On the Record | Britain Verges on Defeat over Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Britain Verges on Defeat over Brexit’:

Mark your calendars for April 12. For the clock is reset on that date for Britain regaining independence. Reaching that date, with Brexit unhampered and unsullied, is the new goal. Nothing stands between Britons and freedom but the political class on either side of the English Channel. Yet with another series of votes tonight, parliamentarians seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Too bad British MPs forgot their Aristotle. He counseled that some political acts “are so called as being evil in themselves.” Politicians cannot “save” Brexit by sacrificing British liberties a bit here and a bit there. “It is not excess or deficiency of them that is evil,” Aristotle cautioned. “It is impossible to act rightly; one is always wrong.”

Brexiteers who buckled last week to support Prime Minister Theresa May’s flawed Withdrawal Agreement, citing the “lesser evil” argument, don’t get a pass from Aristotle, either. To wit: “Nor does acting rightly or wrongly in such cases depend upon circumstances.”

Thus surveying the available candidates to usher Brexit to victory and finding the field wanting in my last wire, I quoted the Psalmist, “Put not your trust in princes.” I add now the verse’s concluding lines. “. . . Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”

My point is simple. One should never endorse, carte blanche, any political program just because people voted for it. Scepticism and due diligence are always in order. Brexit is the right thing to do not because the majority of Britons voting in the 2016 referendum — 17.4 million — decided to exit the European Union. Brexit is the right thing to do because its principles are laid upon the foundations of justice.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Could Brexit Yet Rise Like a Phoenix?

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Could Brexit Yet Rise Like a Phoenix?’:

Is Brexit a phoenix in disguise? Imitating that fabled bird, Brexit went down in flames at Brussels last week. Britain’s true independence from the European Union, however, may yet be resurrected from the ashes. Has Brexit, phoenix-like, acquired new life?

In a desperate bid to save her Withdrawal Agreement, Prime Minister Theresa May met her parliamentary party Wednesday and, in exchange for their support, promised to resign. The idea would be to allow new leadership to take charge of the trade deal portion of Britain’s two-step exit from the EU.

Mrs. May’s sacrifice of power for her preferred deal gathered strength, in a relative way, when, during “indicative votes” in the Commons later that day, none of the alternatives gained a majority.

No. 10 interprets this as a sign that the continuing stalemate may work to the Government’s benefit. Rumors circulate that Mrs. May’s personal agreement with her party has had the contrary effect, souring opposition MPs who had been prepared to vote in favor to get Brexit behind them. (Why discussions among members of the governing party are now deemed “extra-parliamentary” is bewildering.)

Meanwhile, other MPs, are seeing the EU extension as an opportunity to bargain for better terms. They had previously voted for Mrs. May’s deal and are said to be rethinking their voting strategy.

In a developing twist, Mrs. May will bring only part of her Withdrawal Agreement to the Commons for a vote — the “divorce” component, not the political statement of the UK-EU relationship.

As details emerge, the Government must get legislation passed by the “old” Brexit date (today) if Britain is to leave the EU by the new May 22 deadline. Are mandarins devising rules on the fly, to bedevil an amical exit?

If the latest Government bill is defeated, leaving April 12 with no deal — “WTO Brexit” — comes to the fore once more, barring another Article 50 extension. Our Brexit saga whets the appetite again. Nil desperandum.

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 or Bust: Time for Britain to Ask its People

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit or Bust: Time for Britain to Ask its People’:

Cancel the celebrations. Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed that Friday, March 29 will not be Brexit day. Come Monday, April 1, the United Kingdom will still be in the European Union. April Fools’ Day, indeed.

These sad tidings were announced as Mrs. May briefed the Commons on Monday about her latest Brussels meetings. The upshot for Brexit is this, she said: “The date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.”

If Parliament buckles and accedes to her Withdrawal Agreement, “Brexit” occurs May 22 — just ahead of elections for the European Parliament. If not, then April 12 — permitting further UK-EU consultations.

So contrary was this to Government policy — that Britain would exit the EU as established by a referendum, two Acts of Parliament, and national election — that Sir John Redwood needed confirmation. “What would the Prime Minister say to a leave voter who wants us to leave on 29 March?” he asked.

“We have requested the extension to Article 50, so the 29 March date is no longer there,” replied the Prime Minister.

Crispin Blunt was unsparing in his vitriol. “Does the Prime Minister understand that, by taking no deal off the table at the behest of this Remainer Parliament, she has just put the final torpedo into her own deal and any real prospect of Brexit,” he asked icily, “and that her statement will represent the most shameful surrender by a British leader since Singapore in 1942?”

Is Britain’s independence from the EU super-state — for which the people voted and were promised by their elected representatives — well and truly dead?

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

As an aside, though I continue to have confidence that the 2016 referendum remains valid, as much as I believe that a general election at this time is fraught with danger, my overwhelming feeling is that at this crucial period in determining Britain’s future as a self-governing sovereign nation — on the cusp of self-inflicted humiliation, aided and abetted by European Union mandarins — it is time to cross the Rubicon. Iacta alea est. ‘Brexit or Bust.’

__________

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

On the Record | Brexit, Beware Ides of March Portend Trouble

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit, Beware Ides of March Portend Trouble’:

“Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.” Fans of British comedy will recognize the cry from Kenneth Williams’s portrayal of Julius Caesar. Brexiteers take the sentiment personally, too — especially on this “Ides of March.” Britain’s political class has it in for British independence.

Brexit had a dismal week. First, the Prime Minister’s withdrawal plan endured its second defeat on Tuesday. Efforts were earnestly made to convince MPs that attempts to address the Irish border issue did not trap Britain in the EU customs union, but failed on the merits.

“No deal” Brexit went down the following day. This is particularly galling to purist Brexiteers, who see future trade agreements with Europe based on WTO guidelines as Britain’s only way to achieve true freedom. The Wall Street Journal, initially opposed to Brexit, acknowledged this week that a no-deal exit “may be the best outcome now.”

Brexit’s “unkindest cut of all” came Thursday, when parliamentarians voted to ask the EU for an Article 50 extension. If granted, the March 29 deadline is shattered. Independence may be fatally compromised.

Can Brexit be saved? Caesar’s augurer has as much chance of foreseeing the future of British independence as any political prognosticator. Let’s examine the entrails of this week for clues.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Marxist Specter May Unnerve Tories on Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Marxist Specter May Unnerve Tories on Brexit ’:

Brexit Triumphant or Brexit Bust? With little more than two weeks before the March 29 deadline, many factors are still in flux. Pending votes in Parliament this week will give direction to the final outcome. Prime Minister May’s “Strasbourg stitch-up” only distracts from a deal that cedes too much to the European Union while continuing to frustrate full British independence.

Mrs. May joined EU officials late Monday for eleventh-hour negotiations to save her withdrawal agreement. She emerged little over an hour later with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, to announce “legally binding” changes that putatively take the sting out of the Irish backstop.

“Now is the time to come together, to back this improved Brexit deal, and to deliver on the instruction of the British people,” she said.

Succeed or fail, Mrs. May will bring her “improved” exit proposal to Parliament on Tuesday for another vote. Her first attempt in January, it will be remembered, failed by an astonishing 230-vote margin. MPs feared the Irish backstop left the UK under EU customs oversight, minus a legal mechanism to get out.

If history repeats itself and the agreement goes down to defeat again, on Wednesday the House of Commons will test its will on a “no deal” Brexit.

If this too fails, Thursday’s vote will ask Parliament to petition the EU for an extension of Article 50. If successful, and Brussels accedes — under doubtless punishing terms — the dreams of Brexit will be fairly vanquished.

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 Backers Mock New Deal as a ‘Codpiece’

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit Backers Mock New Deal as a “Codpiece” ’:

“In like a lamb, out like a lion.” With the Brexit deadline of March 29 in doubt, the political metaphor is obvious. As well the paradox. Theresa May entered No. 10 vowing that “Brexit means Brexit.” With 4 weeks to go, her former aide, Nick Timothy, admits the government’s narrow ambit as merely “a damage limitation exercise.” The month begins with Britain poised to become a lion of independence. Will it end still a subservient lamb?

Beyond dispute, Britons have been ill-served by their political class. With an EU exit the outcome of the 2016 referendum, MPs twice in Parliament ratified this vote to leave. Was this merely a ruse? To buy time to obfuscate Brexit and conduct negotiations so ham-fisted that abandoning the people’s choice becomes the only option?

Mr. Timothy’s perspective from inside the government is suitably pessimistic. “Many ministers, and I would include Theresa in this, struggle to see any economic upside to Brexit,” he said. From this jaundiced view of British independence, “inevitably you’re not going to be prepared to take the steps that would enable you to fully realize the economic opportunities of leaving.”

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 | A Valentine’s Day Defeat for Theresa May

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘A Valentine’s Day Defeat for Theresa May’:

What a Valentine’s Day in Parliament. One would think Britons have fallen out of love with liberty. This after the Government lost another vote — its tenth, according to BBC bean-counters — on its Brexit agenda. Yet it’s no time to lose heart for those who stand with Britain’s desperate, heroic dash for independence from Europe.

The Government defeat came on a more-or-less status quo motion: To stand by the Withdrawal Agreement, during ongoing lobbying efforts with Brussels to alter the Irish backstop, by inserting binding text introducing a sunset clause or allowing unilateral termination. The EU is rebuffing both overtures.

Government opponents have also been thwarted in their attempts, after voting down Prime Minister May’s withdrawal proposal in January, to derail Brexit. Such ideas as extending Article 50 and postponing the March 29 exit, or holding a second “People’s’ referendum,” or taking Brexit from the Government and giving responsibility to Parliament, or removing the possibility of a “no deal” Brexit.

All have gone nowhere.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | To Hell and Back: Brexit Undaunted by Europe’s Jibes

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘To Hell and Back: Brexit Undaunted by Europe’s Jibes’:

The United Kingdom’s efforts to exit the European Union are going to hell. “In a handbasket,” Napoleon would doubtless mutter, he the French autocrat who disparaged his British conqueror as nothing but “a nation of shopkeepers.” The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, probably agrees. Neither Britons nor shopkeepers — free enterprisers of any sort — earn any respect from Brussels mandarins.

Like Napoleon, Mr. Tusk and his camarilla have plans for European hegemony and putting Britain in its place. “I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like,” he mused on Twitter, “for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.”

“Well, I doubt Lucifer would welcome them,” piped up the EU’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt. His beef was that after what those who promoted Brexit in Britain, they would even manage to divide hell.

Witty.

But like the Church Militant, Brexiteers are hitting back. Jacob Rees-Mogg replied that Mr. Tusk’s slur “shows exactly why the British people rejected the EU in the first place.”

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 | Brexit Beckons the Courage of Thomas Paine

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit Beckons the Courage of Thomas Paine’:

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” So Thomas Paine consoled revolutionary America, when hopes of independence seemed dashed by circumstance. He expounded his revolutionary politics in England, too, a plaque at the White Hart Hotel at Lewes, East Sussex, reminds. Today, as Britain revolts against EU membership and for its own independence, Paine’s words bring it home. Brexit hangs in the balance as the scales weigh the uncertain benefits of withdrawing on terms dictated by Europe or striking out at the appointed hour minus them, without regret.

No contest, I say. To quote Disraeli: “Departures should be sudden.”

In the 2016 referendum, the choice before Britons was stark. Whether, on the one hand, to leave the European Union and regain the marks of sovereignty and self-government or, on the other hand, to remain in the EU and see their laws subservient to a foreign court, their acts of parliament subject to the approval of unelected EU bureaucrats.

The people opted for independence. Yet their Brexit vote is being frustrated by insiders who deride it, lament it, abhor it. Either by a political class with a share in EU control, who do not want their power curtailed. Or business interests with a financial stake in trade according to EU regulations — “crony continentalism” — and fear selling their wares in the competition of free markets.

Or ordinary citizens, who have lived so long under the paternalism of the EU that they want for the confidence that independence engenders and the self-respect that is the reward of self-rule. Brexit’s troubles are compounded by politicians who do not believe in it and do not want it; who promote it publicly but do all within their power to frustrate and despoil the vote for freedom.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | British Solons in Tight Spot on Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘British Solons in Tight Spot on Brexit’:

“Depend upon it, sir,” said Samuel Johnson, “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” With Brexit 81 days away and counting, we begin to wonder at the focus of British politicians. How concentrated is the mind of Prime Minister Theresa May? And what of her adversaries?

We’ll know soon enough. Parliament is scheduled to take up Brexit when it meets on Monday [to-day]. Center stage will be the Withdrawal Bill setting out the terms of Britain’s departure from the European Union. Again. That same bill that Mrs. May punted to the new year when she delayed a December vote in the House of Commons.

