THE growing gulf between politicians, and the public is illustrated by today’s Brexit developments and how they will play out with voters.
For, while Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd is the latest to threaten mutiny if she, and others, cannot vote to rule out a no-deal Brexit, a new report reveals how Brexit could, potentially, put the health of children at risk.
And while Brexiteers will dismiss this as Project Fear – their default response – its veracity will register with parents because the warning comes from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Even more so, mothers and fathers will be so unforgiving if top paediatricians can no longer work here, or there are difficulties sourcing lifesaving medicines for seriously-ill children, that the fallout will eclipse Theresa May’s current woes.
It also explains the frustration that was self-evident when it emerged that there was no discernible difference between Mrs May’s original Brexit plan and the revised strategy that she presented to MPs. Not only was the Prime Minister in denial of the fact that her EU Withdrawal Agreement was defeated by a record 230 votes, but the outcome of the 2017 election was a hung parliament which changed the dynamics of debate and decision-making.
And as The Yorkshire Post ventured on Monday, the best way forward is a series of non-indicative indicative votes on the main Brexit options to see where agreement in the House of Commons might be forged. By giving Ministers and MPs a free vote, it also lessens the risk of politicians like Ms Rudd, and many others, feeling compelled to resign before the PM changes her mind.
Far from undermining the Government’s ability to control events, it would be an act of statesmanship that would lessen the risk of a no-deal Brexit – and all that this scenario will entail for the economy and the future of services like the NHS.