FLYING into a cold, grey London from a sunny, warm Sri Lanka is never pleasant, even though I have arrived before Christmas and the holiday season when shops and streets are lit up and decorated. But somehow, the mood seems as despondent as the weather. Months of a bitter debate over Brexit and the implications of the British exit from the EU have left deep scars on the national mood.
This feeling was best captured in a series of photographs in The Guardian showing the prime minister, Theresa May, cutting a lonely, isolated figure at a recent EU meeting in Brussels. She was not invited to a discussion on the Union’s response to Brexit, although a spokesman described it as ‘brief’. It would appear that the member states have already firmed up their position, and it’s not a positive one for Britain.
To make things even gloomier is the growing realisation that the Brexit negotiations — scheduled to begin soon after Article 50 is triggered in March — could take many years to complete. This would mean that British and foreign firms operating in the EU but based in the UK would have to wait indefinitely to find out the implications of Brexit. This would delay investment and employment decisions, possibly for years. Clearly, this is an untenable business situation, and may force many companies to relocate. Already, many large banks are considering moving out of London, taking thousands of jobs and vast taxable revenues with them.
Adding to the sense of despondency is the growing perception in the public that Theresa May’s government has no clear idea about exactly what it wants to achieve in the hard negotiations ahead. The prime minister is caught between the public demand for minimum immigration — as expressed in the Brexit referendum — and open access to the single EU market as demanded by big business and Britain’s own economic interests. Thus far, no clear bargaining position incorporating these irreconcilable extremes has been formulated; indeed, it is doubtful that one is remotely possible to achieve.
Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s political editor, quotes Lord Kerr, a former EU diplomat as saying that “it is always a good idea when arriving at an airport to know where you are planning to fly”. Currently, Theresa May and her cabinet colleague seem to be clueless. While she comes across as a firm leader who demands discipline in the cabinet, she appears to lack any vision of where she sees Britain once it is out of the EU. Thus far, she appears to wait for policy proposals instead of initiating them. Clearly, her years at the Home Office have not prepared her for the arduous task at hand.
After losing a case in the High Court over its refusal to seek parliament’s approval before triggering Article 50 to take Britain out of the UK, the government has lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court, which it is widely expected to lose. But the opposition is in a quandary, as MPs are unlikely to vote against Brexit after their constituents have voted for it in the June referendum. However, the House of Lords, where the members are appointed rather than elected, may well demand major changes in the government’s bargaining position. Nevertheless, any attempt by parliament to block the majority’s wishes expressed in the referendum would trigger a constitutional crisis.
While the Conservative Party struggles with the fallout from Brexit, Labour is suffering far more. In two recent by-elections this month, the party was hammered badly, with its candidate losing his deposit in the poll in Richmond Park where the sitting Tory MP, Zac Goldsmith, resigned following his disagreement with his party’s decision on the expansion of Heathrow airport. He ran in the by-election as an independent, and was widely seen as the hot favourite. However, his Liberal Democrat rival, Sarah Olney, ran a campaign based on her party’s opposition to Brexit, and won despite her lack of any experience in politics.
Considering that Britain’s current political discourse now centres on Brexit, Labour finds itself woefully out of touch. Even though it campaigned against Brexit last June, its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was lukewarm at best. In 1973, he had voted against entering the European community, and has found it difficult to wholeheartedly support the Remain campaign. This reluctance has allowed the Liberal Democrats to emerge as a credible opponent to the Tories. Indeed, in the second by-election in Sleaford and North Hykeham, Labour placed fourth after the Lib Dems, the Tories and Ukip.
Nationally, Labour languishes 14 per cent behind the Conservatives, and given the changes in constituencies being proposed, appears well on the way to another hammering at the next elections. Although due in 2020, Theresa May could well call early elections to crush Labour and earn her own mandate. She could use Brexit negotiations as a reason to overcome the five-year fixed term made law due to a deal between the Tories and their earlier coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
Indeed, Labour is in danger of haemorrhaging support to the Lib Dems on the left, and to Ukip on the right. Its traditional working class supporters see themselves as being let down by urban Labour leaders who support free immigration and globalisation. Jeremy Corbyn is an old-fashioned socialist who believes in support for workers across the world. This deeply held philosophical position has put him out of step with today’s British working class who have seen jobs disappear abroad, as well as taken by foreigners. They also blame migrants for being given preference in subsidised housing, school places and medical facilities. While these perceptions are not necessarily true, they won the Brexit debate.
So as 2017 approaches, there is little for the Brits to cheer about.
Published in Dawn, December 19th, 2016
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.