Theresa May has finally come up with a Brexit plan agreed with the European lead negotiator, but as expected, it is of little value for Britain. Is this the final stroke that will end her disastrous term as prime minister?
Theresa May did not back the Brexit campaign. She was in favor of remaining in the European Union, the worlds biggest economic block. But as David Cameron, the previous prime minister, resigned after the referendum, she put her hand up to lead the nation during these daunting times. She suddenly seemed hellbent on fulfilling the wishes of the population and lead the UK out of the European Union. Since she seemed to be the least bad choice, the Conservative Party voted for her to lead the party. But she never had the full backing of her own party. Mrs. May always seemed to want to please everybody in the party, even though they were bickering among themselves. She lacked a vision and clarity, and although she defined “red lines in the sand” they were hopelessly unrealistic. Throughout the whole process the prime minister vastly overestimated the UK attractiveness and economic power. When she finally presented her deal to her cabinet ministers, they were disappointed.
The United Kingdom has in the past produced some of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, from the military, business and government. But just as they most need to put forward one of their greatest, they instead choose one of their weakest. Great leaders have charisma, they are decisive, have a loyal following, are flexible and able to adjust to changing circumstances and most of all – have a sincere enthusiasm for their cause. Mrs May has none of the above.
Predictably, the EU dictates the terms of the exit. Britain is not in a position to state demands, purely because it relies more on the EU than the EU does on Britain. And the EU wants to make it as hard as possible for member states to leave the union. This would act as a deterrent for any other populist politicians to promise paradise outside of the union. After famously stating that “no deal is better than a bad one” it is hard to see how this deal represents a good one for the Brexiteers. None of their promises in the campaign leading up to the referendum have been met.
I doubt that the prime minister will manage to convince her own party to back the deal, and that it would be voted down. This will leave Britain with a few options: leave the Union without a deal (disaster), try and hammer out a new deal under a new leadership (won’t happen, there is simply not enough time), call for new elections to get a clearer mandate from the electorate (even worse, because it would surly mean that the far-left socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, who in the past has had a soft spot for violent demonstrations to express his view – would become the prime minister). The last choice would be the only sensible one: hold a new referendum. After all, the first one was based on false promises made by populist self-promoting politicians. Now that the public has got the details of the actual divorce, they are far better informed on what a Brexit would actually entail.
That’s is if the public even cares. After two years of constant Brexit bombardment and posturing, they might just be so tired of the topic that they surrender. Besides, they would much rather like politicians to focus on running their communities, their cities and their country again.