On June 6th 2024 a hearing will be held before the Administrative Court of England and Wales whose results could fundamentally alter the course of constitutional development in the U.K. Depending which way the court rules, we will discover firstly whether the U.K.’s ‘deep state’ is going to become more, or less, powerful; and secondly whether international law is going to strengthen, or weaken, its grasp over our domestic constitutional arrangements. And, as a result, we will see held up for critical reflection two of the central themes of government in our times: a creeping managerialisation, which sees governing itself as a matter simply of the implementation of pre-conceived aims and objectives, and the globalisation of political reason (what I have elsewhere, borrowing from Phillip Cerny, called ‘raison du monde’).
Indefensibly, however – though in a manner entirely in keeping with the way in which such matters are nowadays covered in the media – essentially nobody has any idea that this hearing will happen at all, let alone what it is about, except for a few nerds and cranks. This post is partly my attempt to get the word out, for what good it will do.
The Rwanda Scheme
The case, FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, is a dispute between the main trade union of Whitehall mandarins (senior civil servants in the U.K.) and the Government, over guidance which was issued by the Cabinet Office towards the end of April 2024. This guidance informed civil servants that they will not be in breach of the Civil Service Code if they ignore so-called ‘rule 39’ injunctive measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which are supposed to be indicated by the Court “in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right”. Such measures are used, for instance, to issue a stay on a deportation or removal in a situation in which the Court is persuaded that this would result in serious risk of a rights violation; the Cabinet Office’s guidance essentially instructs civil servants that they are free ignore such measures. However, the FDA is arguing that the Cabinet Office’s guidance, is, in a word, wrong. In its view, if civil servants do ignore ‘rule 39’ measures, it will put them in breach of their duty in the Civil Service Code to “comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice”. And this means the guidance itself is unlawful and must be struck down.
This requires a little explanation and unpacking, not least because this litigation is simply another episode in what has descended into something of a shaggy dog story. To tell this story as briefly as I can, last year Parliament passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is the legal framework for the Government’s so-called ‘Rwanda scheme’. The idea here is that asylum seekers who come to the U.K. will be removed to Rwanda to make their asylum applications there, and will remain in Rwanda if successful. This is to deter illegal migration, along the lines of Australia’s own apparently successful equivalent in Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and so on.
The Rwanda scheme, though, currently lies in abeyance. This is because an Iraqi man among the first batch of asylum seekers identified for removal was able to obtain an interim injunction from the ECtHR, via its ‘rule 39’ procedure, which required a stay of his removal – the plane in which he and six other asylum seekers were to be sent to Rwanda was, dramatically, stopped at the airport minutes before take-off. This gave the legal advisers of those on board time to work up a claim for judicial review of the process by which their clients’ removal decisions were made. And, sure enough, last year the Supreme Court ruled in AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 that, while the Rwanda scheme was not unlawful per se, the Government had not done enough to make sure that Rwanda was a ‘safe’ destination – not in the sense of being physically insecure, but in the sense that a person removed from the U.K. to Rwanda might end up then being sent from there back to his country of origin if his asylum application failed. This had the potential to expose asylum seekers to torture, imprisonment and so on, and was hence in contravention amongst other things of s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires public bodies such as the Home Office to act compatibly with ECHR rights (like the right not to be tortured).
The Government went away and scratched its head for a while, and eventually came back to propose a truly bizarre Bill – what is now the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Act 2024 – designed specifically to deal with the decision in AAA. This piece of legislation stipulates that courts are to find Rwanda to be safe irrespective of whatever evidence is adduced (an extraordinary thing to happen in itself). And it also stipulates that if the ECtHR indicates ‘rule 39’ interim measures to prevent removal of a given asylum seeker, courts “must not have regard to” those measures. It is for a Government Minister, and a Government Minister alone, to decide on whether to comply. ‘Rule 39’ measures indicated by the ECtHR, in other words, are henceforth to be ignored in respect of the Rwanda scheme. This is, transparently, to prevent a repeat of what happened last time, and to ensure that when people are ordered to be removed to Rwanda the ECtHR cannot interfere.
“Complying with the law and upholding the administration of justice”
With the Act’s coming into force, the Cabinet Office duly issued guidance to civil servants in the Home Office (which is responsible for matters of immigration and asylum) instructing them, in essence, to behave as though the Act is what it is: law. They are to ignore the effect of ‘rule 39’ measures issued by the ECtHR and to process removals accordingly – unless, of course, the competent Minister instructs them otherwise. This is, after all, what the legislation requires.
The problem, though, is that pesky Civil Service Code. The relevant provision reads as follows (emphasis mine):
You must… comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.
The FDA’s argument is that the Civil Service Code’s requirement to “comply with the law” has to include international law. And since in its view ‘rule 39’ measures issued by the ECtHR would constitute part of international law, Government guidance instructing civil servants in the Home Office to ignore such measures would have to itself be unlawful, since it would put civil servants in the position of being in breach of the Code. It would force them into a position of not being compliant with ‘the law’. And since the Code forms part of the employment relationship between civil servant and Government (as provided by s. 5 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010), this would effectively mean requiring individual civil servants to breach their terms of service.
There are various rebuttals that could be issued to this, and no doubt will be issued. For instance, there is a strong argument to be made that ‘rule 39’ measures are not in fact law at all and that the ECHR does not actually authorise the ECtHR to issue them. (Richard Ekins set out the case for this in very eloquent and detailed form back in 2023 before the Illegal Migration Bill came into effect – his suggestion that “The Government should make a statement indicating that the U.K. does not accept that the ECHR authorises the Strasbourg Court to grant binding interim relief” can now, however, raise little but a bitter laugh.) And international law is itself quite clear that individual officials do not have personal liability for failures on the part of the state to fulfil international obligations – so it does not seem, to my eye, as though being required to ignore ‘rule 39’ measures would put any individual civil servant in the position of personally failing to comply with international law even if one were to accept that such measures are binding law at all.
But the really interesting aspect of this litigation is the wider context. No doubt civil servants should comply with the law, and no doubt this should be a rule governing their conduct. But regular readers will recall that a rule is never in itself determinate. What does ‘complying with the law’ mean? And, in particular, it seems apposite to ask: which law should civil servants comply with, if laws conflict with one another? Should it be international law, as the FDA asserts? Or should it be our domestic statute law, which in the form of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 is quite clear about the effect and import of ‘rule 39’ measures?
This question has its doctrinal aspects, of course. But, as we have seen, when courts deal with indeterminate rules, it is always likely that they will resort (consciously or otherwise) to extra-legal considerations in order to come up with an answer. And this case is pregnant with such considerations, as it taps into deep currents that move beneath the surface of our politico-legal life. In particular, it brings out two of the most pernicious features of modern government, and how they relate specifically to the status of the civil service and its relationship to both the public and Parliament – the increasing dominance of a technocratic, anti-democratic mindset within the organs of the State, and a hypertrophied sense that ‘the global’ must always and in every respect trump the national.
The first of these is the result of what, following the international legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi, I tend to call ‘managerialisation’ – which he describes as the tendency to see governing as merely a matter of the implementation of already existing and predetermined purposes and values. The managerial mindset is not concerned with debating the rights and wrongs of those purposes and values; it is only interested in the technical matter of how they are most efficiently realised. The result is a denial of both law and politics as such, and a lionisation of ‘expertise’ as the justification for governing. Legitimacy derives from a claim, basically, to know best, rather than to represent the people, a nation, and so on. And the consequence is an idealisation of ‘knowing best’ (rather than being representative) as the essence of government. (For the reasons why this has transpired, see posts here and here.)
The growth in the recalcitrance, independence and power of the civil service in the U.K. – mirrored, of course, throughout the world – is an obvious exemplar of this governing style. Rather than imagining themselves to exist simply to put into effect the policies of the elected Government, which represents the people, instead civil servants increasingly seem to think their job is to realise a particular set of values – generally those of the ‘new elite’ classes from whose ranks they generally spring. And hence there is a growing gulf between, on the one hand, the people who make up those classes (and who do not generally think very critically or sceptically about their own values) and, on the other hand, everybody else, when it comes to opinions about the proper role of civil servants. Are they there to serve? Or are they there to in some sense rule, since they purport to possess more of that quality of ‘knowing best’ than, say, the average voter or elected politician?
The second feature of modern government that I mentioned is the marked understanding that governance is itself something that happens globally or regionally rather than within the confines of the domestic state. Yes, borders exist, and yes, there are still such things as states and national governments, but any and all problems are to be treated as being in some sense transnational in scope – and requiring international organisations and international coordination to resolve. This can productively be thought of under the rubric of raison du monde – the tendency to imagine that we are moving inexorably toward a world-state or global Government, and to see everywhere justifications for its existence, from Covid to climate change to sustainable development to comprehensive sexuality education and so on.
The FDA’s case against the Cabinet Office brings these two tendencies – managerialisation and globalisation – to a concentrated focal point, for obvious reasons. The entire litigation seems to be motivated by an underlying reluctance on the part of Home Office civil servants to accept that their job is not to have opinions or beliefs, but to execute policy on behalf of the elected Government, which represents the people. Nobody seriously believes that these people are worried about being sacked for acting in breach of the Civil Service Code if they ignore ‘rule 39’ measures indicated by the ECtHR: why would the Government sack them for doing what it wants them to do? Their objection is transparently political. And it seems to be inspired by a vision of human rights as in some sense transcending the petty concerns of the nation state. This is in turn emblematic of an aesthetic preference for a globalised, transnational approach to matters of immigration and asylum, wherein supranational bodies like the ECtHR, to whom the truth has been revealed, foist it upon national governments to merely implement.
On the Civil Service and the Executive
I am therefore filled with a sense of foreboding about FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office. The position of the law is not totally clear – because if it was, the litigation would not have commenced. And this means that the decision of the Administrative Court lies open to extra-legal considerations. Put simply, the Court might decide to adopt a ‘small c’ conservative approach and show deference to the Government (whose guidance, in the end, really only instructs civil servants to abide by what is contained in the Safety of Rwanda Act). But it might very well be influenced by the kind of managerialist and internationalist preferences which are now so clearly dominant in the social classes within which judges are nowadays mostly situated. And in the latter circumstance the Court may well end up holding the Cabinet Office’s guidance to be unlawful.
This would be a huge embarrassment for the Government in the middle of a General Election campaign, of course (although I suppose there is a chance the judgment will not be handed down until after the election is over). But an awful lot more is at stake in this case than the electoral fortunes of the Tory party. Indeed, to take us back to the introduction to this post, nothing less than the path of constitutional development in the U.K. is up for grabs in the decision which the Court will ultimately hand down. This is because, first, it has the potential to radically alter the delicate balance of power within the executive itself. And it is because, second, it has the potential to make impossible the very exercising of executive power within the framework of Government.
First things first, then. I have written before about our failure, in the U.K., to properly conceptualise the constitutional role of the civil service. As I put it back in March:
[T]he civil service is itself part of the executive – it implements the decisions of Government on policy. Government must therefore be able to appoint the civil servants it wants, get rid of those it does not want, and determine their conditions of service. This is [because] civil servants, like every other element of the framework of British Government, must be answerable to somebody, and since under our existing constitutional arrangements this cannot be the legislature, the judiciary, or indeed the electorate, then it has to be those most well-equipped to exercise oversight – which is to say the Government.The regulation of the civil service, in other words, is political… And this of course means that the procedures by which that regulation takes place are also inherently political – and that [therefore] such procedures should be outside of the purview of the judiciary… [T]he regulation of the civil service must be political in the most elementary sense: it is the constitutional role of the electorate to eject Governments which abuse it, and therefore it is an usurpation of the electorate when the judiciary imposes its own view.
To put the matter more bluntly and straightforwardly than this: the Government must control the civil service within the U.K.’s constitutional arrangements, because that is the means by which our very democracy functions. Governments make policy, and it is civil servants who must implement it; this then allows the electorate to discern whether policy is good or bad, and vote accordingly. If civil servants do not implement policy – or if courts interfere with the way in which Government regulates the civil service – the signals break down and the electorate is left unclear as to whether problems are due to bad policy or bad civil servants. Voters, in a very real sense, are thereby made unsure about whom to vote for. This describes our current predicament very well, of course, but the problem will be made immeasurably worse if courts get into the habit of ruling guidance and instructions issued to civil servants unlawful on the grounds of failure to comply with some nebulous understanding of what ‘international law’ entails. The result of that can only be yet further muddying of the waters and yet further alienation of voters from what still purports to be British democracy.
The second concern is with the effect that a ruling in FDA’s favour will have on the very exercising of executive decision-making itself. If civil servants cannot be instructed to do anything that could be construed as being a violation of international law on the basis that the Civil Service Code requires them to “comply with the law”, then this is tantamount to extending to civil service unions a freestanding right to recourse to the courts whenever their members are called upon to do anything they don’t like. They will be able to simply cast around for a plausible argument that Government policy goes against customary international law, or some vaguely worded multilateral treaty provision, and that will be that – Government will be prohibited from requiring civil servants to implement the policy in question. The results of that can be readily imagined: complete indecisiveness and inactivity on the part of Government, for fear of litigation – except in regard to policies that it is well known that civil servants approve of. Does that sound like a recipe for a healthy relationship between Government and electorate, and a firm footing on which Government can approach the very serious problems which increasingly confront us, both domestically and abroad?
These two likely consequences of a judgment in FDA’s favour are linked, of course, in that they would work very favourably alongside one another in respect of the processes of managerialisation and globalisation of governance which I earlier identified. Both of those proceeses would be vastly strengthened were a situation to arise in which civil servants – imbued with a managerial ethos par excellence – could refuse to follow instructions on the basis of some perceived lack of consonance with the strictures of international law. And the further consequence of that would of course be a cementing into law of the forces which are already working so strongly to undermine the exercise of representative democracy – whereby the citizens of a country elect sovereign Governments – within the U.K.
It is to be hoped that this situation does not come to pass through the Court’s decision in FDA v Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office. But I would not be at all surprised if it did; it is in the water regardless, since the managerialisation and globalisation of our politics is currently showing no sign of abating. Whatever the judgment that is handed down, in other words, it is those phenomena to which we must attend, interrogate, evaluate – and overturn. But watch this space, regardless, for an analysis of the judgment when it becomes available.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Think about what powers government have over you, a few of them are:
1) they can create laws that tell you what to do and if you don’t do them lock you up
2) they can borrow endlessly in your name, and debase the currency
3) they can steal yr income/wealth at source and with the threat of imprisonment if you resist
4) finally they can kill ppl legally through wars or simply shooting citizens, remember the Brazilian chap on the tube, Iraq war or the safe and effective vaccine campaign
In no way is the current system a sensible arrangement, no one in their right mind would personally grant any of the powers listed above to anyone they knew personally, so why give them to the political class?
We live in a form of post industrial serfdom and it’s getting worse as the powers that be try to confiscate the good things industrialisation gave us, IE cars & boilers.
Point 4….Every prosecution over a death in police custody in the past 15 years has ended in acquittal…
https://qz.com/1117185/ipcc-report-in-the-uk-every-prosecution-over-a-death-in-police-custody-in-the-past-15-years-ended-with-acquittal
Fancy that
Who says its not a Police State…
I agree, except they are not creating laws, they are creating legislation. Not the same thing. Laws are much more to do with natural law and constitutional rights, but it is perhaps academic, as according to the system legal = law, and good look with trying to fight that.
Awesome. A headline which says what I have been thinking for some years now.
But its limited focus to Covid is disappointing.
I know from direct experience one stronghold of the enemy is Whitehall where career civil servants have been in post for decades undermining democracy whilst serving the commercial interests of unseen external influencers.
Few people know that Margaret Thatcher freed Whitehall from the rules restricting them developing personal relationships with individuals in commerce and industry. It marked the opening of the floodgates for corruption and that is what we have.
This even extends to use of the security services to run covert surveillance and operations against individuals in the UK to protect the profits of the drug industry.
Shocking but true.
And if there was ever to be a judicial inquiry like the Hallett inquiry we can see exactly what the outcome will be. I watched Professor Carl Heneghan’s questioning. You could cut the bias of Hallett and Counsel with a knife. Totally the opposite of the tone and approach to the previous wimpy witness [IMHO] whom Counsel and Hallett could not have been more obsequious to.
Industrialisation gave the politicians the technology to control us and we cannot give it up. Look how many walk around with it in their hands.
Every positive emotion I felt and view I held about authority (to be honest there weren’t many of either), in all their stripes have now been replaced by an attitude of distrustfulness and cynisism. Quite something to alter one’s mindset having developed it over 70+ years. Optimism has given way to pessimism and resignation. (Pass the gin bottle).
Not cynicism. Scepticism. Big difference!
It is possible to be optimistic and sceptical at the same time. Just hard work and few people like you.
I’m both a sceptic and a cynic.. Definition: Cynicism–believing that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere. Contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives. About sums it up I’d say.
I share a similar experience.
As a retired doctor I am ashamed of the way in which doctors have followed the narrative uncritically through fear, ignorance and gullibility and have gaslighted patients and failed to diagnose and report side effects of the vaccines. They have compounded many of the problems promulgated by government, Big Pharma, high tech, uncritical main stream media, official censors, fact checkers and propagandists, globalist cabals associates billionaires, etc.
Freedom and trust are two of the most significant casualties of the last few years.
I fear for the future.
Us ‘right thinkers’ should stick together. As Tony Hancock said in The Blood Donor episode “We could become a persecuted minority”.(regarding sharing his rare blood group. AB Negative I seem to recall).
All the power of the state comes from the systematic confiscation of money from its people.
That money accrues enormous power to the state.
State actors (politicians and bureaucrats) take money from the productive elements of society and buy favour redistributing it.
Worse still, drunk on that dynamic, they spend even more than the billions they confiscate with the effect of constantly debasing currency, which is simply another form of confiscation.
The state is evil, not least because it does all of that under the pretence of helping its population.
The confiscation of money by the state through taxes is, was always and will forever be for the purpose of giving power to those that do the confiscating.
Spot on and simply amazes me how few ppl see the truth.
Absolutely. I am inserting a post I saw back some time ago about taxes and kept. It is gob-smacking how much they rob us:
List of taxes the British are subject to :
[Forwarded from Steve Gamble – The Search For Truth]
“If I give you £1 billion and you stand on a street corner handing out £1 per second, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, you would still not have handed out £1 billion after 31 years!
Now read on. This is true and rather hard to really understand.
The next time you hear a politician use the word ‘billion’ in a casual manner, think about whether you want the ‘politicians’ spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
1. A billion seconds ago, it was 1991.
2. A billion minutes ago, they claim Jesus was alive.
3. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
4. A billion days ago, no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
5. A billion Dollars ago was only 13 hours and 12 minutes, at the rate our present government is spending it.
We are charged:
· Stamp Duty
· Tobacco Tax
· Corporate Income Tax
· Income Tax
· Council Tax
· Unemployment Tax
· Fishing License Tax
· Petrol/Diesel Tax
· Inheritance Tax (tax on top of tax)
· Alcohol Tax
· G.S.T.
· Property Tax
· Purchase Property Tax
· Tax on Title Searches
· Tax on Building Inspections
· Tax on supplements
· Taxes on various food items
· Taxes on Dining out
· Tax on all utilities – Phone, hydro, water, waste disposal
· Service charge taxes
· Social Security Tax
· Vehicle License / Registration Tax
· Vehicle Sales Tax
· Workers Compensation Tax
· And now Carbon Tax
AND I’m sure you can think of more……
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 60 years ago, and our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt.
We had the largest middle class in the world. A criminal’s life was uncomfortable. What on earth happened?
I hope this goes around the UK.
#GovernmentCorruption”
That is brilliant, I have forwarded it on to so many people. Government is a parasite
A parasite fed by the people who were out in the streets banging pots. They are the real enemy.
In the Beatles song “The Taxman”, they joked of taxing the air, which they probably thought was quite funny and even John Lennon would have thought this would never happen——-But here we are 43 years after his death taxing the air (Carbon tax)————-PS Great comment
This is a fantastic book by Dominic Frisby BTW..
Daylight Robbery: How Tax Shaped Our Past and Will Change Our Future https://amzn.eu/d/hKPkgp1
Frisby discuss the taxation at source is one reason there will not be a revolution..
https://youtu.be/HwT7RtN44Fc?si=iPfuIULYPlbChKY5
I agree there won’t be a revolution. The only way this ends is in collapse. That’s not only possible, it’s inevitable. What that collapse looks like is what is uncertain.
Russell Brand keeps quoting Julian Assange, so I will too
“The purpose of government is to take public money and put it into private hands”.
As Ayn Rand says, polticians should never be allowed anywhere near the economy. The government gets away with this because there is an every growing number of people who depend on the government and are now incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. Once a political party starts down the route of socialism the rest eventually have to follow if they want to get elected.
One of the greatest foci of resistance to the corona programme has been lawyer Rainer Füllmich who has collated all the evidence against Big Pharma and western governments, especially the EU. So he has been arrested and, like Julian Assange, sits in prison – currently in Göttingen, Germany.
Rainer Füllmich speaks from prison on http://www.bittel.tv, posted yesterday on Telegram at 22.37. Füllmich´s report, recorded on Oct. 15th, begins at 30 mins. in.
He reveals that Vivienne Fisher, probably a CIA plant, has looted the ICIC´s money and written a book full of “invention” – and then had the temerity to sue Füllmich for embezzlement! Füllmich´s rebuttal is eloquent and comprehensive, backed up with proof on every detail.
This looks like an attempt to destroy Füllmich (like Assange) before the dénouement at IC4 in Bukarest on Nov 17th/18th. But it seems the powers that be have met their match in Füllmich.
If anyone on the sceptical wing overplayed their hand it was Fullmich.
I still find his description of a decades-old plan by global elites to create conditions for control of the world’s population thoroughly believable – but it seems he got caught with his fingers in the till (https://www.vice.com/en/article/93kzep/reiner-fuellmich-arrest-fake-pandemic-conspiracy-lawyer-arrested). Shame. Always wondered why he made such an impact several years ago, inspiring many, including me, with hope – and then just disappeared. But who knows – it’s entirely likely that the accusations of embezzlement are trumped up, Epstein-style.
Hi Clive. Please read again the post you are responding to by ekathulium.
The ‘fingers in the till’ allegation was addressed in that comment:
I appreciate you did add “But who knows – it’s entirely likely that the accusations of embezzlement are trumped up, Epstein-style.“
But Epstein did all the other stuff he was accused of? So why make that comparison when it seems inappropriate.
Perhaps it was inadvertent?
Web server was down at 11.12 a.m. on 20/10/2023.
I remember the Füllmich and team in an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Claire Craig back in 2020 I think. It was on Youtube, linked from the BMJ.
“But anguished despair, if you were a caring, concerned citizen who loves individual freedom and autonomy.” No, just a deep, abiding and irreparable distrust and hatred of central and local government, the judiciary, the police, the NHS, academia and the education system, the MSM especially the BBC, and the pharmaceutical industry in which I worked for much of my career and from which I draw a pension.
There has long been a symbiotic relationship between government their scientists. Government will justify all they do because they are allegedly “following the science”. And when it all goes wrong it was the fault of the “scientists” and they get off Scott Free
“just a deep, abiding and irreparable distrust and hatred”
If they behaved with honour and honesty that distrust and hatred would not exist.
But sadly they don’t.
And politicians wonder why so many people don’t vote for them.
People are hungry for honesty and honour in politicians.
“Let them eat cake.“
“…in the last three years, so many gave up freedoms to [- so they were told -] prolong lives”
We need a wholesale and radical change to our system of government. We don’t need new parties as they all seem to gravitate towards the same agenda. The endless Labour/Tory punch-and-judy show is a pointless exercise, yet many still see it as their only option when it comes to voting. We need less government, government of just the national essentials such as protection of borders and basic infrastructure. The problem is, the existing system will continue as long as voters keep accepting it without even considering other possibilities. The status quo will remain until the voters themselves get tired of being constantly lied to, duped, and abused.
How many politicians do we hear say “We need change”. ——–What do they mean by “change”? It doesn’t mean anything. This is what politicians do. They talk endlessly but say NOTHING
I wouldn’t accuse Reclaim or Heritage Party of gravitating towards the same agenda.
Why not? If they are not doing it now they will eventually surely?
It is just the way things are and have become.
In the end, governments act to protect the ‘state’ apparatus rather than the actual nation of people they are meant to serve. People are irrelevant to the state, more a resource to be squeezed for every ounce of labour and tax they can extract to support the ‘state’. In the new world they want to create (but won’t), nation states are also irrelevant. It is clear that our government system needs to be overhauled. We want small government, less bureaucracy, smaller civil service, less tax, more say in what they spend our money on etc. How that happens is the question. At the moment, the government really is the enemy of the people and we, the people, are the enemy of the state!
The state is controlled by the bankers and big corporations. The politicians are just following instructions.
Depressingly true. Sadly it was only likely to be a dry run for the planned climate change lockdowns.
What the clowns at the WEF failed to realise was that they overdid the Covid measures and there are now many people who know what’s going on (hence the recent batch of censorship bills around the world). They have to silence us to prevent losing their grip.
We need to get rid of every WEF shill who currently masquerades as an MP.
Naming and shaming them all might be a good first step?
They are not all aware but most by now are just not scared about c19. It has past its shelf life. Remember in the Canadian Parliament when one MP asked who is a member of the WEF. The Speaker’s microphone suddenly stopped working. I’m sure it was a great question he said.
Look at the message – you will own nothing and be happy. I believe that they know that the present economic system cannot continue and their main objective is to protect their assets. They believe they can do that by taking everything we own. They are trying out how far they can go with covid and the climate, before the final push. I suspect they are too afraid to take the final step, but they cannot reverse the economic chaos they have created. We will all suffer in the end.
COVID was the public downfall of western parlamentarism, which turned out to be LDINO — liberal and democratic in name only. When push comes to shove, constitutions are just toilet paper for the governing class and clever lawyer types can make legally sound arguments for turning all of our so-called rights into the exact opposite of what they were meant to be. It makes sense to have some sort of parliament as representation of the people when dealing with the government. The idea of parliament governing itself is institutionally insane.
If you are fed up with the Uniparty status quo, then sign the Pledge at https://notourfuture.org
Thanks for the link.
Signed.
“The existing frameworks, processes and institutional safeguards under which liberal democracies operated until 2020”
Shouldn’t that be until 2001/911?
The 1963 Kennedy assassination shows it has been going on for a very very long time. It is more sophisticated now.
But they still don’t care that their legends to cover up are full of holes as long as enough people believe them for long enough.
The whole premise of this article is that everything over the last three years evolved organically – there really was a pandemic and governments, health authorities and even the WHO all tried their best in difficult circumstances – they made some bad mistakes and were overly authoritarian, but it was all with the best of intentions. The media decided that public health would benefit if they didn’t question every policy proposal or whether vaccines were actually safe and effective. They made a mess of things, but their heart was in the right place. Incompetence rather than conspiracy.
But we surely know that none of that is correct, don’t we? This was all planned. Lockdowns and masks were introduced to ensure the new mRNA vaccines would be taken up by “everyone”. The facilitation of digital IDs and possibly even depopulation were part of the plan. The media and regulatory agencies were captured.
Etc, etc, etc
Depopulation is what is pushing everything that the Davos Deviants are doing.
Ironically the highest birth rates are in the poorest countries. Once people become prosperous their birth rates fall to levels seen in the wealthy west. And the only way they can become prosperous and develop is by using the same fuels as we did. —-Coal Oil and Gas. —-But poor people are denied those fuels and told to leave those fuels in the ground and we fob them off with some money for turbines, which means they will stay miserable and poor and birth rates will remain high.—— So if depopulation is the goal, ironically the best thing to do is allow fossil fuels. The people become more educated, they live more organised lives, they use birth control ad birth rates fall dramatically. —Climate Policies harm the poorest.
And remember they are now admitting HQC is an effective treatment, yet in parts of Africa, Japan, India etc they were using it. Handcock even said in Parliament that vitamins are not the answer. And don’t forget how they tried to discredit any Dr that used Ivermectin.
Why did George Osborne as Chancellor increased national debt from £900 billion to £2.1 trillion under the cover story of implementing austerity under which our national debt should have decreased?
Isn’t it all about putting us all into debt so that when government needs to borrow more we have to accept the conditions imposed by the rich international financiers and accept even more of the crap that is already being forced upon us?
This jack boot story focusses on covid and ok fair enough. But the other Big C (Climate) is the one that really has us by the balls and started way back in 2008 with the Climate Change Act and is ongoing with impoverishment coming along the line faster than HS2. Watch you wallets people, and make sure you get half a dozen jumpers from Santa.
Letter currently being sent to parents of schoolchildren telling them: “Covid-19 vaccination has a proven safety record. It gives better protection than any immunity from a previous infection.”
From:
Dr Nikita Kanani MBE, GP,
St John’s Medical Director of Clinical Integration,
NHS England Deputy SRO,
NHS COVID-19 Vaccination Programme
Visiting Professor, School of Medicine, University of Sunderland
Same wording about safe and effective is in an email from this evil woman [IMHO] sent recently to all over 65s.
Compare to what Andrew Bridgen said in Parliament yesterday about the people still being killed by these injections:
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF ANDREW BRIDGEN – FROM HANSARD THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
Watch the debate here:
https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1715402213839740956
The tyranny has only just started.
If you don’t resist now, you never will.