Majorityrights Central > Category: Law

This is the second part of my re-work of the original Journey posts.  A third will follow.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The entrance to that part of the secret state
concerned with countering domestic threat.

The text on Jon Dunstan’s mobile read, “1.00 pm same place”.  It was initialled “B”.  He understood that this was not a request.  But the short notice rankled.  Obviously, they knew very well that he could have client commitments but they didn’t care.  They knew he would obey the call.  He would attend what was, in fact, a final briefing, given that Driscoll’s personal secretary had booked one of the first-floor private rooms at Rules - hardly the most chic of eateries - for dinner that very evening.  Still, the game was commencing and that was what he had signed up for.

He found “B”, a middle-aged woman of unremarkable appearance and cool demeanour whom he knew only by the pseudonym Beatrix, sitting primly in the sun on one of the benches by the tennis courts in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.  There were no niceties exchanged.  “Do you want to sit or walk?” he asked her.  She rose and the two of them began to stroll slowly around the perimeter of the Fields.

“We were disappointed to learn,” she stated, “that you will only be meeting with Driscoll.  How did that happen?”

Dunstan didn’t know.  “I sent you Driscoll’s text.  The Prof couldn’t make it, that’s all.”

“I doubt if that’s all,” she responded, “If Upton is distancing himself or not taking you seriously we want to know why.  We want to keep on top of things.”

Dunstan nodded dutifully although, in truth, he was not at all the dutiful sort.  “I’ll ask,” he said, “but I really need to stick to law as much as possible.  I’m not sure what else I can safely say to Driscoll if, as you say, he’s just the money-man.  It might be wiser to postpone altogether.”

“Postponing now would only make you look suspect,” she retorted, “We started with him, remember.  So it follows that you must want to see him.  About what, precisely, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you think.  You’re on the same side.  You haven’t got to explain everything.  It’s more subtle than that.  Watch his face.  Sense his working assumptions about you.  Where they are positive let him run with them.  Where they’re not, throw in a redirection or put him off by cross-examining him.  Never allow him to cross-examine you.  Always be aware of the underlying power-dynamics.  It’s trade-craft.  Surely it must be second nature to any half-decent advocate?”  Something close to a smile yet not a smile, a schemer’s relish, played on her lips.  But it was gone without trace in an instant.

“Yeah yeah, OK,” said Dunstan, sighing wearily.  She had this way of beating him down which felt intentional.  Was that because she was “aware of the underlying power-dynamics”?  He was a junior of thirty-one, for Christ’s sake, and he knew perfectly well how to handle himself.  He was not charmed to be told otherwise, even by MI5.  He didn’t hide it well, either.

“Am I boring you, Mr Dunstan?” Beatrix inquired with quiet malice.  “This is a formal operation, in case you have forgotten.  It has a clear objective, a plan of action, a codename, and a budget.  What it does not have is room for cavalier attitudes from you.”

“No, I’m sorry,” he said, knuckling down again,“of course I will do as you ask.”

“You will have to,” his handler stated flatly, “You’re in now and there’s no getting out.”

READ MORE...

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688, as it appears on statute

Having seen the front page illustration to the British Constitution Group website, making a big song and dance about how “The People Retain Authority over their Government”, our close friend John Standing thought he might ask a question of these lawyerly folk.  Here it is:

Dear Sirs,

May I, as a lay person in matters of British Constitutional law, ask why you hold the view that “the people” are sovereign, yet quite evidently from the illustration which graces your website you don’t mean the indigenous people of this land but anyone from anywhere who has been able to acquire citizenship.  I suspect that you have confused “the people” with British nationality or perhaps even the electoral roll.  Allow me to explain.

First, you are right that the primary constitutional documentation shows the people to be sovereign, and the same documentation and likewise The Bill of Rights 1689 and, by implication, the 40+ Representation of the People Acts from 1832 onward show that people to be the final source of authority (which is only ever lent to elected representatives, never given).  But the person of the sovereign is not a fluid as the demos is. It has an identity specified in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688; and that identity is “the people of this Kingdome of England” and by extension Wales and, with the Acts of Union, Scotland.  Note that the specification here is “people” not of course “subjects” or “citizens”, and “the people of”, not “a people in”.  Words used in founding constitutional documents are definitive, not descriptive; and this document defines the people of England in the year of 1688 as separate and distinct from any other, including the peoples of the Dominions, and thus they can only remain, sovereignhood being transmitted by succession by descent.

