Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Treachery On A National Scale

     I’m not nearly as concerned with the politics of Europe as I am with that of the United States. However, now and then a development on the other side of the Puddle will whisper to me in monitory tones. Just now, such a development is much on my mind.

     Consider this report on the state of the “Brexit” process:

     The enormity of [British Prime Minister Theresa May’s] deception beggar’s belief. She has repeatedly promised that Great Britain will be leaving the EU after the two-year Article 50 period has expired on 29th March 2019.

     Mrs. May has promised on a myriad of occasions that this means leaving the EU single market, leaving the customs union and leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In turn this means taking back control of Great Britain’s borders, trade policy, money, fishing grounds and an end to the hated free movement of people. These make up the core of the non-negotiable red lines.

     While Secretary of State Davies was negotiating in good faith, Mrs. May appointed her personal advisor and career bureaucrat Ollie Robbins along with a cabal of unelected civil servants to negotiate with the EU below the radar to come up with an agreement that keeps Great Britain attached to the EU institutions.

     This agreement not only breaks the red lines but also her solemn promise to leave the EU and all its institutions. This is the notorious and thoroughly discredited Chequers Plan which she is attempting to bounce the British people into accepting.

     Here in America, we can often blame this sort of duplicity on some element of the “Deep State.” Politicians who occupy elective offices can rail against the Deep State all they please, but most are quietly, covertly in league with it. The Deep State, you see, is a perfect whipping boy for the politician who wants to represent himself as a “reformer;” it can take an infinite number of strokes without suffering any pain or damage at all. Thus the visible portion of the Leviathan State can employ it both for campaign purposes, and for doling out favors and privileges to preferred cronies.

     However, in the U.S. the politician must at least pretend to be “on your side.” Apparently that’s no longer the case in the United Kingdom.

     In the British parliamentary system, the prime minister is chosen by the majority in the legislature, immediately after a general election. The prime minister then selects the rest of the Cabinet. Thus, the administration can rely on majority support from the legislature, at minimum during the first couple of years after its formation.

     One consequence of the British arrangement is that legislation and administrative practices can change at a far swifter rate than in our “checks and balances” system. Inasmuch as the United Kingdom has no constitution, and therefore no Supreme Law that constrains all other law and government, the system has no brakes other than the statutory five-year limit on the intervals between elections. As long as the prime minister continues to enjoy majority support in Parliament, the government can do as it pleases.

     With that sort of assurance, an executive administration can get away with a great deal more than ours. That includes the ability, given sufficient motivation, to ignore the plainly expressed will of the electorate.

     From the state of the “negotiations,” it seems the entirety of the British government has chosen to thwart the will of the majority of the British people – openly.

     Long ago, socialist playwright Berthold Brecht, during an exchange with Sidney Hook, quipped “If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?” Perhaps Brecht meant it as a joke, but the events of recent decades are bringing it near to reality for the subjects of the United Kingdom. Consider in this light the total disarmament of law-abiding private Britons, the huge movement of Middle Eastern and African Muslims onto the Sceptered Isle, and the near-total refusal of the British justice system to act against their obscene, vicious, and treasonous practices.

     Then consider what might become of We the People of the United States, were the federal government to acquire enough power to do the same to us.

No comments: