On the Record | Brexit Britain Must Ally with America

Please see my February 22^nd wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexit Britain Must Ally with America’:

Is it conceivable that Brexit passions are spent in Westminster? Have political exertions of the last four years — of devising stratagems and repelling Remainers — exhausted the fervor for independence? For while some MPs may be world-weary, rank-and-file Brexiteers are only beginning to feel their oats.

Brexiteers are not content merely to take back power from Brussels. They want to take back power from Westminster, too. They want what is rightfully theirs: self-government, in their politics and in their persons. “Oppressions and dissatisfactions being permitted to accumulate — if ever the governed throw off the load,” John Dickinson wrote of popular disaffection, “they will do more.” To wit: “A people does not reform with moderation.”

If Brexiteers are gung-ho, why is their prime minister gummed up? Last week’s Cabinet shuffle suggested Boris Johnson, satisfied with taking Britain out of the European Union, is less eager to follow British independence to its logical conclusion: downsizing Whitehall. Instead, as Breitbart London’s James Delingpole reports, the Government’s focus is becoming, “Are you with us or against us?”

The Brexit baffle now threatens to impact Britain’s global agenda. The prime minister postponed a planned February meeting (itself pushed back from January) with President Donald Trump, rescheduled to the G7 summit meeting in June at Camp David.

Downing Street responds that a pressing domestic agenda, plus the need to marshal resources for global trade deals — let alone finessing the EU for December’s trade deadline — requires the prime minister to prioritize. One official used a Lord of the Rings analogy to explain the prime minister’s reasoning to the London Sun. “When the Eye of Sauron is off the Whitehall machine,” the Sun was told, “things stop working.”

More ominously, Britain’s decision to award Huawei a major role in structuring the UK telecom industry has dismayed the Trump administration. Breitbart London reports Trump “slamming the phone down” with Johnson, angered by Britain’s failure to heed warnings from the United States (and other allied countries) about the security threats posed by the Chinese company. Johnson is anxious not to antagonize the president, but ignoring him is not the route to realizing imperative U.S.–UK cooperation.

Confronting such condemnatory consensus, Johnson would be wise to reappraise his Huawei decision. But neither American nor British conservatives must be diverted from their larger objectives. The leader of the rightist European Reform Group in Parliament, Steven Baker, is adamant. “We need to be negotiating with the U.S. now,” Baker asserts. “Time is running out with our best ally as we head to a presidential election.”

Securing a free trade deal with America is clearly a priority. Leaked elements on Brussels’ trade scenario with Britain — in comprehensive fields of finance, fisheries, tax, and regulatory policy, to name but a few — leave no doubt the EU plans to humiliate the UK. A U.S.–UK deal is ever more vital, both as a means of forcing an EU “rethink” and in the likely event no compromise from the Continent is forthcoming.

“Reinforcing” the radical Anglo-American agenda to upend the statist status quo is another reason why comity between Trump and Johnson is so vital.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Brexit Britain Betrayed

Please see my February 16^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexit Britain Betrayed’:

There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour.

~ Benjamin Disraeli

Barely two weeks since Brexiteers celebrated Britain’s exit from the European Union, already alarms are being raised that Britons’ ultimate independence is still under siege. Not from Brussels, but from Westminster. Oh, say it isn’t so. Still, few are unsurprised, if nevertheless saddened, that Boris Johnson fails to live up to expectations.

Brexiteers were always skeptically optimistic about the prime minister’s prospects. As European correspondent for the London Telegraph, Johnson was solidly dismissive of the burgeoning EU superstate. Yet as London mayor, his record was unremarkable for its adherence to conservative principles — a record unchanged as prime minister. Some men “count it a bondage to fix a belief,” Francis Bacon believed; while James Delingpole surmises that “Boris’ problem (one of several) is that he is a man of no certain political principle who likes to be liked.”

The Brexit brief is no less blemished. While a member of Theresa May’s cabinet, Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary when Theresa May’s Chequers Agreement (July 2018) alluded that UK–EU negotiations would achieve a Brexit in name only.

Then, when the prime minister’s Withdrawal Agreement came before the House of Commons in the early months of 2019, Johnson voted no against the agreement twice, only to acquiesce on the third attempt to pass the bill. He rationalized his reversal on the justification that worse was to come if Remainers prevailed.

In the face of overwhelming opposition from all sides in the Commons, May resigned the premiership in June. Boris Johnson was the presumptive favorite. Other challengers for the Conservative leadership were as strong (if not more so) proponents of Britain’s independence from the EU, but none shared his charisma or popular appeal — both vital if Brexit was to make it over the finish line. So “up to the top of the greasy pole” Boris went and into Number 10.

The new prime minister enjoyed no more respite from Parliament than his predecessor. Even his prorogation to bring in a fresh parliamentary session was overturned by a suspect UK Supreme Court — an affront to prerogative that ensnared Elizabeth II along with Johnson. Finally, in October, he reached a deal with Brussels to the angst of Brexiteers — an agreement many argued was even worse than that which May had achieved.

Regardless, the die was cast. Looking for solace where they would, Brexiteers reasoned that as bad as Boris’s deal might be, there was wiggle room moving forward. Only Brexit had to be won first or else all was in vain. And the prime minister was still their ace card against the range of Remainers rising up to revoke Brexit.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Brexit Success Will Inspire Envy for EU

Please see my February 10^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexit Success Will Inspire Envy for EU’:

There is a dayspring in the history of this nation, which perhaps those only who are on the mountaintops can as yet recognize,” Benjamin Disraeli wrote of England. “You deem you are in darkness, and I see a dawn.”

Since January 31, when Britain regained political independence from the European Union, Brexiteers occupy those “dizzying” heights as they contemplate the potential before them. Opponents of breaking free from the bonds of Brussels, meanwhile, remain very much in the dark. For them, it is not the dawn of a new day but the sunset of their hopes to partake of a Euro superstate.

Premier Boris Johnson rallied the nation from 10 Downing Street. “This is not the end, but a beginning,” he said. (Who now denies that Johnson is the heir to Disraeli?) “This is the moment that the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act in our great national drama,” Johnson enthused, “a moment of real national renewal and change.” Echoing Disraeli, the prime minister promised, “This is the dawn of a new era.”

The work of Brexit is only just begun. Britain remains in a “transition” period, still under EU partial jurisdiction until the end of the year, when it successfully negotiates a trade agreement with its former EU colleagues or strikes forth on a “clean break” Brexit and trades with the EU on World Trade Organization rules.

For all Johnson’s optimism, the prospects of arriving at amiable terms with the EU are grim. Its leaders are demanding “alignment” on matters of trade and regulations, and a “level playing field” with respect to UK’s future taxation and welfare policies. Brussels’ aim is to curtail any economic advantages that cutting taxes and regulations may give to Britain, while simultaneously slipping in a “poison pill” to kill off UK trade agreements on the global stage, principally with America.

Britain, regardless, should consider itself lucky. EU leaders are planning worse to come for the remaining EU-27 member countries.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | For a Full Brexit, Get Government Out of the Way

Please see my February 4^th wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘For a Full Brexit, Get Government Out of the Way ’:

The early 1920s epitomized economic growth and employment opportunity. Good things in themselves, but especially so when “progressive” thinking at the end of the Great War argued that if nations wound down their “warfare-state” programs of government interventions, price controls, and deficit spending, a period of massive unemployment would ensue as soldiers returned from the front and public expenditures shrank.

Anything but happened, especially in America, where the laissez-faire Warren G. Harding replaced the Big State of Woodrow Wilson. One reaction of this was to put the lie to the statist sympathies of one Herbert Croly. An early progressive, Croly, later a founder of “The New Republic,” was the author in 1906 of “The Promise of American Life.” One of its prescriptions was to marry the power of the state to realize human fulfillment.

Or the idea of using “Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends.” Only disciples of the strong central government ideas of Alexander Hamilton could cheer this prospect. Who can deny the benefits of meeting your full potential? Yet the means to achieve it were antithetical to limited-government Jeffersonians: redistributive taxes, social welfare programs, and the requisite “big state” to make it all happen.

Now comes Britain’s exit from the European Union. It holds out the promise of something different, or something that hasn’t been tried in recent years. Its promise is independence. Ostensibly, the objective is for the United Kingdom to exit the European Union. That, though, is but the beginning. The promise goes, and will need to go, beyond simply leaving one arena of over-government. Don’t Britons deserve a “full Brexit”?

“Hell, yeah!” Brexiteers will proclaim. And Boris Johnson, iconoclast, bon vivant, and Brexit cheerleader-in-chief, is just the man to do it. He can adapt Croly’s phraseology to fit the new Brexit paradigm. He can “make Britain great again,” not by using the levers of State power but by lifting the dead hand of government from the economy and unleashing human potential.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Political Bonus for Early U.S.–UK Trade Negotiations

Please see my February 4^th wire for The American Spectator, ‘Political Bonus for Early U.S.–UK Trade Negotiations’:

America and Britain are on the cusp of a conservative revolution, if only their leaders have the courage to take action and the foresight to see the potential that lies before them. Of the people, there is no need to ask: The people are ready, “mouldering on the vine” (to paraphrase the musical “1776”), “for want of it.” Only those enriched by state emoluments stand opposed, poised to squelch any serious efforts to upend the status quo. So patriots beware.

President Trump’s impeachment in the U.S. Senate, for actions that warrant little more than censure (or less), is a distraction, a ploy to depress supporters’ resolve. Meanwhile, however much Britons may welcome repose after their exertions on behalf of Brexit, this is not the time to rest on their oars.

Now is the time to act. Britain’s post-election momentum, following Boris Johnson’s December win of a majority parliament, cannot dissipate. America is already in pre-election mode, with President Trump already rallying supporters to “keep America great.” Both countries must strike out to finish the job of returning power to the people.

Decentralizing power away from Washington and Westminster does more than simply return responsibility to legitimate spheres of action. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Those that are re-empowered — whether the states, communities, or individuals themselves — become active collaborators, enabling a dynamic element that strengthens local autonomy and perpetuates its hold over popular imagination and initiative.

“There is nothing more important for those who think they believe in freedom, in free enterprise and in private property,” Murray Rothbard realized, “than bringing these high-flown generalities to bear on the concrete problems of their daily lives.”

That the revolt against over-government is rising, simultaneously, in the United Kingdom and the United States, is no coincidence. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were collaborators in a revolutionary movement toward minimal government and personal freedom. Disciples are undaunted, half a century later.

In June 2016, their paths converged again. Donald Trump was set to become the Republican presidential nominee when a majority of Britons (17.4 million) cast ballots in the EU referendum to exit.

Once more, opponents of the popular mandate set out to frustrate efforts to scale back government intrusion. And, in fairness, U.S.–UK leaders who were elected to bring power back to the people have let themselves get caught up in their adversaries’ tactics and allowed precious time to lapse. They can redeem themselves, but they need focus. A game plan going forward is imperative.

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, British Government Must Allow Entrepreneurs to ‘Boost Themselves’

Please see my February 1^st wire for The American Spectator, ‘Post-Brexit, British Government Must Allow Entrepreneurs to “Boost Themselves” ’:

This weekend, Britain regains its independence from membership in the European Union. After four long years of setbacks, frustrations, and calumny from Remainers in Parliament, think tanks, and the broadcast media, Britons will finally see their 2016 referendum vote to exit the EU vindicated. Cheers are certainly warranted, but don’t pop the champagne corks just yet. We are not at “the beginning of the end” of Brexit, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, but just at “the end of the beginning.”

The Conservative government must now set to business negotiating a free trade agreement with its Continental neighbors. Brussels has already thrown down the gauntlet. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says there must be “trade-offs” for a successful treaty to be signed, while the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier calls for “any free-trade agreement must provide for a level playing field on standards, state aid, and tax matters.” Otherwise, Britain sees its negotiating efforts come to naught.

Though naysayers disagree, remaining tethered to EU regulations — to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice — is hardly what Britons have in mind. They know what they were signing up for from the start; in this respect only are they “Remainers,” as they cast their votes resoundingly for Brexit (again) and Boris Johnson last December.

So what is the prime minister to do? Johnson himself leaves no doubt on where he stands, stating repeatedly that he will sign a free trade deal with Brussels by the end of this year. EU bureaucrats bemoan a “quick and easy” agreement as unrealistic. The only alternative recourse for Britain is to conclude a “clean break” Brexit. Concessions, beyond those made in good faith and on equal terms, are unthinkable.

Johnson must stick to his guns. He should know by now that EU objectives are only partially economic, if that. There’s more than a hint of rumor that EU officials are as much for sabotaging British enterprise as for frictionless trade with their erstwhile UK partner. Sending a political message to the remaining EU-27, several with robust independence insurgents — France, Italy, and Spain are experiencing populist unrest — is a priority on the EU agenda.

The French are particularly pernicious on this front. France’s Europe minister, Amélie de Montchalin, asserts openly that the demands for alignment are attempts to forestall “a tax haven at the gates of Europe.” Pity. The Gallic mind had once lauded British commercial acumen. “England is said to traffic in everything,” Napoleon once declared. “I should advise her to sell liberty, for which she could get a high price, and without any fear of exhausting her stock.”

Free trade in the ideas of liberty, economic and political, is just what the EU didn’t order from the nation of shopkeepers. No reason, however, why Britain should deny herself the privilege. Brexit trade success, however, will require the government to think less like public servants and more like entrepreneurs. Is it possible?

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

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.

On the Record | Ghost of EU Superstate Haunts Britain’s Path to Independence

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Ghost of EU Superstate Haunts Britain’s Path to Independence’:

Another Christmas has come and gone. The season of Santa Claus and for remembering the birth in Bethlehem of a small child, heralded by angels proclaiming Him the “Prince of Peace.” And, not to be outdone by Halloween, of ghosts. For who can forget Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” and its story of the scrimping Ebenezer Scrooge? Cold-hearted and tight-fisted, he is visited by reforming Ghosts of Yuletides past, present, and future. Scrooge is redeemed, and sets out on a path of personal and public approbation. The tale is no less apropos for British prime minister Boris Johnson, preparing to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union. The EU has become the specter haunting Brexit.

The phantom menacing Britain is the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, who in a recent essay shares his vision of the future relationship. Mr. Barnier begins by expressing regret at Britain’s determination to exit but, in a spirit of equanimity and good will, looks forward to the “opportunity to forge a new UK-EU partnership.” Taking a page from former premier Theresa May, he reiterates that though the “UK may be leaving the EU … it is not leaving Europe.”

Instead, Mr. Barnier outlines three areas of mutual interest. One such step will be “to work together and discuss joint solutions to global challenges.” Another, “to build a close security relationship.” Can anyone contend against these aspirations? Britain pursues its international agenda with myriad intergovernmental agencies, be it the United Nations, NATO, or World Trade Organization. No serious impediments exist from extending its collaborative reach to former colleagues in the EU.

Mr. Barnier’s third area for cooperation, however, sets the cat among the pigeons.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Elizabeth II, in Christmas Speech, Fails to Say ‘Brexit’

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Elizabeth II, in Christmas Speech, Fails to Say “Brexit” ’:

What is to be made of the fact that the British monarch failed in her Christmas address — the sixty-eighth of her long reign — failed to mention the fact that the United Kingdom of which she is the sovereign is about to end its membership in the European Union and become truly independent once again? It is, after all, far and away the most important development for Britain in the year Her Majesty is reviewing for the holiday. Is there method to her silence on this head?

The question invites reflection because seldom can Elizabeth speak so freely, as she can in her Christmas speech, to her subjects in the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, including men and women of good cheer around the globe. Her grandfather, George V, began the tradition in 1932, when he used the wireless to reach out to the farthest corners of the British Empire upon which, went the boast, “the sun never set.”

Now, the Queen sends season’s greetings via radio, television, and the world wide web. The Christmas broadcast is Her Majesty’s royal review of the year just past and appraisal of the year to come. In 2019 — as for much of the last three years — top of mind has been the fate of Britain’s independence from the European Union. As Elizabeth surveys the receding twelvemonth, she characteristically eschews hyperbole, merely calling its consequences “quite bumpy.”

Come the end of January — barring catastrophe — the UK will at long last leave the EU. It might seem only natural that the Queen, as Head of State, should want to address the effects of Brexit upon her people. Yet nowhere does she mention it directly, nor, for that matter, any political development — whether it be December’s General Election or the summer appointment of her fifteenth prime minister, Boris Johnson, during her 67-year reign (beginning with Sir Winston Churchill).

Not a word about Brexit. In part Her Majesty’s reticence is due to constitutional convention, in which the Crown forsakes the grubby details of politics to the government, rising above the fray and serving as an unbiased sovereign for all. Nor can one imagine that the Brexit path is one on which the Queen would be eager to tread, so stressful are relations between Leavers and Remainers. The acrimony arising from the election, the culmination of years of recriminations, suggests that few want Brexit to intrude upon festivities of Christmas and Chanukah.

We mere commoners, though, may spare a thought as we stare at the Yule log blazing on the hearth or the Chanukah candles, for what the Queen herself thinks of Brexit.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Britain Enters a Long Overdue Neo-Disraelian Moment

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘ Britain Enters a Long Overdue Neo-Disraelian Moment’:

As 2019 winds to a close, let us remark on how our year of turmoil and drama has brought us to a neo-Disraelian moment. You may say that’s all too convenient a comment from a scribe who for years has been blogging under the rubric of the Disraeli-Macdonald Institute. But there you have it. It’s not the first time that the sun has, in quite this way, lit up the meadows of the United Kingdom.

Back in the 19th Century, the Kingdom also faced social, economic, and political ferment with a leader possessing an “idiosyncratic” skill-set, an insightful prescription for national greatness, and popular appeal. Benjamin Disraeli — whose birth his votaries celebrate this weekend — warmed the late Victorian period with just such a combination. Historian David Starkey reckons that, metaphorically, his time has come again.

“The best model for understanding and indeed working on the situation in which we find ourselves is Disraeli,” says the constitutional historian. He defines the Disraelian project as a composite of patriotism and paternalism. For Disraeli, the twin poles were the eminence of the British Empire, plus the inter-twined interests of the aristocracy (including the Crown) and the working classes.

Both allied against a cosmopolitan oligarchy: unrooted and unappreciative of the deep fabric of British history and tradition. Boris Johnson’s constituency is contemporary but no less framed upon Disraeli’s model. For the Prime Minister, his patriotism is framed by his advocacy for the UK’s independence from the European Union. Brexit means sovereignty, self-government, and self-determination.

Mr. Johnson’s paternalism, meanwhile, is the lynchpin for the Government’s spending agenda upon the National Health Service, the Armed Forces, vast education schemes, and the earthly environment. Disraeli and Johnson share more than a political platform. Both achieved early success as scribes and novelists. Both grasp, instinctively, the importance of Britain’s heritage in political discourse.

Both Disraeli and Bojo rose to power within the Conservative party. Grandees may have been skeptical of the bona-fides of both, but both were beloved by not only the ranks but also the files.

Nor has this bond across time gone unnoticed.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | The Queen Backs Brexit, After All

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘The Queen Backs Brexit, After All’:

“My Government’s priority is to deliver the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union on 31 January,” Her Majesty intoned at the State Opening of Parliament. “My Ministers will bring forward legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s exit on that date and to make the most of the opportunities that this brings for all the people of the United Kingdom.”

Elizabeth II vowed that her Government would “seek a future relationship with the European Union based on a free trade agreement that benefits the whole of the United Kingdom.” Then, with an eye to America and other national markets, she announced they will also “begin trade negotiations with other leading global economies.”

No doubt, Her Majesty reflected, she’s said all this before. Still, her kingdom remains tethered, inexplicably, to the EU. What’s changed? Boris Johnson is prime minister, now with a majority parliament standing foursquare behind him and Brexit.

The Queen’s Speech is a yearly overview of the government’s agenda, presenting in broad brushstrokes its objectives in office; sometimes even coinciding, wits whisper, with electoral manifestos. Such laundry lists of pending legislation can range from the transformational, like the UK seceding from EU membership, to the mundane, as when the Queen announced reviewing “hospital car parking charges.”

Like any political document, the speech has its share of boilerplate, whether it be “an ambitious program of domestic reform,” a commitment “to invest in our gallant Armed Forces,” or a promise “to promote and expand” the UK’s “influence in the world.” No constituency is left untouched, whether it be health, education, social care, crime, or the environment. Such are the demands and expectations of modern participatory democracy.

Conservative governments are not exempt from the spending spree, even when they should know better. Such as when Boris Johnson’s ministry pledges to increase the “national living wage,” regardless of whether it benefits the poor.

Theory demonstrates that minimum wage policies put people out of work — usually the marginal worker and those new to the workforce — without the experience or seniority to climb the employment ladder. Statistics bear this out, too, here in the Northeast and on the Coast where restaurant workers are particularly vulnerable to “virtue signalling.”

Likewise with climate change strategy. Pity the Queen for having to assert that Her Government will “take steps to meet the world-leading target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” — heedless of the hardships this creates. The UK petroleum industry is exposed to opprobrium, manufacturing will meet increasing energy expenditures (eventually conveyed to consumers), and Britons will brave rising heating bills. Need one add that the “consensus” on climate change, calling forth these measures, has challengers?

Greater consensus will coalesce around Mr. Johnson’s efforts to “invest in the country’s public services and infrastructure,” while simultaneously “keeping borrowing and debt under control.” Conservatives keen to the failures of Keynesian deficit spending will wince at their party’s abandonment of Margaret Thatcher’s focus on economy, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge for “the sustainability of the public finances through a responsible fiscal strategy.”

On this head, Brexit is the secret weapon for economic growth.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Where Stands Boris Johnson on the Big State?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Where Stands Boris Johnson on the Big State?’:

’Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House — of Commons — Brexiteers cannot help but stir at the prospect that Britain’s independence from the European Union is, at last, a likelihood. So on the eve of the Queen’s Speech setting out the Government’s agenda for the new year, who wants to play Grinch and ruin the festive atmosphere? Certainly not I.

Rumors circulate out of 10 Downing Street that the incoming ministry will reintroduce a sharper Withdrawal Agreement within days, shorn of “soft” Brexit inducements included to entice Remainer Tory MPs last October. As well as legislation severing any lingering strands of Brussels’ entanglements, come December 2020. Britain will exit with a trade deal freed from the EU’s euphemistic “level playing field” of regulatory alignment, or make a “clean break.”

All this lies in the future. Americans, particularly supporters of President Trump, are transfixed by Boris Johnson’s ability to remain on top of the greasy pole of politics — despite the divisions allied against him at the general election. Even Vice President Joe Biden has got in on the action with the epiphany that Mr. Johnson’s trouncing of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn bodes ill for merchants of socialism and anti-Semitism.

Up to a point, I say (quoting the demurral made famous by Evelyn Waugh in “Scoop”). Britons no doubt desire to “get Brexit done” and chart their own social, economic, and political course — a position Mr. Biden vigorously opposed. Yet Mr. Johnson’s Conservative manifesto also proffered generous outlays for infrastructure, health services, and welfare outreach, effectively neutralizing Labour’s surfeit of state spending and scheme to nationalize, once again, British industry.

F.H. Buckley calls this the “sweet spot” of politics: “tacking right on social issues [e.g., Brexit] while going middle of the road or left of center on economics.” By adopting this “Red Tory” approach to government policy, my friend Professor Buckley sees continuing electoral success for America’s and Britain’s center-right parties, despite the fact that “libertarian ideologues insist this isn’t conservatism.”

Let’s call this advocacy of “wet” Toryism “pre-Brexit” conservatism. Is, though, Brexit no more than independence from the rising statism of the European Union? Isn’t the promise of Brexit more individual freedom across the board? Or, to “invert” Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Bruges speech, have Britons’ “successfully rolled back the frontiers of Brussels, only to see them re-imposed at Westminster”?

No, responds one branch of the Brexit brigade. Nor are they any less “One Nation” Tories than those who rally round Boris Johnson and the incoming government. The phrase “One Nation Conservatism” comes from Benjamin Disraeli himself . . .

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Victory — Keep a ‘Clean Break’ at the Ready

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Victory — Keep a “Clean Break” at the Ready’:

Will it be “déjà vu all over again?” Not since June 23, 2016, have the prospects for Britain’s exit from the European Union looked so bright. Unlike the euphoria of that day, however, Brexiteers have endured three years of dither and delay that dampen effusions of enthusiasm. Older, and wiser, are they.

Less naïve and trusting, too. Let us hope this will be the only occasion for quoting Yogi Berra; let the litany of attempts to frustrate the people’s will — by Remainer MPs, Brussels mandarins, and the chattering classes — be ended. New Parliament. New Government. New Year. And a fresh start for British independence.

Broad brushstrokes are discernable on the political canvas. With at least 364 seats in a 650-seat House of Commons, Conservatives will again form government, this one with a projected 39-seat majority (totaling 365 seats), while the Labour party lost 59 seats from its results in 2017, winning only 203 — worsting Michael Foot’s record in 1983 by 6 seats.

Jeremy Corbyn announced he will not contest another election at Labour’s head. Spouting socialism as the people’s panacea has a debilitating effect upon one’s sense of reality, and nowhere is this more evident than in Labour’s rationale for its stunning upset. “Brexit done us in,” bemoan party stalwarts who point to their manifesto promise of a second referendum and their determination to vote “Remain.”

