Ross McWhiter made the claim that by signing the eec treaty or allowing it, she was in breach of her coronation oath.
Starkey is a clever man as was Roger Scruton but neither realised our system before eu membership allowed parliament to enter us into a political union.
Our politicians feel they can do whatever they please. That needs to stop. Pete has made the point that's the case but feels it can be achieved without a codified, written constitution?
Superb piece Pete; plenty of food for inspiration here.
I would suggest that Britain is inexorably heading for what might be described as third world status. It has effectively been in terminal decline since, if not before, the 1970s.
The Thatcher era’s portrayal of prosperity came at the expense of selling off the ‘family silver’; asset stripping. Since then, Britain has limped along whilst ‘maxing out its credit card’; it’s up to its neck in debt.
The days of the nation state are numbered in today’s world where advanced communications and the understanding that if mankind is to survive in the longer term it must adjust itself to living much more in harmony with nature.
Such realisations have, with much chagrin on behalf of the unenlightened, made economic and political globalisation both desirable and essential.
There is nothing desirable about world government. Even the uk political union being over 300 years old is being tested. Democracy cannot exist between people who aren't prepared to accept government at each other's hands. The number of nation states rises.
Notwithstanding a nuclear holocaust, the collision of Earth with a substantial enough asteroid, or any such catastrophic event, I think it fair to say that on its present course of not living sustainably enough with nature whilst wrecking the environment the human race is en route to self-extinction.
To avoid self-extinction, or at least to significantly delay that outcome, the human race as a whole must get its act together and be “singing from the same hymn sheet” whilst suitably changing its ways.
If you think several nation states, democratic or not, each vying for survival in a competitive global world can achieve such cooperative status as would be required and without suitable direction from a One World Government then we would have to agree to disagree.
Carry on as several nation states if you will. It won’t bother me.
< “Saving the planet is the pretext for enslaving us and dismantling democracy. Democracy is the greatest threat to the established order.” >
If ‘saving the planet’ is the pretext for enslaving us, then that is not as it should be. But I can fully understand why democracy should be dismantled at this stage of transition to the new paradigm of One World Government; people don’t like change to something they perceive as being retrograde.
Democracy, far from being the greatest threat to the established order is possibly the greatest threat for mankind to transition to living much more sustainably with nature; the greatest threat to establishing a new order.
I can foresee democracy returning after the establishment of a One World Government. But that, I think, would be generations ahead.
< “Our appetite for labour saving devices and instant gratification purchases has lessened us somehow.” >
I can’t argue with that statement. Whilst the country has racked-up huge debt it has effectively been living way beyond its means. People are going to have to drastically alter their aspirations as the worth of remunerations are gradually lessened.
It’s happening right now as the transition to living much more sustainably with nature is taking place. It is euphemistically known as 'the cost of living crisis'.
< “Much rests on winning the argument that there is no climate emergency and the drive to reach Net Zero will make us poorer to no useful purpose.” >
The climate may well be changing; nothing new with that over the centuries. The Powers That Be have to make it look like an emergency, i.e engender fear, in order to try to obtain people’s compliance in transitioning to living much more in harmony with nature.
I’m not saying “the drive to Net Zero” is the best way to help fulfil that aim, it’s lunacy.
People are not going to volunteer to transition to what they perceive as much lower so-called living standards in order to live more sustainably with nature – that, living more sustainably with nature, is the "useful purpose"!
< “As such, it is for conservatives to make a full throated case for real democracy, nationally and locally. What ails Britain is the gradual, almost imperceptible abolition of democracy. We still engage in the performative voting rituals of democracy, but the vote has no real power, and the ruling class is moving into endgame. “ >
What ails Britain is that for far too long it has been living way beyond its means. In many ways it has been and continues to be ever more globally uncompetitive. But it’s not just Britain.
Democracy, in whatever probable vein, won’t heal Britain’s, the world’s, ills. Drastic problems require drastic remedies.
Whilst “the ruling class is moving into end game” the future looks bleak. The Luddite Riots of 1811-16, although conceivably having parallel causes, will perceivably look tame by comparison.
Agree with every word Pete, it’s a shame someone like the SDP aren’t advocating for direct democracy.
Particularly like the highlight of community, local communities which are being eroded by modern globism & consumerism.
Humans are a social, communal, tribal species, oft prone to following flawed authority figures and any democratic solution needs to encompass our nature.
None of the parties are doing this, nor even mentioning direct democracy. At best we get some mention of PR which won’t change anything; and, in fact, will just entrench power more firmly in politicians hands.
And while I agree the modern left wing authoritarianism is very dangerous, and has more power than many realise, we mustn’t lose sight of right wing authoritarianism (in the guise of corporatism) and far right extremism (Islam) which often appears allied with left but in reality both sides are using and abusing each other to further their own agendas.
The counter to authoritarianism is proper local, direct democracy and we need it more than ever. “How?” is the real question.
If you are a conservative, why do you want to put the people in charge, supposing they wanted to be? If there were anything good about conservatism it would be because it acknowledged God over the king. Now we "don't do God" and the symptoms are remarkably similar to what one would expect in that case, except not yet fully developed.
The majority of this country are conservative. In the absence of God and acknowledging the fact representatives are untrustworthy, we need to put us above parliament.
Excellent piece Pete. Quite important too, I think. Lots to mull over…
Very good piece. Not much to argue with in there.
Ross McWhiter made the claim that by signing the eec treaty or allowing it, she was in breach of her coronation oath.
Starkey is a clever man as was Roger Scruton but neither realised our system before eu membership allowed parliament to enter us into a political union.
Our politicians feel they can do whatever they please. That needs to stop. Pete has made the point that's the case but feels it can be achieved without a codified, written constitution?
Superb piece Pete; plenty of food for inspiration here.
I would suggest that Britain is inexorably heading for what might be described as third world status. It has effectively been in terminal decline since, if not before, the 1970s.
The Thatcher era’s portrayal of prosperity came at the expense of selling off the ‘family silver’; asset stripping. Since then, Britain has limped along whilst ‘maxing out its credit card’; it’s up to its neck in debt.
The days of the nation state are numbered in today’s world where advanced communications and the understanding that if mankind is to survive in the longer term it must adjust itself to living much more in harmony with nature.
Such realisations have, with much chagrin on behalf of the unenlightened, made economic and political globalisation both desirable and essential.
There is nothing desirable about world government. Even the uk political union being over 300 years old is being tested. Democracy cannot exist between people who aren't prepared to accept government at each other's hands. The number of nation states rises.
Notwithstanding a nuclear holocaust, the collision of Earth with a substantial enough asteroid, or any such catastrophic event, I think it fair to say that on its present course of not living sustainably enough with nature whilst wrecking the environment the human race is en route to self-extinction.
To avoid self-extinction, or at least to significantly delay that outcome, the human race as a whole must get its act together and be “singing from the same hymn sheet” whilst suitably changing its ways.
If you think several nation states, democratic or not, each vying for survival in a competitive global world can achieve such cooperative status as would be required and without suitable direction from a One World Government then we would have to agree to disagree.
Carry on as several nation states if you will. It won’t bother me.
< “Saving the planet is the pretext for enslaving us and dismantling democracy. Democracy is the greatest threat to the established order.” >
If ‘saving the planet’ is the pretext for enslaving us, then that is not as it should be. But I can fully understand why democracy should be dismantled at this stage of transition to the new paradigm of One World Government; people don’t like change to something they perceive as being retrograde.
Democracy, far from being the greatest threat to the established order is possibly the greatest threat for mankind to transition to living much more sustainably with nature; the greatest threat to establishing a new order.
I can foresee democracy returning after the establishment of a One World Government. But that, I think, would be generations ahead.
< “Our appetite for labour saving devices and instant gratification purchases has lessened us somehow.” >
I can’t argue with that statement. Whilst the country has racked-up huge debt it has effectively been living way beyond its means. People are going to have to drastically alter their aspirations as the worth of remunerations are gradually lessened.
It’s happening right now as the transition to living much more sustainably with nature is taking place. It is euphemistically known as 'the cost of living crisis'.
< “Much rests on winning the argument that there is no climate emergency and the drive to reach Net Zero will make us poorer to no useful purpose.” >
The climate may well be changing; nothing new with that over the centuries. The Powers That Be have to make it look like an emergency, i.e engender fear, in order to try to obtain people’s compliance in transitioning to living much more in harmony with nature.
I’m not saying “the drive to Net Zero” is the best way to help fulfil that aim, it’s lunacy.
People are not going to volunteer to transition to what they perceive as much lower so-called living standards in order to live more sustainably with nature – that, living more sustainably with nature, is the "useful purpose"!
< “As such, it is for conservatives to make a full throated case for real democracy, nationally and locally. What ails Britain is the gradual, almost imperceptible abolition of democracy. We still engage in the performative voting rituals of democracy, but the vote has no real power, and the ruling class is moving into endgame. “ >
What ails Britain is that for far too long it has been living way beyond its means. In many ways it has been and continues to be ever more globally uncompetitive. But it’s not just Britain.
Democracy, in whatever probable vein, won’t heal Britain’s, the world’s, ills. Drastic problems require drastic remedies.
Whilst “the ruling class is moving into end game” the future looks bleak. The Luddite Riots of 1811-16, although conceivably having parallel causes, will perceivably look tame by comparison.
Agree with every word Pete, it’s a shame someone like the SDP aren’t advocating for direct democracy.
Particularly like the highlight of community, local communities which are being eroded by modern globism & consumerism.
Humans are a social, communal, tribal species, oft prone to following flawed authority figures and any democratic solution needs to encompass our nature.
None of the parties are doing this, nor even mentioning direct democracy. At best we get some mention of PR which won’t change anything; and, in fact, will just entrench power more firmly in politicians hands.
And while I agree the modern left wing authoritarianism is very dangerous, and has more power than many realise, we mustn’t lose sight of right wing authoritarianism (in the guise of corporatism) and far right extremism (Islam) which often appears allied with left but in reality both sides are using and abusing each other to further their own agendas.
The counter to authoritarianism is proper local, direct democracy and we need it more than ever. “How?” is the real question.
If you are a conservative, why do you want to put the people in charge, supposing they wanted to be? If there were anything good about conservatism it would be because it acknowledged God over the king. Now we "don't do God" and the symptoms are remarkably similar to what one would expect in that case, except not yet fully developed.
The majority of this country are conservative. In the absence of God and acknowledging the fact representatives are untrustworthy, we need to put us above parliament.