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 | 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 | 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 | 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: How to Prove Rousseau Wrong

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit: How to Prove Rousseau Wrong’:

Boris Johnson vs. Jeremy Hunt. Conservative MPs have whittled the list of contenders down to two colleagues, who will now canvas the party membership for support. The prize? To be leader of the Tories and British prime minister. Achieving both is still worth the effort. “Just.” Achieving Brexit adds ineffable lustre to each office; without Brexit, each is little more than a pale reflection of past glory.

Heady days indeed for Tory Brexiteers. Not only have they finally rid themselves of failed premier Theresa May — it lies within their power to anoint a paladin for British independence. Though neither candidate is wholly free of Brexit heresy.

Mr. Johnson lapsed when he feared it was either Mrs. May’s imperfect Withdrawal Agreement or nothing. Mr. Hunt began as a “Remainer” before converting to faith in Britain’s future outside the European Union, while never abandoning his backing for the suspect Withdrawal plan.

Tories should be grateful for the opportunity to be “wooed” for their vote. They serve as proxies for the nation-at-large. Even if Boris is the clear favorite, he should earn their trust for the honor of taking up residence at 10 Downing Street. Don’t hand it to either contender on a silver platter.

Recollect what Jean-Jacques Rousseau said 2½ centuries ago. “The English people believes itself to be free,” the Genevan philosopher observed in The Social Contract. He felt this a grave mistake. They are “free only during the election of Members of Parliament.” Once elected, Britons are “enslaved” once more and are “nothing.”

Don’t waste this chance to push hard for UK independence from the EU. Brexit fidelity is the sine qua non of British politics for the foreseeable future.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | ‘Help Wanted’: A Leader to Win Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘ “Help Wanted”: A Leader to Win Brexit’:

Pity the Conservative members of Parliament. This month their party was decimated at local and European elections. Now Prime Minister May announces her intention to resign in early June. Tory MPs will soon be leaderless. The awesome responsibility falls to them (and party members) to choose not only a new head but premier — and while Britain’s independence hangs in the balance.

Harried Tories have little time to reflect on the necessary qualifications for such high office. They are swept up in continuing contumely, from politicians and people alike — including their Conservative colleagues. What’s a troubled Tory to do? I am reminded of the Committee for the Responsible Election of the Pope that, in August 1978 at the death of Paul VI, issued a press release in aid of cardinals about to elect the next pontiff.

To begin, Brexit has to be the next leader’s priority. There’s no shirking. Any candidate who downplays the importance of British independence from the EU doesn’t deserve to reach the starting gate.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | With May Leaving, the Hard Part of Brexit Begins

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘With May Leaving, the Hard Part of Brexit Begins’:

Can Brexiteers take any comfort in what is to date their sole consolation prize? In lieu of reveling in two months of freedom from the European Union, champions of British independence have to settle, for now, with news of the Prime Minister’s pending departure.

Theresa May’s announcement Friday came in all too true fashion, postponing her widely sought resignation from the Conservative leadership until June 7. She will remain premier until a successor is chosen, no later than the end of July.

Nothing so embodies Mrs. May’s premiership as her leaving of it — grudging, acrimonious, and interminable. Not to mention vainglorious, pompous, and disingenuous. Nevertheless, Britons can take satisfaction that she will soon be gone.

Just don’t uncork the champagne. Brexiteers have yet to secure Brexit. They’ve simply cashiered one known antagonist for many unknown aspirants to power, each awaiting his chance to climb what Disraeli dubbed the “greasy pole.”

This is, however, an opportunity for the Conservative party to begin redeeming itself. With Nigel Farage’s Brexit party polling at 37% and Tories languishing at 7%, Britain’s natural party of government has much for which to atone.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Primrose Lane: How Disraeli Would See Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Primrose Lane: How Disraeli Would See Brexit’:

What would Disraeli do about Brexit? An apt question this Primrose Day weekend — an occasion to commemorate Benjamin Disraeli’s death in 1881 and promote his beloved Conservative party.

Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston’s father, was a principal founder of the Primrose League, formed to take advantage of Disraeli’s 1867 reform act that enlarged the voting franchise to growing numbers of the working and middle classes.

The League would educate and build on this new-found “Tory democracy” and, to echo Disraeli, “dish the Whigs.” As for its unique name, the League was named for the plant. Queen Victoria sent a wreath of its blossoms to Disraeli’s funeral with a note saying that the primrose was his “favorite flower.”

How would Disraeli feel about Brexit? It is well to remember Lord Brougham’s caution. “No one can pronounce with perfect confidence on the conduct which any statesman would have pursued,” he wrote, “had he survived the times in which he flourished.”

On Brexit, however, we can pronounce without hesitation Disraeli’s support. The ground of his political principle lay on the bedrock from which Brexit was born. For Disraeli, Britain and her independence were paramount: “The program of the Conservative party is to maintain the Constitution of the country.”

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’s Best Hope for Independence Is Running Down the Clock to Brexit Day

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Britain’s Best Hope for Independence Is Running Down the Clock to Brexit Day’:

“If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.” How Brexiteers must regret that Britain did not heed the hard lessons the European Union teaches its recalcitrant members, and struck hard for WTO Brexit as soon as giving notice to Brussels that it intended to withdraw. Upon reflection, it may have been inevitable that regardless of its actions, Britain would stand in its present relation with the EU: with no deal, mounting ill-will and bad blood on both sides of the English Channel as the deadline nears, and rising despair for the future of an independent Britain.

Perhaps, as per Article 50 of the “Treaty of European Union,” Brussels would have dragged its feet on immediately concluding a withdrawal agreement along WTO guidelines, arguing the letter of the law: that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

In this scenario, an exit alternative as laid out by law would come to pass — “failing that, two years after the notification” from the withdrawing State — as now appears to be the case.

What must also be clear, certainly to all who want to honor the Brexit referendum, is that asking the EU to extend the Article 50 deadline is a mug’s game. If the UK and EU have not been able to agree withdrawal on equitable terms by now, they never will.

Only those who push back against withdrawal hold out the false promise of a deal, just around the corner, “just give us more time.” There will never be time enough for Leavers and Remainers to come to an amicable understanding, let alone the UK and EU to arrive at a win-win situation.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Brexit Backers Need to Seize the Moment

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit Backers Need to Seize the Moment’:

Consequences be damned. With the departure date of March 29 inching ever closer — but 35 days in the future — opponents of Britain’s independence are resorting to drastic measures to stop Brexit. This week, eight Labor MPs resigned the party whips; three Conservative MPs followed, forming an “Independent Group” in Parliament. So why are the paladins of Britain’s freedom blunting their message for independence?

The erstwhile Labor MPs resigned due to dissatisfaction with its leadership. They charge that Jeremy Corbyn is negligent in his duties toward moderate colleagues confronting hostile work environments in Westminster and their constituencies; these beleaguered moderates face deselection at election time. Moreover, they claim a culture of anti-Semitism has taken root in the party since Mr. Corbyn’s time at the helm.

Plus, disgust with Labor policy toward Brexit rankles these party defectors.

As for the Conservatives rebels, their gripes against Prime Minister May include the rise of hard-right Tories within the Party (namely Jacob Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group), their own unease over deselection rumors, and the perceived move away from “One Nation Tory” initiatives.

With respect to Labor Party internal discontent, it’s hard to gainsay that there exists reasonable cause for unhappiness. Better to focus instead on the Tory brief. Stated simply, it is disingenuous to suggest that the ERG has “taken over” the Party, given that it could neither cashier Mrs. May, which it tried in December’s leadership challenge, nor give “WTO Brexit” the prominence it deserves.

Also disingenuous are complaints that Mrs. May has backtracked on the spirit, if falling short of realizing specifics, of the most interventionist party manifesto in recent history. As for umbrage that MPs may be challenged in constituency contests for lukewarm support of party ideology, doesn’t the membership deserve candidates who serve them as partisans in Parliament?

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Is Britain Really Going to Leave?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Is Britain Really Going to Leave?’:

“Is Britain really going to leave?” This is the question put to Boris Johnson from people around the world, the former foreign minister informed the House of Commons last night, during debate on the Government’s proposal to withdraw from the European Union.

“Do we really have the courage and the self-belief to deliver what people voted for?” Mr. Johnson pressed. “And to seize the opportunities? Independent, democratic self-government? Real free trade deals?” Will a liberated Britain have the foresight to institute a tax and regulatory regime that incentivizes entrepreneurs and investment, domestic and foreign, based on “laws made in this country and not in Brussels?

“Are we really going to embrace that future?” BoJo asked.

Mr. Johnson is not alone in putting this rhetorical question before his fellow MPs. G.K. Chesterton raised it more than a century ago. Britons, Chesterton wrote, enjoy “a lonely taste in liberty” that “perplex their critics and perplex themselves.” As the United Kingdom grapples with the fate of Brexit, this latest iteration of perplexity is played out before us.

Magna Carta, the charter in which medieval barons exerted their rights against King John, is considered the benchmark of liberty in Britain. “Magna Carta is the greatest constitutional document of all times,” senior judge Lord Denning opined, “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

Margaret Thatcher was all in. To a Parisian interviewer who asked during the bicentenary of the Fall of the Bastille, “Are human rights a French invention?,” she replied trenchantly, “No, of course they are not.” The Iron Lady’s riposte to Gallic chauvinism? “We had Magna Carta 1215.”

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Will Thatcher’s Ghost Haunt Mrs. May?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Will Thatcher’s Ghost Haunt Mrs. May?’:

What an irony that Prime Minister Theresa May’s crisis over Brexit is coming to a head on the 28^th anniversary, to-day, of the fall from power of Margaret Thatcher. If only the Iron Lady were alive today.

She was challenged for leadership in November 1990 by fellow Tory Michael Heseltine. His perfidy fell short of toppling her outright, but Mrs. Thatcher failed to secure the margin needed to survive the vote. So a further vote of confidence became necessary. After consulting colleagues, Mrs. Thatcher concluded she lacked the support to see off the second round.

What was Mrs. Thatcher’s political sin that turned her caucus against her? Obstinacy in the face of growing resistance to a poll tax that levied rates regardless of one’s ability to pay was the catalyst for her removal, say opponents, who did not lack for self-justification.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

Addendum. Though I remain sympathetic to Edmund Burke’s sentiments expressed to the electors of Bristol in 1774 — ‘that a politician betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices [his judgement] to your opinion’ — Public Choice Theory has heightened my suspicions of politicians and government officials who claim to have skills and knowledge of which the general public is deprived.

As Adam Smith observed in The Wealth of Nations, no one person enjoys the breadth and depth of knowledge required to direct the whole economic programme of a nation (cited in my New York Sun wire). F.A. Hayek explored this theme in his Nobel Prize for Economics acceptance speech in 1974, ‘The Pretense of Knowledge’.

Public Choice also questions the conventional wisdom that private individuals are self-interested, whereas public officials are directed by the best interests of the commonweal. Does this mean that public actors never consider their own interests when making political decisions?

Finally, with respect to Brexit and Britain’s efforts to leave the trade apparatus imposed by the European Union: economics teaches that the best option available, based on the division of labour and the law of comparative advantage, is free trade. While there is much discussion of Britain securing free trade deals with the global community, it is far more likely that ‘managed’ trade agreements will be secured — still a better option than what the EU presents. Nevertheless, it suggests that the UK Government, in a paternalistic fashion, does not trust its business community to strike out on its own, unsupervised. But as Ludwig von Mises wrote, ‘If one rejects laissez faire on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reasons also reject every kind of government action.’

Thus it is with Theresa May’s draft Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. The document not only insinuates that Government officials must protect British citizens from their own worst instincts for freedom, but it abrogates the 2016 referendum that voted to restore lost liberties and UK sovereignty.

Does anybody now question why Britons feel more secure in their own opinions over the wisdom of their elected representatives? Those same Government officials who run roughshod over the rule of law and trample in the mud the traditions of British parliamentary democracy?

__________

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

On the Record | Is Boris Johnson the Leader for Brexit’s Darkest Hour?

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Is Boris Johnson the Leader for Brexit’s Darkest Hour?’:

A British politician who lived by his pen, enjoyed a chequered reputation attracting supporters and detractors, warned of an existential threat to his nation, while boasting American antecedents? Many will answer “Winston Churchill.” Full marks, though, for taking a contemporary turn and replying “Boris Johnson.”

Churchill’s dogged leadership during World War II and foresight in its aftermath, when, at Fulton, Missouri, he warned of the Soviet “iron curtain” descending over Eastern Europe, won him heroic status in America — not to mention the rare privilege of becoming an honorary U.S. citizen. His mother was Brooklyn heiress Jennie Jerome (Mr. Johnson, meanwhile, was born in New York City).

Movie audiences of Darkest Hour glimpsed Churchill’s early days as Prime Minister, as he struggled to rescue an army surrounded at Dunkirk and to convince fellow Conservatives and a hostile Commons to fight against German aggression instead of submitting to German terms. Britons would “fight on the beaches… never surrender,” and hold out for, “in one word, victory.”

Britain’s battle today is bureaucratic, but no less existential.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | When Britain Stood Up at Bruges

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘When Britain Stood Up at Bruges’:

“The shot heard round the world.” That’s how history remembers that fateful day in April 1775 when Massachusetts militia engaged British regulars on the fields of Lexington and Concord in defence of their liberties. Brexiteers recall their own summons to freedom, 30 years ago today: Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech.

Mrs. Thatcher’s critique of the European Union’s appetite for power made its mark and sparked a movement. Bruges gave birth to Brexit; its apotheosis, the June 2016 referendum vote whether to regain lost sovereignty or to stay within the EU. “Only” the hard work of negotiating Britain’s secession remains.

So much of the Bruges speech informs the rise of Brexit. And with Britain’s withdrawal from Brussels merely six months away, Mrs. Thatcher’s vision can lay the framework for Britain post-Brexit: “the willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states.”

Read more . . .

__________

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

On the Record | Ghosts of the Thatcher Coup

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Ghosts of the Thatcher Coup’:

As rumors swirl about challenges to Theresa May, the British press has been dogging a politician with first-hand experience in the art of ousting a sitting prime minister — Michael Heseltine. He infamously defenestrated Margaret Thatcher. Will it be déjà vu all over again, this time with Boris Johnson as the leading conspirator against the lady in power?

Lord Heseltine challenged Mrs. Thatcher in November 1990, arguing that the Iron Lady was no longer “fit for purpose.” There’s some irony that the row was ignited by the desire of some of the Conservatives to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Mrs. Thatcher objected. I wouldn’t want to press the point too far, but that beef was an early seed of Brexit.

While successful in the overthrow, Lord Heseltine himself failed to emerge in the top spot. Those who “do in” their leaders rarely do. Yet he remains active in Conservative politics, both as a life peer and a prominent opponent of Brexit. He’s making the most of the efforts by the press to cast him as a wise man.

Asked about the career prospects of Mrs. May’s potential challenger, Lord Heseltine agrees that BoJo is adept at “playing the game of becoming leader of the Conservative party.” As to the larger issues of uniting the party and the nation toward finalizing Brexit, these are, Lord Heseltine harrumphs, “key questions about achieving power and my doubts and reservations are very substantial.”

Read more . . .

__________

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

__________

DMI wishes its American friends a happy ‘Constitution Day’!

On the Record | Bastille Day equals Brexit Day

Please see my latest post for The Quarterly Review, ‘Bastille Day equals Brexit Day’:

Freedom lovers around the world celebrate Bastille Day (14^th July) in recognition of the rights of man and ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’. As many on the Continent believe, the French Revolution was the pivotal event in the rise of the individual against the entrenched power of the Crown, the aristocratic court, and the privileges of the Roman ‘Gallic’ Church. But the irony is lost by those who fight Britain’s exit from the European Union, particularly the leadership in the devolved regions of Scotland and Wales, whose preference, it seems, is to live under foreign-dominating EU law than the domestic laws of the United Kingdom.

For Brexit minister David Davis, the process is merely procedural. ‘We’re bringing into law 40 years of law. It is putting into British law what was European law. So then, after that, we can change it if we want to,’ Davis told a BBC interviewer. ‘Any material change will be in primary legislation. It’s only technical matters that will go through the statutory instrument and even then the House of Commons will have its say.’ But critics are less accommodating, calling it a ‘naked power grab.’ Most annoyed are leaders of two devolved regions, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones in Wales. They argue that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns authority from Brussels to Westminster and sidesteps their assemblies, contrary to assurances of co-operation from the Government — which is under no legal obligation to consult them. (Far better for prime minister Tony Blair, during the Westminster devolution period, to have returned more power to the people and rethought the wisdom of setting up additional power centres among the ‘united kingdoms’.)

One cannot help but marvel that this leadership was against Brexit, and now wishes to remain under the EU jurisdiction of the Single Market and Customs Union. But the irony of choosing to live under the European legal yoke would not have been lost on Margaret Thatcher.

Read more . . .

__________

My thanks to editor Dr Leslie Jones of The Quarterly Review.

On the Record | Brexit is Britain’s Independence Day

Please see my latest post for The Quarterly Review, ‘Brexit is Britain’s Independence Day’:

Independence Day. That was Boris Johnson’s description of June 23^rd last year, as he and fellow Leave campaigners canvassed the United Kingdom for Brexit, making the case to exit the European Union and strike out into the world once more as a sovereign nation. What a year it has been, with much to come before the official break in March 2019. ‘Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end,’ so Sir Winston Churchill described an early Allied victory in the darkest hours of World War II. ‘But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.’

Many trace the origins of Brexit to Bruges in September 1988, when Margaret Thatcher declared that ‘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.’

Yet with what hopes did the European project begin. The horrors of the war never far from its mind, and with the Soviet threat and the spectre of nuclear devastation before it, the Continent took a positive step toward removing barriers to trade and opening up new markets for competition, innovation, and productivity. Thus was born the European Economic Community (‘Common Market’) in 1958. Alas! conceived in the bureaucratic mind-set, the EEC soon trod the familiar statist path, culminating in 1993 when it became known as the European Community, signalling that politics was added to its economic remit. Political integration now became the central thrust, but a proposed constitution stumbled when plebiscites in several member countries failed, and sleight-of-hand was resorted to with the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, a constitution in all but name.

UK Eurosceptics took their lead from Mrs Thatcher, and while the Westminster establishment encouraged an inexorable move toward continental union, opponents mounted a rear-guard action. To quell unrest, prime minister David Cameron offered Tory MPs in the Coalition Government a referendum on Europe in exchange for their support. When a majority of Britons voted for separation, Mr Cameron resigned the premiership and was replaced by Theresa May. Although hitherto a tacit supporter of staying in the EU, she assured the country and her party that ‘Brexit means Brexit.’

And, as I conclude:

Much hard work and uncertainty remain, but the Brexit anniversary is still an occasion to celebrate. As a young, failed electoral candidate, Benjamin Disraeli remained resolute. ‘I am not at all disheartened,’ he vowed. ‘I do not in any way feel like a defeated man. Perhaps it is because I am used to it. I will say of myself like the famous Italian general, who, being asked in his old age why he was always victorious, replied, it was because he had always been beaten in his youth.’ From Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech on, Brexiteers have been fighting and have been frustrated for thirty years: they are now battle-tested, and they know that British independence is in sight.

Read more . . .

__________

My thanks to editor Dr Leslie Jones of The Quarterly Review.

On the Record | Brexit’s Progress

Please see my latest post for The Quarterly Review, ‘Brexit’s Progress’:

‘MPs hand Theresa May the starting gun on Brexit’. That is how the Independent recorded last Wednesday’s ‘second reading’ in the UK House of Commons [1^st February] to permit the Conservative government to begin exiting the European Union. And what a process it has been.

Many will argue that Brexit has been in the works since September 1988, when then prime minister Margaret Thatcher argued that ‘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.’

This became known as her ‘Bruges speech’, and inspired countless Britons to struggle for UK sovereignty against Continental encroachments. An eponymous ‘Bruges Group’, with Lady Thatcher as its founding president, was formed the next year to continue the fight.

Unrest smoldered under successive Labour governments, culminating in widespread disgust at the passing of the Lisbon Treaty — the compromise alternative when a formal agreement failed to receive sufficient votes from member states to pass, and for critics a ‘constitution’ in all-but-name for a federal Europe.

Attempting to quell dissent among his Eurosceptic MPs, coalition prime minister David Cameron promised an ‘in/out referendum’ early in 2013 and, in February last year, called for a June 23^rd vote — which ‘Leave’ campaigner Boris Johnson called Britain’s own ‘Independence Day’.

Mr. Cameron, who resigned after leading the unsuccessful Remain camp, was succeeded by Theresa May, who vowed to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and initiate talks to pull Britain out of the EU.

But not so fast. Or ‘festina lente’, as the Romans used to say.

Read more . . .

__________

My thanks to editor Dr Leslie Jones of The Quarterly Review.