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 – what sovereignty means edition “Sovereignty is not merely the technical possibility of making a one‑off decision. It is the continuing ability to govern yourself: to set and revise your own rules in the light of your own needs. When you adopt the regulatory framework of a foreign power, when commercial realities make reversal prohibitively costly and when you have no seat at the table where the rules are made, you may have exercised a choice at the outset but you have chosen powerless subordination thereafter.”
– Steve Baker, former Conservative MP and campaigner for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. He’s unhappy at the machinations of the current Labour government, and I share his annoyance.
|
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.
|
Yes indeed.
However, the previous government did very little with independence – partly because they (the elected government) were “in office, but not in power” – power being with the officials and “experts”, but also because some (SOME – not all) of the elected people themselves (such as the dreadful Prime Minister Theresa May) did not believe in independence – and although they said they accepted the result of the referendum, they did not really accept the result of the referendum.
As for the present elected government – there is no real conflict within it, they all (all the Labour ministers) share the hatred that the officials and “experts” have for both national independence and individual liberty (the latter being dependent upon the former – for an international government would crush liberty, utterly crush liberty), the situation is hopeless, it is truly without hope.
Speaking from the other side of the Atlantic where I must admit that the sovereignty of our own people and Constitution are very much in question; it appears that while lesser britain is many things, “sovereign” is not one of them and that has not been one of them for several generations. The interesting point is going to be the reaction when such becomes undeniable to the locals.
Subotai Bahadur
Brexit was only ever the first step towards recovering sovereignty. The old mainstream Parliamentary parties were (apart from a few maverick MPs) united in opposing it, and remain united to this day. The next step is going to have to be voting all of them out and replacing them with MPs who will actually make use of that independence obtained. It was a long haul to get Brexit; it may be a long haul to take it further (and Labour are doing their level best to obliterate the progress made) but it can be done.
If you bring in an entirely new electorate with differing hopes and aspirations, are you still sovereign? Or have you brought in a new sovereignty?
Mass immigration, by itself, voids sovereignty.
Independence (not “Brexit” – a meaningless word) was voted for in the 2016 referendum – but legal independence never became real independence as policy did not really diverge from European Union, or general “International Community”, policy.
Now even legal independence is being destroyed – by the Labour Government pushing agreements with the European Union that will put the United Kingdom under European Union law.
That is the point that Steve Baker is making – and, like Johnathan Pearce, I agree with Steve Baker on this matter.
Subotai Bahadur.
Thanks to President Trump, the United States has withdrawn from the World Health Organization and other international organizations and treaties.
Not enough has been done (I agree with you – not enough has been done to fully establish independence against the evil that is the “International Community”) – but what has been done is not unimportant, and it would not happen in the United Kingdom – where the establishment has total control, total control of everything.
What may happen in the United States in November (the victory of the servants of the International Establishment in the midterm elections) would be a terrible tragedy.
But this collapse has already-occurred in the United Kingdom.
The fight is already over here – the supporters of national independence and individual liberty have already lost here.
It is very hard to see any possibility of recovery.
A strong argument for Brexit is that our political class had grown accustomed to getting the limos and the status and the deferential interviews without the pesky obligation to make tough decisions and then answer for them to the public.
A strong argument, and actually a moderately persuasive one, against Brexit is that the establishment would of course die in a ditch before giving up those perks.
Same arguments, really, just different framings, beneficiaries, and losers.
For some years now SW1 has been winning, Brexit or no.
A strong argument for Brexit is that our political class had grown accustomed to getting the limos and the status and the deferential interviews without the pesky obligation to make tough decisions and then answer for them to the public. “We have to, ‘cos Brussels, see?”
A strong argument, and actually a moderately persuasive one, against Brexit is that the establishment would of course die in a ditch before giving up those perks.
Same arguments, really, just different framings, beneficiaries, and losers.
For some years now SW1 has been winning, Brexit or no.
Sovereignty interests me. Parliament likes to claim its sovereign. Yet the German constitution, i believe, states the source of all political authority comes from the German people. David Starkey has said parliament is the legal sovereign, the people are the political sovereigns.
I think the entire setup of our country needs thinking through. Magna carta was a piece treaty that sought limits from the crown. Parliament was formed by invitation by the crown. Parliament then has the power to change Magna carta. I reject Parliaments power to change a legal treaty between the crown and what was effectively the political sovereigns. I think only another treaty can supersede another.
If this is off topic, I apologise.
Independence – not “Brexit”.
We got “Brexit” – we did not get independence.
Classic bait-and-switch by Theresa May and the rest of the establishment – of all parties and none.
Stuart Noyes – yes, Parliament did-not-even-exist when Henry the First swore to uphold the laws in 1100, and King John swore to do so in 1215, and as Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir John Holt (of the Glorious Revolution and all that) understood – the Divine Right of Parliament is no better than the Divine Right of Kings.
Sir William Blackstone claimed to support Natural Justice as expressed in Common Law – but his doctrine that Parliament could do anything it felt like doing (say make having blue eyes a “crime” punishable by death) utterly subverts liberty and justice – it destroys the Common Law.
And we have (since the 19th century) an added twist – Parliament able to hand over its unlimited powers (which should not be unlimited in the first place) can be handed over to other bodies, to officials and “experts”, who are allowed to make endless regulations with the force-of-law.
What Chief Justice Hewart called “The New Despotism” (1929).
“You will go to prison for two years for anti Muslim hostility”.
When did Parliament pass such a thing? And when did a jury find me guilty of this so-called “crime”?
“Parliament and jury? What a silly Reactionary you are – Parliament had handed over this power to a group of experts (the Gentleman with the beards over there – plus the ex Member of Parliament for Beaconsfield) and trial by jury is gone – but your Reactionary notions will be beaten out of you by the Islamic prison gangs”.
So, change the people, and you change the sovereign. As in the US, power devolves from “the people” to the government. Therefore, a new people becomes the best way to defeat the old people.
Bobby: a valid point, but please keep in mind that, on this side of the pond, it is not easy for non-citizens to vote illegally. For all practical purposes, the SAVE Act is already in effect over here.
@ Stuart Noyes, Parliament incorporated the Magna Carta into legislation. That is different, Parliament cannot change what it didn’t create, Magna Carta exists in its entirety cannot be modified or changed, common law always prevails and legislation can and is cancelled by common law. As does the Bill of Rights which mandates the right to bear arms, trial by peers, et al, which parliament cannot cancel, so they begin to control by narrative, biased judiciary etc.
Parliament is supposed to use the kings powers of government by forming a government based on elections. What process gave the monarchy power and our Parliament? Seems to me Parliament was created by the monarchy. The monarchy has zero right to exist.
@Stuart Noyes
Parliament is supposed to use the kings powers of government by forming a government based on elections. What process gave the monarchy power and our Parliament? Seems to me Parliament was created by the monarchy. The monarchy has zero right to exist.
If you read English and British history I think it is more accurate to say that parliament was created in spite of the monarchy. In fact they had a whole civil war about this subject. I think the monarchy is stupid myself, but if the people as a whole want a monarchy then it has a right to exist by virtue of that alone, and that is the case in Britain. And parliament itself is created by legislation not the King, the only power the King has is to ask a specific person to form a ministry in his name. But this is entirely a procedural matter, the King has no right to chose anyone except the person who has the ability to form a government with sufficient support to actually govern. The monarchy has effectively no power at all except the right of access and the power to advise. Me? I think that the idea that a berk like King Charles has anything useful to advise on is silly, but, on the other hand it is Starmer he is advising, so who is more stupid is hard to say.
Fraser Orr.
As we have the worst Parliament in history – it does not really matter if it was created by the King or not.
Not that His Majesty is a supporter of the “racist and Islamophobic” British people either – as his Christmas broadcast of 2024, and many other statements (formal and informal) show.
In the 1640s the King and Parliament were enemies – now they are in agreement, they agree that the British people need to undergo the process of replacement that bobby b and others have mentioned.