Alert: Police officers in Downing Street after Home Secretary Theresa May raised the UK's terror threat level to 'severe', 29 August. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

David Cameron to announce new plan to tackle Islamic extremist threat

The Prime Minister will make a statement in the Commons later today as parliament returns after recess and the coalition continues this morning negotiating how to widen anti-terror laws.

Following the news last week that the government has raised the terror threat level to “extreme”, David Cameron is expected to set out in the Commons how the government plans to widen anti-terror legislation, as parliament returns after recess today.

As conflict in Iraq and Syria builds, there is a mounting concern in the UK about those British nationals who are travelling overseas to join the jihadists, who may then return and pose a direct terror threat to the UK. Cameron is to speak specifically about how best to deal with British national jihadists either travelling to or returning from these zones. He promises to close what he sees as “gaps in our armoury” when it comes to anti-terror laws.

However, it won’t be that simple for Cameron. Although a matter that is clearly of highest priority to the government – whether it’s a “knee-jerk reaction”, as Paddy Ashdown and others have called it, just to look like it’s doing something, or a genuinely necessary response to a very real threat – it has become a subject of coalition contention.

The Lib Dems have clashed with the Tories over the latter’s wishes for expanding existing anti-terror legislation. It is reported that the Conservatives in government want to introduce new measures to seize passports, and also impose temporary bans on fighters travelling back from foreign conflicts. Under these new proposals, if a Briton was thought to have been involved in terrorism abroad, they could be prevented from returning to the UK for some time, although allowed to retain British citizenship, according to the BBC.

However, the Lib Dems – including high-profile figures who have been heavily involved in foreign policy in the past, such as former leader Paddy Ashdown, and current MP and former leader Ming Campbell – are concerned about the legality of these measures. Nick Clegg has been locked in talks with Cameron over the weekend, regarding the government’s response to the terror threat unfolding in light of intensifying terror acts by Islamic State (formerly known as Isis).

Also, UN conventions on statelessness mean that the government could be breaking international law with such measures as stripping people's passports, and denying them access to Britain. Tory MP and barrister Edward Garnier warned the Today programme this morning that, "parliament can pass any law it likes, but the government is already bound by two UN conventions on statelessness."

Clegg and the Lib Dems are concerned about the encroachment on civil liberties of the Tories’ proposals, and also warn about the potential illegality of rendering citizens stateless, even if done so temporarily. The Lib Dems have been accused of putting a brake on the government’s action against terrorism, although Tory Defence Secretary Michael Fallon denied this, and the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and Labour MP Hazel Blears called on the Deputy Prime Minister to “get off this kind of high horse that he’s on” and drop his opposition to the controversial control orders.

Indeed, Labour, at odds with the caution of the Lib Dems, has been calling for the return of powers allowing authorities to put jihadists under close surveillance and enabling them to force jihadists to move away from their homes if necessary, placing restrictions on their movements.

The Prime Minister will address the Commons later today, laying out the government’s plans, but his talks with the Lib Dems are likely to continue this morning, revealing the last-minute nature of the agreement over new anti-terror measures, and also hinting that the new plan will be watered down from that which the Tories were initially hoping for.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

From hard to soft to the “people’s Brexit”: Theresa May’s Britain is in one hell of a frightful mess

Nobody told me there’d be days like these.

Theresa May became Prime Minister only because of Brexit. Her insouciant predecessor, whose most substantial contribution to this year’s general election campaign was to tweet a photograph of his and his wife’s feet as they lay side by side in bed, resigned because of Brexit. May’s successor will become prime minister because of Brexit. The defining question of British politics is Brexit and its effects and consequences.

So much time, energy and anxiety are being wasted on Brexit, and for what? For Britain to negotiate a new relationship with the European Union that will be, in every way, inferior – socially, economically, culturally – to what we have already, and at a time of dangerous instability in the world, when a clown and braggart occupies the White House. Nobody told me there’d be days like these, as John Lennon once put it in a song popularised by his son Julian. Strange days indeed – most peculiar, mamma.

