Brexit Still A Thing

The Death of the British Dream

How Theresa May got away with an extreme policy that few ever really wanted.
Theresa May
Theresa MayBy Carl Court/Getty Images.

On Tuesday, Theresa May made an unusual choice for the backdrop of her historic announcement regarding the terms of Britain’s departure from the European Union. The prime minister chose not Parliament but rather a lectern at Lancaster House, the setting, astonishingly enough, where Margaret Thatcher, the hero of every Tory right-winger, outlined the largely British notion for a single market back in 1988. Thatcher’s role in the European project ranks pretty high in the extensive annals of conservative amnesia, but it was May’s contempt for the elected representatives of the British people that was most significant. It apparently occurred to almost no one that she should be making her speech to Parliament, whose sovereignty and independence the Brexit supporters claimed to champion during the referendum campaign, rather than to the media and European ambassadors.

That was the insult. The injury came when May suggested that, while Parliament would be allowed to vote on the eventual deal, Britain would still likely leave the E.U. regardless. She would not even agree to involve Parliament in the terms of the Brexit negotiations. It is difficult to imagine the equivalent actions in the United States given the difference in our political systems, but there would surely be uproar, and maybe insurrection, if the president trampled over both houses in a similar manner.

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court may, over the next few days, force the government to allow a debate before the triggering of Article 50, which will start the two-year procedure of leaving the E.U. But, even now, government ministers are drafting a one-line bill that is so microscopic that it will allow for no amendments and little debate. I hate to be an alarmist, but this adds up to something of an executive coup on Parliament. And the worst part of the whole story is that M.P.s are conniving in the rapid process of their own obsolescence. Apart from a few honorable exceptions, they sit gravely watching the ship of state head for the rocks with absolutely nothing to say for themselves—no ideas, not one thought about the huge, avoidable disaster of Brexit, and nothing to observe about the sheer, wasteful inconvenience of it all.

If you think I am exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, just look at what May said in her address at Lancaster House. She will take Britain out of the European single market of 500 million with just a vague hope and a lot of rhetoric about trading all over the globe. The U.K. will no longer be obliged to follow the decisions of the European Court, and Europeans will not have the right to come to Britain. Regarding the U.K.’s continuing trade with Europe, she was even more vague, suggesting that while she didn’t want the U.K. to submit to the regulations of the European customs union, she wanted unfettered access to it—in other words, a new customs agreement. I have more chance of winning the EuroMillions lottery two weeks in a row than May has of making this happen.

Not content with the hard Brexit stance, which, naturally, did not go down well with our European allies (these days, it is easy to forget that they are still allies), May went on to warn them that Britain would not tolerate a punitive outcome to the negotiations. If the E.U. decided to make an example of the U.K., the U.K. would respond by creating a low-tax haven to attract businesses away from Europe. The result of this petulant threat was continent-wide ridicule. And May, who has in her repertoire of facial expressions one or two slightly goofy ones, did not help herself by being photographed in a plaid trouser suit that made her look a little clownish.

And speaking of clowns, her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, who is to diplomacy what Ebola is to health care, set about the French president by suggesting that Britain would not tolerate from him the punitive beatings seen in some World War II movies. Johnson did not use the word Nazi, but that is presumably what he meant, and Francois Hollande and everyone else took offense, which is exactly what Johnson must have intended.

Video: What You Need To Know About Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Unlike the election of Donald Trump, which may be a greater disaster for the world, Brexit and the damage it has caused to the U.K. and Europe look to be almost irreversible. In four years’ time, America will be able to show Trump the door. But in Britain, there will be no turning back, and it will take a very long time to repair relations with our European neighbors. Brexit has encouraged right-wing parties all over Europe, which is understandably regarded as almost unforgivable by the established parties that revere the liberal consensus. There are signs that London will lose its status as both a great financial hub and a center of creativity in the arts and sciences, and that those with talent and highly valued skills will eventually leave a country that does not have the wit to acquiesce in its own survival.

This executive coup is all the more surprising given the numbers involved. May, who has never led her party to an election victory and therefore has no personal mandate, has a majority of just 14 seats in the House of Commons, which could easily be overturned by those M.P.s who are in favor of remaining in the E.U. There is something approximating a two-thirds pro-E.U. majority across all parties in the Commons. And in the House of Lords, where a geriatric majority is in favor of leaving the European Union, there are enough activist Europhiles to cause trouble.

Somehow, May faces no opposition whatsoever and no prospect of it. The simple answer is that M.P.s were stunned by the shock of the referendum result last year and remain intimidated by both the pro-Brexit tabloids and the strength of feeling in the country against immigrants, a feeling that will be familiar to Americans. And yet there is no clear majority for all of this within the U.K. population. A mere 27 percent of the country voted for Brexit and those people were misled by Leavers, including Johnson, who said that Britain would retain access to the single market after leaving the E.U., otherwise known as “soft Brexit.” What May proposes, of course, is a much more dangerous “hard Brexit,” with a giddy aspiration of turning Britain into the Singapore of Northern Europe. Unfortunately, an analysis conducted by JPMorgan suggests that sort of geo-economic strategy could only work if firms have access to markets in their neighborhood—and there is absolutely no guarantee of that.

An economy like Britain, which is increasingly knowledge-based, can survive a great amount of chaos, but it seems certain that the fall of sterling and inflationary pressures will impoverish Britons; that many jobs will be lost; and that a likely dropping off in tax revenues means there will be less money to spend on services, particularly the National Health Service. These are things the the Labor Party, the main opposition, cares deeply about. But, as I have explained before, the party has been paralyzed by a fear of its own supporters, who tend to be nationalistic and fear competition for jobs, homes, and services from European migrants. The grim reality is that the possibility of losing these people to the right-wing UKIP party, or the Conservatives, concerns Labor more than the promised hardships of Brexit, which it anyway calculates may play well for it in the future. And that may be why May can get away with an extreme policy that was never explicitly part of the Leave campaign, and for which there is only minority support.

Until Labor confronts its own supporters, or a new center group materializes to oppose Brexit, Parliament will be powerless in the face of a ruthless conservative coup. I don’t see either happening anytime soon.