Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Governance

without comments

Living systems on every scale have governance — methods of self-regulation to manage the coherence and continuity of the system. Also, for steering toward goals or away from dangers.

This governance is not the same as a government. Government as we know it is a blunt instrument designed to enforce the will of the many over the few (although at this point it enforces the will of few on the many) It is a monolithic bureaucracy. And frankly, it isn’t very good at governance, at least not as defined in the first paragraph.
The Nature of Change

Notice that governance includes both conserving continuity and making progress. All living systems have this tension between being conservative and progressive.

Progressive: Adapt or die — change is required. A system which cannot adapt to changing circumstances, will get steam-rolled by them. Furthermore, we want more than just adapting to survive, but evolving to improve and thrive. We want to move toward goals, and higher quality of life. And we want to be able perceive and avoid dangers, and respond deftly when confronted by them.

Conservative: Maintain integrity or fly apart. What makes a system work is the pattern of self-regulation it has established: feedback loops, dynamic balances, flows which nourish all the parts of whole, so the whole can function. Disruption of the integrity of these patterns brings death even more quickly than a failure to evolve.
False Enemies

Globally, politics polarizes around that tension: conservative vs. progressive. This is a false choice. Both are mandatory. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. When the world around you is changing, and that change is accelerating, the question is never whether to change or stay the same.

The questions we must confront are:

What changes are vital? (to survival and goals)
How do we implement those changes in a way that doesn’t destroy the integrity of what works?

Selecting a conservative vs. a progressive candidate is a false choice that we are forced to make because of broken architectures of governments.
The Failure of Representative Democracy

Representative Democracy may have been a breakthrough 2000 years ago. It even made sense 200 years ago when the U.S. Constitution was written. The only way to discuss and deliberate was to go meet someplace, and everyone can’t ride hundreds of miles by horseback or carriage to participate, so you choose representatives to bring your local news and concerns to the table. There are many alternatives in an Internet age.

Fine — except for a few major problems.

One person can’t actually represent many. Maybe if we sit down and you tell me your concerns and commitments about an issue, then I could represent you (and myself) on that issue. But as you add a few more people, that gets increasingly difficult. Now make it millions of people that I don’t talk to directly and make it apply across all issues. What are the chances I’m really representing you? Is it even possible that I could come close to representing that kind of population across the complex range of issues that officials are supposed to make decisions about?
Party Affiliation: A two-party system reduces politics down to voting for a conservative or progressive. Multi-party politics isn’t much better as still reduces the range of discourse down to the ideological platform of the party. Voter choices go from 2 to 3 or 5, which is nowhere near the level of complexity of choice that we need for navigating the world we’re in.
Non-Local Issues: Particularly, at the level of the Federal government, most of the decisions made have little to do with locale. Local decisions are certainly made on neighborhood, municipal, and loosely state levels. (Many states are too big be “local” ) So we are constrained to voting by party and locale. These factors map very poorly to the real world challenges we need to collectively navigate.

A World too Big, Fast, and Complex

The Constitution was written for an Agrarian Republic. The level of complexity that officials were expected to confront absolutely did not include things like Nuclear Power and Weaponry, Electronic Surveillance, Climate Change, Net Neutrality, Air Traffic Control, etc. If you’ve gotten a glimpse of CSPAN, you probably have exposure to how poor a grasp politicians have on even basic workings of some of these issues.

They can’t be experts on everything, especially when their job security is mostly tied to schmoozing influential funders. We have politicians without the right expertise, with inherent conflicts of interest by who they have to please to keep getting campaign funds, who can’t possibly represent the complexity of their constituency, and are elected by association with ideological simplifications … and we pretend there’s a chance of good governance from this setup.

The Constitutional Government fared fairly well for nearly a hundred agrarian years. Yet as the country moved into a more industrial era, the government had no good way to integrate a major shift in economic power. I would assert that the Civil War was a symptom of that failure to integrate the northern industrial and southern agrarian economic needs and patterns except by military force.

After this point, the U.S. Government appeared to continue on smoothly but increasingly became controlled by the banks and corporations of the industrial economy. As the U.S. economy has been transitioning into information age dynamics, it gets harder to even maintain the appearance of relevance.

The bureaucracy simply doesn’t have the throughput to keep up with the increased complexity of issues and the pace that the world is changing.
The End of Old World Order

The government was already dying. The gap between what it had become and what we need it to be was becoming intolerable for too many people. That is part of what enabled Trump to get his foot into the door of the presidency, and if his first week in office is any indication, his team will dismantle much, and quickly.

This is not business as usual. They are not playing by the old rules. There is a good chance that they won’t acknowledge any established means of reclaiming the power they’ve seized. Not by impeachment. Not by the next election. Not by constitutional convention. Spending your energy on those things will likely be energy lost.

We’ll see if I’m right about this, but if I am, that means our only real alternative is to build the next generation of self-governance that reclaims the powers we’ve surrendered to the government.

It will need to be a P2P, fully-distributed, digital democracy that will be so different from how we think of government, that it may better be thought of as a kind of social network. You jump on, scan your feed, participate in conversations you’re interested in, weigh in with “likes” or other similar feedback, etc.
Feasibility

For many, the reality of this will sound far-fetched. Remember, the cells in our body figured out how to do extremely sophisticated self-governance on scales of trillions. Fully P2P governance. No cell is President or Dictator of the system.

If cells can do it, we can too. Unfortunately, we don’t have millions of years to figure it out, we’ve escalated the situation to create the crises we needed to force our own hands.

I’m not saying this kind of transition will be easy for people to accept. No change on this magnitude is easy. However, I don’t see any better alternatives.
Invitation

People are agitated. Energy is emerging to connect for change. People need to be connecting and having new conversations about what to do. I’d like to channel some of that energy into building real alternatives instead of chasing expired political strategies.

This is an invitation to all who have the capacities to contribute to building the world we need.

Community organizers
Social process wonks
Programmers and Crypto geeks
Storytellers who can weave this vision of a future to aid in people’s transition
UX, UI, and Graphic Designers
All people willing to leave old pictures of government behind and experiment with new self-governance

For the technology side of things, please check out Ceptr and how you might be able to participate there. For the reinvention of governance, check out the Art of Governance site I’m building this week.

