After Brexit: civil rights

A major theme in the almost haphazard evolution of the British Constitution is the restraint of executive power. By contrast, the carefully designed constitution of the EU is about unification, at any cost. This is why the UK's entry into what is now the EU was a marriage doomed from the outset.

As North and Booker's book "The Great Deception" makes clear, the roots of the EU go back to the 1920s and the desire of visionaries like Jean Monnet to establish a supranational body that would once and for all end the deadly rivalry of France and Germany. Who could oppose such an aim?

But which aim? There were not one, but two in the preceding paragraph.

As so often in life, aim is translated into method, and the method becomes the new - often fatally modified - aim. If Peace requires a Unifying Power, anything that is a threat to Unity or to Power must be suppressed.

Also, since the functions of the new super-government are reified in institutions, struggling for control of the latter - and for the status and perquisites gained by servicing them - becomes an end in itself, even for those who still sincerely believe in the ultimate goal (if they can remember what it was.) As with many of our own British party political organisations and charities, Idealism and Ambition are near-inseparable stablemates.

Almost inevitably then, the EU has become a well-upholstered gentlemen's fight club for politicians and bureaucrats, with a faux-democratic structure that allows a voice but almost no power to the common citizenry, and a dangerously ill-engineered economic machine grinding down its peripheral member States; all costs deemed worth paying for a Millennium that is forever just around the corner.

The bloody history of Britain has taught us to adopt a more skeptical and pragmatic attitude. "Rulers," said Coleridge, nine years into the French Revolution, "are much the same in all ages & under all forms of government: they are as bad as they dare to be."(1)

If only we had more power, cry the leaders; if only you knew how to use it better, cry the people.

For look what powers the leaders give themselves, and how they use them:

22 August 1485: Henry Tudor defeats King Richard III on the field of Bosworth, and makes himself King Henry VII - with effect from the day before! The backdating allows him to prosecute for treason anybody who fought on Richard's side. It is ten years before Henry feels sufficiently secure on his throne to permit this bloodthirsty abuse of power to be ruled out by the Treason Act of 1495 (still in force today.)(2)

The penalties for treason used to be mandatory, gruesome and irreversible, so trial was carefully fenced round with procedure. This was administratively inconvenient in May 1940 when one wanted to kill not only traitors but German spies and saboteurs, who did not owe allegiance to the Crown. So a new offence of "treachery" was invented. The Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, explained: "... the Treason Acts might not be applicable to persons who are not normally resident within the King's jurisdiction; and moreover the Treason Acts are antiquated, excessively cumbrous and invested with a dignity and ceremonial that seems to us wholly inappropriate to the sort of case with which we are dealing here."(3)

The new 1940 Treachery Act was rushed through Parliament in a fortnight.

But when it feels the necessity, the Executive in Britain can move a lot faster than that. On 24 August 1939 Parliament was recalled and on the same day passed previously-drafted emergency powers. A week later, Defence Regulation 18B was passed, suspending habeas corpus and allowing for the internment of suspected Nazi sympathisers.

Technically, Parliament's prior approval was not even essential: "It was originally intended that Code B would be imposed by an Order in Council, with retrospective indemnity being granted by an Act of Parliament should anyone dispute the actions of the authorities."(4) There it is again, the ability of the Executive to travel backwards in time to empower and protect itself.

Enter an inconvenient little man: Robert Liversidge(5). Born Jacob Perlsweig, the son of a Russian-Jewish rabbi émigré, he had made money in Canada, returned to England and changed his name. He joined the RAF in WWII but was rounded up with other suspects - an informer reporting him to MI5 as one of a group of "notorious Jew swindlers" - and interned on 26 April 1940.

But he didn't leave it there. He sued for false imprisonment and when reference was made to Code B applied to know the grounds for the order made in his case. The Crown refused to disclose and the case ended up with the Law Lords, who gave their final ruling - against him - in November 1941. Notwithstanding, Liversidge was released on this day, 9 November, 77 years ago.

