 

 

 

Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Twitter
Website
Website
Copyright © 2017 Senate Media Ltd, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at www.politics.co.uk

Our mailing address is:
Senate Media Ltd
18 Vine Hill
London, EC1R 5DZ
United Kingdom

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

Friday, 7 July 2017

Week in Review: Brexit debate moves on, but May is stuck in the past

"Things change. And friends leave. Life doesn't stop for anybody" - Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower
View this email in your browser

One of the most beneficial aspects of the election is that a degree of realism has been injected into the Brexit debate. A no-deal outcome, which was for a while there starting to look like the most likely one, has now been all-but ruled out, even if Brexit ministers still pay lip service to it. It's also understood pretty much across the board that any comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU will take a lot longer than the two years of Article 50 - especially once you lose the first three months to a pointless election and the final six to votes in Westminster and Brussels.

That's the context in which the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) made its move yesterday. Director-general Carolyn Fairbairn suggested that a transitional deal keeping the UK in the single market and customs union should be agreed early on and stay in place until a new arrangement with the EU is "in force".

This makes total sense. Businesses are suffering from the lack of certainty over negotiations. They know the final deal won't be done by March 2019. So they ultimately face two wrenching moments of change: one when the UK goes from EU membership to the transitional arrangement, and another when they go from the transitional arrangement to the final deal. And that's the best case scenario. If Britain changes its mind, or talks fall apart, it could be more severe. Many firms say they need more certainty by October, or they'll give up and start pulling out.

Most ministerial thinking about transition is full of demands for what it would entail and a limitation on how long it would last. One minister is apparently floating a 'two plus two' plan - two years of Article 50 followed by two years of transition. This is actually more damaging. The full deal is very unlikely to be finalised in two years. Canada's deal, which was predominantly on goods rather than services (much easier to negotiate) and broadly without hostile political overtones, took seven when you factor in the ratification process. So in reality this would mean three negotiations - one before transition, one for the second transition, and another for the final deal.

It is also extremely naive. You can't ask the EU to negotiate a transitional deal, for instance with a UK opt-out on free movement, and then ask it to negotiate a final deal. It's just not realistic. For transition to work it must be as close to our current situation as possible.

The best way to do transition is to change as little as possible. All Britain's responsibilities remain - including freedom of movement, paying into the EU budget and European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction - but so do its rights, meaning we wouldn't have to quickly try to set up an entire regulatory landscape out of nothing or replicate countless third party international agreements to an impossible timetable. You essentially keep everything as is until the final deal is sorted.

The main obstacle to this consists of Brexit headbangers in the UK, but the EU itself could come a strong second. It's official position paper says: "Any such transitional arrangements must be clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms."

There's a reason they are quite bullish on it. The cliff-edge is more damaging to Britain than the EU, so to grant the gift of indefinite transition relieves pressure on the British negotiating team and reduces the EU's leverage. However, this is not yet a dead end. If the British team accept full EU responsibility during the period it would satisfy the first and third of those three requirements - clear definition and effective enforcement mechanisms through the ECJ. Plus it's worth remembering that while the cliff edge is worse for us than them, it isn't great for them either. A decent UK negotiating team should be able to secure this. Still, they won't be able to do it early. We can't talk transition until the divorce has been agreed, which will be by autumn, at the very earliest.

What's really encouraging about the CBI suggestion is the enthusiasm with which Labour seems to have embraced it. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said:

"Labour agree that we need an early commitment to ensure strong transitional arrangements, and that these should be on similar terms to those we currently enjoy. Without that commitment, and without a bridge to new trading arrangements with the EU, there will be growing uncertainty for businesses and investment decisions will be delayed."

Labour had already signed up to a transition in principle. The manifesto read:

"We will reject 'no deal' as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'cliff-edge' for the UK economy."

But there is a significantly more bullish and open tone here. The emphasis on "strong" transitional arrangements is particularly encouraging, as is the recognition that it is in the UK's interest for these to be "on similar terms to those we currently enjoy". Labour is supporting a transition which is as close to the current arrangement as possible and lasts until a future free trade deal comes into force. It clearly intends to push the government into accepting this as well. There are more than enough sympathetic Tory MPs to win that kind of vote in the Commons.

