On the Record | Brexiteers Don’t Want Democracy; They Want Freedom

Please see my January 30^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexiteers Don’t Want Democracy; They Want Freedom’:

When the United Kingdom exits the European Union late on Friday, Brexit will be hailed as a victory for British democracy. Three times Britons voted to leave the EU and “take back control”: in June 2016, when the Leave campaign won at the EU referendum; in the general election the following June, when the vast majority of voters cast ballots for parties promising to fulfill the referendum will of the people (even though the Conservative party itself only achieved a minority government); and finally in December 2019 — the second general election in as many years — after months and months of Remainer parliamentary obstruction, Britons overwhelming elected Boris Johnson on the pledge to “get Brexit done.” Third time’s the charm.

But is this really a victory for democracy? Yes, on the face of it, if by democracy you mean one person, one vote. On the other hand, Britons were subjected, figuratively and literally, to months of their elected representatives in the House of Commons hell-bent on frustrating that self-same will, all in the name of parliamentary democracy.

The prime minister and no less than Elizabeth II, fulfilling their legitimate constitutional powers to prorogue Parliament, were vetoed by an unaccountable UK Supreme Court, “miraculously” imbued with the ability to augur that the Head of State and her First Minister were motivated by malevolent intent against democracy. Thus vetoed, Boris Johnson was forced to return to the Commons, cap in hand, to the repellent glee of Remainers. Brexiteers were rightfully outraged, while the establishment was unconvincingly nonplussed. They hear “the fury in your words, but not your words,” to summon up Shakespeare.

What is it about democracy that Brexiteers dislike? Most would never put the question so bluntly and, if queried, would proclaim themselves the most proud and patriotic democrats in all of England. Except … Why do politicians and more perniciously, “public” servants, put their interests above those whom they have sworn to serve?

Were justification required, we could put the blame on Edmund Burke, who infamously told his Bristol electors that MPs “owe you, not his industry only, but his judgment.” Furthermore, “he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke protested.

Burke’s political nostrum, however, had its limits even in his own day, let alone in ours. In truth, we need go no further than to admit that public officials are usually no more “public-spirited” than the general run of the populace. Perhaps even less so.

Brexiteers who are fully committed to British independence don’t stop at limiting the power of Brussels. They’ll extend it to Westminster, too.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Post-Brexit, Whither the EU?

Please see my January 28^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Post-Brexit, Whither the EU?’:

As in any divorce, attention is focused upon the agitator for break-up. What led to the severing of cordial relations? Why are resolution and compromise no longer options to explore? How will our “hero” fare once separation is accomplished and independence is regained? In the Brexit scenario, Britain is the protagonist, and the British people the triumphant participants in the divorce proceedings. But what of the losing side in this severing act? Whither the European Union?

Soon-to-be ex-MEP Anne Widdecombe offers her colleagues in the EU orbit some parting advice. The original “vision” of a “loose alliance of sovereign nations in a trading agreement with some sort of political co-operation” was a “noble ideal” that, had it been upheld and honored, she doubts that “Britain would now be leaving.”

Such was not to be, however. “Co-operation morphed into domination,” she laments, and “sovereignty morphed into a superstate.” With no hope of restoring the independence of states within the Union, she reasons, “Britain is going.” Nor will the UK be the first, Widdecombe warns: “I believe when we make a big success of being a competitor on your doorstep, others will follow us.”

Not all EU critics are so pessimistic. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán praises Boris Johnson and the Brexit outcome. All were against the British premier, Orbán told a press conference in Budapest — “the liberal-leftist media, the global Soros network and all the tools of the pro-remain EU” — but Johnson and the British people persevered, and “have opened this vast door of opportunities for themselves.” Hungary’s PM may be a bit envious when he said, “I’m sure there is a success story that will be written there.”

For the moment, though, Orbán is not angling to ditch the EU himself. Instead, as Breitbart London reports, Hungary “supports bringing Serbia” and similar states into the Continental union, hoping it will align with Hungary and its “conservative-minded allies in the Visegrad group” — Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland — to transform the “bloc into an alliance of sovereign nation-states, rather than a nascent federal union along U.S. lines.”

Thus are we presented with two possible models for a future EU: either decentralize, return local powers to member nations, and simply focus on areas of mutual benefit; or ignore the popular protests against Brussels’ grasping for ever more power, finally coming to fruition in Britain and now building up in the remaining E-27 members, whether that be France, Italy, or Spain.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Beware of Supposing Brexit’s Cause Is Won

Please see my January 27^th wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Beware Of Supposing Brexit’s Cause Is Won’:

“Can we easily leave the remains of such a year as this? It is all still gold,” the diarist Horace Walpole wrote as Great Britain won conquest after conquest, at France’s expense, during the final months of the Seven Years’ War. “Our bells are worn threadbare with ringing for victories.”

Yet much to the disappointment of Brexiteers, “Big Ben,” which crowns that iron choir atop the Elizabeth Tower, will “not” sound out at 11 p.m. when the United Kingdom takes its leave of the European Union and regains independence.

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly,” the Anglo-American revolutionary, Thomas Paine, wrote in the opening of “The Crisis.” “ ’Tis dearness only that gives everything its value.”

No one can claim that Brexiteers have had an easy time of it. Eurosceptics exposed the insidious nature of EU membership from the beginning. Prime Minister Thatcher marked the turning point with her “Bruges Speech” of September 1988, in which she famously declared: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

The ups and downs on the road to Brexit are too numerous to count. There was the successful June 2016 referendum to “take back control,” followed by the disastrous premiership of Theresa May, whose decision to go to the polls precipitously in June 2017 nearly ended Brexit. The resulting “Remainer Parliament” was perhaps its worst outcome — second only to Mrs. May’s compromised Withdrawal Agreement. Remainer MPs, meanwhile, kept the Tory Government tied up in knots and subject to the whims of Westminster.

In this dark hour for British independence, arises its paladin premier, Boris Johnson, who on the charge of “getting Brexit done” won electoral victory in December. The promise was that come January 31, the UK would be out of the EU. And so it is about to come to pass.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Seth Lipsky of The New York Sun.

On the Record | Countdown to Freedom and Brexit

Please see my January 25^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Countdown to Freedom and Brexit’:

How fares the average Brexiteer, with less than a week standing between Britain’s independence from the European Union? Euphoric? Or exhausted? Probably a little of both. Anxious, too, if truth be told. For while there is agreement among both Leavers and Remainers that the UK will exit the EU on January 31, what happens after is very much up in the air.

Britain’s choice to leave was grounded on its desire to regain those vital elements of sovereignty that EU membership requires to be shared with the Brussels bureaucracy. Border controls, tax and regulatory policy, trading frameworks, and legislative oversight were areas in which jurisdiction — and sovereignty — was no longer absolute. Brexiteers, meanwhile, were emphatic they wanted to take back control.

Exiting the EU at the end of January is only first step. The UK will then enter a “transition period” as it negotiates a future trading relationship with the EU-27. Prime Minister Boris Johnson promises to sign a free trade agreement by the end of year. He claims that since there is already complementarity of trade rules between the EU and the recently “departed” UK, charting the course forward ought not to be cumbersome. His EU counterparts are neither so sanguine nor so accommodating.

Fleet Street reports that the European Commission is considering curtailing any agreement to accept British goods on a “common standards” basis. Its broad aim, as European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen admitted, is to coerce Britain into aligning its trading interests with the EU on a “level playing field.” As French minister Amelie de Montchalin confessed, their goal is to stop Britain becoming “a tax haven at the gates of Europe.”

Can there be any doubt that Brussels is less interested in concluding a trade agreement with its former UK colleague than in sending a warning to prospective seceding states?

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | As Independence Nears, Matt Ridley Emerges as Brexit Sage

Please see my January 20^th wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘As Independence Nears, Matt Ridley Emerges as Brexit Sage’:

The year 2020 is but just begun and already the new decade is heralded as the “Roaring Twenties.” Such euphoria exemplifies the mood in the United Kingdom as the country prepares to exit, come the end of January, the European Union. Legislation setting out the Government’s “Withdrawal Agreement” finally passed the House of Commons a fortnight ago; little “effective” opposition is expected in the Lords.

Next comes a twelvemonth transition period to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. Brexit anticipation lies partly in “taking back” responsibilities that now rest between the two jurisdictions, on issues such as borders, legislative authority, and economic control — as in tax policy and regulatory oversight. There is palpable excitement, too, over the future potential of Britain’s re-emergence as an independent player in global trade.

Not to say that the UK has been absent from the field as a member of the European Union. Membership, however, has entailed certain restrictions on just how innovative Britain could be in respect of other member-states, with “alignment” being a key requisite.

So as Britain prepares to rejoin the global competitive market, Matt Ridley’s new pamphlet “How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take to Change the World?” is a welcome boost for Brexiteers. Mr. Ridley, author of the best-selling “The Rational Optimist,” is also a Conservative hereditary peer. This pamphlet is based on his 2018 Hayek Memorial Lecture for the Institute of Economic Affairs, based in London.

Mr. Ridley’s purpose is to defend innovation — what he calls a composite of invention, development, and commercialization — from barriers to economic growth: be they government regulations, international “restrictive” trade agreements, or “crony capitalist” rent-seekers threatened by competition. “Hostility to innovation in the European Commission and Parliament,” he asserts, “is the biggest reason I voted Leave in 2016.”

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Seth Lipsky of The New York Sun.

On the Record | Brexit Cries Out for Radical Toryism

Please see my January 18^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexit Cries Out for Radical Toryism’:

The year 2020 is only just begun and already there are expectations of repeating the promise of the early 1920s, an era of peace and prosperity early in the decade. Nowhere is this enthusiasm more evident than in the United Kingdom.

Last year ended with the Conservatives forming a majority government and Prime Minister Boris Johnson vowing that, with the power of the people behind him, he would take the country out of the European Union by the end of January. Further, he would negotiate a mutually beneficial trade deal with the Continent by the end of the year.

Failing to reach such a deal, Johnson is committed to making a “clean-break” Brexit and refocusing efforts on global bilateral trade deals. President Trump announced that his administration is eager to complete such a deal, with Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia anxious to follow suit.

Such, in part, are the Conservative government’s foreign objectives. What of its domestic agenda? Is Brexit only about Britain’s independence from the suzerainty of the European Union? What about independence for Britons at home? The late Sir Roger Scuton recognized the obstacles to leaving the comforts of the EU, but also the untapped possibilities that lay ahead. “It will be difficult, almost as difficult as our future inside the EU,” Sir Roger admitted. “But if we can unite and face our new condition with courage, we can renew our nation and its standing in the world.”

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.