The Daily Telegraph - 06.08.2019

The Daily Telegraph Tuesday 6 August 2019 *** 15

I

f I was a Remainer, I’d be in panic

mode. Britain is scheduled to leave

the EU by legal default on October

31 without a deal. In the past, we could

trust that wouldn’t happen because

Theresa May wanted a withdrawal

agreement at all costs and Parliament

could block Brexit if she didn’t. But

now we have a brand spanking new

PM, Boris Johnson, who wants out on

the 31st, with or without a deal. And

his top thinker says that Parliament

has run out of time to stop him.

I suspect Dominic Cummings is

only half right. He argues that when

Parliament returns in September, it

could trigger a vote of no confidence

and bring down the Government – but

the PM is then free to delay a poll until

after October 31, by which time Britain

would be out of the EU anyway. The

House of Commons Library confirms

this is true, and there’s something

rather appealing about the

Government just running down the

clock. If I was Boris, I’d swan off to

Barbados for three months and keep

my phone on silent.

Ah, but there are always other

things Remainers could do to create

trouble. Speaker John Bercow would

probably support emergency debates;

MPs could use any no-deal legislation

to pass fiddly amendments. And if

there was a vote of no confidence, and

if Boris did lose that vote, the

Commons would then have an

opportunity to find a replacement PM.

Dominic Grieve MP summed it up like

this: “Bringing down the Government

and setting up a new one in its place.”

Well, that sounds simple, doesn’t it?

And who exactly would lead this

government? Who is the Remain

movement’s Oliver Cromwell, ready to

burst into Parliament and restore

sanity? Jeremy Corbyn? He can’t even

unite his own party and his position on

Brexit is as clear as mud. Sweary Jo

Swinson? Rory “I smoked opium at a

wedding” Stewart?

And what would this all-star

coalition do? It could call an election,

but Boris might win. It could delay

Brexit a bit longer, but what happens

next? One can imagine this Remainer

alliance passing the very withdrawal

agreement that Mrs May negotiated

and most of them voted against three

times.

There’s a reason why the options are

limited. We hear a lot about how bad

Brexiteers are at politics, and for good

reason: since the referendum they’ve

been divided and fumbled every move

(which is how Mrs May became PM to

begin with). But the endless delay of

the Brexit project has masked some

serious failings among the Remain

movement. They’ve failed to coalesce

around a single party at election time.

They’ve never settled on a coherent

strategy of watering Brexit down, a

second referendum or halting it

altogether. They have no vision for

what Britain would look like if we did

stay in the EU. Would we be federalists

or pushing for reform? The cream in

Europe’s coffee or a pain in the

backside?

All of this confusion manifests itself

in the state of their parliamentary

leadership. They’re very good at

playing procedure to their advantage,

but there is no one with the heft of Roy

Jenkins or Tony Blair, or with the

personality to kick out Boris and

replace him as leader of some

government of national unity. I

suppose Chuka Umunna has been a

member of enough parties to form a

coalition of his very own (three in six

months), but otherwise they might as

well hire that bloke who stands outside

Parliament all day shouting “Stop

Brexit”. At least the poor dear knows

what he wants.

The election of Boris dramatically

changes the dynamics of Brexit, even if

the constitutional realities have stayed

the same. Perhaps there are still things

Remainers could do to frustrate Leave.

But that was a lot easier under Mrs

May because she had her deal to flog,

and because she was obsessed with

preserving the Conservative Party. She

loved it more than conservatism itself.

Mrs May is a lady of institutions;

Remainers should beg the EU for a better deal

Their old tricks won’t work

now that we have a PM

willing to break everything

in order to get Brexit done

TIM STANLEYEY

I

f Donald Trump expected China to back

down in the trade stand-off with America he

received his answer yesterday. Beijing

responded to a threat to impose new tariffs

by devaluing the currency, cheapening its

exports. The renminbi is now at its weakest

level since the financial crisis more than 10 years

ago. State-owned companies were also ordered to

halt purchases of US agricultural products.

The response cannot have come as a surprise to

the White House. The latest trade data show

American imports from China fell by 12 per cent in

the first six months of the year and a devaluation is

one way of off-setting the losses. Moreover,

President Trump has threatened a 10 per cent tariff

on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods not

covered by previous announcements, to take effect

on September 1. Mr Trump may now hit back by

increasing the proposed tariffs beyond 10 per cent.

China’s central bank had kept its currency at

seven to the dollar for as long as there was a

prospect of a deal between Washington and

Beijing to end the tit-for-tat tariff increases. The

fact it was allowed to fall below that long-term

floor suggests the Chinese have given up on that

prospect, at least in the short term. China is also

sitting on $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves

which it could weaponise, though the dollar now

makes up just over half the total.

