Bring Back Thomas Jefferson

This has been a big political week for us Brits. On 29^th March, Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gives any EU member the right to quit the Union unilaterally. The leaving country has two years to negotiate an exit deal. Once set in motion, the process cannot be stopped, except by unanimous consent of all member states. Any deal must be approved by a “qualified majority” of EU member states and can be vetoed by the European Parliament.

I have read the wording of the UK government’s Article 50 notice. I was concerned that as it will have been drafted by parliamentary specialists and civil servants, the language would have been both dense and undecipherable, something which would make my retired senior civil servant friends very proud. Instead, the letter serving the Article 50 notice was a model of clarity. Whether the ideas expressed in the notice will remain clear over the next two years is doubtful.* The result of last year’s Referendum on the EU was described by Mrs. May as a vote for national determination, but she also expressed a desire to remain partners with our European friends, “engaging with one another constructively.” How will this desire be achieved? A “hard Brexit” which her right win colleagues seem to want would neither be sensible nor the answer.

The language of Mrs. May’s letter contains nothing heroic. I would have preferred our government to have harkened back to 1776 and emulate the wording chosen by Thomas Jefferson, ably assisted by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, to sever legal ties between the newly formed United States of America and Great Britain. Jefferson chose sterling words, some of which were as follows:

            “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Jefferson then lists the numerous failings of King George III and his government, including refusal of assent to laws, dissolved representative houses as he invaded the rights of the people and obstructed justice. The indictment is lengthy and a strong argument for independence. The Declaration ends with these words:

            “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do…solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to…do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

Whatever you may think of America’s actions all those years ago, you have to accept the formidable strength of the Declaration. The Notice under Article 50 was prosaic by comparison. Perhaps it is only in America that stirring rhetoric is still used. If you were to recall an Inaugural address by a new President, my guess is that you would opt for JFK’s who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Yes, JFK may have spoiled it for all the Presidents who followed him.

For Americans who are politically aware, these are troubling times as their new President is hell-bent on changing much of American life, but I would understand it if they indulged in schaudenfreude at the sight of the British and their Parliament tearing themselves to pieces over hard and soft Brexit. For decades, the EU has been our strongest trading partner; our hospitals, schools and public services are staffed by many EU nationals whose futures here are now uncertain; the City of London has become of the strongest financial centres the world has seen but it now stands vulnerable; and our country has benefited enormously from the work of immigrants, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who contribute meaningfully to our diverse culture.

The Leavers won the Referendum. One of the promises by Leave leaders was a saving of £350 million a week which would be invested in our NHS. That promise was withdrawn within days of the vote. Leavers say they seek a return of our Parliamentary sovereignty, yet when our executive branch decided to trigger Article 50 without recourse to Parliament, litigation was needed to stop the Prime Minister using imaginary powers. If Leavers truly want a return of Parliamentary sovereignty, why did they object to Parliament having the final say?

There are so many contradictions in the arguments of Remainers and Leavers alike. If any Brit points a finger at the chaos that is the current state of the American government, my American readers have every right to retort, “pot, kettle, black.” Isn’t it troubling that two of the world’s leading nations should be in such political disarray? I’m not losing sleep just yet but if our government follows the usual EU negotiating stance and uses the two years after the Article 50 Notice to get nowhere, ending up with all night sessions to cobble together a sausage of a political deal, I might have to consider emigration. Where? Now, that’s a question.

 

*Britain’s hopes to run divorce and trade talks in tandem were dashed by the EU on Day 1 of the negotiations. Spain is already seeking sovereignty rights over Gibraltar. Well spotted our team!