The Most Powerful Man in The World

Anthony Lionel Blair: The World’s Most Powerful Man

I often wondered what Tony Blair would do after being Prime Minister for 10 years, I mean, where do you go from there in Britain?

I should have known that Blair had bigger ambitions, and with US Presidency not possible, that left only the newly created top job in the world. President of Europe.

It’s not official yet, but it is as good as. Britain of course, had no say in the matter, had it done so, we’d have pulled out of Europe and Blair would be swinging from gallows somewhere by now.

European Super State

Of course he won’t actually be President of Europe (although that’s the unofficial title), but only of the EU, but that will still give him control of over 500 million people. Leaving just 200 million Europeans not under his direct control.

It is beyond belief to most people in Britain that the European super state’s first President, and the one that history remembers most, is going to be the man nicknamed Tony B-liar in his home nation. The man in charge of the richest ‘state’ on Earth is going to be the same man that let Gordon ‘Mad Dog’ Brown run the British economy for a decade, and left it a devastated ruin. A man so inept and self centred that he has been ‘Middle East Peace Envoy’ for the past two years and spent barely any time whatsoever in the Middle East; and did nothing during some of the bloodiest years in the Middle East for decades, spending the Gaza War at home/on holiday.

Despite all this he is to be the highest paid leader in the Western World, and with the kind of perks and expenses that make British MPs look like misers and spend thrifts.

A Bigger Army to ruin

Blair, who single handedly turned a struggling and poorly equipped British Army into something barely worthy of the name, is going to have the world’s largest military to play with. Over 2 million service men and women to use as political tools, not to mention the 12,000 tanks (more than any other nation) and more aircraft than any other nation except the US, that he can move around his game board on a whim. No wonder he is already drawing comparisons with Napoleon. 

It is not a case of if Blair will drag Europe into some quagmire of a war somewhere, it is more of case of where has he left to go?

Blair, who did more to bolster the Monarchy that anyone else in decades, merely by making the thought of a ‘President Blair’ so abhorrent, has managed to become a President of Britain by the back door. Which begs the question, is it legal to raise someone above the Monarch and Head of State? For surely if Britain is to become a province of a European state, then the leader of that state has a higher status than the leader of the province?

In other words Blair now has his wish, he now has a higher station than the Queen.

18 responses to “The Most Powerful Man in The World

  1. His power if EU president is being exaggerated by those with different, mainly anti-EU and anti-war agendas.

    Blair, as anyone with political nous knows, is right about the importance of the EU and was right about Iraq & Afghanistan.

    Time will show this to be true. Pity some in Britain (NOT the rest of the world) have their ears and eyes covered.

    Still, with a Times Populus poll showing even 43% Brits say YES to Blair as President we may be finally getting the message.

  2. Thanks for the comment.

    The only reason some people may be pro Blair for EU President is because they think that having Blair in charge will be good for Britain, poor misguided fools. Blair is only ever good for Blair.

    As for exaggerating his powers, sure, I bet you say the same about Peter Mandelson, another unelected self serving power monger. Blair’s official powers may not match the hype, but his influence, like Mandy’s, sure will.

    The rest of the world didn’t have 12 years of his lies, nor are they paying the price for his tenure, except those that live in Afghanistan and Iraq! People around the world still believe the hype and the spin that is Tony Blair.

    Believe me a couple of years as EU President and the US in particular, but also the EU, will hate Blair as much as the British do.

    As for being right about Afghanistan, the initial invasion may have had merit, everything since has been a disaster. The 7/7 attacks in Britain were carried out by British born, British raised, terrorists of Pakistani/Afghani extraction.

    The largest group of immigrants/Asylum seekers making their way into Britain each year are Pakistani’s and Afghan’s. We don’t need to be fighting them there, they are fleeing the fighting that Blair started, and are settling here, creating a fifth column here which we are going to pay for for generations. All thanks to Blair.

  3. Well I think he WAS good for Britain, and believe it or not, I never voted for him, as at that time I had associations with another party.

    So it was at a distance and only from a year before he left office that I started to look at his record seriously.

    Sorry to disagree with you, but I was impressed.

    No point listing WHY here. We will evidently always disagree on what was good and what was bad.

    I also don’t accept all this “lying” business. I DO have a lot of concerns over Islamic immigration and radicalism though it is clearly NOT all Blair’s doing. All British governments have been too, far too ‘liberal’ and inclusive over at least 30 years, imho.

    I have seen a YouTube video which includes Anjem Choudary in the 1980s saying that their intention was worldwide caliphate and jihad.

    Anyway, time will tell if Blair is good for Britain and Europe or not. Personally, as a pro-European, I can’t think of anyone better.

    Btw, at this petition site – Ban Blair-Baiting – there are Afghans, Iraqis, even Iranians with nothing but praise for Blair.

    The message? We don’t all come to the same conclusions over politicians – even when some of us (like yourself) like to make blanket statements like – “all the British people hate…” etc.

  4. how can Tony Blair be the most powerful man in the world? i do not agree with that, what about obama barrack and so many others.
    okwusia obie

  5. Thanks for the comment Okwusia.

    Tony Blair isn’t the most powerful man in the world – yet, but with him gaining the EU Presidency virtually a forgone conclusion, he soon will be.

    As mentioned in the article, the EU President will preside over the world’s largest economy (yes, richer than the US) the world’s largest army (bigger than the US and even larger than that of China), and so by those indicators that would make the holder of the position the most powerful man on earth.

    So with Tony Blair virtually assured the job, that means that Tony Blair, rather than Barack Obama or anyone else, will become head of the richest, most powerful ‘state’ on earth. God help us.

  6. Yeah Charlie but what could he actually get done ?

    • This is what I am hoping, that the bureaucracy and the dithering will make him effectively powerless and unable to do much at all, more like an ambassador than an actual President.

      But there hasn’t been any official information on just what his powers would be, and knowing Blair, I find it unlikely that he would sign up to merely be a figure head.

      It is unbelievable, Gordon Brown is the most hated man in Britain, but Tony Blair is a close second.

  7. 2010 its coming your freedoms are going…..

    . It is based on the Euromediterranean Declaration of Barcelona 1995, to open a free trade market in 2010. Increasing political integration is planned – as granted to Morocco on 13 Oct. 2008. Little or nothing was released in the mainstream media about this.
    But as I have always suspected, the Union for the Mediterranean will not be limited to Mediterranean countries. Now the Italian Foreign Minister, former EU Commissioner, Franco Frattini, the man behind EU´s Blue Card system to bring 20 mio “qualified” Africans + their families into the EU by 2027, lets the pig out of the bag, giving the following statemenT: The Union for the Mediterranean is to be enlarged to the Persian Gulf, making the whole construction one big Muslim Union. The means, of course, is the Lisbon Treaty for enlargement. Thus, the Union for the Mediterranean will border on the Grand Chessboard, Central Asia, which NATO will have to secure for the UN global government.

    Another little thing, Dear Traitor Blair didn’t bother to truth about!

    By the way Charlie the Queen hasn’t really been Queen for such a long time.
    She accepted the title of Lady of Europe,
    No Kingdom, No Queen/King!

    Iraqs oil fields will not be in full swing yet awhile.

    Afghanistan oil and gas pipelines can’t be completed untill the country is settled with a stable government in place.
    Then it will proceed thru Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.
    The Unicol corporation doesn’t count dead bodies just money!

    Blair the Blooded WAR CRIMINAL WILL PAY IN FULL!!

    So Blair although signing EU/ARAB Documents had no idea what he was signing upto—-yea right!

    2010 more and more Muslim hoards set to pour into the UK and Europe- and Blair knew nothing—–BLIND FAITH!

    I detest islam—-7/7 was an inside job!

    Put the blame exactly where it belongs and thats not with lads who turned out to be patsies.

    I only buy a return ticket when i intend to return.

    Pity about the train cancellations’ and the five shots to the head of Azelle Rodney just twleve weeks before De Menzies………………stinks are caused when something around is rotten.

    Westminster is where the odour started!!

    The Fabian Chairman Tony Blair- fools only fools!

    The puppet masters are laughing.

    The fourth Reich aided by the arch Fabian, evil Blair the anti Christ.

