The “Yes Minister” and the later “Yes Prime Minister” political sitcoms were golden comedy, but they also gave us a very uncomfortable feeling that they revealed more than a grain of truth about how our country is actually governed (if you haven’t watched any of these yet, they are a most welcome merging of both hilarious and essential viewing, and they are available on multiple platforms).
If anybody in 2016 was complacently thinking that “we the people” were held in respect by our “democratic” system then the ensuing slow-burn parliamentary meltdown surely put paid to such thoughts, and now in 2021 after 18 months of governmental posturing over Covid-19 that can only be understood on the assumption of malign intent, we can see that we face a similar situation, even if full-on meltdown is not yet close enough.
The primary difference between the Covid and Brexit situations is that Parliament is currently more or less united behind the government (although small cracks are beginning to widen) whereas for Brexit this was very difficult because our government wanted something that was clearly incompatible with the popular understanding of Brexit, but dared not be seen to openly thwart the will of the people.
Under Covid the pressure is less because
(a) the people have not had a formal vote, so the “will of the people”, being less clearly defined, can be spun by all the usual pundits
(b) Parliament has been antisocial distancing, limiting the numbers able to physically attend the chamber, thus tending to make our MPs more controllable.
So again we have Government and Parliament lined up against “we the people”.
But how can I say that when clearly “the people” are split?
There are three groups:
- those who perhaps naïvely wish to remain in lockdown, complacent to the implications
- those who are ambivalent
- those who foresee the coming awful and permanent destruction of liberty economy and prosperity and the foundations of our traditional way of life – namely: family, tolerance, good sense, generosity, and freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of choice.
Yet I venture to suggest that groups 1 and 2 do not yet appreciate the risks that are foreseen by group 3. We have had neither debate nor referendum, because those who guide our government do not wish to come clean about the options for the future.
It is up to group 3 to do all it can to rectify this situation.
The hall-marks of the Covid crisis have been the constant shifting of the goal-posts, allied to complete deafness to all but a closed and seemingly incompetent coterie of “scientific advisers”, culminating in an unnecessary and prima facie criminal mass-medication programme masquerading as “immunisation”.
Now, after 18 months of turmoil, we can no longer believe a word that our government says.
We the people secured a great victory in Brexit (OK – imperfect but a huge stride nonetheless) – we must now determine to do so again by making both our views and our determination constantly visible in every way possible:
- Letters to our elected representatives, newspapers, quangos, and regulators
- Postings to social media
- Freedom of Information requests
- Protests and street stalls as may be considered legal
- Spreading the word in whatever way possible (T-shirts, posters, apparel etc)
- Taking legal action where feasible to expose and stop the criminality
- And infusing the above with as much good humour and merriment as we can devise
This battle is not yet over.
There is a window of opportunity before they slam the gates shut once more, and we must make the most of it.
Remember, the PCR test is
(a) open to manipulation by running more or fewer cycles
(b) at best inaccurate
(c) at worst fraudulent
The entire credibility of the “pandemic” rests on the assumption that the PCR test is accurate. If the test falls, so does the pandemic. There is a reason why they don’t want us to talk about it.
Think not of holidays this summer, but engage the Battle for our British Way of Life.