We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Rishi Sunak’s Big Plan That’s why I hate “devolution” and wish that a Conservative government had had the balls to roll it back. But I might as well want a pet unicorn as hope for any vision from a Conservative politician. All we get is a smoking ban and compulsory maths till 18. That’s Rishi Sunak’s Big Plan.
– JohnK
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Don’t forget, there is also the restriction on window size. It’s the laughable Major’s Cones Hotline redux.
It is I think a good thing that conservatives struggle to find big ideas for government to do, but repealing *much* of the other lot’s legislation is surely the least we can expect. Make Starmer begin from 1997, say, instead of, as he will, from 2010.
David:
Starmer will start from 2024. What is there for him to unpick after the last fourteen wasted years?
One of the problems identified by Ludwig von Mises (see https://mises.org/power-market/what-are-misess-six-lessons ) is Interventionism. The argument being that as the Government embraces the interventions sought by special interest groups it steps away from the discipline of free economy.
The argument was developed further that whenever the Government heeds the call that ‘something must be done’ it increases the degree of government control leading to greater socialism and eventually totalitarianism.
So although Sunak’s smoking ban and compulsory maths to 18 are relatively modest interventions (when so much else needs to be done) it is indicative of the slow slide into totalitarianism, and not at all Conservative. There are far too many people and organisations making a nice living out of pursuing special interests and elaborating the bureaucracy for there to be a simple answer. It would be appreciated if someone, anyone, would make a start on the answer.
I won’t claim to being original here, I think I saw this first from Neema Parvini on Twitter but in Britain we have a Labour Party that screws the working class, and a Conservative Party that has conserved nothing of value.
Regarding Sunak,well he was educated in PPE at Oxford, worked for Goldman Sachs and hedge funds, and is married to an oligarch’s daughter. So knowing all that, his mediocre Blairism isn’t that surprising.
I just read this:
If this is even half true, Rishi is by far the worst Prime Minister ever.
That’s why I hate “devolution”
I’m a huge fan of devolution, I wish there was an English parliament too. I’d rather far more of the power was devolved down to local governments like Glasgow City Council or the Highlands and Islands local authority or Yorkshire or Pimlico. The smaller the unit of government and the more power is devolved down to lower levels the better off we are. If you don’t love the dumb new laws in Scotland you can easily enough move to England, or Wales or Jersey or where ever suits you. If you don’t like the dumb ideas from the Glasgow city council you can move to Paisley or Ayrshire. Devolution of government means competition between governments, and that is a very good thing indeed.
and wish that a Conservative government had had the balls to roll it back.
Why? It is very clear the people of Scotland want their own parliament, by a vast percentage. What possible right has the British government to take that away and absorb back the power centrally? FWIW, here in the United States most of our problems stem from precisely that — the massive centralization of power.
But I might as well want a pet unicorn as hope for any vision from a Conservative politician. All we get is a smoking ban and compulsory maths till 18. That’s Rishi Sunak’s Big Plan.
Which isn’t to say I think the Scottish parliament or, for that matter, the British parliament is doing a great job. Evidently that are all doing a dreadful, tyrannical job. But competitive government entities are one of the few stops you have on that so I don’t know why you’d want to take that away. What I hear is that the Tories are going to get eviscerated, and the SNP are doing to do VERY badly. So at least that is something.
Devolution should have been to the County level. Many counties have bigger populations than nation states. Westminster should execute defense, monetary and fiscal policies, marine etc. Counties should take over much more and local democracy become worthwhile.
In total, a reduction of government.
Fraser:
Britain is not a federal state. We have central government, and local government. But now, thanks to Blair, we also have “local national” government in Scotland and Wales, and that just gives power to nationalist socialists. The only “competition” they have is how many bullshit socialist laws they can pass.
The “Conservatives” (in reality, I expect, the deep state) now have the great idea of imposing “mayors” on large county areas, such as Greater Manchester. They are busy now doing it to Hull and East Yorkshire. No-one wants these “mayors”, just as no-one wanted “Police and Crime Commissioners” (which sound as if they commission crime; is that the idea?). But we get them anyway. More layers of government, all of which have to “do something” to justify their meaningless existence. Low traffic neighbourhoods, 15 minute cities, bus lanes, cameras, ULEZ, half a dozen different bins. Give me a break!
Blair was obsessed with American politicians without understanding American politics. He imported “Mayors” and “Police Commissioners” completely failing to understand what structure they are part of in Amercia.
We already have Mayors here – they are *ceremonial* posts, *NOT* executive posts. We already have executive elected council chiefs – they are call “the leader of the council”. And, as I understand it, American Police Commissioners are civil servants, not politicians. Commission Gordon is ****APPOINTED**** by the Mayor of Gotham, not elected.
Devolution/decentralisation/federalism may work well in places that have longer traditions of it. In Britain I can’t think of a single thing that has improved as a consequence of it. In almost every way Britain is worse governed now than it was in 1997, and I say that even taking into account Britain isn’t in the EU now, because the government have made that into a damp squid.
Federalism can be a good thing. But depending on a country’s traditions and past, it’s not always necessary. Britain in the eighteenth century had one of the most centralised governments in Europe, at least in terms of actual rather than claimed power (supposedly absolutist the on the continent often had less power in localities than they claimed to have). Yet 18th century Britain was a country of liberty, a lot more so than today.
At least in part I think this stuff is distraction and containment. Selling illusions of local democracy and sovereignty. In reality, power is increasingly held by unelected bureaucracies, supranational bodies, NGOs, ‘think tanks’ and the media, foreign governments, and big business. But hey you have a locally elected garbage commissioner or whatever, all our problems are solved and we are free!
jgh wrote:
Sometimes. It depends on the place and the state/county/local laws or charters. Sheriffs are almost always elected, while there may be a few that appointed by the county commissions. They will almost always have decades-long LE backgrounds. Police chiefs and police commissioners can be either elected or appointed positions or hired by the city council. And there can be things like school police departments, university police departments, state police departments, railroad police, so on and so forth. It just depends on how it is structured. And the ones that are elected in big cities end up being little more than figureheads and PR magnets who may or may not have a LE background and the ones that do often spent a career doing everything except being on the streets, while the deputy police commissioner is the power behind the throne and the guy who gets things done with the knowledge that if stuff goes sideways he’s the sacrificial lamb.
@JohnK
Britain is not a federal state. We have central government, and local government.
Britain used to not be a federal state, but it is one today (by some definition of “federal”.) It has a central government a “country” government and city governments. It has some quirks and anomalies, like the fact that England is missing level 2, but that is true other places too. For example, Washington DC doesn’t have a “state” government, it is taken care of by the central government. But the basic idea of federalism is a dividing the country up into geographical areas in a hierarchy and assigning different powers and responsibilities to each. Which is exactly what happens in the UK today.
@Martin
Devolution/decentralisation/federalism may work well in places that have longer traditions of it.
I’m not sure what tradition has to do with it. The basic idea of competition among governments is an intrinsically good thing irrespective of traditions, because competition and choice are always a good thing.
In Britain I can’t think of a single thing that has improved as a consequence of it.
I’m sure you can’t, and I’m sure if I knew more I’d agree with you. But I tend to think there are a lot of people who disagree and who think things have improved. That a separate government for Scotland has advantaged Scots (for example, they don’t have to pay to send their kids to college, or finally there is somebody “looking out for the kids” with some government official snooping in on parents) And for people who hate that they can move to London to escape the growing tyranny of the SNP.
Which isn’t much. But the problem is not at all the system, the politicians, the levels of government. The problem is that the British people want a bit of tyranny, want an overbearing government, want the civil service to fix every problem since they themselves are so utterly neotenized. The problem is with the residents of the sceptered isle who apparently rather like the sceptre to rule over them. FWIW, here in the land of the free and home of the brave, it is exactly the same problem.
When I hear you all saying “ah yeah, federalism it is great, but it won’t work here”, it reminds me of people who say “sure I’m in favor of free markets, but it won’t work in THIS case….” Federalism is a free market in government. It is about giving people individual options in their choice of government in addition to their corporate options via voting. It’s about the best we can get with the people we have.
It’s why you can’t cross the road in London anymore without being threatened with arrest if you’re visibly Jewish.
At the United Kingdom level it is a reminder that Prime Ministers are allowed to have ideas (I sometimes suspect that they are not) – if a Prime Minister is allowed to have silly ideas and suggest them as legislation, at least theoretically a Prime Minister could have sensible ideas to REPEAL XYZ and propose legislation to Parliament to repeal some of the expansions of government that have been made over the last 150 years (or so).
However, repealing “Social Reforms”, i.e. increases in the size and scope of the state, is very difficult – as the British establishment is taught, both at government and at private schools, that “Social Reforms” are good (“our island story”) indeed Holy. For example, both Russia and Britain have government health systems – the Russian one being more than 20 years older than the British one (the Soviet Union set up a government health service in the 1920s and the British government copied it in 1948 – although the history books and the BBC do not admit that this is what was done, they talk about the Friendly Society of the Great Western Railway or a Welsh mining village) – but Russians do not worship the government health service (in fact they are very cynical about it), and the British people DO worship the government health service – as Chancellor Hunt said recently, the National Health Service is what makes him, and other people, “proud to be British”.
The British tend to blame elected politicians for government system failures (for example lots of people dying because they do not get health treatment, or get the wrong treatment) – the government systems themselves (whether it is health or anything else) are SACRED – and can not be blamed, so elected politicians may be voted out – but the government systems themselves must-not-be-questioned.
As for “Devolution” – it has been a utter disaster for Wales and Scotland – especially for Scotland where Scots Law and Scottish education (both better than the English systems before “Devolution”) have been ruined by the antics of the Scottish Parliament and Ministers (at least that proves that elected politicians can have an impact – if only a negative impact) – but there is no chance (none whatever) that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly will be abolished.
Also note that “Devolution” only works one way – the “Progressive” direction.
For example, the Assembly in Northern Ireland did not pass baby killing – but baby killing was imposed anyway. The Economist magazine has already moved on – it wants adult human beings killed as “Britain’s next great social reform” (no – they are not joking).
If the Assembly in Wales or the Parliament in Scotland wanted to do “Reactionary” things the establishment, the courts and so on, would not allow them to do so – but they may do “Progressive” things.
It would be interesting of the Parliament in Westminster had a “Reactionary” majority (presently it does not – due to the number of “One Nation” Conservative Party M.P.s) – would a Westminster Parliament with a Reactionary majority be allowed to do Reactionary things (repeal “Social Reforms”) would the establishment, the courts, the Civil Service, the independent agencies, the Bank of England (the Bank of England who undermined Prime Minister Liz Truss), Corporate Big Business, and-so-on, allow a Westminster Parliament with a Reactionary majority to do Reactionary things?
I do not know – it would be interesting to find out.
Fraser:
I think that the sort of “federalism” we have in Britain is pretty half-assed. England represents about 80% of Britain’s population, but has no parliament. The blob seems pretty keen on dividing England into petty fiefdoms under “mayors”. Scotland and Wales do have “parliaments” of nonentities and separatists. These people fill their days passing legislation designed purely to be different from England, and agitating for “independence” (and membership of the EU, so not independent at all). It’s just a mess, a complete dog’s dinner.
The town I live in used to have its own council. The Town Hall is still there. But the Edward Heath government decided to make it part of a “metropolitan county” in 1974. This is a meaningless entity, which has now had a “mayor” foisted on it. I would like local government to be at as local a level as possible, and a national government to pass the laws. Keep it simple. The present government arrangements in Britain are an utter mess, and just encourage the sort of rascals who make a living out of it.
The obvious defect in Scottish devolution is that Scotland is subsidised by England through the Barnett formula. If they removed the subsidy then at least they’d have to face the cost of their decisions.
More generally, I’m a big fan of local government as long as;
1. The regions are sufficiently small geographically to make moving away easily. Probably not true of Scotland, but probably true of London.
2. regions should be able to declare independence, or request reassignment to a neighbouring area. For example, I’d vote for Bromley to become independent of London, or to join Kent.
3. regional authorities should be financially independent. Debtors don’t get their money back if all the residents move away. Bailouts from central government banned.
4. A federal bill of rights that prevents government over-reach in certain areas. That would mean the UK adopting equivalents to the first and fourth amendments of the US constitution. As in the US, the integrity of the bill of rights would need to be protected by some inviolable procedural rules.
Direct democracy in the Swiss style applied at all layers of government.
Strange that nobody has pointed out that “devolution” in the UK is devolution in name only (DINO).
Westminster retains all the powers that it had before DINO: no power has been “devolved”. If Westminster imposes a lockdown, Scotland cannot opt out; but if Westminster does not impose a lockdown, Edinburgh can still do so. (Although i suppose that, in principle, Westminster could forbid lockdowns — good luck with that.)
Hence Paul’s remark:
which is correct if “Progressive” is understood as “statist”.
Snorri, indeed, what Fraser has missed is that power did not move locally. People just got extra layers of meddling governments.
Local government throughout the UK is substantially worse than national government. And national government is dogshit. There might be a handful of local authorities – out of the 300-plus – which perform, but I couldn’t name one.
Oh definitely. There’s a whole cohort of people in Wales and Scotland who will accept any level of corruption and incompetence from their local government as long as their politicians do things differently from the hated English.
Speaking strictly as an outsider… From my perspective on the matter, the UK has never, ever had what could be termed a “bottom up” sort of democracy or sense of citizenship. Not that the US is simon-pure in the matter, but there is rather more power in local government here than in the UK.
The real deal with the idea of “power down” is that you actually have to devolve the decision-making power and all the rest; you can’t simply pay lip-service to the idea, which is what “devolution” looks like to an outsider. Blair did not create a true “bottom up” federal system; he basically just said he was giving some powers up to the local regional governments, and left it at that.
The reality is that from the perspective of a US citizen, used to having a voice and vote on what gets done locally, the way the UK works is more than a little dislocating. The idea that the folks in London could come down and willy-nilly dissolve city governments and so forth, giving their powers to a county-level affair that they controlled? Nuts.
I had this conversation several times with UK citizens, who were unable to wrap their heads around the idea that every state, county, and city could have different laws than the rest of the US… Hell, a lot of the time, within the states it can be vastly different with regards to laws and enforcement, based on local government decisions.
I’m not sure that Blair “got” what the implications were, and what actual “devolution” would have meant for the UK. I suspect that few do, really. That “patchwork” effect that so many UK citizens decry when they look at the US is what would actually result, and you’d have to get used to the idea that every locale could have different laws and enforcement.
Which I suspect is the way of the future, everywhere. What we’re finding here in the US is that the more centralization there is, the more you have the problems of “big government”. I believe it will end in a bang, when all the contradictions become impossible to ignore, and then you’re going to have a lot of people saying things like “Yeah, the Feds don’t get to administer lands inside our states…”
Which, thanks to Big Government overreach, is likely getting closer and closer.
Snorri – health is a “devolved matter” so Scotland and Wales could, supposedly, have said “no lockdown” – instead they imposed HARSHER lockdowns.
This is the thing – for example Scotland is allowed to have higher taxes and more restrictions on Freedom of Speech than England, but what if there was a majority of Reactionaries in the Scottish Parliament who wanted lower taxes and less restrictions on Freedom of Speech than England?
Perhaps Northern Ireland provides us with a clue – the Progressive agenda, baby killing and so on, got imposed without the Assembly there voting for it. It must be free (tax funded) – remember during Covid that in England cancer screening was “non urgent” and not bothered with (basically “who cares if you die of cancer”), but baby killing was “urgent medical care”.
As for associating Progressive with statism – even before the First World War when Richard Ely, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson were called Progressive everyone knew this meant a supporter of higher taxes, more regulations, more government spending, and so on.
“Liberal” was a contested word – but “Progressive” meant statist, it always has meant that – at least aa far as I know.
To be a Reactionary meant to be opposed to the government giving people nice things at the expense of the taxpayers = hence such bodies as the League for the Defense of Liberty and Property in the late 19th century.
I would have been a member – it was a Reactionary body.
Kirk:
As you say, the USA is based on federalism. In Britain, Blair’s “devolution” created “parliaments” in Scotland and Wales, which are distinct nations within the UK. It should have been obvious to him, but apparently wasn’t, that these “parliaments” would just give a soap box to “independence” agitators. It is different in the USA, where between 1861-1865 it was decided, after much debate, that states could not secede from the union. In Britain, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, conceded a Scottish referendum on secession on a whim. He was not a serious man.
I have not mentioned Northern Ireland. Sadly, there has been a devolved parliament there since the province was created in 1922, apart from during the Troubles. I have never understood this. The Protestant majority in Northern Ireland came to the brink of civil war in 1914 because they opposed Irish home rule. In 1922, they accepted Northern Irish home rule.
I feel Northern Ireland should have been treated as a full and equal member of the UK from 1922 onwards, with no “devolved” parliament. UK political parties should have organised there, instead they left the field to niche Northern Ireland parties. A Northern Ireland which was fully integrated into the UK would perhaps not have degenerated into sectarianism and civil war. This is what I fear may happen over time due to “devolution” in Scotland and Wales.
If we had more local control/ devolution you just have cries of “post-code lottery” by whomever is losing out from any changes. Look what happened when St Margaret tried to introduce accountability on local councils via the poll tax.
@JohnK
It is different in the USA, where between 1861-1865 it was decided, after much debate, that states could not secede from the union. In Britain, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, conceded a Scottish referendum on secession on a whim. He was not a serious man.
I don’t understand this way of thinking at all. If the people of Scotland (or for that matter South Carolina) want to split off and form their own country what sort of tyranny would prevent them from doing so? I mean for sure the mechanism has to ensure that that is what the people actually want (and in the case of South Carolina there were a lot of dark skinned people who most certainly did not want it), but people have a right to be governed the way they want to be. Even if it is, in your or my judgement, for bad reasons such as some ugly hatred of the English.
Again the problem is that the thing you and I object to — the utter overwhelm of the state — is something large majorities want. For sure they differ in the details, but the huge majority want a government 100x bigger than I would want. So it isn’t about devolution, or local governments or David Cameron. It is that you are hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Divorce is a thing. It is messy and ugly, but who wants to remain in a marriage where the two partners are constantly at loggerheads.
Fraser:
South Carolina would be unwise to attempt to secede again, I feel. That question is settled.
You mention divorce and parties being at loggerheads. This is precisely what “devolution” has provided for, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are not analogous to an American state, a part of a federal union. Giving them their own “parliaments”, whilst ultimately keeping them subordinate to Westminster, just perpetuates the myth that they are colonies of an English empire. It just gives a soap box to malcontents and separatists. If that was a suspicion in 1997, it is a fact now.
For my part, I am British, and wish Britain to remain. I hate the various nationalist socialist parties which exist to break up my country. For me, it is as simple as that.
John K – it was Prime Minister Blair, not Prime Minister Cameron who went along with “Devolution”.
By the way no question is ever “settled” in politics (certainly not by “might = right” mass violence – which is what a Civil War is), if Scotland has the right to secede from the United Kingdom (and the British government accepted that it DID – hence the referendum which the SNP LOST) and the American colonies had a right to secede from Westminster, then Texas or South Carolina have a right to secede from Washington D.C. – the issue of slavery no longer applies (and, as Dr Johnson asked at the time, why was slavery not considered relevant in 1776? there were no slaves in London, but lots and lots of slaves in Virginia – and New York for that matter).
It used to be said “you have no right to secede – but the Washington D.C. government is very limited” however these days it is horribly clear that there is no limit at all to its taxes, spending and regulations. Or to its Credit Money. And the modern Corporations, such as BlackRock, are just as political as the East India Company (by the way – David Hume was clearly right about what a dodgy idea corporations are, up to a few years ago I refused to admit that, but their vileness has worn away even my desire to defend them).
D.C. does, every day, terrible things that King George III and Lord North would never have dreamed of doing.
The only argument against secession is that it would leave powers such as the People’s Republic of China dominating the world.
That is indeed a powerful argument.
JohnK – you are correct, the “Nationalist” parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all socialist.
Nor are they really “nationalist” at all – as they accept rule by the European Union and the rest of the accursed International Community (World Health Organisation and all).
Paul:
The various nationalist socialist parties have to parade their nationalism, otherwise what is the point of them? But as you rightly say, they wish to join the EU, so will give up their independence as soon as they get it, in return for dole. How very patriotic.
I do not think David Cameron should have granted a Scottish referendum so flippantly. This has conceded the point that the union may be broken up at some stage. It looks unlikely now, as the SNP has been revealed to be a corrupt and hapless shower of mediocrities, has beens and never will bes, but that does not mean it will always be so.
Characteristically, Cameron panicked when the referendum seemed to be going badly, and promised the Scots “Devo Max”, whatever that may be. It does not seem to have occurred to him that the Scots (the majority) who voted to preserve the union might have wanted “Devo Min”. As I said, he is not a deep thinker, a very shallow man.
Interestingly, I think I am right in saying that Texas is the one state which does have the right to secede from the USA. This is because it was a sovereign state when it joined, and the right to leave was wisely included in its accession agreement.
Johk wrote:
The nasty little dust up we had in the early 1860s over the issue and the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that secession is, simply put, illegal and the Union is perpetual regardless of whatever other agreements may have been made between the United States and Texas. Not to mention, the treaty between the US and Texas over annexation gives the possibility of making multiple states but does not seem to mention secession from the US at all.
“Now you’se can’t leave.”
@JohnK
South Carolina would be unwise to attempt to secede again, I feel. That question is settled.
Probably, but just because something isn’t possible or legal doesn’t mean that the people of South Carolina SHOULD NOT have the right to be governed however they want.
They are not analogous to an American state, a part of a federal union. Giving them their own “parliaments”, whilst ultimately keeping them subordinate to Westminster,
But that is exactly what US States are — they have their own “parliaments” and state law is subordinate to federal law. And in the same way that Westminster controls most of the money, that same is true with the US States… much to my chagrin.
just perpetuates the myth that they are colonies of an English empire.
Talk to a few Scottish people (and presumably also Welsh and Northern Irish too) and that is not at all what they think.
For my part, I am British, and wish Britain to remain. I hate the various nationalist socialist parties which exist to break up my country. For me, it is as simple as that.
Again, go ask a few people in Glasgow, I think you’ll find that for the most part they think of themselves as primarily Scottish but also British. I suspect that is true of a lot of English people too. You can be both things at once. And, FWIW, I think there are a lot of English people who would be happy to see the back of Scotland anyway.
I’m not sure if it is true, but I have heard that prior to the civil war I’d say I was an Illinoisan, or New Yorker or Californian. After the civil war I’d say I’m an American. I’m also told that prior to the civil war you’d say “These United states are…” and after you’d say “This United States is…”. I don’t know if that is true factually, but for sure that war did begin the transformation of the country into the big mega state it is today.
And it is also worth pointing out that Scottish devolution is not some new innovation. Scotland has long been an independent country, and even subsequent to 1707 it retained many separate institutions including their system of law, schools and church. Your feeling of being British is perfectly legitimate, but it isn’t one shared by all the residents of that island.
One could argue that England is a colony of Scotland given that it was the Scottish Crown that absorbed the English one. But that is at best ephemeral. The Germans took over a few hundred years later until the Kaiser embarrassed us enough to pretend our monarchy was as English as a Windsor Castle.
Fraser:
I am sure you are right that many English people would like to see the back of Scotland. That is because the face of Scotland presented to us is of chippy nationalism and hatred of the English. If the face of Scotland is Nicola Sturgeon, and sensible person would want to see the back of it.
The point about US federalism I would make is that all 50 states are equal members of the union, united under a federal government which can only make laws according to the powers given to it in the constitution (I know). The UK is made up of four nations, three small ones and England. England has no parliament, but the three small nations do. This situation is clearly unbalanced, and can only lead to the devolved parliaments of the three nations making laws purely for the purpose of asserting their difference from England. The long term centrifugal force this puts on the union should be apparent. The present constitutional arrangements in the UK are unstable by nature, and need reform, but our “Conservative” government has no thinkers in it, and no plan, it seems, other than to lose the next election by a crushing margin.
JohnK – there is no formal provision for Texas to leave the Union in the agreement by which it joined in 1845.
This was because it was taken for granted that if the people of a State really wished to leave the Union they could (otherwise the language of the Declaration of Independence, 1776, does not mean anything), certainly few people expected a war and the killing of over half a million human beings if States choose to leave the Union.
However, the slavery issue was very important – Washington D.C. could (rightly) say that those States trying to leave the Union in 1861 were trying to leave because-of-slavery – this propaganda point (and propaganda can be TRUE) was a vital justification for the level of violence unleashed.
What would Washington D.C. say NOW?
Surely “you want to leave the Union because you are planning to reintroduce slavery” would be a lie so extreme that no would believe it.
However, Mr Joseph Biden, only a few years ago, pretended to an audience of black people that Republicans planned to “put you all back in chains”.
So perhaps Washington D.C. (and the Corporate Media – who depend on the Credit Money produced by the institutionally corrupt Federal Reserve system) really would deploy such extreme lies against the people of a State that tried to secede. After all, some years ago, Mr Biden gloatingly listed the weapons, including nuclear weapons, that the Federal Government has when he said that the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was useless in terms of resistance against the regime. Basically “you have AR15s, but we have nuclear weapons – and would enjoy using them against you”.
Would the regime really use nuclear weapons against people trying to secede? I do not know – but this danger (given the sadism of the regime) can not be ruled out.
As for the Federal Government being limited in its spending or its regulations – that is clearly no longer the case. What few restrictions on the Federal Government that still remain could be removed by a couple of appointments to the Supreme Court.