THE United Kingdom is no such thing. The disingenuous promises of the recent past, such as devolution, multiculturalism, and ‘gender’, also known as the politics of biology, have disunited the country.
They created irreparable fissures across our country’s body politic. The carefully laid mortar over centuries between the state’s institutional building blocks is coming off.
However, in the meaningless vacuum our country is becoming there remains, on one side, a certain attachment to inherited ideas; on the other, a desire for a constraint-free future, which, by nature, necessitates a destructive present.
On the bonfire started by our leaders a few decades ago, burning brighter as the demolition gathers pace, our heritage has been thrown. First, it was piece by piece, now it is wholesale.
The 1972 European Communities Act allowed EU laws to become UK domestic law without Parliamentary debate. It was then that the establishment started lying about the big things to its people. In short, it was never a trade deal but always a political project.
More recently, the results of the local elections showed the beginnings of the formation of two irreconcilable positions: those who cannot stomach the wanton destruction of what we loved and still do, and those who dance in demented glee in the all-consuming fire’s red and destructive lights.
On the right side, there will be the ‘1689 man’. He is defined in his views by the Declaration of Rights of that same year, which became ‘the foundation of our constitutional monarchy’, as King Charles III reminded the American Congress a few weeks ago, while adding ‘as well as the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and Magna Carta’. The 1689 man’s views are based on natural law, an understanding of man and of the country’s peculiarity.
On the left side, there will be the race, sex and religion-based sectarians, justified by the 2010 Equality Act. The Act is Britain’s new constitution and introduces the concept of protected characteristics, such as gender reassignment, race, religion and sexual orientation and a de facto caste system. Some characteristics are protected, others are not. Yours aren’t.
As such, two-tier Keir is a mere manifestation, though he supports it with all his being, of the system on which the United Kingdom’s legal understanding now operates. The 2010 man’s views are based on a world which exists only in universities, NGOs, the HR departments of large organisations and Islamabad’s and Bradford’s suburbs.
The discord this is creating is surely among the reasons our prime ministers now stay in office for such short periods of time. In the last decade, their tenure has been around 1.7 years, down from 5.5 years in the period from 1945 to 2016. In this, Keir Starmer is already on course to serve longer than the average of the recent incumbents. But only slightly, given the travails of Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting, the former Stonewall ‘Head of Education’, in hoping to replace him in 10 Downing Street.
The reaction to the 2016 Referendum gave us a glimpse of the future. The mask slipped. The governors’ contempt for the governed became a badge of honour as their disdain, if not their hatred, was shouted from rooftops. As it did, shame disappeared.
Instantly, more than half of the electorate was attacked incessantly, intellectually and morally. Those who wished to remain in the EU could not understand the simple truth: the British people voted for sovereignty.
The result was never accepted. Every opportunity was taken to reverse the vote and gain, mostly by barking the loudest, the upper hand. Raw power operating outside of democracy, at the substantial risk of destroying the concept, was their weapon of choice.
And they used it.
They couldn’t, however, fully by-pass Parliament. It is why Starmer, who will never resign willingly, included the European Partnership Bill in the King’s Speech. This Bill will turn the United Kingdom into a rule-taker with no representation, similar, in fact, to the aforementioned 1972 European Communities Act.
To keep us in the legal framework of a failing organisation, our leaders and much of the civil service are preparing to strip us of our decision-making capabilities and make us beholden to a foreign, treaty-based, power.
It is, more importantly, nothing short of taxation with no representation. The British taxpayer is asked to slip peacefully into slavery and the UK into neither a country nor a region, but a dependency, all to burnish the ‘progressive’ credentials of, at best, a deeply mediocre leadership.
If Andy Burnham wins the by-election in Makerfield on June 18 an EU re-entry is on the cards. France, among others, will demand the most humiliating terms. This won’t bother a government that stood ready to pay to give the Chagos Islands away. Any price, in their minds, warrants that prized EU membership.
A large segment of our people, though, will feel the humiliation and pay for the privilege.
While the referendum resulted in an establishment openly rebelling against its own people, the May local elections crystallised the situation and destroyed the political parties of old – and the grip of the extremists who led us to where we are – in the process. The results showed beyond doubt that the two camps adumbrated on our country’s political landscape will define the direction of travel in years to come with little love and understanding shared between the two philosophically alien camps. Mimetic escalation beckons.
In the short term, there are no safe seats for Labour and the election of Burnham is by no means a certainty.
In the medium term, the threat of Labour’s removal from office for ever will lead to a ‘great leap forward’ towards ‘progress’ in a perverse race against time.
In the long run, the political battle for the country’s soul will depend on the victory of either camp.
Let us hope the 1689 man has enough in him to win, to overturn the years of constitutional vandalism and to rebuild the country in his homage.
