Theresa May

Brexit, Northern Ireland & the DUP

Perhaps the most exhausted quotation in modern poetry is W.B Yeats: “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the land”. It begins Patrick Cockburn’s book Chaos & the Caliphate. It is woven throughout Thomas Pynchon’s epic Gravity’s Rainbow, and has served title for books on madness to collections of wildlife photography. Never the less, there is always a temptation to reference ‘The Second Coming’ when talk turns to Northern Ireland and the border. Yeats grew up between London and County Sligo, now in the Republic, and perhaps five miles from Lough Melvin, which lies prostrate along the border. It – like the other counties that form border country and Ulster itself – was rocked in the sectarian turbulence of the last century, known as the Troubles.

Violence flared between Britain and the Irish nationalists during Yeats’ lifetime, culminating in the Easter Uprising of 1916. But the Troubles refer to an era of violence named the ‘long war’ by the IRA, which began in 1968 with a Catholic Civil Rights March, and ended with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. During this period, Britain suspended the Northern Irish assembly and imposed direct rule in an attempt to restore order between the predominantly Catholic nationalists, and the Protestant Unionists. The result was a low-level civil-war pockmarked by bombings and disappearances. For many, British Army checkpoints, particularly along the border, became a metonym for life during the Troubles.

A Canada style relationship with Europe – as is now being muted by the government – simply falls short

Asked recently by a BBC reporter whether concerns about a solid frontier returning to Ireland were not just part of ‘Project Fear’, as some have claimed, a bus driver who makes his living crossing the border replied, “they’ve never lived in Ireland with three check points to go through between North and South”. An end to frictionless trade with the EU is setting off claxons in factories throughout Britain. Car manufactures such as Ford and Toyota have made it clear that unimpeded access to the EU is what makes the UK such an appealing place to invest. A Canada style relationship with Europe – as is now being muted by the government – simply falls short.

Despite the vivid illustrations of ‘global Britain’ painted by the Leave Campaign, the point that long distance trade is cumbersome when compared with trade between neighbours, in a single market, is now being made in stark terms by business leaders. In Ireland, the threat to commerce has a human face. Small businesses – like the aforementioned bus company – depend on easy access to North and South for survival. The cultural implications of checkpoints once again squatting on roads throughout the hills of Donegal, Cavan and Armagh are also consequential.

Although crossing the border by road was sometimes difficult, it was not until the 1970s when systematic efforts were made to strangle transit by the British authorities. Craters were dug in roads and bridges were blown up. Checkpoints, suspicion, and scrutiny became the burden of the local people whose lives transcended the frontier. Few are suggesting that when the border of the Republic becomes Europe’s northwestern boundary, violence will erupt once more. Yet catholic and protestant schoolchildren cross every day, mingling with one another. In a study conducted by Queen Mary’s in Belfast, 93% of ex-pupils from integrated schools said that it had increased their respect for diversity, that being ‘catholic, protestant or other’.

Any hindrance to integration is likely to stunt a germinating frond of the peace process. the DUP recognize this. Despite its euroscepticism, the party propping up the increasingly saggy Conservative government is starting to look like a bulwark against Brexit. The EU is intent on a backup-plan that would establish a sea border between the mainland and Northern Ireland. The DUP will not tolerate any deal which sees Northern Ireland and Britain treated differently. Having fought a 30-year war against unification with the Republic, it is hardly surprising that they find the idea of a border between themselves and Britain repugnant.

In Ireland, the threat to commerce has a human face

Hopes of a breakthrough revived briefly when Minister for Brexit Dominic Raab made an unscheduled visit to Brussels, but perhaps due to its impromptu nature, the meeting only lasted an hour. Following this, government sources are saying that negotiations have hit a “real problem”, and EU negotiators are saying a no-deal scenario is increasingly likely. On hearing that the EU wanted plans for a sea border drawn up in case more desirable proposals were not ready in time, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman said that no-deal is now “probably inevitable”. If there is not a deal on the table when the clocks strike thirteen, because the Conservative Party was so desperate to stay in power that they leant on the DUP, then Faust himself would be proud.

Despite this, and the increasingly suggestive language like ‘open ended backstop’, that is creeping into the lexicon, there does appear to be genuine desire to resolve the border issue. As of the EU summit in Brussels, Britain’s transition period is set to be extended, potentially until 2021, as the search for closure continues. This might fly with Europe, but Theresa May will have a hard time selling this to the leave wing of her party. With Raab trying to make Parliament’s final vote either for the government plan, or for no-deal, the Prime Minister’s position is becoming precarious.

The New Labour government of 1997 made the two greatest contributions to European peace and security that this country has made since the Second World War: The reversal of Milosevic’s Serbia in defense of the Kosovo Albanians, and the Northern Ireland Peace Process. with the election of Milorad Dodik in Bosnia, Serbo-fascism is once again threatening to cut apart the Balkans along sectarian lines. The danger in Northern Ireland is not so immediate, but few predicted the two deadliest years of the Troubles, culminating in the collapse of Stormont, would arise from a civil rights march. Peace in Northern Ireland is only 20-years old. We must not take it for granted.

Boris & The Burka: Free Speech or Dangerous Attack?

Monday 6^th August 2018. The Telegraph publishes an article by the former foreign secretary opposing a ban on niqabs and burkas in the UK. In that same article, Boris Johnson goes on to refer to Muslim women wearing such headwear as looking like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers” – comments which, since the article’s release some weeks ago, have led to a media storm, backlash from his own party, and, many argue, an emboldening of Islamophobic voices. But just what was Johnson trying to say; and what are the likely long term implications of his words?

In the article in question, Johnson opposes a full ban in the UK, claiming that it would be interpreted as “intended to make some point about Islam”. The ex-foreign secretary also asserts that he disagrees with “telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business”. However, he argued that some “restrictions” did seem “sensible”, and it is from these – or rather, from Johnson’s lively and bombastic language – that controversy has arisen.

Johnson argued that a woman who turns up to school or university “looking like a bank robber” should be asked to remove their burka or niqab, just as Johnson said he would feel entitled to ask the same of a constituent who attended an MPs surgery. He also added that businesses should be able to enforce this in their dress code.

His apparent defence of a woman’s right to wear a burka was further undermined by comments that “it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes”, and that it was “weird” to do so.

Since the article was published, there has been outcry from the public, media and politicians alike. Johnson has been called on to apologise by Theresa May, Lord Eric Pickles, and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi amongst other senior Conservative figures. He is however yet to do so.

Johnson has been called on to apologise by senior Conservative figures – he is however yet to do so.

The Conservative party has issued an independent panel to investigate the complaints made against Johnson and to ascertain whether the party code of conduct has been breached. In the meantime, Johnson remains MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and The Telegraph continues to publish his weekly column.

The Conservatives and Islam

Johnson’s comments have led some to question future relations between the Conservative party and Muslim voters.

Historically, British Muslims have been far more likely to vote for the Labour party than the Conservatives on the whole. In the 2015 general election, it is estimated that just 25% of Muslims voted for the Tories, whilst 64% voted Labour. In addition, in the 2017 election, all of the 25 constituencies estimated to have the largest Muslim populations re-elected Labour MPs with increased majorities.

Furthermore, numerous allegations of Islamophobia within the Tory party have arisen. In May 2018, the Muslim Council of Britain wrote an open letter demanding internal investigation within the Conservatives following what it describes as “more than weekly occurrences of Islamophobia in the party last month”.

Johnson’s article seems to have further perpetuated a narrative of prejudice within the Tory party, and some party members argue that this is self-sabotaging. Conservative Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who became the first female Muslim cabinet minister in 2010, has previously suggested that a loss of support amongst Muslims and ethnic minorities has contributed to the Tories losing ground in recent elections.

Strengthening voices of intolerance?

Whilst many public figures have been quick to express their disgust at the comments of what they see as a “pound-shop Donald Trump”, many have also defended the former foreign secretary.

Numerous polls conducted since the article hit headlines have indicated that a majority of the public don’t believe Johnson need apologise. Results from a ComRes poll published in the Sunday Express revealed that 53% of those surveyed felt the MP shouldn’t face punishment, whilst a Sky Data survey indicated that 60% of respondents thought his comments were not racist. The Daily Mail also reported that the vast majority of its reader’s letters supported Johnson’s comments.

Johnson’s article seems to have further perpetuated a narrative of prejudice within the Tory party

Many defendants of the article feel that it was simply an expression of free speech- a freedom often in contention with political correctness. However, the concern for others is that Johnson has diminished the freedoms of those at the brunt of his jokes.

In an article written for The Guardian, Baroness Warsi expresses her fear that by belittling Muslim women, Johnson has validated the views of the alt-right, leaving British Muslims more vulnerable to hate crime. Indeed, there is evidence to support this. Boris Johnson’s official Facebook page has become flooded with Islamophobic comments in recent weeks. The online abuse includes worrying inflammatory attacks on Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and calls to ban Islam. And this comes at a time in which hate crime is on the rise. In 2017 there were 1,201 reported Islamophobic attacks in the UK- the highest number on record and a 26% increase on the previous year.

For a man who was one of UK’s key representatives to the world until a matter of weeks ago to demean those that fall victim to these attacks with relative impunity may very well cause voices of intolerance to become louder and potentially more aggressive. Many share Baroness Warsi’s fear that “the odd bit of toxic campaigning ends up in attacks on our streets”.

Doubtlessly, Johnson’s article was an almost genius work of rhetoric. In it, he presented a liberal argument in favour of expressive freedoms, written in the language of the alt-right. His refusal to apologise, perhaps frighteningly, implies that his choice of wording was not incidental. Instead, it seems deliberately divisive at a time when the Conservatives and wider post-Brexit society are already deeply fractured, and also perhaps represents an attempt keep his name in the headlines following his resignation from his powerful cabinet position.

Yes, freedom of speech is foundational to democracy and must always be defended, of course. But is it not the case that free speech exists to protect citizens against their governments?

This is not only entirely irresponsible of a powerful politician – it is extremely dangerous.

Because this seems to be a case of a politician attacking a group of citizens to gain political ground. Johnson’s exercise of freedom of speech appears to have taken a minority group as collateral in order to galvanise voters’ support from the right. This is not only entirely irresponsible of a powerful politician – it is extremely dangerous.

Towards the end of the article which has sparked so much debate, Boris Johnson writes that we must not “play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations”. The irony (or not) is, that in his calculated words and his subsequent refusal to apologise, it seems that it is Mr Johnson himself who has done exactly that.

Stuck on Mount Brexit

Theresa May likes her walking holidays. She reportedly decided to call last year’s general election on one such venture in Snowdonia. She may not have visited her other favourite (the Swiss Alps) this year because it seems as though she is there already- climbing a huge mountain, with little grip, and rather a big crevasse on the other side.

The legacy that any new Prime Minister inherits from their predecessor has a huge bearing on how they will ultimately be remembered. The mess May has inherited has few parallels – the country is still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis, social divisions are deep and we face the biggest administrative task since the war to boot.

The mess May has inherited has few parallels

The promises made by Vote Leave, which she chose to make her own, are the most toxic legacy of them all. Vote Leave and the Conservative Party have promised an inconsistent triad of policies – leave the single market, leave the customs union and avoid additional physical infrastructure on the Irish border or a border in the Irish Sea. This is the root of all the mayhem we have seen in recent weeks.

The Chequers proposals are an attempt to get out of this jam. For now, the illusion that all three promises can be kept is being maintained through the complicated ‘facilitated customs agreement’, under which the UK would collect EU tariffs and then reallocate the money back to Brussels – but the assumption across Westminster is that those plans will get the boot from Brussels and that some form of customs union will be agreed.

