Join my Members' Club on Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or SubscribeStar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks & follow me on Twitter (X) x.com/DrDStarkeyCBE
Correct David , Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution clearly states a Republican form of government . Democracy is not mentioned once in any of our founding documents .
@davidstarkeytalks Does both the Bill of Rights 1689 and Claim of Rights 1689, grant sovereignty to the people by dividing power between Parliament and Monarch, each acting as a check and balance against the other? Specifically the right to petition the king against the actions of a tyrannical government.
@@UtubeRwokeLefties you're not still smarting over the prorogation case are you? The SC is not even appointed by members of the executive branch, so yes it is independent. If there have been some or even many rulings you disagree with, that's kinda tough, no one can agree with 100% of the court's rulings, not even its own judges.
Our ruling class would never articulate it in these terms, but they've for all intents and purposes, made democracy obsolete. The Anglosphere is basically a post-democratic institution. At least these days.
@@Zadir09 In my honest opinion? No, you guys exfiltrated yourself when you ditch the Monarch. Not saying whether or not that was right. Just calling it like I see's it, I'd go so far as to say that Australia will likely ditch the monarch itself at some point over then 20 years. Meaning we'd no longer really be a part of the Anglosphere. Certainly our ruling class doesn't see itself as an Anglophone nation, or if they do, they don't act like it.
This will end when the people decide they have had enough and down tools. Let's the clowns in parliament know where the power really lies. WE ARE MANY THEY ARE FEW
Yup. I just ended my professional healthcare career. Not paying anything but min taxes. The NHS is too political and completely corrupted and not putting patients ahead of DEI, ideology. Don't get sick folks! There's very few people prepared to work now because it's personally too broken, stressful and risky. Ultimately we have a responsibility to ourselves.
@@emailsph3282And people still believe that throwing money at it will solve the problem. I have been very sick and have built some good connections but overall I pity anyone just entering the system. I wish you well.
Australia is a complete basket case however so many of the population are in denial at the immense problems the country has. Geographic isolation and educational indoctrination.
Australia in the 1970s was a great place to live. Thr currency wasn't hyper inflating. And you could own a home. You didnt have to rent an office you actually got your own office space to work in.
@@bryanlow2305 well anyone who doesn’t agree with your views is called a racist now, so it doesn’t really mean much…just an excuse not to listen and throw childish insults.
@@theinngu5560 Direct quote from David Starkey "“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there?" I listen and also read
Yes scrap indeed, another Blair idea which many thought was a better idea than the Lords but now the chickens have come home to roost and shit on us at the same time!
To run concurrently with the Petition To Call A General Election, should we not have a petition to Undo Tony Blair’s Dismantling of Democracy? Just having such a petition will also help make many more people aware of why and how we have got into such a state and what can be done about it.
Well said, great point. Perhaps the recent petition will allow true, in the moment democracy to blossom. Musk recently said 'we are the media'. Let's mediate.
'Not culturally rooted' and 'anywheres' . Well said. You have brought to the forefront of my mind something that was percolating at the back of it for sometime but I was failing to put a tag on it !.
I would suggest also that ethnic diversity is hugely at odds with any notion of sovereignty or liberty under law. Unless you identify with your neighbours on some fundamental level then how can you have a ‘jury of one’s peers’ or even a ‘common law’. Common law was respected because it is an outgrowth of disputes that have taken place over time - it is essentially a testament to a people. You can’t just import a bunch of foreigners and expect it to remain legitimate. That is part of the reason the liberal left has sort to replace our traditional ways with abstracted ‘rights’ and ‘impartial’ institutions. With the various equality legislation we don’t even really have a national religion - Christianity is just one among the rest. And in practice the establishment actively deconstructs traditional institutions from within. King Charles and the C of E are “woke” in many respects. We are a colonised and conquered people. We will only have a chance if we reject the liberal morality which brought us to this impasse
There is a big plan that we are involved in but we don't know about Even the closing of the meat and fish markets in London, is unknown why are they closing Fishing industry, meat industry will be devastated, just like car manufacturers. What is the big picture??? Control the food control the people
I'm always made terribly uneasy, when I hear the words "populism" or, "populist" spoken, as I feel my intellect is beset upon by another's set of "smoke & mirrors" !!! So, thank you for explaining this dis-ease of a conundrum!
Love listening to David’s wisdom. Those in power would do well to listen to him and put their ideologies aside, for the greater good…including their own.
So very true, goes to the heart of our problem. One of DS' best. Suggest the title could have been reworded to widen this out - so much more than just the Supreme Court thing.
Talking of Popular historians, I can still remember the outrage directed at Oxford Professor A. J. P. Taylor with his publication of Origins of the Second World War.
DS understands ROCHDALE. A place where so many people work for the council or are dependent on them that LABOUR can never lose a local or general election.
Americans know who nominated each SC judge. After their confirmation hearings they know everything else about them, too. In the UK we know nothing about these judges. Who nominates, who are the candidates, what are their views?
@@theotherstevesteve Since that Convention is not a national document, then that could cause further problems. You might as well roll out Magna Carta and start from there.
@@doglover31418 Well, I am American so that probably influences my bias. The SC positions are so prominent nowadays that it leads to "digital lynchings" of nominees by a corrupt media establishment with an axe to grind.
We have a written constitution. Have you read Dicey? Or Magna Carta. What we don't need is a document given special consideration because the people who write it aren't special. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes and that needs to remain the case. In the US Congress can make any law that is "constitutional", ie it can't make any law it wishes. Instead it has to amend a hundreds year old document, which is almost impossible by design.
The Acts of Union and its Legal Nature The Acts of Union were put in place, with the Scots asking to join England after bankrupting themselves in South America, specifically in the Darian Gap, where the indigenous population fought back against Scottish colonisation in the late 1600s [01:08]. The Acts of Union, consisting of two separate acts in 1706 and 1707, were a treaty and not a law, despite being enrolled into the House of Commons or Parliament [02:00]. The Law of Treaties states that a treaty is sovereign to sovereign, not sovereign to subject, and the Acts of Union were between the ruling classes of Scotland and England [02:21].Tony cuenca
one of the most fundamental horrors Blair concocted was turning the perception of what’s good and acceptable English language. This has led us to where we are now, with Angela Rainer and her ilk on the front bench … and the careless abuse of meaning during every call you make to officialdom today
The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, and it contains inalienable rights that were also given to Scotland through the Claim of Right. “because they asked for it,” Moore said [05:19]. [The Claim of Right was passed by the Convention of the Estates, a precursor to the Parliament of Scotland, in April 1689. It affirmed the supremacy of Scottish laws and customs, rejecting the notion that the English monarch had absolute authority over Scotland.] The Prince of Orange landed in Brixham, Devon, on 5 November 1688, with a 3,000-man army, including English exiles, to take the country back from the tyrannous King [05:59]. The 5 November is an important date to us, not because of Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament, it’s an important date “because that’s when the [William III] Prince of Orange landed in Brixham in Devon with a 3,000 man army,” Moore said. The Declaration of Rights (written into the English Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Reasons (a declaration in September 1688 by the Prince of Orange to justify his invasion of England and the overthrow of King James II) are still enrolled in the Houses of Parliament, as they were the original contract between the subjects of England and the Crown [06:20]. The Crown took two oaths: the Coronation Oath and the Accession Oath, and breaching these oaths is a serious offense akin to treason [06:35]. Historically, kings who breached their oaths apologised to the people and perjury of an oath was punishable by severe penalties, including death [06:52]. The English Bill of Rights declares several rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be repealed according to Section 2 of the document [08:02]. “The right to keep and bear arms is still your right today,” Moore said. “It cannot be repealed.” This is because the English Bill of Rights states that its provisions cannot be repealed, using phrases such as “forever” and “in all time to come” [08:22]... Tony cuenca
Why don't the citizens of the UK enjoy freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only really counts when you're able to give voice to ideas others do not like or agree with.
What is the separation of powers? The separation of powers is an idea which is fundamental to how the UK works. It is about having specific and separate powers and functions between the three branches of state. This is supposed to help keep these three branches independent and accountable, by making sure no one part is too powerful. The three branches of state are: The legislature makes the laws. In the UK, the legislature is Parliament, which is mainly the House of Commons (which MPs are elected to) and the House of Lords (which is made up of peers). Both the “houses” of parliament will debate proposals for laws, look at what changes should be made, and pass or reject laws. When a law is passed, the Crown (currently the Queen) gives it royal assent to make it official. This is ceremonial, as the monarch does not refuse to make laws passed by Parliament official. Parliament also carries out “scrutiny” work, which examines and challenges the work of the Government. This might be through debates, questions or committees. We have devolution in the UK, so the legislature also includes the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These parliaments and assemblies have been given law-making powers by the Houses of Parliament. The executive is responsible for creating policy, putting proposals for laws to the legislature, and putting laws into effect. We call this the government. In devolved nations (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) the executive includes the First Ministers and governments of the devolved nations. The judiciary decides whether laws are being followed or if they have been made properly. This is done through a system of courts and tribunals. In the UK, the judiciary is made up of the judges and officers of the courts of law. These are overseen by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. The courts in the UK can decide on conflicts between state bodies, between the state and individuals and between individuals. In the UK we have 3 legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court is the top court for all these systems... Tony cuenca
@@polemeros Law students all seem to want to become "human rights lawyers" but don't appreciate this means they will devote their working lives to the service of terrorists, tax dodgers, perverts and the workshy.
Its hard for the elite to recognise that beneath what seems to the ignorance of the ordinary people lies the instinctive wisdom of their ancestral roots.
I was waiting for the bit where we are told how the Supreme Court has made parliament redundant, per the video title - looks like it didn't make the final cut?
Politics pre-ordain every step and the feelings, fears and real needs of voters are ignored completely: citizens being placated with trivia that's tied up in ribbons of political correctness, health and safety and the never ending hoop jumping of todays wokery!!! I thought that I was returning to England after 33 years abroad: I came ashore at Portsmouth to find that England has gone!!! It is no more!!!
It might have occurred to you that we never really had a democracy, it was actually just a facade of one that didn’t quite flourish given that the ruling elite simply could not allow the ruled free reign on how they want to live and not enslave them through endless taxes! The political philosopher John Gray talks about this a lot in his writings!
I now live in the 'Soviet State of Communist Britain' with our illustrious leader Kim Yong-Starmer and his Politburo. Censorship, government propaganda and misinformation are normal. Waiting for the Stasi to knock on my door for WRONG-SPEAK.
As the late, great Terry Pratchett said, "The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning." As David says, we have to recapture language.
Trust me, David, there is nothing American about Blair. He introduced a Supreme Court, but this Supreme Court is very different from the American Supreme Court. The American Supreme Court is the guardian of their written and rather difficult to alter Constitution. Our Supreme Court is just another appeals court, and our constitution can be changed with a majority of votes in Parliament. On top of this, our Parliament infused elements of foreign law into it, like the ECHR. Some people still believe our constitution is superior, as it is easier to add more rights. It is also easier to take rights away, never forget that. Would our Parliament do such a thing? Oh yes, Starmer's regime would at the blink of an eye.
With very little knowledge that I have, my observation is that having a Supreme Court interpreting a constitution only works when there is a codified constitution. Britain's law and constitution is based in common law and conventions of existing laws. As far as I know, There is NO codified constitution in Britain.
He's mistaken about one thing here. The Electoral College in the US was never designed or intended to debate whom to elect, and it never did. It is a college purely notionally. It never sat as a body. The original language of the Constitution was "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted." So the Electors of a particular state might meet in that state, but they never met as a body; they wrote their votes down and transmitted them in writing to Congress.
In other words they were supposed to verify the actual vote in their state,under constitutional law.That and precisely that,to avoid corruption and interference over electoral matters.
Being a linguist led me to enjoy other languages and cultures (everywhere) but taught me to love old England most of all (somewhere), a disposition far more common than generally recognised. Infinite respect for Dr. Starkey as the supreme constitutional historian who is always thought-provoking.
The English Bill of Rights and its Disregard The Judiciary and Parliament ignore the English Bill of Rights, with Parliament claiming sovereignty despite being limited by the constitution [08:49]. The people are sovereign, and members of Parliament should be constitutionalists, recognising the limitations of their power imposed by the constitution [09:07]. The English constitution is not taught in bar exams, resulting in judges being unaware of constitutional rights and common law, with this information being removed from the curriculum in the early 1970s [09:32]. “I am a constitutionalist,” Moore emphasised. “Parliament is limited by the constitution, that is factual. They never teach you that in school. And you know when they removed it? Do you know when they removed it from school curriculums? Do you know when they removed it from the bar exams so judges don’t know what your constitution is? … They took it out of the curriculum in the early 1970s” [9:14]. He continued: “Anyone here guess why they did that? The European Community Act (1972) was unlawful, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires. And the reason they removed it is because they knew it affected every one of your sovereignties. There was an argument with Ted Heath and he literally stopped everyone [from] understanding exactly what the constitution meant. They kept their mouth shut. They committed treason. To subvert the English constitution is to commit treason against the English” [9:28]. “I am an Englishman,” he said. “When I talk of my country I talk of England. Britain is an island. We share this island. It’s called Great Britain for a reason; it contains three nation states that are independent of each other. The Acts of Union created a political union. Political unions are a stepping stone to the new world order. It started a long long long time ago” [10:26]. [Note: The Acts of Union refer to two Acts of Parliament passed in 1706 and 1707, which merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, and then later, in 1801, Ireland, into a single Kingdom of Great Britain.].. Tony cuenca
Now find a clip of Starkey explaining that Parliament can make any law it wishes (which it can) but don't pull him up on his view that an act is ultra vires
Its meant to work that parliament passes legislation and courts implement those laws. The difficulty occurs when judges reinterpret those laws peculiar to their own political beliefs. You then have a non-elected body making laws. But there are other ways of doing this via international treaties and international bodies where a newly elected government cannot change or implement the laws it was elected on.
David Starkey I share your concerns but we never have had a democracy only parliament has a democracy.we need proportional representation and we need it now before we are outnumbered in our own country.
Democracy? What democracy is it where our representatives vote on party lines instead of what the people want. We wouldn't be in the mess we are if we had true democracy
There's a couple of things about popularism. We have a parliamentary democracy, we vote for a local MP of a certain party, mostly for that party to achieve a majority. Yet the government leak so many policy intentions, obviously to gauge public opinion. The government ought to govern on their manifesto, otherwise it's a travesty of parliamentary democracy. The second thing is that the local MP ought to be representing everyone's interests, including those minorities that didn't vote for him/her. And the government should, as far as possible given their mandate, take minority needs into account. Popularism and minority interests have taken over.
Dr Starkey, isn't the real problem that the anywheres did not import persons like themselves, they imported somewheres except those somewheres weren't here?
As a long time American Anglophile, it saddens me to think that the institutions of my country have somehow been twisted so as to adversely impact modern day Britain. I'd posit that it isn't racism to realize that the invaders of your country do not have your best interests at heart.
To be honest, have we ever lived in what most think of as a democracy? The difference now is that the establishment no longer has a need for most of us .... times shortly up.
The US Constitution, as conceived, was a brilliant document, and has been ignored more and more as time has gone on, to the detriment of the people of the United States. Remember, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
strange that now there are so many msm outlets, for a variety of choice, the likes of such an intelligent man are not allowed.! Mr Starkey should have a national prime-time weekly round-up of parliament in context.
There’s a deep distrust in direct democracy in most countries. Hence they talk with disdain about “populism”. Which basically is just democracy. Oh he actually raised this point later on 😂
Isn't it the goal of the EU the dissolution of sovereign nation-states as viewed by the political class? Hasn't it been said that democracy is the penultimate step to dictatorship? Democracy requires a knowledgeable populous to avoid it running amok with wants versus needs.
Join my Members' Club on Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks
or SubscribeStar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks
& follow me on Twitter (X) x.com/DrDStarkeyCBE
Correct David , Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution clearly states a Republican form of government . Democracy is not mentioned once in any of our founding documents .
@davidstarkeytalks
Does both the Bill of Rights 1689 and Claim of Rights 1689, grant sovereignty to the people by dividing power between Parliament and Monarch, each acting as a check and balance against the other? Specifically the right to petition the king against the actions of a tyrannical government.
The supreme court..another horrid Blair legacy he left for us.
Do you think the american supreme court is better? or should we not have an independent judiciary?
The american supreme court has more power, is just that the usa constiturion does a better job not allowing messing around.
@@j.x.x.r3645 Like it's independent, lol.
@@UtubeRwokeLefties you're not still smarting over the prorogation case are you? The SC is not even appointed by members of the executive branch, so yes it is independent. If there have been some or even many rulings you disagree with, that's kinda tough, no one can agree with 100% of the court's rulings, not even its own judges.
@@j.x.x.r3645 False assumption, they are just so obviously corrupt and biased.
I used to wonder why those from the establishment didn't like David, but soon realised its because he was exposing them for what they are.
Our ruling class would never articulate it in these terms, but they've for all intents and purposes, made democracy obsolete. The Anglosphere is basically a post-democratic institution. At least these days.
Are we a part of the Anglosphere in US? We should be, God Save the King was our first National Anthem
@@Zadir09 In my honest opinion? No, you guys exfiltrated yourself when you ditch the Monarch. Not saying whether or not that was right. Just calling it like I see's it, I'd go so far as to say that Australia will likely ditch the monarch itself at some point over then 20 years. Meaning we'd no longer really be a part of the Anglosphere. Certainly our ruling class doesn't see itself as an Anglophone nation, or if they do, they don't act like it.
We're also being genocided, and by 2050 our replacements won't care about the death of democracy.
the fish rots from the head down = monarchy
To @Peak_Aussieman - Who is “[our] ruling class,” exactly? Names, please.
Same here in Germany. Thank you so much Mr. Starkey 🫶
This will end when the people decide they have had enough and down tools. Let's the clowns in parliament know where the power really lies. WE ARE MANY THEY ARE FEW
Absolutely well said Sir.
Yup. I just ended my professional healthcare career. Not paying anything but min taxes. The NHS is too political and completely corrupted and not putting patients ahead of DEI, ideology. Don't get sick folks! There's very few people prepared to work now because it's personally too broken, stressful and risky. Ultimately we have a responsibility to ourselves.
WE ARE MANY THEY ARE FEW. Yes but they control the police, army, courts and prisons.
@@emailsph3282And people still believe that throwing money at it will solve the problem. I have been very sick and have built some good connections but overall I pity anyone just entering the system. I wish you well.
Looks to me that the Islamists are planning to be your power.
Happening in many places. Even here in Australia.
Fascism is consuming the whole of the West.
Australia is a complete basket case however so many of the population are in denial at the immense problems the country has. Geographic isolation and educational indoctrination.
100%
Australia in the 1970s was a great place to live.
Thr currency wasn't hyper inflating.
And you could own a home.
You didnt have to rent an office you actually got your own office space to work in.
Really sad. Govt have become so corrupt.
One of the best academic minds in the world today.
and a racist
@@bryanlow2305Everyone is a racist.
@@bryanlow2305 well anyone who doesn’t agree with your views is called a racist now, so it doesn’t really mean much…just an excuse not to listen and throw childish insults.
Perhaps, but not on the evidence of this video. It's full of faulty thinking.
@@theinngu5560 Direct quote from David Starkey "“slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there?" I listen and also read
The supreme court needs scrapping
Yes scrap indeed, another Blair idea which many thought was a better idea than the Lords but now the chickens have come home to roost and shit on us at the same time!
I couldn't agree more, it's completely undemocratic!
It was never needed in the first place. Just more Blair bollocks!
@robertdenley Blair's socialist legacy
So does devolution.
Truly brilliant, Dr. Starkey. Thank you.
He speaks a lot of truth and common sense and does it with a lot of passion.
Spot on again by Mr. Starkey.
Same thing here in Canada
Get rid of the liberal tyrant Trudeau. He hates Canada and it's people.
To run concurrently with the Petition To Call A General Election, should we not have a petition to Undo Tony Blair’s Dismantling of Democracy? Just having such a petition will also help make many more people aware of why and how we have got into such a state and what can be done about it.
Well said, great point.
Perhaps the recent petition will allow true, in the moment democracy to blossom.
Musk recently said 'we are the media'.
Let's mediate.
The best idea I’ve heard today.
We need a petition to call for Blair and Campbell to be prosecuted.
@@bestcomsystems4458
That's just plain daft😐
good point, too vague a question however. I like your thinking though.
We live in a inept WEF IPCC Dystopia world 🌎🌍
All downstream from the Bankers
Capitalism kills the country
Globalisation kills the planet
@@evolassunglasses4673yep and they’re just getting started, the biomedical digital ID, 5G surveillance and CBDC dystopia is being set.
You missed out BIS.
Dr Starkey had such a brilliant intellect. Such a brilliant mind.
had?
has
And your spelling is naff.
I love this and you, Mr Starkey. 🇬🇧🏴❤️ Thank you.
'Not culturally rooted' and 'anywheres' . Well said. You have brought to the forefront of my mind something that was percolating at the back of it for sometime but I was failing to put a tag on it !.
The damage that Blair done to this country is incalculable.
I would suggest also that ethnic diversity is hugely at odds with any notion of sovereignty or liberty under law. Unless you identify with your neighbours on some fundamental level then how can you have a ‘jury of one’s peers’ or even a ‘common law’. Common law was respected because it is an outgrowth of disputes that have taken place over time - it is essentially a testament to a people. You can’t just import a bunch of foreigners and expect it to remain legitimate. That is part of the reason the liberal left has sort to replace our traditional ways with abstracted ‘rights’ and ‘impartial’ institutions. With the various equality legislation we don’t even really have a national religion - Christianity is just one among the rest. And in practice the establishment actively deconstructs traditional institutions from within. King Charles and the C of E are “woke” in many respects. We are a colonised and conquered people. We will only have a chance if we reject the liberal morality which brought us to this impasse
ABSOLUTELY.
Exactly 💯
Very astutely put.
There is a big plan that we are involved in but we don't know about
Even the closing of the meat and fish markets in London, is unknown why are they closing
Fishing industry, meat industry will be devastated, just like car manufacturers.
What is the big picture???
Control the food control the people
News to me. Thanks
Tf are you on about
David Starkey, as brilliant as ever. 🇬🇧🏴👍👏🏴🇬🇧
The supreme court another Tony ‘Bellend’ Blair catastrophe. Shut it down. Not needed.
I'm always made terribly uneasy, when I hear the words "populism" or, "populist" spoken, as I feel my intellect is beset upon by another's set of "smoke & mirrors" !!! So, thank you for explaining this dis-ease of a conundrum!
Always a pleasure to listen to Dr. Starkey. I only wish the circumstances were different.
Somewheres vs Anywheres
Spot on
Love listening to David’s wisdom. Those in power would do well to listen to him and put their ideologies aside, for the greater good…including their own.
So very true, goes to the heart of our problem. One of DS' best.
Suggest the title could have been reworded to widen this out - so much more than just the Supreme Court thing.
Talking of Popular historians, I can still remember the outrage directed at Oxford Professor A. J. P. Taylor with his publication of Origins of the Second World War.
DS understands ROCHDALE.
A place where so many people work for the council or are dependent on them that LABOUR can never lose a local or general election.
Glad you've woken up...
Having a Supreme Court without an enumerated Bill of Rights at the center of a written Constitution might be a problem.
The problem we are having with the supreme court is very specifically the very "enumerated" Convention on Human rights.
Americans know who nominated each SC judge. After their confirmation hearings they know everything else about them, too. In the UK we know nothing about these judges. Who nominates, who are the candidates, what are their views?
@@theotherstevesteve Since that Convention is not a national document, then that could cause further problems. You might as well roll out Magna Carta and start from there.
@@doglover31418 Well, I am American so that probably influences my bias. The SC positions are so prominent nowadays that it leads to "digital lynchings" of nominees by a corrupt media establishment with an axe to grind.
We have a written constitution. Have you read Dicey? Or Magna Carta.
What we don't need is a document given special consideration because the people who write it aren't special. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes and that needs to remain the case. In the US Congress can make any law that is "constitutional", ie it can't make any law it wishes. Instead it has to amend a hundreds year old document, which is almost impossible by design.
BLAIR IS STILL PULLING STARMERS STRINGS W E F IS PULLING BLAIRS STRINGS
The Acts of Union and its Legal Nature
The Acts of Union were put in place, with the Scots asking to join England after bankrupting themselves in South America, specifically in the Darian Gap, where the indigenous population fought back against Scottish colonisation in the late 1600s [01:08].
The Acts of Union, consisting of two separate acts in 1706 and 1707, were a treaty and not a law, despite being enrolled into the House of Commons or Parliament [02:00].
The Law of Treaties states that a treaty is sovereign to sovereign, not sovereign to subject, and the Acts of Union were between the ruling classes of Scotland and England [02:21].Tony cuenca
one of the most fundamental horrors Blair concocted was turning the perception of what’s good and acceptable English language. This has led us to where we are now, with Angela Rainer and her ilk on the front bench … and the careless abuse of meaning during every call you make to officialdom today
Liz Truss was right about this, to restore parliamentary democracy we need to dissolve Blair’s ‘supreme’ folly Court
Brilliantly expressed regarding populism=democracy. Spot on
The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, and it contains inalienable rights that were also given to Scotland through the Claim of Right. “because they asked for it,” Moore said [05:19].
[The Claim of Right was passed by the Convention of the Estates, a precursor to the Parliament of Scotland, in April 1689. It affirmed the supremacy of Scottish laws and customs, rejecting the notion that the English monarch had absolute authority over Scotland.]
The Prince of Orange landed in Brixham, Devon, on 5 November 1688, with a 3,000-man army, including English exiles, to take the country back from the tyrannous King [05:59].
The 5 November is an important date to us, not because of Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament, it’s an important date “because that’s when the [William III] Prince of Orange landed in Brixham in Devon with a 3,000 man army,” Moore said.
The Declaration of Rights (written into the English Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Reasons (a declaration in September 1688 by the Prince of Orange to justify his invasion of England and the overthrow of King James II) are still enrolled in the Houses of Parliament, as they were the original contract between the subjects of England and the Crown [06:20].
The Crown took two oaths: the Coronation Oath and the Accession Oath, and breaching these oaths is a serious offense akin to treason [06:35].
Historically, kings who breached their oaths apologised to the people and perjury of an oath was punishable by severe penalties, including death [06:52].
The English Bill of Rights declares several rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be repealed according to Section 2 of the document [08:02].
“The right to keep and bear arms is still your right today,” Moore said. “It cannot be repealed.” This is because the English Bill of Rights states that its provisions cannot be repealed, using phrases such as “forever” and “in all time to come” [08:22]... Tony cuenca
Why don't the citizens of the UK enjoy freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only really counts when you're able to give voice to ideas others do not like or agree with.
What is the separation of powers?
The separation of powers is an idea which is fundamental to how the UK works. It is about having specific and separate powers and functions between the three branches of state. This is supposed to help keep these three branches independent and accountable, by making sure no one part is too powerful.
The three branches of state are:
The legislature makes the laws.
In the UK, the legislature is Parliament, which is mainly the House of Commons (which MPs are elected to) and the House of Lords (which is made up of peers). Both the “houses” of parliament will debate proposals for laws, look at what changes should be made, and pass or reject laws. When a law is passed, the Crown (currently the Queen) gives it royal assent to make it official. This is ceremonial, as the monarch does not refuse to make laws passed by Parliament official.
Parliament also carries out “scrutiny” work, which examines and challenges the work of the Government. This might be through debates, questions or committees.
We have devolution in the UK, so the legislature also includes the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These parliaments and assemblies have been given law-making powers by the Houses of Parliament.
The executive is responsible for creating policy, putting proposals for laws to the legislature, and putting laws into effect.
We call this the government.
In devolved nations (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) the executive includes the First Ministers and governments of the devolved nations.
The judiciary decides whether laws are being followed or if they have been made properly.
This is done through a system of courts and tribunals.
In the UK, the judiciary is made up of the judges and officers of the courts of law. These are overseen by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. The courts in the UK can decide on conflicts between state bodies, between the state and individuals and between individuals. In the UK we have 3 legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court is the top court for all these systems... Tony cuenca
Well done.
Post 1945, Liberal International law has been used to contain the nation state.
So true.
maybe this is what happens in a country ruled by "human rights" lawyers.
Do you mean 'other people's human rights' lawyers?
"Human rights" is a rhetorical term, not a proper legal one. It means whatever the Progs/Woke want it to mean. It has no boundary.
@@polemeros Law students all seem to want to become "human rights lawyers" but don't appreciate this means they will devote their working lives to the service of terrorists, tax dodgers, perverts and the workshy.
Its hard for the elite to recognise that beneath what seems to the ignorance of the ordinary people lies the instinctive wisdom of their ancestral roots.
Thanks Global Liberalism
I was waiting for the bit where we are told how the Supreme Court has made parliament redundant, per the video title - looks like it didn't make the final cut?
David, precisely correct. You touch the point with a needle!
Excellent reasoning for thought.
This is excellent news as voting once every five years was taking up my valuable time.
Politics pre-ordain every step and the feelings, fears and real needs of voters are ignored completely: citizens being placated with trivia that's tied up in ribbons of political correctness, health and safety and the never ending hoop jumping of todays wokery!!! I thought that I was returning to England after 33 years abroad: I came ashore at Portsmouth to find that England has gone!!! It is no more!!!
It might have occurred to you that we never really had a democracy, it was actually just a facade of one that didn’t quite flourish given that the ruling elite simply could not allow the ruled free reign on how they want to live and not enslave them through endless taxes! The political philosopher John Gray talks about this a lot in his writings!
Increasingly I am concerned you will be arrested by Lord Protector Starmer's thugs.
I now live in the 'Soviet State of Communist Britain' with our illustrious leader Kim Yong-Starmer and his Politburo. Censorship, government propaganda and misinformation are normal.
Waiting for the Stasi to knock on my door for WRONG-SPEAK.
As the late, great Terry Pratchett said, "The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning." As David says, we have to recapture language.
Trust me, David, there is nothing American about Blair. He introduced a Supreme Court, but this Supreme Court is very different from the American Supreme Court. The American Supreme Court is the guardian of their written and rather difficult to alter Constitution. Our Supreme Court is just another appeals court, and our constitution can be changed with a majority of votes in Parliament. On top of this, our Parliament infused elements of foreign law into it, like the ECHR. Some people still believe our constitution is superior, as it is easier to add more rights. It is also easier to take rights away, never forget that. Would our Parliament do such a thing? Oh yes, Starmer's regime would at the blink of an eye.
why would the UK need a Supreme Court when there isn't a written constitution
With very little knowledge that I have, my observation is that having a Supreme Court interpreting a constitution only works when there is a codified constitution.
Britain's law and constitution is based in common law and conventions of existing laws. As far as I know, There is NO codified constitution in Britain.
“The British constitution isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on” (sorry, can’t remember the source).
It worked until we started to give away our sovereignty to the EEA/Eu which eroded the nation state.
He's mistaken about one thing here. The Electoral College in the US was never designed or intended to debate whom to elect, and it never did. It is a college purely notionally. It never sat as a body. The original language of the Constitution was "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted." So the Electors of a particular state might meet in that state, but they never met as a body; they wrote their votes down and transmitted them in writing to Congress.
In other words they were supposed to verify the actual vote in their state,under constitutional law.That and precisely that,to avoid corruption and interference over electoral matters.
THIS WAS BLAIR CREATION ,,THE SUPREME COURT …THIS WAS BROUGHT IN TO OVERRIDE SOVEREIGNTY WHEN NEEDED
Being a linguist led me to enjoy other languages and cultures (everywhere) but taught me to love old England most of all (somewhere), a disposition far more common than generally recognised. Infinite respect for Dr. Starkey as the supreme constitutional historian who is always thought-provoking.
The English Bill of Rights and its Disregard
The Judiciary and Parliament ignore the English Bill of Rights, with Parliament claiming sovereignty despite being limited by the constitution [08:49].
The people are sovereign, and members of Parliament should be constitutionalists, recognising the limitations of their power imposed by the constitution [09:07].
The English constitution is not taught in bar exams, resulting in judges being unaware of constitutional rights and common law, with this information being removed from the curriculum in the early 1970s [09:32].
“I am a constitutionalist,” Moore emphasised. “Parliament is limited by the constitution, that is factual. They never teach you that in school. And you know when they removed it? Do you know when they removed it from school curriculums? Do you know when they removed it from the bar exams so judges don’t know what your constitution is? … They took it out of the curriculum in the early 1970s” [9:14].
He continued: “Anyone here guess why they did that? The European Community Act (1972) was unlawful, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires. And the reason they removed it is because they knew it affected every one of your sovereignties. There was an argument with Ted Heath and he literally stopped everyone [from] understanding exactly what the constitution meant. They kept their mouth shut. They committed treason. To subvert the English constitution is to commit treason against the English” [9:28].
“I am an Englishman,” he said. “When I talk of my country I talk of England. Britain is an island. We share this island. It’s called Great Britain for a reason; it contains three nation states that are independent of each other. The Acts of Union created a political union. Political unions are a stepping stone to the new world order. It started a long long long time ago” [10:26].
[Note: The Acts of Union refer to two Acts of Parliament passed in 1706 and 1707, which merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, and then later, in 1801, Ireland, into a single Kingdom of Great Britain.].. Tony cuenca
interesting
Now find a clip of Starkey explaining that Parliament can make any law it wishes (which it can) but don't pull him up on his view that an act is ultra vires
Its meant to work that parliament passes legislation and courts implement those laws. The difficulty occurs when judges reinterpret those laws peculiar to their own political beliefs. You then have a non-elected body making laws. But there are other ways of doing this via international treaties and international bodies where a newly elected government cannot change or implement the laws it was elected on.
Made it certainly more honest
David Starkey I share your concerns but we never have had a democracy only parliament has a democracy.we need proportional representation and we need it now before we are outnumbered in our own country.
Superb
Democracy? What democracy is it where our representatives vote on party lines instead of what the people want.
We wouldn't be in the mess we are if we had true democracy
In the end, it's the people who allow it. We have a laissez faire electorate.
WHen did you think we ever did live in a democracy?
Never has a title failed to reflect the discussion within the video so much. Did the person uploading this actually watch the video?
Correct!
There's a couple of things about popularism.
We have a parliamentary democracy, we vote for a local MP of a certain party, mostly for that party to achieve a majority. Yet the government leak so many policy intentions, obviously to gauge public opinion. The government ought to govern on their manifesto, otherwise it's a travesty of parliamentary democracy.
The second thing is that the local MP ought to be representing everyone's interests, including those minorities that didn't vote for him/her. And the government should, as far as possible given their mandate, take minority needs into account.
Popularism and minority interests have taken over.
Courts interpreting parliament's laws has been a cornerstone of our democracy.
We have the exact same democracy as we have had for decades. The last major change was in 1969, when the voting age was dropped to 18.
DAVID = BELOVED....WE LOVE OUR DAVID......
Dr Starkey, isn't the real problem that the anywheres did not import persons like themselves, they imported somewheres except those somewheres weren't here?
Brilliant. Perhaps UK's version of Thomas Sowell?
We Never have had a democracy there's no such thing.
So, what do we do?
Until the public are able to vote on issues online, we will never have true democracy.
So does Britain have a “notwithstanding clause” like Canada?
As a long time American Anglophile, it saddens me to think that the institutions of my country have somehow been twisted so as to adversely impact modern day Britain. I'd posit that it isn't racism to realize that the invaders of your country do not have your best interests at heart.
Despite being an ex-pat I remain a "somewhere person". The horrible actions and inactions of the "anywhere" persons drove me out.
To be honest, have we ever lived in what most think of as a democracy? The difference now is that the establishment no longer has a need for most of us .... times shortly up.
Nowheres will be the only way somewheres regain traction.
The US Constitution, as conceived, was a brilliant document, and has been ignored more and more as time has gone on, to the detriment of the people of the United States. Remember, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Popular politicians = bad
Unpopular politicians = good
strange that now there are so many msm outlets, for a variety of choice, the likes of such an intelligent man are not allowed.! Mr Starkey should have a national prime-time weekly round-up of parliament in context.
I totally get all this, however, what the hell is the final goal or the final destination of all this?
The only democracy we have is the ability to hold elections and vote. But they do this in China and Russia too.
That wasnt really about what the title lead us to belive it was.
Ahh. Makes sense. 2:13
It needs to be abolished a long with the labour party
What will happen in the end, I wonder!?
I don't understand why Starmer is no questioned over Jimmy Savile. Anybody know?
There’s a deep distrust in direct democracy in most countries. Hence they talk with disdain about “populism”. Which basically is just democracy. Oh he actually raised this point later on 😂
Starkers! Starkers! Starkers! Starkers! Starkers! Starkers! There's only one Daveeeeeeeeeeed STARRRR-kuz! An' 'im a waspy little man, buzz buzz buzz! 🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝😂😂😂😂
And how can we have anything like the "progressive" left?
Very true, democracy died here some decades ago...The people will take their country back
Isn't it the goal of the EU the dissolution of sovereign nation-states as viewed by the political class? Hasn't it been said that democracy is the penultimate step to dictatorship? Democracy requires a knowledgeable populous to avoid it running amok with wants versus needs.
That was nothing to do with the Supreme Court and it's role compared to Parliament. Very strange clip.