To recap the last two weeks of non-Brexiting: T. May turned to the millionaire Marxist J. Corbyn in her determined attempt to keep Britain part of the Franco-German Empire, with the added bonus of outsourcing even more decision-making powers to Brussels. A request for new extension was sent, and the Imperial Senate promptly granted another six-month ‘postponement’, paving the way for May, Corbyn & Partners to arrive at their natural destination of, at least, a Customs Union arrangement just in time for Halloween.
After Oily Robbins’ deal failed to pass again thanks to twenty or so still-principled actual-conservative MPs, T. May held a marathon seven-hour Cabinet meeting, where, reportedly, a majority of ministers urged support for exiting the EU without a deal on the 12 April 2019. Now, wouldn’t that have been the all-around correct, sensible decision, especially in the current circumstances? Of course it would, and, thus, it is known that it could have never been. Instead, T. May, David Liddington, Mark Sedwill, and Robbins moved to the culmination of their plan by, essentially, handing J. Corbyn and his Politburo the keys to the UK’s most important decision since the previous EU-related dilemma. Parliament has once again been of great help to T. May’s cause, with a convicted criminal with active sentence casting the deciding vote in favour of stopping real…pardon, ‘no deal’ Brexit.
Openly aligning with somebody T. May’s Cabinet previously called `a threat to national security’ did not go down well with those pesky grassroot supporters – just imagine the damage to the environment from all those binned plastic cards. It should become abundantly clear to everyone that there is nothing remotely `conservative’ left in the CON party, where power is wielded by your typical run-of-the-mill left-wing social-democratic career time-servers. Then again, that should have been clear since before the First World War.
Given that by its very nature democratic statism suppresses any true liberty-minded, bottom-up, local-community-oriented, free-enterprise-supporting, natural-law-upholding alternative, it does not appear likely that any other political entity could take up that supposed vacuum on the Right and achieve anything of note in the current setup. The upside of the whole T. May debacle is that it offers yet another piece of evidence for those that are at least somewhat uncomfortable with living in what ever more closely resembles a modern theocracy that taking part in the occasional voting ritual only serves to strengthen the positions of the priests.
There is this meme going around, perpetrated by various officials at the Department of Information, that attempts to cast T. May in similar light to Sir Robert Peel. To remind the reader, Sir Robert Peel is famous for, among other things, being the Tory PM who in 1846 led the repeal of the protectionist racket knows as the Corn Laws, the set of statutes that imposed high tariffs on agricultural imports, thus, shielding the British landlords from competition and imposing unbearably high prices for the consumers. The repeal of the Laws ushered in an era of free trade and free enterprise, and helped to raise significantly the standard of living. The thing was, most of the Conservative party at the time was in support of the Corn Laws as a large part of the Tory base consisted of the agricultural producers who would have much rather preferred not to face any competition from foreign importers. Thus, in order to repeal the Laws, Peel had to turn to the Whigs and use their votes to overcome the opposition of his own party. The political fallout was that the Tories were shattered and were not really able to win power and form a stable government again until the mid-1870s.
It is straightforward to guess how the comparison of T. May with Peel proceeds. Peel, with the help of the opposition, implemented a political action in whose effectiveness and necessity he deeply believed, but which ran contrary to the wishes of his party’s supporters, thus, obliterating his party’s standing and electoral chances. T. May, with the help of the opposition, aims to implement a political action in whose effectiveness and necessity she (maybe) believes, but which runs contrary to the wishes of her party’s supporters, thus, (likely) obliterating her party’s standing and electoral chances.
Now, it goes without saying, or at least it should, that Sir Robert Peel’s decision to seek the repeal of the Corn Laws was the right action for his country. If somebody does not get that, here is a book that should help. What the pundits are attempting to do here is to imply some sort of dignified states(wo)manship in May’s conduct by associating her with Peel, however superficially. And superficial it all is! The actual political actions and their real-world effects could not be more different. One was advocating for, and ultimately implemented, policies aimed at the opening up of the market, at removing the trade barriers that were benefiting politically well-connected groups at the expense of the general population and consumers; the other is pushing for, literally, the opposite policies – to stay shackled to an institutional framework whose only purpose is to ever increasingly benefit the politically well-connected groups at the expense of the entire continent’s population.
Even among the comments of people who are, otherwise, opposed to T. May’s policies one sometimes observes a note of commendation: that she is ‘sticking to her guns’, that she is ‘pursuing what she believes in’, that she is ‘persevering’. One cannot help but think that this curious stance, which disregards any real consequences of actual actions, is part of the same complex as that oh-so-modern worship of ‘self-belief’ and ‘self-esteem’. One is a worthy human being just by virtue of their existence. The ultimate goal of personal development is to realize that inherent worthiness of oneself, and since one’s opinions are part of oneself, the opinions must be worthy, too. Hence, T. May and her cohort deserve at least some praise and admiration for their steadfast pursuit of what they believe in. That whole outlook of human nature and affairs has such scary consequences that it does not bear thinking about.
It is a sad, but perhaps unsurprising, development that among supporters of real Brexit the main line of argument has become the stance that the public voted for Brexit and any failure to deliver it would be a betrayal of the democratic imperative. Never mind arguing about the realities of the EU – the socialists’ dream superstate with imperial ambitions that stifles economic development, restricts liberty, pits various sections of the population against each other through its inherent redistributionist tendencies, all leading to economic deprivation, social disintegration, and, ultimately, tension and outright war between constituent groups of people. No, the argument for Brexit now is that it has been judged that a sufficient number of people have expressed seemingly similar opinion, and that is a sufficient reason for the policy to be pursued. Brexit or not, that approach to social affairs inexorably leads to only one possible state – that of misery and serfdom.