The Tribune

By Peter Young

Yesterday’s outcome of the European Parliament elections showed the mainstream centrist parties across the continent took a battering from populist and environmental groups which has resulted in considerable political fragmentation. The elections were a massive exercise in democracy with more than 400 million people eligible to vote and the shock outcome is inevitably dominating the news the other side of the Atlantic. Unsurprisingly, these seismic events have already overshadowed the main political development in Britain last week which was the resignation of Prime Minister Theresa May – and, since there has been only limited coverage of this on the main US TV channels, readers might be interested in some analysis.

In an emotional speech on the steps of No 10 Downing Street, at the end of which she broke down in tears, Mrs May finally succumbed to unrelenting pressure to quit and announced she would step down on June 7 after nearly three years in office. A Conservative Party leadership contest will start immediately after that, but the result will not be known for several weeks and she will stay on as Prime Minister until the process is complete.

To many, the agony of her ousting – which was nothing less than that because she was forced out by her own parliamentary colleagues – dragged on for far too long. In the end, she was given no alternative as MPs and the Tory constituency associations increasingly lost confidence in her ability to deliver Brexit which had been voted for by a relatively small majority in Britain’s 2016 referendum about the nation’s future relationship with the European Union.

Although she herself voted Remain, Mrs May, pictured right, emphasised all along the importance of honouring the referendum result because 17.4 million people had voted to depart. But she was seen to vacillate and renege on commitments while not being tough enough in protecting Britain’s interests in negotiations with the EU. So the Withdrawal Agreement that she had reached with Brussels ended up as a compromise, leaving the country half-in and half-out. This satisfied neither Leavers nor Remainers and was rejected on three separate occasions by the House of Commons. The result was the UK did not leave the EU on March 29 as agreed under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – the procedure for a member state to leave the bloc – and that led to the absurdity of Britain being forced to participate in last week’s European Parliament elections. Recently, she became an increasingly beleaguered figure who was judged to have been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by hard-headed EU negotiators.

Given the deep divisions within the Conservative Party over Europe and the intransigence of Brussels, it remains to be seen whether a new Prime Minister will have any greater success than Mrs May in forcing through Brexit by the latest agreed departure date of October 31 and keeping the Tory Party together in the process. The likelihood is the EU will continue to make the UK’s departure as awkward as possible in order to deter others from leaving.

Moving, cheekily, into more irreverent mode, my message to the soon-to-be former PM would be that she blew it all by calling a General Election in 2017 when she did not need to do so. Sitting on a workable majority, she sought to increase it as a means of boosting her authority and strengthening her hand for the Brexit negotiations. But the result was disastrous because, even though she won more seats than the Labour Party, she failed to gain an overall parliamentary majority and her fortunes started going downhill from that point.

Whatever her failures and despite being criticised for obduracy and pig-headedness, Theresa May is at the same time widely admired for her resilience and doggedness together with her dignity and commitment to duty in public life during a long and successful political career, including a record spell as Home Secretary as well as being Conservative Party chairman. Reportedly, she intends to stay on as an MP and may well find another role to play in political life in the future. That she could not push her Brexit deal over the line is seen by some as being partly the fault of MPs who, by failing to support her, were not respecting the will of the people or honouring their party manifesto.

In my view, another fatal mistake was to allow – apparently at the insistence of Brussels – the so-called divorce settlement to be separated from negotiation of a trade deal with the EU and, at the same time, not to take soundings in advance of what would be acceptable to MPs. All this caused unnecessary confusion.

Meanwhile, in the European Parliament elections in Britain the newly-established Brexit Party has carried all before it in an astonishing triumph and was the clear winner at the expense of the mainstream Conservatives and Labour, both of which suffered heavy losses and were pushed to historic lows. For the Tories, in particular, these elections were a catastrophe. It has been suggested this result is an indicator of the likely outcome if another referendum were held; but it is too soon to judge the longer term effects and how Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party would fare in a General Election.

What is for sure is the country is headed for further political turbulence in the foreseeable future.

A day when Britain and its allies stood tall

Next month’s ceremonies for the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944 will mark one of the most decisive offensives of the Second World War. It was the initial stage of the Allied assault on mainland Europe which led a year later to its liberation from Nazi Germany.

The invasion of occupied France was the greatest amphibious operation ever undertaken in the history of warfare. It involved 5,000 ships, 11,000 aircraft and 200,000 men hurled against Hitler’s much vaunted Atlantic Wall; and, of the 160,000 American, British, Canadian and French troops landed on the Normandy beaches, more than 4,000 were killed.

As part of its commemorations of the Second World War over the years, the British government has always paid special attention to D-Day. On a personal note, having been involved in organising the civilian side of the 50th anniversary in 1994-95 of D-Day and VE Day, it was an honour to have been able to attend the D-Day ceremonies in Normandy in which British ex-servicemen participated in large numbers. A quarter of a century later, next week’s events are equally significant as evidence of the continuing determination of the allied nations to remember this pivotal stage of the war and to honour the sacrifice of so many who lost their lives.

Military historians often point to the iconic photograph of Hitler viewing mainland Britain through binoculars from somewhere on the French coast in 1940. This followed Germany’s successful ‘blitzkrieg’ against the Low Countries and France, but he called off his planned invasion of Britain because of the risks of a seaborne assault. Then, standing alone, the British withstood sustained German night-time bombing raids against London and other cities following the failure of the Luftwaffe to defeat the Royal Air Force in the famous Battle of Britain. It was the first turning point of the war.

With hindsight, it can appear the success of the D-Day landings was predestined and almost inevitable, though contemporary reports suggest it did not seem that way to the planners on the eve of the invasion. But by the early months of 1944 the tide of the war had changed and the Allies were achieving increasing military success. The Germans had been defeated following the siege of Stalingrad and retreated from the Soviet Union in 1943, and they were driven out of North Africa and Sicily. So the next crucial step was to mount an attack on northwestern Europe.

The key to the success of D-Day as a part of Operation Overlord - the Allied assault on Hitler’s Europe - was the strength of the Anglo-American alliance. Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt agreed that, while containment of Japan was vital, their prime objective should be the defeat of Germany. The Americans recognised the advantage of using Britain as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’, but Churchill was aware of the risks of invading continental Europe, having been personally blamed for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign against Turkey in 1915 and having seen the failed raid on Dieppe in France in 1942 that resulted in heavy Canadian casualties. However, the big difference this time was that the preparations for D-Day included major aerial bombardment and deception about the location of the invasion together with overwhelming firepower and logistical support.

While D-Day and the liberation of Europe are kept in the public eye and brought to the attention of later generations through regular commemorative events, the importance of the Anglo-American alliance, in particular, should surely never be forgotten. The Queen and other members of the Royal Family will attend a national ceremony for the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and it is noteworthy that President Trump is also expected to attend this at the end of his state visit to Britain in early June.

Open at last - but still work to do

The official opening – finally – of a new General Post Office after months of delay was certainly a welcome sight to everyone. Not only has the public suffered from a postal system that has not been functioning properly for a long time, but it was clear the postal workers at the former East Hill location had been struggling to operate in uncomfortable and unsatisfactory conditions.

One can only hope that severe delays in delivering mail to P O Boxes will now be a thing of the past. But spare a thought for the workers in the various branch post offices around New Providence, some of whom are still carrying out their tasks in poor conditions. This appears to be a management problem. For example, at the Elizabeth Estates Post Office the air conditioning system has not been operating for some time. All those concerned earnestly hope that it will be fixed soon.