After news filtered through from Brussels that British Prime Minister Theresa May was open to the idea of extending the post-Brexit transition period beyond December 2020, a senior Conservative Party minister could not handle the volume of telephone calls and texts he was receiving late into the night from fellow members of the British parliament.
“In the end I had to just switch the bloody thing off,” he said. “It was all kicking off yet again.”
The next day Tory “Leavers” and “Remainers” held rival meetings in the British House of Commons to plot their responses. Hardliners were as deeply divided as ever, but the vast majority of Tory members from all sides were united about one thing: This was another huge Brexit blunder by the prime minister.
Illustration: Tania Chou
“Part of me was thinking that I was going to have to fire off a letter calling for a vote of no confidence in the woman,” one ardent Remainer said. “It is her dithering, her prevarication, her lack of bravery and leadership that had finally made me think she had to go, that she was really the problem, but then I thought: Whoa, whoa ... wait a minute, maybe that’s not right. Who would we get instead? What about the country? Take a breath. Be careful what you wish for.”
May made yet another statement to the Commons last Monday on her disastrously deadlocked Brexit negotiations. The previous week she had to do the same, standing up and telling members how a dash to Brussels by British Secretary of State for Exiting the EU Dominic Raab the day before had failed to secure any breakthrough on issues regarding the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Members admire her stamina as she and ministers shuttle gamely to and from the Belgian capital, but they increasingly wonder if there is any guiding purpose.
This time, May is to report to members of parliament on a summit in Brussels last week — billed beforehand as the moment of truth when a Brexit deal simply had to be done, but ending up with the EU and UK still unable to agree and everything being put off again.
Before the summit, in an attempt to be helpful, EU leaders had floated the idea that the 20-month post-Brexit transition period, during which the UK will effectively remain inside the EU’s economic system to smooth the path out, could be extended well into 2021.
This, they said, would give everyone extra time to conclude a long-term EU-UK trade deal and sort out issues on the Irish border.
When the summit got under way, May appeared at first to be open to the idea, but she was far more circumspect after learning how her members of parliament were reacting. Most were appalled, Remainers and Leavers alike.
One senior Conservative member of parliament who favors the softest of Brexits said: “The very idea that May could entertain an extension and say so out of the blue shows how completely intellectually redundant No. 10 [Downing Street] is. You do not achieve anything by simply putting things back, by stopping the clock. British people and British businesses just want to get on with it, to get this over. They want to find a deal, whatever it is. What on Earth is an extra few months on the end of the transition going to achieve?”
Another Tory moderate said: “You could guess the reaction of the hard Brexiters the moment the word ‘extension’ was uttered. Months or years more as a vassal state, more billions to Brussels. Brexit delayed. Of course they would reject it outright.”
As indeed they did.
Members of the British Cabinet had not been briefed on an extension either, so many of them on the Brexiter wing were angry.
Their allies on the backbenches took to Twitter.
Conservative Party member Nick Boles, who is close to British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Michael Gove, said: “Lots of talk about the idea of extending the ‘limbo’ transition for another year in order to avoid the backstop kicking in. This is MADNESS. We would have to pay extra contributions of around ￡17 billion” (US$21.8 billion).
Boles added in another tweet: “It would be so much better to go into EEA/EFTA from next March — our contributions would be lower and we would only need to bring it to an end when we had negotiated a satisfactory future relationship,” referring to the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association.
Scottish Tories reacted furiously, too, making clear that any delay to the UK reclaiming control of Scottish fishing waters would be unacceptable and harm the party ahead of Scottish Parliament elections in 2021.
British Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell suggested he would resign if there were any further delay, while Johnny Mercer, a backbench Tory member of parliament seen by some as a future potential high-flyer, described the government as a “shitshow” in a sign of how discipline had totally broken down.
Last weekend — after more than 500,000 people marched through London calling for a second referendum on Brexit, the Conservative Party — the most successful political fighting force in British history — is bitterly divided over the UK’s future in Europe and over who should be its leader, just when the country needs it to show maximum unity, clarity and strength of purpose.
“We are essentially dysfunctional at a moment of national crisis,” was how one former minister, recently resigned from the government, put it.
Amid the factionalism, there are still some Tory loyalist voices and pragmatists who are calling desperately for common sense to prevail and for Conservatives to put their country first.
British Minister of State for Europe and the Americas Alan Duncan said that if they failed to come together and compromise, they could do untold damage to the UK and their party.
He had never known a moment where it was more urgent for ideologues in all camps to “get real.”
“There simply is no outcome that will satisfy everyone,” Duncan said.
“People have to step back from their ideological obsessions and accept a pragmatic compromise on Brexit. Otherwise we risk inflicting massive economic damage on ourselves, as well as political damage both domestically and internationally,” he said.
It was essential that Tory members of parliament got behind May, whatever their views on Europe.