Art of Governance, and the collaborative tools for sharing ideas and up-voting and such, will initially be on a normal (centralized) web site, but we’ll move it to fully-distributed tools as quickly as we are able.

Come play!

Written by anubis

February 3rd, 2017 at 8:53 am

‘At Your Own Expense’

without comments

originally posted here

For your consideration when you see the annual Council Tax Demand Notice (or other demand from state agencies):

A couple of days ago We received an unsolicited email wherein an unknown someone declared the following:
“…Dear Mike,
I work on behalf of Xxxxxxxxxx and we’re looking to build up positive Google Reviews for his company.
I recognise that you have a Gmail account and I wondered if you could take just ONE MINUTE to complete a Review for us regarding the level of service that you’ve received from Xxxxxxxxxx and his team. [Mike has never heard of Xxxxxxxxxx or used his services].
It really does take less than a minute and we’d really appreciate your support!
Please find below a quick step by step guide as to how to do this:
Click on the link: https://goo.gl/mapsxxxxx…”

Our response was:
“…Thank you, Lxxxx.
Our fee for such engagements (including this response) is £50 per email. Invoice follows.
Kind regards
mike…”

“…Thank you Mike for your reply but this isn’t the arrangement we are looking for. I work with lots of clients and I’ve never paid for Google Review – I think it’s unethical! I could outsource fake reviews to India and could come up with 50 x 5 star reviews for £50!
Thank you for your time anyway!
All the best,
Lxxxx…”

So… Why is this here? It is very simple. Everything is contract and no-one may be compelled to complete any action at his own cost. There are at least two court cases in support of this assertion. However there is one historic piece of legislation and one extant piece of legislation of which We know that declares the opposite:

In the Copyright Act 1911, Publishers were required to deliver copies of books that they had printed to the British Library… At their own expense. That act has since been repealed by the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. However…

We have also read that:
“…No statute apart from the ‘Copyright Act 1911’
either prevents or compels one to do something “at their own expense”.

Any Act which compels must specifically imply or state EXPRESSLY that you must comply AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE!

If it doesn’t imply or expressly state the removal of that particular right, then one’s private right is not curbed [not that it ever could be] and firmly remains intact!

The burden of proof is on “the authority” to prove conclusively [documented proof] using EXPRESS WORDS that you have to provide private personal information AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. That is what the Law of the land dictates.

Supporting case law:

1. Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193

Lord Blackburn said, at p. 208: “It is clear that the burden lies on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals, to show that by express words, or by necessary implication, such an intention appears.”

2 Regina -v- Dyment (1988) , 45 CCC (3d) 244

1988, CCC, La Forest J, Human Rights.

The court referred to “informational privacy” – “This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit.”

So, the next time that you are stopped by police or receive written demands (electoral rolls anyone?), and are told that you must do either this, that or other, you have a perfect right to charge them for it, unless or until they provide verifiable proof to the contrary that such Acts etc.,expressly states that it must be “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE”

The phrase “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE” is an extremely powerful phrase to use against any [alleged] representing authority.

Think about the many different situations whereby one may legitimately charge a fee to any [alleged] authority for you provide private personal information, such as to: Councils for the compilation of the annual Voters Register, Council Tax, Council Parking Tickets, Police allegations of speeding etc., etc., etc.

Written by anubis

January 29th, 2017 at 5:06 am

Fraud

without comments

Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, [1956] 1 All ER 341 –
Lord Denning

“No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever”

Written by anubis

January 11th, 2017 at 6:46 am

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

without comments

originally posted here

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro
Monday, 09 January 2017
Robert Oulds

To escape the damage caused by the euro, and the resulting problems of mass migration, Brexit is essential for the UK
9th January 2017

Summary

1. The euro prevents EU countries with weak economies using currency exchange rates to adjust their competitiveness within and external to the EU. The EU therefore has a policy of ‘rebalancing’, or ‘internal devaluation’. Rebalancing relies on the failure of uncompetitive industries. The result is unemployment, lower wages and lower prices together with austerity justified by high levels of sovereign debt. These pressures on the population are intended to force the creation of competitive trading industries and reduce non-trading activities.

2. Regional EU payments are bureaucratically allocated and managed. They are inadequate, inappropriate and inefficient compared with simple and automatic floating exchange rate adjustments.

3. Freedom of movement theoretically reduces the unemployed population by moving labour to stronger economies that have labour shortages. This is the reason for its importance to the Euro model.

4. Rebalancing involves severe dislocation and widespread hardship. The relief of hardship by EU welfare provision is inadequate and counter to the desired pressures to bring about rebalancing. The EU policy of rebalancing is entirely unethical, repressive and manipulative. It is a cruel policy reminiscent of Stalin’s forced 1930/40s population transfers. Moreover, in practice it does not work and therefore nor does the euro.

5. By contrast, Brexit is ethical and traditional in seeking to develop local economies without dislocation and with whatever support is needed. It incorporates normal exchange rate adjustments and acceptance of skilled persons of any origin through controlled immigration. Many who voted for Brexit voted for jobs and standard of living. The characterization of controlled immigration through Brexit as racist and discriminatory attempts to disguise the cruel nature of EU internal ‘rebalancing’.

* * *

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

1. It is a false accusation that the UK’s wish to control immigration is racist and discriminatory. That accusation is intended to disguise a vicious and cruel EU policy. Freedom of movement is asserted by the European Union to be a privilege and great benefit. That is not true. Its fundamental purpose and the reason for the EU’s insistence that the UK accepts it as a condition of market access following Brexit is to enforce use of the euro.

2. It is well known that prior to adoption of the Euro the weaker economies of Southern Europe, such as Greece, were able to maintain rough competitiveness with the stronger states such as Germany by currency exchange rate movements. After adoption of the Euro this was no longer possible, either within the EU or in relation to countries outside the EU. The IMF, ECB and European Commission therefore adopted a policy of ‘rebalancing’.

3. The rebalancing or ‘internal devaluation’ model assumes that when competitive trading differences arise between countries, the less competitive industries will fail. There will be unemployment, less demand and a consequent fall in wages and prices. Austerity is a tool to reinforce this process. Where these conditions occur, the countries affected must develop more competitive production methods and move resources from non-trading activities to trading production. Those persons made unemployed by this process or who cannot find work should be able to emigrate to EU countries that are more competitive and where there are labour shortages. This is the reason why freedom of movement is essential to the EU. It reduces the economic pressures that are desirable for rebalancing.

