BREXIT
Most people would have expected Prime Minister Theresa May to strike a conciliatory tone following the invoking of Article 50. Despite being one of the most significant junctures in British political history, the record indicates that she took the opposite stance.
On a day when Mrs May should have reached out to Europe, she instead issued a thinly veiled threat by raising the spectre of weakened security relations post Brexit.
Any failure to reach agreement between the UK and EU, she said, ‘would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.’
In her letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, which contained no fewer than 11 references to security issues, she added: ‘In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek.’
While there can be little doubt that Britain’s security and military apparatus – coupled with its close ties with U.S. intelligence agencies – is the envy of Europe, such remarks were felt as being ill-judged. In some EU countries, such as Belgium and France, who have a reasonably friendly relationship with the UK, and who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in recent years, Mrs May’s remarks risk being seen as crass and insensitive.
If, as seems to be the case, she sincerely believes trading security for prosperity is an acceptable opening salvo in what will be long and torturous negotiations, her reading of the situation is clumsy and damaging. There will be many across Europe, as well as here in the UK, who will clearly see it that way.
Terrorism, as the west well knows, does not respect borders or constitutions, and whatever form the UK’s future relationship with the EU takes, working closely with our European neighbours will be fundamental to tackling a global problem.
As Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, pointed out: ‘Security is too important to be used as a bargaining chip and this will backfire in any negotiations, which rather than building up alliances will leave Britain even more isolated.’
After widespread criticism of Ms May’s letter, Downing Street attempted to backtrack, insisting it referred only to security arrangements agreed via the EU, such as the European Arrest Warrant and Europol.
But by then, the damage had been done. Less than 24 hours after Article 50 was triggered, the UK finds itself on the back foot and a needlessly aggressive tone has been set.
Given the hostile contents of Ms May’s letter, the frosty reception on the continent was entirely predictable. A sombre-looking Mr Tusk delivered his own farewell message to the UK. ‘We already miss you,’ he said. ‘Thank you and goodbye.’ If nothing else, it was a remark which ought to impress upon British negotiators that Mr Tusk’s considerable armoury includes sarcasm.
The next two years will shape Britain’s future standing in the world. This week’s developments may be symbolic in more ways than one.
Arts, reviews & current affairs 