“I have lived through our party’s battles over the Maastricht treaty [signed in 1992 to further European integration], but I have never known the country at such a perilous moment as we face today,” he said. “People [really] have got to stand back and look at the national interest. Among MPs there are too many factions, too much fighting, too much jostling, too much calculation and not enough clear thinking.”
“The prime minister is in a very difficult position. All of those who carp at her are not in any position to do any better. If we were to replace the prime minister with any of those who criticize her, those same people would be in exactly the same position, facing the same difficulties,” he said.
However, there is no absolutely no sign that enough Conservatives will do as Duncan wants. In fact, the nearer the crisis point on Brexit comes — parliamentary deadlock leading to no deal — the more entrenched many Tories become in their ideological dugouts.
Some say that former British secretary of state for exiting the EU David Davis is now “on maneuvers” and that his allies want him to take over from May as a caretaker leader as soon as possible.
Others say that Gove and his acolytes are ingratiating themselves with not only Brexiters, but also with key Remainers to try to win them over with pledges of preferment to the idea of Gove as prime minister.
More Tory members of parliament are said to be sending letters expressing no confidence in May to Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers, who needs 48 such letters to trigger a leadership challenge.
Robbie Gibb, May’s director of communications, has been trying to halt the drift of opinion against her by holding dinners at No. 10 Downing Street with groups of eight or so backbenchers at a time, trying to talk them around to what should be normal — loyalty to their leader.
The next week will be critical for May, the Tory party and the country. Today, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is to deliver his autumn budget with little money to spend and with the Democratic Unionists, who May relies on to give her a majority in parliament, threatening to vote it down unless she bows to their will over Brexit.
Budget day will demonstrate how hamstrung the chancellor is, financially and politically, as a result of the whole debate over leaving the EU.
Nicky Morgan, the Tory chair of the treasury select committee, has warned that the party was under “existential strain” and said that some friendships would never be healed.
She too called on hard Brexiters to see the need for compromise.
The result of not doing so, some Tories believe, will not just be a disastrous no-deal Brexit, but possibly the end of the Tory party as a formidable force in British politics.
Activists outside the Brexit bubble are desperate for the party to settle it and start talking about other issues.
“When Europe dominates the discussion in the Conservative Party for too long, it leads to deep division and defeat,” said Ryan Shorthouse, founder of Bright Blue, a think tank for promoting liberal conservatism.
“Just look at the disappointing result of the last election, which the prime minister pitched as about Brexit. If Conservative MPs want to win in 2022, they would be wise to compromise and agree to a future deal with the EU as soon as possible and, ultimately, move on,” Shorthouse said.
May loyalists
‧ Alan Duncan
‧ Jeremy Hunt
‧ Karen Bradley
A dwindling number, perhaps, but there are plenty of Tory members of parliament and ministers who are deeply sympathetic with the prime minister’s plight and who, like her, take a non-ideological approach to European issues. While driven groups of hard Brexiters and Remainers fight it out around them, Hunt, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, and like-minded colleagues simply want members of parliament in their own party to unite behind a sensible Brexit solution that would pass through parliament, perhaps with the help of some Labour members, and allow the Conservative Party and country to move on and think about something other than Europe and Brexit.
Hard Remainers
‧ Kenneth Clarke
‧ Antoinette Sandbach
‧ Dominic Grieve
This group would prefer the UK to stay in the EU if at all possible, believing that no exit deal that May could strike would be as good as the “status quo.” Clarke has been a consistent, outspoken Europhile throughout his many years serving as a minister in the governments of former British prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, John Major and David Cameron. However, he does not back a second referendum, being a firm believer that politicians are elected to make the tough decisions. This group has been in the forefront of efforts to amend Brexit legislation so that the UK at least stays in the customs union and single market after it leaves.
Hard Brexiters
‧ Jacob Rees-Mogg
‧ Andrea Jenkyns
‧ Bernard Jenkin
The likes of Rees-Mogg and Jenkyns say that only by leaving the EU can the UK restore control of its borders and take control of its economic destiny. They say any compromises that would see the UK staying in the customs union or single market would be a betrayal of the people’s will. If it remained in the customs union, the UK would be unable to strike its own trade deals around the world. They say that a second referendum, rather than being a democratic move, would send a message that the establishment always refuses to listen.
Second-vote supporters
‧ Anna Soubry
‧ Justine Greening
‧ Phillip Lee
Tories such as Soubry, the member of parliament for Broxtowe, are ardent pro-Europeans, but now say the only way to break the Brexit deadlock and settle the question of the UK’s relationship with Europe is to put the whole deadlocked issue back to the people. All say that now the difficulties of delivering Brexit, and the potential consequences, are better understood, the people deserve a say before the decision is made. They say that young people in particular deserve the right to a vote on their futures and that the Leave campaign in 2016 misled people into thinking Brexit would be quick, simple and would deliver benefits for all.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS