Brexit: A time for fools and knaves

Since last year’s referendum to leave the European Union (Brexit) there has been a great deal of name calling on both sides of the argument — and no doubt this will continue. However, there was nothing quite as surprising as the description of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as “thick as mince” and “as lazy as a toad”.

Not so much the epithets — there are many who would find them quite reasonable — but that this description of the Right Honourable David Davis came from someone who might otherwise be considered one of his most loyal supporters, the former head of the Leave Campaign in the referendum, Dominic Cummings.

His attack came after Davis spent a half-day in Brussels to open negotiations on Britain’s exit where he was pictured across the table from EU officials, grinning and noteless before fleeing back across the channel.

Reports are that Cummings has had a Road to Damascus moment and now believes the vote to leave the EU might have been an error, largely because what he describes as the “morons” in the Government are making a hash of the process.

He is said to believe that the full implications of what is required to leave the EU may not be understood by anyone in the Government right up to Prime Minister Theresa May.

This is not the first time the abilities of members of the Government have been called into question. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s gaffs have reached legendary proportions while Andrea Leadsom, once described by a senior Public Servant as “quite the worst Minister” he had ever worked with, regularly launches anti-EU tirades, one of the latest against the “unpatriotic” British Broadcasting Company for not coming down uncritically on the side of Brexit.

Priti Patel, the resolute Thatcherite, obsessed with hatred for the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn; Liam Fox, who believes it is “insignificant” to lower the country’s EU-ordained food standards to allow the importation of chlorinated chicken — described as a lazy and possibly dangerous way of cleaning the meat — from the United States.

And Michael Gove, who immediately contradicted Fox’s chlorinated chicken proposal, fuelling rumours of Cabinet dissent and seemingly taking every opportunity to present himself as the logical successor to May.   

While EU officials have generally kept their public opinions to themselves, privately they are appalled at the lack of knowledge shown by some of the most senior British politicians about the scope of the Brexit negotiations.

Why is this? How is it that with more than 300 MPs to choose from, so many incompetent characters have risen to the senior ranks of the Conservative Party?

Partly it is because that apart from a few high profile figures, Ministers have been chosen not from the entire party but from that segment that got behind Brexit in the referendum campaign.

The obvious exception to this is May herself, who carefully prepared her ground with a lukewarm endorsement of Remain, knowing that if her side won, she would at least stay on as Home Secretary, and if it lost, she would be in a position to make a grab for the top job given the Brexit mediocrity.

Then there is the fact that on both sides of politics there is a great deal of dead wood — MPs who have not and never will make the grade in government who hang on to their seats into their dotages and in some cases actually try to pass them on to their children.

Again there are exceptions: Ken Clarke, who has given excellent service in government and in the Parliament since elected in 1970, continues as the unofficial spokesman for the not insignificant number of Conservative MPs who still believe in the EU and who squirm at the antics of their Brexit Front Bench.

As a writer in The Economist magazine put it, Britain’s leaders are ploughing on scarcely acknowledging that the exit will involve compromises, let alone how damaging it is likely to be. “The longer they fail to face up to Brexit’s painful trade-offs, the more brutal will be the eventual reckoning with reality.”

So it seems in this grim period of the Brexit negotiations we must be content with fools who, through their ignorance, are destined to be judged by history as knaves. 

Power plant pollution ruining lives

While the issue of pollution from coal-fired power stations is being debated around the world, few residents can be so badly affected those who live near the Lakvijaya Power plant at Norochchcolai on the southern end of Sri Lanka’s Kalpitiya Peninsula.

In recent weeks they have been deluged in ash whipped up by the monsoon winds. Along with the usual respiratory problems, even the fundamental activities of life have become a challenge.

Not only did it become impossible to dry clothes outside, but flying dust, ash and charcoal settled on food.

“We simply cannot cook; we have to buy pre-packaged food from the supermarket, but that is too expensive for poor people,” one resident said.

As if this were not bad enough, hot water from Lakvijaya is being pumped into the sea, ruining the region’s fishing industry. Fisher Peter Warnakulasuria believes this is illegal “but it has been going on for some time and no-one seems to care”. 

  

Those who do care include members of Sri Lanka’s environmental movement, who have filed cases against the power plant after receiving “plenty of promises but no action”.

Local Councillor M.C. Alexander is supporting the case. He says officials of the Ceylon Electricity Board said they would plant a wall of trees to stop the ash blowing into residential areas and even suggested they could store the ash and sell it to the cement industry, but nothing came of either proposal.

“We have been raising these issues for five years now. There has been plenty of time to do something,” Mr Alexander said.

“Some of the residents said they would move away if they had somewhere else to go, but they are poor people. All that they have is here.”

Commissioned in March, 2011, the power plant, the largest in Sri Lanka, has a history of problems, including a series of breakdowns and outages, the most recent earlier this year.

Allegations that it was not built to international standards, have been laid at the door of the previous Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, with the contractors claiming the particular materials used were agreed at the highest level.

All this wrangling does nothing to alleviate the misery of the local inhabitants. Mr Alexander said the area was once quite prosperous with thriving agricultural plantations. Now the incessant rain of ash has created a wasteland.

“Nothing grows here now — and unless something is done soon, nothing will grow here ever again,” he said.       

New bid to save stricken airline

The board of SriLankan Airlines has submitted a restructuring plan to the Government in a last ditch effort to save the stricken national carrier. 

The plan puts the emphasis on downsizing and splitting off certain activities, such as ground maintenance, into separate companies. It comes after a lengthy search for an international investor appears to have drawn a blank.

The Government initially called for bids in July last year and expected to have finalised an agreement by December, but earlier this year it said that three offers had all been too low.

Further talks were scheduled, but by May the last interested party, American private equity firm TPG, pulled out.

In June Minister of Finance, Eran Wickramaratne said there was some interest from Dubai-based carrier Emirates over a possible tie-up with SriLankan as well as discussions with other entities including “one from Japan”. 

However Emirates, which acquired a stake in SriLankan in 1998 for $A90 million only to sell it back to the Government 12 years later for $A68 million, said it had no plans to get involved again.

Most commentators believed that Wickramaratne’s statement was more wishful thinking than based in reality.

Now Chair of SriLankan Airlines, Ajith Dias says he wants the Government to consider the carrier’s own plan to bring it back to profitability which involves consolidating some operations and shedding unprofitable routes. He believes the airline can be turned around.

“We need to become an airline operating primarily between India, the Middle East and Australia…Europe is a dead loss, only London is worth it,” Dias said.

“We have made a great deal of progress in eliminating corruption and mismanagement and a lot of the criticism we are getting now is unjustified.”

The airline’s relations with the Government have been anything but smooth. In 2007, British Chief Executive Peter Hill refused to bump passengers off a flight to make way for the entourage of then Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The President promptly revoked Hill’s work permit and appointed his brother-in-law, Nishantha Wickremasinghe as company Chair.

During Wickremasinghe’s watch the carrier’s losses mounted, leading to Dias’ appointment after the Government changed in 2015.  

Disasters dog troubled Sri Lanka

In a troubled year the island nation of Sri Lanka has faced disaster on three fronts — two from nature and the third man-made.

Less than two months ago parts of the country were ravaged by the worst flooding in 14 years, brought on by a particularly violent monsoon season. Hundreds died or simply went missing, roads, homes and shops were swept away.

In the wake of the disaster aid agencies made their usual appeal for money, food and medical supplies, but in a world hardened to such tragedies the response was inadequate. India and China moved swiftly to help followed by the United States and Pakistan, but the funds needed to rebuild properly will mostly rely on local and charitable efforts.    

The floods have abated, but the water left behind became breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry the feared dengue fever virus. In the worst outbreak of the disease since 2009 so far around 230 people have died and tens of thousands have been infected.

In a country with limited resources and with much infrastructure still affected by the flooding, hospitals have been overwhelmed. Some patients are sharing beds; others, often in need of urgent assistance, have been told to recover as best they can at home.

Dengue fever can be common in more developed countries, including Australia, but with proper treatment and a few days off work most people recover; in the conditions prevalent in Sri Lanka, health effects can be severe and even fatal.

The third element in this grim situation is a garbage crisis, with mountains of rubbish growing daily in the capital, Colombo. The problem stems from bureaucratic paralysis — the city’s council, a Government urban development authority and private contractors have blamed each other for the growing mess for years, without anyone capable of actually doing something about it.

One resident, who gave his name as Ashan, said he and other families had been living next to a rotting dump for years. “A local hospital dumps waste here and I fear it might be contaminated,” he says.

“It is especially bad when it rains. The stench is unbearable and then mosquitoes start to breed. I fear for the children.”  

Ashan said leptospirosis, locally known as rat fever, hepatitis and other water-borne diseases were just some that affected people in his neighbourhood. “There is also a lot of asthma, mostly among the very young and the elderly,” he said.

‘The air is highly polluted and methane gas is forming over the dumps and there could be explosions.”

In April the situation turned deadly when one dump collapsed onto homes, killing around 100 people. Many thought the tragedy would at last spur action, but three months on, nothing has happened.

In 2009 the civil war that had wracked the country for the previous quarter of a century came to an end. Many Sri Lankans actually regard the current problems as miniscule compared what they had to live through then.

“Parts of the country were devastated and even here in Colombo we lived in constant fear of bombings and assassinations,” one resident said.

“Now things have returned to normal, and our tourism industry is flourishing again. You Westerners should tell the world about our beautiful beaches and pristine jungles.    

“Yes we have difficulties now but we can grasp them and understand them — and if we can all work together we can fix them.”    

Macron throws UK a lifeline

French President Emmanuel Macron has dropped a thinly veiled hint to the United Kingdom electorate that the exit from the European Union need not be a given and the door stood open for a change of heart.

German Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schäuble chimed in on cue. “If they want to change their decision, of course they would find open doors,” he said in an interview.

Macron, still bathing in his twin triumph in presidential and parliamentary polls was meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May, hanging on by her fingernails after her election went horribly wrong. Interestingly, she did not rebuff the invitation outright, choosing instead to stick to her prepared address.

But as I said, Macon and Schäuble were not speaking to her, but to a UK electorate more divided than ever over Brexit. Despite their overtures, prominent Remainer, Sir Andreas Whittam Smith, writing in the Independent newspaper, drew little comfort from the development.

He points to the fact that both the still ruling Conservatives and the resurgent Opposition Labour Party have Brexit as part of their official policies, and that an opinion poll taken before the election showed that support for Remain had sunk from its level of 48.1 per cent at last year’s referendum to 45 per cent.

First that opinion poll: It was taken in the wake of a steady drumbeat from the Brexit dominated Government Front Bench that the issue was settled; it was all over and that nothing could halt the advance to the EU exit. Given that, it is not surprising that some disappointed and disillusioned Remain supporters felt like throwing in the towel.

However, that same poll showed just 47 per cent would still vote to Leave, down from 51.9 per cent at the referendum — a bigger slide in support for Brexit than for Remain and indicating a small but significant number, around eight per cent, were now considering their options.

On Sir Andreas’ other point: That at the General Election 80 per cent of those voting chose one of the two main parties that support Brexit. This skates over any consideration of Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s actual commitment to the cause.

Through most of the campaign he tried to ignore the issue, preferring instead to concentrate on domestic policies such as re-nationalisation and education reform. He did say that if he was in charge of the Brexit negotiations he would not leave without a deal — a certain degree of ambivalence which suggests that if the deal were not good enough; not in the country’s best interests, he would consider his position.

We should also consider the question of whether the mood of the electorate has changed, and might change further.

Of course there will always be the rabid, UKIP-supporting Brixiteers who would rather sing about Britannia ruling the waves as the ship of state sinks beneath them, but there are others, who bought the false arguments that the UK would be better off outside the EU with more money for the National Health Service and an opportunity to widen the country’s trading interests.

These are people who might be regretting their initial decisions — the eight per cent who might like to change their vote, but see no opportunity to do so.

They should take heart. There is two years to go before the UK has to fall through the trapdoor. In a 650-strong Parliament run by a minority Government there will inevitably be by-elections, disagreements between partners and factions on the way forward. There will be anything but the stability May so fervently desires.

We must continue with the negotiations demanded by the Brexit referendum, but as Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron has long maintained, that vote was for a journey, not a destination.

The people of the United Kingdom deserve a chance to vote on the terms of exit when they are fully known and understood and not obscured by flag-waving nationalists. There must be a second referendum.  

What does the DUP demand of May?

One of the most surprising results of the arrangement between the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland following the indecisive General Election was the speed with which it was put together.

Apparently it took just a telephone call between Prime Minister Theresa May and DUP leader Arlene Foster to cement the relationship. Contrast this with similar situations in the past — in 1974 and 2010 — when days of negotiations and horse trading were required before an outcome was reached.

While the DUP has much in common with May’s Conservatives, most importantly for her a desire to leave the European Union, it is inconceivable that it would not just give away this position of strength. The speedy resolution suggests only one thing — whatever the DUP wants, it will get.

As it happened I was present at the genesis of the party, on a hot midsummer night in 1970 when Ian Paisley swept aside the sitting Ulster Unionist Member for North Antrim to enter the British Parliament.

As a journalist covering the event, I duly reported that Paisley had put his win down to the “hand of God” at work in the electorate.

Its early name of the Protestant Unionist Party was changed to give it wider appeal and it gradually overhauled the Ulster Unionists, who had dominated Northern Ireland politics for decades.

Paisley remained at the DUP’s head for more than 35 years and while the hardline stance to power sharing with the province’s Catholic minority has softened, other positions — anti-same sex marriage, dismissive of climate change, opposed to abortion, opposed to international family planning programs — remain in place. It has in the past campaigned against the liberalisation of homosexuality laws.

Perhaps the greatest concern is over the future of the delicate power-sharing arrangements that have brought peace and a degree of prosperity to Northern Ireland for the past quarter of a century.

Should anything in the DUP’s demands concern major changes to this arrangement then a return to the ‘The Troubles’ — the sectarian violence that plagued the province for a generation from the late 1960s to the mid-1990s, would be more than possible.    

UK’s chance to pull back from the brink

Later this week Britons will vote in an unnecessary election they did not want, called by an opportunistic Prime Minister who thought she could turn a modest majority in the House of Commons into a landslide.

Theresa May had checked the calendar and realised that if the Parliament had run its full course, she would face the electorate just months after having pulled the United Kingdom from the European Union when the results of that disastrous decision where beginning to bite home.

May’s Conservative Party would have been destroyed in a 2020 election and she knew it.

Instead she reasoned that by putting that date back a couple of years Britons would have time to get used to their new situation and she would be in a position to pull off yet another victory, cementing her place in history as the Prime Minister who delivered Brexit and survived.

It is a measure of May’s monumental arrogance that she truly believes she can do it — but this is not about an election in 2020 or 2022. Later in the week there is an opportunity to reflect on the course the nation is taking under the current leadership and consider whether that course is the wisest one.

I would encourage a vote for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, or in constituencies where it would do more damage to the incumbent Conservative, support for Tim Farron’s Liberal Democrats.

The best possible outcome would be a Labour minority Government, supported by the Lib-Dems on condition that the country has another chance to consider the terms on which it will exit the EU once the negotiations under Article 50 have been completed.

The referendum result of last year resulting in a 3.9 per cent majority in favour of leaving the EU must be respected and if he becomes Prime Minister, Corbyn must see it through, but Britons deserve a second vote when the facts of exit are confirmed and not obscured by nationalist slogans and jingoistic flag waving.  

It is not without some soul-searching that I urge this outcome against a party of which I was once a supporter and a member. When I was a boy Winston Churchill was still Prime Minister. I was born on the same day that Churchill, in a speech in Switzerland, advocated a “United States of Europe” as insurance that the continent would never again be plunged into a ruinous war.

And I was in the press gallery in Westminster when Edward Heath put his career on the line in a decision over whether the UK should except the terms negotiated for EU entry. “Without a vote in favour this Government cannot reasonably continue”.

Now I look at the current front bench — Johnson, Hunt, Leadsom, Davis — a medley of mediocrity, talent-challenged timeservers led by an opportunist with an inflated ego who would rather bring the country to ruin than consider compromise.

Electing Corbyn will certainly be a leap in the dark, better that than a plunge into oblivion.