After nearly three weeks since the triggering of Article 50, the Tories have finally spat out the Brexit pill which no party wants to swallow. A snap election on June 8 will continue to create more uncertainty that Theresa May promised to end.
“At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division.
“The country is coming together, but Westminster is not,” the Prime Minister said in a speech earlier today.
We must be suspicious. An arrogant Conservative Party determined to defy the rulings of judges and Lords to pass the Brexit Bill has once again resorted to Cameron’s levels of cowardice. Voters will remember that, but they must question the true reason for calling the election.
The immediate presumption would be that it is an attempt to decimate Labour, but that is questionable. It seems too great a risk for May to sacrifice the Tory majority (and a supposed lack of opposition on Brexit from Corbyn) to ‘kill’ the left-wing party. If the PM expects to win back a majority in June, then she is forgetting that a general election has become more than a Labour vs. Conservative battle.
A call for a snap election is – of course – a gamble, and it’s one May appears to have taken due to the disunity in other parties (according to her speech, at least).
With Labour’s in-fighting continuing to bubble every once in a while, the SNP tackling their own referendum and the Lib Dem’s membership slowly rising, it seems as though May is aiming for a wipeout whilst building upon her majority. But when has disunity within other parties ever hindered the Tories’ Brexit plans? If anything, it’s almost given May a ‘carte blanche’ to do her thing without any real scrutiny.
It’s even more confusing when the Conservatives have always been arrogant and stubborn when enforcing policies. To gamble their majority for the sake of silencing other parties, or getting them to support their plan, seems unfathomable.
So what is the explanation for the snap election? My friend Jarrad Johnson raises an interesting point, saying on Twitter that “someone or something has forced May’s hands behind the scenes.”
It’s an interesting comment when we look back at the past. The last time we had a vote between the typical five-year period was, of course, the 2016 EU referendum. On that occasion, it was believed that this was to end the internal conflict within the Tory party about whether we should leave the European Union. Now, as we face another surprise election before the end of the usual five-year term, we have to consider whether the same arguments are occurring once more.
The Tory Government possesses a dangerous arrogance at present. It’s one that chooses to fight against the ruling of the judiciary (High Court) on Brexit, the Lords’ recommendation that they should secure the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, and now Scotland’s plans for a second independence referendum – which was announced by Nicola Sturgeon on Monday this week.
The announcement was always to be expected – the referendum hanging over Theresa May’s shoulder ever since it was found that the Scots voted for remain – but what wasn’t predictable was when the call by the SNP would be made for ‘indyref2’. However, just as Prime Minister May was about to relax in the fact that her Brexit parade could no longer be rained upon (thanks to the Brexit Bill being passed at the start of this week), the Scottish Government decided to announce their plans for the referendum. Oh dear.
You have to be thankful that our Government possesses a different sort of stubbornness to that of Donald Trump. When the latter’s initial ‘travel ban’ was blocked by a judge, he angrily tweeted that ‘THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!’. Yet, when May’s Brexit timetable was thrown into question by the judiciary and the laws, she may not have been happy, but she showed it with professionalism. Although this implies some separation between how the two governments operate, let’s not forget that both are becoming worryingly isolationist. Trump has once again tried to reinstate a travel ban, whilst the UK has to ensure it does not shut itself off when it severs ties with the EU after Brexit.
The Tory government has a dangerous tunnel vision – one obsessed with a hard Brexit that threatens the EU with a no deal despite making no economic evaluations of said deal, and one that is willing to do this without considering the wishes of the Scottish people.
To once again compare to Trump’s administration, there’s cries of ‘fake news’ whenever the US President sees any critical articles about him in the media. Now, as Sturgeon and co. publicly declare their discontent with the UK Government on Brexit, May accuses the SNP of playing a ‘game’ – which is somewhat hypercritical coming from someone who still refuses to secure the rights of EU citizens living here as though they are some sort of bargaining chip.
However desirable a forever United Kingdom may be, one has to understand that the treatment of Scotland by the Tories is more than enough evidence to show why a ‘yes’ vote is entirely possible. David Cameron’s sweet-talking from 2014 where he said: “I speak for millions of people across England, Wales and Northern Ireland – and many in Scotland, too, who would be utterly heart-broken by the break-up of the United Kingdom” has apparently gone out of the window with May. She’s resorted to the trusty ad hominem attacks that the Conservatives know and love.
As Trump’s shouts of ‘fake news’ show weakness and do little to stifle the criticism against his administration, you have to consider what the PM’s comments about the SNP ‘playing games’ conveys. Zac Goldsmith’s disgraceful mayoral campaign remains a constant lesson to the Tories about how bad personal attacks are in politics. In that case, it led to people supporting the alternative candidate: Sadiq Khan.
If the Tories maintain their arrogance, ignorance and tunnel vision, it will only benefit the ‘Yes’ campaign even further. Scots, angry at the fact that they are being ignored and mocked by the UK Government, will vote to leave the United Kingdom – and I wouldn’t be surprised.
There’s a dangerous indignation sweeping the right. Donald Trump’s war against the media is an annoying distraction from his ‘Make America Great Again’ mantra, and in the UK, the judiciary and legislature continue to frustrate Theresa May’s Article 50 deadline.
This week, it was the House of Lords’ amendment to the Brexit bill to secure the rights of EU nationals living in Britain. It comes just over a month after the High Court ruled Parliament must have a say on the legislation, and the PM isn’t happy. The government has said that it will try to overturn the amendments.
“Our message to MPs is that we expect this bill to go through unamended,” a No. 10 spokesman said in an article on Sky News’ website. “MPs voted it through unamended and we expect that to be the case.”
Indeed they did, but the two arms of Parliament must agree in order for a bill to be passed. A constant ‘ping pong’ between the two houses until a deal is made would only highlight the pure indignation of the Tories. They must stop this childish attitude of refusing compromise on such an important issue. Their fight against the decision of the judiciary was alarming, and now their reluctance to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK is hypocritical.
“We will provide certainty wherever we can,” Theresa May said in a speech at Lancaster House in January. “There will have to be compromises. It will require imagination on both sides, and not everybody will be able to know everything at every stage.
“But I recognise how important it is to provide […] everybody with as much certainty as possible as we move through the process. So where we can offer that certainty, we will do so.”
If anything, the issue with the Lords continues to cast doubt over the whole Brexit dilemma. The above comments contradict what the Conservatives are planning to achieve at the moment. If the Tory government can’t even reach a compromise with the House of Lords, then how on earth can they compromise with the EU member states in Brussels? The worrying remark by the PM in the January speech that ‘no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain’ hardly provides certainty. It sounds like a game of blackmail with the EU – a sense of hostility which we do not need at a time when the UK is so delicate.
It’s no surprise that EU nationals living in Britain feel like bargaining chips. The government has explained that it wants the rights of Britons living in other EU countries guaranteed before it can promise that the rights of EU nationals living here will be protected. Aside from the ‘putting our own people first’ connotations that creates, what happens in the unlikely circumstance that the European Union cannot guarantee the rights of ex-pats? Will the ‘no deal’ rule still apply, and we would start deporting EU nationals living here?
As Lady Molly Meacher said to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I believe it [the amendment] can be won in the Commons on the basis of morality and principle” – to fail to guarantee the rights of EU nationals would be a dismissive action at a time when the definition of ‘Britishness’ is under scrutiny.
The Tories must of course keep some cards close to their chest, but the dangerous levels of blackmail which the Conservatives plan to adopt in Brussels – with EU nationals as a ‘bargaining chip’ – is an arrogant way to approach negotiations. It also contrasts the sweet-talking of Trump and the state visit invitation – why must we treat a divisive President with respect yet approach the EU with hostility?
To ‘cherrypick’ and blackmail our way to a deal will only decrease our chances of getting what we want, and could effect the strong relationships with other European countries that a post-Brexit Britain desperately needs.
It’s an underlying democratic issue which was partly responsible for the polls being wrong and Donald Trump’s election as the 46th US President. Left-wingers and liberals shut down the political debate by labelling Trump supporters as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ and so forth, to the extent where the only safe place to share their opinion is in the voting booth. Now, as Parliament debates Donald Trump’s state visit on Monday, Stop Trump demonstrators will protest on Parliament Square ‘to stand up and say no to the future of hatred, racism and division that Donald Trump is trying to create – and to say no to the disgraceful complicity of Theresa May and the British government in supporting him’. Whilst the Facebook page doesn’t state explicitly whether this protest is also against the state visit, with regards to the petition, you have to ask: will preventing him from making a state visit to the UK do more harm than simply inviting him here to speak?
Of course, it must be said that this article is not condoning Trump’s divisive nature. Instead, it calls for us to return to honest political debate. Already in the UK, we have seen newspapers banned on university campuses and left-wingers continue to ban and cut off the views from the far-right. Isn’t a petition preventing Trump from airing his opinions the same thing, and damages our democracy?
Granted, allowing the far-right president to visit the UK could result in Britain’s right-wing populism gaining strength, but surely protests during his visit will be the biggest sign of defiance against these people, and Trump’s beliefs? Which sends the strongest message to him: a U-turn on his state visit, or the British people allowing him a platform for his views, but them being met with strong opposition? The former shows a sheer ignorance towards opposing views, whilst the latter demonstrates that we are an open society which allows for these views to be challenged. To go back to the point of Trump’s potential visit further dividing the UK, a nationwide protest against the figure presents an opportunity for unity. Although that sense of coming together may still be seen in the number of signatures on the petition preventing him from making a visit, a demonstration is a more visible sign of cohesion.
Should the state visit be called off, would that mean that Trump is prevented from making any sort of visit to the UK during his four-year presidency? Aside from this posing a risk to the ‘special relationship’ buzzword Theresa May likes to use, preventing controversial views from being said in Britain would create a slight feeling of isolationism similar to that which Trump is adopting in America itself. Donald’s cries of ‘fake news’ at press organisations which he disagrees with discredit the journalists who scrutinise his position of authority – surely preventing Trump from stating his opposing views is an alarming parallel to this?
The post-Brexit debate has always been about seeing both sides of a very complicated equation. Our exit from the EU must satisfy the leave voters that wanted a return of Parliamentary sovereignty, whilst pleasing those who wanted more controls on immigration. It must be a clear removal from a union, whilst also reassuring remainers that their rights to live, work and travel around Europe won’t be affected – at least not too much. However, one of the biggest problems Theresa May failed to solve in her speech at Lancaster House yesterday was that of certainty.
There is a balance to be struck ahead of triggering Article 50. Understandably, May must keep some of her cards close to her chest, as it were, when going to the negotiating table – not everything can be disclosed to the public beforehand in case it jeopardises our position. Yet, the vagueness that comes with describing Brexit with cake metaphors, colours or the popular line ‘Brexit means Brexit’ does not provide certainty to those who need it most: the remainers. Uncertainty leads to frustration and anger, which only adds to a debate which is currently dividing our country.
Of course, the first point about the PM’s 12-point plan for leaving the EU was about certainty, but whilst the transitions of EU law into British law after Brexit (until they are repealed by Parliament) was reassuring, that’s not the only thing remainers are worrying about. Sure, all this talk about a ‘Global Britain’ may reassure some business owners if they forget about the fact we’re leaving the single market, but what about dealing with the division in the UK? What about addressing the rise of anti-immigration sentiment and right-wing populism? What are you doing about those, Theresa?
In a sense, it was a statement structured like a non-fiction novel. They mostly tell us things we already know, but present some new information too so we don’t feel patronised. Unfortunately for Mrs May, telling us that we’ll need to control our immigration and that we want to make our own laws doesn’t prevent a feeling of deja vu from lingering in the air. Likewise, mentioning that we’ll be leaving the single market and protecting workers’ rights (the latter should please Labour to an extent) in passing won’t help either.
It was a speech littered with juxtapositions too. LBC’s James O’Brien mentioned on his show yesterday that it suggested “we’re a global country that doesn’t want you to come here”. Whether it’s a lack of detail or contradictory remarks, both don’t provide the clarity we need.
Finally, there came a line which will only add to the anxiety remainers have at the moment. “While I am sure a positive agreement can be reached,” said May, “I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”
During the referendum campaign, those who backed a vote to stay mocked and joked about Brexit having a disappointing outcome. The comments all followed the same tone of it being a magical post-Brexit future which never comes to fruition (be it told in the style of a dodgy divorce, bad plans for a night out or so on). It’s a joke which may just become possible.
