You may recall that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came and spoke to Congress last March at the invitation of Speaker John Boehner.
The White House and supporters of President Obama expressed outrage, and Democratic lawmakers, in their high dudgeon, mounted a boycott. At that time, Obama was trying unsuccessfully to build majority support in Congress for the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran behind lawmakers’ backs. Netanyahu’s address to Congress was deemed inappropriate by the bien pensants of the Left, an unconscionable interference in American politics.
Where are these sticklers for propriety now, after Obama has flown to Britain not merely to inject himself into British voters’ decision whether to stay within the European Union, but to threaten the United Kingodom with baleful consquences if they leave? He said Britain would be shoved to the back of the queue for trade deals, which may or may not have been effective as a threat, but would be a boneheaded policy decision.
Obama’s interference in British affairs last week is largely unparalleled for its arrogance. Netanyahu did not threaten to harm his hosts while giving his opinion on their soil, and he was speaking about an existential threat to his country. By contrast, Britain leaving the EU would pose no threat to the United States. At most it would be a little inconvenience and at best it would be a benefit.
The United Kingdom is not just one more country among many. Despite disagreements with us early in this country’s history, Great Britain has been America’s most consistent and stable ally in Europe. Britain is also one of America’s top 10 trade partners, and is the most popular European destination for American exports so far this year.
Obama’s threat to demote Britain if it were to return to self-government rather than remaining under the yoke of the EU isn’t just petty and ridiculous. It’s also impossible; he won’t even be in office to carry it out. What’s more, his successor would have be a fool to do what he suggests. Were Britain to quit the EU, a wise administration in Washington would rush to make a trade deal with our British cousins. American jobs depend on trade with Britain, and it would be ludicrous to disrupt them over a soon-to-be-former president’s personal irritation with British voters.
There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate over British exit from the EU. Our own columnist Daniel Hannan, a British member of the European Parliament, has argued persuasively that Britain could actually open itself more to the world if it unbound itself from the EU and concomitant limitations on its sovereignty.
How large would Britain’s population (the world’s 21st largest) or economy (fifth largest, according to the International Monetary Fund) have to be before it can be allowed by Washington to govern its affairs according to it’s own interests and not Obama’s wishes?
Americans probably won’t even notice a difference if British voters do choose on June 23 to quit the EU. Perhaps our president should refrain from pompous pronouncements about other people’s business and do his own job instead.
