In some ways it pains me to write this because recent weeks have resulted in a huge transformation in my thinking that still leaves me feeling somewhat uncomfortable.
All my life I have advocated nothing but lawful, peaceful protest. Growing up I had faith in the structures that have long been positioned as offering stability, reassurance and comfort to the people. Slowly the scales have gradually fallen from my eyes and the reality has come into sharp relief. Peaceful protest is noble, decent, responsible, conformist and utterly futile. The fact is it is treated with contempt by the political class as while it gives people the illusion of involvement in the political process, the politicians can ignore the wishes of the people and press ahead with their own agenda.
Consider the demonstration before the Iraq war. Consider the Countryside Alliance marches. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated their opposition to government plans and what difference did it make? Secure behind their multiple layers of security, shielded from the people from which they supposedly hail and to whom they are supposedly accountable, the political class has absolved itself of its representative responsibilities and assumed the mantle of all controlling master of the populace.
We are in a different era now where historic events have come full circle. Having moved away from brutal suppression by the militia of dissenters and protesters in centuries past, politics became representative. In the 20th century qualities such as honour and decency were more prevalent and a peaceful protest made representatives take notice and often work to address the wishes of the people. It was a democratic age. Imperfect, yes. But there was a sense of service and responsibility which extinguished the appetite for violent protest.
But increasingly the conduct of the political class has changed swiftly to one of dishonorable self interest and personal enrichment. Despite the evidence of their own eyes, people are finding it difficult to accept that the compact between them and their representatives has been shattered. There is still a sense of disbelief at the change that has taken place and a reluctance to acknowledge the new reality that we no longer have representatives but a self selecting elite that does not care about the things that matter to us. We have moved into a post democratic era.
Where we previously had a choice between competing and rival ideologies and outlooks, we now suffer the charade of elections where the only difference between those standing for office is their faces and the colour of their rosette. Consensus politics and the so called centre ground deny us any genuine alternative at the ballot box. As such nothing changes.
The Parliamentary battles we see hyped in the media between politicians are the product of partisan party politics. The main three parties are all on the same page when it comes to the major issues. Whether it is EU membership, climate change, taxation and public spending, defence, or any number of issues, the only disagreements are matters of nuance rather than substance. The wishes of the people are simply ignored until it is time to publish a tissue of lies masquerading as manifestos before the electoral charade every 4-5 years. Once the election is over, it is business as usual and the disconnect from the public is re-established. Yet millions keep kidding themselves ‘the public’ can influence what the politicians do. They kid themselves that peaceful protests will produce results despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The student disorder of recent weeks has brought this subject to the fore. Regretably these protests were not about matters of real substance, such as our democracy, our liberty and our sovereignty. They were about a misplaced sense of entitlement and a wish to continue indulging their choices at the expense of taxpayers. The behaviour was therefore unjustified. The students positioned their protest ‘against the rich’ and the ‘establishment’. They spectacularly missed the point that they should be protesting in a targeted manner against the political class and the ruling elite. Their protest did not warrant or justify the violence we witnessed.
However I can now envisage violence being justified as a means to an end – not in order to demand money from the government, but rather demanding the restoration of democracy and representative governance. Not violence to attack the police, law and order. But rather to remove those in the ruling class who abuse the law for their own ends and subvert our country, handing it over to foreign control from underneath us without mandate or permission.
The rules of the game have changed. By making it impossible for us to remove the political clones from power through democratic elections and select a genuine alternative the political class has left the population with no option but to engage in civil disobedience and possibly direct action in order to ensure the our wishes are respected and the country is run in our interests.
Where the future of our democracy, sovereignty and liberty is threatened and peaceful protest continues to have no effect, direct action will be justified to protect and safeguard those perspectives before they are taken from us by the political class and the supranational bodies that are actively taking control of us without our consent. It is the political class that has brought us to this point and we should not feel ashamed of taking direct action where it is necessary to defend our hard won freedom, a freedom secured through the blood and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands if not millions of our countrymen over many years who forever deserve our gratitude and respect.
Autonomous Mind 
Brilliant! Very much enjoyed reading this!
Excellent post. Thank you.
Brilliant post AM – it’s enough to make one give up blogging, so beautifully written. Have linked
What alternative have they left us?
That’s a mighty powerful piece. I agree with every word.
I cannot yet join you on that barricade, but I reserve the right to change my mind
Wonderful stuff.
We should have taken to the streets after the Lisbon betrayal.
What gets me is that they have been allowed to get away with it for so long. I am afraid I now believe that the British ‘niceness’ and ‘tolerance’ is the product of ‘servile minds’ and lack of moral courage. We not only do not react to the sell out, we are blinded to it. One day we will turn around and say either, ‘wow didn’t see that coming’ or ‘ I have known about that for years but I did nothing as I thought others would’.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”
Very well said AM. The rules have indeed changed and I think they changed after the Iraq war demonstrations. In this area, I sensed they changed when thousands campaigned to keep the Scottish regiments, but were ignored.
Somehow I foresee the use of water canon on the streets of the UK in the not too distant future. The people must be controlled you know.
Give up blogging, and you give up. The msm are contemptible with a few contributors being the exception. This is where the news is – on blogs.
There needs to be a systemic change in governance from the top down, most removed completely. The leading liars sent somewhere from whence they will never return. Central communications set up to co-ordinate community support and welfare nationwide, and frequent referendums on local and national interests and policies.
But that is in the future. Today there is only one thing left for the people. The sorry sight of students running amock is but a side spark to a catalyst that will bring reason and pride back to this country, and it will be by force, because that is the only avenue left. However, this ‘force’ will need the backing of the military and the so called Police who haven’t gone over to thuggery for it to have a comparatively bloodless revolution.
I have a friend who is well into his seventies, and frequently he has rejoiced in a “come the revolution”. Now I know what he means.
This is true, but the forces of repression are strong and we are very far from united.
Where is our Simon Bolivar? Or at least our Ron Paul?
Your journey is indeed one that many of us have been travelling. There is now no peer pressure amongst politicians to make them behave honourably or to represent their electors’ wishes; rather, the reverse, those that don’t lie, cheat and manoeuvre for their own interests and that of their class are quickly moved out to grass. Like you, I see no solution that does not involve violence: until the politicians fear us, the people, democracy is dead.
Even the likes of Hannan and Carswell who talk the talk, simply devise schemes to take our money away and do nothing to further giving us a real say in our future and that of our country. Maybe this is all part of the decline and fall of western civilisation at the hands of the debauched governing classes; maybe it is all part of a period of creative destruction out of which a truly democratic and libertarian civilisation will arise in the East, but I ‘cannot go gentle into the night, I must rage against the dying of the light’.
Excellent post. So, where do we find justice, democracy and the rule of law (OUR law of course – not usurped EU law)?
We find it clearly expressed and confirmed in our own great Constitution and particularly our Bill of Rights which remains un-repealed, but which is ignored and rejected by our politicians.
The principle of redress and true justice go back even further to Magna Carta, which itself lies OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of Parliament for it precedes it. Thus Churchill:
“And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet without success”
Magna Carta advocates violence if all other reasonable and democratic avenues are shut off by an autocratic State.
See Articles 39 and 61 of MC.
““If we, our Chief Justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us …….-who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon”
Graham Wood
Great post AM – have circulated far and wide.
Coming at this from a slightly different angle…
I’m aware that you’ve not covered the Wikileaks saga much, but I thought you’d bring your attention to how it may be laying the foundations for a new ‘iPatriot Act’ to restrict Internet freedom.
Clearly the picture you paint above will require even more control of the mainstresm media, and the web will be an vital tool in fomenting rebellion.
These guys are smart and see the bigger picture – http://www.youtube.com/user/corbettreport
Keep up the great work!
There’s only one thing to say when a ruling class loses the plot.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité !
Excellent post.
If you have not seen it already this may be of interest to you regarding peaceful protest.
http://anindividualvoluntarystvoice.blogspot.com/2010/11/opiate-of-peace.html
An excellent post which sums up my own feelings. Thanks.
Eloquently put, I too have been struggling with this dilemna.
British people should read the Declaration of Independence that the colonies made in regard to being ruled by an ‘elite’ that had no interest except tyranny and control….the list of some grievances they provide are as true to British subjects today as they were to them then!
but for me this one sentence from this document sums up the way forward:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The parralels of 1776 to 2010 are in many instances uncannily similar!
When will we the British people wake up? we need a focus, we need a movement with simple core values that are easily understood, that will be able to unite most of us and the inertia of the masses with a common goal.
A few thousand protestors violent or otherwise will achieve nothing, but if we could get 1 million 2 million 3 million or more on the streets of Britain one day and days after then ‘they’ (the ‘ruling elite’) would be afraid…very afraid….
There are millions of us out there but we are fragmented isolated individuals who blog and rant but what do we achieve? beyond satisfying an urge to vent steam! BUT we all share a common desire to take Britain back.
We need to unite….and become political
How do we do this? that is the challenge for us all….
But sooner rahter than later….because were running out of time
link to Declaration of Independence
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
The students positioned their protest ‘against the rich’ and the ‘establishment’. They spectacularly missed the point that they should be protesting in a targeted manner against the political class and the ruling elite. Their protest did not warrant or justify the violence we witnessed.
This is a ridiculous paragraph. You don’t respect students enough. You can’t bear to give them any credit for their meagre understanding in the face of all the propaganda that gets thrown their way.
Students clearly understand the political class is part of the corrupt system! I disagree the protests were not targeted. The protests in Oxford Street were not against McDonalds but companies which are dodging taxes.
It was a protest against our political class which allows and facilitates these injustices. Students not “over-entitled”. If we want higher birthrates among our middle classes – our best and brightest – we simply can’t afford our students to begin their working lives with £18-27k of debt.
Affordable family formation should be a key policy for a legitimate government. Putting young people in so much debt they can’t afford one goes against this.
Stop putting down our young people. Give them some respect or else you won’t get any – and there are increasingly more of us that there are of you. We reflect the future, you reflect the past – if not history.
Thanks Andy – the quote in particular is a timely reminder of our duty. I’ve added it to the ‘Quotes‘ page.
Thanks for the link, Fraser!
Thanks for that Paul, I’ll watch the video.
Excellent posting am glad I followed the link from subrosa’s place. On the strength of this one post I am adding you to my blogroll, I look forward to further posts by yourself!
You’re right TWL, I don’t respect the moronic idiots among the protesters the other day. OK, perhaps you will explain then the events at the Cenotaph, the desecration of Churchill’s monument, the burning of the Christmas tree gifted from Norway, etc. This was targeting the political class was it? Another example of the falling standards of comprehension among our supposedly best and brightest.
When your fellow travellers attacked ‘companies which are dodging taxes’ how much attention was directed at the Guardian newspaper head office? While you’re at it perhaps you will also learn the distinction between ‘young people’ who I am not disrespecting at all and a band of thuggish self interested fools, numbering only a fraction of the student population, for whom I have nothing but contempt.
If I am supposedly the past and you are the future, you can pay for it yourself.
Thanks Sue, really kind of you.
I don’t think you can talk of the “forces of oppression”, rather the forces of of bureaucratic suffocation and obfuscation, which is really the line of defense, the curtain, behind which those really running and benefiting from the show, profit.
Take, as an example, the Vacation Without End in Cancun. 15,000 unelected people are taking a vacation in the (should be) warm Mayan Peninsula and the Caribean Sun. This vaction is being paid for by you and me; it has no timetable; the people there justify this in the name of saving the Earth.
Tranzies all! They are the enemy; the international bureaucrats and regulators, and their High Priests, greenies and do-gooding charities.
Enjoyed the article, though I would agree with the other dissenters that the students were in the right and you don’t give them a fair look in. I would also state that the students have acheived on thing; the ignition of the anti-cuts movement. With gross bodies like the NUS becoming something to dissociate yourself from, people are realising that they don’t need the TUC, the NUS or sneaking vanguardists like the SWP to guide them.
twl
Students clearly understand the political class is part of the corrupt system! I disagree the protests were not targeted.
The students generally are from that political class – they are beneficiaries of the government teat.
Glad you enjoyed the article Anarchotoads. But I don’t believe the student are in the right. Their sense of entitlement is misplaced and they are pushing a big government, tax and spend agenda that I disagree with. I paid for my education and career development and don’t see why I should subsidise other people unless it adds tangible value to the nation.
While government departments are experiencing cuts the total amount of public spending is continuing to increase at our expense. Government should be getting out of areas it has no business in, not extending its reach. Do you realise many of these protesters are avid fans of the Guardian, but don’t seem to have any problem with that paper making £302m profit and paying a grand total of £0 in corporation tax. I don’t like the double standard.
When the students put as much effort into defending our democracy, sovereignty and liberty from the political class, the EU and the UN as they do demanding a handout from the taxpayer to go to college, then I will have some time for them. But the fact is their campaign is entirely self serving and they ignore the bigger picture – or with their support of Labour and the Lib Dems actually endorse the dismantling of our democracy and eradication of our sovereignty.
By making it impossible for us to remove the political clones from power through democratic elections and select a genuine alternative
Not ‘impossible’, surely? It would be unlikely, and the odds are stacked against it thanks to the MSM, but a switch in allegiance from the Unholy Trinity of LibLabCon to BNP or UKIP would do the trick. With both BNP and UKIP supporting direct democracy, power really would return to the people.
Great post AM and spot on. Have linked.
Johnny, the BNP believe in centralised government power, not direct democracy. They are like 1970s Labour with racism thrown in for good measure.
Excellent post , very well considered . If one is to “defend the realm” could I recommend some reading , The Home Guard training manual , contains some interesting devices .
An excellent post; you must be a mind reader as you have read mine perfectly. But you have also articulated my feelings far better than ever I could. I have tried to think what more I could add but there is nothing more to add today.
Thank you to everyone who has left comments about this post. I really appreciate your insights, recommendations and links and I’m grateful for the kind words also.
I would argue that their heart is in the right place and their entitlement should extend to everyone, because there is a sense of classism in education, especially from the Trots. The problem as I see it is that the only left policies they’re shown are Marxist-Leninist through the likes of the SWP, and small-government/anti-state movements are marginalised because even the NUS pretends to support socialism.
Education needs to enter the streets, and not just through protests, but educating people and stopping monopolistic ideas of education and privilege.
You’re right TWL, I don’t respect the moronic idiots among the protesters the other day. OK, perhaps you will explain then the events at the Cenotaph, the desecration of Churchill’s monument, the burning of the Christmas tree gifted from Norway, etc. This was targeting the political class was it? Another example of the falling standards of comprehension among our supposedly best and brightest.
The Cenotaph guy was a Cambridge University student, actually the son of Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour. He’s apologised for that.
Churchill’s monument – sure it was just a bit of fun interacting with the great man. It’s not a protest unless you give Churchill a pink moustache.
The Christmas tree is a symbol of a consumer culture that has deviated from Christian fundamentals.
When your fellow travellers attacked ‘companies which are dodging taxes’ how much attention was directed at the Guardian newspaper head office? While you’re at it perhaps you will also learn the distinction between ‘young people’ who I am not disrespecting at all and a band of thuggish self interested fools, numbering only a fraction of the student population, for whom I have nothing but contempt.
It’s a myth that it’s “only a fraction of the student population”. 36.62% of over 400 students who responded to an online poll thought it was “awesome” when Tory Towers got trashed. There’s a generational change going on here that you’ve not even begun to appreciate.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1462084&highlight=glad+trashed+tory+HQ
If I am supposedly the past and you are the future, you can pay for it yourself.
You are very arrogant and take for granted the cooperation of young people. You think they will again roll over at your generation’s say so. You, like the political class, seek to dictate terms and conditions to young people. This is the first generation who have decided there are only two little words for that attitude.
The young generation coming through are much smaller in number than those of decades past. This means there won’t in future be enough people to work in all these expensive transnational governmental organizations, NGOs, quangos, think tanks and things your generation invented. What’s happening right now is a phase change back to more simple government that directly reflects what the people want. Perhaps states will collapse under the expense of all those in your generation (or the generation below you) who want to join the gravy train.
Students want a life. Students want affordable family formation. They don’t want to be enslaved by debt. They won’t be.
@ Autonomous Mind (3:15 pm)—With respect, this summary of the BNP’s policy on democracy reads like the opposite of centralization.
Wholeheartedly agree. But let me draw your attention to an extract from Hansard:
“7 Dec 2010 : Column 191
European Union Bill
[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, European Union Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty, HC 633 I and II, and the uncorrected transcripts of oral evidence taken before the Committee on 22 and 25 November and 6 December HC 633-i, ii and iii .]
Second Reading
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the official Opposition.
4.48 pm
Mr Hague: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In the past 25 years, the EU has changed many times, each change marked by a new treaty: the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, the failed EU constitution and its modified successor, the Lisbon treaty. As a result, the EU now has a greatly enlarged place in our national life, policy and politics. At the same time, we have seen a growing disconnection between the people who put us here in Parliament-the British people, the voters-and the EU’s institutions. There is a growing sense, shown by falling turnout in European elections and a variety of surveys, that the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country has been weakened.
It can be said in mitigation that all but one of those treaties had its place in the manifesto of the party that won the general election, the exception-a rather important exception-being the last such treaty, the Lisbon treaty. It cannot be denied, however, that there is a problem-a severe one-that will only grow worse unless we take steps to address it, and the European Union Bill is part of the coalition Government’s answer to that problem. Indeed, the crowning argument for the Bill was the behaviour of the last Government, who opposed a referendum on the EU constitution, then promised one, then refused to hold one on its substantially similar reincarnation as the Lisbon treaty. The Bill will prevent Governments from being so deceptive and double-dealing when it comes to giving voters a say.”
?Wool over non-seeing eyes?
Do we need a Royalist Party to stop this drip-by-drip attrition of our Constitution and our Heritage?
Kenaam
Johnny, you need to read beyond the boilerplate text on democracy that is barely any different to that of the other parties. When you see policies such as the following you know centralisation is the order of the day:
‘Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation’ (protectionism)
‘Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports.’ (undermining free trade and choice)
‘We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people’ (nationalisation)
‘Halving council tax by centralising education costs…’ (central education planning)
‘The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds’ (big government)
‘Cutting back all unnecessary layers of government which have been artificially created by years of politically correct Labour and Tory rule’ (reducing localism, note no mention of quangos)
I could go on, but you should get the picture now.
@ Autonomous Mind (6:30 pm)—I’ll just make this one last point and then leave you the final say. The summary of the BNP’s economic policy (see here) contains this paragraph:
❛Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers.❜ [My emphasis]
Note this sentence Kenaam:
This shows the ignorance of the political class. The EU has never had democratic legitimacy in this country because the people never gave it their permission, so how can something that does not exist be weakened?
In answer to your question the Royal Family supports our EU membership and ever closer union. By definition a Royalist Party would be at odds with real democracy. A new party is needed, but then, who would vote for another bunch of politicians when the propensity is for them to go native when in office?
Johnny, I do hope you will reply to this. Do you think that statement squares with the other comments I put up here a short while ago? It seems contradictory to me. What are your thoughts?
@ Autonomous Mind (7:14 pm)—I’m happy to reply.
● What you see as ‘protectionism’ and ‘undermining free trade’, I see as creating and defending worthwhile jobs for British workers.
● Stating that Britain’s industry, etc, belongs to the nation is the BNP’s reaction to 40 per cent of our industry and half our utilities being foreign owned, and their wish to bring those assets back under British ownership.
● I’ll have to pass on education. I’m neither an expert on the subject nor a BNP member so I’m not qualified to comment.
● Taking utilities back into state ownership isn’t something I’d be happy with. I’d prefer to see all our utilities as British owned and not-for-profit.
● By reducing unnecessary layers of government, I assume the BNP means the regional assemblies and their associated bureaucracies. From what I know of the BNP, I’d be surprised if they didn’t want a quango cull.
I’m attracted to the BNP (although I voted UKIP at the general election) because I think that, as the élites move more and more towards internationalism and world government, people will turn to nationalism as their best hope of remaining free. We’ve seen with the EU that, as power moves away from the people, democracy and freedom wither.
TWL, thanks for the laugh. Your post is beyond parody and you should be on the comedy circuit. I destroyed your argument then you come back and admit as much by attempting to justify action against non-political class targets! Hilarous. You talk about it being a myth that only a fraction of the student population are engaging in the protests and try to evince this by citing a mere 167 individuals voting in an online poll. Brilliant!
No one owes me a living and I shouldn’t have to subsidise someone’s choice to get a degree. If the degree doesn’t result in a well paid job then hardly any of the loan will be repaid. If the degree results in well paid work then the loan repayments will be affordable for the student. Without having to pay for student tuition through my taxes I would have more income to provide for my own family. Why should my children go without to provide a stranger with a degree?
It isn’t a step change to simple government you’re demanding, you just want more of the money the government has taken from me. You talk about what students want. Well let me tell you something – I want a life. I want to be able to afford to support my family. And I don’t see why I should lose more of my rewards for hard work to put money in the pockets of students who made a conscious choice to go to college.
Believe me, the student rant will fade away as their attention drifts to something else and they will pay their own tuition fees. And you can be sure they will be silent as the destruction of our democracy continues.
It’s your democratic right to vote for them Johnny and I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on this one. At least you’re engaged, which is more than can be said for many.
An excellent post, it says what I’ve been saying for some time on my blog, but far more eloquently than I can.
The change I, and the students, demand won’t occur this side of a revolution; following which there would be massive savings on a variety of unneeded expenses.
This makes your suggestion you’d be paying out more in tax moot. What you would be doing is prioritising in the Budget the needs of the youth, those who have a life to lead and families to bring up as well as work to do, over the wants of people who have already lived their lives and had their families and careers – of whom there are an ever growing number.
twl – a history lesson for you. Students were no different in my day (I’m 57) Most protestors were just looking for a fight. Beseige a University library in the name of protest against authority and break a librarian’s arm. Then jeer at him as a ‘hated oppressor’. Students then, as now, had no real appreciation of the intellectual issues which ‘Autonomous Mind’ is talking about and neither do you.
Excellent comments.
Something that bothers me as an oldie in receipt of Winter Fuel Payments, is the comment in the Guardian – who have placed the Duchess of York beside Charles in the Roller, typical – is the tone of one Shiv Malik:
“George Osborne kept his promises to the older generation – to keep their free eye tests, their winter fuel allowance, their free prescriptions, their free bus passes,” says Malik. “Eighty per cent of winter fuel recipients are not winter-fuel poor. If you means-tested [them], you would make £2bn to spend on higher education.”
Gosh thanks Shiv, I must remember to shiver harder when the poverty police come round.
The oldies are just as – if not more than – riled about the state of the country in terms of governance, they have witnessed more change than any youth and are angry. But age and a certain amount of prosperity have acrued over the years in comparison to THEIR youth, and lobbing bricks at coppers would cause all they have worked for their entire lives – which includes a better education for their children – at considerable risk (though many would be up for it as MP’s ignore letters).
This is a deliberate wedge being driven between the youth and older generations. Exactly the tactic government would wish propogated. Shiv and anyone who takes his taunt at face value should heed these words – Divide and Conquer. Get a life. It’s the political classes and those who control them who need rooting out. It’s their excesses, waste and fraud that will finance society, not old gits WFP and eye tests.
I happened to be on the premises during the student protest on Thursday, having arranged it long before the fees debate was set for that date. As far as I can tell, the main effect of the protest was to make it a bit less convenient to get in (we had to walk around the police cordon to find a way in, and no doubt anyone who didn’t arrive early enough had to do the same) and there was the noise of the helicopters overhead, which was audible in the Lords chamber. I didn’t even try to get into the Commons, I suspect there might have been enough noise in that chamber to drown out the helicopters. You could see the line of yellow police jackets and hear a bit of noise if walking over to Portcullis House.
Apart from that, inside the building was pretty much oblivious to the outside world.
Sorry TWL, but you are showing yourself up as completely out of touch. Prioritising the needs of the youth over the wants of people who have already lived their lives? Are you suggesting old people, having paid into the system for their social provision, should not benefit and the money should be diverted to ‘young people’ so they can have things for free? People like you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The repayments of tuition fee loans are interest free and based on ability to pay.
You’ve still not addressed my point about ‘young people’ who have taken a different path and gone into work. Why should they work harder to pay taxes to fund your future rather than their own? What makes students a special case and why should people pay more tax to subsidise them, particularly when they can pay their own way via the loan facility? Or is the problem that university will no longer be a three year hiatus for many (not all) who take ludicrous degrees for no vocational benefit at taxpayers’ expense?
It’s ironic you want revolution yet demand to retain vestiges of the very failed Fabian experiment that makes a revolution necessary. You really haven’t thought this through have you?
Super post. I really can’t add anything significant to what you and your commenters have already said – I just must show solidarity. The news is indeed only available on blogs nowadays.
AM, great post and very entertaining comments. You are to be commended for the first and for answering most of the second! One point re TWL poll: these were the questions:
1. Yes – it was awesome!
2. I’m a non-Conservative voter – no
3. I’m a Conservative voter – no
For point (1) to only get 37% in an anonymous poll from students must be considered an abject failure.
Great post, AM. Working out what to do about it all is the tricky part.
An excellent, and thought provoking post. Thank you for putting into words the feelings I’ve had for some time, and which hardened after the Tory Lisbon Treaty Referendum U-turn.
Nobody asked us if we wanted to send Huhne & Co on a jolly to Mexico and come home with an enormously increased tax burden. Nobody asked us if it was ok to hand over £20,000 a year and more in housing benefit so that the workless could live in expensive city centre properties. Nobody asked us if we minded unbridled immigration.
Nobody asked us if we’d allow Ministers to change laws, even without reference to the feeble Parliament we have. When he was in opposition, I wrote to our MP about this attempt by Labour to subvert democracy in this way, and the MP replied that it was toally unacceptable, and that he’d vote against the measure. He didn’t need to, as it was withdrawn. But – presto! now they are in Government, the Conservatives are sneaking-in a near identical law.
Their contempt for us deserves nothing but contempt in return. With knobs on.
Per AM’s article:
“…the population with no option but to engage in civil disobedience and possibly direct action in order to ensure the our wishes are respected and the country is run in our interests.”
Simple question, how will “civil disobedience” lead to your “wishes being respected”?
Where is the argument by reasoning? It is nowhere and hence you’ve lost the argument by default to the use of force, by “fighting” on their terms.
This makes you as no different in principle to the evils of any guerilla fighter or tyrant, fighting for their so-called “rights”.
You stand by demcracy (I don’t) – so, why does the will of a thuggish minority (the civil disobedient) have greater say than the democratic votes of a minority who contoinue to elect the politicians you decry?
I refer to the Protest Marches re the English students fees.
I put this to you and to the people that have contributed to your article and any QC that is interested in JUSTICE for the people of this Country.
When we vote in a General Election, we vote for an MP that sits in our Houses of Parliament that makes and ensure that the laws they pass or make, apply to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am thinking of the Equality Act and also the Human Rights Act, which our Government ‘eagerly welcomed’. I am mindful also of the EU Regions of which the Scottish Parliament is one, the Welsh Assembly another as is the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This leaves the people of England out in the cold and bearing the brunt of legislation introduced by a full United Kingdom Parliament legislating only for the people of ENGLAND.
Not only is this discrimination, but the people of England have no purely English MP’s looking after their interests, no one to make legislation purely for the English or to speak up for them and to prevent heavy legislation that discriminates against them as the recent tripling of the students University fees. Quotes of having debts which includes accommodation around the £50,000 mark. Far too much a debt even though the proposed pay back scheme does not begin until they are earning at least £21,000 a year, which jay be when they start buying their own house or wishing to start a family.
This high debt would affect only the English students, this seems to point in the direction of Discrimination of the English students only. So, I would suggest a test case to go as far as the Supreme Court and /or The Court of Human Rights regarding the quite deliberate discrimination again the students in England.
Although I abhor the violence that took place, I also abhor the fact that innocent people may end up in Court, ‘snatched’ by police and end up with Criminal Offences on their record when they may be innocent, and I am, in writing this, looking for a commonsense legal answer for this problem, which, if allowed to fester will, like “Topsy, just grow and grow.
The European Union Bill is something else entirely.
Your thoughts please.
Will, governments have been brought down when populations have rebelled. Arguing with reason has failed because the political class can ignore what is said and continue working in their self interest.
Reluctantly I have come to accept that sometimes violence can be justified if it used for good and defeats an injustice. You seem trapped in the bonds of the old thinking about democratic legitmacy. A majority of people in this country oppose giving up sovereignty of this country and subverting the democratic process. We have reached a point where the laws with which we are forced to comply are made by people we did not elect and cannot remove.
So when you recognise that, where does it leave your position of a supposedly thuggish minority undermining the views of those who voted, when those votes count for nothing and do not influence how we are governed or by whom? What course of action should one then take?
You wrote, “We have reached a point where the laws with which we are forced to comply are made by people we did not elect and cannot remove.”
This law (The English Students triple increase in payments) was made by those in the UK Parliament now. It is discrimination of the English people, they are the only ones that are having to pay a triple increase in student fees. This has not been tried in any Court of Law-it should be.
I do not agree with violence for no one achieves what they want to achieve. I agree that all three Political Parties want the money, the prestige but not the Governing, they are keen to give their power/sovereignty away to the European Union and the rest to even the ‘local level. No one left then to govern this once great Country. So, what have they or you achieved?
Anne, my comment was a generalisation. The generally accepted percentage of laws imported from the EU is somewhere around 75%. There are some exceptions in areas where competence has not been given away, but the number of these areas is reducing steadily.
The laws determining how much VAT we pay are made in Brussels. The laws about how we generate power are made in Brussels. The laws about how we dispose of waste are made in Brussels. The laws about the lightbulbs we use are made in Brussels. The laws about who we allow and can stop entering this country are made in Brussels. The list goes on. With respect, these are far closer to the essence of a country’s self determination than whether university students fund their own tuition.
The political class has never had our permission to give up our sovereignty. If they continue without our permission then the only way to stop them is through the ballot box or through direct action. Our democracy has been subverted so the ballot box is unlikely – however much we wish it was effective – to resolve the matter. In that situation, then what?
Then what indeed! We have a faily new Government that is Hell bent on completing the job of giving the rest of what is left of British sovereignty to the European Union. Many have even brought cases of Treason in Court although at a time when I thought it was too soon. However, they did their duty and tried. It wasn’t too soon actually because the treason, I believe was started from the Treaty of Rome 1972, when most thought we were joining a Common Market. Most people have tried everything they know and one last shot is below here.
Nothing has been in the major News Papers although I can assure you they have had a complete copy of the letter. So here are a few snippets. It is in full, I notice, on some web-sites.
10 November, 2010
Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA
May It Please Your Majesty,
1. The People of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have very deep concerns over our European Union involvements which are sufficient to invoke Clause 61 of Magna Carta. This action will recover the powers of Parliament and Your Majesty’s Sovereignty and of the Crown. Also, in view of the fact that the next State Opening of Parliament is not likely to take place until Easter 2012, it has become urgent that the present drift towards economic governance from Europe be halted and recognised as unconstitutional.
2. Clause 61 of Magna Carta makes it clear that if the People are wronged by the Crown and no remedy is forthcoming after all steps have been exhausted, that the People may take whatever action is necessary to obtain satisfaction without fear of reprisal. As Sir Winston Churchill wrote (A History of the English Speaking Peoples -1956) “The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national state. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine (Magna Carta) that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.”
3. The People were previously rebuffed when noble Lords invoked Clause 61 of Magna Carta on 7 February 2001, at which time they asked Your Majesty to withhold Royal Assent from the Treaty of Nice.
On behalf of the People we therefore invoke the authority of:
Magna Carta 1215/1297, Clause 61, which states, as repeated with great distinctness by Henry III (1216-72) “… it shall be lawful for every one in our realm to rise against us to use all the ways and means they can to hinder us … until that in which we have transgressed and offenced shall have been brought
again into due state …”,
We appeal to Your Majesty: .
The European Union is on the point of becoming the dominant authority in all matters at law and in economic governance. It is time therefore that People ask a very direct question of Your Majesty. Do the People of the Realm remain free under English Common Law, still in force, or are they de facto ruled by European Civil Law, with the powers of Parliament, Your Government and the military forces removed from Your exclusive command?
4. The transfer of powers to the European Union from the United Kingdom Government of ‘The Queen-in-Parliament under God’ since the European Communities Act 1972 has been massive. These powers have been obtained by stealth until there is virtually no area of policy from which the EU is excluded. The President of the European Council and the Commission are quite openly demanding “economic governance” from Brussels with the European Parliament calling for the Union to have powers of direct taxation.
6. Constitutionally the Monarch is the centre of our whole constitutional system because in the Monarch is vested the sovereignty of the British people. It is from this sovereignty that all legal authority is derived. It was not therefore in the gift of the executive and of the representatives of the People in Parliament that the massive transfer of powers to the European Union should have taken place.
10. At the moment we are paying the EU for governing us as well as paying a British Government to implement those EU directives. Charges of treason should undoubtedly be brought against all those in Government that have engineered the terrible predicament this Country is in, in which a foreign federal body orders and dictates what Governments of this Country must do, having the power to check this Country’s decisions on economic governance. Your Government must therefore repudiate the EU Treaties under the clear set of conditions laid down by Lord Denning and be true to their solemn Oaths of Allegiance – which all Members make before they take their seats in Parliament.
11. The People can, under Clause 61 of Magna Carta, withhold all taxes from when the EU’s “own resource” of higher VAT is set to commence on 4 January, 2011, until this Country is set free from the EU. The People now know without a doubt that every Government that has been in alleged power here in the UK, has willingly handed £billions to the EU. This handout to the EU (whose accounts have 90% failed to be passed for audit over 16 years) has come before the financial position of the People here in the United Kingdom. Have not the People, therefore, innocently contributed to treason?