After all, Theresa May plans to give Parliament a vote on the final deal. Yet, with Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MPs all opposing the Conservative’s plan for Brexit (on varying levels), it’s unlikely that an agreement on the terms of exit will be struck in the Commons.
A disastrous ‘no deal’ remains a possibility. This, combined with May’s unclear comments on leaving the single market and resolving our country’s division, has only created more uncertainty – something forced optimism always fails to mask.
Britain is in stasis. Ironically, for ‘leave’ voters who put a cross in the box out of a desire for change, progression is yet to take place. The general public are left confused and twiddling their thumbs as a leaked memo fuels concerns that Theresa May has ‘no plans’ for Brexit. We are forced to ‘make-do’ and accept the result of the referendum, despite no clear signs of moving forward, and whilst we must have hope, it’s likely that most people have sunk into a state of defeatism as the establishment remains in power and right-wing populism sweeps the western world.
The EU referendum vote started the politics of emotion. We were forced to prophesise; we couldn’t predict what would happen if we voted to leave or remain a member. Granted, there were some facts – a minimal amount, mostly from an economical standpoint – but soon politicians realised that the limited supply of facts, soundbites and trump cards were not enough. It was time to play with people’s feelings. Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave opted for scaremongering, with the latter also encouraging nationalism towards the end of the campaign period. Now, months after the result, both emotions are present in our society: a fear for the future overshadowed by false patriotism and anti-immigration sentiment. Anger and frustration are the feelings to harness in order to win votes – it was used by Vote Leave and Trump, and it will soon be adopted by other Western countries (take France’s Marine Le Pen, for example).
This change in the political climate was even noted by the Oxford English Dictionary when it came to their word of the year. ‘Post-truth’, which they defined as being when ‘objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’ is the perfect description of the strategy political parties are adopting at the moment. Yet, it cannot just be applied to Westminster, but also to the media outlets which manipulate the masses.
We only need to turn to The Daily Mail for an example of this. The outspoken right-wing newspaper wet themselves when the vote to leave the European Union came in and now, as nationalism sweeps the western world, they feel as though their over-the-top, emotive journalistic style is now justified – and can be exaggerated further.
Bound to the pessimism of journalism, and with a sense that their emotive opinions are verified after Brexit, The Daily Mail has adopted a narrative of hate and extreme nationalism. The Enemies of the People headline still continues to attract controversy to this day and demonstrates the pure vitriol fired at any news which veers away from said narrative.
Britain’s vote to leave the European Union left an anti-establishment rhetoric hanging in the air. A clear vote against the Brussels elite (amongst other things) worried right-wing politicians. Underneath the facade of warped patriotism came the concern that this vote would impact the establishment’s position. After realising that, they twisted the story. It was not the 1% responsible for most of our country’s problems, but immigrants. However, the anti-establishment sentiment in society hasn’t gone completely.
Labour still has a very large membership and more people are seeing the true definition of who and what the elite is. We’ve realised that Theresa May’s promise of being a party which works for the 99%, not ‘the privileged few’ was a broken one, as they couldn’t help but enact their right-wing policies. Whilst our say over these decisions are minimal, there’s other methods people have adopted in order to change the structure of our establishment. If we can’t change the politicians, we can change the media.
To go back to topic of The Daily Mail, a campaign called Stop Funding Hate attracted huge amounts of press coverage last week. Its aim, as described in its bio on Twitter, is to “take on the divisive hate campaigns of the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express” and it received mass media attention after it encouraged toy manufacturer Lego to stop advertising with The Daily Mail.
Whilst Lego’s withdrawal of advertising is an ‘indirect’ way of changing the media’s message, the ‘banning’ of the three papers at the university is more direct, which some have branded as censorship.
The motion itself argues that “freedom of speech should not be used as an excuse to attack the weakest and poorest members of society”, but others believe that it restricts discussion and debate. At what point does freedom of speech no longer apply? It’s a question which has lingered around in our society for a long time, but as unpopular and controversial opinions dominate politics and the right-wing media, it’s been brought to the forefront.
There’s no clear answer, but in an era of post-truth, journalists must make factual reporting their priority, rather than emotive sensationalism. If that’s what Stop Funding Hate aims to direct the far-right newspapers towards then so be it. One of the main influencers of public opinion is the media, and so if we can get rid of extensive and excessive emotive reporting, we may just see a return to the politics of fact which we desperately need.
The answer lies in change and challenge, rather than dismissal. As the spoof reporter Jonathan Pie argues in his video on Trump’s victory, the left cannot continue to shut down political debate by hurling insults at individuals with controversial or opposing opinions, as that then leads to bottling their views up until they reach the only safe place they have: the polling booth.
The Stop the Hate campaign is a wise move against tackling hatred in society, but whilst we can try to change the media outlets which influence public opinion (to an extent, a biased media does benefit a democracy), the one thing we cannot censor are the people with these opinions themselves. Otherwise, the silent voters will elect the right-wing candidate again and the sense of defeatism in society will become ever stronger.
Brexit is a political enigma. Whilst Theresa May continues to scratch her head at what it could possibly mean – apart from the very helpful ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – the British public’s vote to leave the European Union has caused an economic crisis (until a recent decision saw it increase dramatically) and now, a constitutional one as well.
What is democracy? It’s a question with a sense of political existentialism which can only come around after such an important vote. The winning ‘leave’ vote was democracy in action, but now a ruling by the High Court has thrown up this question once again. Is it a decision which undermines the voice of the people, or is it a constitutional necessity? Now is a time when constitution and democracy collides.
The EU Referendum was nothing more than an advisory vote. Constitutionally, legally binding decisions come from Parliament and not the British people. MPs do that job for us and on this occasion, a little blip in the writing of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 means that the view of the public may be ignored in order to make a decision which is encased in law. Whilst making the ‘leave’ vote legal would do a good job of ending some aspects of the debate and add another big string to the government’s bow, the big concern lies with MPs: will they represent the view of their constituency, stick to the party line or vote based on their own opinions?
Keen to get to work on leaving the European Union and ‘make a success out of Brexit’, Theresa May and the rest of her cabinet seem to have shut themselves off from Parliament when it comes to triggering Article 50 and the negotiations that follow. Although the Prime Minister’s point about not having ‘a running commentary’ about the government’s plans is valid, having a political party make such a big national decision without criticism, commentary or accountability through Parliament sounds awfully familiar. In particular, it’s arguments you heard from the ‘leave’ side about the European Union. Oh, the irony.
If MPs do get to vote on triggering Article 50, then they should reproduce a result identical to June’s vote – to do the opposite would undermine the democratic element of Parliament. A decision as big as Brexit needs cross-party involvement. An early general election may not be at the forefront of the debate for now, but it is still on the horizon (worryingly for Labour). Although this would be great for allowing the public to choose their preferred avenue out of the EU – be it hard Brexit or soft Brexit – the Conservatives seem so keen to do the job all by themselves. Therefore, the involvement from other parties must come from criticising the government’s decisions on a regular basis.
Will politicians honour the result of the referendum if an Article 50 vote goes to Parliament? Of course, that’s uncertain, but it’s likely the Conservatives will vote to formally leave the EU to respect the view of British people (a stance they’ll promote like crazy under Theresa May’s ‘working for the majority, not the privileged few’ slogan). Meanwhile, the SNP – a thorn in the Tories’ side ever since the vote, after Scotland voted remain – are likely to oppose the triggering of Article 50. The Liberal Democrats, with leader Tim Farron keen to encourage more scrutiny of May’s Brexit decisions, will probably vote against it as well (the party opposed Brexit). As for Labour, it’s a question of whether the party is able to group together under Corbyn’s leadership to vote ‘no’ to the vote. In the most dramatic and undemocratic of u-turns, MPs could vote against Article 50, we’ll rejoin the EU and the months of crises will just serve as a haunting reminder of the right mess that the UK can get itself into. It’s a long shot, but let’s be honest, Brexit has taught us that anything could happen.
After the High Court’s ruling, what you have are numerous battles. People versus bureaucracy, government versus Parliament, democracy versus constitution. Members of Parliament are there to represent us, but if we’ve already had our say on a particular issue, are they required to do it again on this occasion?
A key element of democracy is accepting the result of a vote, but with the government announcing that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, the question of what decision is being made remains unknown, six months later.