Treason is an Ugly Brexit

So Theresa May’s Brexit is not Brexit bill is supposed to be voted on tomorrow. There are many reasons it should be defeated, and she should be replaced. Here’s one:

From Melanie Phillips, with links to the source documents:

Three days ago, a letter of great importance about Mrs May’s faux-Brexit deal was sent to MPs. The importance lay not just in what it said but who was saying it.

The authors were the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, and the officer who commanded the British forces in the Falklands War, Major-General Julian Thompson.

Both men are committed to Britain leaving the EU. Both are horrified by the way the Prime Minister is betraying not just the 2016 referendum vote but the interests of the United Kingdom.

Neither man can be said to be extremist, xenophobic or stupid, the characteristics that so many Remainers attribute to those who voted to leave the EU. Both men are instead conspicuous British patriots who have devoted their lives, formidable intelligence and unmatched experience to the defence of their country.

Presumably it was for that reason that last month No 10 Downing Street singled these two men out for reprimand when its rapid-rebuttal unit sought to combat the swingeing criticisms of Mrs May’s deal by a range of eminent signatories. The names of Dearlove and Thompson were on this list, but only they were thus addressed. It was the first time that the Prime Minister’s office had ever administered a public dressing-down to a former head of MI6.

On Friday evening, saying that this riposte revealed “a worryingly poor understanding of the issues”, Dearlove and Thompson published a detailed rebuttal of Number Ten’s claims on the Briefings for Britain website, a letter sent to MPs and a 12-point summary rebuttal.

Their account of how this shocking deal would compromise Britain’s security, with the last paragraph highlighted, should be circulated as widely as possible.  Given its importance, I reproduce the 12-point rebuttal (published on the Reaction blog) in full below. [as do I. Neo] You can access the more detailed version on Briefings for Brexit here.

DEARLOVE AND THOMPSON 12 POINTS

1 The ‘deal’ surrenders British national security by subordinating UK defence forces to Military EU control. No 10 reveals complete failure to understand the legally prescribed general principle of EU association and Military EU documents.

2 The ‘flexible partnership’ is not on offer: only subordination to the inflexible pooled law of the EU. The defence documents show that if the UK participates in EU defence it accepts 3rd country associated status. Officials have been caught acknowledging in private that the Government has known about these strict EU participation criteria since Theresa May authorised joining the Military EU defence frameworks between November 2016 and June 2017. These participation criteria include adherence to the full scope of EU defence policy plus structural engagement as a rule-taker on intelligence, space, financial contributions and the European Defence Agency. Understanding this, Sam Gyimah MP resigned as a Minister, prompted by his engagement with the Galileo satellite programme.

3 The EDA’s Dirk Tielburger confirmed that there would be ‘no flexibility’ in the participation rules for the UK if it took part in the European Defence Fund. The MOD’s head of science and technology Dr Bryan Wells said in early 2017 that the UK would require a proximity to EU rules and structures which ‘resembled that of Norway’ if the UK were to stay involved in EU Defence Fund projects.

4 Norway voted clearly not to join the EU. The Norwegian elite therefore engineered de facto membership as a rule-taker only.  The UK Government has consistently said that the UK aim was for a relationship even more restrictive than Norway’s. On 29 November 2018, Government called for ‘the broadest and most comprehensive security relationship the EU has ever had with another country’. The “Kit Kat Tapes” reveal that the UK Government seeks ‘no gap’ in its application of obligations under the Common Foreign and Security Policy after the UK has let the EU.

5 Paul Johnston, the UK’s representative on the Political and Security Committee, said “We’ve deliberately been more descriptive than prescriptive. What we hear from the other side is sometimes rather – sort of – technical, legalistic: ‘Well you don’t understand about third country relationships’.

6 The idea that the Government will be able to create a ‘flexible framework’ is contradicted by the principles of EU defence autonomy. The clear, binding and published obligation to submit to CSDP alignment has been deliberately obscured. Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK can be only a rule-taker in defence and security. Cyprus sought confirmation from the EU Commission that the proposed UK involvement in CSDP did not permit a decision-making role. The EU Commission wrote to Cyprus reassuring that UK involvement would not involve decision-making. The UK would be involved solely as a rule-taker.

7 Most serious of all, while knowing the truth, the Government has, for more than one year, refused to confirm that the UK would be subject to a structural and institutional relationship with the EU on the sharing of intelligence. However, the Government’s paper on security produced by Cabinet Office on 28 November 2018 finally confirms that this structural, institutional relationship would in fact be created. American and Five Eyes allies are quite clear that a structural relationship with the EU in the intelligence area will harm our key alliance, contrary to No 10’s assertion otherwise.

8 No 10 states:”The UK is leaving the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, the European Defence Agency and all other EU defence structures. There will be no subordination. We will retain full sovereign control of our armed forces, and will decide when and where we wish to cooperate”. This is complete and dangerous nonsense. The insistence on UK involvement in the EU’s defence programmes stated throughout the exit agreements, plus four separate Government policy papers before them, mean that the Government is putting the country into a position where EU participation criteria are inescapable. On the European Defence Agency, Government has said it wants a ‘cooperative accord’ placing the UK into ie under EDA programmes and initiatives.

9 In contrast to the alternative offered by the WTO, the Withdrawal Agreement will disadvantage UK defence industries and the UK Government as Europe’s largest purchaser of defence equipment. If we leave on World Trade Rules, WTO will grant the UK entry to the Government Purchasing Agreement exemption for defence equipments which will give both global free trade and greater certainty to the UK defence sector. No 10’s stated position is the opposite of the truth.

10 The EU has developed new frameworks and programmes which have the potential to duplicate and detract from NATO in 20 separate areas from science and technology to logistics, airlift and eventually emergency chain of command. President Macron’s Verdun interview in particular, and Mrs Merkel’s European Parliament speech, make plain that Military EU is intended as a rival to US power and therefore to NATO. Any institutional, structural relationship with the EU on the sharing of intelligence brings the risk of breaking the Five Eyes Alliance and therefore an inevitable threat to British national security. The Technical Note on Exchange and Protection of Classified Information of 25 May starkly displays the danger, revealing that, on its misguided misunderstanding of what it implies, the Government places intelligence exchange at the core of its offer to “build a new, deep and special partnership with the EU…fundamental to cooperation across the future partnership” (Cls 1-2). Given that, unlike Canada or the USA, the UK will be compelled to apply the EU’s CSDP, the EU Global Strategy (the EU’s flagship document that was agreed by the UK at EU Council) will rule. This document calls for a hub-and-spoke intelligence arrangement between the EEAS, EU INTCEN and the intelligence capabilities of the CSDP states.

Although the Government’s 28 November Security paper indicates the potential for non-classified information to be shared on an ad hoc basis, it is silent about the sharing of classified information. It conceals the expectations of the EU institutions with respect to the growing and gathering intelligence environment of the CSDP participant states.  These structural relationships threaten the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance that is the bedrock of western security. The Government has to choose between the anglosphere and wider world and structural subordination to Military EU. It has chosen Military EU which is absolutely the wrong choice. It is therefore an inescapeable fact that the Withdrawal documents pose a real and present threat to UK national security.

11 A minimally competent negotiation over the last two years should have hammered out a free trade agreement but did not do so. Therefore leaving on 29 March 2019 on World Trade Rules is now the only way. The UK Government passed up the opportunity to obtain a free trade deal with the EU by spending months messing around with the concept of a joint rulebook and common customs areas, being ambushed and bogged down by the entirely artificial Irish border issue and ceding the £39bn ransom without conditions.The way this deal and set of promises and future agreements has been composed is actively in conflict with the UK’s interests. In defence, foreign policy and intelligence, the EU finds itself given an unconditional de facto pledge preemptively by Mrs May to continue as a rule-taker only with a level of UK commitment which resembles the current relationship but without membership. The Technical Note of 24 May (Clause 25) states that a defence treaty containing the administrative agreements, intelligence deal and association agreements will be signed as early as possible in the transition as an international treaty under prerogative powers provided the EU believes that deal adequately commits the UK to the EU defence rulebook.

12 The EU will use defence industrial cooperation as a lever to coerce the UK via instruments which have scope to grow beyond recognition. The wider industrial and trade relationship can be used by the EU to force the hand of the UK to submit to incrementally increased levels of policy transfer in all other areas since everything is linked to everything else. There is absolutely no commercial or industrial gain for the UK from being in these structures since the WTO offers superior terms without need for negotiation or ransom.

Just as the EU will be empowered to demand concessions to escape from the ‘transitional period’ customs union once the UK has ceded sovereign power to do so to EU institutions – Macron has already spoken of access to our fishing grounds as his price – so the EU could demand yet deeper access to our defence and security assets as the price of release from the ‘backstop.’ Mrs May has already pre-emptively surrendered leverage from the UK’s defence and security assets as well as from the ransom payment and over independent escape from the transition period. Transferring defence sovereignty and compromising the crown jewels in our Intelligence relationships is a bridge far too far in the Cabinet Office’s stealthy efforts to lock the country into perpetual alignment with the EU.

Less than 50% of our export economy is linked to the EU, with which we run a £95 billion annual trade deficit. Only 10% of UK businesses actually trade with the EU. Most of the British economy has nothing to do with the EU and the people will not sell themselves into a colonial vassalage for the convenience of the 8% of the economy represented by ‘just-in-time’ manufacturers. As we stated the people are even less open to a transactional offer now than in 2016. World Trade Rules are to be welcomed, and there is nothing to fear in this. As we stated in the Message to the Prime Minister: “No risks are greater than Mrs May’s terms of surrender”. It is well established that the UK has no legal obligation to pay anything, especially not for nothing. It is therefore correctly named as a ransom and ransoms should not be paid.”

There is a word for what Theresa May is doing here, and in the old days it would have resulted in a trip to the Tower of London, and then a walk to Tower Hill. It’s an ugly word, not heard much these days. It is called treason.

For whatever reason she proposes to give the entire sovereignty of the United Kingdom to the EU, making it in effect, a colony. And for this, she proposes to pay the EU more than £39 Billion.

I note that this will also put a large hole in US and Commonwealth defense. The five eyes mentioned are the UK, The US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who in intelligence matters work essentially as one. That understanding does not extend to any other country in Europe. Nor should it, they simply are not secure enough.

In addition, UK and US forces work seamlessly all around the world. Only with Britain would we have committed to placing entire USMC squadrons on their Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and spent years helping the RN train for large deck operations. That too, as near as I can tell, will end with this deal.

If I had a vote, it would be to do exactly as the citizens directed the government to do. To leave the EU on WTO terms. But this deal is so horrific, that even staying in the EU as present now, is better.

I’ll say this, Theresa May has done a remarkable thing. She has managed to unite Remainers and Brexiteers

If the Conservatives have the sense of a drunken donkey (which is questionable) by Friday Boris Johnson will be PM and Jacob Rees-Mogg Chancellor.

Update: I see on Guido that Sky News is reporting that the vote will not be heard tomorrow. Which settles nothing, although it does cement May’s position as Britain’s premier can kicker.

 

Advertisements

A Turning Point

From The Spectator.

On Tuesday, MPs will face something rare: a Commons motion which really does deserve to be described as momentous. It will set Britain’s place in Europe and in the world for years to come. The vote will place an especially heavy burden on Conservative MPs, for they have the power to inflict a hefty defeat on their own government, an administration which has no majority and which governs thanks only to a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. It is all too easy to see where defeat on Tuesday could lead: to the collapse of the government, a general election and the arrival of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street.

Theresa May’s deal has been rejected by MPs on the left and the right, by radicals and moderates. It promises to leave us in a Brexit purgatory, neither in nor out, obliged to accept EU regulations and rules on trade without having any say in the making of those rules. MPs might accept a temporary transition if a free-trade deal was guaranteed to follow. But the reason that her government was the first ever to be found in contempt of Parliament was its refusal to release legal advice that shows there are no guarantees, and no guaranteed exit from a backstop that is described as temporary.

So far, more than a hundred Conservative MPs have said they will vote against the deal. This number will almost certainly shrink by the time of the vote, but all opposition parties say they will oppose the deal — bookmakers are offering odds of four-to-one on the bill passing. Afterwards there will be huge pressure on her to resign, possibly as a price for the DUP agreeing not to bring down the government.

How the rebels behave following the expected defeat will be crucial to the future of the country. It is quite possible that her signature Brexit plan, into which she has vested what remains of her authority, suffers the largest defeat in parliamentary history. If so, she might resign. If a new leader is needed, the process will have to be very rapid — something which is hard, but not impossible, to achieve under the current rules covering Tory leadership elections. It would not be acceptable for the party to indulge in a two-month leadership election campaign while the clock ticks down to a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. The process would have to be condensed into a matter of days.

Mrs. May has got her country into one hell of a mess. There are at least two existential crises involved in the vote on Tuesday. One of them is whether the United Kingdom is an independent country or a colony of the EU. Because as the ratchet tightens, and it will, Britain will become Brittania to the new Rome in Brussels. There is a horrible bit of irony here. I know many Brexiteers, and uniformly their vote in the referendum was cast to regain British sovereignty, not primarily for economic reasons.

