Top Scots businessman tells me Theresa #May ‘has destroyed UK’ – Bill Jamieson

What happens when a Prime Minister can no longer govern, and the Government itself is faced with paralysis?
In the early 20th century, David Lloyd George faced just such a predicament (a problem or a difficult situation). The country’s miners had gone on strike, other unions were preparing to join in. The country faced a national breakdown (an occasion when a vehicle or machine stops working for a period of time) within days, with industry at a standstill (a situation in which all movement or activity has stopped) and essential fuel and food supplies disrupted. Offers to improve pay and conditions had been rejected and talks were at a standstill. Lloyd George had no other cards left to play – other than the ultimate Black Ace (the ace of spades is traditionally the highest and most valued card in the deck of playing cards, at least in English-speaking countries). He turned to the miners’ leaders across the Cabinet table: “When an indomitable (incapable of being subdued) force arises in the state that is more powerful than the state”, he declared, “and can halt the functioning of the state, then it must of itself prepare to take on the responsibilities of the state. Gentlemen, are you so agreed, and, if so, are you ready?”

The gentlemen were not so ready, and negotiations began again. Different though the circumstances now are, the political stand-off (a situation in which an argument or fight stops for a period of time because no one can win or get an advantage) today is of no less consequence and as severe in degree. 

If the Government cannot govern, who does? Behind the latest Brexit U-turns, prevarications (to deviate from the truth, fabrications), delays and confusions lie profound (if an effect is profound, it is extreme) questions of leadership and legitimacy. And they are deeper – if that is conceivable (possible to imagine or to believe) – than the endlessly replayed doom-loop (endless unhappiness and feeling no hope for the future)  of no-deal, backstop (something that can be used to solve problems after everything else has been tried), cliff-edge (a situation where a sudden change leads to many immediate and very large problems) and delay in which we are trapped.

These questions centre on the collapsing support, not just of one, but two of the UK’s main political leaders. We are enmeshed (involved in a complicated or unpleasant situation that it is difficult to escape from), almost beyond endurance (the ability to continue doing something physically difficult or continue dealing with an unpleasant situation for a long time), by ever-shifting (constantly changing, especially in an unpredictable way) parliamentary demands on Brexit, motions and amendments with different motivations and end games (the final part of a game, battle, or political process when the result is decided) behind them, but with no evident alternative or replacement around which sufficient numbers can agree. The anger among the ranks of previous Conservative supporters is now white-hot (is extremely hot). But what is keeping Theresa May in place is that there is no obvious alternative leader around which Conservative MPs can unite. It is not just that the possible alternatives are too embedded in one faction (a small group within a larger group, consisting of people with different opinions from the rest) or another to achieve unity. There is also an absence of credible leadership talent. That may be a harsh (harsh conditions or places are unpleasant and difficult to live in) verdict on the likes of Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, or Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She is well regarded and a likely leadership contender (someone who competes with other people for a prize or job), but her wafer-thin (extremely thin) majority in Hastings and Rye – just 346 – may render (to express, show, or perform something)her vulnerable.

And if you thought it was bad enough on the Conservative benches, consider the leadership dilemma of the main opposition party. Tom Bower’s excoriating (to write or say that a play, book, political action, etc. is very bad) biography of Jeremy Corbyn –indispensable (difficult or impossible to exist without or to do something without) reading for anyone in doubt as to what it is he stands for – gives chapter and verse (a group of words or sentences that form one section of a poem or song) of his extraordinary rise to the leadership. And as if this was not disconcerting (making you feel worried, confused, or surprised )enough, it is his deputy, the Marxist John McDonnell, 

with his unsparing  (used about the cruel behaviour of someone who does not care if they hurt people) commitment to confiscatory taxes (targeting a particular income group with high rates of taxation), nationalization and class war on all fronts, that even many Labor MPs fear more. It is also still plagued (to annoy someone all the time by doing something or by asking for something) with antisemitism. And that’s the official alternative to the UK Government! Tom Watson 

may emerge as a leadership contender, along with Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer.

But the party membership is markedly to the Left and a challenge from either would be fiercely opposed. 
Meanwhile, what of Theresa May? She had emphatically (very firmly and clearly) and consistently repeated that there would be no delay to the Article 50 timetable. It was asserted (to state firmly that something is true)  in every speech, press conference and media interview. Now it appears there very well could be a delay. Forced by an incipient (just beginning to appear or develop) Cabinet revolt and defeat in the Commons, she has now offered the prospect of just such a postponement. What credibility can there now be left in her utterances (a statement)? What possible authority can her words command? A new vote on the Withdrawal Agreement – whether or not it has changed materially after yet more meetings with officials in Brussels – is scheduled for March 12. If this also voted down (to stop or end something as the result of a vote), there will be a vote by MPs the next day to remove the option of a ‘no deal’ departure. And if that succeeds, another vote will be held on March 15 to extend (to continue for a particular period of time) Article 50.

(Article 50 says that the member state has to notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union. ... That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking (to stop someone having official permission to do something) Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit. Dec 10, 2018)

The length of that extension is unclear. Much may depend on what the EU decides. An extension may be for only two months so that there is no obligation for the UK to take part in the European elections. Or it may be delayed, as some in Brussels have proposed, until the end of the year, to enable the UK to arrive at a more settled consideration. After then there could be a second referendum (almost certainly triggering fresh demands for a second referendum on Scottish independence) or possibly a general election. All clear? Such an impasse (a situation in which none of the people involved are willing to change their opinion or decision ) might be tolerable if there was no direct adverse (negative, unpleasant, or harmful) national consequence. But there is. An enormous price has already been paid in canceled business investment plans and costly preparations for the stockpiling of essential goods and materials. Growth has slowed to a crawl (a very slow speed). On Tuesday, there was a palpable relief expressed by organizations such as the Federation of Small Businesses that the Prime Minister had taken a step back from a ‘no deal’ departure. But delay resolves nothing. The same ‘cliff edge’ could present itself in May or at some date beyond. Yesterday I received an email from a prominent Scottish businessman whose company has won innumerable (too many to be counted) awards for its success. He insisted on confidentiality but I suspect his plight (a sad, serious, or difficult situation) is shared by many companies. “Our sales”, he wrote, “are down over 50 per cent at the moment and we now have more than four months of further delay before any prospect of leaving so the economic damage will be appalling (very unpleasant and shocking). We are, I fear, heading for a Corbyn Government because they can blame the Tories and claim that only they are fit to govern. May has destroyed the UK.” What else he had to say about Mrs May’s leadership is unrepeatable, though the words “egocentric” and “deranged” (behaving in an uncontrolled or dangerous way because of mental illness) featured prominently (important and well known). So, it’s the leadership issue behind the latest Brexit turmoil that presents an intractable challenge, one that could shatter (to break something suddenly into a lot of small pieces) the two-party system and plunge (to fall quickly from a high position) us into political chaos without modern precedent. At least in the past we had characters of the leadership quality of Lloyd George to stare down an incipient (just beginning to appear or develop) national breakdown. Today such quality is difficult to discern (to notice something, especially after thinking about it carefully or studying it). We are at a cliff-edge, indeed – and one now altogether more acute than Brexit.