What a shambles! Theresa May is clinging onto the north face of the parliamentary Eiger by her finger nails while Remainers bay for her blood on one slope and Brexiteers on the other.
The only thing keeping the prime minister on her increasingly precarious perch are behind-doors conflicting promises that must be kept secret because if they leaked Mrs May, the government, the conservative party and Brexit negotiations would tumble.
The Labour opposition, meanwhile can’t decide whether to oppose or join the government, and is, if anything, more divided than the Conservatives. Anti-European Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn instructed his MPs to abstain in key amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill—the essential piece of legislation needed to take Britain out of the EU.
In an unprecedented party revolt, six members of Corbyn’s front bench resigned to vote their conscience and a total of 90 Labour MPs ignored their leader’s instructions. Rebel Hilary Benn said: “There comes a point when we have to stand up and be counted.”
Then there is the Scottish National Party. Parliament allowed only 15 minutes to debate the government’s plans to take control from Brussels of legislation related to Scottish fisheries and environment instead of devolving them back to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP leader in Westminster, Ian Blackford, was expelled for refusing to sit down and shut up. The other 55 SNP members of parliament walked out with him and a ton of grist was poured into the Scottish independence mill.
Why is there such a chaos in the Mother of Parliaments? Is it because of Mrs May’s paper-thin majority? Is it because of Corbyn’s spinelessness on the overarching issue of Brexit?
No. It is because the Brexit policy is built on a false premise. It is a sandcastle built in a thunderstorm by political figures wearing nostalgia-tinted spectacles.
The British parliament is the scene of unprecedented chaos because the British government has yet to reach the foothills of Brexit negotiations and it cannot agree directions. It is divided because the sky is turning black from the wings of chickens coming home to roost after a Brexit campaign and post-campaign of misinformation, half-truths and downright lies.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about the border between the two Irelands. Wrong.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about the threat of Scottish independence. Wrong.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about the fate of EU nationals. Wrong.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about political disintegration on the continent. Wrong.
Brexiteers promised a “great” free trade deal with America. Wrong.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about Galileo, Euratom, and a host of other technological, scientific partnerships, jobs, the fruit industry, financial services or NHS job shortages. Wrong.
Brexiteers said don’t worry about trade with the EU. They need us more than we need them. Wrong.
British voters were told every time they voiced concerns about the dangers of leaving the European Union that they were falling victim to “Project Fear.” Well, now the voters are afraid—very afraid.
Largely lost in the parliamentary mire last week was the testimony of Arron Banks, banker to UKIP and the Leave Campaign. He and his PR sidekick Andy Wigmore were giving evidence to the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The committee is investigating claims of Russian interference in the Brexit campaign and allegations of illegal overspending by the Brexiteers.
Much of the reporting focus was on Banks’ and Wigmore’s contempt of the parliamentary hearing. They initially refused to appear before the committee and then they walked out of the committee hearing because of a luncheon appointment. They dismissed as a “witch hunt” reports of repeated meetings with Russian diplomats and belittled Cambridge Analytica.
But just as telling was the campaign banker’s description of their campaign. He said:”We were not above using alternative methods to punch home our message or lead people up the garden path if we had to.”
Wigmore added: “The piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember referendums are not about facts, it’s about emotion and you have got to tap into that emotion”.
Facts, not emotion—are the foundation stones of good government.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
9 Comments
@ Tom I’m sure the SNP would love to have 55 MP’s – they have 35…. though it may become more in the future if the Tories continue to behave in this way.
This party has often celebrated “paper thin majorities” without feeling the need to abandon its manifesto and enact, instead, those of the party which came second.
Leave didn’t win the referendum. Remain lost it with an inept and smug campaign which reduced me to tears of frustration.
My feelings of depression are because I see no way out with honour for both sides. This has become a no quarter contest.
Worse still. I believe that Britain was in a state of serious economic decline (either in or out of the EU) with no political party offering other than the most pitiful and trite proposals to reverse it. Living standards must dramatically fall and whichever side wins this Brexit battle will be angrily blamed by the other, whether or not justifiably will be irrelevant.
Be prepared for populism a l’outrance or even demagoguery. Poor people become angry. They look for scapegoats. The emotions we see running wild now need to be calmed not fanned (as this op-ed does). If not they will burst out somewhere.
