Theresa May and the Art of the Dither

 

Britain will not leave the European Union on March 29th. That is the only certain statement that can be made following the summit in Brussels yesterday. Even if Theresa May were to be replaced as Prime Minister, or if the Queen were to dissolve the current Parliament before any new legislation, international law, in this case the EU’s, is superior to British and they have agreed an extension.

An angry European Council have offered two new exit dates. If Mrs May’s Agreement were to pass through the House of Commons next week, then it will extend the UK’s membership until May 22nd to allow the necessary legislation to be enacted. If it fails again then the extension is only till April 12th. With the Speaker of the House having ruled a third vote on the Agreement out of order, it is unclear how the first scenario will happen.

What the EU have effectively done is offer the House of Commons just enough time, about three weeks, to get rid of the Prime Minister and come back with new terms. An even ‘softer Brexit’, a second referendum or a simple cancellation of the whole process would suit the EU. They have pretty much accepted that their favoured outcome, the Withdrawal Agreement, is dead. Had they agreed to Mrs May’s request for a three-month extension – conditional on that Agreement passing next week – then ‘no deal’, their least favoured outcome, was highly probable.

The realisation started to spread yesterday, in both London and Brussels, that Mrs May was resigned to ‘no deal’. Her speech on Wednesday attacking MPs for the ‘crisis’ was a rolling of the pitch, an attempt to blame them for whatever disruptions a clean break might entail. Whether outraged Tory Leave MPs will trust that her conversion is genuine remains to be seen, this morning some of them still think that exit on March 29th is possible.

All eyes will return to the House of Commons next week. Mrs May might try to bring her Agreement back for a third time, or she may not bother as amendments enabling Parliament to take control of the process are likely to succeed. The Speaker could use procedural peculiarities to allow a motion that could produce a similar outcome. Or the Opposition could table a No Confidence vote. Given their current mood, the Conservative Party might try and remove her before then. Devotees of the original House of Cards will know that it ended with the final cut, but Mrs May never really got to play the King.

It goes without saying that this should serve as a warning for America. What the UK has done to itself with the EU could very well be replicated by the United States at the United Nations, if those ushering in the Age of Global Governance have their way.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    Mr Nick: It goes without saying that this should serve as a warning for America.

    Oh, I dunno.  It’s hard for me to know who’s a step ahead, when I look at the appalling dysfunction on both sides of the Atlantic, and the complete inability of either country’s government to effectively carry out its mandates or the will of its people over the past several years (even when the majority of politicians have said, at one time or another, that they are committed to doing so).  A pox on them all, and “global governance” as well.  The only thing that can surely be said of that endeavor is that it will fail too.  Britain would do  far better if it were a society governed by the first hundred names in the telephone directory for Upton Snodsbury or Nether Wallop.

    • #1
  2. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Britain! What a strange mess representative gov’t is. Both the UK & the US are undergoing a serious test–do the people actually prefer freedom to what we–or at least our social superiors–nowadays call governance? These are the only two political communities with a long tradition of political freedom, which people understand as political equality. They should best weather the coming crises. So the whole mess may not be a bad thing, all told.

    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    • #2
  3. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Honestly, I think the Queen should have an appropriate response to this crisis. The UK citizens and Her Majesty have tried the EU marriage. Does the Queen see any future for her people under the EU?

    • #3
  4. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Anyone want to place bets on war breaking out between England and the European Union?

    • #4
  5. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Britain! What a strange mess representative gov’t is. Both the UK & the US are undergoing a serious test–do the people actually prefer freedom to what we–or at least our social superiors–nowadays call governance? These are the only two political communities with a long tradition of political freedom, which people understand as political equality. They should best weather the coming crises. So the whole mess may not be a bad thing, all told.

    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    I’ve sometimes wondered if future history books will frame these times as a reaction to the rise of neo-Confucianism.

    • #5
  6. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Honestly, I think the Queen should have an appropriate response to this crisis. The UK citizens and Her Majesty have tried the EU marriage. Does the Queen see any future for her people under the EU?

    The Palace is determined to stay out of this. The country is split almost 50-50, the (unwritten) constitution is straining enough as it is.

