On the Record | Trump may meet BoJo in Brexit row

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Trump may meet BoJo in Brexit row’:

Could Boris Johnson emerge from the debacle of Chequers to become prime minister of Britain? That is the question following Theresa May’s capitulation, where she committed the government to a soft-Brexit that seems foredoomed to satisfy neither the Remainers or those who want to hold out for the expressed will of Britons for full independence.

Mrs. May’s Brexit secretary, David Davis, was first to resign late Sunday. In his resignation letter, Mr. Davis wrote that he feared “the current trend of policy and tactics is making” leaving the EU customs and regulatory framework “look less and less likely” and that the upshot of Chequers “will be to make the supposed control by Parliament illusory rather than real.”

The foreign secretary made his move the following morning. In his letter taking leave of office, Mr. Johnson feared that the Brexit “dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.” The government’s position on Brexit, he said, means that Britain is “truly headed for the status of colony,” even before Brussels has made its counter-proposal.

With the Chequers agreement in hand, Mr. Johnson said “the Government now has a song to sing” but, having “practiced the words over the weekend,” he admitted that “they stick in the throat.”

Read more . . .

__________

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

On the Record | Time’s Come for New PM for Britain

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Time’s Come for New PM for Britain’:

Conservatives backing Brexit will find no peace until Theresa May is removed from office. That is the conclusion of this correspondent following Friday’s meeting of the prime minister and cabinet to finalize the government’s proposals for a new working relationship with the European Union.

Mrs. May has failed the British voters, who in June 2016 decided to leave the EU. They voted for a strategy of global bilateral trade deals, with Britain freed from the strait-jacket of tariffs and regulations imposed by the Brussels bureaucracy. Mrs. May nonetheless reached at Chequers an agreement within the government envisaging an EU common policy with respect to goods and agri-foods, ostensibly to ease trade with the Continent.

Yet such a policy is crosswise with the Brexit vote. For it would make future international trade deals extremely difficult, as Britain would enter talks about the composition of said deals compromised by its EU regulatory commitments. Adding insult to injury, Britain would no longer have a say in the formation of EU trade policy, being no longer a member.

Mrs. May has failed her Cabinet colleagues, by presenting them with a done deal and threatening those who would refuse to comply. She is “first among equals” in theory, but has treated her ministers as lackeys, with the framework of the Chequers agreement drawn up in advance of Friday’s conference.

Over a 12-hour period they were pressured into a “soft” Brexit compromise, meant to ease negotiations with Europe, allay fears of British businesses already competing on the Continent, and resolve the border issue with Ireland. Yet critics argue that Brexit is betrayed by surrendering the promise of independence back to Europe. Ministers were warned that resignations would be punished by immediate loss of limousine privileges, with taxi-fares made available for rides home.

The Bible teaches that it profits not a man to lose his soul for the whole world; now Brexit ministers sell out on principle on the mere promise of government transport.

Finally, the Prime Minister has failed her parliamentary party. And not for the first time. Last year she went to the polls in the belief that a weak Labor opposition would result in increased Tory seats to strengthen her Brexit hand. She miscalculated badly and was rewarded with a minority government. Recent polls now indicate that if the Brexit promise is broken, 45% of Conservative voters will abandon the party at the next election.

So what next? The Chequers agreement and the imminent white paper that expands on detail for legislation to come is almost certainly dead on arrival. Eurosceptic Tory MPs will vote against it, while little support can be hoped from opposing parliamentary parties, as politicians who want closer ties with Europe will frustrate the Government as much as possible.

Nor can it be expected that the Chequers agreement will be acceptable to Brussels, which will exploit Mrs. May’s opening round of EU concessions as precursors for more to come. This will be the opportunity for cowed Brexiteers who swallowed their pride at Chequers to save face, say “Enough is enough!,” and break ranks with No. 10.

Read more . . .

__________

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

On the Record | President Trump’s Brexit Opening

Please see my latest wire for The American Spectator, ‘President Trump’s Brexit Opening’:

London in July, and more than an unusual summer heat wave awaits Britain’s prime minister Theresa May. The Brexit timetable is “hotting up” as ministers prepare to finalize the Government’s list of demands for Brussels, while restive Conservative MPs jostle for position to defenestrate their leader once the European Union deal is done. As tensions heighten, can President Trump offer respite to his beleaguered British counterpart?

The Cabinet meets this Friday at the premier’s country retreat at Chequers, where they will thrash out the Government’s white paper setting out the objectives for its future social, economic, and security relationship with Europe. Too little, too late, is the general consensus, as the formal Brexit separation takes place next March: while various measures and proposals have been drawn up and discussed desultorily, none have benefited from rigorous analysis, and now Brexiteers are fearful that the Cabinet will be presented with a fait accompli, take-it-or-leave-it Damoclean sword dangling over their heads.

Rumors circulate, for instance, that Mrs. May will propose abiding by European single market rules for goods, leaving the corollary of free movement of labor for the UK-EU negotiating table — ostensibly on the grounds that, as the United Kingdom currently abides by these regulations, this trade component can be quickly agreed by the two parties. Yet her critics argue that this concession empowers the EU to continue dictating terms, frustrating British attempts to innovate and compete for international trade agreements. Brussels mandarins, who habitually voice their disdain for Britain’s “independence” initiative, have no incentive to coöperate and encourage discontent on the Continent. They regularly back-foot Mrs. May and her Brexit ministers.

“Nothing durable can be accomplished without the impulse of general concurrence,” wrote Germaine de Staël, during those unfortunate “eras in history when the course of national feeling is dependent on a single man.” Woe to Britain that its fate rests with Theresa May, unloved by Conservatives, and overwhelmed and underwhelming on the Brexit file.

Read more . . .

__________

My thanks to editor Wlady Pleszczynski of The American Spectator.

On the Record | Imagine Trump Doing Brexit, Johnson Says

Please see my latest wire as Brexit diarist for The New York Sun, ‘Imagine Trump Doing Brexit, Johnson Says’:

Don’t expect fireworks over London tonight on the second anniversary of the Brexit vote. Murmurs of satisfaction in Brussels are more likely, as European Union mandarins congratulate themselves on casting a spanner into Britain’s efforts to save itself from the continent’s super state.

Brexiteers sold independence at least partly on the basis that EU trade restrictions penalized British producers and consumers, imposing high tariffs within the bloc and keeping members from enjoying more favorable trade relationships with non-member countries. Freed from the EU’s regulatory and protectionist barriers, Britain could once more compete on the global stage and negotiate agreements with Europe that were mutually agreeable.

All trade is based on this win-win scenario, but Brussels will have none of it. Officials far prefer to keep impediments in place that are equally damaging to its member states and to Britain and, perhaps far more important given the rise of protest parties, signal that opposition to EU diktat will not be tolerated.

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.