BY ALEX STORY
The United Kingdom is no such thing.
The disingenuous promises of the recent past, such as devolution, multiculturalism, and “gender” (also known as the politics of biology), have disunited the country.
These have created irreparable fissures across our country’s body politic.
The carefully laid mortar, built over centuries between the state’s institutional building blocks, is coming off.
However, in the meaningless vacuum our country is becoming, there remains, on one side, a certain attachment to inherited ideas; on the other, a desire for a constraint-free future, which, by nature, necessitates a destructive present.
On the bonfire—started by our leaders a few decades ago, burning brighter as the demolition gathers pace—our heritage has been thrown.
First, it was piece by piece; now, it is wholesale.
The 1972 European Communities Act allowed EU laws to become UK domestic law without parliamentary debate. It was then that the establishment started lying to its people about the big things.
In short, it was never a trade deal, always a political project.
More recently, the results of the local elections showed the beginnings of the formation of two irreconcilable positions: those who cannot stomach the wanton destruction of what we loved (and still do), and those who dance in demented glee in the all-consuming fire’s red and destructive light.
On the right side stands the “1689 man”.
He is defined in his views by the Declaration of Rights of that same year, which became “the foundation of our constitutional monarchy”, as King Charles III reminded the American Congress a few weeks ago, while adding, “as well as the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and Magna Carta”.
The 1689 man’s views are based on revealed law, an understanding of man, and of the country’s peculiarity.
On the left side are the race-, sex- and religion-based sectarians, justified by the 2010 Equality Act.
The Act is Britain’s new constitution and introduces the concept of protected characteristics, such as gender reassignment, race, religion and sexual orientation, and a de facto caste system.
Some characteristics are protected; others are not—yours, it needn’t be said, aren’t.
As such, “Two-tier Keir” is a mere manifestation—though he supports it with all his being—of the system on which the United Kingdom’s legal understanding now operates.
The 2010 “man”’s views are based on the laws of biology (also known as natural law), and a view of the world that exists only in universities, NGOs, the HR departments of large organisations, and the suburbs of Islamabad and Bradford.
This separation is not new, though it has crystallised.
We had hints before.
It is, after all, one of the main reasons our Prime Ministers have stayed in office for such short periods.
In the last decade, their tenure has been around 1.7 years, down from 5.5 years in the period 1945 to 2016—a decline of over 323%.
In this, Keir Starmer (odd words to his ears) improves things.
But only slightly, particularly given the current travails of Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting, former Stonewall “Head of Education”, in hoping to replace the current incumbent in 10 Downing Street.
The reaction to the 2016 referendum gave us a glimpse of the future.
The mask slipped.
The governors’ contempt for the governed became a badge of honour, as their disdain—if not their hatred—was shouted from rooftops.
As it did, shame disappeared.
Instantly, over half of the electorate was attacked incessantly, intellectually and morally.
Those who wished to remain in the EU could not understand the simple truth: the British people voted for sovereignty—a word they had tried (unsuccessfully) to expunge of meaning over decades.
The result was never accepted.
Every opportunity was taken to reverse the vote and gain, mostly by barking the loudest, the upper hand.
Raw power operating outside of democracy, at the substantial risk of destroying the concept, was their weapon of choice.
And they used it.
They couldn’t, however, fully bypass Parliament.
That is why Keir Starmer—who will never resign willingly—brought in the European Partnership Bill introduced during the recent King’s Speech.
This Bill will turn the United Kingdom into a rule-taker with no representation, similar in fact to the aforementioned 1972 European Communities Act.
To keep us in the legal framework of a failing organisation, our leaders and much of the civil service are preparing to strip us of our decision-making capabilities and make us beholden to a foreign, treaty-based power.
It is, more importantly, nothing short of taxation without representation.
The British taxpayer is asked to slip peacefully into slavery, and the UK into neither a country nor a region but a dependency—all to burnish the “Progressive” credentials of, at best, a deeply mediocre leadership.
If Andy Burnham wins the by-election in Makerfield on the 18th of June, an EU re-entry is on the cards. France, among others, will demand the most humiliating terms for re-entry—something that a government which stood ready to pay to give the Chagos Islands away, of course, won’t feel in such terms. Any price, in their minds, warrants a prized EU membership.
A large segment of our people, though, will feel the humiliation and pay for the privilege.
While the referendum resulted in an establishment openly rebelling against its own people, the May local election crystallised the situation and destroyed the political parties of old—the extremists who led us to where we are—in the process.
It showed beyond doubt that the two camps currently adumbrated on our country’s political landscape will define the direction of travel in years to come, with little love and understanding shared between the two philosophically alien camps. Mimetic escalation beckons.
In the short term, there are no safe seats left in Britain for Labour. Andy Burnham is unlikely to win the by-election in June.
In the medium term, the threat of Labour’s removal from office forever will lead to a “great leap forward” towards “Progress” in a perverse race against time.
In the long run, the political battle for the country’s soul will depend on the victory of either camp.
Let us hope the 1689 man has enough in him to win, overturn years of constitutional vandalism, and rebuild the country in his homage.
Alex Story is an Olympian, entrepreneur and writer on economic and social issues.