“These are the times that try men’s souls.” So Thomas Paine consoled revolutionary America, when hopes of independence seemed dashed by circumstance. He expounded his revolutionary politics in England, too, a plaque at the White Hart Hotel at Lewes, East Sussex, reminds. Today, as Britain revolts against EU membership and for its own independence, Paine’s words bring it home. Brexit hangs in the balance as the scales weigh the uncertain benefits of withdrawing on terms dictated by Europe or striking out at the appointed hour minus them, without regret.

No contest, I say. To quote Disraeli: “Departures should be sudden.”

In the 2016 referendum, the choice before Britons was stark. Whether, on the one hand, to leave the European Union and regain the marks of sovereignty and self-government or, on the other hand, to remain in the EU and see their laws subservient to a foreign court, their acts of parliament subject to the approval of unelected EU bureaucrats.

The people opted for independence. Yet their Brexit vote is being frustrated by insiders who deride it, lament it, abhor it. Either by a political class with a share in EU control, who do not want their power curtailed. Or business interests with a financial stake in trade according to EU regulations — “crony continentalism” — and fear selling their wares in the competition of free markets.

Or ordinary citizens, who have lived so long under the paternalism of the EU that they want for the confidence that independence engenders and the self-respect that is the reward of self-rule. Brexit’s troubles are compounded by politicians who do not believe in it and do not want it; who promote it publicly but do all within their power to frustrate and despoil the vote for independence.

Now, with the departure date but 76 days away, the Brexit saboteurs are in full force. Though Prime Minister May was initially a remainer, many gave her the benefit of the doubt, believing she would honor the referendum result. Her subsequent actions have disabused them of their trust and demonstrate her unfitness for the high office entrusted to her.

Mrs. May has insidiously ceded ground to the EU under the pretense, for a home audience, of standing up to Europe and up for Britain’s interests. She agreed to Brussels’ timetable, prioritizing exit protocols before trade initiatives and, adding insult to injury, acquiesced to a £39 billion payout for the privilege of leaving, as if Britain’s independence were for sale.

Last year the government presented its exit proposal, and whether as a Chequers prototype or the final Withdrawal Agreement, its conspicuous feature was that the EU set terms and the Prime Minister capitulated.

A vote on this infamous legislation, postponed in December for fear of failure, is scheduled for next week. Success, given its fatal flaws, is doubtful. Brexiteer MPs will vote against because it fails to liberate Britain fully from Europe’s yoke, a situation made worse by a ploy to threaten the “Union” by hazarding Northern Ireland. Remainer MPs will vote nay, for the bill’s purposeful weakness in securing a future EU relationship, staging an obsequious attitude for future negotiations.

Will a revised bill be forthcoming? MPs passed an amendment requiring the Government to present new legislation to the Commons within three days of WA’s defeat. Surely a pretext for stalemate, considering the impossibility of engineering a new arrangement quickly in light of UK-EU intransigence. A new referendum? Risible, given the “one-off,” fear-tactic Remain propaganda of 2016 and futile, as any new vote will be disputed, with the prospect of ad infinitum contests.

Two options remain: “No Brexit” is an affront to democracy and unthinkable, even if some method is devised to postpone the March deadline and prolong negotiations. And, as an affront to the Government, rebellious MPs voted to curtail its taxing powers if no deal is forthcoming. But a “no-deal Brexit” is the best route available, not only by default — and regardless of the heightening efforts of Project Fear to enumerate escalating ill-effects.

As Boris Johnson observes, Britons won’t back a “Brexit deal nobody voted for,” and are indifferent to the Establishment’s howls of protest against “no deal.” Why?“ The most obvious answer,” Mr. Johnson surmises, “is that this option is closest to what people actually voted for.”

Rather than emphasizing the negative connotations of “no deal,” patriotic paladins praise the opportunities inherent in a “WTO-Brexit,” under World Trade Organization rules, of which the United Kingdom has been a member since Marrakesh. As such, punitive EU tariffs against the UK are illegal.

Moreover, Britain can arrange trade deals as she sees fit — such as removing current EU-imposed tariffs on food, clothing, and footwear that affect most adversely the poor — formulate customs arrangements that nullify the need for an Irish backstop, and put paid to the £39 billion in exit extortion.

“The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph,” Paine promised his particularly patriotic pals. Once Britain’s bondage to EU bureaucrats is banished and the garlands of independence won, Britons will honor their own courage. A “no-deal” Brexit is this promise fulfilled.

________

Image: Plaque at the White Hart Hotel, Lewes, East Sussex, south east England. Via Wikipedia.