Brexit

Brexit supporters argue that the EU threatens sovereignty and stifles growth, while opponents counter that EU membership strengthens trade, investment, and the UK’s standing in the world.

The birth of Archie, the first son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, has led to British media speculation, picked up by the New York Times, that the Queen (actually, in conjunction with the Theresa May government) may dispatch them to Africa for a undetermined period. Their role, beyond lubricating the UK’s ties with its former African colonies, would be to build support for the Commonwealth of Nations. It would also get the Royal couple out of the media circus surrounding Archie’s birth. There is further speculation that Archie’s mixed race would make the family particularly attractive to Africans. Perhaps. The Times quotes Trevor Phillips, a historian of Caribbean migration to the UK and himself from British Guinea, as saying that the idea is an “open-and-shut brilliant notion.” For Phillips, the family “symbolizes leaving behind the colonial inheritance” and that they “will create a narrative that is about modernity and glamour and diversity.” On the other hand, Kehinde Andrews, professor of black studies at the University of Birmingham, said that “they send her (Meghan) out to the dark parts of the world to shore up the Commonwealth….Using Meghan Markle as part of a P.R. campaign to maintain those links is the worst possible outcome.” What about the Africans? Of the Commonwealth’s fifty-three members, nineteen are in sub-Saharan Africa. By and large, Commonwealth membership is not a political issue. It is largely irrelevant to African political concerns. However, African elites like the stage that the Commonwealth conferences, games, and other activities provide them. A Nigerian, Emeka Anyaoku, was the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, resident in London, from 1990 to 2000. South Africa almost immediately rejoined the Commonwealth, from which it had withdrawn during apartheid days, after its transition to “non-racial” democracy in 1994, in a glittering ceremony at Westminster Abbey attended by the Queen. Many Africans appear to be as fascinated by Harry, Meghan, and Archie, as everybody else world-wide. But the royals’ handlers will need to take care that the family’s mixed race is not presented in a patronizing way. Further, Africans will pick upon British racism that has surfaced with respect to the family, such as radio host with the BBC tweeting an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee captioned “Royal baby leaves hospital.” The BBC immediately fired the host, but the image was already viral on social media. Doubtlessly it circulates in Africa.  It is well known that Queen Elizabeth, the head of the Commonwealth, is concerned that it survives. Supporters of the UK’s departure from the European Union also see the Commonwealth as providing more palatable partners than the Europeans, though, of course, the European Union is a far more powerful economic bloc than all of Africa. At this stage, it is unclear whether Meghan, Harry, and Archie actually will be off to Africa or how long they would stay. British media speculates they would be gone for anywhere from “a few months” to “two or three years.” If they do assume the role of emissaries to the Commonwealth, they would also, presumably, visit the powerhouses: Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and others. But, a royal focus on Africa and the Commonwealth, if done carefully, could be a net positive for its African members and for the UK.

The big day was March 29. Then it was April 12. And now Europe’s powers have decreed that Britain has until Oct. 31 to decide how — or indeed whether — it would like to leave the European Union. At this rate, you may be thinking, Britain is never really going to quit. Unfortunately, the odds of a hard-line Brexit are probably increasing. The immediate consequence of the E.U.’s announcement is that Britain’s Parliament gets more time to decide what sort of Brexit it favors. But the logic that has blocked a deal so far has not been magically altered. On one side, the supposedly governing Conservative Party cannot unite behind an exit formula that would satisfy Europe’s determination to safeguard peace in Ireland. On the other side, the opposition Labour Party refuses to join Conservative moderates in backing a workable deal because it wants to destabilize the government and force an early election. Theresa May, the dogged prime minister whose defenestration has been prematurely rumored for two years, now has one foot out the window. She will keep trying to strike a deal with the top brass in the Labour Party. But even if she appears to succeed, the chances of keeping Labour’s support through the marathon of implementing legislation seem minimal. At the first opportunity, Labour is likely to make common cause with hard-line Brexiteers on the Conservative right and vote no confidence in the prime minister. If the talks with Labour’s leaders fail, May’s next move will be to consult the members of Parliament directly. This involves a cumbersome process known as “indicative votes”: MPs vote on various Brexit permutations until one commands a majority. Last time this was tried, no majority emerged for anything. But even if a second experiment produced a majority for some kind of deal, it would be tough to hold that majority together. The prime minister might yet succeed in conjuring a breakthrough: The situation is so fluid that almost anything is possible. But if she fails, she will have both feet out the window. Her mission has been to deliver a moderate Brexit; if she cannot, her unloved leadership will serve no further purpose. Local elections on May 2 are likely to deliver a rebuke to her party, and on May 23 she faces a still-greater humiliation. Britain will have to hold elections for the European Parliament, almost three years after voters resolved by referendum that they wanted out of such entanglements. So, if May can’t get a deal, what happens? With Parliament deadlocked, the next move would have to come from voters. This could take the form of a second referendum, in which case the anti-Brexit “Remain” side would be narrowly favored to win. But the majority in Parliament abhors the prospect of a second plebiscite, and the fights over the phrasing of the question and design of the vote could drag on indefinitely. Therefore, the likelier way out is an election. This is how things could get truly ugly. The Labour Party is led by professional placard carrier Jeremy Corbyn, who is anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-European Union. Because the Labour rank and file is pro-Remain, a Labour victory might mean that Brexit is sidelined, despite Corbyn’s personal predilections. But this would be cold comfort. Labour’s leftist agenda would scare investment away from Britain as fast as the prospect of Brexit has done. More likely, Corbyn would prove too extreme to be elected. Yet if the Conservatives win, the prospects are little brighter. The party would probably fight the election under a new leader; given the leanings of Conservative Party members, that leader would probably be a hard-line Brexiteer — the front-runner is Boris Johnson, a post-truth Trumpian. Hence the danger that Britain will use its newly granted extra time to head toward a sharper break with Europe. The core problem is that, in Britain as in chunks of continental Europe, centrist politics is failing. The Labour Party has veered further left than it has been in more than three decades. The Conservatives are in thrall to a nostalgic, narrow-minded nationalism that fabricates scare stories about Europe — and that will fight to keep Brexit on the agenda even if it is thwarted in the near future. May, for all her stiff-necked clumsiness, represents the responsible but diminishing old guard. If she topples from the windowsill, Britain will miss her.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has been unable to convince her own party to pass the Brexit deal she negotiated with the European Union because of its backstop provision. What is it, and why does it matter?

History is far from over in Europe. To the contrary, it is back with a vengeance.

Despite a no-confidence vote, the odds of a stabilizing outcome have brightened.