    Btw, at this petition site – Ban Blair-Baiting – there are Afghans, Iraqis, even Iranians with nothing but praise for Blair.

    Some Russians still praise Stalin and Germans Hitler………….


    As the soldiers father told him-” You have blood on your hands”


    Whose next……

    Pro Europe = Pro the Caliphate!

    • I have to admit that some of the things that I have read recently about 7/7 alarmed me a little. Such as the return tickets and also the fact that not a single image or any footage whatsoever of the bombers in London has ever been released. The released images are of them in Luton.

      Also the train that the were said initially to have boarded to London was cancelled! Reid blamed the error on the survivors, but I always know which train I’ve caught (as I usually have to run to catch it!).

      Then again I have always been a sucker for conspiracy theories!

  8. Read this excellent speech Charlie by Professor Sean Gabb.

    By Sean Gabb
    (Text of a Speech Given to a Conservative Association
    On Friday the 16th October 2009)


    On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though – on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original.

    The Speech

    Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.

    1. This has been a bad Government

    I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.

    The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.

    It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.

    Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.

    This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.

    Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.

    On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.

    2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.

    Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.

    There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.

    It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.

    They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.

    They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.

    They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.

    These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.

    3. The country is misgoverned.

    Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.

    Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.

    What is to be done?

    I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.

    I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.

    We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.

    Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.

    The Police

    One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.

    His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.

    We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.

    The Law

    We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.

    And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.

    There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.

    The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.

    The Constitution

    I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the richest he”.

    But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.

    Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.

    And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.

    And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.

    There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.

    The Monarchy

    This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.

    When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.

    Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.

    We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.

    It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.

    Closing thoughts

    I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.

    But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.

    Sean Gabb

    This is also available for debate on LA Blog at

    NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from

    They won’t sit back and allow Britain to be consumed into the EUs Communist bloc.

    • A good speech with some interesting points, particularly:

      The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians.

      I’m a staunch Monarchist, and I have always believed that the Queen really has had no choice, she’d soon be an ex-Monarch if she attempted to take any power away from Parliament, or tried to prevent any law that Parliament has passed. The Government would just twist it to make it appear if she were blocking democracy. But I have to admit that he has a point, even my patience has worn thin. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted whatever the risks, but she seems more content with preserving the Monarchy than protecting the people.

      You can’t get more democratic than a referendum, yet she’s done nothing. The people have had no real choice in anything since WWII, every party has said one thing, and done another, then we’ve had to wait five years before getting the other party who are just as bad. in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum

      I also agree that representative democracies are old hat, they’re just aristocracies by another name. I have been saying for years that we should be a true democracy and vote on each piece of legislation ourselves, it’s not like it isn’t already technically possible.

      There are also good points about Boris Johnson and Cameron, they are true politicians; they say whatever it takes to get elected, then do the opposite.

      Might have to read more about Sean Gabb.

      This from Wikipedia:

      Alibhai-Brown objected when Gabb said that the Libertarian Alliance believed the government’s Commission for Racial Equality should be shut down, saying that without laws meant to control discrimination, it would occur more frequently. Gabb asked her, “Yasmin, are you saying that the indigenous majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” To which Alibhai-Brown answered, “Yes.”

      Just about sums multiculturalism up.

  9. Nice Write up Charlie
    Well its obvious that Blair is going to be the most powerful man on earth given the fact that he’s going to control the larget economy,army and so forth just like king Nebuchadnezar who was ruling the then world with babylon as the capital of his empire. But my advice to people in leadership of whatsoever capacity such as politically, secularly even by virtue of their positions in their organisations is to reverencce God. We must first acknowlledge the fact that there is a sovereign God who rules over the affairs of men and it is this same God that appoints leaders of whatsoever capacity as he wills and our goals can onlly be actualised if we are associated with this God. The question then is how can we be acquainted with him. We must first strive to knoow him, his values and beliefs. We must humble our selves to belief the simple truth in his word that says , hecan only be known through his Son Jesus Christ. We must believe that Jeseus actually came in human form with the sole aim of reconciling a lost man back to our heavenly Father and he paid the ultimate price with his life. To believe in Jesues christ is to know God, and to be a chilld of God is to acccept Jesus and turn from our sinful and ungodly ways,and to be a successful leader is to walk by Gods approved standards as contained in his word

  10. seems that the support for Blair is diminishing.

