“The British Courts and our legal system are the envy of the world. We know this, because so many people choose to illegally cross the Channel in order to exploit them.”
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
23 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Is “Lee Rotherham” a nom d’internet?
It looks like it, for obvious reasons.
I’ll see you The Channel, and raise you the Rio Grande.
When you rock up on a beach in southern England, left wing lawyers are queuing up to help you spend your legal aid money. If you are born here, work and pay taxes, you can drop dead as far as they are concerned. No legal aid for you, you mug.
Lee Rotherham, or Dr Lee Rotherham, as he is sometimes known is very definitely a real person and has been making the case for British independence for about 30 years.
The quote is clearly wrong: when the British Courts stop helping them avoid being processed in Rwanda rather than the UK, they instantly turn to the European Court of Human Rights, where it is a British citizen’s duty to obey the law, and an illegal immigrant’s human right not to.
Conservatives like people to be as independent as possible with the least interference from the state. People to be self sufficient. Shouldn’t that belief extend to those people in the world who don’t have abundant food and relative freedom? If we are going to interfere in other people’s lives, Shouldn’t that be framed with the goal of helping them to help themselves? People coming here don’t improve the countries of their origin.
Imagine what a Conservative government with a majority of 80 would do about this. Yeah, nothing.
Imagine what a Labour government with a majority of 80 would do. Yeah, fifteen more notches on the ever-leftward ratchet.
Now we know why Brexit caused such a wailing and gnashing of teeth. It’s the only time the ratchet has gone into reverse in living memory.
I’m sure it was Mark Steyn who said the so called right completely waste their time in office. They just hold office until the left get back in to continue their leftwards agenda.
Stuart Noyes (June 18th, 5:33pm): regardless of who said it, I absolutely agree with your comment, but why? Why is the right-wing leadership so utterly useless?
To do something about this would require leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and the United N Nations Refugee Convention.
YES I would do this – but these are no small steps to take. I am nothing to lose – a Prime Minister has everything to lose.
Anyone who thinks it would be easy (even with a “majority of 80”) to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Refugee Convention, has no idea of the power of the “liberal” establishment in this country.
A Prime Minister who seriously tried to do this, might well fall. It would require great personal courage for a Prime Minister to lead leaving these two Conventions.
That Brexit happened tells us that leaving the ECHR can happen – which, of course, does not mean it will happen.
Meanwhile, Rwanda’s Anglican Archbishop has challenged British Anglican leaders who claimed that sending illegal immigrants to have their asylum claims processed in Rwanda “shames Britain”. Doubtless those British Anglicans were loudly horrified when Trump spoke of ‘sh*th*le countries’, but one could interpret them as saying that Rwanda is just such a country.
I disagree with Paul Marks with trepidation, but IMHO there’s no reason why most of the damage done by the ECHR should not be avoided simply by repealing the Human Rights Act of 1998, which is what makes the ECHR’s lunacies justiciable in domestic courts. It’s a recent Blair invention. Repealing it, together with the rest of Blair’s malign constitutional innovations would take a year and a day – long enough to overcome the inevitable Lords veto.
And leaving, or even just attempting to leave, UNHCR might just be enough to save Boris’s skin. “Human Rights” are much more popular than “Asylum Seeker’s Rights.”
If you can be hanged for attending a few parties, you might as well be hanged for doing something substantial and useful.
While i have no sympathy for the ECHR or the UN Refugee Convention, you Brits ought to wonder why France is subject to both conventions … and yet people still risk their lives to illegally cross the Channel.
“Lee Rotherham” a nom d’internet?
No. It’s his real name. I have met him several times.
https://brexitcentral.com/author/lee-rotherham/
Boris, a PM driven by twitter, opinion polls and sound bites, is hardly going to put his name to repealing or dissociating from anything containing the words “human rights”.
(Even if the WEF, or more pertinently nut nuts, allowed him to consider it).
Lee Moore – the problem is the judges, including the BRITISH judges.
For example, whatever one thinks of abortion (perhaps it is lovely – I am not expressing an opinion) the European Convention on Human Rights does not mention it – that did not stop a British judge saying that the ECHR gave a “right to abortion” in Northern Ireland.
What these “rights” documents do is NOT really determined by the words on the page (that was first seen after World War II when the United States Supreme Court started not only NOT enforcing the written Constitution, but started pushing a “Constitution” that only existed in their fantasies – with, for example, a “right” to be a vagrant, and a “right” to stop State Senates “over representing” rural areas, which was the basic point of having State Senates, and, later, “rights” to abortion and homosexual marriage and on and on) – the documents (whatever they say on the page) in practice give arbitrary power to judges. Now one may agree with the political views of the judges (for example, perhaps abortion is a wonderful thing and we should go out and abort babies) – but it is still wrong for the unelected judges to impose their political opinions, and that is what they do.
I agree with you Lee Moore that standing up to the “liberal” establishment might go well for Mr Johnson – but it also might go very badly.
Remember what happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
The establishment removed a sitting Prime Minister with a majority of about a 100 in the House of Commons. And some of the public were so brainwashed by the media that they celebrated the coup (for coup it was).
“But Paul – a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament voted against Margaret Thatcher”.
They did NOT – it is the legend that they did, but they did not. What actually happened was that a minority of Conservative MPs voted against Margaret Thatcher – but the establishment had written the rules in such a way that winning majority support was not enough.
And those “Conservative” Members of the House of Commons who voted against Margaret Thatcher behaved disgracefully – people in “their” constituencies had not voted for them (most people in “their” constituencies did not even know their names) – they had, in 1987, voted for the Conservative Party as led by Margaret Thatcher – who was then, in 1990, stabbed in the back. Removed from office without committing any offence at all – other than to offend the establishment.
So you support poll taxes, Paul? That was what brought her down.
Not so, Nicholas. It was her lack of enthusiasm for the Eurocratic project (specifically the looming Maastricht treaty, and her signalled willingness to quit the European Exchange Rate mechanism if it hurt the UK economy) that caused the SW1 mob in general and the Europhiles in the parliamentary Tory party in particular to bring Margaret Thatcher down. Poll taxes were relevant – they affected popular attitudes enough to make her winning an early-90s election not at all the certainty it was in 1983 and 1987, so made her vulnerable to attack politically – but the politicos who brought her down cared about the Eurocratic project, not the poll tax. Many plebs cared about it, and Labourites who knew it was meant to impede them politically, but not the SW1 smart-set.
Some similarity to Boris’ current situation can be seen. Most of the SW1 mob don’t care about Boris’ parties – they knew and reported these incidents calmly at the time, etc. – but they’d gladly reverse a lot of the plebbish’ hopes that brought him to power against the elites’ wishes, so exploit the fact that the plebs are unimpressed by the “rules for thee, not for me” aspect that the reporting was so quiet about at the time and so loud about when the issue was revived 18 months later.
As a consequence of the rule change after they brought down Maggie, Boris has a year to see whether he can turn things around.
PS (to reply to the literal question Nicholas asked) I was not too keen on the poll tax (though more keen on it than on a Labour government). The prior ‘rates’ system of local taxation was crazy. and the lack of meaningful local council relation of spending to votes very real, but it seemed to me that the Tories, having won the argument on having equal rates of central tax across a wide range of incomes, were now taking the debatable further step of charging equal amounts of local tax on a wide range of incomes. That argument had not been won with the electorate, which opened an opportunity to an otherwise very weak Labour party.
Not that i entirely disagree, but i seem to detect some wishful thinking.
The Europhiles were not Europhiles simply out of abstract principle, or desire for power within the EU.
One sound reason why the ERM, and even EMU, looked attractive was stagflation.
Thatcher could easily have neutralized the attractiveness of the ERM by granting more independence to the Bank of England, like Clarke and Brown did later on. But she was dead set against it.
More importantly to the MPs who voted against her, they themselves were vulnerable because of the poll tax (and stagflation; although it would have been more difficult for Heseltine to be taken seriously, had he promised an inflationless recovery).
Snorri Godhi (June 19, 2022 at 1:48 pm), our memories are not quite in synch. My impression is that you are misplacing UK economic events very slightly back in time and/or confounding with European ones. IIRC, in 1989/90, the Thatcher government paid off a third of the (much smaller then) national debt and ran a non-trivial budget surplus. I don’t think the economic issues of the early 90s had become that politically important in her last year (nor might they ever have done if we’d just left the ERM when they threatened to). The Tories blew their reputation for economic competence (and gave a ton of UK taxpayer money to Soros) trying to stay in the ERM but that was after her time.
It was a long time ago and I was younger then. Readers with good memories are welcome to cast their memory of events on Snorri’s side or mine.
They either aren’t right wing or they haven’t got the guts to argue right wing policies and values. One of my opinions is both parents should be responsible for raising their children and funding them. If they cannot, the grandparents should be next to pay. Why should tax payers foot the bill for irresponsible parenthood? Can you imagine a Conservative government making anything like those arguments?
That would be a legal ‘nope’ albeit that is often what actually happens (such as in my case).
My point being we should all be personally responsible and after that, our families. Only after those avenues are exhausted should tax payers keep others. Thatcher dared to go down these kind of roads. She was the last Tory who had any ideas other than those barely indistinguishable from Labour.