Theresa May: Crisis of Confidence and Leadership.

One thing that has become clear during Theresa May's tenure as prime Minister is her innate inability to trust the people she has employed in cabinet.

The strength of a true leader is to first select people they can trust and then inspire them to do the best job they can. A true leader doesn't micro-manage, but instead has the confidence to let their team get one with the small stuff while the leader leads.

Insetad at Chequers we had a prime example why Theresa May is not a leader.

She set up the DexEU department with David Davis as head and set them the task of negotiating Brexit. Now a good leader would set clear general terms about the way they want the negotiations to go forward after forming a concensus with the wider team. David Davis and the DexEu team went forward with what they thought was the best plan to acheive Brexit; the so-called Canada+++ option, where the UK would pick out the best bits of trade agreements already negotiated with non-EU countries and use those agreements as a framework that best suits the UK. So frictionless trade subject to strict adherence to EU standards (but only for UK-EU trade, not the whole country).

The DexEU even went to the trouble and expense of producing a white paper outlining the framework they would be working to.

Cue the Chequers Friday and the neurotic response from May. Phones forbidden and official cars removed from those who didn't sign up to her totally different white paper. That's right: her and her staff in No.10 went to the trouble and expense of coming up with a totally separate white paper usurping the DexEU one.

The sign of a poor leader: micro-management, neuroses, mistrust and plain bad management.

That's why the government has been consumed with Brexit and cannot get on with doing any other government stuff: she is so neurotic that she has to micro-manage the outcome of Brexit. Some would say that she is being pushed by outside forces in Whitehall, the establishment and the civil service. Those pro-remainers that have her ear and work against those that want a true Brexit.

The same goes for the previous election, where she took poor advice and allowed the release of the "dementia tax" details, which alienated a huge swathe of Conservative voters and almost lost her the election. The election run-up was trip after trip, pratfall after pratfall... The Tory party appeared divided, chaotic, unled.

A good, true leader would be able to let go and allow the DexEU to work on it's own to get the best result for Britain whilst taking care of the big picture.

A good, strong leader would have assigned a cabinet team she could trust, rather than assigning one for political expediency.

A good leader would have not run for leader if they couldn't deliver true leadership. A poor leader runs for leadership to massage their ego, or to assuage their competitive nature.

I know which I think Theresa May is.

Dear Prime Minister.....Why I Voted for Brexit and WHAT I voted for.

Dear Theresa May,

I would like this opportunity to explain to you why I have decided to in future elections vote for UKIP at every opportunity and for the first time ever in my life, have become a member of a political party; UKIP.

First let me explain that on the 26th of June 2016 I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU because it is undemocratic: I cannot vote for or against members of the EU commission, they are appointed.

I voted to leave because if we are to hand over more power to the EU in the future such as budget oversight, taxation, control of Armed Forces, etc. then by the same token the EU comission should become more open and democratic and allow the election of its members.  But there are no plans to do this in tandem with increased power.

I voted to leave because we cannot control our own economy and public services. How can we plan future spending on the NHS, Housing and welfare if we have no control over the numbers of people using those services?

I voted to leave because when David Cameron went to the EU and explained the risk of the UK leaving the EU was high all the concessions he asked for were rejected. Our own democratically elected leader was overruled and refused by an undemocratic elite.

I voted leave because on the balance of probabilities, I decided that we would be more free to make decisions that affect our lives out of the EU than in it. That we would have the freedom to make deals around the globe on our own terms, without having to drag the other countries of the EU along with us.

I voted leave because I believe that any short-term financial losses will be recouped several times over once we are free to make our own way in the world.

I voted leave to end free movement of people and regain control of immigration. Without control over the number of people entering the country, how can a government project future expenditure on public services?

Having set out why I voted to leave, please let me explain why I will not now vote for your party in future, despite having voted Conservative many times before.

I believe the proposal in the Chequers White paper does not deliver an exit from the EU apparatus. Although you can spin it as leaving the EU (which in essence we will do as we leave the EU Parliament and the EU Council etc.) it is not leaving the influence of the EU political elite.

The EU Council, Comission and Parliament will all continue to make laws, rules and regulations that we would be mandated by the Chequers agreement to comply with.

Being forced into regulatory alignment (sticking to the EU's rules) is not leaving.the EU.

Regulatory alignment forces us to produce goods to EU specifications regardless of whether they are destined for sale in the EU. Only 15% of our economy is reliant on trade with the EU, the rest is generated internally and by trade with the rest of the world. So why should 15% of the economy dictate how the other 85% trades, effectively adding a tariff to trade within the UK.

Regulatory Alignment also assumes that we will accept EU tariffs on goods imported, so as not to undermine imports into the EU. I would think that the EU would take a dim view if we imported goods into the UK at lower tariff rates and then shipped those goods into the rest of the EU.

Such restrictions prevent us setting our own tariff rates and agreeing deals on imports with other countries. Such restrictions on imports and international trade can only damage our prosperity after March 2019.

Collecting tarriffs set by the EU on behalf of the EU is not leaving the EU.

Not allowing the freedom to trade on our own terms with other countries  is not leaving the EU.

This one critical restriction within the Chequers proposal is enough to prevent me from supporting your party or any other party that votes in favour of it.

Another is border control. One of the key promises from yourself when you took power was to take control of our borders. However, the chequers proposal is actually the opposite. It works to keep an open border between the UK and the EU. I can understand the thony issue of the border in Ireland was forefront in your mind regarding this issue, but teh Chequers propoal does not address how the transfer of people as opposed to goods across the border can be controlled.

Regulatory alignment assumes an open border. An open border assumes free movement of people. Free movement of people and uncontrolled immigration was supposed to be a red line. It has been crossed, so therfore I cannot vote for a party that supports it.

In essence I suppose I wanted a more dynamic and refreshing approach to the issues caused by Brexit
and a harder and more pragmatic approach to the negotiations. I can see that I have been let down.

My own preference would be for the 15% of the economy that needs to trade with the EU countries and requires regulatory alignment, to have an independent regulatory verification system funded by themselves to allow frictionless trade. The form the regulatory body takes and its remit to be agreed by negotiation with the EU.

That way 85% of the economy is free to trade without encumbrance from the EU and we have the best chance of prosperity.

But the Chequers proposal crosses several supposed red lines as outlined in several speeches you had made previously. Exssentially you have gone back on every one of those speeches and red lines. You have broken promises made to the electorate and the wider world.