Still they, and I, recognize that Britain is by any measure the most dynamic, innovative force in Europe. It always has been. Britain is where the modern world was born, and dragged the rest of Europe out of medievalism. From where I sit, they are the prototype Americans. And do you know what cry echoes around England these days? “No taxation without representation!” Part of the reason we get along so well, they really are our cousins.

The other thing that is connected in here is this. When the Conservative Party (which is far more leftist than the GOPe) stabbed Margaret Thatcher in the back, causing her to resign, they were out of power for close to a quarter century. There are a lot of conservatives in Britain, and essentially they have no party. While we’ve been more or less able to stage a coup in the Republican party, the Tories are much more centrally controlled than any US party. But here is a prediction for you. If May’s plan passes, and it may well, the very fact of it will destroy the Tories. Which may actually be a good thing.

The other thing being voted on Tuesday is nothing less than the legitimacy of Parliament, itself. Like us, the British know that the people are sovereign, delegating the power to rule, in their case, to the executive in parliament. But in the case of Brexit, the people themselves told Parliament what they wanted, and Parliament and the executive are in the process of ignoring those instructions. The majority that voted to leave is not in a very forgiving mood.

In fact, I have heard something I never have before. Englishmen quoting an Englishman, who wrote a document that was adopted in 1776, especially this part:

 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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

Those are radical words. When Jefferson wrote them they created America, essentially ended the First British Empire, and caused a world war. They are just as dangerous today. And now, like then, they are essential to freedom.

The best or maybe least worst outcome? Defeat the bill, fire May, and come out on WTO terms. If the EU doesn’t like it (and they won’t) they can come and negotiate in Westminster. After all, we are talking about the fifth largest economy in the world here – it’s not prudent to treat them like a naughty child, especially when your house is falling apart, and the only people who might help are Britain’s friends.

Our friends in Britain are doing something unusual this weekend, they are protesting publically. Good on them. Something else I noticed in the video yesterday, a symbol that the Canadians have borrowed, and are using correctly, that the British might consider, as well. Even amongst American symbols, it is one that symbolizes the fight against tyranny well.

 

Meaning What You Say

From Ace:

Because the US Stood Up to the Border Rushers and Refused to Let This Tactic Win, No Matter How Much Bad Press the Administration Got For It, Migrants Start Saying They Regret Joining the Caravan and Start Heading Home

Hey NeverTrumpers — tell me that your precious Maaaario or Jeb! or John Kasich would have faced the fire and simply said, “NO.”

TIJUANA, Mexico–After fleeing tear gas shot at the U.S. border, Carlos Gonzalez confessed confusion and second thoughts about the caravan that carried him to doorstep of his dream: life in the United States.The 40-year-old corn farmer from Honduras, wearing a pink breast cancer awareness hat and an orange work vest, had hopped on the caravan of Central American migrants figuring it would facilitate his entry into the country. It set out from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on Oct. 12 and for five weeks he could hope and dream–especially as the caravan pushed past police barricades and crossed through closed borders in Guatemala and Mexico.

But the U.S. border has proved impossible so far for the more than 7,000 migrants anxiously arriving in Tijuana, where they’re waiting in the squalor of a small baseball stadium-turned-tent city. It’s just a stone’s throw from the border they hope to cross, which many could not imagine would be so difficult.

“I thought it would be easy,” said Gonzalez, who traveled north with his wife and two children, ages 4 and 3. He said his family was planning to sign up with Mexican officials for voluntary repatriation.

Hey Erick Erickson — he’s going back home and all we needed was to defend the fence. We didn’t have to fund authoritarian regimes dropping dissenters out of helicopters. We just had to say “NO.” We just had to stop pissing our pants and bowing to leftist media pressure as our cucked party always does (due to the cuck pants-shitters who lead it and fancy themselves as real stalwarts).

The migrants freely admit their tactic is to front their columns with human shields go garner sympathy:

Women and children were walking at the front of the march, he said, “to see if they would let them enter.”

But saying “NO” to predictable and tired tactics, and the hand-in-glove cooperation of leftwing NGOs, “protesters,” and media operations all working to achieve leftwing agenda points, has changed some minds:

Corrales, wearing a yellow soccer jersey, expressed few complaints with the camp, where he sold single cigarettes to fellow migrants. He thought the caravan’s experience crossing into Guatemala and Mexico would prove the template for the U.S. border.But now, “I’m done with the United States. I’ll stay [in Mexico, which offered him asylum].”

More to that post that is on point, and amusing. You really should read it.

Funny how that works, isn’t. All we had to do was to say what we mean and mean what we say. There’s still plenty trying of course, but the word is filtering through. Uncle Sugar isn’t playing word games anymore. He means it.

And even better, it starts to look like Mexico means it as well. The ones identified trying to jump the border are now on their way home, they’ve been deported from Mexico.

I’m no hard ass really. Many of these people I feel sorry for, and wouldn’t mind a bit if they came to America (not including the animals of MS 13, the terrorists sponsored by Hamas, and other assorted dregs). There are a lot of poor suckers in that caravan, just looking for a better life, and who can blame them.

Although it would be better for all of us if they worked hard to improve their own country. You know, like generations of Americans have.

They are likely not really asylum cases though, the actual rules are pretty strict, ask Elian Gonzales down in Cuba, thanks to Bill Clinton. But there is no reason why many of them couldn’t apply to emigrate here.

Not as easy as jumping an open border but a lot safer for everybody. It’s the right way to do it.

Mandarins and Admirals

I seem to be a bit under the weather, not really sick, but instead of my normal 4-5 hours of sleep, all of a sudden, I’m sleeping 7 to 8. No bad thing, really, but my schedule doesn’t allow for it. So my posts tend to be late. So sue me. Enjoy.

We’ve talked about the ruling class fairly often, sometimes in passing, sometimes deliberately. Here some more, from Chris Bray at The Federalist. Well thought through.

In the first days of July, 1940, the American diplomat Robert Murphy took up his duties as the chargé d’affaires at the new U.S. embassy in Vichy, France. Coming from his recent post in Paris, he was as impressed as he expected to be by the quality of the Vichy mandarinate, a highly credentialed class of sophisticated officials who were “products of the most rigorous education and curricula in any public administration in the world.”

As the historian Robert Paxton would write, French officials were “the elite of the elite, selected through a daunting series of relentless examinations for which one prepared at expensive private schools.” In July 1940, the elite of the elite governed the remains of their broken nation, a few days after Adolf Hitler toured Paris as its conqueror. Credentials were the key to holding public office, but not the key to success at the country’s business.

DeGaulle, both a Catholic and an army officer, was the ultimate outsider. Well, you know that story.

In any society, the right to authority is derived from some origin everyone understands: education, bloodlines, swords in lakes. What gives the people who run the place the right to run it? Why are the leaders the leaders?

More importantly, how well does the gatekeeping work? Do the steps for choosing leaders in a society put it on a path to peace, power, and prosperity? If everyone who runs Freedonia gets to hold a position of authority because she found a magic dingleberry on the hidden path, does finding a magic dingleberry on the hidden path demonstrate that a person has consistent and effective forms of practical knowledge?[…]

Historical shifts, changes in technology and the structure of global power, undermine old knowledge and credentials. An elite status group highly gifted at X may turn out, in a new day, to lack gifts for managing Not X. Yesterday’s talent may not matter today.

Today a well-entrenched class of professional thinkers largely understands expertise as the product of formal education and relationships to elite universities: You become an expert, or start to, by acquiring academic credentials. Extra points for grad school, and more points still for being a professor like Paul Krugman or Jonathan Gruber. Like the administrative class in Vichy France, or the scholar-officials of imperial China, you’re smart if you go to school a lot and excel on your exams, so you get to be in charge of some piece of the political or cultural mechanism.

But is it working? Are our credentialing instruments producing people who are capable of practical action? To borrow a question from firefighters, can our credential-holders put the wet stuff on the red stuff?

Nearly a decade ago, Angelo Codevilla noticed the calcification of the American ruling class, a thing we sometimes pretend not to have. Our elites, he wrote, are “formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits.” Thoroughly enculturated, the American elite gathers itself around a “social canon” that one does not question. Speaking of societal controversy with the wrong words puts a person outside the circle, out there in flyover country with the deplorables.

It’s even more true in Britain, as near as I can tell, and more stifling as well. This is, of course, one of the causes of ‘politically correct’.

For 40 years, with gathering uniformity of purpose, our credentialing institutions have taught postures rather than skills, attitudes rather than knowledge. This isn’t invariably true, and many fine scholars have taught many excellent practitioners, especially outside of the humanities and social sciences. But the overarching trend is toward training in intellectual and psychological uniformity, toward the world of excellent sheep. […]

Staffing up a new administration, Barack Obama hired Power, professor Cass Sunstein, professor Steven Chu, professor Christina Romer, and so on. Donald Trump hired generals, CEOs, and governors, people who were credentialed by lives of action and management. This isn’t disagreement; this is a difference of foundational premises.

