Tranquillus in Exile
New member
Next Tuesday the UK House of Commons will vote on the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU by the Prime Minister. The terms of the proposed agreement have antagonized nearly everybody, Remainers and Leavers alike. This is what Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, says about it:
One of the reasons the EU exists, I think, is that European elites have never fully accepted what universal suffrage means. Few dare flatly oppose the right of every adult to vote, but many powerful people fear its consequences. In countries like France, where the conflicting urges for violent revolution and reactionary repression have always been dangerously strong, there lurks a permanent fear of the mob and a permanent mob ready to turn nasty. We have seen both these phenomena there this very week. To the elites in such a country, the EU is a godsend. It lets people vote, but strictly on the understanding that their vote cannot seriously impede the Union’s destiny, which is safe in the hands of unelected political bureaucrats.
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition – in Britain, the United States, Australia – the vote is primary. It doesn’t just register a view: it decides. It makes the legislature legitimate. This difference helps explain why, in 1940, some French government ministers ran away – and some stayed to do a deal with Nazi Germany – but the British government rallied in the House of Commons.
So if the House of Commons now wishes to frustrate the referendum result, it needs to understand that it is breaking the compact upon which its own existence depends ... How can even the most ardent Remainer imagine that trust in Parliament can survive such behaviour? In the 17th century, Parliament fought the Crown and won important freedoms. Is it proposing, in the 21st century, to reverse this, and fight the people?
<snip>
The Prime Minister has tried hard to get her deal, but her efforts are fatally flawed because we cannot get out of the backstop – and therefore of the customs union – unless the EU lets us. That is an almost satirical repackaging of the EU problem as if it were the solution. One might laugh, or cry: one cannot vote for it and respect the referendum result at the same time. Only if Mrs May can close the backstop trap – and not just make pious promises that it won’t be used – could her deal scrape through.
Her reaction to her difficulty is to intensify government warnings about “no deal”, thus exposing her own government for leaving everything so late. “No deal” is a form of true Brexit, and very likely, after Mrs May’s mistakes, the only one available. This weekend, she is sending out ministers to preach to the public. The public should hit back, writing politely to their MPs to remind them that they made a contract with us in 2016, and now they must honour it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...anages-thwart-brexit-would-voters-ever-trust/
One of the reasons the EU exists, I think, is that European elites have never fully accepted what universal suffrage means. Few dare flatly oppose the right of every adult to vote, but many powerful people fear its consequences. In countries like France, where the conflicting urges for violent revolution and reactionary repression have always been dangerously strong, there lurks a permanent fear of the mob and a permanent mob ready to turn nasty. We have seen both these phenomena there this very week. To the elites in such a country, the EU is a godsend. It lets people vote, but strictly on the understanding that their vote cannot seriously impede the Union’s destiny, which is safe in the hands of unelected political bureaucrats.
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition – in Britain, the United States, Australia – the vote is primary. It doesn’t just register a view: it decides. It makes the legislature legitimate. This difference helps explain why, in 1940, some French government ministers ran away – and some stayed to do a deal with Nazi Germany – but the British government rallied in the House of Commons.
So if the House of Commons now wishes to frustrate the referendum result, it needs to understand that it is breaking the compact upon which its own existence depends ... How can even the most ardent Remainer imagine that trust in Parliament can survive such behaviour? In the 17th century, Parliament fought the Crown and won important freedoms. Is it proposing, in the 21st century, to reverse this, and fight the people?
<snip>
The Prime Minister has tried hard to get her deal, but her efforts are fatally flawed because we cannot get out of the backstop – and therefore of the customs union – unless the EU lets us. That is an almost satirical repackaging of the EU problem as if it were the solution. One might laugh, or cry: one cannot vote for it and respect the referendum result at the same time. Only if Mrs May can close the backstop trap – and not just make pious promises that it won’t be used – could her deal scrape through.
Her reaction to her difficulty is to intensify government warnings about “no deal”, thus exposing her own government for leaving everything so late. “No deal” is a form of true Brexit, and very likely, after Mrs May’s mistakes, the only one available. This weekend, she is sending out ministers to preach to the public. The public should hit back, writing politely to their MPs to remind them that they made a contract with us in 2016, and now they must honour it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...anages-thwart-brexit-would-voters-ever-trust/
