Tag Archives: Theresa May

Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Britain’s exit from the EU. Getting down to it.

BRITAIN & THE EUROPEAN UNION

eu-ballot

On June 23, 2016, Britons voted to leave the European Union. The two-year process for negotiating Britain’s departure will soon begin.

Intro: It has been six months since the referendum vote on Brexit. Thus far, the debate has been more about process and procedure than substance. In 2017, as negotiating talks get underway, the going will get much tougher. As we edge closer to Article 50 being triggered, where does Britain stand?

SOME THINGS have already changed since Britons decided to withdraw from the European Union following the Brexit vote on June 23rd. The country has a new government led by Theresa May. Two new government departments have been set up For Exiting The EU (under David Davis) and for International Trade (under Liam Fox). After several years of austerity cuts, the civil service is beginning to grow again. It is being geared up in tackling the numerous challenges of disentangling Britain from the bureaucracy of Brussels. In the Government’s most recent Autumn Statement, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, softened previous plans to cut the budget deficit by 2020.

But on another level, and on Brexit itself, however, Mrs May has done little beyond repeating her mantra that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and ‘We’re going to make a success of it’. The prime minister has promised a Great Repeal Bill to enshrine most exiting EU rules into UK law for continuity. And she has said she will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the legal clause that sets a two-year time limit for Brexit, by the end of March (2017).

Indeed, most public discussion and debate on Brexit has been procedural, not substantive. Discourse in Parliament has revolved around how much information MPs will be given. The courts have become involved: this month the Supreme Court will decide whether triggering Article 50 requires prior authority through an act of Parliament, as the High Court has already ruled. There have been disputes over just how much Mrs May should reveal over her negotiating objectives. Yet, all of this has taken place even before there is an internal agreement within the government over what form of Brexit to aim for when negotiations begin.

For some MPs, such as Neil Carmichael and Mr Davis himself, there is hope that a government white paper on Brexit will be published before Article 50 is triggered. Mr Davis has recently said, though, that the government would not publish anything until February. Protagonists say that would still leave time for a white paper and a short parliamentary act before Article 50 is sanctioned.

The substance of Brexit is likely to prove far more difficult than the procedure. One reason is that it will involve trade-offs the government has so far avoided debating. The most obvious is that in which maximising barrier-free access to the EU’s single market will make it hard to take back full control of migration and laws relating to freedom of movement. That’s because it is invariably and directly linked to the free movement of capital and services. There is also the issue of ceasing contributions to the EU’s budget.  Several more difficult dilemmas await: for instance, the desire to maintain security and intelligence cooperation with the EU may be almost impossible to achieve if Mrs May continues to insist on escaping completely from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The substance of a Brexit deal will also be more difficult than procedure because Britain’s 27 EU partners are likely to put a premium on unity. It is possible Britain will need to pay an exit fee of some $63bn, as well as negotiating separately any future trade relations which would not run in parallel with the strict terms of exit. Other EU leaders face political pressure at home: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and possibly even Italy, will all have elections in 2017.

The ominous and gloomy signs are that a harder version of Brexit will prevail, but there are some flickers of hope that also point in the other direction. Mr Davis and Mr Hammond appear to be working as one in minimising the shock of departure. Mr Davis has not completely ruled out making payments into the EU budget after Brexit. Several other government ministers have floated the possibility of continuing partial membership of the single market, the customs union or both. The Scottish government, too, has said it wants to stay in the single market regardless of what happens elsewhere in Britain. Negotiating a final deal for Brexit with so many added complexities will become more divisive and problematic as the clock starts ticking.

Of late, a growing recognition has emerged of the economic risks of Brexit. Leave campaigners have long claimed that economic forecasts and predictions by Mr Hammond’s predecessor, George Osborne, were too pessimistic and overly cautious. But the Autumn Statement made clear that Brexit has a cost. Public and private consumption has held up reasonably well but investment continues to be cut. Banks and others in financial services are talking of major job losses as institutions restructure and positions are transferred to continental Europe.

Prodding ministers towards a softer Brexit must be on the table because the economy matters. A recent poll for Open Britain, a pro-EU lobby group, found that half of Leave voters are not ready to be made worse off as a result of Brexit.

More realism over immigration should also be a factor. To date, this has only been presented in terms of the relationship between the single market and the four freedoms of movement of capital, goods, services and people. The implication has been that to keep the first may require concessions on the second. Several companies, however, in industries ranging from financial services to agriculture, have made clear that migration is crucial in its own right. Indeed, some are more concerned about migration controls than they are about barrier-free access to the EU’s single market because of the effect such controls will have on the availability of labour for their industries.

A view is also emerging among politicians who see the need for a transitional deal with the EU – to avert a hard landing in March 2019. Transition is being talked up, as a string of recent reports from the House of Lords EU committee highlight. They say this is particularly important for financial services. The fact that transition was ever controversial is, in the words of Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, “symptomatic of a strategy-less approach to Brexit”. That it is now widely accepted as a sign of common sense.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics

Theresa May: Paving the way ahead…

BRITAIN’S NEW BREXIT GOVERNMENT

Intro: One of Mrs May’s early priorities will be to bring together and unite a party which has witnessed brutal blood-letting over the past few months. Her ‘Brexit means Brexit’ statement is at least a clear and unequivocal approach

The appointment and inauguration of Theresa May as British Prime Minister will hopefully begin the long process of restoring some order and semblance after the post-Brexit turmoil which has marked the most tumultuous period in UK politics of the post-war period.

The former Home Secretary is widely perceived as a unifying figure, one that is surely needed to heal the wounds and divisions of a government, party and nation inflicted by one of the most ill-tempered political campaigns in modern history. That culminated in the UK’s decision to exit the European Union.

While Mrs May made an impressive start with her first speech outside Number 10 as Prime Minister, one in which she spoke out strongly in favour of the Union (of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and against social injustice, we should hope that she will do more than just speak about these subjects – and that her actions match her words (the vital missing element in the behaviour of her predecessor).

One of Mrs May’s early priorities will be to bring together and unite a party which has witnessed brutal blood-letting over the past few months. Her ‘Brexit means Brexit’ statement is at least a clear and unequivocal approach. Appointing David Davis – a Eurosceptic admired by his supporters for his views on issues such as civil liberties and taxation – as the new ‘Brexit Secretary’ suggests a safe pair of hands.

The new Prime Minister has also set her sights on operating a Government across the spectrum that approaches gender balance with more women in key roles providing a fresh approach. Many junior ministerial appointments are also likely to be filled by women. More importantly, though, is that Mrs May must also find a way to bring the country back together after the anger and hostility which has marked so much of the bitter exchanges of the EU referendum campaign. The most concerning aspect of the Brexit aftermath has been the rise in hate crime, which jumped by a massive 42 per cent in the two-week period surrounding the date of the vote. The new Government has a responsibility to ensure the transition to Brexit, while firm in approach, bypasses the rancour and intemperate approach which scarred much of the campaign and did collisional damage to Britain’s credibility on the international stage.

The Scotland question, too, is never likely to be far from Mrs May’s thoughts. Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has rightly reminded the UK leader that Scots voted to stay in the EU, but to her credit Mrs May in a meeting with the First Minister in Edinburgh has said she will do all she can in accommodating Scottish requests and by exploring all options put to the UK Government. A new SNP mantra, of “If Brexit means Brexit, then Remain means Remain” seems likely to ignite renewed interest on a second vote for Scottish independence. This may be the only practical and legal route of keeping Scotland within the confines of the European Union. But the obstacle here will be whether Westminster will be so keen to allow such a vote, with it having the final say on the constitution.

But before Brexit, another independence referendum in Scotland or even national reconciliation, Mrs May has the future of the UK’s nuclear defences to sort out as MPs vote on the renewal of Trident on Monday (18 July). With the Labour Party in turmoil and in open revolt on the issue, Mrs May is herself facing the prospect of many Conservative MPs opposing the Government, as they feel the £30bn cost could be better allocated to conventional weapons. In less than seven days since taking office as Prime Minister, a backbench rebellion is already brewing.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics

Theresa May: Britain’s new prime minister

A ‘BREXIT’ GOVERNMENT

stream_img

– Theresa May speaking outside 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, 13 July. Mrs May will head a Government in Britain that will see the country exiting the European Union.

Intro: Mrs May’s biggest test will be Brexit. She has experience of Brussels, most notably her negotiating skills in successfully carving-out Britain’s opt-out from most EU justice and home-affairs policies in 2014

ON JULY 13, Theresa May, the home secretary, became Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister. The coronation went uncontested after her only remaining rival, Andrea Leadsom, pulled out of the leadership race. Leadsom had the backing of only 84 Tory MPs, as against Mrs May’s 199, the reason she said as to why she withdrew from the contest. But what counted more was that, under pressure, she had shown her unfitness to govern with several gaffes. She hinted that, as a mother, she was somehow better equipped and qualified than Mrs May who has no children.