Although Liversidge lost his case - and for the rest of his long life greatly resented the treatment he had received - it is memorable for the dissenting speech of one of the judges. As required by the Code, the Home Secretary claimed to have "reasonable cause to believe Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations." The other judges were happy to take the Home Secretary's assurance that he had such cause; Lord Atkin said that having thereby abdicated their responsibility to investigate and control the executive, they were being "more executive-minded than the executive." He went further, saying that in order to please the executive they were content to twist language out of shape:

"I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master, that's all." After all this long discussion the question is whether the words "If a man has" can mean "If a man thinks he has". I have an opinion that they cannot and the case should be decided accordingly."

Reviewing A.W.B. Simpson's "In the Highest Degree Odious: Detention Without Trial in Wartime Britain", Richard Posner of the University of Chicago Law School was inclined to take a sanguine view, comparing Britain's actions under conditions of extreme national peril somewhat favourably with the American approach to internment.(7)

Nevertheless, the watchdogs must be prepared to bark, for the same overweening tendency of the executive is alive today. Less than 10 years ago, a British Government Minister, Harriet Harman, was proposing to backdate law in order to deprive a bank executive, Fred Goodwin, of his pension, citing the "court of public opinion."(8) Whatever one may think of the man in this case, the blithe willingness to leap over legal defences is horrifying. As Robert Bolt's Sir Thomas More says, "This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast [...]  and if you cut them down [...] d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"(9)

The EU is set up to allow centrally-issued policies and directives, but its impulse to dictatorship is not unique. And see how quickly civil liberties can be overridden by our Privy Council.

When - if - we escape the EU's rule, the work of establishing and maintaining freedom and justice in this country will scarcely have begun.
_______________________________________

(1) http://inamidst.com/coleridge/letters/letter238
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1495
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_Act_1940
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulation_18B
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liversidge
(6) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
(7) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=4993&context=journal_articles
(8) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7917361.stm
(9) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt

FRIDAY MUSIC: Rachel Flowers, by JD

This is Rachel Flowers who is not just a musical prodigy, she is a miracle and you can read why here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Flowers

There are a lot of videos available but those featuring her playing guitar or flute are not of the best quality so what I have included are piano/organ/synthesiser only.

Just a note on the Steve Reich piece which may not be to everyone's taste. It is usually performed by two pianists and is rarely done by one individual playing two pianos because it is so difficult but she does it here with great aplomb!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Phase

And a further note about the last video. A bit of hyperbole in the title there, she doesn't really bend the laws of physics but it is a stunning impromptu performance of Rachmaninoff.

What is Jeremy Hunt doing with the White Helmets?

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: "Few people have to make the kind of moral choices that faced White Helmet Raed al-Saleh, who I was privileged to meet today. The White Helmets risked life and limb to save over 115,000 lives during the Syrian conflict, despite attacks at the hands of the Syrian regime and the Russian military. The UK is proud to stand behind them."

- http://www.voltairenet.org/article203762.html

The Guardian (allegedly one of the media conduits for Intelligence propaganda - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/where-they-tell-you-not-to-look/ ) has pooh-poohed the idea that the White Helmets are partisan, supporting IS terrorists:

"The Syrian volunteer rescue workers known as the White Helmets have become the target of an extraordinary disinformation campaign that positions them as an al-Qaida-linked terrorist organisation.

"The Guardian has uncovered how this counter-narrative is propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government (which provides military support to the Syrian regime)."

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

On the other hand, there is Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist who was on the ground in Syria when many Western journalists were filing their reports from well out of area, and according to her there are reasons to be concerned at the decision to take White Helmets into Canada and the UK:

"I have already outlined this chronology of investigations, refuting corporate media claims that voices critical of the White Helmets stem from Russian influence. Yet, slavish supporters of the White Helmets, continue to demonize anyone posing critical and needed questions on this group, generally labelling such people as “Russian bots”, “influenced by Russia”, or some variation of that, in an attempt to insist only people under the influence of Russia have been critical of the White Helmets."

- https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
- https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-mainstream-media-whitewashed-al-qaeda-and-the-white-helmets-in-syria/5624930

Does Hunt really know what he is doing?

Ever since Boris Johnson looked as though he was preparing to challenge Theresa May for the Premiership, Hunt has seemed to me to be backing onto the limelight. But in this case he could be playing with fire.

War and inflation

The Daily Mail is currently reproducing back issues from the First World War.

Here's something I suddenly noticed:


Not a fluke:

http://inflation.iamkate.com/

The same newspaper now costs 70p - equivalent to 168 old (pre-decimal) pennies.

That's not particularly freakish: using the site linked above, the general rise in inflation between 1914 and now means £1 then was worth £109 today.

War's effect on inflation:

1914 - 1918: 51% increase.
1939 - 1945: 51 % increase.

The "oil shock" of the 1970s was war by another name:
1974 - 1978: 94% increase.

But inflation is not inevitable.

In 1800, midway through the Napoleonic wars, prices surged 36.5% - but actually fell again over the next 15 years.

In fact, between 1800 and 1900, prices fell overall by 11%.

Money used to be a good store of value, when we concentrated on trade and industry, not war.

Why should ordinary people be allowed to vote?

"The one thing that has emerged from the comments on this blog, though, is that while there is plenty of enthusiasm for pointing out the Leavers' lack of knowledge, many Europhiles are quite unable adequately to describe the nature of the object of their affection."

- Dr Richard North: http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87043

This is certainly my experience in debating with the amateur propagandists of the Remain faction, who often maintain that Leavers were unaware of (or misled about) the implications.

But the same is true of most issues. Whatever the system for informing the public, there will be bias and disinformation, many will misunderstand what they are told or look only at what confirms their prejudices, and many will not bother to engage at all.

Even for the slave-owning weekly parliament of ancient Athens, detailed decision-making was delegated: the arrangement was to appoint people to perform State tasks and then submit them to close scrutiny at the end of their term.

So what is democracy for? I suggest that it is not about the people being wise enough to run the complex affairs of government.

Instead, it is a corrective: when the electorate feel that matters are not being conducted in their best interest, they can force a change in the administration. The Welsh, the Northerners, the farmers, fishers, miners and other workers who voted for Leave may not have had degrees in political philosophy, but they knew where the shoe pinched them.

Democracy is a system for making the rulers take serious notice of the feelings of the ruled.

Technology and socialism

When robots take over much work previously done by human beings, how will the distribution of wealth be decided?

After decades of Western nations "offshoring" manufacturing to the Far East (so causing growing financial and social strains at home), the trend has begun to reverse in recent years, but without necessarily improving the prospects for well-paid industrial employment. Automation is taking over, not just on the assembly line but increasingly in the back office as well.

Now, the Engineer magazine reports on a "reconfigurable modular robot" that can change its shape and functioning to adapt to varying tasks and conditions (htp: Demetrius.)

This has implications for blue-suited management, too: “I want to tell the robot what it should be doing, what its goals are, but not how it should be doing it,” said Kress-Gazit, the leader of the research team. (Over 40 years ago operational analyst Stafford Beer held that management should set goals and provide resources, but leave it to the relevant department to decide how best to use those resources - a lesson still to be learned in many quarters!)

It could be argued that human labour will be re-employed in other fields but that is not guaranteed - did the Luddite weavers find other work in time to avoid destitution? - and the alternatives may be menial and lower-paid. I seem to see a lot of tattoo parlours and nail bars, fast-food outlets and discontinued-line shops in my neighbourhood these days. Billionaire Hugo Salinas Price predicts somewhere (I haven't found the reference yet) the return of domestic servants.

It may become harder to criticise the unemployed when work is not available. The question of economic justice will raise its head.

And at that point we will wonder how to restrict the multiplication of "useless mouths," limitless payouts of financial benefits and social-worker support etc., before the weight of public debt causes the economy to collapse.

Will the franchise revert to property-owners only? Will we need a militia to keep down the unfortunate? Will there be Chinese-style rules on breeding?

Or will Red Santa overthrow the whole system for a millennial age which will certainly never arrive?

_____________________________________

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reonshoring-manufacturing-has-begun-what-back-office-services-parmar/
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/reconfigurable-modular-robot/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Beer
http://www.plata.com.mx/enUS/enUS

Weekend Wonders: Atom-Sized Movie