It's not the ideal scenario. It doesn't make single market membership indefinite or try to reverse Brexit or anything like that. It is still ultimately hard Brexit, even if it is much more sensibly pursued.

But there are big gains for critics of Brexit. Most importantly, it prevents a really catastrophic hit to the British economy. And it does something else too. It greatly expands the time in which Britain could change course. Who knows where the debate will be in 2021? It could very well be winnable by then. We would be out the EU, sure, but nothing practical would have changed. This pathway opens a range of possibilities, even if Brexit can't be stopped before March 2019.

Sometime while all this was going on, a reporter bothered to ask Theresa May about what she thought. It turns out she doesn't really do much thinking.

The prime minister was clearly on the same setting as she was during the election - nodding pointlessly, starting each answer with a restatement of things everyone knows to be true, proving incapable of intellectual or emotional engagement, issuing lame platitudes, insisting on things so stupid she must surely know they are false. An empty shell of a politician, functioning on autopilot.

"What I want to do is negotiate a new comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union," she said, "to have that negotiated within that two year timescale the treaty has set, and then as part of the ongoing relationship, of course we'll have an implementation period when that is put into place."

It's amazing to hear her still saying this stuff - still, for instance, pretending you can sort a full comprehensive trade agreement in two years, including ratification. The debate moves on but she stays there, like a crumbling statue, incapable of change, slowly falling apart. Has there ever been a more plainly irrelevant prime minister ? It is an embarrassing spectacle. One would pity her were it not for the damage she continues to do to this country's prospects and reputation.

Mercifully, the full mania of the last year has eroded slightly and the political debate is moving on without her. It would be better if she caught up, but the numbers are there in the Commons to act on it without her.




 

Latest Articles

 
 

Sleep with the fishes: Gove's first move raises alarm over UK hard Brexit strategy


 

On Jul 04, 2017 01:11 pm
Decision to pull out of London convention will have little effect, except to poison European opinion against Britain
Read more... »
 


 
 

Will the Home Office deport a three year old girl to face genital mutilation?


 

On Jul 07, 2017 08:55 am
Case raises questions about whether Home Office is signed up to the government's commitment to protect women from violence.
Read more... »
 

It didn't take long for sympathy for Grenfell survivors to turn to scorn


 

On Jul 06, 2017 02:18 pm
Grenfell survivors are being shamed for standing up for themselves
Read more... »
 

The best Brexit outcome we can hope for is not much change at all


 

On Jul 05, 2017 12:55 pm
Britain stands to gain little and to lose almost everything from leaving the EU
Read more... »
 

Corbyn supporters are not a cult


 

On Jul 03, 2017 09:37 am
The excitement around Corbyn is not a cult of personality, but a demand for a new way of doing things
Read more... »
 

Opinion Former videos


 

About the Committee on Climate Change

 

On Jun 28, 2017 05:46 pm
The Committee on Climate Change provides independent advice to government on reducing emissions and preparing for climate change.
Read more... »

Intellectual property – why you should choose the UK

 

On Jun 05, 2017 02:12 pm
Intellectual property rights help businesses to compete on this global stage. To protect your hard work and investment, you need advice from IP professionals who have an international perspective and specialist skills and knowledge. UK IP professionals are respected throughout the world for their ability to deal with complex and challenging matters.
Read more... »
 

 

Opinion Formers press releases


 
 

Teaching young people about guns removes the myths, says BASC


BASC has welcomed the number of young people involved in shooting after the Home Office released its latest figures for firearm and shotgun certificates
Read more... »
 

NASUWT comments on TUC LGBT + workers survey


"The findings of this survey are deeply disturbing, but sadly not surprising"
Read more... »
 

 

 

Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Twitter
Website
Website
Copyright © 2017 Senate Media Ltd, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at www.politics.co.uk

Our mailing address is:
Senate Media Ltd
18 Vine Hill
London, EC1R 5DZ
United Kingdom

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences