UK Politics

Is this election the end of the catch-all party?

may%20corbyn.png

As the climax of this general election approaches, it is clear that Westminster is the epicentre of the Eurosceptic earthquake which has caused seismic shifts in the British political landscape.

One year on, the aftershocks of last year’s Brexit referendum can still be felt. Whilst the political x-axis has long been the right-left barometer, the y-axis which may well control British politics for years to come is now based on whether voters be internationalists or nationalists. The ideological foundations of the UK’s parties continue to quiver with the mounting gravity of the Brexit question, and the populist pendulum has swung from the right towards the left. Fractures within the Labour and Conservative parties, too, over the nature of the UK’s unilateralist turn, have made the nation’s key political structures increasingly brittle.

When Theresa May declared her intentions to seek a mandate in April, she must have thought that victory would slip easily into her hands, with Jeremy Corbyn only just clinging onto the political scene amidst internal Labour party strife and backlash from the electorate over recent months.

But now it is obvious that the gap has narrowed. Either Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May will set foot in Number 10 tomorrow, navigating the treacherous ridge of the British political peak which has a sheer drop at either side.

Today’s snap vote, which many believed would erode the foundations of the Labour Party for several years to come, has instead had the opposite effect. A victory for Theresa May still seems the most likely result, but this election has brought to light new corners of political opinion within the two biggest parties, fragmenting the once clear-cut right and left wings. Can the leaders of the UK’s two biggest parties really speak for the entirety of each of their movements?

The Labour Party isn’t, and hasn’t been since Blair’s 1997 landslide, categorised simply by one strong shade of scarlet. Neither can the Conservative Party be characterised by one tone of light blue. The Labour tapestry now includes a multiplicity of pinks, crimsons and Burnt Siennas, and a look through the Tory lens reveals a kaleidoscope of turquoise, aquamarine, royal blue and teal. The left is split between Jeremy Corbyn’s more traditional socialism, Tony Blair’s third way, and a great deal of pro-Brexit lefties. The right, in turn, exists as a patchwork of more centrist free-market liberals, pro-Europeans, and May-supporting Brexit stoic.

Over the campaign, both main parties have tried to pick up as big a portion of the electorate as possible, reelinh in voters regardless of class and background, having realised that party affiliation isn’t as simple as it once was some decades ago. With May’s focus on strength and stability, and Corbyn’s impetus on governing for the greater good, both campaigns have sought to operate beyond class divisions, out to capture the human sentiments of holding either national or European identity, and playing to the hopes and ambitions of the general public for the future of their British nation.

In this election, Theresa May has attempted to prove that Brexit is a transformation which can benefit all – the disenchanted working class, and those who look to abandon the red tape of the European Union. Similarly, the Labour Party, with its campaign based around ideas of an all-encompassing society, with a more internationalist approach, has tried to attract both voters on average incomes, and even the most high-end of champagne socialists. But the reality is, however, that leaders now have to piece together smaller, more specific factions of opinion within one diverse party construct. Support is no longer simply a question of where you work, how much money you earn, and what food you put on the table.

Arguably, as parties have sought to capture all voters, within a society which has become more culturally, socially and economically diverse, the parties themselves have had to fit into new moulds and broaden their appeal. It is now increasingly hard for governments to please everyone and for parties to appeal to all. Perhaps, therefore, large parties which once had simply formulated political motives which spoke to the masses can no longer speak to all types of individuals found within a more varied society.

Many would, of course, argue that it is impossible to please all and that this is just a fact of the democratic and, more specifically, majoritarian, system. In this election, both parties’ manifestos have aimed to appeal to all, but in reality, the leaders and their governmental gameplans only represent one part of the party’s multifaceted opinion base.

The Labour and Conservative parties arguably have chosen to run with just one form of their respective left and right opinion this election, in the form of Jeremy Corbyn’s traditional socialism, mixed with a streak of revolutionary populism, and Theresa May’ anti-EU strategy which champions ideas of UK national feeling and emphasises a need for uncompromised national sovereignty. Corbyn does not come across well to the Blairites, politicians who are sure to flex their muscles in the next parliament. Similarly, May, who was, until the departure of David Cameron, a remainer, fails to win over more centrist and European Tories.

But perhaps the UK revolves around a majoritarian system which, in fact, does not work for the majority. With two large parties aiming to please all at campaign level, whilst truly only being able to adopt one type of left-wing and right-wing thought within a party which contains many more specific pools of opinion, surely not all can feel satisfied with politics.

If this be the case, surely much of the British population remains perplexed. How, therefore, can big parties manage to speak for all? Perhaps the big social class-driven aggregate party structure is now dead, and can be rendered impractical. Arguably, the two big parties have attempted to please all in campaigns but this is ineffective for many, as they adopt just one small portion of their own left and right wing party’s thought.

There are several possible solutions. The first is that the catch-all, all-encompassing party becomes successful in pleasing all. This has, however, proven to be a rather utopian idea, based on this campaign and the politics of previous years.

Another option is that the UK political landscape would break down, heralding a wider range of political parties which each reflect more specific divisions of political opinion, welcoming a new proportional system of voting.

Furthermore, if Theresa May pushes on with her Brexit agenda, and the Labour Party continues to run with its staunchly traditionalist, left-of-centre socialism, British politics could become increasingly polarised, generating a gap in the market for a new centrist movement. Perhaps a more balanced force like French President Emmanuel Macron’s La République en Marche will soon come to the fore.

No matter who wins this election, both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn now have the tricky task of healing the divides within their large parties, as they veer towards more specific directions. If the parties fail to unite their supporters, great constitutional change for the UK could be next on the to-do list. Perhaps the clear-cut, class-driven party structures which have for so long defined the UK’s political landscape are breaking down, no longer able to speak for all.

Advertisements
Standard
europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

The EU has to be harsh with Britain if it is to survive

1473352702-35418-57d18830c3618863158b46f6-450x250

Two-and-a-half months on from June’s shock-to-the-system Brexit vote, Britain’s foreign affairs forecast looks murky. The Netherlands, Austria and Denmark are fast lining up their Brexit sequels, nations which, if withdrawn, could hugely question the longevity of the EU and its current agenda.

With high levels of disregard for the political class, a tidal wave of populism threatens to damage the European Union. But officials have to be harsh with Britain, setting an example of resilience to other nations, in order to prevent the EU from crumbling.

Yesterday, Brexit captain Boris Johnson declared Vote Leave’s £350m EU savings promise simply impractical. Today, Brexit minister David Davis signalled that turbulent negotiations could result in WTO trading tariffs for Britain. Recent reports have also suggested that British wages are shrinking, that the economy is lagging, and that prices are plummeting. Theresa May has for weeks reinforced that “Brexit means Brexit”, but exactly how her government plans to implement June’s decision is yet to be seen.

The dire facet of Britain’s vote to leave the EU is that most of the answers are yet to come. A mass exodus from the EU could hugely damage the stability of the global economy and cause the political equilibrium to wobble.

The EU cannot allow eurosceptic populists to walk all over it. But it seems that European leaders have lost confidence. British Prime Minister Theresa May several weeks ago travelled to Germany in order to speak with Chancellor Angela Merkel regarding Britain’s conditions for EU abandonment.

After weeks of stubbornness from EU states, she did in fact return with success. May has managed to convince the EU ‘leader’ that Britain would need more time before kick-starting the leave process, and that talks would not commence in 2016. Talks of a similar nature held with French President François Hollande resulted in a more relaxed approach towards the need for Dover-Calais border checks, and that free movement would suddenly be up for discussion.

The EU’s decision to warm to the requests of Brexit Britain is risky. Allowing member states to slide out of what could still be a successful union will destroy the chances of dealing easily with global problems.

Most importantly, pandering to British finger clicking will degrade the EU and any chances of future reform. If EU leaders continue to allow the UK’s government to cherry-pick its way through Brexit, more European nations will chip away at the EU. Reform can only be done through a harsh stance towards Britain, allowing existing member states to work on piecing a more coherent and functional EU.

Britain has always negotiated its way through EU relations, the kind of picky politics that the EU ought to stamp out. Britain’s strong disdain for the Eurozone system, its naughty school pupil rebellions against the rulings of the European Court of Justice, and its excruciatingly particular agreements regarding border controls have shown that Britain has modified the politics of the EU, with self-interest at the fore. Britain regularly shuns the political protocol of the EU, seen as a burden on its individualist agenda.

The EU cannot show that it can be easily pushed over. Eurosceptics in other nations could soon be lining up to leave what could still be a successful union. A union like that of the EU should be a patchwork of states which share common values and goals. But if every nation requests a bespoke, nitpicking relationship, then the EU will have little chance of survival.

Perhaps Theresa May, however, by orchestrating a crippling Brexit and pushing the EU to breaking point is planning a grand post-Brexit European reform which will one-up her predecessor, David Cameron, with a process of reform. May could even manage to transform the EU back into the pre-1998 economic union, allowing Britain to regain control.

Watching President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel benignly allow the UK to call the shots over Brexit makes for painful watching. The EU now has the chance to repair itself, taking up arms against the next artillery fire from other Eurosceptics. If the EU is to survive, and have any chance of remaining as an authoritative and reputable force for political and economic decision making, it must restore order and assert its authority.

Standard
europe, human rights, society, World Politics

The refugee crisis has proven that we are not global citizens

syria-4-year-girl

As hordes of Syrian and Iraqi cities and towns are pillaged by Islamic State extremists, the human side effects have been immense, as hundreds of thousands seek shelter. Fierce skies raging with Western airstrikes, and an appalling disregard for migrants simply in search of better days, have come to define a new era of global politics. Our governments are leaving our fellow global citizens behind.

As Western nations trudge on in their anti-Islamic State crusades – programmes of devastating warfare – the results are not just a long and drawn-out campaign of thwarting radicals. Their expeditions often beam back to the West unsettling scenes of bewildered young people who are trapped in a world of detritus and despair.

One subject of this collateral damage is Omrsn Daqneesh. Yesterday, disturbing footage of the absorbed newswires and consumed social media feeds. Pictures showed the desperate boy being tugged from a mound of rubble, carried to an ambulance, plonked down in a daze, and rubbing his dusty, bloody forehead, astonished by the events around him.

His story is certainly not unheard-of. The UN estimates that children constitute 41% of refugees, young people demoralised and displaced by the disorder of a new era of war. Over 250,000 citizens have died as a result of coalition vs. Islamic State Warfare in recent months, and the numbers continue to rise. Many more are sure to have sustained unthinkable injuries. Possibly worse is that, last month, the Guardian reported that as many as 73 civilians were killed in just one Syrian village by a US airstrike, 35 of whom children.

The sad thing is that this type of trauma has become something normal. The upsetting reports of Omran Daqneesh have doubtless raged many in the Western world. There is only so much that the citizens of developed nations can do, however. Their raising of awareness may tug heartstrings, but our leaders seem to be in a state of denial. How can such painful airstrikes, and the sight of perishing humans diminish the complacency of Islamic State guerrillas, whilst killing and hurting the most innocent people at the heart of the conflict – Syrians and Iraqis themselves?

The answer is that it does not. This approach sacrifices many for a long-term goal, currently far from being reached. Of course, extremism and Middle Eastern terrorism must be diminished – and it must be done fast. It is often this argument that has served to justify the mass airstrikes and divisive domestic policies which have taken states such as Syria and countries of the EU, respectively, by storm.

But as our nations continue to barricade themselves against the tempestuous tidal wave that is terrorism, both at home and abroad, we have become lax and afraid to rescue those at the heart of global conflict – in some ways, we are maybe becoming ignorant to it. Our responses to the new global political crises are defining our place in the world. We have closed ourselves off to the tribulations of many fellow human beings. Rhetoric from hard-right populists has served to inject cultural fear into the international community, fuelling an epidemic of xenophobia, and building higher the bricks of national borders.

In this flurry of bombs and grenades, our governments have forgotten about our fellow global citizens. This, in essence, means that we are not global citizens either.

Developed nations have become consumed by a decade of selfishness, with a lack of concern for deaths within warzones, and with disregard for the traumatised Middle Eastern civilians who are seemingly disposed into camps such as “The Jungle” in Calais – some of whom as a result of Western involvements.

The West has stood back for long enough, with too many nations continually turning their backs on the mass exodus of refugees flowing from war-torn nations. Many of those making their way to the European Continent come from no extremist background at all, merely seeking to avoid the bombs and broken buildings. Germany has been one of the most willing recipients of Middle Eastern refugees, with over 1.3m entering the country. Meanwhile, nations like Britain have accepted only around 9,000 refugees today. Spain has taken in 8,000, and France has absorbed 11,000.

The resistance and half-hearted responses of so many Western nations is very disheartening. Last week’s Nauru files, detailing horrific child abuse towards detained Australian asylum seekers, has shown another deep disregard for fellow global citizens, too. With such lacklustre for solving the problems of refugees displaced by the chaos of extremism, the West will become similarly troubled. Failing to fully involve ourselves in a broad taskforce of UN nations committed to clearing up the side-effects of Islamic State conflict will only create larger social and political problems in the long run. Ignoring those who have been stranded as a result of the Islamic State’s agenda will only top up the fuel tank of their campaign, and threats to the stability of domestic politics will only become more regular. Showing that the West can adapt to the problematic Islamic State regime, and treating the moral high ground, is the true way towards the defeat of such barbarism.

Some reassuring news is, however, coming to light. Britain is part of a team of global nations providing material aid to Syrians – to the amount of $1.1bn, in fact. The USA, Israel and others have been keen to contribute, too. Hopefully, a few more refugees will be welcomed soon. News came today in the Guardian of MP Stella Creasy’s parliamentary amendment attempts, which could see thousands of Calais refugees making their way to Britain if successful. Lords peer Alf Dubs has already managed to force the government to bringing as many as 3,000 more child refugees to Britain.

But there is still work to do. The West must make sure that it continues these efforts, and that it builds upon them. The UN reported in February 2016 that 13.5m people are in grave need of humanitarian support, and that 11.4m have been displaced by the Syrian schism. These people will not vanish. Recent attacks have likely pushed up these totals much higher. The so-called Islamic State’s bloodshed has been ramped up in recent weeks, as the siege of key strongholds like Aleppo and Raqqa builds more intense every day.

The more developed Western nations of Europe, North America, and Oceania have a moral duty to respond to the challenges of extremism with boosted humanitarian support, and open borders. Maintaining our moral strength, and resisting the taunts of extremists aimed at breaking down the integrity and principles of our societies, is key to defeating groups such as the so-called Islamic State. Avidly tuning in to populists and their rhetoric, and implementing divisive, barring policy, will only draw our societies closer apart.

But the main problem is that there is no global agenda and that the atmosphere of co-operation is dangerously thin. Western nations now see themselves as separate entities. We are not Europeans, or Westerners. The European Union has broken down, and the West is intent on rubbing its hands of common global issues like those of refugees, off-shore corruption, or even climate change. We are no longer Earthlings, instead divided by the constructed ideas of nation state and nationality.

How will we be able to come together in the future, ready to fight our corners against extremists? We must confront the problems facing the children of the future along with the their demoralised families, with a matter of urgency. If we do not, our places as global citizens will remain in question.

This entire crisis of extremism, hatred, and halted migration currently ravaging our world questions each of us directly, in fact. Are we really global citizens? Global citizens aren’t bystanders who watch on whilst fellow human beings perish, whilst children are deprived of futures and human rights, and whilst extremists take over the political landscape. The only way of solving common issues is via common involvement and common progress. If the refugee crisis has taught us anything, it is that unity is the only way forward.

Standard
society, World Politics

Brazil has reminded the world of its strong soft power

Larson-TheOlympicOpeningCeremony-1200

As this year’s Olympic host, Brazil opened its arms to the rest of the world on Friday ahead of a vibrant 16-day showcase of physical and cultural triumphs. But the Latin American country’s efforts to impress have not gone uncontested. Issues of health and safety, and political stability have made Brazil’s journey towards success at this month’s Games in Rio de Janeiro considerably turbulent.

Brazil faces a paralysing outbreak of political corruption, as well as a battle against the life-threatening Zika virus. National unemployment levels have reached a record high over recent years, and the city of Rio faces a widespread crime epidemic. At a cost of $14.4bn, staging the world’s most high-profile sporting event – which can come with rewards of great political kudos – has certainly become the subject of much controversy amongst Brazilian citizens. Such calamity doesn’t only ravage the political and societal components of Brazil’s national constructs, though. The International Olympic Committee has found itself in dangerously hot water, too, after the sport world’s most astonishing doping cover-up came to light just several days ago.

If Friday evening’s Opening Ceremony was anything to go by, however, there are already huge positives coming from Rio’s hosting of the Games. Brazil may be shrouded in the darkness of its political and structural chaos, but it’s soft power has been a huge triumph. Not only was Friday’s joyous, colourful occasion a huge celebration of Brazil’s carnival atmosphere and the nation’s tumultuous but very unique history. Rio de Janeiro’s prelude to this year’s Games reminded us of the strength of its culture.

Commencing Friday’s showcase with a brief account of national history, Rio capitalised on its foundations of migration and diversity. Among the first settlers of what is known today as Brazil were humans of European, African, and Japanese descent. Whilst international political debate of recent months has tended to focus on hostility towards growing diversity and the free movement of people, Brazil’s openness and willingness to promote multiculturalism must be reassuring. Even today, over half of Brazil’s population is of non-white ethnicity, and many indigenous cultures exist throughout parts of the nation’s undestroyed natural settings. In 2014, it was noted that requests for asylum had increased by 800% over four years, Brazil being a preferred country among African migrants. This year’s Olympic Games even has refugee athletes competing under the flag of the IOC. Rio’s message of inclusion and unity, reinforced in Friday’s grand opening, has undoubtedly set a sparkling precedent for other nations, and must have restored confidence in its people.

As sport brings people of all backgrounds together, it seems that Rio’s focus on common global issues was particularly fitting. Brazil’s opening ceremony was quick to hone in on the growing threats of climate change. In recent months, the worldwide temperature has grown by as much as 1.3°C, just 0.2°C below the critical temperature for major global warming catastrophe. By encouraging all athletes to plant a tree as part of Rio’s sustainable legacy, raising awareness of increasingly detrimental CO2 emissions, and finishing with the symbol of the Olympic rings clad in green, Brazil has made excellent use of the international stage. The Rio Games’ flame cauldron is the most eco-friendly ever, too. With such a vast expanse of rainforest, as well as exemplary energy policy, Brazil is a key player in climate change discussions. Its political track record may not be flawless, but at least the South American has succeeded in focusing on sustainability, a strong focus on which many nations are yet to place.

Brazil’s establishment have been the architects of an almighty mess recently. Judging by Rio de Janeiro’s Olympic showcase, however, Brazil’s people and their ethoses certainly aren’t in decay. Brazil has long been known as one of the world’s most luminous carnival capitals, and had a tourist industry of over $6.6bn in 2012.

Most of all, however, Brazil has shown to have immense soft power, with a progressive outlook on global issues, and a past of diversity and migration which seems to be continuing into the present. The success of the far-right and its isolationist rhetoric is currently damaging many Western societies, shutting out those of different backgrounds, and sometimes denying the importance of tackling climate change. But this weekend, Brazil has proven to the world that it remains level-headed, and boasts impressive soft power. Brazil’s society and its political scene may appear to be weak. But the nation is clearly determined to underpin and hold on to its deeply-rooted ideas of unity promoted by the Olympic Games which will only be reinforced in the coming days of competition, and surely over years to come, too.

Standard
Business, society, UK Politics

Cameron’s cronyism exposes an out-of-touch political class

Upon leaving Downing Street, David Cameron must have thought himself finally safe. He had at last escaped the media’s relentless eye, some of which had orchestrated his downfall. But this week’s revelations have only pushed Cameron further into already scalding hot water.

Last weekend, The Sunday Times revealed leaks of David Cameron’s Royal honours and peerage proposals. The Queen’s regal accolades should reward exceptional service within society, courage within conflict, and breakthroughs within academia. But Cameron had to cement his privileged legacy one more time. Numerous Conservative Party donors, beside a handful of Cameron’s closest aides, are included in his resignation rewards.

46 individuals are to be rewarded in Cameron’s cronyism. Exchanging financial support for political power is shameful, with big money controling politics. Such closed-off politics should not exist within consolidated liberal democracies.

Andrew Cook, donating over £1m to the Tory party, is to receive a knighthood. Jitesh Gadhia, another deep-pocketed donors, will assume a peerage. Party Treasurer Andrew Fraser, will be a peer, too, having recently donated £2.5m to Cameron. Just one of many, his millions have won him a place in the ‘Tory Leader’s Group.’ But let’s blow away the smokescreen – this a club for right-wingers with most mint.

Secretaries Gabby Bertin, Ed Llewellyn, and Liz Sugg will each receive peerages, too, with no guarantee that they will regularly participate in parliament. These figures will become the undemocratic backseat drivers of today’s Conservative Party.

Allowing big business to drive the Conservative Party, our politicians drift further away from the people. The British establishment only sinks lower, the approval ratings of which are already at rock bottom. Ipsos MORI found earlier this year that only 21% trust UK politicians. David Cameron’s nod to the upper class, whose funds cascade through the Conservative Party, is unlikely to restore confidence.

Cameron’s nominees will doubtless have done their duties impeccably, down to every last letter of the Prime Minister’s memos. The obligatory last day office dos will have taken place, already swollen bonus packages will have been paid, and a Michelin starred dinner, courtesy of the party, was perhaps thrown in. But this undemocratic cronyism should not pay reward party loyalists.

Here, the issue of Lords reform arises again. Why should those with the largest money dominate British democracy, and those who have laid their dossiers to rest overstay their welcome? One study found that, for the 2009-10 period of House of Lords activity, only 47% of Lords regularly attended parliament. The Times reported on Saturday that half of all Cameronian Lords invested last year have sat in parliament only five times ever.

The nepotistic political elite, continuing Blairite cronyism, degrade national democracy. Handing out peerages and honours effortlessly, those up in the eaves of the society, with big money, are polarising politics. Supposedly accountable politicians have left their morality behind, and an unrepresentative class controls proceedings.

The Panama Papers’ have already laid crafty politics bare. Global political trust is low. It was David Cameron who felt compelled to lead an international corruption crusade a few months ago, but politicians are in denial. South African President Jacob Zuma has been condemned by his own people for allowing big money to interfere with governmental appointments. Our political elites evidently believe that corruption is rife only within developing nations, but it appears that supposed liberal democracies are alive with corruption of their own.

Somewhat frustratingly, Jeremy Corbyn this week trod back into the establishment minefield he claims to despise. The Labour leadership candidate’s recommendation of ex-Liberty head Shami Chakrabarti for a peerage comes as a huge blow for left-wingers all over, and much of the grassroots Labour Party.

After speaking out against the right wing’s biased politics, what hope is there for increased trust if the opposition indulges in similar practices? An elected House of Lords will fix this problem. In the meantime, Labour has missed out once again on a boycott of the Tories’ undemocratic agenda.

When Theresa May assumed office several weeks ago, her Downing Street speech was one of social justice, increased equality, and faith in British government. But the new Prime Minister has already fallen short of her promises. Torn between upsetting her biggest donors and upholding democracy, it seems that Theresa May has cold feet, afraid to condemn David Cameron’s appointments. The £35,000 donated to the Conservatives upon May’s premiership must have got the better of her.

Perhaps our expectations are just too high. Perhaps juxtaposing democracy with self-interested is too much. Theresa May might have pledged to stand with the British people, but her mishandling of the honours fiasco has nullified that statement.

Does the new Prime Minister really want her government to float further away from mainstream society? Theresa May could reconfigure her party, by instead running an honest government working for all British people.

Standard
europe, Scotland, society, UK Politics

May says she’ll make Brexit a success, but what about Scotland and the North?

6a7d1954-6aff-4868-8fb4-d02f53d0b487_09_theresamay_r_w

When the ball of the European Union debate was set rolling only some months ago, many must have thought that only the Common Agricultural Policy, Lisbon Treaty, and oily mechanics of the European machine would be up for cross-examination. But it has become obvious the Brexit vote does not just point to a discontent with Brussels, but to a pent up fury with the neoliberalism status quo, which many see as gnawing away at the skeletons of their once vibrant British communities.

Myriad citizens through the UK let their fury with the state of their own union show through a vote for Brexit, shunning globalisation and yearning for increased self-determination. Theresa May must not only make a success of the Brexit bills, but also of those who feel left behind at the peripheries of fast paced and global 21st century. The government needs to spark the waning coals of once lively industrial communities to prevent them from slipping into greater despair.

British discontent may stretch to the European institutions, but qualms with the current international order lie much close to home, in fact. The Prime Minister must work fast in order to eradicate the corrosice flow of discontent which cascades through areas of Northern England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which feel more isolated from the UK than ever before.

The Leave campaign had generated a great deal of support amongst wealthier voters. But the more astonishing facet of the European Union referendum was the sheer number of working class individuals who sided with the Eurosceptics. The most anti-EU areas of Britain, shown to be Boston and South Holland in Lincolnshire, alongside regions like Castle Point and Great Yarmouth in the East, each show similar social trends. These areas have a diverse minority ethnic population, as well as poor standards of education, and a lower quality of life.

The very different issues which face the Prime Minister regarding Scotland will not disappear easily, either. Scotland’s vote to remain as part of the EU was purely a rejection of English Eurosceptic sentiment instead and, in some cases, to do with growing Westminster disregard for Scottish politics. The support for the remain campaign north of the border has shown that Scottish interests are very different to those of England. Support for Scottish independence has seen a slow but sure increase, and could threaten Theresa May’s premiership. In the same way in which she must repair relations with the north of England, the Prime Minister must now bring Scottish political issues to the fore if she is to succeed in maintaining the longevity of the union.

Rejuvenating Britain’s foreign relationships, as well as tweaking the operation of the union are May’s next challenges.

If the centuries old British union crumbles, it may erode May’s premiership, too. Theresa May’s plans as part of her Industrial Strategy Committee are a welcome sign of planned improvements for the northern parts of England, and should bolster the togetherness of the UK. The committee on Tuesday pledged to work on the UK’s economy in areas outside of the south east of England, chiefly in areas of Manchester and in the further north. Rail link projects have also been proposed in order to boost connections between northern English communities, also in the hopes of increased economic activity.

But if the Union proves too difficult to sustain in its current form, perhaps federalism is the answer. Of course, this is the outcome that the Prime Minister would dread most of all. As the nations which comprise the UK become increasingly diverse and are evidently in need of specific regional solutions to bespoke issues, perhaps a form of ‘devo-max’ across four identical regional assemblies would relieve the Westminster Parliament in its obstinacy that one size fits all.

When the new Prime Minister took on the challenge of renegotiating Britain’s place in Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, the task of saving the union came, too. The EU referendum has shown up the deep social and economic differences which set each UK nation apart. Making a success of Brexit will clearly involve domestic upheaval as well as a rethink of British foreign affairs.

Unless Theresa May and her government work fast to repair the relationship with Westminster and the worn-out areas of the UK, the age-old union which has bound Britain together may begin to disintegrate. An agenda which successfully irons out the creases in the societal fabric woven between the societies of Southern England, Northern England and Scotland, must be designed. Making a success of Britain itself is vital before it can be deemed a success in front of the rest of the world.

Standard
society, UK Politics

Labour’s ganging up on Corbyn is only setting the party backwards

Labour-Party-Conference-Jeremy-Corbyn-speech-watched-by-his-shadow-cabinet

As the Labour party’s hunt for strong leadership continues, the campaign against the increasingly entangled Jeremy Corbyn looks very grubby indeed. After a vote of no confidence from his own MPs in the aftermath of the tumultuous EU referendum – something of a post-apocalyptic political landscape – the radical, socialist politics of Corbyn are currently being extensively tested.

A second leadership election is largely the result of the still fiery coals of resentment towards Corbyn which have been burning since the election of his ‘straight talking’ and ‘honest’ politics last September. Support for an alternative candidate for Labour’s leadership, primarily Owen Smith, has swelled in recent days.

The incumbent Corbyn has found himself charged by a large proportion of Labour members with crimes of weak performances at Prime Minister’s Questions, failures to deal with outbreaks of anti-Semitism and MP abuse, and even bad dress sense. The real issues concern subjects much more serious than those to do with the style of Corbyn’s jackets or how far up his tie is knotted, though.

A major boost for Smith’s candidacy came after the once favourite to win the leadership election, Angela Eagle – who had taken great pleasure in declaring war on Corbyn for quite some days – suddenly retreated from the frontline. As discontent grows, MPs have become dead set on challenging the present leader who is seen by many as the Labour party’s considerably weak face. Labour’s less radical wing is simply desperate to remove Jeremy Corbyn based on the grounds that he is the party’s first class ticket to years of Conservative gunfire. The argument that Corbyn would currently be unable to deliver general election success is among the gravest of concerns which have been voiced against him. Those who yearn for a more centrist Labour party hope that in September the present leader will be removed just like the failed James Callaghan was in 1979.

The request to remove an unpopular leader must, of course, be taken seriously in any healthy democracy. The major problem, however, is that the tactics of many within the Parliamentary Labour Party in their attempts to oust the current leader are proving detrimental to their own credibility and that of party. The Labour party pledges to stand for progression and fairness, but the PLP and it anti-Corbynista supporters have shown none of these qualities in recent weeks as they taunt the increasingly robust pro-Corbyn camp.

Activists and MPs have, over recent months, blamed Corbyn for failing to deal with the epidemic of abuse which continues to endanger politicians and their staff. Last month saw the fatal shooting of Batley and Spen MP Jo Cox, and in the light of such a brutal attack, many of Labour’s MPs have feel similarly uncomfortable. In addition, numerous party members have reported receiving death threats, and hurtful comments from worrying online trolls.

But the responsibility for the unsettling motives of albeit very few extremists certainly does not lie on Jeremy Corbyn alone. Preventative measures can only go so far. The real causes for such negativity are set elsewhere. Dangers posed by far-right populism, its endorsement of casual racism, the comeuppance of outspoken politics in relation to the arguable failures of the Establishment, and the promotion of xenophobia have contributed more to building resentment towards innocent politicians. The task of eradicating hatred is not solely that of Jeremy Corbyn – it is one which must be faced by the entirety of the Labour party, and actually the entirety of the global political scene.

What really trumps “anti” feelings associated with UK politics is togetherness and party unity. Surely the Labour party should reinstate this ethos, instead striving to work collectively in halting the Tories’ agenda of austerity and societal hardship. Headlines of late have become dominated by Labour’s internal strife which is rapidly growing tiresome. It’s time Labour politicians and their associated supporters clubbed together. The creation of a strong, socially democratic force, which is capable of holding the government to account, is what will trounce the harm being vehemently promoted by some in their bids to tear up Britain and its political fabric.

In their attempts to halt Corbyn’s radical programme, many of those associated with the Labour party have put themselves in danger of losing their own integrity. Although now reversed, the party had intended to only allow long-term grassroots members to vote in the leadership election. In addition, it had implemented £25 membership charges for new members in possible attempts to throttle support for Corbyn. In the days following the landmark referendum result to leave the EU, it was clear that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens were joining the Labour party in protest.

Corbyn and his crew won’t be silenced, and the radical left will not be easily quashed. Attempting to smother the growing threat to Blairism has only accentuated the divide which currently holds up the Labour party, and has inspired more dignified retaliation from the radicals. Thousands have signed petitions in recent days, aiming to bring the Labour party to court for what they see as a violation of British democracy.

The Labour party’s keenness to fix tough barriers to political participation from a grassroots level suggests the creation of a worryingly closed off party environment. By barricading itself from the realities of Corbyn’s strong political support, Labour is in danger of violating its self-proclaimed democratic principles. Anti-Corbyn advocates ought to allow a fair contest to play out, and get behind their party’s defining principles of grassroots decision-making.

As Corbyn and the left-wing organisation Momentum have come to spearhead an ever growing mass socially democratic movement, the existing Labour Establishment just can’t resist interfering. Every day it looks more flustered and agitated. Their tricks for stifling the grounds of Corbyn’s re-election are now being exposed, and could seriously destroy the Labour party’s political standing.

After a huge public mandate for Jeremy Corbyn’s election as party leader in September of last year, it looks like his support is only growing as a result of the vendetta against him. The programme of Corbyn’s opponents doesn’t seem to be as effective as they might have previously anticipated. Desperate for a return to the Blairite politics favoured more by a great deal of the Labour party, as opposed to listening to the calls from the party’s local hubs, Labour risks falling down from the moral high ground once again.

The Labour party consistently complains of the inadequacy of Corbyn’s leadership. What plagues the party more is their disunity and consistent infighting. Corbyn could provide adequate leadership if they just got behind him and accepted the public mandate for a leader whose movement gains fresh support day-by-day. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn’s pacifism and his lack of patriotism are unattractive attributes to many MPs and voters, but these are qualms which can be ironed out. No leader is intrinsically perfect.

If the Labour party is still adamant that its fight between radical politics and Blairite-type ‘centrism’ play out, then it should at least take place in an atmosphere of good sportsmanship. The Labour leadership campaign this year has turned dirty and personal. Politicians, activists, and members have lost sight of the real issues. Instead, for many, it is a campaign set on unfairly thwarting the perfectly adequate left-wing principles of a perfectly adequate left-wing politician and leader.

Disruptive internal strife and indecisiveness regarding the party’s controversial Blairite past and its more populist, radical future is exactly what is setting it back from success. Harmful blows against Jeremy Corbyn, as well as the democracy-defying tactics of many attempting to stifle support for a candidate chosen by the people only last year – and one whose support so evidently still exists – should have no place in British society. The reinstatement of intraparty unity, and a return to the true principles of the Labour party – “social justice, community, rights [and] decency” – are the answer to Labour’s seemingly endless policy war. These attributes are exactly what will bring back security to the UK’s currently perforated and paralysed left wing.

Standard
europe, society, World Politics

Communities are turning against each other in a new era of terrorism

anti-terror-police-paris

The seemingly eternal fight against terrorism and rampant extremism has, in recent weeks, shown no signs of coming to an end. As the West continues to barricade itself against a tempestuous storm of malicious attacks and organised crime, governments and citizens are being pushed to their limits. Cities across Europe and at the other side of the Atlantic are entering a new age of insecurity and paranoia.

France is just one of the countries at the brunt of this pandemic. The nation’s state of emergency has remained firmly in place despite President François Hollande’s hopes to lift it this week. Since anti-Semitic attacks in January 2015, and a fatal bout of terrorism in November of the same year, France has found itself and its society battered by gunmen and extremism all the more. Today saw yet another terrorist disaster at the courtesy of the so-called Islamic State take place at a church in Normandy after the already devastating French assault in Nice two weeks ago. This recent scourge of terrorism is certainly not specific to France, however. The epidemic has continued to ravage German communities in recent days after attacks in Würzburg, Reutlingen and, yesterday, Ansbach. Fatal shootings at a gay bar in Orlando, USA were also carried out killing or injuring over 100 people last month.

Whilst a great deal of the terrorism encapsulating the West has been attributed solely to extremist organisations from far abroad, not all attackers have had direct links to organised crime groups. The killer of revellers in Orlando last month was found to have no connection to Islamic State whatsoever. The same goes for the killer in a brutal knife attack this morning in Japan, and also for the 18-year-old who was inspired by growing far-right sentiment to stage a massacre of his own involving shoppers in Munich. The problems of today do not relate solely to explicitly foreign-motivated terrorism, but instead they relate more to the eruptions of radicalisation of and the extremism which involves individuals based more locally. These are people of minorities who have become consistently marginalised by government and society, and of violent attackers who have been motivated by new isolationists and frightful rhetoricians.

This paints a rather sorry picture for Europe and its similarly beaten up American partners. Communities are being drawn apart in front of our eyes. A new era of ‘interior’ terrorism and national insecurity is emerging. The task of the West isn’t only to defeat the barbaric extremist group that is Islamic State, but to instead deal with the worrying contagion of radicals pledging fealty to the IS operation, and striking in the name of it. 

Very recently, European and American leaders have introduced rigorous counterterrorism measures, some of which widely criticised for accentuating and worsening the divides of our already cut up global community. The priorities of our governments must be set straight. Of course, counteracting organised terrorism ought to be high on leaders’ to do lists. But legislation has for too long presumed criminal tendencies of select groups of people. Instead of efforts to promote cohesion and unity, our leaders have come to harshly set apart certain individuals from the rest. It is this that motivates a large proportion of today’s killers, notably those who attack under their own name, an not that of an extremist organisation.

Unity and robust social cohesion are the key components which are missing from the constructs of today’s global society. Diversity and multiculturalism must be embraced by all. For example, France’s ban on the Muslim women’s burqa is highly controversial, and has attacked important cultural principles. US presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump’s divisive comments of a Muslim shutdown, and his plans for a more “closed door” America have increasingly vilified numerous US minorities. The alarming rhetoric which has come to isolate so many has been consistently condemned by myriad advisory experts, including Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane. Soutphommasane highlighted that many of those marginalised by stringent counterterrorism policy had been motivated by this alone in their savage revolts. Building support for the “anti politics” (as New Statesman writer George Eaton put it) of division, marginalisation, and stubbornness is infuriating communities, means that deviance is only likely to rise.

Whilst attempting to smother chances of terrorism, governments and security institutions are in fact creating even larger problems for themselves. Of course, only very, very few humans ever attempt to create devastation on the scale of recent attacks in Western nations. But the clear targeting and labelling of sub-groups is proving to be detrimental, and has only widened the scope for extremism to flourish. Whether attackers are frustrated by incomers to their homeland, or one minority individual is dismayed by Western nations’ disregard for them, divisive rhetoric and policies intent on singling out individuals look to only induce terrorism. The disgusting increase in casual racism and the promotion of such careless, outspoken politics continues to alienate many across the West.

Our societies are becoming fractured by racial and cultural injustices, and instead of appearing united, are leaving our communities vulnerable to the tribulations of terror. Damaging and fearful rhetoric has divided our communities. More worryingly, it is spurring a large contagion of extremists who dead set on tearing nations apart on their own initiative. People with no direct affiliation to terror groups are becoming criminals, inspired by the acts of others. 

The war on terror is moving into a new era. Unless governments and their citizens bind together to embrace multiculturalism, abandon the harm of racism, and build up social cohesion, we will make spontaneous extremists’ dreams a reality. Counterterrorism strategy and, indeed, international relations, must not centre around singling out entire minorities.

If the rise in support for the politics of the hard right escalates further, social unity and the true destruction of extremism will not materialise. The suppression and demonisation of select individuals is simply not a viable solution. Those who feel cut off from society are those who have created most harm, a theme evident in attacks which have ravaged a European, Northern American, and Asian nations of late. 

For the more conceited and judgmental wings of our political society are most to blame for the deep societal crevasses which continue to widen across global societies. Inclusion is the answer to the reunification of our communities, and the solution to the new era of terrorism taking humanity by storm. 

Standard
American Politics, society, World Politics

The Democrats have lost their integrity, and maybe the presidential election, too

920x920.jpg

As if the mess of Hillary Clinton’s private email malpractice were not enough to embarrass the US Democratic Party, the uncovering of another abominable scandal has come back to kick them, and may even hinder the Party’s chances of election success in November’s Presidential vote. 

WikiLeaks, the organisation of radicals best known for uncovering some of the political world’s greatest scandals, has struck again – and quite rightly so. After several cyber attacks on US government email servers in recent months, the Democratic Party has found itself in hot water over its Clinton-related complacency.

It won’t be so complacent anymore, though. Over 20,000 emails have come to light which detail pro-Clinton bias from the highest ranks of the US’ biggest liberal party even before any formal judgments had been made by delegates in state primaries. The revelations have highlighted the shameful attempts of top officials to smother the election chances of popular left winger Bernie Sanders.

WikiLeaks’ uncovered emails clearly show discussions of how best to bring down Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders by publically questioning matters of his religious affiliation, and detail suggestions of circulating smears relating to Sanders’ political career in order to decrease his support. Such revelations are sure to plague the Clinton campaign irrevocably, and seriously question the integrity of the Democrat Party.

In addition, Democrat directors are shown to have pestered media outlets for maximum Democrat support in news agendas across America, and to have been secretly communicating with journalists in attempts for minimal Democrat backlash. The uncovered emails reveal also the way in which wealthy supporters are lavishly treated by the Party, detailing tactics of coercing donors into giving mammoth sums of money in exchange for considerable policy input, prestigious garden parties, and hobnobbing with the President.

This week sees the Democrat National Convention take place in Philadelphia, where the Democrats are set to firmly outline their political agenda and play their proposed prelude to the post-Obama era. Hillary Clinton was once the undisputed, sure-fire solution to preventing Republican nominee Donald J. Trump from storming the Oval Office this November. At one point during 2015, Clinton was reported to have the support of as much as two thirds of the Democrat Party.

But a couple of weeks ago, polls reported that public trust of Clinton had reached an election low, making November’s result even harder to predict. The next scandal Clinton will have to face is likely to damage her popularity in the polls to an even further extent. The appearance of the alternative Bernie Sanders has partially contributed to lower support for Clinton, but the recent marks against the former First Lady’s cards are proving much more indelible than previously thought.

After clear examples of the Democrats’ undermining of democracy, many citizens won’t be so sure of Clinton anymore. Today’s events may well leave hers and the Democratic Party’s reputations in shreds, and only boost discontent with the current campaign trail – possibly so much as to provoke swing voters to defect to the Republican camps.

Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just one of those credited with knowledge of the party’s undemocratic activities. Footage of Schultz and her colleagues this morning attempting to calm frustrated delegates makes for extremely awkward watching. The Party Chair was reported to have been escorted off stage shrouded by angry activists who brandished pro-Sanders signs and booed to show off their deep discontent.

Isn’t such a reaction right, though? It is indeed. Key figures of the US Democratic Party have greatly undermined the principles for which they claim to advocate. WikiLeaks’ revelations have exposed shocking truths of the party’s disdain for anyone besides Clinton, hoping to protect the former stateswoman as she recovers from any potentially dangerous press ammunition.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s campaign has for months centred on racist comments, controversial protectionism, and the infectious global epidemic of right wing populism. On these grounds, it was seen as the Democrats’ chance to unstoppably halt the causes of Trump, with real values of liberal democracy, social justice, equality and kindness instead. However, the tone of a great deal of the Democrat campaign has been considerably low. How can the campaign pioneered by Hillary Clinton aim to beat the scare tactics deployed by the Trump side herself and her staff involved in such fatal wrongdoing, too?

Embroiled in a scandal relating to communications secrecy during her tenure as US Secretary of State, and now in one possibly more serious relating to her party’s underhanded corruption, her election chances are crumbling. In the midst of such societal division, the Democrats had their chance to rejuvenate the US Establishment, and provide politics of unity and hope.

When will the US Presidential campaign become positive? Perhaps Bernie Sanders was the only one who advocated for progressiveness and just debate all along. It’s just too bad that now the DNC have prevented him from achieving his full potential. The pleas of other candidates at past primaries have had one defining principle – that one candidate is not another candidate, and that one does not stand for what the other does. The US Presidential debate has shown little sign of conversation relating to big social and political issues, but instead has revolved around scaremongering, controversy and anti-establishment sentiment. The Democrats’ flawed strategy won’t make US politics progressive at all, and has shown that it can competently fight battles of playground politics, too – not only Donald J. Trump.

Party officials may have believed that rigging the Democratic primaries would set Clinton’s candidacy above the storm of uncertainty which currently ravages the nation’s political sphere, had their actions gone undiscovered. Instead, the Democrats’ gamble has done more harm than good. The Party has lost its credibility, and possibly its ability to win safely in the November vote. The Democrats are sure to find that votes are harder to pick up in the all important swing states of Florida, California, Virginia, and the like. It is these votes that may decide the next President. Failure to capture floating voters, and the support of the volatile middle classes, could be fatal.

The Party also has a mission to restore confidence in its own constructs, and restore public confidence in the entirety of US politics. This mission is even greater than it were before today’s WikiLeaks scandal, given the sheer tidal wave of anti-establishment feeling which is sweeping global societies.

No matter the outcome of this year’s election, the next person to hold office will be tainted with the grave issues of their unsportsmanlike campaign. Hillary Clinton could have escaped this dark shadow easily by simply treading the moral high ground with a transparent, humble presidential bid. The sketchy outline of the truth of her email use as Secretary of State, and now the exposure of her party’s underhanded tactics, undeniably defying true democracy, will hinder her campaign’s success. Perhaps those all important swing votes will end up going to the Republicans after all.

The Democrats could have chosen to carry on from the Obama era with the principles of fairness and justice of which he will likely be most remembered. Confidence in the US Establishment is now painfully low, something which the Democrat Party could have restored, and now will have an even greater task of attempting to restore. The pathogens of corruption are currently diseasing the vital organs of the US Democrats, Clinton’s arsenal of political artillery becoming exhausted.

The Democrats seem to be a paralysed force, riddled with underhand tactics and intense political divides. The argument that Hillary Clinton isn’t Donald J. Trump lacks strength now. This election campaign ought to have been based on real political and social issues, and with pragmatism at the fore. Further to this, the Democrats ought to have offered a vision of fair play and progressiveness in order to defeat the alarming proclamations of Trump. If the Democrats can restore public confidence, they may be able to revive themselves. It will be no easy feat. Should they fail to, the very worrying politics of Donald J. Trump may be successful in November, many Democrats losing not only the election campaign, but also their integrity.

Standard
europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

Angela Merkel was in charge of the EU – now it’s Theresa May

untitled

If anyone should be credited with the title of ‘president’ of the European Union, it has to be Germany’s formidable Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Since her election as the German nation’s premier in 2005, the strategic and nifty Merkel has become one of the European Union’s main figureheads and prolific boss of the world’s second largest economy. Recent years have seen the EU’s de facto commander preside over some of the EU’s greatest challenges including global economic crises, the biggest spurt of human movement since the Second World War, and, of course, the current epidemic of Euroscepticism.

Angela Merkel may not hold this title for much longer, however. After a British vote to leave the EU last month, the island nation, which has long had an extremely particular relationship with Europe, is now calling the shots. The number of disgruntled EU citizens is growing.

The leader of the first nation to formally vote to leave the EU, Theresa May, has unprecedented influence over the future of the European Union. This week, the new British Prime Minister made the first of her foreign visits to Germany. In the aftermath of a turbulent EU debate, Mrs May has been particularly keen to promote consistent and amicable ties with European nations.

Britain’s Vote Leave campaign, the eventual victor, and its still rampant support has been met with strong retort from European leaders who remained firm on their promises not to allow Britain to destroy the EU. But after several weeks of pressure, and after the Prime Minister’s discussions with German and French premiers, it seems that the EU is slowly warming to the reality of Brexit, paying attention to the imminent threats of Euroscepticism, and listening to the ever louder calls for EU reform.

As the reality of the UK’s vote to leave the European Union sets in, the EU is having to completely re-evaluate itself. Britain is the nation which has spurred an entirely new European era – one of provoking game-changing reform. It is Prime Minister Theresa May who is at the helm of this fascination transformation. The successes of Eurosceptic and anti-immigrant bodies around Europe are continuing to build, and it is these organisations and their supporters which shed the real influence upon the future of the Eurozone.

As discontent with the European Union in its existing state grows, the power of the EU’s most prolific leader, Angela Merkel, and her allies is rapidly declining. Power is now in the hands of those who reject the status quo – the hands of those such as Prime Minister Theresa May who must now seek a different European format for her people, and also who has sparked the creation of a different type of EU for all Europeans.

Speaking for the majority of EU member states in the company of Mrs May, Chancellor Merkel this week announced that the EU will allow Britain to delay its exit from the European Union until its action plan is totally clear. Doing so is in the European Union’s interests, and buys back time for a huge, Europe-wide re-negotiation of the EU’s institutions – a re-negotiation which may save the Eurozone from further crumbling.

Allowing Britain the liberty of deciding when to implement the Article 50 membership emergency stop clause is not the only concession being made for the UK’s Brexit. Changes to the EU’s liberal policies of free movement of people may soon be granted in attempts to soothe anti-immigration sentiment. Migration allowances coexisting with the ability to freely trade has long been one of the principle cogs of the European Union’s machinery, but one which now seems to be rusting. Despite strong initial rejection by leaders including French President François Hollande, plans for a migration break lasting for up to seven years may soon be granted to nations like the UK.

Discussions of a different future for the European Union have long proven unfruitful for Europe’s growing hard-right. Many of these conservatives are sure to be rubbing their hands. Whilst the EU becomes twitchy and the atmosphere of uncertainty becomes thick, changes surrounding the way that Europe works are becoming increasingly necessary.

As May negotiates her way to a different future for the UK in Europe, the British Prime Minister is in an enviably strong position, and perhaps is the new driver of the EU vehicle. The newly invested British premier is now vying for a plan which would allow Britain to completely control its migration levels whilst yielding the benefits of a position within the European Economic Area. Mrs May might not have voted to leave the EU herself, but as UK Prime Minister, it is now her mission to “make a success of it,” as she has repeatedly vowed.

Making a success of Brexit is exactly the type of move which will serve Mrs May’s reputation and her credibility well. Whilst a Brexit might not be the outcome for which the Prime Minister had hoped of the EU referendum in June, Theresa May is now in a position to push for real change, becoming a hero of the European right wing. As Angela Merkel’s EU becomes unworkable, Theresa May’s plan may become the solution.

The German Chancellor and her European allies are known for being stubborn, but the British Prime Minister has finally been successful in making headway. If Britain succeeds in its bid for the ability to control migration, increased controls for member states over a wide range of different issues may come. Reform is, of course, in the European Union’s interests. Hard-right populists and Eurosceptics are sure to continue to triumph if changes fail to materialise.

If the European Union wishes to survive, it looks like Merkel and her team must face up to dealing with the new challenges which could one day serve to destroy it. Reform of the EU is what will dilute Euroscepticism, keep the EU economy thriving, and ease the strain of global crises on its member states.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s European dream looks close to fading, and Theresa May is corroding the authority and political power wielded by the German leader and her supporters. Perhaps Brits believed that a vote to leave the European Union would draw it away from the continent almost instantaneously. But if the events of the past week are anything to go by, the United Kingdom is still very much involved in the politics of the EU for now.

Angela Merkel could turn around her European Union. Pressure from Theresa May and Eurosceptics from around Europe – most prevalent in nations such as France, Denmark, Austria and Netherlands – may well in coming weeks and months force large-scale reform on the EU. If current EU officials fail to recognise the need to address grave problems of migration, security and the economy, the institution which has united European nations since the end of the Second World War may break down in front of them.

Britain has led the way in starting the possible – but albeit preventable – mass exodus of European Union nations. Theresa May now has the upper hand on the EU quandary, and her protest on behalf of the British people is sure to provoke reform sooner or later. It is clear now, however, that it is largely Mrs May who is calling the shots over the future of the EU, and it could indeed be her who, quite paradoxically, saves it.

Standard