***

David Cameron’s decision to hold the 2016 referendum at the height of the worst refugee crisis in Europe since the end of the Second World War was an act of spectacular folly by a politician who believed too much in the myth of his own good fortune (“Lucky Dave”, they called him). Michael Portillo has described it as the greatest blunder ever made by a British prime minister. After Cameron’s resignation last summer, Theresa May seemed like the only grown-up in a cabal of entitled and squabbling leadership contenders and Conservative MPs duly organised her coronation.

When she became Prime Minister, May delivered a fine speech in Downing Street: she would create a different, more communitarian, even post-liberal conservatism, and she would fight against “burning injustice”. She understood that the vote for Brexit was also a vote of protest against a failed economic model; against austerity, against stagnant wages and in-work poverty, and against ultra-globalisation. People were weary. “I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle,” May said. “The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.”

***

Opinion polls seemed to suggest that May was admired and trusted. She was cold and austere but she also seemed serious, and these were serious times. Yet May’s actions were never equal to her early rhetorical positioning and she never reached out to the many millions who had voted Remain and felt excluded.

By the time of the general election campaign, she was reduced to repeating soundbites and clichés. She had become the Maybot. The promising “Red Tory” language of the early months of her premiership – when she spoke about the common good and the need for greater social responsibility – had gone altogether. This is a source of much regret to her maligned former joint chief of staff Nick Timothy.

“My biggest regret,” he has said, “is that we did not campaign in accordance with the insight that took Theresa to Downing Street in the first place.” With her authority and confidence shattered, May will be gone soon: in seeking to deliver the hard Brexit her Eurosceptic supporters in the party and press demanded, she has succeeded only in creating more confusion and tumult.

***

May used to tell us with supreme wisdom that “Brexit means Brexit”. In her Lancaster House speech in January, she explained her preference for a “clean” Brexit (ie, Britain should leave the single market and customs union and be outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice). Her use of the word “clean” was philosophically very interesting, especially when you consider its opposite: dirty, as in a dirty or unclean Brexit.

One of the many satisfying outcomes of the general election was that it has reopened the possibility of an alternative to hard (or clean) Brexit, for which there is no mandate in the House of Commons. I have been keeping a note of the different kinds of Brexit that are being touted.

What is clear is that the adjectives “hard” and “soft”, when prefixed to Brexit, are now quite passé. Emboldened by the improbable revival of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson favours what she calls an “open” Brexit, and so now does the preposterous Boris Johnson, too, who waits like a big, overheated, hungry dog for the door of 10 Downing Street to open for him, the saliva of ambition dribbling from his mouth.

Keir Starmer, Labour’s serious-minded barrister supreme, is against what he calls an “extreme Brexit”, even if we are not sure what he is actually for, and the Guardian opposes what it calls a “chaotic Brexit”. Andrew Adonis, the Labour peer and educationalist, supports a “sane Brexit”. The Labour activist Sam Tarry wants a “people’s Brexit”. The commentator Philip Stephens has called for an “intelligent Brexit”, as one would expect of an FT panjandrum; and ­Jeremy Corbyn, a long-standing Eurosceptic who leads a party of parliamentary Remainers, wants a Brexit that protects jobs and workers’ rights. Perhaps we should call this a “Bennite Brexit”. Do please let me know if you spot any other variations.

***

My own preference – and I write having been no great enthusiast for the EU before the referendum – is for “no Brexit”, such is the mess into which this country has been dragged by a former Conservative prime minister who believed the simple mechanism of a binary plebiscite could settle an internal party dispute; one that had festered since Ted Heath took Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973. This as well as his desire to assuage the populism of Nigel Farage and appease his tormentors in the press: and all at the time of his own choosing. Strange days indeed – most peculiar, mamma.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496