The explosive reaction to the Chequers plan, and the fact that hindsight is 20:20, means many of the Prime Minister’s previous decisions suddenly make some sense. The desire to avoid or delay the day of reckoning with backbenchers who think the inconsistent triad can be upheld is the story of the past two years – from the attempt to stop parliament having any say over the Brexit process, to the decision to call a snap general election and the endless attempts to fudge the issue and kick the can down the road in its aftermath.

Theresa May’s Cabinet ahead of talks at Chequers

The reckoning has now arrived. David Davis and Boris Johnson’s resignations suggest that the Tories are now irrevocably split; between former Remainers who broadly welcome the Chequers proposals, Brexiteers who say we just have to leave and worry about the future relationship later, and Brexiteers who are prepared to sink Mrs May’s proposals. The fact that neither Davis, Johnson nor Eurosceptic backbenchers can come up with their own workable proposals is almost beside the point. The Tories’ civil war over Europe, which has been rumbling on since Margret Thatcher’s day, may now be decisively won by one side or the other.

There’s a chance that the chaos and splits at the top could lead to May giving fewer concessions to Brussels. The mood music from the Commission in the immediate aftermath of Chequers was cautious optimism, accompanied by a clear message that many of the proposals may prove difficult to implement. Since the resignations, Brussels has gone into submarine mode – saying as little as possible to ensure May isn’t toppled. Since there is so little time left for negotiations, the EU’s main focus is secure a transition period with a ‘backstop’ solution for the Irish border, avoid no deal and push the rest of the detail into the transition period.

And when this is all, hopefully, wrapped up and the struggling PM has finally reached the summit, she has to look over the other side. It’s not pretty. Indeed, there are very few ways that she can get down unscathed and secure a safe landing.

The mood music from the Commission in the immediate aftermath of Chequers was cautious optimism

The reason for this lies in the most serious mistake Theresa May has made as Prime Minister – and it has nothing to do the Brexit talks or the calling of the general election. Since the crash, no party has been in the sweet spot of being trusted to manage the economy effectively and deliver a more compassionate society, and this explains why no single party has won a comfortable majority in parliament since 2005. Before the election, the Tories clocked up 20 point poll leads because voters largely believed that May was a very different type of Tory, which was crystallised by her rhetoric about ‘burning injustices’. When given the chance to put the flesh on some bones of this in an election manifesto, we instead got the dementia tax, fox hunting and proposals to take away free school lunches rather than anything that was positive.

With the onset of a hung parliament, it has become clear that any Brexit option would be extremely difficult to get through parliament. No option is supported by a majority of MPs, and any deal looks doomed even though, legally, the only alternative to leaving with a deal is to have no deal. Labour is guaranteed to whip its MPs to vote against whatever is proposed with the hope that it would trigger a general election, while it looks like enough Tory backbenchers are so ideologically opposed to the Chequers plan that they would be willing to risk an election. Whatever May brings back is extremely likely to be voted down. This could trigger a second referendum, an election, a frantic new round of negotiations, a fudge which pushes the substantive issues into the transition or no deal – but as this is Brexit, a fudge is most likely.

Fasten your belts because this whole thing will just go on, and on, and on. The tragedy is not that our GDP will be a bit smaller and our voice on the international stage will be slightly quieter, but that the real issues facing Britain will continue to be overlooked.

‘Wrong then, and wrong now’ – The Legacy of Britain’s Anti-Gay Laws in the Commonwealth

After winning gold in the 10m synchronised diving event at Australia’s Commonwealth Games last month, diver Tom Daley took the opportunity to bring to light the fact that homosexuality is still illegal in nearly forty Commonwealth countries. Though he has been criticised for speaking out against countries formally under British rule whilst competing for Britain, it rightfully brought the issue into mainstream headlines. Additionally, it started many discussions about what more should be done to stop the oppression of homosexuality around the globe. At the same time, Theresa May was addressing the subject at the annual Commonwealth leaders summit.

Yet there’s more to the issue, especially regarding Britain’s history of outlawing homosexuality. Under the Victoria penal code, British colonists made it illegal to be gay in a step which was consequently implemented in every country under British rule. The UK has mostly abandoned these outdated laws; however, the stark truth remains that thirty-six Commonwealth countries have kept them in place, meaning millions of gay and lesbian citizens are oppressed in the countries that are home to a third of the world’s population.

In the Commonwealth, paradoxically, progress and regression seem to be happening alongside one another

As perfectly explained in a recent PinkNews article, ‘‘anti-gay laws originating in Britain aren’t an archaic part of history – they are an archaic part of the present’’. Despite making considerable progress on home territory in the five decades since homosexuality was made legal, the UK still has work to do with regards to LGBTQ+ equality. Sex education in schools needs the inclusion of those outside of heteronormativity, and a survey recently carried out by Stonewall shows only 51% of people believe more should be done to tackle discrimination against transgender people.

Meanwhile in the Commonwealth, paradoxically, progress and regression seem to be happening alongside one another. Australia legalised same-sex marriage in December, and in 2015, Sydney was named as one of the ten best places in the world to be gay. In Kenya, where fourteen years in prison is the sentence for homosexuality, its High Court has meanwhile been discussing whether or not to legalise being gay, as a group of human rights lawyers argued against the laws together as the Kenyan National Gay and Lesbian Rights Committee. Despite this, events such as India’s restoration of colonial-era outlawing of homosexuality in 2013 still reflect the progress which needs to be made.

There has been some positivity regarding this back in the UK, however. Addressing the Commonwealth Heads of Government at the summit, Theresa May took the opportunity to raise the issue and urged the audience to overhaul the laws, which she ‘deeply regrets’ and described as ‘outdated’. Receiving praise and applause, she added that ‘nobody should face persecution or discrimination because of who they are or who they love’. Human rights activist Peter Tatchell approved the move but felt it should have been delivered directly to the leaders of the nations with the oppressive laws in place.

Regardless, the Prime Minister’s words will have no doubt been heard by those in charge and hopefully will serve as a catalyst for progress. Having previously acknowledged last year that Britain has a ‘special responsibility’ to change opinions on anti-gay laws, she is in fact doing more than her political predecessors to try and put things right.

righting the wrongs that failed LGBTQ+ citizens then, and now, is long overdue

Similarly, on the back of her recent scandal surrounding her involvement and knowledge of the government’s immigration removal targets in the Windrush controversy and resignation, former home secretary Amber Rudd pledged last week that the UK is to spend more than £5m in a programme aiming to reform the harsh laws against homosexuality in Commonwealth countries. Though little is known as of yet about the contents of the programme, it will involve close work with organisations including the Kaleidoscope Trust among others after 100,000 signatures were received in a petition calling for change.

Only time will tell how much progress has been made and whether the UK’s recent actions are enough of a wake-up call to make Commonwealth countries revoke the oppressive laws put in place in Britain’s past. May’s invitation that the ‘UK stands ready to support any commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation’ assuredly asserts the expectation of repeals. The 2022 Commonwealth Games will no doubt once again bring the issue closer to home – quite literally as Birmingham is hosting the event – but hopefully, substantial strides will have been made to put an end to the preposterous illegality of being gay. Of course, this process will take time, and righting the wrongs that failed LGBTQ+ citizens then, and now, is long overdue. However, the events of the last weeks symbolise that Britain is facing up to its past and is attempting to do something about it.

Some Vague Utopia – A Brexit Update

Just before Christmas, Theresa May returned from Brussels a hero. In the space of a week she had seemingly salvaged a process that appeared on the brink of collapse, as the Democratic Unionist Party – her government’s only lifeline in the House of Commons – had refused to endorse the preliminary deal on the Irish border. It was no good, they argued, to erect what amounted to a border in the Irish Sea. British citizens in Northern Ireland would be free to travel across the border to the Republic and back, but would have to produce passports or similar means of identification if they wanted to enter the mainland UK. A slave to parliamentary arithmetic, the Prime Minister and her negotiating delegation were forced back to the drawing board – and, apparently, secured a breakthrough.

On 15 December, the European Union collectively agreed to allow the Brexit process to move onto phase two, comprising trade talks and the matter of the future relationship between Britain and the EU. This decision was backed by the Irish government and the DUP, who had seemingly found common ground in supporting the redrafted deal for the Irish border. The UK committed itself to ‘full regulatory alignment’ on matters of Ireland to enable a smooth transition, and that was that. Case closed. This saga played out in the press as a significant victory for Downing Street, and on the issue of progression, this was true. The UK had managed to bypass fears of an EU or Irish veto, and would progress to the next stage of talks. But the wider issue remains. The alleged solution is nothing more than the can being kicked down the road, to be dealt with properly at some unknown future juncture. That would be bad enough, leaving aside the undeniable fact that this issue must be revisited before the year is out. A settlement hasn’t even been shunted into the long grass, just weakly thrown a few steps in front of the current government.

the European Union collectively agreed to allow the Brexit process to move onto phase two

This is just one of many issues that plague the government. A depressing number of them are self-inflicted, for instance, the debacle concerning the ‘return’ to the old blue passport. The problem isn’t even to do with the reality that there is no EU directive demanding a change of passport colour, a move that originated from a deliberate decision by the British government. Opinions to the counter have been aggressively dismissed by Manfred Weber, the head of the conservative-leaning People’s faction in the European Parliament, as nothing more than a ‘scam.’ Whilst a switch to blue passports will certainly make a lot of people very happy indeed, these people will predominantly be of the age to remember the blue passports and the switch to burgundy in 1988. The move certainly does not endear the government to the legions of young people already disenchanted by the vote to leave the European Union. I have no emotional connection to a blue passport. In my lifetime, my passport has always given me visa-free access to a raft of countries across Europe, as well as the ability to live and work there. That is about to change, and it beggars belief that a government already bereft of support amongst young people – and in the wake of the snap election, haemorrhaging even more – would seek to alienate itself further from young voters.

The stability of the government also deserves some discussion. The Prime Minister’s position appears, at least on the surface, remarkably more stable than it did three months ago. It does not take long, however, to break through this façade. It takes just 15% of the parliamentary Conservative Party – since the snap election, this translates to forty-eight MPs – to force a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. Whilst she may fight it and win, Margaret Thatcher did the same under different rules in late 1990, and we all know how that turned out. Last November, reports circulated that the number of Tory MPs who had submitted a letter of no confidence to the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee had reached forty. In the time since I began writing this article, another story has erupted concerning how the chairman, Graham Brady, is reportedly ‘ashen-faced’ at the thought that only a handful more letters could topple Theresa May. Were the Prime Minister to be pushed from office, or jump before she is pushed, the government would be thrust into a time-consuming leadership contest at a pivotal time in the Brexit talks.

The Prime Minister’s position appears remarkably more stable than it did three months ago

There has reportedly been discussion of a ‘coronation’, whereby a single compromise candidate for leader would be rallied around and made Prime Minister just a few weeks after a resignation, as happened after the resignation of David Cameron. But this is difficult to imagine in practice. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, would surely not pass up an opportunity to run for high office again. There are plenty who would stand to oppose him. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, is the favourite of those Conservatives who desire a ‘soft Brexit.’ Jeremy Hunt, David Davis, and Michael Gove stand ready as Brexiteer candidates for those who find the Foreign Secretary unpalatable. There is even the prospect of a candidate from the hard Remain wing of the Conservative Party, somebody like Nicky Morgan or Anna Soubry. The Prime Minister’s retention of office after the disaster of the snap election was arguably due to this plethora of candidates standing in the wings: a leadership contest in the midst of the Brexit process would be nothing short of chaotic and bloody for all involved. A full contest, involving ballots of MPs to cut the contenders down to two and a subsequent balloting of the full party membership to elect the leader, would take around three months. In arguably the most important year of the Brexit talks, this is three months the government can hardly afford to lose.

Once the necessary forty-eight letters of no confidence are received, the ball starts rolling. The signatories of these letters – and the number of letters that have been received – are completely confidential to everybody except the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. The letters themselves remain on the record unless they are withdrawn. The risk stands that the Prime Minister might fumble some small detail in the months ahead, compromise on an issue that offends a backbencher of any political stripe, and that would spell her downfall. Attempting to chart a path of inoffensive compromise is hardly a solution either. Just this week, Nick Boles and Nicholas Soames, two prominent Conservative MPs, have publicly attacked Downing Street for ‘mediocrity’ and a lack of clear direction and purpose. The negotiation of Brexit would be difficult enough for a strong Prime Minister with a landslide behind them. For Theresa May, leading a minority government with the constant threat of a leadership coup hanging over her, it is unfathomably more difficult. Suffice to say, the next year will be extremely stressful indeed for those in the upper echelons of government.

It is, of course, remarkable that the Prime Minister has made it this far in the wake of the election. In the days following, as furious Tory MPs rounded on the leadership and Grenfell Tower burned, it seemed she had just days left. In my last article, in September, it seemed it would be impossible for such a weakened Prime Minister to chart their way through the first phase of the Brexit talks. When October’s party conference proved a shambles, I was convinced her time was up. At Christmas, I was increasingly convinced that Theresa May would be able to stick around until 2019, and the end of the Brexit process, and yet here we are. The year ahead will be dominated by difficult political challenges. Not only does the government have to decide officially what sort of Brexit it wants – membership of the customs union? A clean break from Brussels? – but it also has to navigate what are likely to be poor local elections in the spring and a myriad of scandals and leadership rumblings we cannot even begin to predict now. All the while, the ever-present spectre of Ireland and the impending vote in the House of Commons on the final deal hang over proceedings. A change of Prime Minister or a general election are unlikely this year but, as the last few years have proved, stranger things have happened.

It is remarkable that the Prime Minister has made it this far in the wake of the election

As I conclude, I find myself returning to the title of this piece. There is certainly something apt about ‘Some Vague Utopia’, a phrase drawn from the poetry of Irish poet W. B. Yeats. The quote’s Irish roots are certainly important, as the issue of Ireland will make or break the Brexit talks, but the wider ramifications of the phrase are more interesting. In all likelihood, Britain will leave the European Union in just over a year’s time. In all likelihood, we will carve a new place in the global economy distinct from the EU, and with time British institutions and businesses will adjust, and life will go on as before. But nobody seems to know what this new place will look like.

It is shocking that the Cabinet only convened in December, nine months after the invoking of Article 50, to discuss what sort of Brexit we were actually heading for. With a preliminary Brexit deal needing to be settled by mid-autumn in order to allow time for the required votes of approval in the British and European Parliaments, we are still – chillingly – not sure about what such a deal will look like. Even the strident Brexiteers in the Cabinet, Johnson and Gove, appear unsure of what the end state of Brexit will look like, although they are convinced that it will be fantastic.

So, that is where the ship of state is heading. As the Prime Minister was fond of saying in her first few months in office, Britain is leaving the European Union. 2018 will be the year we find out exactly what that looks like.

Exeter research influences Government blueprint for environment

The University of Exeter’s research helped shape a 25-year strategy to improve the UK’s landscapes and habitats. Prime Minister Theresa May spoke of this plan to ensure a “cleaner, greener country for all” in an 11 January speech.

The Government report linked to the Prime Minister’s speech, called ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’, cites several University of Exeter research projects.

The report made two separate citations, including Exeter’s world-class research into the complex connections between nature and wellbeing, conducted by the University’s European Centre for Environment and Human Health (ECEHH), part of the Medical School. It mentioned a study led by Dr Matthew White from the Medical School which showed “visits to the natural environment were associated with an estimated 109,164 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an annual value of £2.2 billion.”

OUr research has demonstrated the multiple benefits that accrue from beaver reintroduction

The Prime Minister went on to describe plastic waste as “one of the great environmental scourges of our time”, a sentiment that Exeter marine pollution experts Professor Tamara Galloway and Dr Ceri Lewis agree with. Professor Galloway previously gave evidence to the Government’s Environment Audit Committee and delivered a high-level presentation at the United Nations headquarters in America outlining the effect microplastics have on the ocean environments. And after the Prime Minister’s speech, Dr Lewis said: “we are very glad to hear that it is now a top government priority to put in measures to reduce the use of single use plastic more widely. We urgently need to change the way in which we use this material as a society.”

The Prime Minister even referred to successfully implemented schemes like the reintroduction of beavers “to help reduce the risk of flooding and enhance biodiversity.” Professor Richard Brazier, a hydrologist at the University of Exeter, who has been leading research on natural solutions to flooding – including the use of beavers – says: “our research has demonstrated the multiple benefits that accrue from beaver reintroduction, including flood attenuation and water-quality improvements.”

The iconic #bluepassport: Powerfully patriotic or just petty?

In the week before Christmas, Theresa May tweeted to the world that “The UK passport is an expression of our independence and sovereignty – symbolising our citizenship of a proud, great nation. That’s why we have announced that the iconic #bluepassport will return after we leave the European Union in 2019.” This was sent with a link to the Conservative Party webpage describing how the blue colour was first used in 1921 and “remained the colour of choice until the UK joined the EU and the burgundy common format colour was adopted.” The implication is that, free from the restraints of the EU, the passports (produced as part of an over-eleven year £490 million contract including printing and assembling) are being heralded as a restoration of tradition as we go through with Brexit.

The tone here, that of a patriotic pride and rebellious nature, reflects a key rhetoric that was churned out during the Leave campaign leading up to the EU referendum. Many Leave voters had been encouraged to embrace the attitude that we needed to return to a ‘golden age’ of Great Britain, found in the early 20th century. Images of faded Union Jacks and KEEP CALM slogans were used to push for Brexit – not so subtle remainders and reminders of a time during the World Wars when patriotism was seemingly vital for British victory. Therefore, the duplication of similar campaigning was a clever tactic to tap into a nostalgia that is particularly prominent for older voters, but also an insinuation that leaving the EU was a battle that needed to be fought and won.

the duplication of similar campaigning was a clever tactic to tap into a nostalgia that is particularly prominent for older voters

However, the announcement has already met much ridicule and criticism. The Labour MP David Lammy mocked the nostalgia seeped into the symbolism of the blue passports, explaining how “Brexit is beginning to feel like a huge effort to turn the clock back 100 years with some misguided imperial overtones.” The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, Charles Powell, also openly derided the move by the Conservative government: “So long as they are content with symbols, rather than substance, I see no harm in letting them have their way. Perhaps we should go the whole hog and reintroduce ambassadorial dress uniforms, as well as bowler hats and stiff collars for senior civil servants.” Critics have branded the blue passports as a cheap, melancholic move that exposes the government to be condescending to the electorate, as well as an embarrassment when desperately trying to match up to the EU in negotiations.

Critics have branded the blue passports as a cheap, melancholic move that exposes the government to be condescending to the electorate

The criticism that our government, and therefore our country, is being presented as a laughing stock for the rest of Europe is also supported by the response of the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt. He retorted by tweeting a picture of stacks of fake passports, adorned with the blue and yellow EU flag, along with the caption: “If we had known in advance that blue was so important to the UK, we could simply have replaced our passports by this one 😊” Verhofstadt’s joke followed a previous tweet that clarified how Britain could have chosen to have any colour passport while still remaining in the EU – therefore undermining the “independence and sovereignty” that the blue was meant to represent and instead being seen as an attempted distraction while Brexit negotiations go on to prove more difficult.

Conservative MPs have defended the blue passport against the waves of criticism though. Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, stated that what “this reaction demonstrates is the contempt with which many of the Remain establishment hold the electorate… Sadly, some people seem to think it’s shameful and wrong to be proud of our country…The people voted to take back control – so why should we not take back control of our passports and return to the traditional navy blue?” Jacob Rees-Mogg also praised the symbolism of the blue passport, adding that he hoped that they would be printed in the UK as well.

the apparently minor announcement of blue passports is actually an echo of the continued debates around Brexit

As the EU referendum exposed divisions in the country in a rather ugly light, the apparently minor announcement of blue passports is actually an echo of the continued debates around Brexit. Is this an emblem of an independent country taking back control or a condescending publicity stunt to distract from the realities of the negotiations? When we’re having to pay a £500 million bill, is an overzealous oozing of patriotism over navy passports actually a front over the price we now have to pay? In years to come when we have officially left the EU, we will have to see whether our blue passports are an “iconic” symbol of “a proud, great nation”, or more a representation of an expensive, petty wistfulness.

Brexit negotiations continue to falter

The Message was simple: ‘Brexit means Brexit’. One year following the referendum that divided the nation, the most epic divorce of the century is finally set to commence.

The thesis of Brexit.

All humans want to live better than we do. Adam Smith acknowledged our plight to become bigger and better: ‘a certain propensity of human nature to… Exchange one thing for another…is common to all men’. Smith believed his ideas would be relevant forever. True to his words, his remarks are indicative of our current political landscape.

‘Michel Barine, the eu’s chief brexit negotiator described the talks as “deadlocked”‘.

The vote leave campaign was a successful appeal to unite the people, acting as a notion of popular power. The policies promised a prosperous and nationalist future, launching three key policies, ‘Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week’, ‘A vote leave will be a vote to cut immigration’, ‘Five million more migrants could enter Britain by 2030 if Turkey and four other applicant countries join the EU’. On June 27th 2016 Iain Duncan Smith stated, ‘Our promises were a series of possibilities’. Sixteen months on, what is their status?

With our Prime Minister at the mercy of Brussels, it will become all too clear whether May’s Brexit agenda holds prowess or proves to be a compilation of pie in the sky ravings.

Earlier this month, Michel Barnie, THE EU’s chief Brexit negotiator described the talks as ‘deadlocked’. Ms May has herself ‘recognised the difficulty of the process’. In an attempt to break the deadlock, Ms May highlighted the need for a ‘joint effort and endeavour’ delivering clarity in the key areas of contest. The speech has indeed unblocked the stalemate in divorce quotes, however EU leaders remain adamant on their refusal to open talks with the UK concerning post-Brexit transition at the upcoming summit. The European Council president, Donald Tusk, provided a succinct summary of the summit discussion, outlining the progress in certain areas, particularly in regards to the rights of citizens.

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council.

Yet, the twenty-seven other remaining EU members undoubtedly hold a firm grasp on negotiations, evidenced by their meeting to discuss Brexit without May’s presence. European negotiators Michel Barnier Jean- Claude Juncker and company perceive the rising tide of immigration and the emergence of forest fires to be the major vocal points for EU discussion. The EU27 have recognised the ambiguity of markets. The longer the UK is ploughing in the field of uncertainty, dwelling on ‘we can’t talk to you yet about our future relations’, the pound will continue to fall, plaguing Brexiters with ‘worry’ and the movement into disarray.

It is not all doom and gloom within the UK! Drawing upon the principles of free trade, it is widespread knowledge that Britain and the EU gain from trade, when purchasing goods and services for one another. The benefits of Brexit thus far have been solely as a consequence of currency devaluation. The sharp devaluation of the pound, depreciating by more than 15 percent against the major global currencies has largely benefitted UK exports. Mr Rea provided a dogmatic response to how Brexit is shaping his Yorkshire based manufacturing business. In an interview with the Financial Times, Rea acknowledges the stark devaluation of the pound largely offsets the tariffs imposed by the World Trade Organization, which ‘is on average 1.7 per cent’. Akin to Mr Rea, the worldwide demand for UK exports (particularly specialised industrial goods) will ensure more UK manufactures are set to reap the rewards of a devalued pound.

‘the eurocrats can smell the fright of brexit’.

The EU27 has adopted a hostile and unforgiving stance to Brexit thus far. However, it is crucial for the EU to remind themselves of the costs it will inflict upon itself if it continues to pursue a hard Brexit. If suitable trade agreements cannot be made Britain should attempt to explain to the countries the role the UK plays in absorbing EU commodities and indeed people. As Juncker, Barnier and company are toying with Britain to cede more and more ground, Britain too could prompt the EU27 to reflect on what they too will have to sacrifice from a Brexit.

However, such propositions remain merely ideological. Britain has thus far failed to toy with the EU27. The Eurocrats can smell the fright of Brexit and are worsening the odor by shelving Brexit propositions.

Ms May is facing the harsh reality of Brexit. The threat of a no-deal Brexit is casting an ambiguous shadow over Brexit precedings. The EU27 is proving uncooperative and apathetic. Maintaining a properly informed populace is one of the biggest obstacles to democracy; – the Brexit narrative arguably relied on misinformation. Brexit has broken into disarray, plagued by ‘worry’ and ‘deadlock’ in negotiations.

The fanciful promise of prosperity and near paradise though Brexit appears aloof, but by no means out of reach.

Tories cap tuition fees in attempt to attract youth vote

Theresa May, in a move designed to attract youth voters, revealed plans to cap tuition fees as they currently stand at £9,250 going forward. She announced the move in a Telegraph exclusive on Saturday September 30th, the day before the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester. The policy locks student fees at their current level, but more significantly, increases the level of earnings at which student loans will start to be paid back from £21,000 to £25,000 a year.

‘THIS POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT REPRESENTS… A CONTINUATION OF THE PARTY’S INABILITY TO CONNECT WITH TODAY’S YOUNG PEOPLE.’

There are problems with the policy itself, which, although it represents a step in the right direction, is remarkably unattractive when compared with Corbyn’s promise to erase fees entirely. Prospective students will ‘only’ pay a total of £43,000 rather than the £57,000 that was threatened; not exactly cause for celebration. May has announced that along with the immediate lock on fees and the raise in mandatory earnings before payback, she will ‘consider’ reintroducing maintenance grants, and reducing the interest rates on loans. While the interest rates on student fees (around 6%) currently mean that students earning less than £30,000 after 30 years will never have to pay back the full fee anyway, this only really demonstrates that the fees are too high as it is, as a majority of graduates will be unable to pay off the debt. Corbyn’s promise doesn’t seem entirely reasonable or plausible by comparison, as the money a university degree undeniably costs needs to come from somewhere – not to invoke the dreaded ‘magic money tree’ symbolism that so plagues current political discussion. However, it will appeal to youth voters, especially considering the current trend in student populations toward socialism and subsidiary worldviews. When student loans were introduced by the Blair administration, the university was still essentially subsidising each student’s degree, which certainly doesn’t appeal to the free-market sensibilities of the Conservatives. In fact, the creation of a new free market was the aim of the Tories’ fee hike all along. They apparently envisioned a system wherein the elite universities would charge the full fee, and lesser institutions would demand less money. Even the most cursory research would have revealed that that would not be the case, and now, here we are.

‘cutting off a student’s writing hand would not aid the country’s economy.’

As the latest in a series of moves meant to attract youths to the party, this policy announcement represents not only the most shameless kind of triangulation — in keeping with her modus operandi of appropriating other parties’ ideas and slapping a blue sticker on them — but also a continuation of the party’s inability to connect with today’s young people (which teen or twenty-something reads the Telegraph?). As Ed Miliband pointed out in response to a recent Theresa May tweet, he felt as though he’d heard the idea of introducing ‘legislation to cap energy bills’ ‘somewhere before’. It’s not all that we’ve heard before, either. The Tories’ much-ridiculed ‘Activate’ scheme was a blatant rebranding of Labour’s Momentum campaign. That was announced with Corbyn’s slogan ‘For the many, not the few’ being twinned with Star Wars character Admiral Ackbar announcing ‘it’s a trap’ in Return of the Jedi; a popular internet meme some five or so years ago. In other words, the move ironically paired an outreach to youth voters with a woeful lack of know-how regarding youth voters.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Image/Wikipedia.org

The Conservatives’ primary weakness at present is this apparent inability, perhaps even unwillingness, to recognise that their ethos couldn’t entice a sensible youth. An economy in which one has no valuable stake and could only reasonably expect to lose out is not a system that one would ever wish to serve. A system that cripples me financially for getting an education is a despicable mockery of the capitalist market model. Harming a future worker financially is not going to produce a reliable workforce, in the same way that cutting off a student’s writing hand would not aid the country’s economy. Maintaining student fees at their current level is only going to contribute to the growing sense of distaste and distrust for the Tories among young people. Corbyn, no doubt, will be waiting in the wings to mop up the collateral.

How to ‘win’ elections and alienate people

The Prime Minister stands triumphant in the House of Commons, a majority larger than Margaret Thatcher’s stacked up behind her. The opposition benches are noticeably emptier. Over half of Labour MPs lost their seats in the Tory tsunami. The SNP collapsed as Scotland’s electoral map turned blue for the first time in decades. You can count the surviving Lib Dems on one hand. With the Prime Minister still remarkably popular, the government can finally claim a mandate for the hard Brexit endorsed by the public in June’s snap election.

Yeah, that didn’t happen. Things did not go to plan. A year ago, the government stood ready to launch itself into the Brexit talks, headed by a Prime Minister regarded by most as a capable and safe pair of hands. A year on, the government’s is focused on its very survival, with Theresa May’s credibility as absent as the majority she once presided over. You may remember an article I wrote back in May, outlining what to expect from the Brexit process. The general election result has thrown many of those points out of the window and complicated even more. There is a lot to pack into the next eighteen months.

