National Sovereignty and Self-Government Re-Emerge

Light At The End of a Long, Dark Tunnel

So, Boris and the Conservatives have won the election by a handy margin.  

A quick survey of response and reactions is in order. 

James Delingpole: "Rejoice! Rejoice! Britain Just Dodged the Marxist Bullet!"

It would be near impossible to have a more clear choice.  Labour has been consigned to the opposition benches for well nigh at least a decade, barring some unforeseen calamity.  Writes Delingpole:

So Britain doesn’t, after all, want to be run by an antisemitic, terrorist-supporting Marxist and his gang of nasty, aggressive, intolerant, historically illiterate Social Justice Warriors who think the only problem with Communism is that it hasn’t been tried properly yet…

Who would have thought, eh?  

Nigel Farage: "The Brexit War is Over"

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has said that the Brexit war is over and the UK is “much closer” to leaving the EU after the Conservatives won the General Election.  Speaking in the early hours of Friday morning to Sky News Australia as exit polls predicted a massive majority for the Conservative Party, Mr Farage said: “It’s done. The war is over. It’s finished. We’re leaving.”

After the 2016 referendum, 2017 General Election, 2019 European Parliament elections, and now the December General Election all pointing towards a Leave destination for the UK, Mr Farage declared the Brexit question closed.

Are Tectonic Plates Beginning to Shift?

Coalitions of the Willing

National identity is making a comeback--inevitably so, in our view.  Almost overnight (although the resistance has probably been building gradually over several decades) top-down enforcer models of international relations have hit a brick wall.  Britain has voted to leave the EU.  Donald Trump has boldly and emphatically stated that he has been elected to serve the United States, not the United Nations.  There are now public musings that the EU is going to fall apart.  

What is going on?  And, what is represented in this reactionary change, where the world seems to be going back to the future?

In recent generations intra-national groups have more and more adopted the model of seeking global unity through top-down legal impositions.

Utopian Dreams Begin to Fade

When Big Money Stops Talking

It's ironic that the standard, classical Marxist indictment of capitalists is that money rigs the political system and political power in favour of the monied.  The classes are at war, and capitalists will always exploit their position at the expense of the working stiff.

We should remember that whilst ubiquitous class warfare is an ideological scam--a simplistic view of history's dynamics--that is not to say that capitalists are never perverse when it comes to their interests.  We need to remember Adam Smith's timely warning: put a dozen industrialists and capitalists in a room and within minutes they will be engaged in conspiring against the free market.  They will be looking to control supply and demand so as to maximise their own collective interests and profits as a group. Smith's answer to this problem of human self-centeredneess was to resist the desire (and conspiracy) to control the system to the advantage of their class by maintaining an open, free, competitive market.  Competition is the best regulator of capitalist greed and perversions.

It was always understood that in the matter of Brexit, there would be "winners and losers".  For some businesses, it would mean commercial hardship and the need for adjustments.  But for others there would be new commercial advantages to be exploited.  It seems now that some of the biggest monied donors (that is, owners and deployers of capital) to the Conservative UK government are pushing back against Brexit.  It does not accord with their own monied interests.

This boils down to a classic case of who ultimately controls the UK government and its actions: the crony capitalists, or the voters.

Thatcher Redux?

Early Days And Easy Points

It's early days for Theresa May, the new British Prime Minister, but at times she appears to channel Margaret Thatcher. The following vid is an amusing riposte to the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn.


 

The real question remains open and unanswered.  May is a reluctant Brexiteer.  The real risk is that she will lead and push Britain into the worst of all outcomes--independence from the EU, but with so many ties and obligations left in place that the UK will be as hamstrung as ever, a subject to EU suzerainty, with even less leverage than before.

The French PM has already thrown down a gauntlet: no free trade with the EU, without open borders for immigrants.  We have yet to see how much of an Iron Lady Theresa May turns out to be--and in particular, whether she has a real commitment to regaining British sovereignty, or whether she is a closet and committed internationalist.

What if Sydney Were New Zealand's Brussels

How Would We Like It?

Dr Mark Avis
Massey University
NZ Herald

As a UK citizen living in New Zealand, I have watched the media reaction since the vote for Brexit with bemusement. New Zealand is now my home, and because I have no plans to return to the United Kingdom, I did not vote in the EU referendum. But had I cast a vote, I would have voted for Brexit.

The notion that I would make such a choice baffles many people here, and it is no wonder; the media have continually portrayed Brexit as a malady of mind, and a position that is primarily founded on anti-immigration which, in turn, is founded on racism.

The fact the EU is an affront to any reasonable interpretation of democratic accountability is barely mentioned. Kiwis ought to consider how they would view a plan for a new organisation to be established in Sydney that would write laws binding on New Zealand and, once written, there would be no democratic mechanism for repeal.

In addition, a new court would be set up based on a system of civil law, not common law, and this court would be set above the New Zealand courts. The statutory law of this new court would be written by unelected bureaucrats, and they would not be accountable to any democratic institution. How many Kiwis would vote to join such an institution?

The people of the UK never voted to join such an institution.

We Get the Politicians We Deserve, They Say

What Have We Done?

Suddenly the NZ Labour Party has discovered the idea of national sovereignty.  It is somewhat of a late conversion.  Faced with the prospect of the present government signing the Trans Pacific Partnership ("TPP") free trade agreement--a political and policy objective formerly prosecuted and advanced by the Labour Party with great gusto and some notable successes--the Labour leader has now decided that TPP is a bridge too far.  

What is on that bridge? we wonder.  Labour leader, Andrew Little has been very clear in recent days.  The reason he (and his party) now opposes free trade agreements is that they end up diminishing national sovereignty.  They obligate New Zealand not-to-do nasty things with international trade.

This is a right pickle for the Labour Party.  The dizzying intellect of Mr Little has led the Party into a position which rapidly collapses into a quagmire with a scintilla of reflection.

More Steps in the Right Direction

Internal Decay and Mounting Indifference

The government in the UK is taking aim at restoring some of its sovereignty which had been traded away by the previous Labour government.  In 1998 Labour passed the Human Rights Act which contained a clause subjecting the UK to human rights decisions made by the European Court.  The Cameron government is planning to reverse that decision, thereby making British human rights legislation the sole preserve of Britain and even giving a possible veto to MP's over controversial EU human rights decisions.

Long overdue, is our response.  It is now becoming more evident that Cameron's recent Cabinet reshuffle has not weakened the drive towards re-establishing British sovereignty.  It appears to have turbo-charged it. This, from the Telegraph: