The Darling Duds of May — Political Mayhem

The Financial Times of August 5th 2017 reported that a conspiracy theory had developed in Brussels regarding the apparently chaotic approach the UK was taking towards negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU. The British civil service, having played a major role in the development of the European Project (a British civil servant being the author of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty — John Kerr, now Lord Kerr of Kinlochard), is held in high esteem in Brussels. So such behaviour must be part of a Machiavellian plot, another example of perfidious Albion.

Advocates of this theory miss a point, if it is as chaotic in its approach as the Trump White House, with a Trumpeseque buffoon in the shape of BoJo the Bozo who tweets with his mouth, then it is as chaotic as the Trump White House.
This arises from the fact that the key players in the UK leaving the EU are simply duds. None more so that chief dud, Theresa May.
Christmas Came Early for Some in 2016
It is a common characteristic of the vast majority of politicians (if not all) that they have the answer to a society’s problems. If only people would do as they are told the world would be such a better place. After all, why go into politics if not to have people do as you say.
Of course, sharing a characteristic does not mean they share opinions — far from it. However, the best decisions are made where different, perhaps very different, opinions are seriously considered — a wisdom of crowds. And, no matter how fine a speech projecting ideas, nothing beats being part of the decision process.
However, the UK’s first past the post, winner-takes-all system of governance (described by Lord Hailsham Margaret Thatcher’s Lord Chancellor as ‘an elected dictatorship’) is an absolute gift to any power-hungry politician. Since WWII no majority Labour or Conservative government has ever been elected by 50% or more of the electorate so is never representative of UK voters and never requires politicians to develop political skills beyond the narrow confines of their own party.
Not having to compromise in order to achieve a consensus over a decision with those representing different interests.
The despotism inherent in the UK system of governance only being moderated by EU law subject to decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). EU law being pluralistic in nature having been arrived at by a consensus of 28 (soon to be 27) member states that will have different interests, not least due to the fact that the government of many member states are coalitions of different interests. For a significant number of MPs in the Tory party and some Labour ones this pluralism is too much to bear when, if free of EU law and jurisdiction, ultimate power beckons.
So for decades many Tory MPs fantasised about the ‘if only’ of the UK no longer being a member of the EU. Of course, fantasy never turned to considering reality so that when the EU referendum gifted them the opportunity they simply had no idea as to how to make use of this gift. Giving a Neanderthal a smart-phone would be pointless.

A Dud, A Dud, My Premiership For a Dud
Having staked his job as UK PM on securing a vote for the UK to remain in the EU and having failed, David Cameron was replaced by Theresa May. Despite the referendum being only advisory, referenda in the UK that have been mandatory have always been post-legislative — Parliament has decided on a course of action and now seeks confirmation from the electorate, Theresa May decided to accept the result and now looks around for individuals to fill certain roles. Now the fun starts.
The roles being either created directly due to the referendum result or directly affected by it.
- Department for Exiting the European Union
- Foreign Office
- Department for International Trade
These roles being filled by those who campaigned for the UK to leave the EU and so, presumably, have evidence-based ideas on how to fulfil their roles.
David Davis, as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, had been Europe Minister in the 1990's so, presumably, had some insight into EU procedures and approaches. His insights being such that the initial approach the UK took towards negotiating an exit consisted of such tactics as
- trying to gauge what would be acceptable with the use of ‘feelers’ or even that negotiations could begin before Article 50 notification
- that feelers or even negotiations could be opened with individual EU member states, bypassing the Commission
- that the UK could use a ‘divide and conquer’ approach with individual member states to its advantage
The government, or rather Theresa May, had originally resisted explaining its negotiating position but later relented and published a white paper that was just a list of bland statements
- securing the status of EU citizens being “one of this government’s early priorities for the forthcoming negotiations”
- “an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement”.
- “to preserve UK and European security and to fight terrorism and uphold justice across Europe”
- achieving a “a smooth, mutually beneficial exit”
This is in contrast to the EU’s position papers produced before any negotitions started that go into some detail and were not the result of pressure having been placed on the Commission. For example, the paper on EU citizens’ rights runs to 4 pages not simple bland statements.
After two rounds of Article 50 negotiations the UK did produce some position papers that have to be considered more a political move than a serious part of the negotiation process. For example, the paper dealing with a border in Ireland was not well received. The FT reporting
A European Commission spokesperson appeared sceptical on Wednesday, saying: “Frictionless trade is not possible outside the single market and customs union.”
The position paper was met with similar scepticism from the Irish government and business organisations.
And a scathing attack from Finlan O’Toole in the Irish Times
So Davis exhibits an approach that is totally at odds with the EU one and demonstrates little or no understanding of the required process. Even claiming that a row would erupt once negotiations started as the UK wanted to negotiate trade in parallel with Article 50 negotiations whilst the EU wanted then to be in sequence. No such row has erupted as Davis had seemingly acquiesced in the EU position only to raise the matter again by claiming trade talks and the UK’s financial commitments, citizen rights and the Irish border were inextricably linked when the EU has stated many times that trade talks would not resolve any of those issues .
In fact, the one civil servant who was familiar with EU procedures and thinking, the UK’s ambassador to the European Union, Sir Ivan Rogers, was forced to resign after criticising the government’s lack or preparedness.
Davis is a dud.
After the Prime Minister, the two most important jobs in the UK government are Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. With the UK leaving the EU, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) needs to perform a major pivot. It has spent some considerable effort over the last 50 years either trying to join the European Project or managing that relationship; of late selling itself both to the rest of the EU and the USA as a bridge between Washington and Brussels. With the Brussels end of that bridge being demolished the Washington end leads nowhere. Since the UK defines itself almost entirely in terms of its relationship with the USA, this pivot would require someone of significant ability. Instead, May appointed Boris Johnson.
Johnson has never held a ministerial office and his only abilities being those of a buffoon with an insatiable desire for self-publicity, idiotic statements and distorting the truth — be it about the shape of fruit and vegetables or balloons and tea-bags.
BoJo the Bozo is a Titanic dud.
Liam Fox, as Secretary of State for Trade is the least of these as he can do little or nothing on matters of trade until the UK leaves the EU and even then he may find himself redundant. If the UK did stay within the customs union (which would prevent any political problems in Northern Ireland over a hard border with the Republic) he would be redundant; the UK being unable to conduct any trade deals.
In the meantime, one issue that could be addressed is that of the UK’s need for its own WTO arrangements. But this seems to have been hijacked by the FCO.
He had been Defence Secretary in the coalition government of 2010–15 but resigned over allegations that he had given a close friend, lobbyist Adam Werritty, inappropriate access to the Ministry of Defence and allowed him to join official trips overseas.
Cleary Fox is quite inept and yet another dud.
Prima Inter Pares
In the wake of the referendum result it was quite clear the UK was hugely divided England and Wales voting to leave and Scotland and N Ireland voting to stay. The 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum set a target for those voting for devolution of 40% of the electorate in order to demonstrate real support for the proposition. With a turnout of 72.2% and those voting to leave being 51.9% of those voting that gives only 37.5% of the electorate voting to leave.
May fought (and lost) two court cases to prevent Parliament voting on Article 50. This demonstrated her autocratic mindset, she was to be in control. Yet invoking Article 50 was as contentious as invading Iraq. Blair realised Iraq would be contentious and sought Parliamentary approval. To deliberately seek a Parliamentary vote without being forced would have demonstrated confidence and have provided a narrative that the UK was more supportive of leaving the EU than the voting figures demonstrate. Similarly by laying out a schema of negotiating positions rather than hiding behind the metaphor of not showing her cards and seeking Parliamentary approval for such a schema would also have demonstrated unity. Exactly the strategy employed by the EU.
Theresa May’s autocratic nature, combined with a lack of any detail regarding UK negotiating positions and the such vague statements such as ‘Brexit means Brexit’ signals a strategy of enabling May to describe any outcome for Article 50 negotiations as being a success. Her real problem is that of ever widening division with the Conservative party as the consequences of leaving the EU show themselves.
With a majority of 16, handing those divisions would be next to impossible, so she called a general election. Labour’s polling was terrible so a large majority looked easy pickings. The Conservative campaign, now considered a very poor one, placed her at the centre, typical cult of personality for an autocrat. The consequence, a slim majority lost and any control of the divisions with it.
Theresa May is an autocrat who revels in being ‘a bloody difficult woman’. When she is in fact a bloody stupid woman. Clearly no Tony Blair who could manipulate Parliament, a supine legislature that Edmund Burke would surely despair of.
But in a winner takes all system that does not need to cajole, compromise and be cunning with MPs of a different party the evolutionary principle that the most suitable thrive means that Machiavellian attributes are unlikely to develop. There is no cunning plan, the UK really is bitterly divided and making it up as it goes along.
Theresa May is first amonst equals, she is the biggest dud of all.
