Happy Easter!!! … On BREXIT Times

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

When the political circumstances had asked for it, the European Union (EU) - through its Brussels voice – reminded that the EU is a ‘Christian club’. But most of the times neither the EU nor Brussels make a big fuss out of being a ‘Christian club’. They must have their reasons. And I have the democratic right to be reserved on all political matters.

             Theoretically speaking and at a quick look the EU hosts most of the Anglicans, many Catholics, Protestants, Neo-Protestants, Orthodox, and God knows what other Christian religions. They might outnumber other religions and the atheists, but this is not the point of this blog article. The point is to stick to the ‘Christian club’ idea in the context of the upcoming Easter and to approach it in the cheer up spirit of this blog.

On March 21^st, 2019 took place in Brussels the EU Summit on Art. 50. Following this summit, BREXIT’s deadline was postponed from March 29^th to October 31^st. And new questions started circulating in the British public space: Where will the politicians start from, in order to deliver BREXIT? To be or not to be a BREXEWEEN, on October 31^st? What do Leavers and Remainers expect to happen in this time period until the new BREXIT deadline?

            I first expect… Easter! Europe has different Easter traditions. Would a Brussels Easter tradition start in these six months until BREXIT? As it sometimes claims to be a ‘Christian club’ the Great Thursday would be the best moment to start such a tradition: On the Great Thursday a European Summit to reunite Heads of State and Governments would take place in Brussels. The public will have to bear seeing again Merkel, Macron and so on and so forth, and Theresa May until the UK will leave the EU. But in comparison to the other summits, there will be no tables in front of them, but some European bureaucrats coming to each of them, in order to wash their feet. That would be in the practical Christian spirit! In this new context, new Easter political questions may be raised: Do the archives of the Vatican have an old document proving that Jesus Christ also kissed the feet of the apostles? Gosh! Public opinions polls might be paid by an institute or another asking questions such as: ‘Do you think that Jesus kissed the feet of the apostles?’ Or, ‘Do you think that the Vatican has such a document in its archives?’ And what decision to take if the Vatican does not have such a document, but … surprise! an overwhelming majority of … 100% of those interviewed actually believe that Jesus Christ kissed the feet of the apostles? Would the European bureaucrats do the same during the Brussels Easter Summit?

Until a new tradition will begin in Brussels and the European Heads of State and Government will gather for the Brussels Easter Summit, an even greater question will remain unanswered: What European Head of State and Government is more ticklish at its feet? Shall it be Theresa May?! Maybe it is Merkel?! Or maybe Macron?! Or… who knows?!

I hope this blog article cheered you all up, my readers! HAPPY EASTER!!!

The BREXIT Party: Born Big and Fighting. Still…

For a maximized image, please click on the cartoon.

by Laura Lai/ Comment

The BREXIT Party is born! Long live … the BREXIT?! Many Britons want the BREXIT soap over, but it has just started a new season under the direction of the charismatic brexiteer leader, Nigel Farage. 

            When a 52% majority of British citizens voted in a referendum for the UK to leave the European Union (EU) and none of the big parties succeeding in providing a way out of the deadlock, a BREXIT Party to defend the interest of the cross party leavers is a logical move on the British political scene. The new born political party targets the leavers’ votes from left and right wing parties – and with the UKIP keeping its electorate as constant as possible on this matter – the BREXIT Party may be almost 17,4 million party. Anyway, it is a party born big.

From a theoretical point of view, the BREXIT Party goes beyond the limits of a political party as described in the 19^th century by Benjamin Constant, to whom the political party was a reunion of people around the same political doctrine. The BREXIT Party can be better framed in Max Weber’s view of a political party: a consequence of democracy, of extending the right to vote, and a necessity to organize the masses for elections. Ideologies and doctrines are overcome in importance by the political program, the political contract between a party running for elections and the general electorate.

The BREXIT Party’s is born in a democratic context following a common political experience and it gathers supporters and militants having the same political goal: to ‘Fight Back’, in order for the result of a democratic referendum to be delivered. It fulfills its main role as a political party: to mediate between citizens and the state, to identify the problems and to come up with solutions. Through the voice of its leader, the constant best solution to the BREXIT problem is for the UK to leave the EU under the WTO terms. As an organized political party, it is expected that they come up with a more elaborate route map that takes the British society out of the EU.

Otherwise, the fact that the BREXIT Party represent the 17,4 million British citizens – who voted ‘Leave’ and who after three years are still waiting for their country to leave the EU – does not fit the theoretical framework of a big political party as Alexis de Tocqueville classified the political parties. He classified them in big and small parties depending on the quality rather than on the quantity: A big political party is usually born in a turmoil period, as the BREXIT Party is; and is meant to challenge the status quo, to shake the current political system, rather than to simply and useless agitate the political waters. The BREXIT Party may put forward the need to reform the electoral system and have it more representative and more democratic. However, its main purpose is BREXIT in all its aspects: gather the disappointed brexiteers, give them back the hope that their vote was not in vain, look for an even more public support for BREXIT, get the power or at least participate at the exercise of power seeking that BREXIT is delivered.

This last point was considered essential for what a political party is by a 20^th century theoretician of political parties, Maurice Duverger. The American researchers Joseph LaPalombara & Weiner subscribe to this point of view when defining what a political party is and what distinguishes it from a pressure group. In the opening speech of the BREXIT Party announcing its candidates for the European elections  on April 12^th, 2019 the party leader used great words like: ‘change politics’, ‘better politics’, ‘politicians need to hear what the people have to say’, etc. It sets a political target of challenging and improving the current political system in which the party wants to operate.

The BREXIT Party is theoretically born big. And it is born fighting. ‘Fighting back’ on behalf of those 17,4 million leavers is the slogan of this new political party. In all campaigns the slogan is highly relevant, as it summarizes in a few words the campaign itself. This slogan, by the word ‘back’ reminds the context in which the party was born and makes clear the purpose it serves: to engage in the political ‘fight’. Still, one of the main theoretical conditions for the BREXIT Party as a party, from the point of view of the American researchers LaPalombara & Weiner, is for the party to continue to exist beyond its charismatic leader. If a political party is usually made of sympathizers, militants and leaders, there are other voices at the top of the party with which the party operates and it prepares as future possible leader.

The BREXIT Party is based both on the charisma of a leader and one main purpose. When a party is based on the leadership of a charismatic leader, it would need to go on with somebody similarly charismatic. I personally consider the real charisma easy to identify in the person who has it, difficult to define and even more difficult to find two charismatic people even among 17,4 million people. Indeed, so rare I think that the real charisma is!

However, the main purpose of the BREXIT Party is to get as many votes as possible, to be transformed in seats and to play a powerful role in delivering BREXIT. What will happen after BREXIT (was delivered)? The party will first need to change its name, because the word ‘BREXIT’ will be outdated. Will it merge with the UKIP? Or it will indentify another more or less ignored democratic issue, will take that name, and look for popular support to reach that goal? Time will say. And the future will bring its suggestions: ‘Electric Cars Party’?!

Creative Writing Exercise #3

EU BREXIT SUMMIT: BRITISH HUMILIATION?

(a fictive dialogue based on a real political procedure)

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

Scene: A big round table with many people sitting, on the table lots of papers, glasses and water; the British Prime Minister (BPM), the President of the European Council (PEU) and the President of the European Commission (PEC)

The British Prime Minister is allowed to address the European Council. The BPM takes the floor…

BPM. Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you for allowing me to address this reunion of European Heads of States and Governments. I would like to apologize that neither the UK Government nor the UK Parliament found a way out of the BREXIT deadlock.

ALL (nod arrogantly). The PEC ignores the speech and pours itself some water.

            Following different debates on how to unblock the impasse, we agreed on one issue. And that is the reason why I am here tonight. I have been given a mandate by the House of Commons to kindly ask you for another extension until the 30^th of June 2019. (BPM looks down) Thank you!

PEU (shakes its head). Which guarantee do we have that you’ll find a way out of the impasse until June the 30^th, when in May we are all busy with the electoral campaign? (Pause) And so do you.

BPM (insecure). As a matter of fact, Your Highness… please excuse me… as a matter of fact ladies and gentlemen, the government has already started negotiating with the opposition party, which is bringing lots of pro-EU arguments, such as a permanent stay in the custom unions. (Looking down, thinking). Who knows? Maybe we’ll never leave the EU… .

