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 | 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 Drama about to Begin Its Grand Finale

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit Drama about to Begin Its Grand Finale’:

Late August and change is in the air. A shifting and a shuffling of priorities. Summer’s pleasantries are coming to an end. Time for important work to be taken up once more. The London Sun knows what it’s about: “The silly season is coming to an end but it seems only Britain is getting serious.” With its withdrawal from the European Union looming in March next year, the United Kingdom is preparing for no deal.

Would it ever have been otherwise?

Hard to say. Had the British government been less dithering and more proactive, it may have been possible to drive home a mutually beneficial deal. It may still be, though the shortening timespan makes this unlikely. It is, in any event, growing more difficult by the hour to get beyond the fact that Brussels officials lack the incentive to cooperate with the Brexit program and every enticement to frustrate secession.

They know Continental discontents are watching Britain’s maneuvers closely and taking notes, either to twist their own concessions out of the EU or model their own exit proposals. There is good reason to remember William Pitt the Younger’s words on his battles with Napoleon. “Let us hope that England, having saved herself by her energy, may save Europe by her example,” he said. It turns out this isn’t the first time that Britain’s cause has been the cause of every freedom-loving European.

Read more . . .

__________

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

On the Record | Brexit’s Exit Light Remains On

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘Brexit’s Exit Light Remains On’:

Queried about the Waterloo battle that witnessed the defeat of Napoleon and his dream of continental conquest, victorious British general the Duke of Wellington replied: “It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” Brexit supporters doubtless are equally apprehensive about the success of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union as the two-year anniversary of their momentous vote nears.

From the start, the Brexit campaign was fraught with uncertainty. It began as a throw-away promise by then prime minister David Cameron to placate Europhile MPs in his Conservative caucus, a concession he never thought he’d live to regret until that June 23 vote in 2016 in which a majority of Britons voted for “Leave.” Mr. Cameron resigned and in the race to succeed him three leading Brexit campaigners — Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Andrea Leadsom — had their hopes dashed as “Remain” supporter Theresa May won the race.

Whatever euphoria Brexiteers initially may have enjoyed was soon dashed, too. Government plans to proceed with Brexit negotiations with the EU fell afoul of demands that Parliament be consulted. After legislation passed both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent Mrs. May, over-confident of her ministry’s support in the country, went to the polls against a seemingly weak opposition to strengthen her hand for future negotiations and badly miscalculated, losing her majority, her momentum, and her credibility in the process.

Read more . . .

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.