It is easy to miss the point of the EU as the UK enters the final chapter of its interminable, self-harming Brexit negotiations. Its point was hardly addressed either in the Brexit referendum when Project Fear superseded any real desire to make a positive case for Europe.

So let’s turn to Poland as a symbol of why the EU has, and will continue to be, so valuable to Europe’s development despite all the tensions embodied in the current migration crisis.

Populism’s unpleasant forces are felt everywhere from Russia to America via Turkey and Eastern Europe and there seems little that can be done about them since they are at least notionally founded on democratic structures.

Yet, with Poland, where the rise of the populist Law and Justice party (so much irony in the name…) is threatening judicial independence, the EU is making a stand. The Polish Government has just passed measures giving politicians greater powers over the judiciary. It will take control of the National Council of the Judiciary for example, allowing politicians rather than judges to appoint judges. Particularly contentious, it can force the retirement of Supreme Court judges, unless granted an extension by the President, unsurprisingly removing those disliked by the government. They are currently trying to remove Malgorzata Gersdorf, head of the Supreme Court, who has accused the government of seeking to ‘purge’ the judiciary. She is refusing to go.

The EU has had enough. Leaders of EU’s main political parties turned on the Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, in the EU parliament accusing him of violating the rule of law with these reforms. The European Commission has opened a fresh legal case against Poland this week accusing the country of infringing EU law. This could end up in the European Court of Justice.

The EU had a huge role in ‘democratising’ Eastern Europe as it freed itself from the yoke of the USSR. It was responsible for the spread of democratic law in a part of Europe which could so easily have gone wrong. Hardly a widely understood debating point in the Brexit referendum but it is one of the reasons why those of us supporting Remain are so full of angst at leaving the EU.

As populism spreads to Slovakia and the Czech Republic to name but a few additional countries, threatening those hard fought democratic structures, all exploited equally by China and Russia, who else but the EU is in a position to notice, expose and now try and correct this drift.

What a loss the EU is to the UK and vice versa for so many reasons. Not least because of its role in holding the newer democracies of countries such as Poland to account. This is so important for the whole of Europe including the UK. Sadly, you are unlikely to ever read about it in the final, unthinking chapter of Brexit.

Matthew Parris was absolutely right in his article in last Saturday’s Times. Only job losses will shift public opinion on Brexit. The two sides of the EU argument are too entrenched for anything else to work.

This was brought home by Saturday’s pro-EU march. It simply passed most people by, hardly worth a significant mention in Sunday’s papers. People are bored and even as a passionate Remainer I felt strangely unmoved. It will have had as much impact as the one million marching against the Iraq war and we all know what happened next. So, as Matthew Parris wrote, it will be events outside politics that will break the deadlock.

And those events may well be the actions of business. Senior executives, provoked into going public by the stupidity of several cabinet ministers, are raising their heads and this could just be the catalyst for the change needed. Airbus first (may pull out of the UK on a no deal scenario), then BMW (8,000 jobs potentially at risk if no agreed customs arrangements) warned of the damage caused if there is no compromise on our trading relationship with Europe. Yesterday, it was announced investment in new cars and plants fell almost 50% in H1 2018 versus the same period last year as investment plans are put on hold. There are some 850,000 jobs relying on our car industry.

And there will be more to come. Economists, even pro-Brexit ones, are highlighting the short term damage to Britain’s economy of Brexit induced uncertainty with forecasting models estimating that the slowdown under way is now costing some £450m a week. So much for the Brexit dividend paying for the NHS…

When Liam Fox was questioned last year on the loss of up to 10,000 City jobs as a result of leaving Europe, he was dismissive describing it as less than expected. He should be forced to meet personally those who lose their livelihoods as a result of Brexit and see how his neo-con, anti-EU ideology resonates with them. We then have our esteemed Foreign Secretary overheard saying F**k business. Well business may just F**k him and it is time it did.

Business groups are coordinating their warnings as frustration mounts at the government’s overall lack of direction, lack of commitment to a frictionless customs arrangement and an insultingly cavalier attitude to potential job losses. Speaking to chief executives yesterday, Theresa May attempted to reassure them of her intentions but why this constant brinkmanship? Companies have had enough of ideologically driven, chaotic EU negotiations.

I have an idea. Like the clock in New York recording the increase in government debt second by second, we should erect a clock in Trafalgar Square recording Brexit induced job losses. It is always the economy stupid, and like a slowly boiling frog the UK must wake up to the cumulative damage of our approach to Brexit before it is too late. Perhaps such an initiative will highlight the actions of business sufficiently to put it in control of a process that politicians have no idea or desire to manage.

The Tories have a good story to tell. Sensible stewardship of the economy has allowed further expenditure on the NHS which was crying out for a longer-term funding settlement. All predicated, of course, on finding further efficiencies to ensure every penny counts.

Great news then.

Well, no. The announcement was launched on a Sunday with the explanation that we were benefitting from a Brexit dividend. What was Theresa May thinking? Why dignify the Boris Johnson’s of this world with the claim of a weekly £350m windfall for the NHS post leaving the EU?

It is a manifest untruth. Let’s run through the finances:

• All official forecasts confirm Brexit worsens rather than improves public finances
• In particular, the Office for Budget Responsibility (the OBR – the government’s official forecaster) expects Brexit induced slower economic growth will cost £15 billion in lost tax revenues in 2020/21 alone
• Due to the EU divorce settlement, the UK will be paying contributions for years with only an extra £5.8 billion available to spend elsewhere by 2022/23
• Even the sum of £5.8 billion is an exaggeration as withdrawing from the EU will require us to replace EU spending – £3 billion on agriculture for example

The Government quickly became a laughing stock and the debate has moved to which taxes will have to rise to fund the announcement. What a mess. The only hope – a valid one – is that the public cease to care where the money comes from as long as it is spent. The immediate polls, however, confirm they saw the untruth a mile away.

Why did this happen? The argument goes that Theresa May was flattering the Brexiteers in advance of an imminent series of humiliating compromises to be made on the terms of leaving the EU. Plausible – it would explain the rushed announcement – but has politics really come to this? Can a Tory Government spending an average 3.4% more on our beloved NHS over 5 years at the same time look like a fool?

The fact that several pro-Brexit commentators are still supporting the Brexit dividend argument simply confirms the toxic, misleading nature of today’s politics. This week, we still have Dominic Grieve’s amendment to be debated in the Commons giving the full House a ‘meaningful vote’ on any EU exit deal. Bring it on…

To paraphrase Winston Churchill a little, talking to your enemies is always better than walking away from them. It avoids a path to potential war, war.

In this respect, though it is painful to admit it, Donald J. Trump was right to meet Kim Jong-un. Whilst previous North Korean regimes have used talks to buy time amid empty promises, today a face to face meeting may breed a little understanding under the scrutiny of a penetrating 24 hour media. What must be particularly appealing to the North Koreans in an atmosphere of at least temporary mutual respect is access to the economic regeneration available from a globalised economy. The prospect of those condos on a North Korean beach might just appeal…

But inconsistency reigns. Trump’s warmth to Kim Jong-un, ultimately a murderous, psychopathic dictator who is apparently ‘very talented’ (at torture?), was in sharp contrast to his treatment of his democratically elected G7 allies. A trade war founded on false statistics is no way to conduct foreign policy. Trump’s show of disrespect to Trudeau as he walked, walked away from the Quebec G7 summit early was appalling.

Likewise Trump has taken a different tack on Iran. Walking away from the Iran nuclear deal wrong-footed his allies. He was deaf to their entreaties. The excuse given for the contrasting approach of praising Kim Jong-un whilst demonising Iran was that Iran can be deterred from building nuclear weapons by threats whilst North Korea needs to be coaxed away from ones they already have by baubles. But there is no discernible benefit to the US in this analysis. The Middle East is a much more complex region with far more to be gained from a civilised Iran. To have a chance of Middle East peace succeeding, the West needs to talk to Iran and in a coordinated fashion. The Iran nuclear deal was a really logical start.

Trump is basking in record Republican levels of satisfaction. At the same time, with his wild foreign policy inconsistencies, he is ultimately Making America Small Again on the world stage.

What a shame then, in pursuing this theme, the UK is walking away from the EU. For all its faults and disagreements the EU allowed a common purpose to develop amongst formerly warring nations. It has introduced common values across the continent and tackled many major issues requiring cross-border solutions. Where it has failed, it provides a forum for future resolution. The UK would have been a huge contributor.

The same analysis can be applied to the UN. All countries stay and talk despite its manifest flaws. In respect to the EU, however, the UK has walked, walked not talked, talked. As a consequence, we will be a much diminished country.

The BBC has just undertaken an extensive survey to discover the extent to which people are proud to be English. No great surprise in finding out the highest levels of pride reside with those who voted Brexit and the old. 72% of people over 65 were proud to be English compared to 45% of 18-24s. Just over half (52%) of Leave voters back an English Parliament whilst the figure drops to 32% for those who voted Remain. The cities are more wary of English pride and, again unsurprisingly, levels of pride fall the closer you get to London.

But interestingly, 80% of English residents identify with being both British and English although identity in being British resonates most strongly with those in London, ethnic minorities generally and the young.

So how can we capture these characteristics positively, particularly what it means to be British? This has never been more important as we leave the EU and probably the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. To remain liberal in our instincts and outward looking in our approach, let alone maintaining a United Kingdom, confidence in our identity is crucial.

Now is the time to begin a debate about a written constitution. Politicians mostly avoid this, placing it in the ‘too difficult, no consensus, no votes in it’ box. But it is different now.

We have abortion and gay marriage in Northern Ireland and the ailing House of Lords, ripe for reform, to name but a few issues dominating the airwaves at the moment. Then there is the whole debate surrounding the merits of a multi-cultural society, perceived as a threat which drove many to vote Brexit. In an age of devolution with Scottish and now English nationalism also on the rise, defining being British is more urgent than ever.

A written constitution which outlines our basic rights and values and encompasses House of Lords reform could be a unifying force not one of division. It may be the one advantage from leaving the EU which rejuvenates the UK. Of course, it would take brave, principled politicians to start the debate. Umm…back to the drawing board…

And who could blame her? Pilloried from all sides, she manages the intractable Brexit process with a divided public, irascible Party, no Commons majority, and a disloyal Cabinet snapping at her heels. Every day must be purgatory.

Whatever her critics say, however, Theresa May is a decent person with a huge sense of public service and a work ethic second to none. It is these characteristics, combined with a desire to atone for her disastrous General Election campaign, which has led everyone to assume she will carry on. There are no more General Elections for her to fight. Taking us out of the EU successfully was to be her legacy.

But will it? The constant pounding from critics and the seemingly insurmountable hurdles at every stage of the Brexit negotiations must be taking their toll and perhaps she has had enough.

Here are a few pointers to support this view. She is now standing up to her Brexiteer colleagues in public and in private, some would say recklessly, caring less and less about the consequences for her premiership.

She is prepared to extend the customs union transition period to 2023 to sort out border issues with Northern Ireland. Essentially she has told Rees-Mogg and his merry band of European Research Groupers to shove it.

She will take on the Lords with a series of make-it or break-it votes in the Commons to overturn their amendments to EU exit legislation.

Rumours of an Autumn election are also bubbling under the surface.

It is now or never for Theresa May and never looks an increasingly enticing option to watching Brexit drift onto the rocks. At least nobody could say she didn’t try hard enough before reaching this point.

Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, is not everybody’s cup of tea. Unpopular in his previous role as Justice Secretary and an arch-Brexiteer, his profile often seems to confirm the worst prejudices towards a right-wing Tory.

Yet I beg to disagree. Actually, he is a solid cabinet minister. He is supportive of the unprecedented challenges Theresa May faces and refuses to leak cabinet discussions unlike his flakier Brexit colleagues who, in any other circumstances, would have been fired by now.

And, as a bit of a transport geek, he has also finally found his raison d’etre as Transport Secretary. He is rather good at it.

Let me explain why. Chris Grayling is committed to ‘public transport’ but also its privatisation, believing it is the best way to deliver a superior service. However, on trains, he certainly wouldn’t have started from here as he brings the East Coast Main Line back under government control.

He would have combined track infrastructure and service providers on a regional basis so the one cannot blame the other. On franchise bidding, he understands the dangers of going with the highest bidder and would not have necessarily done so. But he also doesn’t rule out the same bidders coming back with smarter proposals. Pragmatism is everything.

He is committed to investment in transport as long as it is accountable to the taxpayer. Take HS2 for example. He is frustrated that this was positioned as a vanity speed project. Despite its cost it is about much needed new capacity, not speed, and if it had been positioned in this way, there would not be the opposition there is now.

In other areas of transport, whether you like Heathrow expansion or not, a decision had to be taken and he took it.  And he is cooperating with the EU on a new plan for sharing the skies post Brexit. Incidentally, on air travel issues, he successfully repatriated hundreds of thousands of stranded Monarch passengers when the airline went bust at little or no cost to the affected individuals.  His road policies also mostly involve sensitive by-passes to meet local needs.

On the debate of public versus privatisation of rail, those who advocate long term public ownership rarely refer to the chaos of the old British Rail and its shoddy, unaccountable services. In France, Macron is heading in the opposite direction. Does anybody really believe a Labour government, made up of the current front bench, could run a proverbial whelk stall, let alone a railway network? How would transport investment priorities stack up with all the other spending promises Labour have made?

Transport is hamstrung by a shortage of funds like many other infrastructure projects. Rail privatisation in particular has been wrongly executed which has exacerbated the challenges of delivering a service ‘fit for purpose’. The current Transport Secretary is trying to avoid the buffers and put things right. It will take time and there will be no thanks at the end of it. Worth pointing out though.

 

I am confused. I loathe much of the world’s current political discourse led by the likes of Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, to name but a few, but are these quasi demagogues more effective than reasonable leaders?

Xi, who is now ‘President for Life’, is busily rooting out corruption, building the economy and the prerequisite military, accompanied by a few new islands in the South China Sea. Putin invaded Crimea, takes out troublesome opponents, plays social media beautifully to wrong foot his overseas enemies and is heading to become Russia’s longest serving leader since Stalin. Erdogan is assuming an executive presidency of unprecedented power in modern day Turkey. Thousands of political opponents are jailed but the infrastructure and, with it, the wealth and the middle class in Turkey are currently expanding rapidly.

And Trump…Well what can we say? A record breaking tax reduction, peace with North Korea (?). Will tearing up the Iran nuclear settlement now also bring Iran to heel? Umm…

Reasonable leaders, of course, do get more things done. It just takes time and in an age of populism, people are particularly impatient. Perhaps more importantly such leaders provide a framework for the rule of law and a level of public discourse that civilises human interaction, ultimately benefitting all of us but particularly the poorest in societies.

In contrast, let’s just look at the evidence behind the bold actions of some of those unreasonable leaders. Putin is impoverishing his nation. Russian economic growth fell for three years in a row to 2017 and is permanently weak. Displays of military might hide an ailing country, shorn of any economic and democratic progress. It is no longer a super power in any sense. Xi and Erdogan, like Putin, free from even peer group accountability, are storing up ‘cult of personality issues’ which could potentially and ultimately overwhelm any economic success.

As for Trump, he lies, cheats and corrodes public discourse. The deficit is expanding rapidly due to those tax cuts. He withdraws America from much of the world stage leaving it to others, turns his back on global warming and stirs tensions in the Middle East. He is shrinking his country, not making it great.

Reasonable leaders such as Obama, Merkel, Macron and indeed most leading politicians in the democratic West have achieved much. They understand/understood the complexities of their roles and the long term consequences of bowing too far to short term populism. They are held to account and are a civilising influence in public life, with all the long term benefits that brings.

It is soft power that counts in the end. Reasonable leaders do get things done and done well. It just takes time. Unreasonable leaders can get things done and done quickly but often with terrible longer term consequences. Of course, they will have left the stage by then.

Yesterday’s local elections essentially confirmed the national opinion polls. Conservatives holding steady, gaining from a collapse in UKIP (surely wholly dead in the water now as the Tories have assumed their mantle), Labour just behind and the Liberal Democrats, as puzzling as ever, making little headway.

But the big issue is why Labour didn’t trounce the Tories. In the face of chaotic Brexit negotiations and some howling own goals such as Windrush they should have done. The reasons are several:

• Fear of the left-wing extremism of Labour has got through to a good proportion of the electorate
• Failing to offer a credible alternative to the Conservatives on Brexit
• Internal scandals, most notably anti-Semitism, which simply loops back to the perception of the extreme nature of today’s Labour Party

At the heart of all this is Corbyn, supported by a talentless front bench. He refuses to be bold on Europe and there is still a sense he feels the EU is a capitalist conspiracy. He fails to skewer the Tories in Parliament when they are sometimes hopeless. He has failed to tackle convincingly the extremism of his supporters (just read their twitter feeds) and the vile anti-Semitism that lurks in some corners of his Party. This is probably why the Tories regained Barnet alone.

Labour do not offer a convincing alternative to the Tories under Corbyn, many of whom would prefer one as an incentive to up their game. Had someone of Blair’s Opposition calibre been leader Labour would now be 20-30% ahead.

Even if they stay committed to a purer form of socialism it is time for Labour to recalibrate themselves without Corbyn. They need a sharper, more nimble leader dealing with the points above who, in the process, could at least lure one or two of the more able backbench MPs back into the fold.

Of course, except in helping to buy Theresa May time, these elections are a poor guide to the future. The pitfalls of Brexit lie threateningly ahead and the void in centre ground politics remains.

The Windrush scandal may be the final straw. It is not the unfolding story of Home Office excess in itself which leads you to reach this conclusion but the overall anti-immigration narrative emanating from a Tory government for too long.

Fearful of the threat from UKIP, immigration scare stories fed the Brexit debate, poisoned public discourse and have led to where we are today – a meaner, more inward looking country too often driven by the lowest common denominator. Many Tory Brexiteers are responsible for this. Enthused by a genuinely liberal interpretation of the ‘take back control’ agenda they allied, however inadvertently, with a darker narrative. Cameron gambled recklessly with his referendum, playing fast and loose with the country’s future for Party advantage. He failed. What an epitaph…

How did the Tory Party get here? The origins started with Margaret Thatcher who made the Party ideological. This approach freed it from the complacent, cliquey Tory Left and was arguably beneficial to the country for many years, but has potentially sowed the seeds for its own destruction.

Consensus in the Tory Party is now a dirty word. Leaving the EU completely is consequently its new Corn Laws. The Party is too full of careerists, accused of pursuing the agenda of its ever diminishing right-wing membership for advancement, free from the desire for any real statesmanship. John Major and Michael Heseltine are today derided by their own so-called colleagues. Unthinkable in an earlier age.

The current leader and Prime Minister is deeply unimaginative and frankly not as up to the job as hoped. High expectations have been dashed. She was meant to be moderate and has turned out to be passively extreme. The writings about her political advisers and their outrageous treatment of colleagues in her early PM days simply confirm this.

Speaking to a leading Conservative supporting commentator recently he sadly admitted he would never join the Tory Party today but can’t leave after 40 years of tribalism. Many know how he feels!

The Tories get away with it currently because of the sheer awfulness of the Opposition. For that reason alone, Theresa May will probably survive. When will Labour supporters wake up to this? Politics is simply debased by, at best, the sheer mediocrity on offer from both sides, most of the greatness of the major parties vanquished.

The future? Not the Tory Party as it is except by default – supposedly driven by the rumoured 70k membership, average age 72. Nor extremist Labour. Is a takeover of the ineffectual Liberal Democrats or a new party (watch ‘Renew’ in the local elections in Wandsworth) the answer? Or, ever hopeful, a brave new Tory leader who will rescue the Party and broader political discourse from the abyss?