    Some people want a deus ex machina to resolve everything. But they would soon be pretty annoyed if the Monarch intervened against them. As one side is probably more republican (remain) and the other monarchist (leave), it would risk inflaming the former or turning their natural supporters into revolutionaries in the latter case.

    Republicanism is a minority interest in the UK at the moment, but that is only because the present Monarch is so well respected and personally popular. Her heir will inherit some of that but it could dissipate pretty quickly and he won’t want the political-class-mediaocracy thinking about those kind of reforms.

    The Prime Minister has to lead. Unless there is actual civil disorder, the Palace will wait and try to bring the country together afterwards.

    • #6
  7. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Mr Nick (View Comment):
    Some people want a deus ex machina to resolve everything. But they would soon be pretty annoyed if the Monarch intervened against them. As one side is probably more republican (remain) and the other monarchist (leave), it would risk inflaming the former or turning their natural supporters into revolutionaries in the latter case.

    Too bad this link continues behind a paywall.

    If I was a monarchist, I would leave the EU because of the successful UK monarchy for hundreds of years.

    As  a republican, (not a member of the US Republican Party) I would leave because I have no say in Brussels.

    • #7
  8. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Vectorman (View Comment):
    Too bad this link continues behind a paywall.

    Sorry, he has largely spelt it out on his twitter feed (March 18th) here and here if you can stomach it.

    • #8
  9. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Mr Nick (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Britain! What a strange mess representative gov’t is. Both the UK & the US are undergoing a serious test–do the people actually prefer freedom to what we–or at least our social superiors–nowadays call governance? These are the only two political communities with a long tradition of political freedom, which people understand as political equality. They should best weather the coming crises. So the whole mess may not be a bad thing, all told.

    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    I’ve sometimes wondered if future history books will frame these times as a reaction to the rise of neo-Confucianism.

    Say more about this! Do you mean revolt against Mandarins? I think yes, we’re seeing that-

    • #9
  10. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Mr Nick (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Britain! What a strange mess representative gov’t is. Both the UK & the US are undergoing a serious test–do the people actually prefer freedom to what we–or at least our social superiors–nowadays call governance? These are the only two political communities with a long tradition of political freedom, which people understand as political equality. They should best weather the coming crises. So the whole mess may not be a bad thing, all told.

    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    I’ve sometimes wondered if future history books will frame these times as a reaction to the rise of neo-Confucianism.

    Say more about this! Do you mean revolt against Mandarins? I think yes, we’re seeing that-

    I’ll have a crack old man but it would take an essay which I’m probably not qualified to write.

    A revolt against the ‘mandarinate’ is certainly a part of it but it goes beyond that.

    Confucianism, as far as I understand it, has a religious element to it. While progressives, and marxists too of course, claim that science is the basis of their creeds they both act more like theologies; they certainly see heretics and ‘deniers’ everywhere.

    Neo-Confucianism would be the label future historians might give to it because of ‘the rise of China’ and the influence it spreads through Confucius Institutes and with big business etc, especially if China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy ever came to pass.

    In the West the young are pampered and caressed at university to think that they have a natural place in this new world governance structure. A few years back I attended an event at the London School of Economics held by their Chinese Society. The final Keynote Speaker was Kevin Rudd, who had just ended his short tenure as Australia’s Prime Minister. His speech to these bright young things was the sort of left-wing crap that makes one’s skin crawl, but the main takeaway was that they would inherit the earth by the simple virtue of their accreditation. Whether they actually knew how to run it was neither here or there. The irony is that, as anyone who has attended events at the LSE knows, they never start or end on time….

    John Kerry gave a similar speech to Rudd’s at Northeastern back in 2016 when he was Secretary of State if you want to look it up, although his theme was how then-candidate Trump was a threat to that future. I have sat through similar presentations from much less well known figures at colleges in both Oxford and Cambridge. The students lap it up. Those with the best marks go on to badly run governments and businesses, the others screw the system from within with jobs in government bureaucracies and corporate human resource departments.

    So while ‘neo-Confucianism’ might be its label, it is really a wider progressive – or managerialist if you follow Burnham – global phenomenon mainly emanating from Western education systems. The revolt against it in both Britain, America and now France share certain elements. Some see it as a classic town vs country struggle, others say it is the people vs elites. The other side say it is the uneducated against the educated, or the past against the future. On a wider level it is between those who actually make things and those who think they know how they should be made.

    As I said, it would take an essay far beyond these brief comments and a mind more supple than mine to explain it fully.

    • #10
  11. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    I think you’ve got the evidence right & added it up right. I also think you’ve got the theory wrong.

    Neo-Confucian is a name for, say, the ruling class of Korea. To a lesser extent, China. It’s expert administration that proceeds on a paternalistic basis, assuming what people want out of life is adequately described as a lessened form of patriarchy.

    We have claims of expert administration that proceed on a Progressive basis–that is, they assume three things:

    1. Historicism: People today are automatically the moral & intellectual superiors of people in previous generations, hence the need to abolish old forms.
    2. Government is reducible to rational control, hence the need to abolish specifically the ideas of consent of the governed, balances & checks, separation of powers…
    3. Justice is equality in the fullest sense of the term imaginable, irrespective of natural or political limits. (Everyone is saved, everyone in Heaven, & no God to judge them.)

    In both cases, indeed, a new governing class, self-selecting & aiming for an hermetic seal, has grown. Whether it will long be tolerated remains to be seen.

    This gets us to the other matter, the influence of China. China has ended American dominance by proving two things to the world’s satisfaction. First, technology could be tyranny’s servant, not necessarily democracy’s friend. Secondly, not even Americans can sustain imperial arms deployed around the world. There will be no Chinese world domination. There will be a world divided. As this happens & American prestige recedes, national differences will emerge & democracy will be massively modified to correspond to older political requirements.

    In fact, if you care for some political theory & social criticism:

    • #11
  12. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    I think you’ve got the evidence right & added it up right. I also think you’ve got the theory wrong.

    Neo-Confucian is a name for, say, the ruling class of Korea. To a lesser extent, China. It’s expert administration that proceeds on a paternalistic basis, assuming what people want out of life is adequately described as a lessened form of patriarchy.

    We have claims of expert administration that proceed on a Progressive basis–that is, they assume three things:

    1. Historicism: People today are automatically the moral & intellectual superiors of people in previous generations, hence the need to abolish old forms.
    2. Government is reducible to rational control, hence the need to abolish specifically the ideas of consent of the governed, balances & checks, separation of powers…
    3. Justice is equality in the fullest sense of the term imaginable, irrespective of natural or political limits. (Everyone is saved, everyone in Heaven, & no God to judge them.)

    In both cases, indeed, a new governing class, self-selecting & aiming for an hermetic seal, has grown. Whether it will long be tolerated remains to be seen.

    This gets us to the other matter, the influence of China. China has ended American dominance by proving two things to the world’s satisfaction. First, technology could be tyranny’s servant, not necessarily democracy’s friend. Secondly, not even Americans can sustain imperial arms deployed around the world. There will be no Chinese world domination. There will be a world divided. As this happens & American prestige recedes, national differences will emerge & democracy will be massively modified to correspond to older political requirements.

    In fact, if you care for some political theory & social criticism:

    Well I was talking about a hypothetical future historian. I’m not convinced about the Chinese-will-dominate-the-world theory myself but in a future where the ‘one road’ part of it has come into some kind of being (the ‘one belt’ bit is too fanciful) then the label could stick. Are today’s Liberals really Liberal? Of course not but it is a convenient label.

    I’ll have a listen, thanks.

    • #12
  13. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    The British have one more option.  Send in the Celts:

     

    • #13
  14. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    This is true, & to be feared. Thank God they don’t swim so well…

    • #14
  15. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Mr Nick (View Comment):

    On a wider level it is between those who actually make things and those who think they know how they should be made.

    As I said, it would take an essay far beyond these brief comments and a mind more supple than mine to explain it fully.

    I rather think you’ve stated the distinction with some precision. I often say it lies between those who produce and those who persuade. The progressive project is and has always been to transfer wealth, status, and power from those who produce to those who persuade.

    • #15
  16. Rōnin Coolidge
    Rōnin
    @Ronin

    So, not to make to much light of this, if the monarch gets involved it could go down like this:

    Oliver Cromwell – King Charles Storms House Of Commons ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDsAn_u70tw )

    Or, alternately like this:

    How to deal with a corrupt parliament ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAbOGxDF6g )

     

    • #16
  17. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    In Ireland on the two occasions when we voted against further EU integration we were given second referenda in quick time and got back in line in very short order. (To my everlasting shame I flipped on one occasion). The only difference with the Brits is that they have more respect for self-governance so the reversal process is taking a little longer. 

    • #17
  18. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I don’t know the intricacies of being in the EU and getting out of it. I just don’t care enough to read fully on this. But this ought to be a cautionary tale in the event some dopes (and the current class of Liberals fit the bill) want the US to enter or form some similar union. I’m sure down the road it will be proposed. Actually such a proposition may not only come from the left. Free trade agreements come dangerously close to loss of sovereignty. 

    • #18
  19. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Mr Nick (View Comment):

    On a wider level it is between those who actually make things and those who think they know how they should be made.

    As I said, it would take an essay far beyond these brief comments and a mind more supple than mine to explain it fully.

    I rather think you’ve stated the distinction with some precision. I often say it lies between those who produce and those who persuade. The progressive project is and has always been to transfer wealth, status, and power from those who produce to those who persuade.

    Thanks @Barfly. I didn’t really want to write this post (alternative title: Yay! My Country has been humiliated…) but I knew you wanted an update.

    • #19
  20. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Rōnin (View Comment):

    So, not to make to much light of this, if the monarch gets involved it could go down like this:

    Oliver Cromwell – King Charles Storms House Of Commons ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDsAn_u70tw )

    Or, alternately like this:

    How to deal with a corrupt parliament ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAbOGxDF6g )

     

    The lessons of the English Civil War had a profound influence on the founders: an unaccountable executive, an incapable legislature and the fear of a standing army. 

    • #20
  21. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    @mrnick:

    With the Letwin amendment prevailing 329-302 and the House taking over the process, isn’t Brexit as good as dead? The cross-party anti-Brexit elements now have the opportunity to muster majorities on their terms, rather than in reaction to the government’s agenda. And these will be majorities that soften or torpedo Brexit altogether.

    • #21
  22. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Snirtler (View Comment):

    @mrnick:

    With the Letwin amendment prevailing 329-302 and the House taking over the process, isn’t Brexit as good as dead? The cross-party anti-Brexit elements now have the opportunity to muster majorities on their terms, rather than in reaction to the government’s agenda. And these will be majorities that soften or torpedo Brexit altogether.

    No because they are only indicative and the government has said it won’t agree in advance as it would be like signing a blank cheque. Nor is it clear if MPs will achieve a majority for anything.

    You are right that it is a bad night. However, the game is still playing so all is not lost.

    The danger is that when they do the series of votes it just lays bare the divisions in the Conservative Party, again and again and again. Wednesday could break them irrevocably. Apart from the 10 DUP and a handful of Labour MPs, the only real contingent of Leave MPs are the 150-180 odd Conservative leavers. If they are repeatedly isolated, a new majority could form like that of the Labour-Conservative government of ‘national unity’ that ran things in the 1930s: A small rump of the nominal governing party backed by a larger part of the opposition only too happy to use this as an excuse to get out from under the thumb of Jeremy Corbyn.

    • #22
  23. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Mr Nick (View Comment):

    Snirtler (View Comment):

    @mrnick:

    With the Letwin amendment prevailing 329-302 and the House taking over the process, isn’t Brexit as good as dead? The cross-party anti-Brexit elements now have the opportunity to muster majorities on their terms, rather than in reaction to the government’s agenda. And these will be majorities that soften or torpedo Brexit altogether.

    No because they are only indicative and the government has said it won’t agree in advance as it would be like signing a blank cheque. Nor is it clear if MPs will achieve a majority for anything.

    You are right that it is a bad night. However, the game is still playing so all is not lost.

    The danger is that when they do the series of votes it just lays bare the divisions in the Conservative Party, again and again and again. Wednesday could break them irrevocably. Apart from the 10 DUP and a handful of Labour MPs, the only real contingent of Leave MPs are the 150-180 odd Conservative leavers. If they are repeatedly isolated, a new majority could form like that of the Labour-Conseravative government of ‘national unity’ that ran things in the 1930s: A small rump of the nominal governing party backed by a larger part of the opposition only too happy to use this as an excuse to get out from under the thumb of Jeremy Corbyn.

    I could construct a more positive argument. One of the pro-EU Ministers who resigned to back the amendment was at the meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Eurosceptics, perhaps he knows she is playing a charade and she has decided on ‘no deal’…

    In that vein Mrs May’s tetchy exchanges with the DUP could be interpreted as simple spite at having to bend to their will rather than the other way around.

    However, it is very hard to spin these possible moonbeams tonight.

    • #23
  24. YouCantMeanThat Coolidge
    YouCantMeanThat
    @michaeleschmidt

    She (View Comment):
    Nether Wallop

    Just. Wow.

    • #24
  25. YouCantMeanThat Coolidge
    YouCantMeanThat
    @michaeleschmidt

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    Oh, please. That is bleeding obvious on both sides of the Atlantic. What is not clear is whether that choice can prevail over the administrative states.

    • #25
  26. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    YouCantMeanThat (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    It’s just that it’s not obvious what the people can or will choose…

    Oh, please. That is bleeding obvious on both sides of the Atlantic. What is not clear is whether that choice can prevail over the administrative states.

    The UK had legislative elections after May became PM & promised all the promises on Brexit, but before she proved a failure. The electorate took away the Tory majority that they had given Cameron. So how do Brexit when you don’t have run of the legislature?

    In America, the people took away the GOP’s command of the House after less than two years of Trump. It will not be easy for the GOP to keep the Senate come 2020, since the class of 2014 is up for re-election. Maybe if Trump is on the ballot, he’ll carry them back into office… What about the House, though? How legislate against the admin.state when you cannot persuade the people to vote you into office?

    Divided government, divided, cross-purpose overlapping majorities. This is what elections reveal in both countries.

    More broadly: Read my review of John Marini’s Unmasking the Administrative State over at NR. The old prof.’s a friend & I’m as anti-admin state as anyone. But I can also look at electoral politics.

    • #26
  27. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    Thanks for the response, @mrnick. And you were right that “Nor is it clear if MPs will achieve a majority for anything.” After today’s voting on all the options from a free-trade arrangement to customs to revoking Art 50, not one has prevailed. It’s all very riveting.

    It’s a great shame though that of all trade arrangements, the customs union option mustered far more yeas at 264 than a free-trade area with 65 yeas.

    • #27
  28. Mr Nick Inactive
    Mr Nick
    @MrNick

    Snirtler (View Comment):

    Thanks for the response, @mrnick.

    It’s all very riveting. After today’s voting on all the options from a free-trade arrangement to customs to revoking Art 50, not one has prevailed.

    It’s a great shame though that of all trade arrangements, the customs union option mustered far more yeas at 264 than a free-trade area with 65 yeas.

     

    Yes but it was basically a day for the opposition to have their fun. The main players  abstained and the governement whip held on the motions contrary to their manifesto so this is really political theatre.

    • #28
  29. YouCantMeanThat Coolidge
    YouCantMeanThat
    @michaeleschmidt

    “international law, in this case the EU’s, is superior to British “

    (I didn’t realize that I’d already read this (kinda like us older folks are always meeting new people, sometimes even in the mirror….) but this time through the above leapt off the page. (I find it interesting that, as here, in Britain the Rest of Us(tm) told the Popular Kids(tm) clearly what we wanted* but have no way to work our will.)) Superior in what way? Looking at historical Britain and historical Europe, your choice of country-by-country or en masse, and I’d say that Europe is anything but superior. OK, you meant in the legal sense: I’d say that Britain ceased to exist in any meaningful or even useful way the day that happened. And our Popular Kids(tm) are trying desperately to work the same magic here…

    *A few steps up, Mr Titus sent up a cloud of smoke and mirrors to suggest that it wasn’t clear; with respect, it was. I can’t come up with non-imflammatory examples of the bleedingly obvious that only serious ovethinking could subvert, so in the interest of comity, I’ll leave it at that. (And I don’t click on NR anymore, thank you.)

    • #29
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.