Others point to Mr. Corbyn’s autocratic leadership style that intimidated colleagues, stifled dissent, and saw him in disastrous relationships with terrorist sympathizers and anti-Semites. Amazingly, few Labourites make the connection between their leader and his Brexit policy, absolving themselves of all responsibility for an atrocious party operation.

The Scottish National Party was the other big winner in the election (returning 48 MPs to Westminster), arguably gaining more political advantage than the Tories. SNP probably won on its anti-Brexit message. More doubtful is whether all its voters equally cast ballots for Scottish independence. With such a geographic-specific electorate, the Scottish Nationals may share characteristics with Canada’s separatist Bloc Québécois: enjoying support less for its secessionist credentials than for concessions it can wrestle from the national government.

Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party were shut-out from Parliament. The strategy to stand-down candidates against Conservative incumbents helped secure Tory success; whether it was a benefit or a curse to Conservative fortunes in those seats it did contest — either aiding or blocking Labour challengers — probably a wash. Like prophets of old, Mr. Farage had a mission — to bring Brexit to the people and, with independence in sight, he passes from the front lines of active politics.

Boris Johnson returns to Downing Street for a good night’s rest. The Conservative victory is not as convincing as many would wish; nor is it a resounding disaster. A win is a win. Plans are to reintroduce his Withdrawal Bill before the end of the month and begin preparations for the EU exit on January 31. Can the Tories wrangle a trade deal by the end of 2020?

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: Saturday Night Jive, on Election Eve

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: Saturday Night Jive, on Election Eve’:

To gauge what passes for progressive humor on topical politics, one can do worse than watching each week’s cold open that precedes the credits for “Saturday Night Live.” For more than three years, its mainstay has been to heap ridicule on President Trump. Last weekend, SNL widened its net to capture Britain’s Prime Minister.

Briefly but effectively, the comedy troupe skewered Boris Johnson’s failing strategy to put distance between President Trump and ingratiate himself with a global elite that is, undeniably, inimical to Britain’s independence from the European Union.

The skit, set in a high school cafeteria, parodied Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unguarded remarks, during cocktails at the recent NATO summit, concerning Mr. Trump’s overlong pressers. Messrs. Trump and Trudeau are caricatured, along with President Emmanuel Macron, Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Britain’s Mr. Johnson.

Unfortunately for him, the American president was not SNL’s sole target. Video clips of Mr. Trudeau’s actual faux-pas simply show Boris Johnson listening intently to the Canadian premier’s account, laughing, along with other world leaders, at antics attendant at any international gathering.

Yet in SNL’s scenario, Mr. Johnson is positively gleeful in being part of the global “in-crowd” poking fun at Mr. Trump (a too-seductive temptation for conservatives in politics, academia, and the broadcast press.) Nor is SNL wholly wrong in its depiction of the on-again, off-again bromance between the US-UK leaders.

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: What Would Sisyphus Do?

Please see my wire from mid-week as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: What Would Sisyphus Do?’:

Brexiteers anxious to spread the good news of independence cannot deny that theirs has been an uphill battle. Sisyphus, the mythical Greek cursed to push a gigantic boulder up a mountain, has been their avatar; no sooner is the summit reached but that the burden rolls back to the bottom, forcing Sisyphus to resume his labors. Such is the cause of British independence.

Nothing so exemplifies Britons’ indifference to freedom than the drift of the election to be decided Thursday. It is fatuous to relate the sins of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties and a host of minor political entities. All are allergic to the idea of Britain striking out as an independent sovereign nation once more, working cooperatively with the European Union but no longer subservient to an EU mandarinate held accountable to no democratic body and overseen, indulgently, by the European Court of Justice.

Instead, one looks with sorrow upon two parties who took up the Brexit cause as their own but are no less wanting. “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” Conservatives, presumably, champion limited government, free enterprise, and individual responsibility. While it would be impolitic to question the patriotism of any political party, few would doubt that Tories are synonymous with “Queen and Country” and the good old Union Jack.

Conservatives, again, gave, albeit half-heartedly, Britons the 2016 referendum that voted to exit the EU. From this point forward, Tories have far less to cheer. Governments led by Theresa May and Boris Johnson have had lacklustre deals frustrated by obstreperous parliamentarians. Nor has the general election energized an upsurge for independence.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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