KASSAM: The UK’s ‘No Deal’ Parliament Has Betrayed Britain
The news that Britain’s parliament rejected a “no deal” Brexit means the elected representatives of the people have officially snubbed the will of the people, arguably rendering them treasonous.
Constitutionally, the public are sovereign through parliament and the monarch, but both halves of that whole have proven themselves unable or unwilling to see through the public’s will: Brexit. So we find ourselves in constitutional crisis.
Does parliament have to be dissolved? Should someone let Her Majesty The Queen know she needs to use what little of her powers she has left? Will there be riots?
Ideally, all the above. But likely? Not so much.
Let it be a lesson to American readers that without recourse, the establishment can and will run roughshod over the people. That’s why your Second Amendment is so important. Not that I need to tell you that.
But for Brexit, almost all is lost. And that’s what the Prime Minister Theresa May wanted all along anyway.
She campaigned for the “remain” side during the referendum, and she’s still a Remainer. So are all of her staff. So are all of our bureaucrats and civil servants. Effectively, we’ve witnessed the greatest betrayal of people in Britain in the nation’s long and rich history. That is saying something.
So what happens next, realistically?
A delay to the Article 50 negotiating process — the mechanism by which Britain is leaving the European Union — is likely, though not definite.
The government will be hoping for it, but the EU relies on unanimity amongst member states for that to happen. Hopefully the Hungarians, Italians, and the Poles will reject such a thing, meaning that on Mar. 29, Britain leaves the European Union by default, regardless of parliament’s expression of treason.
Yes, it is complicated, but the another option perhaps adds simplicity: a general election.
Following her inability to see through this process, Prime Minister May could feel (and should feel) unable to govern. Calling a general election would allow for the British public to vote for a party they feel could manage Brexit successfully, neuter it, or cancel it.
I would of course prefer the first option, but another public say on the matter should be heeded. I happen to believe they’d prefer a harder Brexit, and that any party running on that platform would succeed.
Finally, there’s always the option for another referendum. It would be a farce in a lot of ways (how many do we have?, but “leave” would win again, perhaps even by a bigger margin. And that would put the matter to rest forever.
In the meantime, Americans should also be concerned about the whole process. The potential U.S.-UK trade deal that would emerge as a result of a real Brexit would be a major boost to both economies, as well as reorienting global power from an Anglospheric perspective.
Unfortunately, just like in 1776, the British government is more concerned with exercising pointless control rather than furthering the efficacy of Western civilization.
I apologize for and on behalf of my countrymen.
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) is the global editor in chief of Human Events and a fellow at the Claremont Institute and the Middle East Forum. He is the author of two bestselling books: “No Go Zones” and “Enoch Was Right.”
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.