Today's British-Irish summit spotlights the prime minister's dilemma
Image: Scottish Government
‘One of the most important ever’ — That is how Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has described today’s gathering of the British Irish Council in Wales, which will to consider the outcome of the UK’s referendum on membership of the European Union.
Sturgeon is right. What the meeting speaks to is that along with Brexit meaning Brexit, the biggest challenge for Theresa May is keeping the UK together as a geographical entity, and it is difficult to see how she can proceed.
In Scotland, during her first official trip there a week ago today she declared that Article 50 would not be activated until a UK wide approach had been agreed.
That will be impossible to achieve since the Scottish Government’s policy is simple – to remain in the EU whatever it takes. David Davis, leading Brexit discussions for the UK Government meanwhile has warned that Scotland cannot have a veto over the negotiations.
The sense of impending doom for Scotland’s place in the UK is palpable and very real and can only really be resolved either through a screeching U-turn in SNP policy, or Scotland going it alone.
Faced with such circumstances, the UK Government cannot in all fairness resist calls for a vote north of the border on its future place in the UK, the EU and the world.
By Monday of this week it was Cardiff’s turn to host the new Prime Minister. In a nation that voted for Brexit, Ms May did at least find a First Minister who accepted that the UK would be leaving the EU. But Carwyn Jones does insist that Wales must retain access to the single market.
Just days later at Prime Minister’s Questions, the arch Eurosceptic Conservative, Sir Edward Leigh, called on the Prime Minister to make his day and commit to leaving the Single Market. Square pegs and round holes spring to mind.
And then there is Northern Ireland and what happens with the border with the rest of Ireland.
The argument that the UK can gain greater control over who comes in and goes out of the country under Brexit, without imposing checks on the Northern Ireland/Ireland border simply does not tally. It can be only be one or the other, and either way, someone is going to be left bitterly disappointed.
And so, today’s meeting of the British Irish Council is an important opportunity for all components of our islands to come up with a clear, coherent set of proposals for Brexit, the kind that the UK Government has so far failed to do.
The UK as we know it stands on the edge of destruction. Ms May’s honeymoon is likely to prove short-lived as she soon begins to disappointed vocal politicians all over the country.
It’s hard to see how any of this can be fudged. Something will have to give – the right wing of the Conservative Party or the UK as it is currently constituted.
Theresa May will need to decide what matters most to her and to her government.
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor at Left Foot Forward
9 Responses to “What will May put first — the Conservative Party or the Union?”
Alasdair Macdonald
Apologies – a ‘without’ was omitted before ‘violence’.
Richard MacKinnon
Alasdair,
There is a difference between general elections and referendum. GEs come around every 5 years. We can change the party in power if they are no good. Referendum are different. If Scotland had voted Yes in 2014 Scotland would now be an independent country. It didnt. It voted No.
Alasdair Macdonald
Mr MacKinnon,
Indeed, there is a difference in that one is usually about a single issue and the other deals with a wide range of issues. But, they both require voters to make a choice.
GEs have only since 2010 been put on fixed terms, but this can be changed by a vote in Parliament. Indeed, given the post EU referendum uncertainty, the disarray in the Labour Party and pressure in Northern Ireland and Scotland following their ‘Remain’ majorities, such a change in the fixed term rule is possible.
Scotland did, indeed, vote NO in 2014, and so is still part of the U.K. But, in the interim, we have had a GE in which the SNP won 56 of 59 seats with a whisker short of 50% of the vote. There has been a Scottish Parliamentary election, where, although the SNP lost its absolute majority, it actually won more constituencies and a greater share of the vote than in the 2011 election and, with the Greens, has an overall pro-independence majority in the Parliament. In the EU Referendum, Scotland voted 62% – 38% to remain, with every electoral area voting remain. Add in things like EVEL, the vote to renew Trident, the rejection of every amendment to the Scotland Bill, the rigging of the market against renewables, the delay in the frigate construction order and the promises of Better Together are revealed for the mendacity that they were.
The vilification and humiliation of those with low incomes, supported by a section of Labour is at odds with the views of a majority in Scotland.
So, circumstances have changed significantly in the past 22 months.
Had Scotland voted YES as I (and I think I read somewhere that you, too) wished, then it is likely that Scotland would be independent now, but, I suspect that a significant number, possibly led by Lord Robertson, would have sought to delay or overturn that. I suspect that there will be similar attempts to overturn the EU decision. As I said, although a Remain supporter, I did not sign any petition for a rerun. I accept that we must explore options following the result. However, if there were A GE and there were a clear commitment by one or more parties to rerun the referendum, I would probably vote for one of them. Such reruns have happened in other EU states over, for example Maastricht.
Democracy is about discourse and debate about change. There are checks and balances to seek to avoid frequent pendular change, but, if sufficient people want it, change there will be. Sadly, rancour will always be present in some on all sides, but, if it is in an absence of violence, then we can live, and have lived, with it.
Alasdair Macdonald
My final contribution: I was surprised to read that Anatole Kaletsky, with whose views I have not often accepted, made similar points to those in my first paragraph and, secondly, Mr Roger Scruton made some interesting points about differences concerning English Common Law and Scots Law and the cultural dichotomy arising. He might have been hinting that an amicable parting of the ways is in both our interests.