The Tribune

While it is essential to vary the content of this column, the massively controversial issue of Brexit is reaching a climax so this is a follow-up to last week’s report on the subject.

Prime Minister Theresa May is in deep political trouble at home following her request to the European Union to extend to June 29 Britain’s departure date from the bloc already set for March 29 under Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. At its summit last week, the EU rejected the June date but agreed to extend the UK’s membership until May 22 on the condition MPs at Westminster vote in favour of Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement. If, however, it is voted down for a third time, Britain would have to leave on April 12 without a deal unless in the meantime an alternative plan could be approved by the House of Commons. There is wide agreement that a no-deal exit would be disruptive and damaging despite the UK taking extensive standby measures to lessen the negative impact.

Britain has remained horribly divided over Brexit since the vote to leave by a narrow majority in the 2016 referendum. It now seems to be on the brink of complete chaos precipitated by endless bickering, indecision and disagreement. So it is no exaggeration to say the nation is locked in a political crisis, with the Prime Minister losing her grip on events and some describing the situation as a national emergency.

This could be a ‘do or die’ week for MPs who face a crucial decision about Mrs May’s deal if they have a chance to vote on it again. The delay until April 12 has apparently prompted her to try once more to obtain the backing of MPs; but, at the time of writing, there is still some doubt about whether this will happen during the next few days. MPs may also be asked to consider a number of ‘indicative votes’ designed to test opinion on various alternatives to the Withdrawal Agreement and to determine what is acceptable to them. Thus, a pivotal moment in British politics has been reached as the Brexit endgame goes down to the wire.

Whatever happens, there have been huge anti-Brexit public protests with an estimated one million marchers over the weekend and an online petition attracting some five million signatures. With similar counter demonstrations in support, public anger and resentment is being shown towards a political class which is seen as betraying public trust, and there are increasing fears of serious civil unrest.

The latest signs are the chances of MPs agreeing to Mrs May’s deal at the third time of asking are slim, not least because of her defiant but ill-judged speech to the nation last week blaming them for the current crisis. But, given the desperation to escape from the current mess and to find a way forward, apparently it is still possible they could reluctantly agree in order to prevent the UK from crashing out with no deal, but only if the prime minister agrees to step down.

That may happen anyway because there is already growing pressure on her to do so, with her own colleagues engaged in Tory infighting and plotting against her while claiming that, even if her deal is agreed and Britain leaves the EU on May 22, a new leader should be in place to take charge of the next stage to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU. Before that, however, if the Withdrawal Agreement is rejected again, the House of Commons may take control of Brexit. MPs could call for the nation to stay in the single market and the customs union. Equally, they could seek to delay or cancel the whole process or press for a second referendum. There could even be a snap election that many fear could open the door to a hard-left Labour government.

Be that as it may – and few would dare predict developments this week - many people are already paying tribute to Theresa May for her mental and physical resilience and stoicism in the face of adversity. They say she inherited an impossible hand to play, given the fundamental divisions over Europe within her own party, but in reacting to criticism of her competence and perceived inflexibility she has shown courage, tenacity and endless good humour.

• On a personal note, this column provides an opportunity to join with his numerous other friends in congratulating Brian Moree on his imminent appointment as Chief Justice. John Adams, one of the architects with Thomas Jefferson of the American Declaration of Independence and second president of the United States, famously enunciated criteria for an independent judiciary - they should be ‘men of experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, invincible patience, unruffled calmness, indefatigable application and subservient to none’. What more can be said about this excellent appointment that should be welcomed by all.

Fall from grace of an unlamented prime minister

This month marks the 16th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq. There does not seem to have been much press coverage, but to large numbers of people in Britain it will have been an unhappy reminder of their nation’s involvement in what is generally regarded as a foreign policy and humanitarian disaster that destabilised the Middle East and led, indirectly, to civil war in Syria and the horrors of ISIS.

In 2003, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, propelled Britain into the Iraq war in face of fierce opposition from parliament and the general public. He rode roughshod over official advice and public concern in taking the nation to war - against the national interest - on the basis of a so-called “dodgy dossier’ that claimed Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that constituted a major threat to the West. But, since no WMD were later found, it turned out Britain went to war on a false prospectus. Apart from heavy US casualties, Britain lost 179 service personnel with many others wounded. The war also claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of whom were civilians, and more than a million people were displaced.

Mr Blair was heavily censured in the Chilcot Report in 2016 – Britain’s much-delayed official inquiry into the war - though he remained unrepentant, claiming to have made the right decision and that the world was better and safer as a result. But he has been branded a war criminal and has been widely vilified. His later appointment as a special peace envoy in the Middle East was met with derision. He has also been criticised for involvement with dictators like the leader of Kazakhstan and for taking advantage of his status as a retired political leader to enrich himself. As a public servant accustomed to treating government ministers with respect and suitable deference, it is sad to have watched the fall from grace of this former British prime minister. But perhaps it is a cautionary tale and a reminder that in a democracy politicians serve with the consent of the people. If they pursue their own convictions or wishes without proper consultation and agreement, they do so at their own peril.