Brexit delay is the best thing that could happen to the Tories

A ‘cashmere’
Brexit would strengthen the Conservative Party’s rule in coming years
And so the
frustration in Brussels grows. Following Wednesday’s emergency European Council
summit Brexit is again postponed. Journalists are already having a field day
with their Halloween horror headlines. There is no confidence in the EU that
Theresa May can deliver any sort of agreement that will gain a Westminster
majority.
The European Parliament is aghast at the
prospect of a significant proportion of British MEPs causing havoc in Brussels
after the forthcoming May elections.
Yet,
although this delay is portrayed as another failure of the Conservative Party
government, the opposite is true. Rather than cause a British (or English)
political revolution, a delayed Brexit will actually solidify existing
political structures. Brexit – soft, but real – will strengthen Tory rule in
the coming years. Extended Tory hegemony is inevitable.
As the
Fabian Society has pointed out, the British Labour Party is becoming
increasingly concentrated in major cities with higher levels of ethnic
diversity and young adults. But, even more importantly, in areas most commonly
defined as “working class” there has been a noticeable swing to the
Conservatives since 2005.
Although,
the current “first past the post” British voting system mitigates against
dramatic upheaval, the longer-term implications are clear. Limited potential
for future electoral gains for the Labour Party in urban areas (for example,
Labour already holds 23 out of 27 seats in Greater Manchester) coupled with the
potential for the Conservatives to gain traction, if not seats at first, in
staunchly Labour, but Brexit supporting areas.
New politics
This isn’t
science fiction, or even political fantasy. It’s the new politics of the
vulnerable, disconnected masses.
A Tory party
– with an engaging and coherent leader (surely there must be one) – should be
able to act as an umbrella for all Brexit supporters from the hard right to the
more malleable centre regardless of the short-term back-stabbing and chaos.
Will Jacob
Rees-Mogg and his European Research Group (ERG) friends really prefer the
principled isolation of Westminster to the Conservative high table? The Tories
are too fond of power for that. In fact, the composition of the “Independent
Group” in Westminster shows that while the Tories may splinter, Labour might
lose a whole branch.
For the
Conservatives today the priority should be to deliver a cashmere Brexit
The absence
of a co-ordinatedRemainer group in the Conservatives also renders their overall
strategic position relatively clear. Hard Brexit or soft Brexit is up for
discussion, but Brexit it will be.
Those who
will leave the Tories over Europe have, in fact, already left. Closet
Remainers, such as Phillip Hammond, will never jeopardise party unity for
Europe. They simply don’t care enough about Brussels to make that leap.
Moderate,
pro-European Tories – such as Anna Soubry and Nick Boles – have already been
written out of Conservative Party history. Kenneth Clarke stands as a noble and
proud throwback to a different age, and a different Tory party.
Finally, any
sort of Brexit – be it May’s deal or anything softer – will allow the Tories to
make a coherent election pitch lifted straight from Labour Party policy: we
delivered Brexit but simultaneously protected jobs and trade in the long run.
This isn’t
really coherent policy or even good for Britain, but its clever politics and
would make the most of May’s dreadful period in charge. This approach will also
allow the Ulster unionists to sing loudly of the United Kingdom’s territorial
integrity, while maintaining British commitments to maintaining an open Border
in Ireland. It’s a solution with a little bit of something for everybody.
Suez Crisis
Of course,
in a political context, the fissures of Brexit aren’t that unique. The Suez
Crisis of 1955/56 was marked by Conservative Party splits (including a “Suez
Group” whose emotionally charged nationalism echoes clearly in today’s ERG),
divided families and ultimately caused the fall of a Tory prime minister. But
Suez, driven by an almost visceral need to sustain a global role, ultimately
failed because of economic realities and American pressure.
However, Suez
is more important because it shows a pathway forward for the Conservatives.
Suez did not spell electoral disaster for the Tory party or for the British
economy. Under Harold Macmillan (ironically one of the staunchest initial
backers of military action in Suez) the Conservative Party successfully
retained power in 1959 with a larger majority.
Increasing
middle-class mobility, economic growth and a recast Anglo-American alliance
(albeit with Britain as very much the junior partner) sustained a relatively
harmonious political landscape for the Tories up to the early 1960s.
For the
Conservatives today the priority should be to deliver a cashmere Brexit; soft
to the touch but warm enough to repel the chill from the political extremes.
This is not
the best solution for Britain, nor for Europe. But Brussels has resigned itself
to Britain leaving. For us who support the wider European integration project,
there can (and should be) no turning back.