Reasons to worry about the PM’s Brexit plan

by
27 January 2017

Mrs May’s speech on leaving the EU contained noble aspirations, but raised serious concerns, says Michael Sadgrove

THE Prime Minister has set out her Brexit stall. In a speech delivered on Tuesday of last week (News, 20 January), she sounded persuasive, far-sighted, and upbeat as she spoke about how we would leave the European Union. It brought some clarity, and this is to be welcomed.

We cannot accuse Theresa May of lacking vision. She asks the right question: what kind of country do we want to be? Her answer deploys a panoply of noble ideals: “stronger, fairer, more united, more outward-looking”; “secure, prosperous, tol­erant, a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead”.

No one will dissent from these aspirations. We all want the best for our country. But why does it need Brexit to bring it about? Misgivings set in as early as the fourth sentence of the speech. The British people, she says, “voted to leave the EU and embrace the world”. It takes considerable effort to recall where “embracing the world” featured in the Leave cam­paign. What we re­­member are attacks on immigration and the pop­ulist cry “Give us our country back!” It is hard to spin Brexit as internationalism.

Mrs May wants Britain to be “a great, global, trading nation that is respected around the world”. Those words capture her fundamentally nostalgic ambition for Britain. She draws on a memory coloured by the way that Victorian politicians and industrialists spoke about the part played by Britain in the world, fuelled by the vast economic oppor­tunities that empire had opened up. A post-colonial, not to say Chris­tian, perspective should make us ask whether this kind of grand­iose rhetoric belongs in the 21st century, or whether a humb­ler register wouldn’t help make the friends we are going to need in the next few years.

Mrs May acknowledges that the UK must be “the best friend and neighbour to our European partners”, besides reaching out to the wider world. Indeed. But wasn’t this already being achieved by a Britain within the EU?

Advertisement

From a Christian point of view, a people’s true greatness lies not in what they assert about their own independent identity, but in what their actions say about them. To the founding fathers of the European project, Roman Catholic social teaching shaped the idea of a just, peaceable, and collaborative part­ner­ship of nations in which sov­ereignty was pooled for the com­mon good. It was as much about giving as receiving, about serving as being served: in short, loving your neighbour.

 

THE historian Nicholas Boyle has argued that it is the loss of a global imperial position that is partly responsible for Britain’s amb­ival­ence about the EU. He believes that the UK — specifically England — has got too used to ex­­­ercising hegemony over others. Being “ordinary” is alien to us because we have not had much practice at it.

It is, therefore, not surprising that Britain has insisted on its excep­tionalism as a “special case” within the EU. If post-imperial Britain had been content to play a more modest part in world affairs, we might well have been more convinced Euro­peans. As it is, the rhetoric of Brexit has mostly been driven by self-interest: in David Cameron’s oft-repeated phrase, “what’s best for Britain”. And Mrs May cannot shake it off, for all her commitment to being a good friend to the EU and wanting to see it flourish.

Perhaps this is inevitable when trade, the economy, immigration, and security dominate the agenda. I am not saying that Mrs May does not care about human rights, about social justice, reconciliation, peace-mak­ing, or the environment. But a Christian response to her statement about Brexit must ask why they are not more prominent.

For many in the finance and business sectors, the biggest stum­bling-block in the Prime Minister’s speech is her resolve that Britain will leave the single market. They are right to be worried about the hard, isolationist Brexit that this betokens, given the undertakings made by leading Brexiters that this was not a necessary consequence of leaving the EU. It is not the only aspect of Brexit about which 48 per cent of those who voted are tempted to call “foul”, and wonder where they are going to belong in Mrs May’s new Britain.

 

RELIGION is as concerned about the integrity of decision-making as the decision itself. This is at stake in the part that Parliament plays in the Brexit process. The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Parliament must give its consent before the Government can trigger Article 50. Mrs May has said that the deal as finally negotiated will be brought before Parliament. But government sources have indicated that, even if elected members reject it, Brexit will still go ahead. Given the emphasis that Leavers laid on UK par­liamentary sovereignty during the referendum, where does that leave our democratic institutions?

Mrs May said in her speech: “It is only by coming together as one great union of nations and people that we can make the most of the opportunities ahead.”

For Remainers, this is precisely the argument for the EU and Britain’s membership of it. Not for the first time, the logic of her argument leads in com­­pletely the opposite direction to the one she takes. Does that sentence, so telling, unmask the Emperor’s new clothes?

 

The Very Revd Michael Sadgrove is Dean Emeritus of Durham and co-convener of Christians for Europe. christiansforeurope.org

Church Times: about us

Latest Cartoon

The Church Times Podcast

Interviews and news analysis from the Church Times team. Listen to this week’s episode online

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read five articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)