Pursuing the top job in British politics immediately after the 2016 Brexit referendum — and worse, getting it — meant that from the outset Theresa May was being handed a poisoned chalice. The prime minister could have only decided to embark on this thankless journey for one of two reasons: an extreme sense of duty, or unchecked political ambition that eclipsed her better judgement. More than two years into her premiership, May cuts a lonely figure, whether she is in London, Brussels or any other European capital. She must ask herself, at least occasionally, whether she ever genuinely believed that she could lead the country from the shock result of the referendum to a smooth exit from the European Union, or whether the lure of 10 Downing Street was simply too strong for her to resist. A smooth Brexit, a fairy-tale divorce in which the two parties would live together happily ever after on either side of the Channel, was always an illusion. Instead it has turned into one of the most damaging and divisive political exercises in modern British political history — and a national embarrassment to boot. A week that was supposed to have been a decisive one in this saga, featuring a debate leading to a vote in Parliament on the final Brexit agreement between the UK and the EU, instead saw a somewhat qualified vote of confidence in the prime minister by her own party, while the Parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal she negotiated — which, it became clear, she was certain to lose — was unilaterally cancelled by her and postponed until January next year. Perhaps. May’s desperate whirlwind of shuttle diplomacy between European capitals in a quest for further concessions that might enable her to gain enough support to get the deal through Parliament has so far yielded nothing. She has lost her grip on the British political process and on her own party, and lost her way with the Brexit process. The Tory “hard-Brexiteers” last week sensed an opportune moment and, smelling blood, they called for a (no) confidence vote in the prime minister. For the 48 Conservative MPs who sent the letters calling for the vote, it was a win-win situation: either they would succeed in ousting the prime minister or they would further weaken her and, consequently, the deal she reached with Brussels, which they passionately oppose (along with Brussels itself). Their goal is to throw the political system into such turmoil that it eventually produces a “no-deal,” “hard” Brexit when Britain finally quits the EU on March 29 next year. The prime minister survived the confidence vote but this was scant cause for celebration. She was forced to declare that she would not lead her party into the next scheduled general election, in 2022. In other words: “Stick with me and I will see you and the country through the impossible Brexit, and then be elevated to the House of Lords — or go travelling around the world with my brand-new, blue British passport.” This is a rather tempting notion to many of her party “colleagues.” The reality is that the confidence vote left her and her government in tatters. Out of the 317 Conservative MPs, 117 voted to oust her. Given that 200 did not, May might be tempted to see a cup that is almost two-thirds full — but she should be more concerned by the empty third. It makes little-to-no sense for the European interlocutors to make concessions, unless they know these will be final. Yossi Mekelberg She is presiding over a coalition government in which her Northern Irish, Protestant, loyalist (loyal to the Union, that is, not to her) partners are rejecting her Brexit deal for fear that what has became known as the “backstop” agreement about the border with Ireland might lead to a united Ireland, and thus to Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom, while also dealing with the fact that so many members of her own party do not value her leadership. This is a recipe for a lame-duck prime minister and a government that might still be in office, but is only nominally in power. If May thought she would get sympathy from Brussels for her predicament, she has been forced to think again; on a personal level, maybe there is some, but regarding the negotiations, none whatsoever. It makes little-to-no sense for the European interlocutors to make concessions, unless they know these will be final, will get the support of the British parliament, and will not harm their own interests. None of these conditions are likely. What they can further offer now would have only the faintest chance of being supported by a majority of British MPs and would suck the EU into the divisive turmoil that currently defines British politics, with nothing to show for its trouble. It is not the duty of EU leaders at this point in history to compromise either their values or their interests merely to ensure unity in Britain’s Conservative Party, or even in British politics. This is a made-in-Britain calamity that must be resolved mainly by Britain. Winning the confidence vote has earned May nothing more than a stay of execution for a year, as her party’s rules dictate that she is now immune from another challenge for this period of time. That might be deceptive, though, as she could choose to call an early general election, or even a second Brexit referendum, in the hope of escaping her current predicament and saving her political skin. However, it looks like her days as leader are numbered. British politics has been renowned through the generations for its pragmatism and sense of fair play, two characteristics that have been utterly abandoned over the European question in general, and Brexit in particular. There is not much time left for parliament to start acting in the interests of the country and let it move on from this debate. Since it is increasingly obvious that there is no deal out there (including a “no-deal”), that will gain a parliamentary majority, the British people must be allowed to have their say through elections or, preferably, a second referendum featuring clear-cut questions and an honest debate ahead of the vote. That is not much to ask — unless the sovereign bodies enjoy the prospect of their country becoming a global laughing stock and an international irrelevance. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view