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 | 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 | 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.

On the Record | Brexit: Once More into the Blamed Breach

Please see my wire from earlier this week as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: Once More into the Blamed Breach’:

Given the political roller-coaster ride the cause of British independence has endured for most of 2019, these several weeks of politicking before Thursday’s general election have been anticlimactic. Like most electoral campaigns, parties vie to outdo one another with promises of bounty. Conservative or Labour — with minor parties joining in — merely prepare the final bill to future taxpayers. The one difference, of course, is the fate of Brexit.

Prime Minister Johnson criss-crosses the country to the mantra “Get Brexit Done.” His leading challenger, Labourite Jeremy Corbyn, vows to renegotiate Mr. Johnson’s agreement with the European Union and then, remarkably, campaign in a second referendum to remain. Other party heads are pledged either to such a referendum “do-over” or cancelling the Article 50 exit outright. With only a handful of seats at stake for them, they have little to lose; they gamble that more outrageous platforms will stand out.

The one outlier is Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party. Kudos to Mr. Farage for making during the 1990s the UK Independence Party the pre-eminent voice for British sovereignty. That culminated in a Conservative premier, David Cameron, calling for a referendum in 2016 to placate Eurosceptic Tories. When Mr. Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, failed to deliver the referendum decision to leave the EU earlier this year, Mr. Farage formed the Brexit Party.

After the party’s singular success in the European parliamentary elections in the spring and amid anti-Brexit mayhem in Parliament — principally to the charge that Mr. Johnson’s deal is little better than Mrs. May’s agreement — Mr. Farage vowed to take his party to the polls for a “clean break Brexit.”

At first, the Brexit Party aimed to field candidates in all 650 constituencies. When fears mounted that, by challenging Conservative incumbents, Mr. Farage risked giving Remainers control of the House of Commons, he reversed himself and conceded Tory safe seats.

Yet even this strategy came under fire this weekend, when a number of leading Brexit MEPs criticized this concession as a continuing risk, by weakening Conservative challengers to Labour seats. They argued this reversed a previous commitment of contesting only constituencies where Tories were demonstrably weaker than Brexit Party candidates. Instead these Brexit MEPs urged electors to forsake Mr. Farage, marshal the independence movement behind one party, and vote Conservative.

The reasons are two-fold.

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 Patrick Henry Do?

Please see my mid-November wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: What Would Patrick Henry Do?’:

With the British general election having only just begun, it would be precipitate for champions of UK independence to bemoan, “Brexit, we hardly knew ye.” Yet as events continue to unfold, it is difficult to maintain the requisite “stiff upper lip” until December 12.

One need look no further for ominous signs ahead than when Prime Minister Johnson went to Buckingham Palace last Wednesday to request the dropping of the writs. “I’ve just been to see Her Majesty the Queen,” Boris announced outside No 10, “and she agreed to dissolve Parliament for an election.”

Yet a BBC reporter outside the Palace confidently told viewers that Mr. Johnson had gone “to inform” the Queen that Parliament was dissolved, as that’s how things are now done. First, the UK Supreme Court overruling the Queen’s prorogation of Parliament in September; and now, a member of the press assuring us that dissolution was no longer among her prerogative powers, either.

So who does rule in the United Kingdom? This question is at the core of the election campaign, as at the heart of Brexit. Since Prime Minister Theresa May brought her Brexit legislation before the Commons a year ago, MPs have been hell-bent on frustrating the people’s will, expressed in the 2016 referendum, to leave the European Union. Boris Johnson called that June 23 Britain’s “Independence Day,” but in reality it’s been more John Dickinson than John Adams.

America’s Founders pledged in their famous document “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Like Mr. Dickinson who counselled that the time was not yet ripe for the colonies to separate from Britain, the Conservative government is falling back on a weak deal. As many Brexiteers revile it as revere it, as the answer to secession from the EU.

Prime Minister Johnson proclaims it, yet that fails to soothe sceptics, who fear it as not worth the parchment upon which it is written.

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: Prometheus Bound

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: Prometheus Bound’:

For Brexiteers apoplectic at perpetual deferment of Britain’s exit from the European Union, I must be the bearer of sad tidings. Like Prometheus, their gut-wrenching agonies are without end. A snap election on December 12 will exacerbate their turmoil. UK independence from the EU is as elusive as ever.

Prometheus, according to Greek myth, was punished by Zeus for having given humanity the gift of fire. His fate was to be tethered to a rocky crag where each day, to excruciating pain, an eagle tore out his liver. At night the organ regenerated, and Prometheus’s torments were renewed with the rising sun.

Much as each day Parliament inflicts fresh insults to the cause of British independence. The Prime Minister’s agreement with Brussels is only the most recent assault upon the patience of the British people. Boris Johnson returned from negotiations beaming, superficially succeeding where his predecessor, Theresa May, had failed, by reopening talks and removing the reviled Irish backstop. On inspection it’s only been moved to the Irish Sea, a variant of border disorder.

Mr. Johnson’s plan perpetuates Britain’s subservience on such questions as trade, migration, fisheries, and the ongoing oversight of the European Court of Justice. For the pleasure of divorcing the EU, ante up £39 billion — a cost that could double as concocting a long-term agreement may require 3 years to hammer out. If this initial handiwork is an indication of the Government’s negotiating acumen, the future bodes increasingly ill.

True to form, MPs punted on Boris’s deal. Owing to what is known as the “surrender act,” this required the Government asking Brussels for an extension. The Prime Minister sent a counter-letter, politely asking the EU to ignore the first.

Then the Speaker of the House ruled that convention prevented a subsequent examination of the deal — a welcome diversion for the Commons. It turned its focus upon enabling legislation, gave it preliminary approval for “public consumption,” but quibbled with the Government’s timetable for speedy resolution.

Brexit then entered a state of “limbo” in parliamentary parlance, its fate in the hands of EU bureaucrats increasingly exasperated by Remainer supplication. Brussels, strapped for cash and facing an economic downturn, made all the appropriate tut-tutting remonstrances but in the end agreed to prolong Britain’s agony until the end of January 2020.

This is the third such extension since the original March 29 deadline: a provisional April 12 deadline and the now moot October 31.

This Promethean purgatory also plagues the minority Conservative government.

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: Boris Becomes Charlie Brown

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: Boris Becomes Charlie Brown’:

For a workable Brexit analogy, think Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football. Try as he might, Charlie is never given a chance to kick the pigskin. Every time he comes close, Lucy snatches away the ball, leaving our protagonist to tumble on his backside. You’d think someone would come to Charlie’s defense and call Lucy out, but no one does.

The British government’s inability to advance on securing the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union was never more in evidence than today [October 22^nd] in the House of Commons. MPs toying with the fate of independence did Lucy proud. Their contempt for the Charlie Browns of Brexit Britain, came into focus as an ignoble spectacle.

Charlie Brown portrays the “everyman,” and he is every Briton — some 17.4 million — who voted in 2016 to exit the EU. Lucy represents those dissembling Remainer MPs who vehemently stand up for the rights of the people but at the moment of action, frustrate the democratic will. As for those who let this travesty continue, count the avatars.

They include the anti-Brexiteers in Brussels. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. The UK Supreme Court, who are silent when the rules of parliamentary justice are trampled upon, provided their collective EU super-state aims are met. The press is crawling with these avatars of the Remainer movement, manufacturing new objections at every juncture.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Rule Britannia: Where’s the Nelson of Independence?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Rule Britannia — Where’s the Nelson of Independence?’:

As opposing fleets of British and French-allied ships of war lined up for battle off the Cape of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805, Admiral Lord Nelson ordered a signal to be raised from his flag-ship, H.M.S. Victory: “England expects that every man will do his duty.”

Britons expect similar devotion to duty from their elected representatives. Given the choice in 2016 whether to remain or leave the European Union, a clear majority voted to exit and restore Britain’s independence. More than three years later, they are still waiting, as MPs and elites enthralled by the allure of the EU super-state frustrate the voice of democracy.

Last week Prime Minister Boris Johnson returned from Brussels with a much-heralded UK-EU withdrawal deal. Yet when it was brought before the House of Commons on Saturday for approval, Remainer MPs decided instead to postpone the vote, opting for Sir Oliver Letwin’s amendment to forgo judgement until enabling legislation was passed (MPs fearing the Government had constructed a Trojan Horse by which to abandon its own legislation and “crash out” of the EU).

This procedure clearly put the cart before the horse — ensuring the workings of a law that does not yet exist— as anti-Brexiteers will resort to any tactic to frustrate British independence.

Not that adherents of independence should take undue umbrage. For Boris’s deal is nothing more than “Brino” — Brexit in name only — Brexit under false colors, as Admiral Nelson would assess it. Brexiteers are tired of living under the “affected” authority of the EU’s gold-stars-on-a-field-of-blue pennant. They yearn to restore sovereignty to a nation over which proudly flies the historic Union Jack.

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 — Boris lands in same trap as Mrs. May

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: Boris lands in same trap as Mrs. May’:

Let’s not beat about the pumpkin. The United Kingdom’s latest withdrawal agreement with the European Union is a disappointing deal. It fails to deliver Brexit. It is arguably a worse agreement than Prime Minister May’s flawed document. Her successor as premier, Boris Johnson, despite all his avowed “do or die” rhetoric, has failed to deliver on the 2016 referendum mandate for Britain to exit the EU and to regain its independence.

Nor can there be any doubt on the motivations of anti-Brexit sentiment. A contingent of Remainers — in Parliament, the broadcast press, and the political elite — make a mockery of the people’s decision to leave and are willing to employ any excuse to frustrate democracy, preferring to get their marching orders from Brussels.

Mr. Johnson’s agreement went before the House of Commons today for approval, mere hours before he is required by Hilary Benn’s “surrender” act to send a letter to Brussels requesting another delay if Britain did not secure a deal, approved by Parliament, by the end of October 19. Never mind that EU officials ruled out any extension after negotiations ended this week.

Parliament did not approve — ostensibly on the basis that it wanted more time to scrutinize the deal and to ensure that enabling legislation was in place. As required by law, the Prime Minister dispatched a “request for an extension” letter — unsigned — to Brussels. A second signed letter soon followed, to the President of the EU Council, Donald Tusk.

“While it is open to the European Council to accede to the request [for an alternative extension period] mandated by Parliament,” Mr. Johnson explained to Mr. Tusk, “I have made clear since becoming Prime Minister . . . that a further extension would damage the interests of the UK and our EU partners.” To wit: “We must bring this process to a conclusion.”

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 Odysseus Do?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: What Would Odysseus Do?’:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a Classical scholar while a student at Oxford, may be thinking of Odysseus and his men who, homeward bound after their exploits at Troy, must navigate their ship between the twin dangers of Scylla and Charybdis — a six-headed sea monster and whirlpool, respectively — that threaten their destruction.

Even more gruesomely, Mr. Johnson, at the helm of the ship of state, must extricate his ministry from a constitutional dilemma, on Britain’s course for independence from the European Union.

Mere weeks before the UK is legislated to leave the EU, Brexit opponents have devised a Greek tragedy to stymie the Government. Remainers passed a motion allowing them to take over the “order paper,” effectively giving them control of parliamentary business. Their objective? To bring a bill before the Prime Minister, forbidding Britain to leave the EU on WTO terms, if he is unable to negotiate a successful trade deal before the October deadline.

Such is only the official rationale to stop “No Deal,” though. Don’t be fooled. The ultimate goal is to keep Britain ensnared in Brussels’ grip, through a withdrawal agreement that keeps it bound to regulatory and judicial fiat. Better yet, to annul Article 50 altogether and keep the UK within the EU, voiding the 2016 referendum to exit.

Adding insult to injury, Mr. Johnson cannot call for a general election to give him a fresh mandate. Never mind that he is leading in the polls. Legislation enacted in 2011, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, requires a two-thirds vote in the Commons for the prime minister to request the Crown to “drop the writs.” So the Government faces the prospect of being legally mandated to go to Brussels to request an extension without being able to call for an election to avoid this humiliation.

Boris confronts the Brexit version of Scylla and Charybdis.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Contra the Remainers, Britons’ Right to Liberty Justifies Brexit

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Contra the Remainers, Britons’ Right to Liberty Justifies Brexit’:

British parliamentarians returning to work this week will be thrust immediately back into the Brexit fray. Tempus fugit, as the Romans say, and with the October 31 deadline for leaving the European Union mere weeks away, there’s no time to lose in the debate over whether or not Britain will achieve its independence.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to ask Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament from September 11 (the likely start date) to the Queen’s Speech on October 14, so as to clear the political calendar for domestic business, has excited the expected howls of protest. But as Westminster was scheduled to be in recess anyway for the parties to hold their annual autumn conferences, it is likely no more than four or five days will be lost to Brexit mayhem.

No matter. While anti-Brexiteers outside Parliament are searching for ways to stop Boris’s prorogation — an unlikely event, given conventions dealing with royal prerogatives and the unwillingness of the judiciary to cross the line into the jurisdiction of the purely political — inside Parliament the usual suspects are preparing legislation to force the Government, in lieu of reaching a withdrawal deal, to ask the EU for yet another extension to the end of January 2020.

If anti-Brexiteers are successful in passing legislation forbidding Britain to leave on WTO terms — “No Deal” — what is the Government to do? MPs critical of Brexit plead they act in the spirit of British democracy. They are wrong. Their machinations in favor of the EU are in direct defiance of the people’s referendum vote three years ago to exit.

These shenanigans in the House of Commons pervert its historic role to hold the Executive to account, whether in the form of an “absolute” monarch or a prime minister leading a cabinet government. But the aim of the Commons has never been to usurp and abrogate authority to itself in defiance of the party in power.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Bumpy Ride Lies Ahead for Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Bumpy Ride Lies Ahead for Brexit’:

As Westminster politicians prepare to resume their Brexit deliberations next week following the summer recess, one can only quote the inimitable Bette Davis: “Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night.” Only in the case of Brexit, many more bumpy days and nights before October 31 and Britain’s exit from the European Union becomes finalized.

Britons and the world witnessed an amazing about-face once Theresa May left office and Boris Johnson assumed the mantle of Prime Minister. Brexit was no longer treated as an embarrassment and a regret. Brexit became an opportunity, a chance for a British renaissance.

No wonder. Boris, after all, claimed that the 2016 referendum to regain Britain’s sovereignty was in reality its own “Independence Day.” He is, to all those in thrall to the EU, their worst nightmare. Gone is Mrs. May’s supplication to Brussels officialdom and her intransigence to Britons’ desire for self-government.

Britain’s indefatigable paladin is now “in the house” — 10 Downing Street.

Boris’s vow to bring Britain out of the EU on October 31, “do or die,” deal or no deal, was the ultimate insult to EU votaries whose outsized self-assurance can brook no resistance. Certainly not from a mere Prime Minister — nor to the people’s cause of self-government whose champion Mr. Johnson became.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Boris and Manchester United

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Boris and Manchester United’:

It was a stroke of genius for Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, to begin his Brexit roadshow to talk up Britain’s “new golden age” in Manchester.

The city’s name serves as a metonym for free market economics: “Manchesterism.” It became so closely identified with laissez-faire that Pius XI referred to it in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. “Manchesterian Liberals,” Pius tut-tutted, hold the inimical view that “whatever was produced, whatever returns accrued, capital claimed for itself, hardly leaving to the worker enough to restore and renew his strength.”

Economic historian W.D. Grammp, noting this pejorative continued into the 1960s, called the Manchester School “a policy that relies on the market as much as it can and (even to today’s classical liberals) somewhat more than it ought.”

Such was not the original intent of its founders, Richard Cobden and John Bright, who were focused in the mid-1840s on repealing the Corn Laws, legislation that protected British landowners from cheap foreign wheat, a competitive advantage that made bread unaffordable for the working poor. Instead, Grammp observed, Manchesterism “had much less to say about the principle of economic freedom than about the likely effects of its practice in foreign trade.”

Mr. Johnson steps into this breach, for he is intent on emphasizing how Brexit leads to greater freedom and prosperity for both individuals and the nation. Call it “leveling up.” Instead of the redistributionist policy whereby equality is achieved through less for everyone, free market innovation and entrepreneurship expand both opportunity and the economic sphere.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Can BoJo’s Mojo Carry Brexit Forward?

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Can BoJo’s Mojo Carry Brexit Forward?’:

At last! Brexiteers may be forgiven the renewed spring in their step. When Boris Johnson climbs to the top of Disraeli’s “greasy pole” this week — leader of the Conservative Party Tuesday; Wednesday, prime minister — he will achieve the pinnacle of any British politician’s career. With courage and fortitude, the next premier will reciprocate for his country: Taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union.

President Trump characteristically took to Twitter to “congratulate” Mr. Johnson as the incoming “Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.” The President tweeted about Britain’s Donald Trump: “He will be great!”

It tempts fate to quote William Wordsworth in anticipation of Britain’s independence from Brussels. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,” the poet enthused. “But to be young was very heaven!”

This is especially apt because Wordsworth wrote his paean in praise of the French Revolution. History records that sad tale of murder, plunder, conquest, and ruination.

Happily, Brexit is the counter-movement to what the European Union has spawned. Its aims include restoring to Britons political rights outsourced to the Continent. Border security. Regulatory responsibility. Trade flexibility. Self-government.

Parliament will be the beneficiary of sovereignty regained. Moreover, if the Brexit dream is to be fulfilled, its promise must spread farther than the debating chambers of Westminster.

For British independence means nothing if it does not include the bulwark of the United Kingdom, the people themselves. More personal freedom, less government action — which means lower taxes, reduced spending, further decentralization, and, ultimately, more power for individuals to innovate and trade and associate.

“Liberty is not a means to a higher political end,” Lord Acton wrote. “It is itself the highest political end.” At the moment, Brexit is the thing without which all other aspects of British freedom are held at bay. Thus, Brexit first.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.