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 | 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 | 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.