26 January 2017

Speech Therapy

Mrs May at Lancaster House.

By John Watson

A year or so ago, I was at a literary lunch where the speaker was Nick Robinson, television presenter and one time political editor of the BBC.  It was before the Brexit vote and he was talking about the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, praising the way in which he made decisions.  That drew immediate dissent with someone who asked him how he could possibly say that the decision to intervene in Libya had been a good one.  The questioner was speedily corrected.  Robinson was not talking about whether the decisions in themselves were wise or not but about the way in which they were made.  Cameron was apparently good at pulling information together, deciding what he thought and coming to a conclusion.

The dichotomy between wisdom and technique runs through politics.  Politicians are either wise or they are not.  Their decisions may or may not serve the public good.  That however is quite a separate matter from whether they are good at the process of arriving at a decision, implementing it and carrying the public with them.

There is little point at this stage in debating the points made by Mrs May in her speech at Lancaster House.  That will be done ad nauseam.  Suffice it to say, for the benefit of those who were not invited, that her shopping list comprised:

“Certainty wherever possible.  Control of our own laws.  Strengthening the United Kingdom.  Maintaining the Common Travel Area with Ireland.  Control of immigration.  Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU.  Enhancing rights for workers.  Free trade with European markets.  New trade agreements with other countries.  A leading role in science and innovation.  Cooperation on crime, terrorism and foreign affairs.  And a phased approach, delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit.”

Well, how much of that we will actually get remains to be seen and depends on all sorts of factors which are entirely unpredictable.  What is interesting, however, is the dynamics of the speech as a piece of political theatre and how Mrs May worked to carry the audience with her.

The first thing of course is that much of it came out of the blue.  Up until then, the government’s reticence had made people wonder whether they had a coherent negotiating position at all.  The discovery that they have, albeit an ambitious one, came as a relief to everyone and is probably why, although the possibility of leaving the EU with no agreement was clearly canvassed as a rather dismal Plan B, the pound rose.  Someone, it seemed, was in charge after all.

The second thing that came through was the clarity.  We had all been fearing something waffly of the “Brexit mean Brexit” variety; yet here was a collection of clear positions.  The one place where some uncertainty was shown was on how we would like our relationship with the Customs Union to work where Mrs May confirmed that she was not yet certain of the best route.  One or two commentators seized on this as being a weakness, but in a speech of this kind, an admitted uncertainty is also a strength.  It gives the impression of a government still thinking things through, not totally inflexible, able to move to meet events.

So much for the way in which it addressed the British public, but this speech and its successor at Davos were also aimed at wider audiences.  EU leaders were clearly taken by surprise.  The confident tone has not gone down well over there.  They had expected something more consensual and perhaps (let us be honest) apologetic or deferential.  Actually, a full list of what we would like must be the right way to start the negotiation, even if we do not believe we will get it all.  There is high authority (albeit in a slightly different context) for the proposition that if you ask you will get.  It was surely the right way for Mrs May to approach things.

Then there are the international leaders from outside the EU and the stress on the openness with which we will approach the rest of the world.  There is clearly some interest in trade deals out there.  Who knows what it will really amount to, but a welcoming stance must be the right one.

So much for the obvious audiences, but there is a little more to it all than that.  This speech is a sales pitch for a new approach.  The vision of a free-trading, independent country which controls its own affairs and takes trouble to see that its prosperity is shared amongst its people is a seductive one in a world currently racked by populist movements.  Those who dislike the status quo, who distrust elitism and globalisation, who believe that they are cut off from the benefits of international prosperity, will read this speech and wonder.  Will the May government bring in a “third way”, neither as socialist as the EU nor as capitalist as Britain and the US?  Who knows?  Perhaps all the stuff about bringing in the disenfranchised will prove to be empty words.  Perhaps not.  If, however, Mrs May follows through with action she could find herself at the front of a movement which could sweep aside many of the assumptions and certainties of post-war Europe.

These are heady thoughts and one must not get carried away.  A speech is just a piece of rhetoric, and without policy and action to implement that policy it adds up to nothing.  Still, for the moment it seems to have gone down reasonably well with a public which at the same time accepts that by no means all of it may prove to be deliverable.  Perhaps it has done something else as well.  For those of us who voted to Remain, politics since the Brexit vote has been about damage limitation.  Suddenly, however, there seems to be a breath of air.  Perhaps something really can be created that we will all end up being proud of.  Let’s hope so.  Or it may all end up by being a car crash.  Well, if so, at least it will have been a wild ride.

 

If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.

Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet