This summer, the Times of Malta carried an article entitled ‘Could Chequers talks mean checkmate for Theresa May’s Brexit?’, which featured a number of major players of the UK economy highlighting the cost of a bad Brexit. In particular, Jaguar Land Rover warned that a ‘bad’ deal could translate into a negative hit of £1.2 billion every year on the entity’s income statement.
This reminded me of a contribution of mine that appeared in this same newspaper roughly two years ago, just after the UK people voted in favour of Brexit. I had argued that finding an answer to the perennial question on what was the cost of exiting, as envisaged by the Tory government, was in reality impossible. As negotiations progress and possible models are devised, discussed and digested, economic players try to visualise how all this will hit their revenue, profit figures and, from a corporate social responsibility point of view, jobs.
Soon after a countryside Cabinet meeting, David Davis, then Cabinet minister responsible to engage in negotiations with the EU’s eminent representative, Michel Barnier, handed in his resignation. That was surely a heavy blow for Theresa May’s government. The appointment of Dominic Raab is, in my humble opinion, simply a ‘quick fix’ just to demonstrate she is still in control of steering the country safely out of the EU.
May is discussing Brexit amid a divided party and, worse, a split government. This is, indeed, a checkmate.
Theresa May must identify a more effective way to steer her country and her divided party
The crisis also represents the realisation of a prophecy made by the world-renowned and highly-respected The Economist newspaper way back in early January 2017. According to that newspaper, May’s vision of leadership “is focused on giving statements, installing processes, gathering up information and control – and little else. This makes it worryingly easy to imagine the Britain of 2018 or 2019 in disarray: her party in revolt, her ministers and partners alienated, her government sclerotic, Brexit talks breaking down, the economy tanking and Number 10 in bunker mode”.
Boris Johnson stepped down too, albeit for a different reason. It is not about a Brexit principle but about a personal ambition to become leader. This situation not only continues to support such a prophecy but has definitely put to the test May’s leadership skills.
This leads to a question: is May equipped to be an effective leader and weather the storm?
Although character-wise she projects herself as a woman of substance, one cannot forget that, unlike her predecessor, David Cameron, and other effective political leaders, she did not read PPE (politics, philosophy and economy) at Oxford University but, rather, geography. The former was purposefully designed to train future elites. It is noteworthy to point out that, in the local scenario, the late Lino Spiteri, former MP and finance minister, had followed such a course.
Although at face value one might argue that this could be somewhat trivial, given the different emphasis between PPE and geography, it undeniably gives those having read it at Oxford University a competitive advantage.
The threat to May is now unadorned. Watching her address the House of Commons about both resignations made it very evident she is in a tight corner.. Maybe, in today’s jargon, May has to quickly put into play her GPS – geographical positioning system – to help identify a more effective way to steer her country and her divided party.
The British public, although clearly capable of switching allegiances to distinct parties at each general election, still has a great deal of admiration for those leaders who take their divided party by the scruff of the neck and deal with the matter as swiftly and truthfully as possible.
Only time will tell whether May has the ability to do just that, though time is fast running out.
Ivan Grixti is a lecturer in financial accounting at the University of Malta.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece