The European Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, spoke exclusively with The Model Telegraph on Wednesday; reacting to the results of the General Election, the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union and the policy of a government yet to be decided.
Throwing cold water on the ‘immigration proposal’ of the prospective Conservative-led coalition, in which the government would ‘seek reciprocal free movement’ with ‘most rich EU nations’, Mr Barnier said he was “overjoyed that the Conservatives have come around to the consensus on Freedom of Movement, if only because their governing coalition demands it…” Going further to say of the proposal, “there is an issue with only allowing certain countries free movement and not others… as far as I’m aware there is no way to simply allow the wealthy countries in and not the rest. Nor would we want that.”
…as far as I’m aware there is no way to simply allow the wealthy countries in and not the rest. Nor would we want that.
This comes as the Prime Minister responded to scepticism that the European Union would approve of a pick and mix style Freedom of Movement, in a question asked by DF44 of The Guardian. Mr 99 responded by saying “these agreements will be negotiated on a bilateral basis with the member states…”
It is unclear where this leaves the ‘immigration proposal’ and will no doubt prove a blow to the Prime Minister, whose concessions on immigration were intended to win over the Classical Liberals and Liberal Democrats. The Conservative Party has been approached for comment.
Speaking to The Model Telegraph, a Classical Liberal Spokesperson responded to the words of Mr Barnier by saying “non-EU immigration is a member state competency, so seeking bilateral mobility deals with individual EU nations is not a matter of EU commission competence.” Going further to argue “the commission has no say on that matter.”
When asked to comment on the intention of this government to ‘pursue a trade deal with the European Union’, with ‘association agreements with Europol, the EMCD, the EMA’, Mr Barnier said European negotiators “would prefer the widest ranging and deepest relationship as possible”, saying of this relationship “membership in the European-wide bodies is something we are willing to agree when we begin trade deal discussions, as well as discussing possible financial contributions that may be involved.”
…membership in the European-wide bodies is something we are willing to agree when we begin trade deal discussions, as well as discussing possible financial contributions that may be involved.
Secretary_Salami hopes to claim Number 10 with the support of the Classical Liberals, Liberal Democrats and Social Democratic Party.
The Frenchman’s attention was then directed towards what is widely considered the alternative government, led by the Labour Party. Reacting to the policy of maintaining free movement of people, yet leaving the Single Market, Mr Barnier made clear the “the stance of the European Union that the four freedoms are indivisible. Freedom of movement cannot work without the other three, nor can the other three work without it”.
…the four freedoms are indivisible.
Reacting to comments made by a ‘European big-whig’ that “Sunrise+ is the preferred option of the European Union”, as reported in The Daily Mail, he described the conduct of the unnamed official as inappropriate. He expanded by saying “each politician in the European Union has their own opinions on which government they would prefer… I will not comment on mine.”
A document obtained by The Model Telegraph reveals the Executive Coalition’s agreed ‘immigration proposal’. Tearing up the White Paper of last term, An immigration system after the European Union, the prospective government would ‘seek reciprocal free [movement]’ with ‘CANZUK and most rich EU nations.’ Also included is a commitment to ‘operate in full compliance with EFTA rules on internal immigration’.
This news comes in stark contrast to historic Conservative Policy of opposing Freedom of Movement. The climax of which occured during the Referendum of the Single Market.
The Conservative Party has confirmed the agreement has the support of leadership, also saying “the Conservative Party won’t be conducting a party vote.”
The Conservatives would take two Great Offices of State: The Office of Prime Minister and the Foreign Office. The Classical Liberals would claim the Treasury and the Liberal Democrats, the Home Office.
Altogether, the cabinet would contain 16 Conservatives, 10 Classical Liberals and 9 Liberal Democrats. This would mark a sharp decline in the influence of the Conservative Party, who boasted 22 cabinet ministers last term.
“If reading is regulated, then music, conversation, every incident of social life must be regulated to”
Wrote John Milton in the poem Areopagitica in response to the Licensing Order of 1643, which instituted pre publication licensing in parliamentary England. Effectively recreating the tight state censorship system of the much reviled star chamber. It’s provisions allowed for the search, seizure and destruction of any books offensive to the government and the imprisonment of any offensive writers, printers and publishers.
In an age where opposition parties attempt to tightly restrict media ownership, and others condemn the free press, Miltons warning bears repeating. The media is fallible, we saw its guts laid bare during the Leveson Enquiry but without a strong tradition of investigative journalism we lose an integral part of a free society.
Alas press freedom in Britain is not what it should be, ranked 33rd in the World Press Freedom Index we are behind many other Western European Nations. One major contributing factor to this is the risk to the financial position of newspapers, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 would require a newspaper that declined to join a state backed regulator to pay both sides costs in privacy and defamation cases regardless of the facts of the case.
It’s damaging effect is to deter quality reporting for fear of what reminiscent of the Licensing Order of 1643 a completely arbitrary punishment for journalistic expression. It is therefore gratifying that the government have seized the issue by the nettle and taken steps to remove the condition from statue and do away with the arbitrary financial penalties on investigative journalism by submitting the Crime and Courts amendment bill. It may be a small step but it will go along way to boosting the financial strength of newspapers and their ability to report on those in positions of power.
META: This article was written by Nom de Plume (LeChevalierMal-Fait) for the Telegraph separate to his canon character.
The Baron of Alton, JellyCow99, Shadow Chancellor, has launched a Supreme Court Case against the Minister for the Cabinet Office model-pjr over the Government’s voting age policy.
The case claims that the Government is breaking its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equality Act, implying that the Government’s “Raise the age” policy is ageist.
The cited protocol under the ECHR states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature,” which basically means that the United Kingdom is obliged to hold regular and free elections to its legislature and that ballots should be secret.
The Equality Act, which was passed in October 2010, outlaws discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and as users of private and public services based on age. However, it makes no direct reference to voter enfranchisement (after all, before 2016, the voting age was 18).
The logic behind the case seems to be that stopping under 18s from voting is discriminatory towards minors and would fall under age discrimination from the government. Following on from such logic, it can be assumed that the current voting age of 16 years old would also be deemed illegal under the current law, or any “minimum voting age”.
Lord Alton launched the case yesterday.
Lord Alton said he believed that the government “[has not worked] within the confines our own law and the law it follows internationally” and that he is “following the correct procedure to determine whether or not [the Representation of the People Bill] is in breach of either the ECHR or the Equality Act 2010”.
Responding to a question asked by The Telegraph about whether he would favour universal suffrage (in that persons of all ages would be allowed to vote) he said “No, and that is not the basis of the court case. The case is based solely around preventing illegal disenfranchisement.” This seems to go against the earlier logic, as not calling for universal enfranchisement would seem to go against the idea that having a voting age, be it at 18 or 16, is age discrimination, or infringing on human rights.
If this case were to win, it could set a dangerous precedent surrounding what is considered age discrimination, after all, there are many other things that have age limits, such as the drinking age (18), the legal driving age (17), films (12, 15, 18). Minors are also protected in many aspects. Under 13s can’t use sites like Facebook and Twitter or get a part-time job. If the court were to rule in favour of Lord Alton, this may set a precedent that the above could be ruled as age discrimination by the court.
All in all, it would seem that this is another bump in the Opposition’s backlash against so-called “Gregfest”, the Government’s wide-reaching reforms, all introduced by ggeogg, the Earl of Earl’s Court, and former Conservative member for Lincolnshire, which culminated in a series of protests against the lowering of the voting age in Manchester and London on the 2nd of May.
The Earl’s bill seeks to raise the age required to vote from 16 after it was lowered by the Liberal Democrats in 2016, which would make it the first country in the world to raise, rather than lower its voting age. The bill, now in the Lords, nevertheless passed the Commons by 3 votes, just 3 days after the National Day of Protest took place, making it
For now, it remains to be seen what will be the outcome of this case and the government’s response to it.
Former Sussex MP, I speak with the Baron of Carrickfergus, LPUK member and Telegraph columnist.
On a brisk Wednesday Lunchtime, I flew out to Northern Ireland to visit ex-DUP leader turned Libertarian, Henry J. Temple. We met in a small café in Belfast, where he ordered a latte.
First, I asked him about his
frequent political turn coating. The former MP for Sussex was originally a
member of the NUP, where he was leader of the DUP for a period of time, then
moved to the Ulster Unionist Party, which is a branch of the Conservatives.
After being suspended from there, he moved on to the Libertarian, achieving a
shock win in last year’s Sussex by election. Recently, however, he left the
LPUK to work once again in his beloved Northern Ireland, however that was
short-lived, as he was let back into his old party by Friedmanite, seemingly
with few questions asked.
Temple justifies this turn
coating, which may deter some voters from choosing him in future elections,
should the peer decide to run for democratic office once again, by saying “I’m
something of an outspoken member of the political landscape” – perhaps a
politician’s way of recognising his own controversiality – but that he is
“proud” of not “doing what is popular”, but “doing what one thinks is right.”
He originally joined the
former Nationalist Party because of their strong policies that he thought would
“help the nation” but moved to the Conservatives because of their inability to
oust homophobia within the party. However, Temple is known for being quite a
demonstrative politician, and the Tories disliked his links to the Orange
Order, marching in it while in the UUP.
His move to the LPUK was
spurred because he “agreed with their economic approach” and the party’s less
restrictive nature allowed him to “make [his] voice heard.” His recent move to
the Loyalist League was caused by his wanting to “focus on Northern Ireland”,
however he found that the true focus was in fact on the Lords, so he quickly
returned to the “move active” and more enjoyable LPUK (not the first Loyalist
to make such a move).
The move may surprise some
however, the former NUP and the Libertarian Party are not known for being that
aligned. The LPUK’s libertarian free market stance is quite in opposition to
the NUP’s view, which might be called “nanny-statist” by the Deputy Prime
Minister. Temple describes himself as a conservative and a libertarian, despite
recognising that the views are quite incompatible in areas. He said that he
thought “of the individual should be advanced as often as is possible. However
– the Government does have a role in the enforcement of the rule of just law,
and to ensuring that those born into situations in which they are
disadvantaged, receive the equality of opportunity to which I think they are
entitled.”
Nevertheless, he admitted he
felt the LPUK was the best party for his views, begging the question of the
motive for the move in the first place. This is further questioned as he said
they “support and care about Northern Ireland.” Although he thinks “they lacked
the resources and membership to take on the UUP,” which is dubious considering
the minor partner in the Government has both a larger base and more resources
to fight an election than the Loyalists.
Temple, who has long been
active in Ulster politics, said he is “supporting the LPUK across all of the
devolved nations”, explaining that he thought the aim for the Northern Irish
wing of the party, which has so far failed to make much gain in the province,
is to take on Northern Ireland’s major party, the UUP, owned by the
Conservatives, and whose former leader is now the Prime Minister, despite the close
bond between the LPUK and UUP on a national level, because the UUP has become
“complacent”, possibly evidenced by the governing party’s low turnout.
Temple has said he is on the
list of candidates in the devolved elections, which are to take place next month.
In all he said he plans to “stay in the Lords” and doesn’t care if he’s “unpopular”,
as long as all sides of the House are held to account.
You can read the full interview here, including questions about religion, democracy and political extremism.
Telegraph: Ok. So, Henry, you have had quite a turbulent
political history. Originally a member of the NUP, you became a controversial
member of the UUP and then a Libertarian, during which time you made your
political chef d’œuvre at Sussex some would say. Then recently you left the
LPUK to lead the DUP, and now you’ve returned to the LPUK again. Why all the
turn coating?
HenryJohnTemple: It’s no
secret that I’m something of an outspoken member of the political landscape,
and that’s something I am proud of. For me politics is not about doing what is
popular, it’s about doing what one thinks to be right. It’s what drives me, and
what continues to drive me. When I joined the NUP they had strong policies that
I believed would help the nation – but they happened to be a little to (sic) slow on ousting homophobic people
within the party. I left for that reason. From the UUP I was suspended. They
took objection to be marching with the Orange Order, something David Trimble, a
winner of the Nobel Prize and stalwart UUP member before its current form, did
also. So I went to the LPUK. Why? Because I agreed with their economic
approach, and they gave me the room I needed to make my voice heard. I left the
LPUK to focus on Northern Ireland within the DUP, however the focus of the league
was on the upper house, which I was warned of before I joined, so my return to
the LPUK was once born of a desire to return to a group that I greatly enjoyed
being part of, and that was more active than the League.
Do you feel as though the LPUK don’t care about Northern
Ireland?
No. I know they support and
care about Northern Ireland deeply, they just lacked the resources and
membership to take on the UUP for the Unionist Voteshare (sic) at assembly level.
So, would you consider it the LPUK’s goal in Northern
Ireland to “take on” the UUP?
I would yes. I think the UUPs
majority, which has not shifted much in the past few elections, has made them
grow complacent. Would you consider the UUP to be as active as they should be?
I’d rather remain unbiased on the issue myself.
Moving on – the Loyalist League and the LPUK are very
different parties. One stands for small-c social conservatism and
traditionalism (and possibly what the Deputy Prime Minister would call ‘the
Nanny State’) while the other stands for libertarianism. How would you describe
your political stance?
I would describe myself as a
conservative, and a Libertarian. But do he sure to publish that with a lower
case ‘c’! I think the Government should be small, and liberty of the individual
should be advanced as often as is possible. However – the Government does have
a role in the enforcement of the rule of just law, and to ensuring that those
born into situations in which they are disadvantaged, receive the equality of
opportunity to which I think they are entitled.
So, you wouldn’t see any conflict between the views of
conservatives and libertarians?
That’s a very broad question,
so forgive me – I’ll give it a broad answer. Yes, there are conflicts between
the views, because they’re different belief systems.
Do you think you’re in the best party for your views now,
however?
Yes.
So, recently you gained a working peerage as the Baron of
Carrickfergus. Do you see a return to the Commons in your future or will you be
remaining in the Upper House? Any plans in your beloved Northern Ireland, or
one of the other devolved nations?
I greatly enjoy the Upper
House, assisting in the passage of legislation, and posing questions on the
less thought through topics is a passion of mine. At present, I’m supporting the
LPUK across all of the devolved nations. (sic)
Are you planning a run in the devo elections?
The LPUK is yes, and I am on
the list of candidates.
So, it’s no hidden secret that you are a religious man,
probably politics’ current greatest proponent for the Church of England. How do
you think your faith influences your politics, would you like to see the
remarriage of Church and state?
I think Morality does yes,
it’s up to the individual to chose (sic)
where that morality stems from. For many the easy choice is the Church, so
perhaps the church should be remarried to the state – however the easy choice
is not always the correct one is it? I think we need to refund our morals at a
deeper level than at present, and an understanding of faith can help that
So, if another Desecularisation Bill were to be introduced
would you be in favour of it?
Could you clarify the
specifics of what such a bill would propose?
I would support the repeal if
it accommodated for other faiths.
Another thing – Over time you have also called for the
Lords to have more authority than they do now. Do you not see this as
undemocratic?
If one defines democracy as
rule of the people and by the people, then the system in which we currently
live is deeply flawed already. So yes, I would say that in a basic sense, it
would be viewed as undemocratic. But, one of the attractions of Democracy is
the protection from the rule of tyranny by majority. So in a system in which
the majority are increasingly having a say at the detriment of the minority, a
system that protects the rule of law and the minority within it, is surely a
good thing?
Some people would go as far to call your brand of politics
“extremist”, would you agree with them?
All politics are extreme from
certain points of view, so for some people yes, I am extreme.
Do you see yourself as extreme compared to the political
norm?
No.
Finally, when the LPUK joined the Conservatives in the
last government, you were a notable exception in Leafy’s last cabinet. Why do
you think this is? Can you be trusted?
The Conservatives run a right
ship, (sic) I don’t think that my
vocal ways when it comes to things I disagree with go hand in hand with cabinet
collective responsibility.
So, what’s next for HenryJohnTemple?
For me, I’m looking to stay
in the Lords, and ultimately – to stay asking questions, of this Government,
and all sides of the House – to matter how unpopular those questions may be.
As part of a statement to the house by the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change (ECC), he has also taken questions from MPs on the government’s Paris committments.
In a statement a few days ago, InfernoPlato, ex-prime minister and now ECC, outlined how the government has attempted to reach the UK’s committments to the Paris agreement, signed in 2015.
The Minister said that the government was planning a “Climate Change Bill”, which would inculde a Carbon Levy, something the Classical Liberals attempted to introduce at the start of the term, but was voted down by Government MPs.
The bill, he said, would aim to:
require the Secretary to detail how to government is implementing its 2015 commitments
close all coal power plants in 10 years (accelerated to 5 years)
invest in renewables and end fossil fuel subsidies
introduce a carbon levy
He also cited the government’s Agriculture Sustainability Strategy, worked on with the Environment Secretary (ex-Conservative antier, at the time) and the rise in the 2050 renewable energy target to 99%.
InfernoPlato has also come under fire from the opposition recently for failing to attend his Minister’s Questions last week, after the Prime Minister earlier committed that all members of cabinet will be required to answer more than half of the questions, or face losing their job. The Secretary responded to the questions that he missed in this statement too.
At the end of his statement, the minister announced his resignation, citing his inability to attend MQs due to personal reasons.
Earlier this week, the Government replaced InfernoPlato with another former Prime Minister, the recently retired Leafy_Emerald.
DF44, former Prime Minister, who now leads the Climate Rebellion faction of the Green Left Movement, responded to a question from The Daily Telegraph, saying
I can outright confirm that InfernoPlato contacted me on the matter of the Climate Change Bill – a point on which I have to imagine the recent fracking motion from the oppositon might have benefitted from! Whilst I still don’t think that the bill goes far enough in many areas, it was a proper step in the right direction, rather than a token shuffle that we have often seen be promptly walked back with interest. When it comes around it is likely that I will vote for it, but I am conscious that it is not a solution, and I will continue to ensure that the Government is held to account on climate change, without using a fig leaf as a shield.
It is highly unfortunate, and I cannot quite believe I am saying this after the period I was Prime Minister in, that InfernoPlato is resigning. The Government has failed one of their harder working ministers by failing to seek a substitute to a Minister’s Questions. I’m aware that I cannot complain too highly – I was also unable to attend due to work co-ordinating climate action protests including upcoming School Strikes – but the Government I’m sure has plenty of Junior Ministers who could’ve stepped to the plate to provide accountability for the department at the time.
On the matter of Leafy as the new appointment, if what I have heard is accurate, is that I hardly view his Government as one with a green legacy. If he wishes to match his predecessor, then he has a heck of a challenge, likely starting with him returning to the debating chamber and making a proper comment to the house for the first time since the General Election. Until we start seeing that, I fear the Government has replaced the active with the inactive, all in the name of improving activity.
DF44
HKNorman, the Shadow Climate Change Secretary to whose questions InfernoPlato didn’t respond during MQs, said the following:
I’m glad he has resigned as the Secretary of State, because he has a pretty dismal record in the position. His statement, while informative, does not make up for his missing MQs, as I had a whole array of questions planned as follow ups to whatever answers he may have had, so there is a definite lack of accountability there, so it is right that he has resigned.
I think Leafy is an interesting choice for the role. It could bring a lot of new ideas to the role, but that said we can’t really call pin many hopes on him to make any real effort to fight climate change, as the Conservative record speaks for itself. Labour is proud to have joined the Greens and Climate Rebellion in advocating for a Green New Deal, which we have made the heart of our agenda for office.
ContraBannedMC’s big gamble and ego-trip failed big time, with them finishing third in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, going into the election they were the favourite to win the election, the veteran socialist MP had carried the seat with a massive majority is GEIX, it was a seat they believed they could not possibly lose. Not only did they lose the seat, but they came third behind Saunders16 suggesting that ContraBannedMC was never personally popular amongst constituents, but rather that endorsements had helped them get elected. It is a huge feat for a sitting government to win a by-election, it is an even bigger upset considering the seat’s history of electing firmly left-wing candidates. Whilst the opposition come up with their cheap soundbites of ‘tear gas coalition’ and the attack dogs make cheap adverts, it appears these have not struck a chord across the country. This was the oppositions chance to back up their facts that the government is unpopular, however, this did the opposite and empowered the government. It’s notable that so-called Classical Liberals campaigned for the social democratic candidate, their message however clearly fell flat. Sunrise decided to back a party of defectors, for what? No one really knows, but it’s likely they are running out of talent and are struggling for members. The by-election saw ContraBannedMC down 29.87% showing a massive decline for his far left movement. Overall there was a 20.26% swing to the Conservatives from /ContraBannedMC.
Results from Ox-Berk By-Election (Courtesy of VerkhovnaGeordie)
The by-election saw a sizeable increase in turnout, with turnout at 67.67%, up from 44% showing that people are becoming more engaged with politics and empowered by this government and the changes it is bringing forward. Another possibility is that the presence of a more moderate left-wing candidate encouraged Lib Dem and more Blairite Labour voters to turnout which they may not have previously done. Despite all the odds Anomaline and the government got this seat, which no one would have foreshadowed, so the government can walk away very happy with this result.
In other news, there were protests organised by the opposition including the Classical Liberals, Labour, Lib Dems and The People’s Movement. The opposition is telling us this is a success and shows that people do not support the government. Let us go through two notable remarks made by opposition figures today:
Our turnout today will show the Government one thing, this country is motivated to oppose the actions of this Prime Minister
Tommy1boys
Isn’t it funny, how Anomline’s majority in the by election is larger than all the protestors put together, how 70,000 people represent the whole country astonishes me.
Another running theme brought up by opposition speakers was that votes at 18 was not in the Conservative and LPUK manifestos.
Nowhere in their manifestos did they state their desire to strip 16 and 17 year olds of their right to vote, and yet that’s what they’ve done
JellyCow99
The Liberal Democrats last time proposed income tax rises alongside rises in tobacco duty. They also proposed a rise in the rate of drug tax, surprisingly after reading their GEX manifesto, there was no mention of any of these policies. There was also no mention of a £40bn deficit.
The leader of new Britain ack8 sums it better than I could. This kind of rhetoric “sets a bad precedent that government legislation that was not pre-determined in a manifesto should be delayed from enactment, especially as coalition governments are common”. On and also he is a hypocrite.
This government is pressing ahead with its agenda, with many bills of the so-called Gregfest passing through with ease, and, with the political upset that occured in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, it appears firmly in control whilst still maintaining popularity.
This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.
Friedmanite19 is the incumbent MP for Somerset and Bristol.
It is an issue that rears its head seemingly annually, like some sort of new public holiday. Hours upon hours of Westminster’s time dedicated to debating a sport enjoyed by a very small number of people, and only opposed by the mainstream when the news feeds are devoid of filters to place over ones profile picture on matters that will generate more likes.
Ask either side: either we are seeing the vestiges of a class-war being fought in Parliament, or we are seeing a collection of hoary old rural traditionalists baying for blood and wearing strange clothes.
Yet time and time again, Fox hunting and it’s regulation continues to rear its head in Westminster, forcing Members of Parliament to trapce down the corridors after hours of the same arguments being made, as if on loop, acting out some bizzare rendition of groundhog day each and every time the Parliamentary cycle begins to slow, and the more radical backbenchers get a chance to slip in some of their socialist playbook onto the order paper.
On one hand, defenders of the sport will argue that to curtail Fox-Hunting is just another attempt by the ‘old-left’ to reignite a long since resolved class war, in their latest attempt to tear down the establishment, and reclaim the wealth the borgiouse stole from them. They cannot close Eton, they cannot ‘reclaim’ that London Mansion you apparently stole, but by jingo they can take your Hunting!
Stemming from an ever more propograted belief that to have one’s share of the wealth, you just take it from others, rather than create it yourself, it is some small solace that this misconception is being rejected in areas such as Yorkshire, which lean ever more in favor of right-thinking politics, such as that espoused by the LPUK, LL and some elements of the Conservative Party.
On the other hand, we see an increasingly marginalised countryside right wing, long since abandoned by many, demanding their traditions and ways of life are protecting – not arbitrarily banned by those who tend only to head into the Country to visit inlaws.
Yet, as the left in the United Kingdom leans ever more to the Metrosexual politik of its ilk, becoming more of a chuntering mass of Zone 2 snobs, issuing ill thought out decrees on how the ‘simple folk’ ought to live their lives, ensconced as they are in their franchised coffee shops, we see the same arguments rising to the fore.
Hiding behind a facade of ‘animal welfare’, the class war begins again. What little extasy could have been drawn from burning down parts of London in the Riots, seems to have left a hollow void in the souls of the modern left, far less temperate and grounded than their old-guard colleagues, and so they take to kindling a new fire, on whatever issue they can find.
There is a certain irony to the so called ‘Liberal Left’ that we see putting such motions to the house. Their idea of Liberalism and the pursuit of Liberty, appears to extend only to those who share their views, and hell and damnation to all others. Labours old guard, far more grounded that the newcomers, must be dismayed indeed.
Ultimately, the argument for Fox Hunting must take a different direction in light of this increased intolerance from the new-left, where one is met by cries of bigotry and elitism, the right thinking individual must respond with a renewed call for Liberty. From within Camdens Coffee Houses, ask yourselves – does it harm others, and does it harm me?
When it comes to Foxhunting, the simple answer is – No.
Until Fox Hunters begin the chase on Hampstead Heath, it affects you in no way whatsoever.
So, why do you really oppose it?
It is worth remembering, one cannot be selective as to whom liberty is bestowed.
Yet, no matter how one looks at the Fox-Hunting Debate, and the current regulation to strengthen the laws which constrict it, the matter of Liberty cannot be avoided, no matter how hard both sides attempt to steer clear of that word.
When Tony Blair first introduces the ban on Fox Hunting – dedicated some 220 hours to its discussion, in stark contrast to the 18 he allowed for the Iraq War – he was symbolising a reversion of Parliament to the rule of tyranny by majority, in which several hundred thousands people from suburbia, rallied in defence of the apparently helpless Fox, to override the rights of those whom this new law would actually effect.
Liberty is meant to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, something which all sides can agree on when it comes to protecting those minority groups which are currently politically ‘trendy’, yet the same torchbearers fall eerily silent when it comes to extending that Liberty to others. In contrast, it is my belief that the Liberty of the Individual can only be protected if that individual is afforded the freedom of choice, holding the willingness to bear the consequences of those choices, beneath an impartial system of law.
Banning things we do not understand, and then strengthening that regulation, on matters which do not impact or effect us, flies in the face of that idea, and emboldens an ever more top heavy state with the moral fervour to fuel further infringements on our liberty.
Of course, there are those who shall read this article as they chomp into some flatbread and mull their triple shot soy lattes, in barely concealed indignation. Why did this article not come with a trigger warning? Why is this person not as progressive as I? Yet, that is the beauty of the term progressive, as described by Peter Hitchins, in his book ‘The Abolition of Britain’:
“This is the joy of being a progressive . Whenever your views are rejected by experience, common sense and tradition, it is because you are ahead of the rest of the population, never because you are eccentric or wrong or just plain arrogant, or because they are not convinced by your arguments. They will catch up, and if not, so much the worse for them.”
To conclude, just because you live in a city and have ready and steady access to the good libraries and public transport, does not make you any more moral nor superior than those country folk we increasingly see reviled. Just because a tradition is not understood, does not mean it is wrong, and just because a practice offends but doesn’t affect you, does not mean it should be subjected to a ban.
Hiding behind the word ‘Progressive’ does not morals make.
The Fox Hunting Ban, and all attempts to strengthen or extend it, is nothing short of a crusade against Liberty, an attack on Freedom, and a cynical attempt by the modern left, to weaponise the court of public opinion, to erode the freedoms this nation and its people rightfully enjoy.
Lord Henry John Temple, the Baron Carrickfergus is a Democratic Unionist Party peer and a conservative commentator. Views expressed here are his own.
This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.