Following Britain’s decision to leave the European Union a new Tory prime minister is but one feature of the redrawn political landscape. The opposition Labour Party has sunk into ever-deeper chaos and turmoil under Jeremy Corbyn, who now faces a leadership challenge. The populist UK Independence Party has a vacuum at the top following the resignation of its leader, Nigel Farage, on the achievement of his career’s ambition.

Mrs May backed the Remain side in the Referendum, unlike most Tory voters. Yet they welcomed her victory if only because she has shown more political nous than her pro-Brexit opponents. It is quite remarkable that those who sought to break Britain away from the European Union have now largely fled the battlefield, leaving the Remainers to sort out the mess Britain finds itself in. But while Mrs May was only ever lukewarm about the EU, she has promised that ‘Brexit means Brexit’

As home secretary for six years, she built a reputation as a moderniser, picking fights with the police and grappled hard with anti-terrorism laws, deportations of foreigners suspected of terrorism links and the controversial issue of immigration. She was quicker than most of her fellow Conservatives to identify which way the wind was blowing on issues such as gay marriage; in 2002 she warned that many voters saw the Conservative Party as the ‘nasty party’. Mrs May comes to the office of Prime Minister without the privileged background of her predecessor, David Cameron, or many of his inner circle.

Her first task was to form a cabinet. Philip Hammond, previously the foreign secretary, is to be the new chancellor. More surprisingly she gave Boris Johnson, a popular but undiplomatic Brexiteer, the Foreign Office and Liam Fox, a fellow Leaver who resigned from the cabinet in disgrace less than five years ago, the job of international trade secretary. David Davis, a veteran Eurosceptic, will take charge of the Brexit department. Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, will become home secretary. Damien Green heads the Department for Work and Pensions.

A pressing question for Mrs May will be whether she wants or needs a stronger democratic mandate. In 2007, when Gordon Brown assumed the premiership without any Labour challenger, she accused him of running scared by not holding an election to test his credentials. Yet, she now insists that no election is needed before the current parliamentary term ends in 2020. Whilst the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it harder than it used to be for prime ministers to opportunistically call early elections, Labour’s disarray and the state of party politics may yet tempt her to try, perhaps as early as next year.

Undoubtedly, Mrs May’s biggest test will be Brexit. She has experience of Brussels, most notably her negotiating skills in successfully carving-out Britain’s opt-out from most EU justice and home-affairs policies in 2014. She also ensured that the UK opted back in to some 35 measures, including Europol, the European Arrest Warrant and the Passenger-Names directive. Mrs May is likely to be welcomed cautiously by EU leaders, most of whom she has not yet met. She has some affinities with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, including an upbringing as a pastor’s daughter. It is likely that EU leaders will say it is for her to explain how she wants to proceed (and how quickly).

The new prime minister insists there will be no attempt to remain inside the EU and that there will be no second referendum. She has also indicated that she will not trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the legal route to Brexit, until she has fixed her own negotiating position. And, although as home secretary she was fiercely anti-immigration, she has been careful to insist that free movement of people in the EU cannot continue as it currently operates. She knows the value of full membership of Europe’s single market, and she understands the trade-off that may be necessary between preserving this and setting limits on free movement. It is within this framework that the hard bargaining with Britain’s partners will eventually take place. A ‘Norway-plus’ (or Norway-minus) is a concept that is currently being floated, an idea which would involve trying to keep as much as possible of Britain’s membership of the single market while being permitted to impose some controls or an emergency brake on free movement.

It will help that the recession that is now widely predicted will have the side-effect of curbing immigration. In other respects, though, the economy will be the second big headache for Mrs May. Sensibly, she has abandoned her predecessor’s target of balancing the budget by 2020, and in a speech before being appointed as prime minister she talked of more investment in infrastructure and of the need to improve Britain’s lamentable productivity. More forthrightly, she spoke of having a ‘proper industrial strategy’, widely seen as criticism of the former chancellor, George Osborne, who has left the Government. She also evinced a surprising hostility to foreign takeovers of British companies; and she has leaned towards further social reforms by proposing that workers and consumers should sit on company boards, as well as limiting executive pay by granting shareholders the right of veto over increases to their pay and emoluments. Mrs May’s declared goals of ‘building an economy that works for everyone’ (and not just for the few), as well as doing more to help the poor and disadvantaged who have suffered the most over the past decade, are admirable. Some will argue that Mrs May will need to curb her more interventionist instincts.

The best asset at Mrs May’s disposal, however, will be the chaos of the opposition party. The Conservative Party precipitated the Brexit vote for internal reasons that split their members and decapitated their leadership. But it seems extraordinary that in such a period of upheaval and major change the Conservative Party now appear the more united of the two main political parties.

Standard