Thanks for this Anne. I am not an expert in Law as I only dabbled at A-level years ago, but I would find it hard to believe that the politicians have not in some way given themselves cover from clause 61. A quick read of 61 leaves me thinking it doesn’t give the relief to the citizenry that many people are supposing.
I think we are in the last chance saloon. We are running out of time to achieve a solution to this mess in a peaceful and democratic manner. But a solution there must be, even if it needs to be found on the other side of civil disobedience or the disorder I previously opposed but have reluctantly now come to accept may be necessary.
AM wrote: “Will,…You seem trapped in the bonds of the old thinking about democratic legitmacy.”
No, I am not. As the American Founding Fathers correctly concluded, democracy only leads to tyranny. Whether we vote for a UK parliament or an EU parliament the end result of tyranny will be the same.
AM wrote:
“A majority of people in this country oppose giving up sovereignty of this country…”
I oppose a vote based democracy. It is this process that explains why sovereignty and rights are being lost and the march to tyranny continues unabated.
Individual sovereignty should not be confused with stae-based sovereignty.
The essential political argument has always been about the power of the state (UK, EU, local councils) versus that individual. Alas, the argument today is degress of state involvement, not stae versus individual.
AM wrote:
“We have reached a point where the laws with which we are forced to comply are made by people we did not elect and cannot remove.”
No, We *did* elect them, via proportional representation (EU)and by first past the post (UK).
AM wrote:
“So when you recognise that, where does it leave your position of a supposedly thuggish minority undermining the views of those who voted, when those votes count for nothing and do not influence how we are governed or by whom? What course of action should one then take?”
Finding the right argument and arguing based on principles would be a good starting point.
Then the real debate can begin.
Sadly, the UK has very few academics or politicians who would argue for a reduction in the size of the state.
Yet it is these people who should be sought and supported with donations.
The foot soldiers should then be bringing these principles to the doorsteps of the people, and ultimately being voted on to the councils, the parliament and yes the EU to begin the repealing of those very laws you disagree with.
Anne,
From what I understand, Clause 61, as was much of the Magna Carta, superceded by other parliamentary based laws.
It is no longer a legal basis on which to oppose the EU transfer of powers.
Sorry Will. I was almost taking you seriously up to the point you said we did elect them ‘via proportional representation (EU)and by first past the post (UK)’. Your thinking is muddled and contradictory and your knowledge of the government we have clearly has some gaps.
Just to explain what I mean about gaps in your knowledge… we do not elect the Council of Europe. We do not elect the European Commission. These are where the laws are constructed and made for mere rubber stamping by the European Parliament. The parliament can vote in a way that harms British interests and impose a law on us even if every UK MEP opposed a measure. It has no legitimacy.
When it comes to contradiction, you say you oppose ‘a vote based democracy’, then in the last paragraph say the ‘foot soldiers should then be bringing these principles to the doorsteps of the people, and ultimately being voted on to the councils, the parliament and yes the EU to begin the repealing of those very laws you disagree with’. You can’t have it both ways.
In this country we can have all the principled debate we like, but it does not make an iota of difference because the politicians who enter the voting lobbies do what they are told by the whips. There is no consequence for this. Even if a million people march in protest, the politicians rarely fulfil their role as our representatives. There has to be a consequence or this will continue in the same manner. If the consequence cannot be via the ballot box because the main parties – and therefore the outcomes – are all the same, then another approach must be taken. The will of the people must not be subverted by the wishes of several hundred people who consider themselves our rulers rather than our servants.
AM,
You should refrain from picking on “A” points, by doubting my knowledge on these points.
Instead, please do start focusing on “THE” point which is, as I’ve mentioned, a principled, rational-based approach to argument on the matter of the state versus the individual – a point you have avoided in each response.
Whilst I do not agree with the democratic process, it is the process we have and the process which must be used for it to be dismantled from inside using reasoned argument.
There is ample rational argument for limited government but in the UK there is very little heard on this subject, due as I say to the absence of like-minded academics or politicians. (We have German philosophy schools to thank for this).
What sort of argument is it that says I can fight harder than you so I win?
You suggested use of force is no different to any left or right wing guerilla throwing his toys out of the pram because he cannot get his way.
An argument is *never* won by violence.
It then comes down to whoever can be the most violent wins the argument and results in the same tyranny you wish to fight today!!!
So, with respect, if you are going to throw little daggers in my direction for my supposed lack of political knowledge, then all I can say is that for someone who preaches (albeit relucatantly, I admit) violence over reason, they have to be vehemently fought against by the pen, like all enemies of reason.
Thanks for the amusement Will, but you still don’t get it.
Civil disobedience or direct action should not have to be the answer. I don’t want it to be the answer. But when all the avenues of recourse against the state are exhausted because individuals have had power stripped from them by a likeminded elite that has insulated itself from all accountability, what is left?
When a small elite takes a course of action harmful to the interests of the majority, such as subsuming a nation into an anti democratic entity without permission, and reasoned discussion fails to address the issue, what good is the pen to you? The elite will just laugh you off because you are following the rules that cement their position while leaving you powerless.
So again, what do you do when reason, discussion and the pen are ignored by those in control? Do you just accept defeat? EU Referendum gets it:
Clause 61 was last used and accepted by the Queen was re a the Treaty of Nice by four Lords of the Realm. If it was good enough to be used by them, it is miost certainly good enough to b e used by the people. Hopefully ALL the people.
I have asked in the past, and I will again and again until more people ask the same question. Are we, the people of this Country, in paying our taxes, innocently contributing to treason by paying foreigners to make our laws which we all, even our Government have to obey? That in voting for MEP’s or taking part in that voting system and paying them through our taxes we are indeed contributing to treason which may in time bring about the eventual demise of our own Country’s Sovereignty, its governmental powers, our Head of State, our British Crown?