‘if you want our trade, you’ll have to pay’

The Brexit talks have stalled. As Nick Robinson succinctly put it, the impasse can be simplified to a clash between the EU position of ‘if you want our trade, you’ll have to pay’ and that of the UK, which can be boiled down to ‘if you want our money, you’ll have to talk trade.’ There is an acceptance on both sides that the UK will have to pay a ‘divorce bill’, an amount intended to settle the UK’s financial obligations to the EU. The impasse exists because the UK is keen to move beyond this and talk about trade, and the EU is refusing to budge until the bill is settled. Rumour has it that the EU is demanding €100bn, with the British government hoping to reduce that to approximately €20-30bn. Theresa May has reportedly agreed to pay a sum of approximately €45bn, an amount that whilst far beneath EU demands will still prove controversial with hard-line Eurosceptics on the Tory backbenches.

This last point is especially important in light of the election. Far from having received a landslide endorsement from voters, Theresa May’s government now soldiers on without a majority, while facing a hostile House of Commons. It is at this point necessary to explain the types of Brexit, and why a hung parliament severely complicates matters for the Prime Minister.

Hard Brexit: an immediate end to British membership of the single market, the customs union, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights

First on the list is a ‘hard Brexit’, the arrangement preferred by the Prime Minister and the official position of the British government. This option would result in the UK leaving the EU at the end of March 2019, with an immediate end to British membership of the single market, the customs union, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. This would satisfy the Leave campaign mantra of ‘Take Back Control’, but potentially do harm to an economy used to decades of EU free trade. Had the Conservatives been re-elected with a landslide, the government would have been free to ignore the naysayers and push through such a deal with little difficulty. The lack of a landslide complicates matters. Government rebels mean that there is no clear majority for a ‘hard Brexit’ after the election. The government, at the time of writing, is pushing on regardless.

Soft Brexit: an extended transition of up to four years where membership of the single market and customs union is maintained

Next up comes ‘soft Brexit’, an optimistically-titled alternative that would still result in Britain withdrawing from the EU in 2019, but with an extended transition of up to four years where membership of the single market and customs union is maintained. This would provide more time to prepare for a full British withdrawal, leaving the option open for single market membership to be continued indefinitely. This has been labelled a jobs-first Brexit, as it prioritises the economy over immigration control, and has won the support of the Labour Party and several government rebels. There are perhaps a dozen Tory MPs willing to vote against a ‘hard Brexit’ in order to ease the transition. With little chance of Britain remaining in the EU, this proposal remains the most acceptable face of Brexit with both politicians and the public. MPs are due to vote on a key piece of legislation, nicknamed the Great Repeal Bill, in the coming weeks. The scale of rebellion from Tory backbenchers, particularly by backing amendments endorsing a ‘soft Brexit’, will be an interesting sign of whether the government is going to have to abandon its current strategy and embrace consensus.

The differences in Brexit mean a lot more now. May promised to put the final deal to a vote in the House of Commons, daring MPs to either support her or send Britain off a cliff with no deal. Lacking a majority and in the knowledge that pro-EU government MPs are likely to rebel, the possibility of the deal being rejected must have crossed the Prime Minister’s mind. It might seem easier with the support of the DUP, officials of which have endorsed the government’s position on Brexit. Not so fast.

A necessary, if unpopular, consequence of Brexit must be the establishment of some form of a border.

In my last article, I briefly touched on the issue of the Irish border as being extremely complicated, due to a history of violence and sectarian tension. One area of consensus, however, is that the ability to travel freely between Northern Ireland and the Republic is a good thing, and should be maintained. This policy, the Common Travel Area, was drawn up in part to prevent border posts becoming targets for attacks during the Troubles and enshrined as part of the Good Friday Agreement. A necessary, if unpopular, consequence of Brexit must be the establishment of some form of a border. With no amendment to the invisible Irish border, European migrants could simply travel to the Republic and enter the UK without immigration checks, rendering the supposed ability to ‘take back control of our borders’ invalid. One proposal from the Irish government has been to install customs checks at ports and airports, controversially forcing Northern Irish citizens to produce passports to travel within their own country. The principle of an invisible border is key to virtually all parties in Northern Ireland, including the DUP. The same DUP who are now propping up the government. The same DUP who could turn everything upside down if the Irish border is deemed too integral an issue to compromise on. With the government refusing to acknowledge the political realities of a post-Brexit Irish border, this is an issue that could prove extremely troubling in the months ahead.

The negotiations have been underway for six months. What has proved remarkable – embarrassing might be a better word – is the apparent inability of the British delegation to compromise. It is time to face reality. The sun will still come up after Brexit, but there is no point playing up to the insistence that the EU needs us more than we need them. What the snail’s pace of negotiations have proved is that the time for fantasy and crowd-pleasing rhetoric is over. The time for hard graft and compromise has arrived, and there is no point pretending otherwise. A common refrain has been that other issues, particularly immigration, matter more than the economy. While there is some legitimacy to this claim, we cannot allow the roof to fall in simply so we have control over who comes into the house. Voters had the opportunity in June’s election to endorse the Prime Minister’s platform. They had the opportunity to give her the mandate to push through a ‘hard Brexit.’ They did not give her this. Parliament stands opposed to such an arrangement, and the spectre of MPs rejecting the deal outright hangs over the negotiations.

By thrusting the country into an unnecessary election, May nearly lost power, dynamited her own authority and hobbled the British delegation’s ability to negotiate freely.

The Prime Minister insisted prior to calling the election that what Britain needed most was stability, and for a year this was what she provided. By thrusting the country into an unnecessary election, however, May nearly lost power, dynamited her own authority and hobbled the British delegation’s ability to negotiate freely. One eye must always now be on the floor of the House of Commons, as any wrong move could thrust the government into an election they’d be on track to lose. With the Prime Minister’s credibility in tatters just a year after taking office, with her government reliant on a group of Northern Irish MPs that are almost certainly going to take offence at aspects of the deal, with her own Cabinet circling like vultures in preparation for a leadership bloodbath, the government is heading into the most testing period since the Second World War.

This is not a time to savage the reputation of any one individual at the detriment of the national interest. If the Prime Minister finds that her shot authority or ramshackle government is an impediment to negotiations, she should get out of the way.