In short: Trump declines the authority of the cultural sectors that most assertively claim it. That’s the conflict, and that’s why it’s being played in a relentless tone of hysteria. There are credentialing authorities — and credential-holding elites — who can see the path to their own obsolescence. Like the empress dowager, they will not go quietly.

But if we are to remain America qua America, go they must.

There’s much more, all of it very good at Our Culture War Is Between People Who Get Results And Empty Suits With Pristine Credentials

America’s Cold Civil War

Scott over at PowerLine calls our attention to an article in Imprimis. It is indeed well worth your time and your careful meditation.

Quoting Scott

Charles Kesler is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, editor of the Claremont Review of Books and a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize.

Imprimis has now adapted Charles’s lecture at Hillsdale this past September 27 into the essay “Our cold civil war.” It is the best diagnosis of our political situation that I have read. In it Charles articulates my own observations and thoughts not fully formed. Perhaps he captures some of yours as well. Here is the opening paragraph:

Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership. Today it is doing both. As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. At the same time, identity politics is on the ascendant, with its quasi-Nietzschean faith in race, sex, and power as the keys to being and meaning. In the #MeToo movement, for example—as we saw recently in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle—the credo is, “Believe the woman.” In other words, truth will emerge not from an adversarial process weighing evidence and testimony before the bar of reason, but from yielding to the will of the more politically correct. “Her truth” is stronger than any objective or disinterested truth.

You will find the article at Imprimis. I highly recommend it.

Occupied England

Sometimes I suspect I confuse my American readers with references to England in the present day which have little relevance to them. I won’t say I’m sorry, because I’m not.

Britain, actually England if you’re one of the people that knows the difference, is the foundation stone of America. We built our country on English common law, traditions, and much else. Now it has the same problems we do, but more so, and without a leader like Trump to attempt to drain their swamp.

That’s unfortunate, but if we proved anything in the 20th century, it’s that America can’t make you free. You have to do that yourself. We can, maybe, prevent outside interference, but if you sell your sovereignty (for a mess of pottage) we can’t even do that, at least legally. And that is where the (not so) United Kingdom finds itself.

You know that I speak, everyday, with like-minded Britons. I do so at The Conservative Woman, which is the best conservative British blog that I’ve found. It’s actually one of the 5 best blogs I’ve seen.

We all remember how it felt here during the reign of error. That’s how it is now in Britain, only more so. Brexit gave them great hope, in many ways they saw it as their independence day, which is true. It is. But their swamp is dragging them back through false negotiations, and reluctance to take responsibility.

So, how are they coping? They’re angry frustrated, depressed, just as we were, only more so, not least because their government is infringing the rights that they (and we) won across the centuries. The important ones, like free speech, are under attack, not by a foreign occupier, but by the British government itself.

Nor do they any longer have the ultimate answer. Long ago they gave up their right to armed resistance. It’s understandable, Great Britain was a real-life peaceable kingdom, where for decades before that happened, no one carried a weapon, because there was no reason at all to. Sadly, now there is, but the right is gone. There is a lesson for America there. A right you give up is gone, forever.

In any case, here’s an article from ConWom as we refer to it. It shows very well the state of freedom in the original home of freedom. I won’t say enjoy, because you won’t. But do take warning, this is the path we will go if we don’t get control of Leviathan.

The only way I can make sense of England today is by understanding it as an occupied country. This, increasingly, is what it feels like – the public ruled over by a vast civil administration which, virtuous in its own rectitude, holds us in contempt. Governments come and go, but they all operate on a similar premise: the public are there to brass up and shut up, and that is that.

Metaphorically speaking, throw a stone in any direction and you will hit an institution run by the occupiers, be it public services, education, police, the legal profession, even the armed forces.

Newspapers publish official figures about crime, sentencing and prosecution rates, sexual abuse, drug abuse, official incompetence in the fields of health and social policy and so on which are shocking and embarrassing in a so-called advanced and prosperous country, but these are soon forgotten. Questions that should be asked are avoided and the army of occupation resumes its work of sedulously acting against the wishes and interests of the people who pay it.

Keep reading England today feels like it’s under an occupying force. It’s powerful, horrifying stuff. Sadly, it is also true.

%d bloggers like this: