Along with many others, I have written that we stand on the brink, with Brexit, of a Renaissance in British affairs. How can we build a New Renaissance in Britain, and how can we prove wrong the established forces that will deny us this chance? Can we not now stimulate a New Renaissance in these ancient lands, so long the home of freedom?
Thomas Hobbes famously asked what it should be like to be an individual endowed with rights able to resist the monolith of State power and to build a free world?; amazingly after 400 years we are still wondering about this, even sinking backwards into the helplessness of those who require draconian regulations imposed without mandate and enforced with cruel precision (when it suits the power base).
I was shocked to learn that Mrs May in 2012 indicated that she would be happy to work with EU “Gendarmerie” police, authorised to enforce EU diktat. And more recently that she had been named by the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner “‘the single most damaging thing’ facing the police today”. Allowing the EGF (European Gendarmerie Force) access to the UK to enforce EU law and arrest anyone who stands against EU law (none of which is decided by our own or even other EU national Parliaments) would require the EGF to be given wide-ranging cross-border powers under the so-called Corpus Juris. These proposals were first examined in 1998 and a committee led by QC and MP Humfrey Mullins, who was so horrified by its implications that the plan was hurriedly hushed up by the Westminster establishment and quickly went off the BBC and mainstream media radar. Mrs May, however, is a strong supporter of this plan and I think we can be sure she would want to continue to cooperate extensively with the EU Empire in handing over powers of arrest to the EGF. Perhaps she will change her mind and trust our OWN police, and I personally do not believe that this is what the people of this country expect from a Post-Brexit leader: the monolithic centralised state that Hobbes warned of, exemplified in the EU and enforced by the EGF.
Legalese, double-speak and dirty tricks are the favourite arm of the “superior” technocrat. As an EU educational coordinator, I saw that many EU documents were almost unreadable with their gargantuan length, often filled with confusing legalistic terminology and the language of “progressive social change”. If not all these “directives” were ever implemented, (estimated since the beginning to have been some 120,000 in number), it has been joked that this was likely due only to the lack of civil servants to rubber-stamp them.
As we go forward, we will doubtless see the smug smiles on the faces of ideologues benefiting from these games. In the end, the winning of such games comes down, not to who plays fair and honourably (in the case of Mrs Leadsom), but on who is smart and knows how to subvert the rules (as is the case with the workings of the EU). Well-connected technocrats need to have fingers in many pies in order to wield influence above the simplistic world of the “Common Man or Woman” not deemed intelligent enough to choose his/her own future. Perhaps ex-EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland illustrates this point – the man who in 2008 instructed the Irish government to underwrite the assets and liabilities of Irish banks (arguably bankrupting the country) – a man never publicly elected into any position, never even heard of by the majority of Europeans. Mr Sutherland has presided over scores of committees and has connections to every supra-national organisation on earth, and who advocates for the benefit of Europeans, mass unrestricted immigration into the European Union. Like Count Kalergi who advocated turning Europeans into a Mestizo race that would allow the elites to protect their position, Mr Sutherland sensed that Europeans “still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others….and that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.” Or should we mention P Mandleson, who “sent out search parties” to find immigrants to take the jobs that Labour’s traditional voters can no longer take.
As we now watch the Labour and Conservative parties retreating to their comfortable middle-ground, defended by the “experts” they select for suitability, we can again expect a ramping-up of the outworn propaganda and politically-correct 1930s rhetoric that so graced the Communists and National Socialists. In the same way, a super-generous welcome will be given to all who dislike Britain.
Speaking personally, I have many friends of every colour and creed from all around the world; have worked and lived in many European countries, speak excellent French and Italian, have family and roots in Europe too; and lived and worked in a Sharia country too. I have learnt from all these experiences and this made me value the Common Law and English Constitution all the more. As residents elsewhere, we are guests, I behaved as a guest. I learnt about the cultures of other lands; I expect visitors to my land to learn about mine. A misplaced sense of hospitality does not favour us but undermines us; yet the technocrats advocate these damaging ideas on our behalf, without any mandate and possibly now in direct denial of the referendum choice, as backdoor pro-EU policies (including welcoming the EGF and Corpus Juris onto our shores, just wait and see… being “out” of the club does not necessarily mean playing by one’s own rules).
At the time when our freedoms and Common Law practices were the envy of the “Philosophes” and of Europe, due to their balance and harmony, Voltaire wrote “If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.” What we see in politics today is not the thirty or more voices that represent the mother, the child, the fisherman, the family, the community of souls, or the ordinary worker, but just one religion, the religion of technocracy and of the “expert”, the career politician who survives only to defend his own interest by employing the experts to do what he/she has not the trust in the good people themselves to understand.
“Cascading” new regulations to the lower levels of their governance scheme, to decide our future, they do not believe we have the knowledge or skills or ability to make wise choices democratically. Because they consider us “incompetent and venal” they presume to tell us what is best for us, the new feudal masters, “barons of rationality” building an “empire of logic” where WE are the slaves and serfs, too stupid to know what is good for us. The fact that it is perhaps they who are often venal, incompetent and worse (mentioning no names), always seems to pass them by, and the threatening noises made towards the UK on the eve of Brexit should give us pause to wonder if the enforcement of new trading terms, once the “negotiations” start, will betray some of this thinking. We need leaders who are not half in favour of this outdated way of thinking, and who look forwards to a better way of life. What we have in Mrs May is a manager, who will dutifully cascade the global imperatives received from on high, not a leader for Britain.
Will there be a renewed Battle of Britain, a victory for a new Renaissance, or another defeat, but by slow attrition? Or is the ‘smart money’ now on the UK? After billionaire investor George Soros took out a staggering €100million bet that a major German bank would collapse after Britain decided to cut ties with the crumbling EU, we might well wonder “who benefits?”
Yes, the man who “broke the Bank of England” took a short position of 0.51 per cent in Deutsche Bank shares on the day after the people of Britain backed Brexit, and Soros Fund Management later said its short position was now 0.46 per cent – suggesting it had begun to take profits from the trade. Further, Mr Soros – who banked profits of $1bn by famously positioning himself against sterling 22 years ago – has said that a British exodus from the bloc would make the eventual dissolution of the EU “practically irreversible” … and has spoken of its disintegration; whether this is part of the larger geo-political game, who can say?
One thing is sure. We need to think of what this Renaissance means, what, in our proud British – and yes, joint-European heritage (but before it was broadsided by the fallacies of the 30s that still haunt the thinking of the elites and the technocratic “experts”) – took us out of feudalism, out of the disasters of anarchism and communism, out of the confusion of European Romanticism and eventually self-destruction. These were beliefs of the Renaissance, of Elizabethan optimism, of Man being the measure of all things; of the entrepreneur, the Lunar Men who built the canals and the potteries, pioneers and inventors and discoverers. Our great Constitution. These things are what our children should learn about, not “regulations” from abroad, not the “pluralism” of beliefs that seek to enslave or to impose inverse discrimination, not careerist strategising (unless it is to learn how to avoid these traps). But the virtues of Freedom.