Will there always be a British Government? I ask again, will it be seen that the people by constantly paying their taxes either in British pounds or Euro’s that they have innocently contributed to what indeed will eventually be seen as treason? (See R v Thistlewood 1820).
The people are being taxed to death in this Country, having to pay more for everything, just so the Government can give everything to the EU. They need our taxes to give to the EU. Sorry, I will not knowingly or willingly commit Treason.
You’ve still not addressed my point about ‘young people’ who have taken a different path and gone into work. Why should they work harder to pay taxes to fund your future rather than their own?
In the short term it will keep them off the job market.
What makes students a special case and why should people pay more tax to subsidise them, particularly when they can pay their own way via the loan facility? Or is the problem that university will no longer be a three year hiatus for many (not all) who take ludicrous degrees for no vocational benefit at taxpayers’ expense?
Degrees have become worthless. Thus, the logical thing to do is make them free. Why make someone pay for something of no value whatsoever?
Then we gradually over a number of years change the system, reduce the number who take degrees… more vocational courses etc.
Sorry AM, once again you have proven yourself as someone who avoids *the* point.
It is a problem suffered by most libertarians so you are not alone in that respect but it seems from your posts that you are from the same mould.
Far from “automonous mind”, “unprincipled mind” would be a more appropriate self-title.
As much as we probably want the same end, your means will never justify that end.
So TWL, young people starting out in work and life should pay more tax that is necessary in order to fund students just to keep them off the job market?
You also say degrees have become worthless and should be free and why make someone pay for something of no value. So why then do you expect the taxpayer to fund them?
You seem to become more confused with each comment. I’m hazarding a guess that you didn’t study economics?
Will, there isn’t a point to avoid. You made a series of statements about the state against the individual, in an attempt to redefine the discussion, and did not invite comment on them. You might assert an opinion but it doesn’t become a truth.
The thrust of my argument is on the defence of national sovereignty, which is being given away without permission and which now seems to be impossible to stop through democratic means. Your attempt to turn this into a debate about individual sovereignty isn’t relevant. If you think it is, explain why.
People can accuse me of many things, but to describe me as unprincipled is an unacceptable slur. It is because I am sticking to my principles, that the people must retain power and politicians must follow the will of the people, that I find myself having to consider approaches to achieve that end that I bitterly regret.
Anne,
Your efforts are laudable in their means but whether they have a legal basis is a matter I am not yet convinced upon.
You stated in your last comment that:
“Clause 61 was last used and accepted by the Queen was re a the Treaty of Nice by four Lords of the Realm. If it was good enough to be used by them, it is miost certainly good enough to b e used by the people.”
Do you have any online references in support of this I can refer to please?
Thanks
Will
As I wrote previously:
“It then comes down to whoever can be the most violent wins the argument and results in the same tyranny you wish to fight today!”
The road you seek *is* unprincipled, hence you are unprincipled; it is in conflict with the nature of man qua man, if he is to survive in a just society.
My argument of your unprincipled nature rests on this point alone and is irrespective of whatever mutual goals we have.
As for the matter of the “debate”, individual sovereignty is the key essential issue, whether we are part of the EU or outside of it. I have no interest in bowing down to Royalty.
Will
Will, there seems to be a butterfly quality to your posts. Now you’re bringing the Royal family into this.
You are avoiding the point central to my post and subsequent comments. If the political class, having made itself unaccountable to its masters, refuses to accept the will of the people or hold a binding referendum concerning the governance of this country, what should we do? It seems your answer is to talk, talk and talk some more while the political class presses ahead at full speed because anything else is ‘unprincipled’.
You seem to believe that if ‘reason’ and discussion fail there is no plan B and we just accept the effective coup by the politicians and the bureaucrats. Have I misunderstood? If not, please explain what can bend our servants to our will when they close their ears to our wishes.
When you Brits are finally willing to “vote from the rooftops” I’ll finally believe you’re serious. Till that time, this is all just more internet wankery.
If you want to change things then *DO* something, don’t just sit around whining about how you wish someone would do something.
I would not lightly engage in violence because that only gives them an excuse. That is not to say I would not cheer if another MP got knifed by person or persons unknown, not point out why it should be lawful if the MP is, for example, a war criminal, as most are.
I do think anybody considering the limits of lawful protest should examine the European Declaration of Human Rights, now part of our law. As interpreted by case law there is very little which the authorities can legally stop you doing & certainly nothing which involves telling the truth.
You may be interested in a blog I did on the subject of the knifing of Stephen Timms & an astute comment there that such a trial would allow many members of the establishment to be questioned under oath.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-knifing-your-mp-bad-thing.html
Hi,
It is most apparent that Britain should be rescued from the claws of the burdensome beast, the EU. Godfrey Bloom showed a Video clip of the directive from the EU that farmers have to plow industrial waste to their fields and paddock, thus polluting the land. It appears, to me, that the EU is trying to kill off Britain.
This is all part of the removal of democracy and the introduction of a new form of communism in the EU.
You British people MUST do what is necessary the recovery of the Sovereignty and democracy of your country.
The EU has also forced Britain to let in far too many non-English speakers. That’s a difficult problem, as you really need to get rid of them; but that probably cannot be done because it would not be fair to them.
I feel very sorry for you British people with your freedom being taken from you.
You are the only ones who can regain your freedom and your Country’s Sovereignty.
May I wish you all well.
best regards.
G.S. Williams
(Born in Enfield, Middlesex)
Thanks for a fine posting. I love the laughable remarks.
XX twl 11/12/2010 at 12:56 pm
You don’t respect students enough. XX
Bollox!
They are a bunch of self serving, crochet eating, lentil knitting wankers, studying for degrtees in origami and combat flower aranging.
Ideal to be “Politicians”, really.