Once a people is identified as the sovereign, therefore, then sovereign it must remain unless it consents to the contrary; for its ethnic person is constitutionally inviolate.  There is no power in the land (not the monarch, not the executive, not parliament, not the judiciary) and no novel legal instrument (not, for example, the Nationality Act of 1948) which can constitutionally force change upon or replace the sovereign, or meddle with the rule of succession by descent.  For such would be a usurpation.  To be doubly clear, neither government nor parliament can constitutionally possess the power of usurpation.  If either does take that power to itself it does so unconstitutionally, and the sovereign has the constitutional recourse to all necessary action to defend itself.

If you have a contrary argument as to why immigrant populations which the sovereign people has never consented to accept but which, on the contrary have been coerced upon the sovereign people with extreme governmental prejudice against any and all dissent, can themselves be sovereign then I would be most interested in hearing it.

Yours sincerely,

John Standing

Several years ago I ripped off the first couple of chapters of a book that I had no intention of writing in full.  The idea was to explore in dramatic form the question of how Western governments might be taken to the International Criminal Court on a charge of committing a genocide agaist their native European people.  The two essays that it took to accomplish the task were pretty well received by the then MR commentariat.  But, in fact, they would both have benefitted from a longer period of gestation and a more considered approach to the actual writing.

Now I’m re-writing them in a more developed and more narrowly-focussed form for the purpose of offering the finished product to PA for their site.  The whole exercise should run close to 8,000 words, the first half of which is posted below.  The second half will follow in two or three days.
        —————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three undoubtedly arduous days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at The Hague before one judge from Montreal, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.

“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, FSA, RHS, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his reading glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench.  He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain caress of the bundle of papers on the table in front of him, rose to begin his work for the day.

“Learned judges, may I at the outset, on behalf of the appellants, myself and my team, state for the record of proceedings our sincere gratitude to each of you and to the ICC as a whole for agreeing to hear this application.  We fully appreciate that that decision alone broke new ground.  So your Honours will be acutely aware that this is a conceptually novel and therefore, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and, specifically, for its future interpretation of Article 2.  By that we mean, in particular, its interpretation of prevention in the context of the modern Western society where armed conflict is absent.

“Mindful, therefore, of all this, and of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the eventual trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present your Honours with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissible and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers in the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about, over time, the physical destruction of whole or part of the peoples native to Great Britain.  It is our firm belief that we will clear that high legislative bar.”

And so it began.

READ MORE...

A cautionary tale for policemen

All morning, John Holly lay sleepless on the thin, blue plastic mattress in his cell. Several times he heard the sounds of activity in the corridor outside, metal doors slamming shut, once some shouting.  But beyond a couple of momentary check-ups through the panel in the door and the arrival of WPC Brook with sweet, weak tea in a plastic cup, no one took any interest in him at all.  It seemed that the Metropolitan Police Service was not used to suspects putting a large spoke in its little procedural wheel.

It had all gone horribly wrong for the Met four long and lonely hours earlier, in Holly’s initial interview, following his arrest at home in the small hours.  The fall guy had been the glotally challenged Detective Sergeant Kevin Boulder, seated across the table from him and the duty solicitor, a Miss Agarwal, in Interview Room 1.

“An ‘ate crime,” Boulder had confidently begun in the approved ex cathedra sing-song of the local comp boy made plod, “is a crime that the victim or any uvver person perceives to be motivated by ‘ostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person’s identity.  In this case we are dealin’ wiv ‘ostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race.  If the investigatin’ officer is satisfied that the offence took place as described by the victim ...”

“Prakash Ghosh,” interjected Holly, plainly stating a fact he knew only too well.

Miss Agarwal shifted in her seat.

“I am unable to disclose the victim’s precise identity at interview under caution,” replied Boulder, “That information will only be supplied if, at the conclusion of this investigation, a formal charge is laid.”

“But it was Ghosh,” Holly shot back, “You know it.  I know it.”

READ MORE...

Great to see Jez Turner, after his latest appearance in a British court, so energised and strong, ripping into the Jewish activist apparatus and the complicity of the British state which, together, seek to silence him and, through him, all of us.

I reproduce below a lengthy comment from the YouTube thread.  There is quite a bit that could be said about whether this whole affair was really necessary for all concerned, even for Messers Falter and Silberman - who of course, may win just by default, despite what looks from the outside like a perilously weak case.  But now is not the time to do that.  Now is the time to praise Jez and wish him success.  If he does succeed and win his freedom it will be interesting to talk to him about the effects of that on our future speech, and we should certainly seek to do that.

From the thread:

Sophie Johnson 12 minutes ago

Superb sight, superb sound: the upright Englishman who declines to be intimidated by the moral dwarves of public and political life. Did Theresa May and Amber Rudd ever pause to think that Jez Turner will respond to the viscious attack on him by their close associates (the unsavoury Gideon Falter and friends of the CAA) as the event that licenses his public exposure of them all?  I doubt it. That cabal of moral zeros thought they had ‘got’ Jez intimidated, and with that, anyone else who might dare raise a voice against them. How wrong they were!

Still, this situation must give us pause: As Jez explains in his habitually firm and clear voice, the justice system in England and Wales has fallen vicitim to Zionist occupation. His own case illustrates this: The DPP and the CPS had decided correctedly that he will not be prosecuted for his criticism of the Shomrim and the associated Zionist behaviours in this country because he had done nothing wrong, despite Gideon Falter’s backroom dealings.

So what is happening? This: The DPP and CPS did not even wait for the outcome of the High Court Judicial Review initiated by Falter and the CAA; instead, they just agreed that Jez has to be prosecuted under Article 17 of the ECHR. So Jez is now before the Crown Court.

But will the DDP also be before the Crown Court to explain her change of mind? She had previously decided unequivocally that Jez Turner had done nothing wrong, so there is no ground on which to prosecute him, and it would not be in the public interest to prosecute him. So why did she change her mind with such alacrity? Will she be called before the Crown Court to explain? No: She will not. Why?

And will Falter the liar who claimed to have heard Jez’s Shomrim speech and been mortally offended by it be before the Crown Court to explain why he and his had lobbied the Executive Government so hard to cause the DPP to change her mind about prosecuting Jez? No: he will not. Why?

So here we have it: The zealous overturners of the judicial system of England and Wales: certain members of the Executive Government, the DPP and the morally faulty Falter of the CAA, have no case to answer. But Jez Turner, who exercised his right to self expression and did nothing wrong, is being tried by the Crwon Court.  Is there not a goodly touch of Alice in Wonderland in this? And is the British public not outraged? Probably not, for the public has not heard about this: our Zionist occupied ‘mainstream media’ is as silent as the tomb.

Tech Crunch, “FCC doubles down on its dead-wrong definition of how the internet works”, 25 Nov 2017:

In May, when the FCC released an early draft of its plan to undo 2015’s strong net neutrality rules, I pointed out that its case rests almost entirely on a deeply incorrect definition of how the internet works. There can be no mistake now that this misrepresentation is deliberate; the agency has reiterated it in even stronger terms in the final draft of the proposal.

I’m not going to go into great detail on it (my earlier post spells it out) but the basic problem is this: broadband has to be defined as either an information service or telecommunications service. The first is “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information,” while the second is “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.”

It’s important because the two things are regulated very differently — the FCC has much greater power over telecommunications services, under the “Title II” authority that internet service providers are so afraid of.

While it’s certainly true that ISPs do in some ways store and generate data on behalf of the user, usually as part of managing their networks, it’s equally certain that their primary purpose is to transmit data between the user and points of his or her choosing. Consequently, broadband should be classified as a telecommunications service.

But don’t take my word for it. The FCC made the argument for me in its 2015 order, citing many sources of its own in support of this fact. This excellent primer produced by the EFF and nearly 200 experts explains basically from first principles how the internet works and why it should be defined as telecommunications. There are big names on the list, but it seems clear that even the garden variety experts understand this much more clearly than the FCC does (or pretends to).

The FCC dismisses these scholars and founding technologists of the internet in a footnote, describing itself as “unpersuaded” that the internet works the way they insist it does. Meanwhile, the proposal repeatedly and unquestioningly cites the comments of ISPs claiming that something as simple as caching data magically exempts them from being telecommunication services:

Just trust them — after all, it’s not like they have a horse in this race.

“The FCC’s case against net neutrality rests on a deliberate misrepresentation of how the internet works”, Tech Crunch 23 May 2017

The resulting definition of broadband as enabling users to generate, store, transform, and process their data is absurd. It is, as the Internet Engineers comment points out, like saying your phone is a pizzeria because you can use it to order a pizza. It is like saying that because you build a road, you are also building all the businesses along that road.

It is edge providers like Wikipedia, Dropbox, and even simple websites like TechCrunch that provide the services users request; it is ISPs that carry that data, with no change in form, between users and those edge providers. The FCC rejects this fundamental idea and substitutes a convenient fiction that upholds its current ambition to reclassify broadband. There is a semblance of plausibility to all this, but only because of precedents set in times when the internet looked very different.

This may be their downfall. Because the entire proposal is predicated on this spurious and outdated definition, to remove it causes the rest to crumble. Without reclassification there is no rollback of net neutrality. There is hope here: the FCC’s argument (which is to say, the broadband industry’s argument) already failed in court and may do so again. Here’s hoping. - Devin Coldewey

        Previously at MR, regarding net neutrality.

Let’s stand with the legitimate government of Syria

The position of Majorityrights.com is that we have always opposed the Alt-Right and we have always opposed the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. We have been harshly rejecting Donald Trump ever since the moment that he threw his hat into the ring during the GOP primaries, because the Trump phenomenon is a viciously Zionist phenomenon which only serves the apparent interests of the United States, Russia, and Israel.

If you are reading this article, you doubtless are already aware of the events that transpired early this morning. The United States has unilaterally conducted an airstrike against a Syrian airbase. There are even rumours right now of a second airstrike being prepared.

What we know so far:

• The airstrikes targeted the Shayrat airbase near Homs. The United States has said this is the location from which Syrian forces allegedly launched a sarin nerve gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday morning.  
 
• The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the warships USS Ross and USS Porter in the eastern Mediterranean sea in the early hours of Friday morning. The strike had a 39% hit rate against the airfield.  
 
• A Syrian official told the Associated Press that at least seven were killed and nine were wounded in the missile attack. Reuters reported that the Syrian state news agency said the strikes killed nine civilians, including four children, in areas near the targeted airbase.  
 
• President Bashar Al-Assad’s office said the strike was “foolish and irresponsible” and that the United States has “revealed its short-sightedness and political and military blindness to reality”. It said the Syrian government would redouble its efforts against rebel groups after the strike, adding: “the disgraceful act of targeting a sovereign state’s airport demonstrates once again that different administrations do not change deeper policies.”  

This article does not intend to offer any information that is not already in the hands of other media organisations. Rather, I intend to start a conversation on what actions need to be explored by activists from a British perspective, in order to undermine American Zionist aggression in Syria.

International armed conflict

The events that we’ve seen transpiring this morning have been deeply disturbing. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the situation in Syria now is officially “an international armed conflict”.

“Any military operation by a state on the territory of another without the consent of the other amounts to an international armed conflict,” ICRC spokeswoman Iolanda Jaquemet has told Reuters in Geneva. “So according to available information – the US attack on Syrian military infrastructure – the situation amounts to an international armed conflict.”

“It’s unclear how US air strikes will make civilians safer”, Lord Wood of Anfield, chair of the United Nations Association UK has said.

In a blog post, Wood wrote: “Unilateral action without broad international backing through the UN, without a clear strategy for safeguarding civilians, and through military escalation risks further deepening and exacerbating an already protracted and horrific conflict, leaving civilians at greater, not lesser, risk of atrocities.”

He added that by circumventing the UN “we reduce both legitimacy and effectiveness, as a course of action that does not have the broad support of regional powers and the international community, channelled through UN systems and processes, can have little chance of success in leading to a more stable Syria.”

Whispers in the backchannels

As far as anyone is aware of what backchannel communications have been taking place, the United States warned Russia of the attack before it took place. Additionally, Russia had signalled yesterday evening that it would not be willing to support the government of Syria under all circumstances. In other words, there are some circumstances under which Russia would undermine the interests of the Syrian government. This was an unsurprising admission, given that it was also Russia who opted to send Sergei Lavrov to barter with John Kerry to induce the Syrian government to surrender their chemical weapons deterrent in the first place.

It is interesting that surrendering their chemical weapons deterrent into the hands of Russia, has not made the Syrian government’s position safer. Rather, it has increased the incentive for America to push for opportunistic aggression against Syria, under the pretext of seizing the very weapons which Syria has already ceased to be in possession of.

It is also interesting to note that the ‘good’ relationship between the Trump administration and the Putin administration – which will probably broadly continue despite all the sternly enunciated words that are issuing forth from Russian officials today – has not led to the position of the Syrian government being any safer. In fact, it is precisely because the United States and the Russian Federation have been on good terms since Trump’s inauguration, that the probability of what has now transpired, happening, had increased.

A scenario in which the United States and Russia arrive at an agreement in which both countries have their geostrategic interests met, is a scenario in which Russia would probably turn against Bashar Al-Assad. With Trump in office, the chances of such a scenario manifesting are actually increased, because Trump has not until today presented himself as an opponent of Russia on anything, to say the least. The chances of them being able to ‘do a deal’, is greater. Russia has specific interests in Syria which do not absolutely necessitate the survival of Bashar Al-Assad’s government. Hypothetically they could be guaranteed in another way. Vladimir Putin himself signalled this yesterday evening just before the American airstrikes took place, when Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, “Unconditional support is not possible in this current world.” 

If the United States were to convincingly guarantee Russia’s specific interests on the Syrian territory – access to the warm-water port, a place in the pipeline consortium, a list of friendly future government figures – in some future arrangement mediated by Turkey, Qatar, UAE and Israel, via some backchannel communication, Russia might proceed to ‘take a deliberate dive to the mat’ diplomatically, and tacitly permit the United States to continue airstrikes against Syria.

People will need to watch for signs of that horrendous scenario continuing to develop.

British diplomacy

One of the central features of British diplomacy and British foreign policy, is ‘hypocrisy’. It is not done in a haphazard way, but rather, it is done with method and purpose. It has evolved over the centuries because Britain’s stated position on any given issue – particularly when it comes to the issue of geopoliticised alleged ‘human rights violations’ – is often the opposite of what its governing instiutions have actually resolved to do, or not do.

Kerry Brown, the director of King’s College London’s Lau China Institute, once wryly referred to this behaviour as “the brilliant complexity of British hypocrisy”.

And brilliant is precisely what it is.

Today is no different. Boilerplate ‘agreement’ messages were offered by Sir Michael Fallon, presumably to stave off the American Communications Operators who would have tried to apply pressure to the British government. Giving them a statement of agreement means that there is nothing for the Americans to snappily quote and criticise in the social media domain. In actual reality, Britain is still bound by the non-intervention vote that was arrived at in parliament in 2013, and thus is not actually in ‘agreement’ with the United States. 

ITV’s Paul Brand reports:

ITV News / Paul Brand, ‘Syria: Will Britain change tack too?’, 07 Apr 2017 (emphasis added):

Downing Street says America’s airstrikes against the Syrian regime are an “appropriate response” – but are they a response that Britain will be making itself?

Speaking to me this morning the Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said the US had Britain’s full support. But two things were clear: Britain was not asked to participate in the strikes, and Britain does not intend to participate in future.

For the British government, the question remains settled by a vote taken in parliament in 2013, when MPs were asked whether or not the UK should target President Assad’s forces. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, was famously forced into an embarrassing defeat, as Labour swerved in their support and blocked the strikes under the leadership of Ed Miliband.

Many MPs – Conservative and Labour – still feel angry about that decision, believing that it has allowed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Syrians. But it is a decision which still stands. This morning the Defence Secretary said he has no plans to put the matter to parliament again.

Instead, the British government still seeks a ‘political solution’ to the conflict. And it does not appear as if the American President – the head of state who typically exerts the most influence over British foreign policy – is applying any particular pressure on Britain to change tack.

Instead, that pressure comes from the likes of the Liberal Democrats. Not typically a hawkish party, their leader Tim Farron has said “We cannot stand by, we must act.” He wants more strikes, not fewer.

But the chances of the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a lifetime peace activist, ever supporting military action are remote to say the least. He’s said the US air strikes only risk escalating the conflict. That means for the government, the numbers probably still don’t stack up, killing off the idea of another vote in parliament.

So while America escalates its action – even if the strikes were a one off – Britain remains stuck in stalemate.

That’s basically how it is.

Standing against Islamic terror

Keeping British aircraft off the Syrian Arab Army’s back and away from its skies entirely, would give the Syrian Arab Army the space that is needed for them to keep fighting against outfits like ISIL, Tahrir Al-Sham, Ahrar Al-Sham, and all of the other Salafist-Jihadist outfits that are operating in Mesopotamia.

Those Islamist outfits are the same reactionary outfits who are constantly seeking ways to send fighters to conduct terrorist attacks across Europe and Asia.

It is better for all of us, that the Islamist reactionaries get killed in Syria at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, than for them to be constantly free to organise terroristic actions across the world.

Bashar Al-Assad is operating one of the world’s great ideological garbage disposal services. It’s called the Syrian Arab Army. It’s very progressive. The Syrian Arab Army destroys reactionaries and traditionalists, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and it requires no payment for that service. I can’t think of a better deal than that.

One of the best ways to stand against Islamism, is to let Bashar Al-Assad do what needs to be done, without intervening against him.

What can you do to keep Britain safely out of this air-war?

Britain is the most consequential and capable military actor in Western Europe. Britain’s non-participation in airstrikes, not only would ensure that Britain does not end up actively participating on the wrong side of a conflict that never should have happened, it would also have a dampening effect on America’s attempt to form the ‘coalition’ that Rex Tillerson has been talking about since last night. 

The question is, how can you become an active part of keeping British forces out of the air conflict? This is not exactly a difficult task, since it’s a case of simply reinforcing the status quo. The balance of forces in parliament simply needs to be maintained as it is, so that the deadlock on the issue is maintained.

This means that people need to write to their MPs, comment on social media, talk to their union leaders, and – for those who have such access, even at the local government level – engage productively in conversations with key people and keep presenting to them all of the real downsides of what intervention in the Syrian conflict could cause.

Make people aware that sentiments have not changed since 2013, and that no one wants to go to Syria to fight the Syrian Arab Army. The British public were interested in fighting against ISIL and against Tahrir Al-Sham. There is something to be strategically gained from that. There is nothing of any enduring value to Britain that can realistically be gained from fighting against the Syrian Arab Army.

It may also be a good idea to generate a list of any MPs and councillors in potentially vulnerable seats. They should be reminded that the British people have long memories, and that if any of them tries to start a parliamentary insurgency against the non-interventionist result that emerged in 2013’s vote, they should expect to be tarred on social media as being ‘a craven ally of interventionist Trump’. The threat should be formulated in such a way that it makes clear that everything will be done to try to remove those persons from their seats at the next election, if they try to bring this to a vote again. In other words, people need to make appropriate use of the space which liberal-democracy has carved out.

Conclusion

The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will not be participating in any airstrikes in Syria.

Let’s do what we can to help ensure that it really stays that way.

“We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.” — Rt Hon Theresa May MP

It’s happening

Today is really a day of vindication. Both the detractors on the Eurofederalist side, and the detractors on the disruptive Alt-Right ‘Big Europe’ Russophile side had said that this day would never come and that the United Kingdom would descend into either chaos on the one hand or compromise on the other. 

But to their manifest displeasure this day has indeed come.

The United Kingdom has formally given the EU notification that it intends to leave the bloc.

Sir Tim Barrow, UK ambassador to the EU, handed the written letter to European Council president Donald Tusk today.

The moment that the letter was accepted, the notification to leave was triggered.

The UK now has two years to negotiate an agreement with the 27 remaining EU countries over its future relationship with the bloc.

Theresa May told the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.”

She made the announcement as Article 50 was formally invoked when the letter Mrs May had signed was received by EU Council President Donald Tusk. She told MPs in the House of Commons this morning that she believes Britain’s “best days lie ahead”.

The Prime Minister said she would work for the “best possible deal” for Britain after Article 50 was formally triggered.

She added: “Now is the time for us to come together to be united across this House and across this country.”

A statement issued by the European Council said the talks would start by focusing on arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” from the bloc.

The council, pledged to approach the talks constructively and hoped the UK would be a “close partner” after Brexit.

“We regret that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union, but we are ready for the process that we now will have to follow.

“Our first priority will be to minimise the uncertainty caused by the decision of the United Kingdom for our citizens, businesses and member states.”

Who will our key negotiators be?

Over the next two years the United Kingdom and the European Union will attempt to negotiate the details of a potential Brexit deal and shape the possible future of UK-European relations.

The main negotiators for the United Kingdom will be:

David Davis

Sir Tim ‘Deepstate’ Barrow

Oliver Robbins

Article 50 letter

These are the key sections of the Prime Minister’s letter which seem to warrant the most scrutiny:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

This is what is called colloquially, ‘swallowing the medicine in one gulp’. The acquis communautaire will be repatriated in full into the United Kingdom in one step. After that, it will then be possible for the British parliamentary system to begin to repeal or amend whatever elements of the repatriated acquis communautaire that they feel the need to. It also allows for a smoother exit because the elements of the body of law that do not need to be altered, can be kept in place in the exact way that they are written.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

 In that section, Theresa May is signalling that she intends to move the United Kingdom toward a more federal structure. This is particularly for maintaining stability, as it is known that there are both internal and external pressures that will be brought to bear to try to break up the United Kingdom in this time of both opportunity and vulnerability.

To avert that possibility, offering greater federalism to the four nations of the United Kingdom will enable the central government to neutralise the soft middle in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

It also supplies a black-and-white text counter argument which can be waved in the face of outside news organisations, for example RT, who have since 2014 been trying to promote Scottish independence in the hopes that they can weaken London. Scottish independence is something that will never be allowed to succeed.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek.

This is a key difference between her strategy and the strategy that had previously been taken by David Cameron. 

Cameron had made the crucial mistake of signalling that he wanted some kind of deal no matter what, and this emboldened the continental European negotiators on the other side of the table.

Theresa May is making no such mistake. Her statement plays game theory correctly. Theresa May is signalling here that while she would not want to leave the negotiations without a deal, she is actually willing to do so. 

In fact, this, coupled with the last few months of ‘hard Brexit’ media coverage and her statements to the media which reinforced this, place her in a perfect position. The fact that very little is publicly known about what goes on in the inner space of her thoughts also makes it more difficult for continental European negotiators to know how to approach her. She is ‘difficult’, as all students of Geography are, and that is a good thing.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”.

The United Kingdom is maintaining that it will not seek membership of the European single market, because to do so would be to accept ‘freedom of movement’, which the precise thing that Brexit is being initated to escape from.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

The mention of ‘third countries around the world’ appears in the letter, and is a reference to what Theresa May called ‘the fastest growing export markets’, in her House of Commons statement.

House of Commons statement

The most salient elements of Theresa May’s House of Commons statement I would submit are the following:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Because European leaders have said many times that we cannot ‘cherry pick’ and remain members of the single market without accepting the 4 freedoms that are indivisible. We respect that position. And as accepting those freedoms is incompatible with the democratically expressed will of the British people, we will no longer be members of the single market.

We are going to make sure that we can strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too. Because important though our trade with the EU is and will remain, it is clear that the UK needs to increase significantly its trade with the fastest growing export markets in the world.

The ‘fastest growing export markets in the world’ are ASEAN+3 and SAARC in Asia, and the Pacific Alliance in Central and South America.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interests of all our citizens.

With Europe’s security more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War, weakening our cooperation and failing to stand up for European values would be a costly mistake.

This is a prelude of things to come. It means that what Theresa May is doing is flipping the script on the continental Europeans. Any hesitancy on their part to reach agreement during the economic element of the negotiations will be cast by the United Kingdom as “the European Union backsliding and regressing into protectionism.” It’s a good way to approach it, and it will be infuriating to the continental Europeans. Extra infuriation can be added by comparing the continental Europeans unfavourably to any of the non-European countries which the United Kingdom will also be trying to negotiate trade deals with.

That kind of talking point would take the form of “This other random country here is so eager to uphold the liberal free trade order which has prevailed since the mid-1970s, why aren’t you as agreeable as they are? Just do what we want you to do!”

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

We all want to see a Britain that is stronger than it is today. We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.

These are the ambitions of this government’s Plan for Britain. Ambitions that unite us, so that we are no longer defined by the vote we cast, but by our determination to make a success of the result.

We are one great union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future. And now that the decision to leave has been made – and the process is underway – it is time to come together. For this great national moment needs a great national effort. An effort to shape a stronger future for Britain.

So let us do so together. Let us come together and work together. Let us together choose to believe in Britain with optimism and hope. For if we do, we can make the most of the opportunities ahead. We can together make a success of this moment. And we can together build a stronger, fairer, better Britain – a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud to call home.

I commend this statement to the House.

We’ve all been waiting for this moment for so long. Theresa May has always been by our side.

She’ll make it come true, like she always does.