Why reason, courage & collaboration are now the most critical (political) qualities
Events of the past week have demonstrated that there are still both rational and moral politicians in the British Parliament.
One thing is clear: if the so-called Rebel Alliance is successful in heading off a No Deal Brexit, they will have done as great a service to this country (and to our friends in Europe) as anything that has been achieved since the establishment of the EU.
Crashing out of Europe without a deal would be a catastrophe. That so many lifetime Tory politicians, including former cabinet ministers, have been prepared to put their careers on the line to prevent No Deal is testament not only to the very serious threat to our economy and society that they believe it poses but it also speaks to their courage and moral fibre.
Perhaps the most impressive article that I have read this week was penned by Ivan Rogers in the Spectator. It is impressive not only for its length, but mainly because the writer supports Brexit. However, he argues passionately against the government's handling of Brexit, and the disingenuous proposal that negotiating a deal with Brussels, let alone the multiple trade deals that are consequent to Brexit, would ever have been a quick & easy affair.
“The idea, peddled by ministers, that businesses would have the ‘clarity’ and ‘certainty’ they need about the UK’s ultimate destination after a ‘no deal’ exit in eight weeks time, is laughable. They would not even know whether there would be ANY sort of preferential trading arrangement (in other words, one going substantially beyond WTO commitments, but going substantially less deep than Single Market and Customs Union membership, and hence delivering lower volumes of trade with the Continent than we have now) with our largest trading partner, let alone what sort and when... This would be the worst possible outcome for the UK economy and for the public finances. The tax take implications would dwarf the sums politicians obsess about on the UK’s EU budget contribution. Fantasies of a Brexit dividend would perish rather fast in the public accounts.”
This government, and its current leader, seem intent on meeting an arbitrary deadline come hell or high water ("I'd rather be dead in a ditch...") rather than focus on achieving a deal to leave the EU on terms which neither damage our economy severely or ruin our society. It is massively irresponsible, and based on ego rather than rationality. A rush to a No Deal Brexit in no way represents 'bulldog spirit', but rather brings to mind 'poodle foolishness'.
The CBI (Confederation of British Industry) has consistently argued against a No Deal Brexit. Carolyn Fairburn, its Director-General, has made the following statements: “Make no mistake, no-deal cannot be ‘managed’. And it’s certainly not desirable." In the past week she was quoted as saying that "more and more [companies] are deeply concerned about the long-term effect on their competitiveness; they are seeing a loss of market share internationally that is very hard to claw back."
The government's attitude to those who are passionately putting the brakes on No Deal has at best been misguided. The image of Jacob Rees Mogg lounging on the front bench will doubtless haunt him for the rest of his career: hubris and disdain in the midst of a debate about the future of the country do not suggest either a respect for parliamentary colleagues or a desire to seek negotiated progress. It would not be tolerated in a business environment and demonstrates a failure to understand the obligations of leadership.
And therein lies the rub. Finally, at the 11th hour and 59th minute, those who have argued against No Deal have come together to defeat the government's intent to hamstring our economy. It is notable that this is not about preventing Brexit per se (although many of them wish to do this) but about stopping No Deal. The difference between a negotiated exit and a non-negotiated exit is like day and night.
It is on this principle that a number of Tory MPs have rebelled. This is not about disrespecting the referendum result, but about distinguishing between a headlong rush over the cliff-edge and a negotiated exit which would offer compromise on both sides. The government needs to rediscover an appetite for rational decision-making and settlement-seeking. As one man said to the PM when he was on walkabout in Yorkshire: “you should be in Brussels negotiating”.
The qualities so valued by business are those which should be the aspiration of politicians. Public service, like all forms of leadership, is all about acting in the best interests of one's stakeholders - in this case, the people. Effective leadership depends on calm and rational assessment of facts, changing course as the landscape changes and welcoming all voices, especially those which raise uncomfortable truths.
The analogy with what is happening within the Tory party is palpable: it is far easier to expel those who disagree with you, than attempt to find common ground. It is the Trumpian approach - 'my way or the high way'. This type of macho, command and control decisiveness is easily confused with 'strength'. The reality is that it often stems from fear. And it always leads to division and the weakening of effective decision-making.
Such an approach - both in business and in politics - might be successful in the short term, but if we are to solve any of the current crises in the world, calm heads, patience and an appetite to sit down with one's political or ideological opponents in good faith will be critical.
[The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organisation, employer or company.]