We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A possibly outdated term Scanning the news headlines at lunchtime today, I read through the Wall Street Journal and saw this item, in relation to the expenses scandal of British Members of Parliament:
I thought the headline was interesting, in that the WSJ – still an overwhelmingly US-centred publication, covering world affairs through the prism of certain American assumptions, likes to refer to MPs as “lawmakers”. To be pedantic, it is true that they do continue to make some laws and pass many others, but given that their legislative functions have been largely subsumed within the structure of a EU superstate, maybe the term “lawmaker” somewhat flatters the true status of these characters, who are more akin to members of a local council.
Just a thought.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m more concerned that much legislating has been devolved to divers Whitehall types
Alas, when I was born, admittedly rather a long time ago by earthly standards, the City Council as other Cities, County Boroughs, and Counties, all had powers of local bye-law and regulation making greater and more effectivie than our present Parliament of the UK. As well as larger entities it included Rutland, Clackmannanshire, Radnorshire and Fermanagh.
Don’t be too harsh on the WSJ. They like to use synonyms to add variety to their writing, rather than continually repeating the same word (“MPs”) throughout the article. And the term “lawmakers” does serve to differentiate them from other species of politicians, such as executive branch members. Anyway, at least they’re coverning the story.
Just be glad it didn’t refer to them as “solons”!
Historically the High Court of the Monarch in Parliament was supposed to decide what the law was – rather than make law.
However, legal authorities from Blackstone (passionatly hated by Jefferson and the other American Founding Fathers, who looked back to Sir Edward Coke and so on) onwards accepted that Parliament could do what it liked – although Blackstone never dreamed that Parliament would do the things it did in the 20th or 21st centuries.
Adrian Ramsey is pointing at “delegated legislation” (“Statutory Instruments” and so on). The idea that Parliament could delegate its powers to officals was denounced by John Locke back in the 17th century (he argued that any powers Parliament had were already delegated, delegated from the public, and that one could not delegate and delegated power), however this has indeed become a standard practice.
See Chief Justice Hewitt’s “The New Despotism” (1929) or F.A. Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” (1960).
However, J.P. has made a vital point that you have missed Adrian.
Before the entry of Britain into the EEC/EU a Civil Servant could only do something (such as pass a Statutory Instrument – signed by his minister of course, who may even have read the title page, or may not) IF THEY COULD POINT TO A SPECIFIC ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT ALLOWED THEM TO DO SO.
Now that is not longer the case – Civil Servants (and so on) need only say “we are carrying into effect such and such E.U. policy” and the can do what they like.
See the works of Dr Richard North and Christopher Booker on this subject.
It really will not do to blame “Whitehall types” – as they honestly believe themselves to be carrying into effect E.U. policies (and would have not power to go outside the will of Parliament if it were not for the E.U.).
“Then why does this not effect other E.U. members” – it does, as they are finding out slowly.
The supposed “gold plating” of E.U. instructions is simply carrying out E.U. policy to its fullest extent – and foot draggers in other member states are being brought to heel via the European Court and so on.
It is like “Political Correctness” – some people used to sneer at Britian and the United States for the regulations on racial, sexual, and……. matters. However, the concept (idenity politics) was not invented in Britain or the United States (it was invented by the Frankfurt School Marxists almost a century ago – the industrial working class had “let them down” and so they sort to undermine “capitalist” society by pushing other groups) – and “anti discrimination” stuff (and so on) is comming in on an E.U. level.
After all the duty to promote “equality and diversity” (i.e. the full P.C. Frankfurt School agenda) is already an E.U. instruction – and it applies to British “public bodies” (such as the local council of which I am an elected member) on this basis.
Laird, I was not criticising the WSJ, to be fair. In fact, I think that publication has a touchingly old-fashioned attitude towards the UK. That paper’s editors have no illusions about this country, I am sure.
We might need new titles for MPs. A Common-Housed Indigenous Member, Parliamentary? (CHIMP for short?) Or change Indigenous to Unused?
Laird – I lived in the US for 10 years and never understood what a “solon” is. I’ve been out for a number of years, and still don’t. What does it mean?
“Solon” is a reference to the ancient Greek statesman of that name, generally credited with laying the foundations for Athenian democracy. The term is essentially used as a synonym for “wise man”, especially a legislator. (Yes, a logical fallacy, but it’s only used by journalists so you can’t really expect any better.)