My own pathetic suggestion would be to both adopt the Norway model and to legislate for a second referendum in 5 or 10 years time, to have time to see how we got on. The question posed could be even further withdrawal or some return to full membership.
By then, I have a sneaking suspicion that the current tensions in the EU will have moderated the United States of Europe project into something viable before the populists tear it apart.
@ Tom Arms,
I’m not a political ally of Ms May but I do have some sympathy for the extraordinarily difficult job she is asked to do.
The EU has made it clear that there will be no renegotiation if the UK turns down any deal. Which is fair enough.
The question being argued over is the role of Parliament , which may or may not include a consultation by referendum. Everyone, including the EU, knows that Parliament will never vote for WTO terms.
If we did have a referendum the choice should be:
1) Accept deal
2) Reject deal and go to WTO terms.
3) Reject deal and stay in.
Politically option 2 would be impossible if Parliament was involved. But to get the best deal Ms May probably has to make the EU think that it is at least a possibility.
Obviously, those who want to remain, want the EU to offer us a terrible deal which will be rejected and we’ll then end up staying. This may, or may not, include the EU PTB themselves. If they have any sense, they will, IMO, offer us a reasonably good deal which we can accept so they can then see the back of us!
They really need to focus on the much bigger problem they have looming in Italy. But if they had the sense to realise this and saw the need to amicably resolve the UK question they probably would also have had the sense not to get themselves into the mess they’re in with their common currency in the first place!
Overall Eurozone debt and deficit is much better than you would think from the mess that some of the countries are in so they have the means to sort out Italy, just have to find an acceptable compromise. I don’t think the Euro is going to go bang any time soon and any weakness is more a sign to flee Sterling which could be really downgraded if our politicians, yet again, let us down.
Option 3 should read stay in EU with a very tough residence test for social housing, benefits, tax credits etc. Not sure that you would want three options, if the deal is bad enough to warrant a referendum then option one ought to be deleted so you don’t dilute the voting. You have a nice extreme choice that should wake people up.
Shambles is an understatement. May’s course is supported by less than 100 MPs, a majority of pensioners, and people like Banks, Nix, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Le Pen, Trump, Putin. It is opposed by more than 500 MPs, a majority of economically active people, an overwhelming majority of young people, all world leaders with democratic convictions, all reputable economic institutions, British and European industry, and trade unions.
Brexit would mark another milestone in the collapse of Western civilisation, inflicted by one of its leading representatives. Incredible!
EU-ophiles should perhaps think of the well known saying involving black pots and kettles before using terms like “shambles”.
How often are we told that the EU is set up to promote peace and harmony in Europe? There’s not much evidence of that in a recent edition of the normally reasonable der Spiegel!
“Ciao amore! Italien zerstört sich selbst – und reißt Europa mit”
or
Hello friend! Italy destroys itself – and takes Europe with it
” Schuldenland Italien: Die Schnorrer von Rom”
or “Debt nation Italy: The scroungers of Rome”.
There quite a bit of racist abuse of Italians.
Do we really want to be a part of this feuding family?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/07/germanys-der-spiegel-calls-italians-ungrateful-moochers/
If there is going to be a serious movement against Brexit we need to see what Remain will look like
1) Cameron’s renogation (which was declared at the time to be a one off)
2) Pre-Cameron terms.
3) Closer integration (Schengen, Euro).
The present insurgency against Brexit has been fuelled by the ineptness of the govts negotiations. But this still opens the door to Brexiteers to brand the govt as incompetent sellouts.
Before the campaign for the People
Sir Mark Ivan Rogers KCMG, a former senior British civil servant who was the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union from 4 November 2013 until his resignation on 3 January 2017 has been giving a series of academic lectures about Brexit. Having just discovered the most recent of these from last month at the University of Glasgow, I thought other LDV readers might also wish to read them:
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/
This contains links to an earlier speech (October 2017) at Glasgow and another (November 2017) at Hertford College, Oxford.
I don’t see a clear route out of this mess, even with a further referendum. We are clearly divided as a nation. A compromise would be leaving the political institution, the eu, while remaining in the economic one and fudging on immigration.