British general elections

It is still to early to know the outcome of the British elections. It will be inappropriate to try to guess the results, a couple of hours before the closing of the polling stations. Better wait for the headlines and the details tomorrow morning. Whatever comes out of the voting, it will have a major impact on the UK and, in some ways, in the rest of Europe. These are no ordinary elections. And many, particularly the younger people, got to understand it.

The question of trust

If there is a thing I took away from the political debate the BBC organised last evening, it is the question of trust. Basically, the programme was about placing the leaders of the four main British parties before an assembly of citizens. We were told these people represented a good sample of the diversity of opinions one can find in the British society. I don’t know the criteria the BBC followed to select them. However, I have no special reason to doubt the organisers’ word and good judgement.

Each leader was given 30 minutes to listen and reply to questions coming from the audience. That’s time enough to win an assembly of voters. It can also become an eternity if one is not able to connect with them and be convincing.

In my opinion, and excluding the special case of the leader of the Scottish National Party – Nicola Sturgeon has a very specific political agenda, very focused on getting a new vote on Scotland’s quest for independence from the UK – the other three leaders could realise they are not trusted by large segments of the population. Their pledges do not sound as sincere.  They can count, of course, on their faithful followers. But they can’t widen the pool.

My conclusion was that they should ask themselves why it is they are not perceived by a good number of the voters as credible. If I were in their shoes, that would be the question I would try to answer now, before moving on with the campaign.

Her Majesty's Opposition: some questions

Where is the UK Opposition? What is their counterplan? Why have they lost the political initiative?

These are my questions this morning.

Boris Johnson and his disastrous politics

A few brief comments on tonight's vote in the British Parliament.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a major humiliation. It was not just a defeat. It should be seen as the confirmation that his strategy – the one that is designed by his Special Advisor, Dominic Cummings, and the PM implements – is not keeping his own camp together. Twenty-one members of his Tory Party voted against him, notwithstanding all the promises he made and, above all, the political threats he mouthed against them. Twenty-one is a big number and most of them are very senior people with a long public career.  

The Prime Minister has shown that his understanding of the British system of democracy is not far from the one followed by Vladimir Putin and other birds of the same feather. He sees his fellow party parliamentarians as just yes-men. They are not allowed any freedom of choice. In his opinion, they are at Westminster to vote for the PM, and that’s all.

The opposition must ride on tonight’s vote and present Boris Johnson in negative colours: under the spell of mischievous Cummings; following a blind approach to a catastrophic Brexit, for ideological reasons, with no respect for facts and the civil service advice; undemocratic and deeply authoritarian; unprepared for the job of unifying the country; and a frenzied liar. Those should be the lines of attack during the coming days and weeks.

Boris Johnson is in charge

From a diplomatic perspective, the European leaders can only wish every success to Boris Johnson. He won the leadership of his Conservative Party and the British political tradition makes him the next Prime Minister.

This is not a very easy time for the UK, as the country is more divided than ever and must make some very decisive choices. Johnson knows that. His initial steps are particularly important. Above all, the way he approaches the European Union. If he tries the impossible, and a different type of Withdrawal Agreement, based on fantasy, he might end up by stepping into the abyss. I am sure he is aware of that and does not want his premiership to be tainted by economic distress and domestic constitutional crisis. By failure, in a word.

We will see.

In the meantime, the Labour Party is also facing some serious difficulties. Jeremy Corbyn is less and less able to respond to the major challenges the UK is confronted with. Time is defeating him. Now, he must find a sharper way of defining his party’s position. During the next few weeks all the attentions will be focused on the way he responds to the Boris Johnson Cabinet’s initiatives. That’s not a very comfortable position. The one who takes the initiative, if he is smart, is always ahead of the game. To try to catch up – that will be Corbyn’s most likely approach – is not good enough. Corbyn and his party must go beyond responding and be prepared to come up with striking ideas. They must re-capture the people’s attention. That’s not easy when on the other side is standing someone like Johnson.  

Brexit, May and Corbyn

Theresa May’s Brexit agreement is still the second-best option for both the UK and the EU. The Prime Minister knows it and I admire her persistence and political courage. Contrary to what many might say, this is not about stubbornness. It is about conviction and wisdom. 

The first-best option would have been a new referendum on the relationship with Europe. But that is now out of the equation, unless there is a political miracle.

The Labour Party’s leader carries a good deal of the responsibility for the missed opportunity of a people’s vote. He has not been clear. Some politicians believe they know how to swim in muddy waters. 

I guess historians will be much nicer to Theresa May than the current conservative media is.

As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, he might become Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. That will be the lucky turn of the irony dice. Not surprising in an extremely confused political landscape.

Politics has a good lot of ironic turns these days.  

Brexit is in town

Brexit night, again, here in Brussels. Theresa May wants a short postponement of her country’s Brexit date. That is certainly something that would make sense, now that her government and the Labour Party are engaged in talks. EU leaders could wait for those talks to conclude, be it that in the end there is no agreement between the two sides. The position could stand as a recognition of the merit of such talks, an invitation for a national decision on a matter that is of crucial importance to the British nation.

That would be my position in today’s summit meeting. Such position would give the UK Prime Minister some political strength, at a time when she is very weak, it would show respect to her and it could be supported by the European public opinion.

Brexit's new cards

Some people are saying that PM Theresa May’s statement, made this evening, is more of the same. I disagree. It is not. Cabinet did not spend seven hours discussing the matter for nothing.

The Prime Minister´s words are very clear.

First, there is no way she will preside over a No Deal Brexit. That is a key message. She understands the immense negative impact of such an avenue and might have been able to convince enough people in her Cabinet that such an option cannot be seriously considered. She might be very stubborn, but she is no fool. And she is determined in her opposition to a No Deal. I appreciate that.

Second, she has finally accepted she needs to reach an agreement with the Labour Party. That is also an important step forward. And she seems ready to give it a try. I appreciate the move.

Third, the most plausible option could now be the approval of her Withdrawal Agreement (WA) followed by a confirmatory referendum. Or, just the taking of the WA to the voters. That would also be the best option. The second best would be the approval of the WA in Westminster coupled with the endorsement by Parliament of a revised Political Declaration that would point in the direction of a customs union.

Things could be moving fast in the next few days.

Brexit: time to approve the deal

Brexit, again! At this stage, I see no strong reason for the EU leaders to accept a short time extension of Article 50. The legal exit date is 29 March. An extension can only be granted if it is grounded on a well-defined reason. Seen from Brussels, the best reason would be to give time to the British institutions to approve the additional legislation that would regulate the different aspects of an orderly exit. That would basically mean the exit deal should be passed by the UK Parliament before 29 March. If that is not the case, the Brexit matter should be put to a new popular vote. And then the choice would be between the deal, as signed off by the Prime Minister, or no Brexit. The No Deal option is too catastrophic. It should not be in the ballot paper.

The scheduling of a new referendum – the popular vote mentioned above – would be the only reasonable justification for the EU heads to accept an extension.

However, I do not see much of a chance for a new people’s vote on Brexit. The political conditions are not there. The new approach by the Labour party in favour of a referendum comes too late to be of any value.

Thus, the realistic option is to fight for a yes vote in Westminster. That would approve the existing draft deal. With maybe one or two appended sentences, that would give the tough MPs within Theresa May’s party an excuse to change their opinion and vote for it. However, such approval must happen in the next two weeks. It’s late in the day, but still within a manageable time frame. Beyond that period, if there is no clarification, one can only expect a much higher level of confusion, including within the Conservative party. And a serious impact on the daily lives of many.  

Brexit means transformation

The Brexit crisis is creating the conditions for a new partisan alignment in the UK. Brexit is a major political earthquake. Therefore, it can seriously transform the British party landscape, something that has not happened for generations.  

Theresa May and Valentine's defeat

Today, Prime Minister Theresa May lost another Brexit vote in Parliament.

It was not a “meaningful vote”, as the British like to say when the motion is only symbolic. But it’s full of political meaning. Basically, it shows that the Prime Minister cannot count with the hardliners within her Conservative party.

Moreover, here in Brussels the vote is seen from two complementary angles: first, Theresa May is not in a very strong position to negotiate any kind of clarification or addition to the existing draft deal; second, she can only avoid a catastrophic no deal scenario if she negotiates with the Labour Party. Therefore, there will be increased pressure on her to do so. She might resist it, she might even find such option as difficult as swallowing the bitter pill, but in the end, she must think in patriotic terms, not just in a partisan manner.

But can she do it? That’s a big and very serious question mark.

The UK deep crisis is getting worse

I see the ghost of early elections coming rapidly in the direction of Prime Minister Theresa May.

Sugar-coated Brexit

Today the British Parliament discussed and voted a few motions on Brexit.

Beyond the words, the show and the votes, for me the point is clear: the deal that is on the table, the one painstakingly negotiated between Theresa May and the EU, is the best option at this stage. Today’s Westminster session seems to reveal that a good number of MPs have also realised that. They said clearly, they do not want to vote without a deal. And they expect the EU leaders to put some sugar on top of the current proposal. Just to make it a bit more palatable. If the EU does it, if some language is changed in the Political Declaration – not in the deal, I do not see it as possible – the MPs will twist that coat of sugar in such a way that it will save their face, as they finally approve the deal.

Very shrewd political actors they are.

Brexit: decision time

Theresa May’s leadership style can be criticised for many reasons. But it’s difficult to challenge her level of resolve, her determination.

The Prime Minister believes she must deliver the outcome of the 2016 referendum on Europe. Also, that the exit needs to be based on a deal between the UK and the EU.

There was a time when she repeatedly said that “no deal was better than a bad deal”. On that, she has changed her mind. Since last summer she has become fully convinced that an accord is necessary. And not just for the transition, not just for the short term. It’s critical for a mutually profitable relationship between her country and its major economic and security partner, the EU.

She is also sure that the draft deal she has negotiated with the Europeans is the best possible arrangement. Therefore, she will keep pressing on. Theresa May wants her proposal approved.

This week we will find out if she wins or loses. The coming days are crucial for the continuation of her leadership. 

This is now the time to go beyond the crossroads. I, like all of us here in Brussels, would prefer to see her determination rewarded.

Westminster is making it impossible

At this stage, the best option for all of us in the European neighbourhood – UK and EU – would be to have the Withdrawal Agreement approved by the British parliament. That would be the most reasonable way forward, this late in the process. Both sides need a Brexit arrangement that would bring clarity and could ensure a good degree of continuity to a very close relationship.

Unfortunately, Westminster seems determined to vote down the deal. That will complicate further a political situation that is already very delicate. The UK population deserves better. And they are also tired of the discussions about the Brexit. But the politicians in Parliament are too divided. Moreover, many of them are just guided by personal reasons and by an idea of Britain that does not tally with the international affairs of today.  

A divided Britain

I watched this evening´s BBC debate on the UK´s European referendum. And I was very impressed by two of the Remain supporters: the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, a Labour politician, and the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson. They are excellent debaters and, being still relatively young, they are rising stars. Both will certainly have a lot to contribute to their country´s political life. Their main opponent was Boris Johnson, the Conservative sacred bull, a very well informed and smart fellow, and also an excellent orator. But he comes out as disingenuous, as someone who is above all self-centred and concerned with taking advantage of any opportunity to advance his own ambitions.

The debate was a bitter one. This has been an extremely divisive time for the UK. It has turned political friends into acrimonious enemies. Whatever the outcome of the vote on Thursday – I hope it will be in favour of keeping the EU membership – the British political landscape will come out radically changed. A new type of alliances will be formed within the key political parties. And half of the country will feel terribly left behind. That´s certainly not good. 

UK Labour Party got an interesting Leader

It´s official, Jeremy Corbyn is the new Leader of the UK´s Labour Party. He comes from outside the party´s mainstream. His ideas are much closer to the radical Left than to those Labour has advocated since the late 90s, when Blair came to power. Corbyn´s election calls therefore for a serious reflection about politics in our type of societies.

Many people said they have voted for him because they understand what he is saying. They understand he is not a Conservative under the disguise of Labour. What he talks about is more than just a nuance of Conservative´s positions. That makes him clear and gives him the support of all those who believe the UK has become more unequal and less friendly to the weak. The lesson here is simple: if you want to be seen as an alternative be clear about your positions, make them be seen as clearly distinct from those of your opponents.

He has also attracted the backing of many younger voters. He might be wrong in his prescriptions and policy options but he grounds them on values and generosity. And that´s what the young people want to hear. Values are back in the public opinion and politicians need to take that into account. There is less room today for opportunism and cynicism.

He might never become a prime minister. I do not see the majority of the British voting for him. He might even be bad news for Europe as I do not see him engaging in the Yes campaign at the time of the British referendum on the EU.

But he will make politics in the UK a bit more popular and interesting for a good while. David Cameron can expect a number of good fights in Parliament.

The demise of traditional parties is now a serious prospect

The French have decided to vote against the government candidates on today´s local elections. But above all, they have decided to abstain from voting. Over 16 million said no by keeping themselves far away from the polling stations. Basically, this shows that the traditional parties can no longer be seen as the political vehicles people´s aspirations. The citizens, all over the place, in France and elsewhere in Europe, are deeply dissatisfied with the way professional politicians behave.

That´s probably the reason why they have elected, in Slovakia, an outsider to be the country´s next president. The prime-minister, a long standing figure in national politics, was just defeat by a businessman.

On this same day, the British media has printed the results of the latest opinion survey. The Labour Party is just one percentage point ahead the governing Conservatives. This happens notwithstanding the very erratic policies the Conservative government – the Tories – have tried to implement, with less than convincing results, during the last three years. People in Britain are also running away from the old parties. Unfortunately they are moving their support to UKIP, the Independence Party of Nigel Farage, a good speaker who manages to hide some of his racist ideas behind some demagogic policies. UKIP is rapidly becoming the third force in British politics. This is a major feat because the system there is constructed in such a way that it gives very little chances to any alternative to Labour and Tory parties. If the British voter is going UKIP that shows how discontent she or he is with the current system.

And more examples could be found throughout the EU. 

UK's national interest and the EU

From today's Financial Times:

Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum

I love the idea of "national interest". But I am afraid it is one of the vaguest ideas on the market. It is subject to so many interpretations. The "national interest" as perceived by a banker in London is very different from the one understood by a shop floor vendor in Birmingham, or a a young graduate in Durham. Not to mention people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Even a staff writer at the Financial Times will see it differently from a journo at The Sun next door.

Is there a good step-by-step guideline on how to define the "national interest" of a given country? I don't think so. But in a case like this one, the future of the relationship between the UK and Europe cannot just be defined by Conservative politicians or by a coalition government that is above all a marriage of convenience. It would require ample debate at Westminster and a broad consensus in the Commons.