    • Yes, it looks as though the French and Germans are going to be the Kingmakers so it cannot possibly be a Briton.

      While it’s a good thing that Blair won’t get the job, it does still mean that the position is going to be filled. From the sounds of it by someone from a small (not very influential state).

      With any luck we’ll have an election before it is ratified and the new Government will have a referendum, and then we’ll leave the French and Germans to their Super State. Vain hope though.

  11. The power given to Her Majesty was entrusted to her by her subjects for their protection. Our special laws are based on this. The Queen promised to safeguard our laws and customs and in return has received the power to govern us. The signing of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty represents a high-jacking of the power of the people. The British Constitution was hard won and it was made by the people. In 1274 Edward 1st was crowned. The Archbishops, Barons and freemen told him that he had to swear to protect our laws and customs. He refused — and was informed by the aforesaid Archbishops, Barons and freemen that in that case they would get another king–upon which ultimatum he made oath.

    Elizabeth was a constitutional expert- daughter of an high court judge.
    She took on all the power the state could throw at her, Died February 2009.

    b) With the help of a friend, a retired policeman, I e-mailed the Speaker of the House of Commons that by passing as law the Bradford & Bingley takeover, being called ‘nationalisation’ by Statutory Instrument without mention of the name of the monarch Mr. Brown and Mr. Darling acted unlawfully and should not be allowed to take up their seats in the Commons. I quoted the basis of this illegality as the 1661 Praemunire in which the punishment of a Praemunire is outlawry, the loss of property and land and possibly death.

    Her last letter was to the QUEEN see here.

    The news-blackout explained.

    “Understand this, if the English Constitution is destroyed so will be the civilisation of the world”
    If the Supremacy of Parliament is to rest on treason, it will help no one.

    As of the time of writing this article, Elizabeth has still not received a date for her appeal in the High Court. We ask readers to please continue to check the Namaste website for an update with details. As MANY people as possible should attend. We ask if people would try their best to attend the hearing, and to invite others. If anybody knows of any contacts who might help in funding for a good legal counsel, we implore you to let us know. Your freedom and that of future generations hangs in the balance. Elizabeth cannot do this without the support of the people – your support. Her stance is for everyone. Will we support her, or has it become our custom to turn our heads and look the other way? If we think that we British have no need to be concerned and our lives are just fine, we have our holidays, we have work, if not we get benefits and above all we are entertained, so why should we bother with all of this? Well, the zombification of Britain is well in place and the future is not as pretty as people think. Do not be detered, our freedom hangs by a thread! BEWARE, by 2009 it will BE TOO LATE.

    Why are you making this potentially dangerous and difficult stance at your time of life?


    “I do it for my children, grandchildren and for all our ancestors – all those who have died for our freedom. Do you want to see your children in chains? I was in India during the war and knew about the fight against the Japanese and I knew about the earlier war and I quote John Edmonds…

    ‘When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today’” ~ John Maxwell Edmonds (1875 -1958)

    A most disgusting state of affairs an eldely sick wheelchair bound lady persecuted by the ruling elites to save their own skins by denying the British public access to the knowledge this lady and true partriot held in her brain.

    They tried to remove her from her Cumbrian home, saved only by donations from those that knew of this brave ladies plight.

    HRH would have rejoiced at the news of Elizabeth Becketts death.

    By the way- download Prof Sean Gabbs booklet it’s a great read- he sets problems then solves them.

    Charlie Cameron has no need to hold a referendum hence this gives cause to with-hold trust.

    The 1689 English bill of rights makes the EU illegal under our soveriegn laws.

    The oath ministers take also the QUEEN contains these words.

    And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

    Ministers use the bill to protect themselves infact twice this year when their freedom of speech in Parliament they felt was under threat.
    The bill is For ALL time.

    The Westminster cabal are liars and traitors relying on the publics apathy and ignorence in not knowing this bill of rights exists.

    Removed from schools colleges and universities by the Fabian PM Wilson.

    Way out of the Fourth Reich is by lawful REBELLION..Before Westminster is closed on some pretext thought to come in 2010.

    Join the fight!

    You Tube- Albert Burgess

    Behavoural Economics- Philip Blond
    Why would Cameron and Co be into this….Red Tories.

    Matters not the President- the puppet masters pull his strings.

    We need professional politicians like an hole, drilled into our heads!

    Purge of Westmister the way to go.

    I’m a Monarchist too- protecting the throne but not with the present backside on it.
    Nobody forced her to sign all the treaties or to accept her new title “Lady of Europe”

    She has broken her oath and therefore should be removed!

  12. The Economist recently referred to the candidacy of the Belgian prime minister as “comical” while Tony Blair’s would be quite good for the EU standing next to the US. While Blair is a good choice as a figure head, the Belgian prime minister is perhaps superior in negotiating common positions (which is necessary in divided Belgium). I have just posted on what might be behind the British position here.

    • Thanks for the comment euandus2, interesting points and an interesting post.

      Well comical or not, Herman van Rompuy got the job. Perhaps it was just the name that was comical, or maybe the fact that he is a French and German puppet and that Britain got the No.2 position as a trade off.

      The whole event got nary a mention in the British press, and why would it, no one here had heard of the Belgian, nor even of the Baroness Aston (probably because she has never been elected to any position before, another politician by the back door – like Mandelson, Ahmed, Warsi to name but a few). Even fewer really care about the EU, most people hope if they ignore it long enough it will go away.

      I have to agree with you about the EU being better off without Britain, at least they’d reach a clearer consensus. The reason that Britain doesn’t consider itself part of Europe is difficult to explain, but it probably similar to the way that Canadians don’t like to be called Americans, although technically, they are. I may live in Europe (Britain is in Europe, the same as Iceland is), technically, but I am not a European. It is enough for most Brits to be British, there is nothing after that, but I guess that part of it is to do with the fact that we are already so regional being made up of independent nations. Being British, and particularly English, we know that super states don’t work. The United Kingdom is trying to disband, so joining another even larger Union just seems silly at present.

      Britons have very little in common with Europeans, we don’t think the same, we don’t have the same ideals (although Britain has had European ideals thrust upon it), and we don’t have the same culture, hell we don’t even have the same culture as the Welsh, Scots and the Irish and that Union has being going for centuries. We have far more in common with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, and that is where we should have been building trading partnerships, but our greedy politicians wanted to have their cake and eat it. Not realising that we compete too much with the rest of the EU, Spanish and French fisherman have all but ended the British fishing industry, French farmers have pretty much ended the British farming industry and so on.

      As for going cap in hand back to the EU begging for scraps! Norway and Switzerland don’t do too badly out of not being in the EU, besides, despite all our problems, Britain is still the fourth richest nation on earth, and second in Europe. We’re a market the EU can’t ignore, but you’re right, both the French and Germans would like to see us out of the EU, but they need our cash, because the EU is nothing more than a ego trip for the French and Germans. They want to be able to compete with the US ecomomically and militarily, they hate being second fiddle to anyone, but without Britain, they never could and we are tolerated if not openly welcomed.

      Brits don’t see other smaller nations as lesser, or as nothing more than states, we see ourselves as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish first, so comparing Belgium or other smaller EU states to say Scotland or England isn’t exactly an insult but Britons don’t tend to raise one nation above another in importance. But that it precisley what the EU does, the EU is run primarily for the benefit of the French and Germans, and yes the Brits too, countries like Belgium only get the EU HQ and the EU Presidency to prevent one of the big three from dominating.

      Finally we haven’t said no to the Euro, more of a ‘not yet’. No Government is brave enough to force the Euro on Britain, it would be committing suicide. It isn’t the only concession however, we still have milk delivered in pints, drink pints of beer, use miles and gallons, no one asks the butcher for a kilo it is still a pound or two (despite it being illegal), we still weigh ourselves in stones and mark our height in feet. Britons haven’t really noticed the EU, it is just ignored as long as it doesn’t interfere, but they are starting to now.

    • Should also mention that I tried to leave a comment on your post, but wasn’t able to do so. I am not sure if this is by design, but it appears like you can leave comments, but there isn’t a space to enter anything.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s