THE AUGURIES for subsequent week’s Brexit votes usually are not good, to place it mildly. The European Reform Group of hardline Eurosceptic MPs is split into two camps: those that are prepared to compromise with the prime minister given that they get the whole lot they need; and those that usually are not prepared to compromise even when they get the whole lot they need with a cherry on prime (one Depart-supporting politician I do know tells me that about 30 of his colleagues are actually clinically insane). The DUP, Northern Eire’s largest get together, is in excessive dudgeon—or maybe I ought to say even greater dudgeon than regular—about being disrespected. The Labour Social gathering exhibits no indicators of placing nation earlier than get together.
So it appears to be like as if we’re heading for but additional paralysis. The prime minister will undergo a heavy defeat in Tuesday’s vote on the withdrawal deal; parliament will vote in opposition to a “no deal” Brexit on Wednesday; after which, on Thursday, it would vote to increase Brexit. With no clear plans about what to do with this extension, Britain can have set itself up for an additional interval (size to be determined) of paralysis and drift, culminating in one other cliff edge. A very distasteful type of Groundhog Day.
The prime minister’s solely probability of breaking this logjam is to do one thing dramatic. Right here’s one concept: supply to resign from the prime ministership with nearly quick impact if parliament votes her deal by means of. She may say that she’s going to regard her job as completed if she will be able to get Brexit by means of parliament. It is going to then be as much as her successor to information Britain by means of the quick post-Brexit maze. She may add that, if parliament can’t make up its thoughts, she can have no selection however to remain on for yet another heave.
This would possibly simply have the impact of stunning sufficient MPs to rally behind the prime minister. Conservatives would rally as a result of they’re determined to provide another person an opportunity. A major variety of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Impartial Group MPs may additionally rally as a result of they’d be confronted with somebody who was visibly placing the nation earlier than her profession. Fairly than “salvaging” a Tory Brexit, Labour MPs can be waving goodbye to a Tory prime minister. Wavering MPs of all events would realise that they face a stark selection: do they need extra months of the prime minister robotically repeating the identical inventory phrases or do they wish to shake issues up?
This may do wonders for Mrs Might’s repute (bear in mind she’s promised to not lead the Tory Social gathering into the subsequent election). Fairly than being remembered as the girl who “misplaced” the 2017 election and bungled the Brexit negotiations she can be remembered for sacrificing herself for the nation—and for making some of the dramatic gestures in British political historical past. A day of heroism would assist to cancel out months of dithering. It might do wonders for the Tory Social gathering, which might then have the ability to select between a set of completely competent successors, reminiscent of Sajid Javid, the house secretary, and Jeremy Hunt, the international secretary. It might have the ability to clear the Cupboard of the useless wooden that has gathered there underneath Mrs Might, notably Chris Grayling, the transport secretary. It might have the ability to shift its focus from delivering Brexit to repairing the nation (although Brexit negotiations shall be happening for years, they are going to be extra technical and fewer headline-grabbing than the present spherical). Each events are in such a dismal state that the one which tries to repair itself first by eliminating its present chief and bringing in a brand new technology of expertise can have a giant benefit.
A far-fetched suggestion maybe. However the different—a defeat in parliament, extra months of negotiation, a crumbling authorities—is one thing to be prevented in any respect prices.
****
I’M FREQUENTLY advised that the British don’t do sufficient to honour their intellectuals. The French revere even the spikiest figures, reminiscent of Michel Houellebecq (who most actually deserves to be revered). The British against this would relatively give a platform to second-rate comedians than severe thinkers. James Marriott made this level in an article within the Occasions this week (“Britain ought to study to like its intellectuals”). Perry Anderson as soon as wrote a ponderous essay on why the French are a lot cleverer than the British as a result of they recognised the genius of Louis Althusser, who turned out to be a wife-murdering lunatic.
The BBC’s fondness for second-rate comedians is among the nice puzzles of our age. Radio 4 appears to have a slot at 12.30 every single day reserved for individuals who don’t know the distinction between being humorous and being half-witted. However I ponder about the concept that Britain doesn’t worth intellectuals. The British have constructed palaces for at the very least a number of the most distinguished examples of the species within the type of Oxford and Cambridge schools. The “sensible pondering” sections of bookshops are bursting with volumes, a few of which do precisely what’s on the package deal. John Grey, who’s undoubtedly an mental, and a delightfully gloomy one at that, enjoys a distinguished platform in British life. Isaiah Berlin, Mr Grey’s tutor, was loaded down with honours, together with a knighthood and the Order of Advantage, for being such a superb author and talker.
****
NOT that each one intellectuals are value listening to. It’s inconceivable to take a look at the mental enthusiasms of the last decade from the mid-Nineteen Nineties to the mid-2000s and not using a sense of embarrassment. Virtually each so-called large concept that seized the creativeness of the period—from the wonders of Silicon Valley to the knowledge of crowds to the inevitable triumph of liberal democracy—turned out to be tosh (I write this as somebody who contributed to this tosh myself). We had been advised that Silicon Valley would produce a brand new, free-wheeling kind of capitalism that may put the world’s information at our fingertips. Now the valley is ruled by a set of company giants which are primarily within the promoting enterprise, subordinating information to the good calling of promoting us stuff. We had been advised that crowds had been the repositories of all knowledge, and that consultants ought to bow down earlier than the all-knowing folks. Now we see populist rage destroying our establishments and debasing our civilisation.
I spend as a lot time as I can in the intervening time studying issues written within the mid-Victorian period—notably the 1860s—as a result of the mid-Victorians had been grappling with the collapse of Benthamite liberalism in a lot the identical method that we’re grappling with the collapse of neo-liberalism. I’m struck not solely by how good books like Matthew Arnold’s “Tradition and Anarchy” (1869) and John Stuart Mill’s “The Subjection of Girls” (1869) are, however how instantly they converse to our personal time. I ponder what readers will suppose, 150 years from now, once they learn Tom Friedman’s “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” (1999) or James Surowiecki “The Knowledge of Crowds” (2004).
