Theresa May was, by some measures, quite successful yesterday.
She changed the direction of financial markets. This must have been good for hedge funds.
She threatened the EU although she has only hollow threats with which to do so. But at least they can be sure where they stand now.
She tore up all the UK's existing relationships with the EU, leaving us pretty much at the mercy of President Trump, as Michael Gove desires.
And she told parliament they may discuss what she is doing in a data free vacuum as she will supply no costings, and as far as she is concerned they will have no real option to veto whatever she might be proposing. Bizarrely, only Jolyon Maugham is seeking to determine whether there is an alternative here.
The net result is that May thinks she has torn up the basis on which almost all our international relations are defined; has threatened to change the entire cost structure of our economy; has utterly changed our rights to travel and reside elsewhere; has threatened the residence of three million people living peaceably in this country and that of maybe two million more living in the EU; has threatened economic warfare; and has done all this without three things.
The first is a mandate: the referendum clearly did not sanction these actions as they were not referred to.
The second is authority: she is herself unelected.
The third is any apparent idea as to the consequences, none of which she appears to have reasonably anticipated, let alone explained or costed.
What has happened then? It would quite reasonably seem that a government without a mandate has taken power without the necessary authority to do so and is using that power to ensure that the politics, economy and constitution of the state are to be irrevocably (it hopes) changed. I can't quite call that a coup, but it is about as close to one as it gets. If that gives rise to a backlash in the future when the consequences become even more apparent I really would not be surprised. Treating much of the country with the contempt that so much of her language revealed yesterday is not a basis for political stability.
And that worries me almost as much as the near coup itself.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, interesting points as always, and I would agree that the more radically the government departs from the status quo, the less they can continue to rely on the referendum result for legitimacy. Not that there is much hope of the opposition being able to take advantage of this point. However, the second point (that Mrs May is unelected) does not I fear stand up to much scrutiny from a constitutional perspective. She was elected as an MP, and in the UK the composition of the executive is decided by the largest party within Parliament, subject to their rules and election procedures. In this country we do not, of course, vote for a PM – each of us votes for our MP. The fact that Mrs May has not won a general election as Prime Minister does not, under our constitution, in any way weaken her authority. Similarly Gordon Brown did not suffer from a lack of authority following his elevation to PM. So while Mrs May lacks a mandate, she does not, constitutionally, lack authority.
I am an accountant
We’re good at ignoring legal fiction
We look for substance
PMs who serve without winning elections are always without a mandate and lame duck until proved otherwise
The odd one wins a mandate (Major). Most (Brown, Callaghan, Hume) don’t
Completely agree. Theresa May is wilfully ignoring many of the drivers of the Brexit vote consisting of a mixture of old fashioned nationalism allied to a desperate anti-globalisation protest and fear of the consequences of the digital economy. If the vote had gone the other way with Remain taking a narrow victory, the position would have been less urgent but still as important. The problem is that there are whole de-industrialised communities around the country now expecting a step change in their prospects or circumstances. Some months ago I overheard one young Tesco checkout worker who was excited at ‘taking back control’! He is yet to discover that for him, there is no chance of this happening!
Not a hope
He’s not a banker
When May came in many, including quite a few of us here, were prepared to give her a small amount of ‘benefit of the doubt’ as being the least worse of the options on offer. However, just as Trump has got worse rather than better as the Presidency approaches, May has confirmed most of our worst fears and dashed with minuscule hopes we might have had.
I agree that a backlash is very likely, probably blaming immigrants/EU/remainers/usual suspects for the problems and increasing divisions. Even more damage will have been done by then. So why wait for the backlash? The time for action or at least mobilisation, is now. As an old boss of mine used to say, more action and less debate. We are seeing endless debate amongst the potential opposition which covers the centre-right (the Anna Soubrys et al) to the well-to-the-left. (Sorry PSR, but there is a nuanced centre ground, away from the more ideologically purist end of the spectrum, though personally I think the old left right, one dimensional analysis is way past its sell by date).
But very little real action is happening. Personally I’d love to see that broad coalition but cannot quite see who is going to ‘bell the cat’. The old tribal groupings are deeply embedded and still fighting historical battles with each other. Squabbling over the deck chairs as the Titanic sails on.
To repeat Jo Cox, we have more in common than that which divides us. She was very good at reaching out to others to find and work together on common ground to make things happen. I don’t think she’d be very impressed with what we are seeing by way of a response to the massive crisis we are facing, from the broad set of groups that oppose it
I’m hunting for where that response might come from, and signing up with different groups but have not found it yet
Keep hunting
Report progress
‘If’.
Never has such a small word meant so great a problem.
It’s like living amongst a Lemming colony in the UK at the moment to be honest.
That and ‘Turkeys voting for Christmas’. Makes for a worrying mixed metaphor!
Well said, and oh so accurate, Richard. Not that the likes of the Mail, Telegraph, Times et al, or the UKIP/Brexiters are much bothered. They yearn for a return to Parliament and government before universal suffurage, when people ‘knew their place’ and acted – and were acted upon – accordingly.
But one thing’s for sure. The charade the government and its supporters are now engaged in, with the wholehearted support of most of the media, and it would seem ‘the markets’, will increasingly fall apart once we move beyond the 1st of April. Thus I wager that by this time next year the government will be in panic mode, as will an increasing swathe of business. NI and Scotland will see clearly they’re about to be shafted and the extent of that betrayal (as will Wales even though it has a Brexit supporting population). And the British public will see that the costs to them of this adventure in May’s post-Brexit wonderland will be damaging and long term. A coup it may be but it will not be without severe and wide ranging consequences even for those who wish for it.
Agreed entirely
It is significant that May’s speech was not delivered in Parliament and not subject to MPs’ comments and questions or debate. What price democracy?
Margaret Thatcher was firmly in favour of the single market. She was right about that.
Agreed
I’d call it contempt
I think John Bercow thought that too
> The second is authority: she is herself unelected
While I agree with your general position, this point always annoys me whenever I see it. The same was said about Gordon Brown after he took over from Blair, and so on back through British political discourse.
We *never* vote for the individual Prime Minister. We’re not structured like the USA, or France, where individuals vote directly for the President.
We vote for the party, in the form of the individual MPs. Just like we have for a long time. The Prime Minister always happens to be who the *parrty* has elected through their internal processes.
May has been legally, fairly, and politically elected to the post of Prime Minister just as much as Cameron was, just as much as Brown, Blair, and Major were. It is disingenuous to present it any other way.
Semantics
We all know these are lame duck PMs
You’re the one playing games
Has the police investigation into the rigging of the 2015 election by the Tory Party found in their favour? If not, then isn’t it presumptuous, in that light, to suggest May(hem) was properly elected when the party which elected her is, in that regard, of uncertain standing itself?
‘She is herself unelected’
The PMs who signed the major treaties were Major & Brown who were ‘unelected’
Richard what a brilliantly written post and I will re-post it for my friends. Most will already know that what you have written is so truthful. It is hard to blame the “Tesco worker” for his/her ignorance about what is happening. It was always the plan by this government and it is only when we are so far down the pit of despair that the ordinary “I want to be english & take back control” people will find just how they have been duped.
Thanks