ALL (nod smiling).

PEU. I love British humor!

BPM (smiling). And I love the European humor, Sir!

ALL (laugh).

PEU. Yeah, sure! (Pause) Now that all the European Heads of State and Governments heard your statement, you know the procedure (the BPM nods): You will be asked to leave this room. And leave your mobile phone. We are going to have a dinner together, at which … I’m sorry to remind you, but you are not invited. You must go to the residence of the British Ambassador to the EU. And wait for us to call you.

BPM (nods). May I dare to ask… do…do you think that is going to be tonight?

PEU. When Europe will be ready to talk to you, we will call you, and you can make a statement after we make ours.

BPM. That’s right! (resigned) That’s the procedure!

BPM (stand up and walks to the door).

BPM (alone): I know this procedure. I’ve been humiliated once since BREXIT. I’m used to it, now. But I cannot stand it twice! What would Margaret [Thatcher] have done, if she was here in front of Europe?

BPM (takes its hand from the door handle, turns to the audience, walks back determined and she speaks firmly): For 46 years the United Kingdom has never delayed sending you money for the EU budget! You expect me to go out, sit and wait until you’re ready?! (Pause) You seem to forget who has paid whom all these years! (Pause) No gentlemen! I’ll be damn if I’m going to sit and wait! But I will get out of this room! And I’ll return to London tonight! When the European Union is ready, you (accentuated) look for me and give me your answer! (Pause, calmly). You’ll find me at Downing Street, at No. 10. Hoping that I made myself clear, I wish you, ladies and gentlemen, an enjoyable discussion and dinner. (She goes to the door and closes well the door behind her back)

UK: Is the Democratic System Dying?

For a maximized image, please click on the cartoon.

by Laura Lai/ Essay

Amid discussions on the exit of the UK from the European Union (EU) many questions have been circulating in the British public space. Questions such as: ‘Is the democratic system dying in the UK?’, ‘Does the Parliament handle BREXIT well?’ and ‘Is the government capable of governance?’ are interrelated questions spinning around a more complex political concept: the political system.

            These questions are legitimate because there are almost three years since the referendum on BREXIT, from the 23^rd of June 2016 (with a 72,21% turnout). Following that referendum 52% of voters (meaning 17,410742 British citizens) demanded their politicians to take their country out of the EU. And no solution on how to exit was supplied so far by the politicians in the House of Commons. The government came up with a Withdrawal Agreement, rejected three times by the House. Options such as: remaining in the customs union and/or the single market, a referendum on a withdrawal agreement, no deal, revoking Art. 50 (implying no BREXIT at all), there were all rejected by the House. They have agreed on one (old and repeated) alternative: to ask the EU for another extension. But this requirement does not please the EU. It might happen that the EU is not confident that the UK will find a solution to this deadlock if another extension will be provided. At its turn, the EU – through the voice of the President of the European Commission and/or the voice of the President of the European Council – announced that the UK will get an extension only if the House of Commons will accept the Withdrawal Agreement, which pleases the EU a lot.

It is in this context that questions on whether the democratic system is dying in the UK are circulating. I rhetorically wonder whether this European public statement – that you (UK) will get an extension from me (EU) only if you accept my (EU) condition – is not to be framed in an even more general context of a downfall of the democratic system. Of course, that it is the UK’s decision to mind only its own … democratic system and to wonder whether or not it is falling down.

            What makes a system democratic or not, we might all already have a (very) good idea. What a political system is, is more difficult to explain or to summarize in one word. A political system of a country encompasses the institutions, the government, the politicians and the way they are voted to office, etc. and it mainly refers to the dynamic within a state between decisional bodies in supplying the demands coming from the voters. And in a democracy it is the majority that decides on the public demand that the politicians must supply.

The question on whether or not the democratic system is dying in the UK is very legitimate three years after a referendum in which a 52% majority decided to leave the EU and the politicians haven’t delivered it, yet. Voters usually demand, but they can never tell politicians how to do their jobs, because the politicians are those people – from among the citizens – who run for public (and decisional) offices, because in comparison to the general mass of voters, the politicians are supposed to distinguish themselves by courage and vision; and they are paid by everybody to find solutions to voters’ demands. It is definitely not an easy job to be confronted to all sorts of problems and find solutions to them, without being allowed to say things like ‘I/we don’t know how’ or ‘I/we have no solution’, etc. This is what to be a politician is mainly about, otherwise all voters can be politicians. Margaret Thatcher was such a politician (and with a great sense of humor): She courageously stood for a reform of the EU, and the EU reformed its Common Agricultural Policy. She constantly opposed what she was envisaging that the European Economic Communities – from her times – were becoming. And it became a supra-national entity with a supra-national Parliament, a supra-national Government (the Commission) and a supra-national European Council (Senate), with which the UK has difficulties to cope and from where the UK is struggling to exit.

The results of different votes in the House of Commons on different alternative routes to deliver BREXIT – mainly the rejection of revoking Art. 50 – imply that on behalf of the British politicians there is still a commitment to deliver BREXIT. It means that the commitment to deliver the demand of a majority of voters is still alive among the British politicians from both the government and the House of Commons. The thing of not knowing how to deliver it does not mean that the democratic system is dying in the UK. 

Oscar Wilde: "An Ideal Husband"

For a maximized image, please click on the cartoon.

by Laura Lai/ Review

It is recommended that the playwright decides in advance whether its play is written for stage, radio or for television. But some plays are so well written that professionals can play them on stage, on television and broadcast them on radio. That was my first thought while listening the BBC Radio Drama ‘An Ideal Husband’ by Oscar Wilde.  

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) has an Irish family background and an was educated in Dublin and at Oxford University. He was a complex writer, his works encompassing essays, novels, poems and dramas. For what a passionate theater-goer Oscar Wilde was, drama could not miss from his written works! He made his debut as playwright in 1880 with ‘Vera’ (or ‘The Nihilists’).

The play ‘An Ideal Husband’ is a 4-Act play, first published in 1893 and first played in London in 1895. It is mainly a political drama whose starting premise may very well be that ‘An act of corruption is at the beginning of a brilliant political career.’ It is a comedy of manners and a satire of the 19^th century high-society:

lord caversham. Never go anywhere now. Sick of London Society.[…]

mabel chiltern. Oh, I love London Society! I think it has immensely improved. It is entirely composed now of beautiful idiots and brilliant lunatics. Just what Society should be.

The political party at Sir Robert Chiltern’s house (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) in the very opening of the play is a great opportunity for the listener to get to know all the characters in the play. However, most of the dialogue focuses on Mrs. Cheveley. The listener learns the most about Mrs. Chevely: she is under 30, that she did not have an honest and human conduct when she was in school, that she was in Berlin, but now she left ‘the brilliant Vienna for the gloomy London’, that she is ‘a genius in the daytime and a beauty at night’, etc. And the listener is given only a flavor of the main plot:

sir robert chiltern. But you have not told me yet what makes you honour London so suddenly. Our season is almost over.

mrs. cheveley. Oh! I don’t care about the London season! It is too matrimonial. People are either hunting for husbands, or hiding from them. I wanted to meet you. It is quite true. You know what a woman’s curiosity is. Almost as great as a man’s! I wanted immensely to meet you, and . . . to ask you to do something for me.

sir robert chiltern. I hope it is not a little thing, Mrs. Cheveley. I find that little things are so very difficult to do.

mrs. cheveley. [After a moment’s reflection.] No, I don’t think it is quite a little thing.

sir robert chiltern. I am so glad. Do tell me what it is.

mrs. cheveley. Later on. [Rises.] […]

The story of the play is around a compromising letter that Mrs. Cheveley had about Sir. Chiltern acknowledging that when he was 22 years old he sold a government secret for lots of money, with which he brought the fame he was enjoying. Using this letter, she is seeking his public support (withdrawing a governmental report) on a political and economical scheme (building of the Argentine Canal) in which she had invested lots of money.

The play starts with a beautiful classical music that settles the place of the action. The topic of the Argentine Canal places the story in its historical framework. The dialogue has its own rhythm and the language is very precise. The play ‘An Ideal Husband’ is another play of Oscar Wilde impressive for the orality and realism of the dialogue. The satirical accents give the play lots of literary flavor.