4. Unemployment, euphemistically called ‘labour shedding’ is regarded as essential to rebalancing. The ECB at present purchases company debt to sustain the financial markets since even negative interest rates and money printing have failed to give growth. The EU regional funds that are given to Greece and Spain for social and economic purposes are inadequate, inappropriate and are inefficiently bureaucratically allocated and managed. In practice they do not materially reduce the pressures for rebalancing/internal devaluation. The only large scale assistance offered is more debt, additional to the debt that is a major part of their economic problems in the first instance.

5. The traditional simple and automatic rebalancing of competitiveness by exchange rate movements involves little or no drastic economic reorganization or social disruption. That is not the case within the Eurozone. Eurozone rebalancing is driven by closure of industries, unemployment and migration. The creation of new competitive industries is merely an aspiration. The notion that competitiveness can be equalized between Greece and Germany, for example, by these means is absurd.

6. The simple unemployment rate does not, of course, reflect the quality of employment taken up by employees from failed industries. Their first option will be to take whatever employment is avalable, which will probably be at a lower income and living standard. This is part of the ‘rebalancing’ process.

7. The closure of uncompetitive industries with theoretical development of new competitive industries is euphemistically called ‘structural reform’. In the real world, uncompetitive industries within the Eurozone definitely close; in competition with Germany and other Northern states, competitive industrial development of the southern EU states definitely does not and can not occur. This is the source of the present imbalances within the EU.

8. Apparently, the EU rebalancing policy has developed from a United States model. If so, it is wholly inappropriate. The United States is homogeneous for language and culture. Even so, unacceptable within-country imbalances have occurred as they also have in the UK. It is these that have given rise to the protest votes for Donald Trump and Brexit. The EU is not homogeneous for language, culture and many other factors. For these reasons, Europeans are much more attached to their locality of origin than Americans.

9. In any country, a major rigidity is that the unemployed usually have low skills. They cannot afford to move or are unwilling to leave an uncomfortable but manageable situation where housing, family and familiar support networks exist and move to another country having a different language where there are great uncertainties.

10. Persons who are skilled and have money will regard freedom of movement as beneficial, for holidays, or retirement for example. Many of these would wish to relocate for career reasons in any case. They would be welcomed by receiving countries, as the UK welcomes such persons from any country and would do so following Brexit. Young persons with qualifications and without family will also emigrate readily, although their loss disadvantages their countries of origin. It is evident however, that those often older persons who are displaced from failed industries will be least able or willing to emigrate. This is what can be seen in practice.

11. Adoption of the euro has therefore generated economic imbalances that will not be rectified automatically. Worse, the rebalancing policy based on the euro has created hardship for millions of people in Southern Europe and the Republic of Ireland. It is a cruel policy that ignores human welfare and rather than encouraging prosperity, is indifferent to the pain that it causes.

12. The human cost of the EU’s rebalancing policy, that is driven by industry failure and unemployment, has always been known to the institutions of the EU but they have chosen to ignore it. The UK’s Brexit is based on positive policies to create employment by assisting existing industries and developing new ones with, of course, exchange rate adjustment of external competitiveness. Not only is the EU’s rebalancing policy an ethical disgrace, the attempt to disguise its true nature and purpose by labelling those who do not accept it as racists is despicable.

13. Together with these considerations, many EU states have very large public and private debt that will never be repaid. This requires separate consideration but, briefly, debt permits control by the EU central institutions, particularly the ECB and IMF. Its most obvious outcome is the sale of state assets, further weakening states that are undergoing ‘rebalancing’ stress. It is these destructive debts knowingly given by the banks and underwritten by the ECB and IMF that provide the rationale for austerity. Austerity is intended to reinforce ‘rebalancing’.

14. There may be said to be four broad groups of people affected by Brexit:

i. People who are aware that they are suffering, or at least are not benefiting, due to EU policies. They tend to support Brexit because their local industries have vanished and they want jobs and a reasonable living standard. They are often not well educated and do not understand the technicalities of the Euro or how the EU functions. Although not articulated in these terms, their views contain implied strategic factors as well as self-interest. They identify uncontrolled immigration as evidence that the UK no longer controls its own economy and their destiny. This enables pro-EU activists to label them as ignorant, racist or espousing ‘the politics of hate’.

ii. Educated and well-informed persons who understand that the EU is undemocratic, administered by a super-rich elite with dependent politicians, a large dependent bureaucracy and a dysfunctional currency. They understand that the BIS, ECB and banks generally control the EU. They might know, for example, that Mario Draghi came from bankers Goldman Sachs, achieved Presidency of the ECB and after his term of office returned to Goldman Sachs. They might know that Goldman Sachs conspired with Greek politicians to hide Greece’s debts in order to obtain EU entry, so laying the foundation for the present economic misery of the Greek people. They may view the EU to be on the path to tyranny, which would not be unusual in some EU countries.

iii. Usually middle class persons who support the EU and believe that it is beneficial because their jobs depend on EU trading, are publicly funded or EU funded. These apparently do not understand how the EU operates or do not care. Their evaluation is based on their immediate interests rather than whether the EU system is democratically legitimate or benefits the UK.

iv. The rich and high level executives in international companies, banks, the ECB and IMF who understand the EU. They will fight to retain the euro because it is they who have designed it in their own interests to make them richer and to give them political control of the EU through its economy. This group believes in ‘realpolitic’ rather than democracy and will support tyranny as it has in the past.

13. Because it is clear that the existing banks are hostile to Brexit, a priority for Brexit planning must be to organize a banking system independent of the ECB and the existing big banks. Ideally local mutual units would be best for SMEs with a large central unit for major development and export finance. The role of the Bank of England needs close examination. The recent actions of the Royal Bank of Scotland in asset-stripping vulnerable SMEs indicates where the interests of all bankers lie. It is noteworthy that Richard Branson who cultivates his image as ‘a man of the people’ has recently publicly opposed Brexit and is financing an opposition group. The EU operates for the very rich.

14. Those who designed the EU’s euro ‘rebalancing’ policy view people as theoretical economic units without human needs, feelings and attachments to family and locality. Theoretically, it is not desirable to give welfare to because this would lessen the economic pressure that is essential to rebalancing. In any case, the levels of welfare assistance would be impossibly large for the EU to accept. This neglect of welfare is to the extent that in Greece large numbers of people are homeless and actually starving and in Spain youth unemployment is 45-50 percent. ‘Rebalancing’ is not based on a democratic, egalitarian view of society. It is a policy of repression and manipulation without any ethical content. For this reason the euro does not work and nor does the EU.

15. The creation of the EU and Euro is a far development from the Common Market that the UK joined. The Common Market has moved from national directly elected parliamentary democracies to a centralized bureaucracy managed by a political and economic elite. This elite, most visible in central banks, the ECB and IMF has little if any connection with or responsiveness to the immediate needs of the population. It is not at all clear that the first priority of the EU is the welfare of its population.

16. Brexit has a democratic and ethical foundation based on centuries of trading, economic development experience and the democratic development of society. It will be traditionally designed to give benefits with the minimum of dislocation possible, to develop local skills and industries and to welcome skilled workers from all other countries.

17. It is the writer’s view that on present trends, full EU integration based on the euro and supremacy of the banks over the public interest can only be achieved by political repression and a police state, that is, tyranny. That is a form of government that often occurs in Europe. The EU and UK parliament have permitted the spying and financial infrastructure of tyranny to be assembled under the guise of fighting terrorism. The democratic Brexit decision is now being labelled ‘tyranny of the majority’ (John Major) and ‘populism’. It is a bad sign.

By Christopher King MSc DipM DMS

Most of the following are discussion papers, not official ECB or IMF papers.

Official IMF report 2015 http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/110915.pdf

http://voxeu.org/article/rebalancing-eurozone-internal-adjustments-won-t-be-enough )

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1407.pdf

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14130.pdf

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/11/europe-the-failure-of-internal-devaluation/

Written by anubis

January 9th, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Vi Coactus

without comments

origianlly posted here

Yesterday, in another forum a chap started a conversation with a question. During the writing of today’s response the conversation was closed. However, what follows is an account of how one man took on and beat constables from one county, a magistrates’ court in another and a fines collections office in a third. This is not directly about CT but it is a record of how one man dealt with public servants who believe that they are “The Authorities”. The lesson? Any action completed under threat or coercion is invalid.

—————————————————————————————-

In the year of water and the dragon, just two nights before a full moon and in the depths of Winter there was a rapid knocking on the door.

After deliberately creating several allegations of speeding ‘offences’ and many more other traffic “offences” in multiple counties, this man was visited by 2 cops at 4.45. a.m. Looking down on them from a bedroom window he engaged in a circular conversation made up entirely of questions.
[Maxim: He who asks the most questions controls the conversation.]
After a few minutes this man said:
“I’ve had enough of this. I’m going back to bed.”
The window was closed and the man stepped back into the warmth of eider. The cops could only walk away.

The Sun rose, travelled across the flat, grey sky and set once more. Darkness embraced the Earth. The following day those two cops returned at 10 a.m. However, they did not know that they had been preceded by three thugs in uniform who had visited an hour earlier and threatened the household with Mechanical Forced Entry (MFE). Also known as the big red key. The man was arrested, cautioned and taken away to a distant town. At the policy station he was questioned. To the first few questions he responded only with questions Then growing bored with the entire process, he advised the young civilian employee behind the desk:
“I grant you my permission to complete the answers to that questionnaire in any way you wish.” then folded his arms and turned his back on the youth. A few minutes and a few questions later one of the two attending thugs exclaimed:
“Why are you being so difficult? Why don’t you answer any of the questions?!!!”
The reply:
“As I recall, When your colleague (on my left) cautioned me, Is it not true [negative averment] that she said:
‘You don’t have to say anything?’ And are you now saying that I do have to say something? I’m confused. Which is it? Do I have to speak or do I not have to speak?”
There was no answer.
With arms folded and back turned to the desk the man waited. A few minutes later when the boy had finished the questionnaire, he printed it and offered it to the prisoner for signing. This was the ONLY time that the man complied with any request. Taking the pen, in the space for the signature he wrote:
“Vi Coactus”
Then for clarity (these public servants had probably never studied Latin) he added:
“Under Protest
Under Duress”
and returned the pen and paper to the boy.

The local magistrates’ court was busy so the cops and the prisoner travelled to another town in another county. The cops, not familiar with the town did not know where the court was. The man knew the town and while laughing, navigated to the court for the cops’ benefit. In the care of two court bailiffs, the man was imprisoned through the day. He was fed and given hot drinks. Reading material was provided. It was lovely. A day of undisturbed meditation and consideration. Nice one.

Seventeen minutes after sunset, in the dark of night, when the business of the day was complete and all strangers had gone home, the prisoner was taken to the dock. We say taken. He was invited and of course as in all things, he could have declined the invitation. However, he had spent the best part of a year researching these matters and NOW was the time to test his knowledge. He willingly accepted the handcuffs, walked up the iron staircase and stepped into the first part of the dock.
“For the record, would you tell the court your name, address and date of berth?”
Said the clerk of the court.
“Madam. Can you show me the power of attorney by which you have been authorised to deal with this matter?” Said he.
BOOM!!!
One shot across her bows and she was stopped dead in the water. Silent for ten full seconds, Clerky composed herself. The duel began. A conversation made up almost entirely of questions. She lost. She lost because she folded first. She lost because she answered three questions. Then, losing patience, she uttered a threat:
“MR. X*******. If you carry on like this, I’ll have one of the magistrates charge you with contempt of court!!!”
“Madam.”
He smiled.
“You have not yet established that you HAVE a court.”
BOOM!!!
A shot below her waterline and she was sunk. And she knew it. Again, she needed time to re-consider. She had nothing.
The circular charade (and questions) continued. Growing weary and bored, he folded his arms, turned his back on the clerk and members of the silent bench then sat down. The court bailiff (Barbara) pulled on his sleeve and said:
“Stand up. Stand up. You’ve got to stand up.”
From the seat, he looked up at the assailant and said:
“Barbara. Sweetheart. What you have just done amounts to common assault which means that you could find yourself spending a night in one of the cells downstairs. Should you continue to assault me, it then becomes aggravated assault. Then your choice becomes:
Would you rather spend the night in a hospital bed or spend the night in the mortuary or would you rather go and stand in the corner over there?”
Barbara walked.

A magistrate woke up, declared that the case would be heard in the absence of the accused. Eventually there were fines of nearly £4K uttered with (at the suggestion of clerky) alternatives of imprisonment (three months) or seizure of property (the car) for sale at auction. The man laughed.
“Good luck with that. Everything that MR. X******* used to own is held in a private trust.”
The man compelled the court to provide him with transport back home where, by an administrative process he set aside the execution of the order of the court. Now nearly five years later we see:
Fines not paid, man not gaoled and car not seized.

Nota Bene:
We now believe that the winning stroke was played when he wrote Vi coactus. Any action completed under threat or coercion is invalid.

All of the above was accomplished by months of diligent study, avid learning and a little assistance from knowledgeable friends. Over the years We have learned of the necessity of the three H’s which are:
1. Head knowledge. You must know what you’re talking about.
2. Heart knowledge. You have to believe in what you do. And
3. Hand knowledge. You must learn by the practical application of what you know and believe.

Written by anubis

January 2nd, 2017 at 2:25 am

Article 61 in practice

without comments

Good morning rebels…..I am going to write a post that will make the lawful rebellion process very simple to understand and use.

It maybe a long blog as I will put Notices that we have used successfully within it, so that any layman can see how and why this remedy works.

The basic principle is that we all have lawful excuse to deny the crown any authority at this time, not only the crown but any individual not standing in open rebellion against the crown since article 61’s invocation.

It really is that simple we just need to act honourably with our processes to stay within British law.

The other most important fact that needs to be understood is that law is only law if it complies with the constitution. Since the constitution was usurped many moons ago there are only rules being used against us today and, even if laws were being used the crown has no authority to use them at this time.

The ‘crown’ also means the police, councillors or any agents of the crown. The law demands that we rebel in peace until the rule of law (constitution) has been properly reasserted.
EVERYONE of the entire realm has been commanded to rebel in order to protect our sovereign nation since 2001, and the common law that protects the people from injustices…..this command comes from the crown!! so anyone opposing your standing will be opposing the crown and constitution which is effectively treason to do so.

Lastly an Oath of allegiance does not need to be sent to a baron but by doing so it makes that Oath more credible. You can simply create one and get three witnesses to sign it, by doing so it becomes a legal instument. A declaration to someone in a position of alleged authority would also suffice. The lawful rebellion process will only work to remedy the treason when a small percentage of the people use it together…..our forfathers understood this back in the 13th century which is why article 61 is not optional.

The people are the power of any nation when they stand firm together, this has always been the case and is why we have a constitution that protects the people. If it weren’t for the people revolting in the past then we would have grown up in tyranny and would know no different. Peace.

Written by anubis

December 27th, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Article 61

without comments

Originally posted here

Good evening rebels…

This is a very (not so) brief explanation of why the remedy we use works.

Thanks to the committee of the barons for invoking article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a lawful, peaceful remedy to tackle the injustices of the state in a peaceful manner, we don’t take to the streets.

We Only deal with evidential facts and nothing more and, ONLY use British constitutional tenets in our arguments.

This is because anyone who opposing our standing will also be opposing the British Constitution which is tantamount to TREASON AT COMMON LAW. By the way…Blair did NOT legally repeal the 1795 treasonable and seditious practices Act when he brought in the Crime and disorder Act in 1998 like the (imposter) government says.

Of course, naturally you will need to check that constitutional law (common law) is a higher jurisdiction in the realm than the corporate rules being flung about by imposters and crooks within the establishment.today to be confident with the law.

Please don’t just believe what we state, check it all out for yourselves but remember, the internet is awash with disinformation, just search for British constitution and see how many posts say that Britain doesn’t have one.

The argument they use is almost laughable, they say that we don’t have a written,codified constitution like the USA (who incidentally took their constitution from ours). When evidently we DO have a written constitution that is not codified because it was created by the people over hundreds of years through revolutions and tyrannical regimes before this one.

The law IS OF THE PEOPLE…which is why we are policed by consent in Britain. We all surely consent to the constitution as it protects the people and ensures justice is seen to be done. Unlike today in their corporate arenas, where deception and unaware peoples is a profitable practice indeed..

So…to the point. The regime works on presumption, they presume that you consent (and indeed you do if you comply with a summons of your own free will, or ignore their notices and letters). They presume that you are the corporate body and that you understand legalese and stand under their presumed (illegal) authority.

We remove all presumptions and provide evidence of article 61’s invocation (Daily Telegraph report) plus other evidence (which can be seen in some of the processes we have succeeded with, in the files). We state that we do not consent as the law FORBIDS us to do so at this time. We conditionally accept all demands on proof that they have the authority to make those demands since article 61’s invocation. The crown has NO authority whatsoever so neither do the so called courts, policy enforcers, councils etc.

Article 61 is a royal command, it is commanded that we distress the crown and the illegal regime by seizing castles, land etc, we all have LAWFUL: EXCUSE to do this and distress the regime in any way we see fit peacefully though, whilst also enjoying the freedom that ‘duress of circumstances’ provides us. Under duress you can comply with the regime if you rely on a car or whatever for example do not de-register the car or tax on it….you are also entitled to all your entitlements, it would be theft and coercion to aid and abet a treasonous regime to deny you them.

So…we go after every individual as a man/woman who makes any demands on us. We must compel them to stand under article 61 too by law…everyone has the duty to do that whilst in lawful rebellion….this is apart of its strategy…..only a united people can defeat treason from within. Unify under the common law which is common sense and just, is all we need to do.

Honour is very important in law so we must always provide an opportunity to cure (to make good, if they ignore the conditional acceptance notice)..

By putting someone on Notice of an evidentai fact (treason – article 61) whilst serving the notice by recorded post and retaining a copy and postal receipt, once delivered and signed for it is deemed to have been accepted under the law, therefore if they ignore it they will have tacitly agreed to it. If they reply and do not refer to your claims, then they agree by lack of substance (documented evidence of article 61 not being in effect today) or, they may denounce the constitution which is the crime of sedition if done publicly.

So..we are creating a case file for our defence and educating the unawares also. We conditionally accept a hearing if summonsed but ONLY in a ‘properly convened court de jure’…(court with a jury standing under common law) – (constitutional law). There are NO courts of law in Britain today as they all derive their presumed authority from the crown, which is not in any position of authority since article 61 was invoked, and are all corporate which is not a SERVICE. Britain is supposed to be a system of service to the sovereign people, we are all sovereign because we are all equal. Even the monarch is in service to the people by Oath and contract (Coronation Oath)…

This is a check mate move as we find that nobody will commit high treason against us. Once we serve the misprision of treason Notice on them they cannot deny knowing of the crime, which we all have a duty to report to a justice of the peace. If they do not report the crime of treason then they are guilty of misprision of treason (to know of an act of treason being planned ot committed and not to report the crime then you are also guilty of the crime). I attempted to report treason back in 2010 in Devizes Wiltshire.

TREASON….to hand over the authority of a nation without the expressed consent of the people, or without first being beaten in open battle.

The reason why article 61 was invoked was because QE2 ratified the treasonous treaty of Nice (France)…and NO we are not out of the EU and we cannot escape it by using article 50 of the treasonous Lisbon treaty. That would be granting the illegal imposters in Westminster authority and the EU legislation too, which has no authority over the British nor commonwealth nations.

Finally….the entire English speaking commonwealth nations ALL have a duty to stand under article 61. When we unite we will not only change Britain and the commonwealth back to a just system of service but you can be sure it would go global also. We will be able to bring the untouchable (like BLAIR) to justice as well as the banksters etc and have a constitutional convention of the people to bring the constitution up to scratch.

I hope this provides a little more comprehension to this remedy we use.

Peace.

Written by anubis

December 15th, 2016 at 11:42 pm

Clean Brexit

without comments

Clean Brexit is the practical and democratic way forward

Liam Halligan

10 December 2016 • 7:55pm

There’s a strong case for the Government to make a very clear statement – and then to stick to its political guns.

Theresa May has long refused to give a running commentary on her negotiations with the European Union.

Last week, though, in a moment of high parliamentary drama, the Prime Minister conceded her government will now publish a “Brexit plan” before triggering Article 50 by March next year.

Having backed Brexit, I’ve always recognised it may be unwise for the Government to disclose its desired negotiating outcome.

These two statements aren’t linked. However you voted in June, everyone should acknowledge the potential downsides of the UK showing its hand ahead of what could be some extremely hard bargaining. That hasn’t stopped numerous Remainers from insisting ministers “have no plan” and “are clueless”, as they demand full disclosure.

Many are doing so, of course, to spread Brexit-related alarm – trying to whip up a panic and somehow stymie or even reverse the clear referendum result.

The complexity of any negotiation involving 27 countries, each with their own commercial lobbies and electorates, means any detailed Brexit roadmap would be obsolete before it was written. So the Government, having just secured a Commons majority to invoke Article 50 in return for “a plan”, could justifiably produce something vague.

I’d argue, though, there’s now a strong case for the Government, quite soon, to make a very clear statement with regard to the outcome it wants – and then to stick to its political guns. So long as that desired outcome is “Clean Brexit”.

I’d identify three basic Brexit models. The first is joining the European Economic Area – the “Norwegian option” – involving continued multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels, while accepting numerous EU rules and regulations – including “freedom of movement”.

This isn’t Brexit and, in my view, would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

The second, and most widely envisaged option, is a bespoke UK deal. We’d invoke Article 50 as the Government has indicated, using the subsequent two-year negotiating period to bend EU rules to our will – trying, in particular, to maximise control over our borders while minimising the constraints placed on our EU trade. This might be possible.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, with a £60bn trade deficit with the EU, the UK can surely get a better deal than Norway.

A “bespoke UK” option, though, would involve a drawn-out and acrimonious negotiation. The outcome of any deal, almost by definition, wouldn’t be known until the moment before the two-year deal-making window expired – prolonging business uncertainty and hindering both domestic and foreign investment.

It must also be recognised, given the UK would be going head-to-head with the EU, attempting to weaken links between the various “pillars” which hold the entire European project together, that a very real possibility is an extremely bad-tempered “no deal”.

With the UK seeking to dismantle EU rules, and Franco-German EU lifers fighting back, a multi-year UK-EU negotiation could easily end in stalemate. Uncertainty would then become semi-permanent, seriously harming all of Western Europe as a place to do business.

Voters on both sides of the Channel would despair at the rank incompetence of their leaders. The UK, in particular, would be in a terrible state. We’d have torn incurable fissures across the British electorate and wrecked our relationship with the EU, making future cooperation all but impossible – and for what?

So I strongly favour the third option – “Clean Brexit”. Parliament passes the “Great Repeal” Bill that May has already outlined, carrying over relevant EU statute into domestic law. We then send our Article 50 letter and leave – quitting both the single market and the customs union.

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which are in no way a disaster for Britain. Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. That won’t be denied – as we’d take the EU to WTO arbitration and win. WTO rules are in no way a disaster for Britain. They currently govern our trade with countries including the US and China that make up the 85pc of the world economy that’s outside the EU.

The non-EU accounts for almost 60pc of our trade and rising. While we have a huge EU deficit, with the non-EU we run a £30bn surplus – under WTO rules, outside the single market. The non-EU, then, generates the bulk of our trade, the part that is growing and where we register a surplus.

The single market – despite its appealing name – is a deeply imperfect set of rules that discriminate against the services in which Britain excels. The maximum EU tariffs we’d face are well within single digits. On manufactured goods, the average is 2.4pc – far less than the recent fall in sterling. And that’s a worse-case scenario.

The importance of the UK to German carmakers, French food producers and the rest of them means we can expect to negotiate tariffs down much further. There’s lots of alarm about preserving the “passporting” of financial services. Such concerns, trumpeted by big City companies that don’t like change, are massively overdone.

Yes, the UK’s financial services industry is important. But the EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year, while the country which took most was America – where we have no free trade deal. Passporting would be good, but we can live without it. Many non-EU members anyway trade financial services using EU “equivalence” rules – which would apply to a Brexited UK.

“Leaving the customs union” is also often presented as a mortal sin. Once out, though, many imports – including food – would be cheaper, as shoppers would avoid the related tariff on non-EU goods. And, free of the customs union, we could finally strike trade deals with the populous, fast-growing emerging markets, beyond the EU, which will soon be the most important economies in the world.

The EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year – passporting would be good, but we can live without it.

Clean Brexit is democratic. The Great Repeal means that, in the short term, nothing changes. Then, in our own time, over several electoral cycles, UK ministers and our Parliament decide which EU laws and regulations we retain and which we alter. That’s how it should be. Our annual contribution ends and, leaving the single market and customs union, we strike UK trade deals and take control of our borders.

The Government should state all this in March, on invoking Article 50. That’s ahead of upcoming French and German elections, next spring and late-summer respectively – which is vital. We tell the EU we want to trade under WTO rules, we don’t want any kind of drawn-out negotiation over borders or the single market, but we’re happy to consider UK-EU sector-specific trade deals of mutual benefit.

During the upcoming continental elections, then, the French and German carmaking, pharmaceutical and food-processing giants will know the EU needs to cut a deal with Britain to retain tariff-free access to the UK market.

These powerful industrial lobbies will try to extract pro-UK concessions from the various candidates, doing our lobbying for us. Remote politicians, perhaps looking to bash Britain on the election stump, will be reminded by their own people that the EU’s free trade with Britain underpins millions of jobs and billions of euros of profit.

I reject the term “hard Brexit”. It’s often used by those who lost the referendum and want to make leaving the EU seem extreme.

Quitting the single market and customs union voluntarily, avoiding a tortured “single market-free movement” negotiation and using WTO rules isn’t ideological. It’s a practical, transparent position that limits uncertainty while minimising damage to the UK, the EU and our ongoing relationship.

Clean Brexit is the way to go. Forced to disclose her plans, Theresa May should go the whole hog.

Written by anubis

December 12th, 2016 at 6:19 am

Jury Nullification

without comments

Very elegantly put, although very amusing since CO2 emissions are not responsible for damaging the planet.

Members of the jury.

I’m going to try to summarise why we feel that we are not guilty, why we feel that what we did was right, despite the very proper laws against obstructing trains, why we feel that it was the wrong decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute us in this case, and why we don’t feel that we are guilty of a crime.

I want to start by responding to your request for clarification yesterday about “lawful excuse”. His honour may say [in his summing up] that it’s true that there are ways in law to make space for circumstances, to allow a bigger picture to be considered.

These ways can have different names for different offences — so for example “lawful excuse”, which you asked about yesterday, applies only to the charge of criminal damage. For example, last September, a jury in Kent found six protesters not guilty of committing £30,000 worth of criminal damage to Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, since the group were acting to prevent a greater crime. Those on trial did not disagree that criminal damage is a crime, just that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary and proportionate to cause some damage to prevent a great crime. That jury agreed.

His honour may explain that there is a legal defence of “necessity”, that applies to most laws, and that it was on the basis of “necessity” — the fact that we believed our actions were going to save lives and that we had to act — that we prepared a legal defence before this trial. Along with many legal professionals we were very disappointed by his honour’s decision prior to the trial that this defence was not available to us in law. Nonetheless we decided not to appeal against it. We felt that you the jury would be free to decide on the facts of a case as you find them – and not just the ones his honour tells you are relevant.

It’s up to you to decide whether what we did was necessary. I would like to emphasise to you that we believed and we still believe that it was urgently necessary to do what we did, and proportionate to the scale of the problem, that the consequences of that train taking coal into Drax are so serious that any reasonable person would understand our reasons for stopping it. To help explain why we were so sure of the links between Drax’s activities and deaths around the world we had expert witnesses lined up to talk to you about the immediate and ongoing harm that Drax’s emissions cause. However from what evidence we have been able to get across to you, with his honour’s indulgence, we hope that you can see that these facts speak for themselves, and our actions, though harmful, were indeed necessary to try to stop a greater harm. And if you agree with that then you still have a legal right – as the jury – to find us not guilty.

You’ve heard it said already I think, that the judge decides about the law, but the jury decide about the facts. What does that mean? It means you the jury can decide as you see fit. You the jury have a constitutional right to follow your own judgement and not necessarily follow the judge’s directions to find us guilty. In other words, you get to make the final decision. In law this principle is called the jury’s power of nullification, and it’s been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly.

Perhaps I can explain this with a quote from a very senior judge, Lord Denning. He said:

“This principle was established as long ago as 1670 in a celebrated case of the Quakers, William Penn and William Mead. All that they had done was to preach in London on a Sunday afternoon. They were charged with causing an unlawful and tumultuous assembly there. The judge directed the jury to find the Quakers guilty, but they refused. The Jury said Penn was guilty of preaching, but not of unlawful assembly. The Judge refused to accept this verdict. He threatened them with all sorts of pains and punishments. He kept them ‘all night without meat, drink, fire, or other accommodation: they had not so much as a chamber pot, though desired’. They still refused to find the Quakers guilty of an unlawful assembly. He kept them another night and still they refused. He then commanded each to answer to his name and give his verdict separately. Each gave his verdict ‘Not Guilty’. For this the judge fined them 40 marks apiece and cast them into prison until it was paid. One of them Edward Bushell, thereupon brought his (case) before the Court of the King’s Bench. It was there held that no judge had any right to imprison a juryman for finding against his direction on a point of law; for the judge could never direct what the law was without knowing the facts, and of the facts the jury were the sole judge. The jury were thereupon set free.”

This was affirmed as recently as 2005, in relation to the case of Wang, where a committee of Law Lords in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, concluded that: “there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty”. So you do have that right to decide for yourselves. And unlike in 1670, his honour won’t be able to fine you, or put you in prison for making what he sees as the wrong decision.

There have been many cases over the years where juries have decided, on reflecting more broadly, to find people not guilty despite directions from the judge. For example, the case of Zelter and others who were accused of damage to an aircraft about to be used for bombing civilians. In all of these and others the judge said that the defendants admitted the offence and so must be found guilty. But the jury chose to look outside the limited view of the court room, and to find them not guilty.

The freedom that you have is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. It is what allows you to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgement based not just on law, but to make a judgement based on justice. Justice is the force that underpins and breathes life into the law, and it is your role as the jury to see that justice as you see it is done.

We all know that times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. You have heard of how it was once legal to own other people, how it was illegal for women to vote. Well one way or another we are going to have to stop burning coal and move on from the fossil fuel era. And that means that the law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

We are not trying to tell you how to decide. We are only trying to say that it is up to you, and we are grateful for that.

I want you to think back to that situation of there being a person on the tracks ahead of that train going on its way to Drax. Members of the Jury, it may sound like a strange thing to say but in truth there is a person on the branch line to Drax. The prosecution have not challenged the facts we presented to you on oath about the consequences of burning coal at Drax. 180 human lives lost every year, species lost forever. There is a direct, unequivocal, proven link between the emissions of carbon dioxide at this power station and the appalling consequences of climate change. That many of those consequences impact on the poor of other nations or people in Hull we don’t know and should not in any way negate the reality of this suffering. We got on that train to stop those emissions, because all other methods in our democracy were failing. Just because we don’t know the name of the person on the tracks or where they live or the exact time and day of their dying, does not in our view mean they are less worthy of protection.

We don’t dispute that there’s a law against obstructing trains. We don’t dispute that obstructing trains is a crime and should continue to be a crime. We just argue that in this case, we should not be found guilty of a crime for trying to block this train on its way to Drax.

On Tuesday the prosecution argued that what we did was quite simply a crime, and as a result we should be found guilty. They were trying to suggest that if you find us not guilty, the whole world would fall apart. We argue that the more likely route to the whole world falling apart is if we continue burning coal in the enormous quantities that it is being burnt at Drax.

His honour may say that we have been telling you stories, that we are trying to introduce emotions into the trial to distort the evidence. But we have been telling you the facts. If those facts move you, that’s because they are moving, and they are what moved us to do what we did.

We are happy to be judged by you, the jury.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

Written by anubis

October 1st, 2016 at 10:02 pm

Brexit

without comments

By Edward Chancellor June 16, 2016
Tags: BREXIT | EUROPEAN UNION | GOVERNMENT | M&A | UNITED KINGDOM
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. (but obviously shared by me !)

originally posted here

On June 23, Britain votes on whether to remain in the European Union. Being out of the country on that date, I applied for a postal vote. I have marked my ballot paper, with a certain trepidation, in favour of leaving the EU, or Brexit. At first I worried this vote conflicted with my cosmopolitan leanings. On reflection I decided that by rejecting the EU I showed greater fellow feeling for the citizens of Europe, and was more faithful to the continent’s highest ideals than those who wish to remain.

Legions of economists, policymakers and political grandees from around the world have warned of the economic threat of Brexit. These voices lack credibility. None of the Remain economists, to my knowledge, anticipated the global financial crisis. The UK Treasury claims that British incomes will be lower for years after leaving the EU. The same Treasury, however, has consistently had problems forecasting next year’s UK GDP. Not long ago, many politicians and businesspeople argued that Britain would miss out if we didn’t join the European single currency. We now know that the real calamity would have been joining the euro.

In truth, the greatest economic risk posed by Brexit comes from the threat of retaliation by our erstwhile European “partners”. Given that Britain runs a large trade deficit with Europe, a trade war would be irrational. It is a poor reflection on the EU that such a threat should be credible.

Of course, leaving the single market creates uncertainty – a state of affairs which repels the modern breed of policymaker. In the past, developed economies have withstood far greater shocks. The growth of the U.S. economy, for instance, was only temporarily set back by the Great Depression. Nor did it take many years after 1945 for Germany’s output per capita to return to its pre-war trend. It’s inconceivable, in my view, that Brexit could by itself permanently damage Britain’s economic prospects.

Even if the economic arguments are overblown, doesn’t a vote for Brexit reveal an unattractive petty nationalism at odds with modern progressive values? Doesn’t my vote put me in bad company?

I don’t believe so. At university, I read 18th-century European history. The ideals of the Enlightenment – a preference for reason over tradition, for economic individualism over state control, for tolerance over bigotry, and a belief that relationships between nations should be governed by the rule of law – remain close to my heart. The same notions guided the founding fathers of the post-war European project.

The EU has since betrayed those ideals. In 1795, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who coined the term “Enlightenment”, wrote “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”. In this essay, Kant showed profound respect for a state’s separate identity: a state “like the stem of a tree has its own root… to incorporate it as a graft on another state, is to destroy its existence as a moral person.” The consequence of bundling states together, even when done peacefully through dynastic alliances, would be that the “subjects of the state are used and abused as things that may be managed at will”.

Kant defined a republican government as one that gained the “consent of citizens as members of the state”. He preferred this to despotism, characterised by “the irresponsible executive administration of the state by laws laid down and enacted by the same power that administers them”. While Kant proposed an international federation of states to avoid war, this “would not have to take the form of a State made up of these nations”. Such a superstate would not allow the existence of a free state, which by definition both made and applied its own laws: “Each state,” wrote Kant, “places its majesty (for it is absurd to speak of the majesty of the people) in being subject to no external juridical restraint”.

Since its inception in the 1950s, the European project has morphed from Kant’s ideal of an international federation into something akin to the late Habsburg Empire – a sprawling and fractious conglomeration of nations struggling against centripetal forces. The EU’s form of government, in Kantian terms, can be described as “despotic”, since the public’s consent has not been gained.

During the interminable years of the euro crisis, unemployment in parts of Europe has exceeded Great Depression levels. The citizens of Greece, Spain and elsewhere have been force-fed austerity by the EU with little prospect of eventual economic recovery. If the EU cared for its citizens, or was properly accountable, substantive reforms would have been enacted. This hasn’t happened. As a result, discontent across Europe is fostering political extremism of the 1930s variety. Sooner or later something must give.

A vote for Brexit, I believe, puts me in the best company. It shows solidarity with the long-suffering European public and complies with the principles of Kant, the greatest of Enlightenment philosophers.

Written by anubis

September 13th, 2016 at 8:17 pm