That tactic led Conservative colleagues to hold a confidence vote on her leadership — a vote Mrs. May ultimately won. But while her tenure as Tory head is assured, her premiership definitely less so. Mrs. May retains the keys to No. 10 due only to the lack of a credible alternative. (Boris Johnson, whose bravura we admire, enjoys strong support with the grassroots but little on the Government benches.)

With March 29 as “Brexit Day,” the Prime Minister has a fortnight from Parliament’s return to get her Bill passed, to initiate a series of meetings preceding “secession.”

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 Retreat Opens Door for BoJo

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Brexit Retreat Opens Door for BoJo’:

Prime Minister Theresa May’s retreat on Brexit is best seen as an opening for her former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, who is the last contender for prime minister to have seen the European Union question clearly from the start. What Mrs. May is doing, after all, is what Mr. Johnson proposed, once it became so clear to so many that she had been snookered in Brussels.

What Mrs. May did in the Commons this afternoon was to announce that she was postponing Tuesday’s vote on the Government’s Withdrawal Agreement bill with the European Union. “While there is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal,” Mrs. May confessed, “there remains widespread and deep concern.”

The Prime Minister made it clear she comprehends that had she proceeded, “the deal would be rejected by a significant margin.” In the context, it is a breath-taking admission by a leader who’d seemed almost willfully blind on the point. Now, she said, the Government “will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the House at this time.”

It is easy to see why Mrs. May is vote-shy. Just last week, after all, the government lost three votes. Two were in relation to the legal advice the government had received on the agreement. Parliament had asked for the advice in November but, when only a summary was provided, the Commons demanded the full report.

Mrs. May lost one vote to postpone this vote, then lost the vote itself — a vote that many say was signaling that the Government was in contempt of Parliament.

The third vote is even more momentous. The Commons won a vote to set out its own Brexit “Plan B” if the Government cannot get its plan through Parliament. This could be another Withdrawal Agreement or another referendum vote — even to shelve Brexit unilaterally, as the European Court of Justice announced today in answer to a query from the Scottish legislature and for hopeful Remainers.

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 | Britons Await the Promise of Brexit

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Britons Await the Promise of Brexit’:

Prime Minister Theresa May’s loss of another Brexit minister, Dominic Raab, invites a paraphrase of Oscar Wilde, “to lose one Brexit minister, Prime Minister, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.”

Carelessness does not even begin to encompass Mrs. May’s ineptness since the June 2016 referendum vote in favor of exiting the European Union and striking out once more as a sovereign country in command of its laws, borders, public purse, and trade policies.

Mr. Raab’s reasons for his departure — he could not ‘in good conscience” support Mrs. May’s draft withdrawal agreement from the European Union — echo the Brexiteer consensus: Dissatisfaction with the proposed resolution of the so-called “Irish backstop.”

Government attempts to address the Irish question, allowing Brussels to maintain the integrity of its single market and customs union, have resulted in proposals that leave parts of the UK — that is, Northern Ireland — under EU jurisdiction.

Adding insult to injury, the draft framework forbids the UK from unilaterally curtailing the backstop, while giving significant authority to the EU and the Irish government. In his resignation letter, Mr. Raab said the draft “presents a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom.”

Mr. Rabb said he could not support “an indefinite backstop arrangement, where the EU holds a veto over our ability to exit.” That echoes in spirit Boris Johnson’s complaint that it would reduce Great Britain to a “vassal state.”

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | ‘No Deal’ means ‘No Problem’ as Brexit nears

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘“No Deal” means “No Problem” as Brexit nears’:

“Brexit deal hopes dashed.” So reads the headline in the London Sun, after Brexit minister Dominic Raab flies to Brussels for emergency talks with EU officials. Disappointment springs from the fount of so much angst for the United Kingdom — Ireland. Is the promise of Brexit coming undone?

Much ado about nothing, methinks.

Don’t get me wrong. Britain’s successful uncoupling from the European Union is very much a concern. It’s just that this latest crisis isn’t really much of a crisis. It’s a manufactured crisis.

The question of an “Irish backstop” is only one more obstacle thrown up to wrong-foot the British prime minister. And to the EU’s satisfaction, Theresa May has proven herself less than adept on the Brexit file.

Brinkmanship diplomacy, this isn’t.

Read more . . .

Remarks are welcome on DMI’s Facebook page.

__________

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

On the Record | Supreme Court of Britain Insists That Brexit Vote Goes Through Parliament

Please see my latest wire for The New York Sun, ‘Supreme Court of Britain Insists that Brexit Vote Goes Through Parliament’:

Americans tired of presidential end runs around Congress will sympathize with the Supreme Court ruling out of London that Her Majesty’s Government cannot act alone but must pass legislation in Parliament before triggering Brexit negotiations to leave the European Union.

Following this summer’s referendum vote, Prime Minister May promised to initiate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin procedural talks for EU withdrawal. Opponents challenged the government before the High Court in early November, arguing that the executive, by acting unilaterally, was usurping parliamentary sovereignty.

The Government countered that, through executive power based on the royal prerogative and buttressed by the majority vote, its Brexit plans were constitutional. The High Court thought otherwise and ruled against the Government, which in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.

Complications ensued when the constituent countries of the United Kingdom joined in the mid-December hearings, contending that Whitehall diktat threatened the equal prerogatives of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which should have the right to consult on and veto future Brexit developments.

Read more . . .

__________

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

On the Record | May Takes a Step Forward to British Independence with an Eye Out for Trump

Please see my latest wire for The New York Sun, ‘May Takes a Step Forward to British Independence with an Eye Out for Trump’:

Prime Minister May’s Lancaster House speech outlining the British government’s Brexit agenda takes an impressive step forward in Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union — and keeps a weather eye out for the man who is about to become President Trump. Brexit was “a vote to restore . . . our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.”

The Prime Minister opened with an apologia, setting out the reasons for Britons’ June decision to leave the EU and set out once more on their historic path of international engagement. “The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours,” Mrs. May assured. “It was no attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member states.” The lovelorn will recognize the “it’s not you, it’s us.”

Mrs. May detailed a dozen markers that will guide her Brexit strategy, from negotiating a new free trade agreement with the Union (maintaining and revising those current provisions that work for both parties) to normalizing relations for EU citizens living and working in the UK (and vice-versa), while assuring member countries of Britain’s continuing commitment to mutually beneficial co-operation in matters of continental security, defence, and cultural engagement.

Europe was not Mrs. May’s only audience. While England is the dominant “kingdom” in the Union, the Prime Minister assured the administrations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland that their concerns and suggestions will be heard at Westminster. Strengthening “the precious union between the four nations of the United Kingdom” is also part of the Brexit framework, as the referendum vote demonstrated the urban-rural divide and the tensions between England and the periphery regions.

Read more . . .

One point raised in the wire, to counter both prime minister Theresa May’s ‘modern industrial strategy’ and President-elect Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ protectionist policy, I believe needs to be especially emphasised: ‘Far better to look to future prospects than past accomplishment and base economic policy on the pillars of property, competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship.’ It is the basis of classical liberal economics and, as the French say, la théorie des débouchés (‘law of markets’).

__________

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

On the Record | Welcome to the Fight: Niall Ferguson reverses his course on Brexit

Please see my latest wire for The New York Sun, ‘Welcome to the Fight: Niall Ferguson reverses his course on Brexit’:

In a season when some of our greatest intellectuals are trying to figure out how to make their peace with Donald Trump, let us take a big-hearted view of the mea culpa, mea maxima culpa just issued by historian Niall Ferguson in respect of Brexit. Speaking at a forum of the Milken Institute in London, Professor Ferguson on Tuesday gave his reasons for speaking out against an independent Britain and backing instead remaining in the European Union.

“It is one of the few times in my life that I’ve argued something without wholly believing it,” Mr. Ferguson confessed.

His rationale? A desire for a stable Britain. In theory he shared the Leave campaign’s exasperation with EU over-government, but “didn’t want the Cameron-Osborne government to fall” and with it the austerity measures vital to future economic growth after the Global Financial Crisis. Mr. Ferguson enumerated four areas of conspicuous EU failure: monetary union, security policy, migration policy, and radical Islam. In the core issues, he knew, the Europhile class of politicians, mandarins, and intelligentsia are pitted against everyone else, particularly middle-class Britons.

“One has to recognize that the European élite’s performance over the last decade entirely justified the revolt,” Mr. Ferguson admitted. “If those of us who are essentially part of the élite had spent a little bit more time in pubs around provincial England and, for that matter, provincial Wales, we would have heard what I just said.” But the rancor had reached the ears of London’s then-mayor Boris Johnson, who called the June 23^rd vote Britain’s “Independence Day.”

Read more . . .

__________

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