Politics

And so Theresa May’s strategy fails for the final time

The PM’s speech encapsulated her failed tactics throughout this sorry Brexit saga

May 22, 2019
Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA Wire/PA Images
Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA Wire/PA Images

On Tuesday Theresa May gave a masterclass in being Theresa May. She delivered one of her set-piece Brexit speeches, and like all the others, it was by turns evasive, dishonest, absurd and lacking all shame. This one will be her last.

May began with the self-effacing disclaimer that “the challenge of taking Brexit from the simplicity of the choice on the ballot paper to the complexity of resetting the country’s relationship with 27... neighbours was always going to be huge.” She added for good measure that it had “proved even harder than I anticipated.” This sounded like a rare moment of candour, but in fact represented a more characteristic self-justification. Obviously Brexit is complicated. Of course it was over-simplified before the referendum, to disastrous effect. But it was the prime minister who continued over-simplifying it for three years afterwards. Colleagues and experts lined up each week to tell her how difficult it would be and she neither listened nor cared.

Then she outlined the various sweeteners in the Withdrawal Bill. To a casual listener they sounded eminently reasonable: the government would find alternative arrangements to the backstop, Northern Ireland would always be harmonised with the rest of the UK in regulations, and workers’ rights and environmental standards would be permanently guaranteed. But as so often with May, she had sabotaged herself before she even started. Most of the plans had already been promised. They went too far for Leavers and not far enough for Remainers. And at their core was a flagrant disregard for objective political fact.

At the most basic level, May knew that she was making guarantees that she would never be allowed to implement. She has acknowledged that she will soon be ousted, and none of her likely successors would feel bound to honour a single thing. But in fact the problem was far more fundamental. She was pledging things that no government could ever deliver, for the simple reason that they are impossible.

What did May mean when she announced “a legal obligation to seek to conclude alternative arrangements [to the backstop] by December 2020”? It was unadulterated fantasy. The words deceive listeners into believing the PM has power when May was literally formalising hope. The EU has shunned every “alternative arrangement” the UK has proposed because none of them guarantees an open Irish border or the EU’s sovereignty over its own customs. You cannot make it compulsory to find something that does not exist, and a unicorn will not suddenly come into being just because the Commons has legislated for it.

Then there were pledges over the single market. What on earth is “a legal duty on the government to seek as close to frictionless trade with the EU in goods as possible, subject to being outside the single market and ending freedom of movement”? It means nothing. Obviously the government will seek the best trade relationship it can; it is like passing a law to force ministers to turn up to work. The more significant question is what that “frictionless trade” looks like. The EU has asserted that the UK’s trade can only be as frictionless as any other country’s outside the single market. Brussels has repeated this message on a loop, hundreds of times over, for three years, and still the government refuses to hear it. We continue to assume we are the only actors in this drama and are entitled to whatever gifts we demand.

May extended the single market promise to Northern Ireland. She declared that Great Britain would retain alignment with it and the whole UK would “maintain common rules with the EU for goods... that are relevant to checks at the border.” But none of it matters. It is not a question of whether the UK retains common rules, but whether the EU is prepared to recognise them as such. Effectively, will the EU accept the UK as being a member of the single market in some sectors and not in others? After all the insistence to the contrary, will Brussels finally grant us our cakeist birthright? Reader, no.

More fantasy arrived in the form of a “customs compromise,” with the “benefits of a customs union" while setting trade policy. The backstop, which is the bare minimum customs arrangement, involves the UK aligning with the EU’s tariffs indefinitely. The government has already signed that trade policy away. Then May suggested a “temporary customs union on goods only.” A customs union only ever applies to goods. It was not only gibberish, but a con trick. A customs union until the next general election will cover the period of an extended transition, which includes a customs union already. Literally anyone with a passing interest in the withdrawal agreement would have known about this provision, and May simply pretended it didn’t exist.

Finally came the section on the referendum, and May's unique nexus of arrogance, cynicism and folly delivered its coup de grace. Perhaps the prime minister thought she was being clever in promising “a requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum.” She was not. Leavers were outraged at the very mention of a new ballot, and Remainers dismissed an offer simply to vote on it. Labour MPs would have amended the legislation to secure that vote in all circumstances, and were not going to thank May for simply permitting it. May in any case conceded that parliament’s rejection of the deal might precipitate a referendum regardless. That incentivised no new MPs to approve the deal and drove dozens more away.

The prime minister’s treatment of the referendum encapsulated her failed tactics. May played all sides off against each other in the hope they would be foolish enough to believe her, and to her surprise alone, nobody did. The truth is that MPs have lost interest in the PM. Over three torturous years she has exhausted her moral authority, political credibility and personal goodwill. She has reneged on her commitments, lied to colleagues’ faces and wasted her negotiating partners’ time. There is now no more capital to find or integrity to defend. May's opponents do not trust her and her friends are ready to dispatch her.

Since 2016, May’s strategy has been clear: downplay Brexit’s complexity and its inherent need for compromise, doggedly appease the hard-right Conservative fringe, and deny the existence of reality outright. On Tuesday that strategy failed for the final time. Politicians are exhausted by the deadlock and afraid of the electorate, but still wise enough to flee a ship the captain has chosen to sink.