We are witnessing skirmishes by both sides in

what may yet turn into a fully fledged trade war in

which nobody wins, with the UK caught in the

middle. Mr Trump came to power in 2017 intent on

rebalancing the US trade relationship with China

and he feels an obligation to the workers in

industries hardest hit by cheap imports to make

good on his promises.

He has a valid concern about the unfair

subsidisation of Chinese goods and the impact of

cheap imports on jobs in the US. The

administration denies that it is commercially

isolationist but that it is no longer prepared to

tolerate “inappropriate behaviour” by trading

partners, and it is right to point to the hypocrisy of

countries that claim adherence to free trade yet

mask their own self-interested protectionism.

On the other hand, from the UK’s point of view a

trade war can only be harmful, especially on the

eve of Brexit. As the political leader of a mercantile

nation with good connections to the White House,

Boris Johnson should urge the president to keep a

dialogue with Beijing open.

US-China trade war

will only have losers

M

cDonald’s replaced its plastic straws with

paper ones, accompanied by some fanfare,

calling the new kind “eco-friendly”. Yet,

the old plastic straws could be recycled, and the

new paper ones can’t. That, it appears, is partly

because they were made thicker after complaints

of sogginess from shake and Coke consumers.

McDonald’s uses 1.8 million straws a day in the

United Kingdom, and each one had seemed a kiss

blown to the kindly gods of environmentalism.

Now each one seems more like a jab in the eye. So,

if you were thinking of consuming 5 per cent of

your daily calories in the form of the 27 grams of

sugar dissolved in a small McDonald’s Coke, you

might bring your own straw, perhaps one of those

splendid silver items used for sipping mate tea. It

would certainly keep it looking bright.

Who gives a straw?

T

his is the time of year when millions of

people look forward to putting the trials and

tribulations of everyday life behind them and

head off abroad on holiday. Yet if they are booked

to fly through Heathrow Airport or on board a BA

flight – or most likely both – then the next few

weeks will be anything but relaxing.

Just the threat of a stoppage by staff at the airport

led to the cancellation of flights on Monday even

though the strike was called off pending further

talks. A threatened 24-hour walk-out by members

of the Unite union, including security staff,

firefighters and engineers may yet go ahead later

this month. They have voted against a pay offer

Heathrow said was worth 7.3 per cent over two-

and-a-half years.

Meanwhile, holidaymakers are also braced for a

strike by BA pilots who have rejected a pay deal

worth 11.5 per cent over three years. Everyone

appreciates that pilots have great responsibility

and are entitled to high rewards for their skills. But

since average salaries are around £160,000 rising

to more than £200,000, few passengers who find

themselves stranded will have any sympathy with

their action should it go ahead.

To stage these disputes at this time of the year in

order to obtain maximum leverage is cynical and

mean-spirited. People earning far less than the

pilots or getting no rise at all, unlike the ground

staff, will have their holidays wrecked or will have

the additional expense of paying for alternative

flights.

If the unions insist on having this fight, despite

what to many people look like perfectly good

offers, then they should do so outside the holiday

season.

Unfair disruption

established 1855

Boris is motored by ideas, some of

them very radical. He is in No 10

specifically to do something – deliver

Brexit – and he is willing to blow up

the political order, including his own

party, to get it done. He’s spending the

money on no-deal planning; he’s

touring the country, cuddling

chickens, preparing us for what feels,

day by day, more and more like the

inevitable. Remainers: you are not

dealing with Mrs May now. If you are

as serious about saving your country

as you say you are, you need to accept

your limits and explain the new

situation to EU negotiator Michel

Barnier. He has become your best shot

at avoiding a crash-out Brexit. How?

By sitting down with Boris and giving

him whatever he asks for.

Think of it as a game of chicken.

Two cars drive towards each other,

Britain and the EU: the first to swerve

loses. Mrs May would stick her head

out of the window and shout: “Don’t

worry, Mr Barnier, I have no intention

of hitting you!” She swerved every

time.

Boris has his foot on the pedal like a

lunatic and is going at 100 miles per

hour. Rather than waste their breath

trying to dissuade him, Remainers

should concentrate their voices on the

EU car. “Swerve, Michel! For the love

of God, swerve!”

We accept letters

by post, fax and

email only. Please

include name,

address, work and

home telephone

numbers.

111 Buckingham

Palace Road,

London

SW1W 0DT

FAX

020 7931 2878

EMAIL

dtletters@

telegraph.co.uk

FOLLOW

Telegraph Letters

on Twitter

@LettersDesk

FOLLOW Tim Stanley on Twitter

@timothy_stanley; READ MORE at

telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Letters to the Editor

SIR – Liam Halligan (Comment, August

1) explains the problem of falling home

ownership in terms of a shortage of

housing leading to high (unaffordable)

prices. Indeed, he mentions that,

outside London and its hinterland, the

average price is eight times earnings.

In 1969 our first mortgage was five

times my husband’s earnings.

Given a free market, prices will

always reflect the balance between

supply and demand, and increased

supply will lead to lower prices (other

things being equal).

However, the matter of affordability,

rather than actual prices, is more

interesting. Three issues might be

important here. One is a wife’s income

(since the practice of using two

incomes to support a mortgage makes

more money chase the same housing

stock, which causes higher prices).

Two more factors are student loans

(a drain on earnings) and personal

spending habits (buying the latest

white and brown goods, holidays, etc).

We certainly need changes in

planning laws and an increased supply

of houses but these are not the only

factors. Social issues and people’s

expectations also play a large part in

decisions about home ownership.

Pamela Wheeler

Shrewsbury

SIR – Liam Halligan makes a

compelling case for making land more

affordable. Landowners chalk up high

profits each year while the chronic

shortage of social housing is causing

rising levels of homelessness and

overcrowding.

Our research shows that as many as

145,000 affordable homes need to be

built each year to meet current

demand. A key way of doing this is by

reforming land laws to make land

cheaper. However, this alone won’t

solve the problem.

The Government urgently needs to

commit more funding to build social

housing, which has been drastically

cut over the last decade. To build the

homes needed requires £12.8 billion

each year for the next 10 years.

If Boris Johnson is serious about

uniting the country, he must make

tackling the housing crisis a central

policy focus of his premiership.

Kate Henderson

Chief Executive, National Housing

Federation

London WC

SIR – In our eighth decade, my wife

and I have had the chance to acquire a

small piece of land and build a house

suitable for a future of reduced

mobility. We wanted fewer bedrooms

but more living space and no stairs.

We began to plan a bungalow but

found that a design allowing the later

construction of a second floor would

be desirable. It became clear that

actually building the upstairs was

more practical and beneficial, partly as

20 per cent VAT was avoided.

We therefore live happily

downstairs in a large chalet bungalow,

now redundant upstairs, but which, in

not so many years to come, will be

most suitable for a larger family.

David Leech

Balcombe, West Sussex

How a wife’s income leads to fewer people owning their own homes Misfiring Barmy Army

SIR – Can I heartily congratulate the

English spectators who derided and

booed with gusto the Australian

batsman Steve Smith, hoping that this

would cause him to feel

uncomfortable and fail with the bat?

A century in the first innings and

142 in the second would suggest the

idiots got it wrong – again.

Bruce Williams

Hereford

SIR – Am I alone in regarding the

cricket fans in the “Barmy Army” as

completely beyond the pale?

Their booing of Steve Smith on his

dismissal typified their nasty jingoistic

attitudes. Of course, witty little ditties

such as We Saw You Cry on the Telly are

to be much admired for their

erudition.

Even more disconcerting are

comments of pundits on Sky and Test

Match Special who really should know

better. I would ask them to stop giving

these boorish fans their approbation.

Peter Wilkinson

Belper, Derbyshire

SIR – Watching the coverage of the

cricket at Edgbaston, it was lovely to

see shots of retired players and of fans

in amusing fancy dress. I found it such

a refreshing change from Wimbledon,

where most crowd shots are of

“celebrities”, most of whom seem to

have little interest in the game.

Tony Manning

Barton on Sea, Hampshire

NHS’s poor spending

SIR – You argue (Leading article,

August 5) that money will not solve the

crisis in the NHS. However, improving

money management might have some

impact. From ministers down to local

trust finance chiefs, taxpayers’ money

has been badly managed for too long.

Keeping the cost of new hospitals

off the balance sheet has resulted in

hugely expensive PFI projects. There

is a long record of paying far too much

for drugs and equipment. The NHS

spends hundreds of thousands of

pounds training doctors, only to rent

them back at extortionate rates from

get-rich-quick agencies.

The NHS is the largest employer in

Britain and its pension scheme is

unfunded. That is the most expensive

way by far for an employer to provide

a pension, and it is sucking a lot of

money out of the NHS’s core business.

As with so much in the public

sector, governments look the other

way instead of confronting the

problem. Blaming an ageing

population is just a little too

convenient.

Bill Parish

Bromley, Kent

SIR – What other organisation would

have a £1.8 billion cash injection

described as a “drop in the ocean”?

Simon Olley

Kemsing , Kent

SIR – You rightly say that money alone

will not solve the crisis in the NHS.

Dominic Cummings should be

available for a new job on November 1

• just enough time to sort out the NHS
  before winter.
  Thomas W Jefferson
  Howden, East Yorkshire

Cyclists block London

SIR – On Sunday I had to walk five

miles to visit an 88-year-old

housebound friend because roads

were closed across London to

accommodate a bicycle ride.

Why should thousands of members

of the public have their weekend

spoiled so that cyclists can clog up the

roads on a jolly?

Gill Tweed

London SW

Holocaust memorial

SIR – The Archbishop of Canterbury

claims that locating the Holocaust

Memorial and Learning Centre “right

next to the home of our democracy”

would have powerful symbolism

(report, August 3). But why exactly?

The Holocaust was not caused by a

lack of democracy but by racial and

religious hatred, against which

democracy is not necessarily a

protection. The symbolism of

Parliament relates to something

different, namely making rulers

accountable to the people. There is no

reason why placing a Holocaust

memorial near it will have any effect

on the views of politicians or the

actions of future governments.

A memorial and a learning centre

commemorating the murder of six

million people would surely be

powerful enough in its own right.

Locating it next to Parliament will add

little to its impact, but will impose a

huge building project on a small and

precious riverside park.

The Archbishop is perhaps unaware

that no comparison of alternative sites

has been made, or that the UK

Holocaust Memorial Foundation chose

Victoria Tower Gardens on the day it

was proposed, with the prime minister

announcing it a mere 14 days later.

In its present form, the project is an

example of the political class virtue

signalling at the expense of ordinary

Londoners. The Government should

reopen the search for a suitable site.

Dr Dorian Gerhold

London SW

US gun control

SIR – Whether or not the right to bear

arms should still be part of the

American constitution is debatable.

But surely who can own them is not.

Peter Scott

Clevedon, Somerset

Sporting sermons

SIR – Sport in cathedrals (Letters,

August 5) is nothing new. Sermon

cricket has been played in Winchester

Cathedral by generations of pupils at

the Pilgrims’ School.

The rules are recorded in the back

of a hymn book and attribute runs,

wickets, catches, etc, to certain key

ecclesiastical words. It is a very

satisfactory arrangement, giving the

impression of studious concentration.

Appeals have to be stifled, of course.

A friend of mine once achieved the

remarkable feat of six sixes in an over

during an address by the Dean.

Alex McKinlay

Farnham, Surrey

Water, water everywhere: heavy rain at Lumsdale Falls, Derbyshire, in the Peak District

TRACEY WHITEFOOT / ALAMY

sir – The Peak District is renowned

for its open views and easy walking

on smooth, grassy hills.

The downside is that rain runs

into the rivers and streams quickly,

which can result in rapid flooding.

This National Park area is critical as

it lies between major urban areas

• Manchester to the west, Sheffield
  to the east, and Leeds and Bradford
  slightly further to the north. There
  are dozens of reservoirs around the
  edges of the park, and the situation
  at Whaley Bridge (report, August 5)
  could affect many similar sites.
  The park authorities should
  consider planting large areas with
  trees to curb runoff in the most
  dangerous watersheds. This would
  not mean losing all of the open
  ground, but it would allow for more
  effective water management.
  Professor Arthur Morris
  Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire

sir – Today, no one in their right

mind would construct a significant

reservoir immediately above the

dwellings of 6,500 people.

The solution at Whaley Bridge?

Drain and abandon the reservoir,

construct channels large enough to

take away the water currently

draining into the reservoir in storm

conditions, and use the recovered

land for allotments and vegetable

growth. The time is right to relieve

these good people from the daily

anxiety they will otherwise face.

Robin Colby

Bickington, Devon

sir – The dam at Whaley Bridge is

managed by a charity that is also in

charge of 1,500 locks, 300 aqueducts

and other reservoirs of Victorian or

earlier vintage. It has tenuous

oversight by Defra. Another fact not

being considered is that there was a

flood in 1872 when twice as much

rain fell in half the time, without the

dam failing.

Is it appropriate for a charity to

run this kind of infrastructure

without rigorous oversight? And is

climate change really causing an

increase in extreme weather in this

area (Letters, August 5)?

Peter Owen

Woolpit, Suffolk

Why the Peak District is prone to flooding

SIR – The Royal Navy should invest in

Swedish Skjold-class corvettes.

These “surface-effect” stealth craft

can manage more than 60 knots, and

are ideally suited to covering distances

in relatively smooth waters such as

those in the Strait of Hormuz.

Dr Jim Finlayson

Beauly, Inverness-shire

SIR – Probably the most cost-effective

of the surface vessels deployed in the

Battle of the Atlantic were the sloops

used by the escort and hunter-killer

groups.

Would it not be possible to augment

the Navy’s operational capabilities by

building, say, a dozen of these ships?

They are economical, versatile and

able to carry a formidable armament.

Derek Walker

York

Corvettes are the key to a nimbler Navy

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS