Magna Carta: Myth and Meaning
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2015
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
June 2015 will see the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the ‘Great Charter’ which was signed at Runnymede by King John to resolve a political crisis he faced with his barons. Buried within its 69 clauses is one of immeasurable importance. This is the idea that no one should be deprived of their freedom without just cause, and that people are entitled to fair trial by their peers according to the law of the land.
At the time Magna Carta did nothing to improve the lot of the vast majority of English people, and all but three of its provisions have been repealed. Yet Magna Carta has come to be seen as the cornerstone of English liberty and an international rallying cry against the arbitrary use of power. It was invoked by opponents of Charles I’s overbearing rule in the 17th century and embodied in the 1791 Bill of Rights in America, where it is still held to have special constitutional status.
Where does Magna Carta stand today? In a time of secret courts in Britain and the Guantanamo gulag, the threat to rights from terror laws and state surveillance of our online activities, do we need to reaffirm its basic principles? Should we take things even further, as Tim Berners-Lee has suggested, and create a new Magna Carta for the worldwide web to protect our liberty online?
Good God, Starkey's point about the realisation of Huxley's vision of the future (now our present) was proved to be right in light of his own predicament in 2020. What a mind.
You just have to love Starkey.
Starkey is number one. He lived it. He's was born to do this. He's sooo far ahead of the other's.
Amen !
Starkey dominates because he's always the only panelist who says anything meaningful, truthful or intelligible. As ever, the other jealous panelists/moderators waffle or cut him off when he shows them up.
Rory finds the notion of universal human rights 'moving' because of his privileged background: his money will buy the best lawyers, and if not, his connections will do the rest. Back in the real world, the rest of us are realising that we don't really have any rights...
Human rights at a time when ANIMAL RIGHTS activists want to blur the distinction between humans and non-humans.
Mister Ay Es - The reality in the UK is that you are ruled by bureaucrats and politicians who are generally ignorant of individual rights or just simply crooks.. The attitude is that they do what suits them best and if you think your rights have been infringed "take us to court." Among others I was actually told that by a government minister - and they know full well that the cost of going to court is prohibitive.
@@fredgillespie5855 quite, legal aid to help some starving homeless person whose knicked a loaf of bread would be a start. Magna carta applied to plebs like us, what planet are some folk on...that was never the intention, what they drew up for us lot was something known as Forest Law.
Starkey is a joke who is a great story teller but is pompous and self aggrandizing.
Starke Dominates because he keeps interrupting.
Who else wishes it was just David Starkey giving a lecture?
Exactly, the only man there who knows what he's taking about.
@@silverbullet2008bb I've begun watching everything he's in. Goldmine of knowledge & what a character to boot 😂
@@taniaearle4457 Yeah for sure. I recommend watching him brazenly dismantle the nonsense of that brainless spoiled brat Laurie Penny. If you haven't seen it, have a look, it's here on UA-cam and definately worth a watch!
Tania Earle here here
He's extremely rude
"The next election could well produce a crisis of ungovernability." - Dave Starkey 2015. Foreshadowing at its finest.
Ha!
what ?
TDS
Nobody can accuse David Starkey of not speaking his mind :P
given he was outnumbered three to five to one, and he was the only one speaking sensibly, just as well.
Or trying to be the only one speaking.
@@99IronDuke He was going well over the allotted time. Nice that you agree with him.
When starky speaks, you listen.
@@pontiacsuperchief9532 Exactly!!
As an American - if David is on the panel, I'm glued to my seat!
@bisquitnspanky if he is a trump voter,that can only be a positive thing. #maga
Starkey is both arrogant , dictatorial (you see the odd glimpse of it here), he does not seem to understand basic need for equality, fairness, innocence before proven guilty...in short a twat!!
Walter White. Yes, positively horrendous. Trump could not sit still long enough to listen to this debate, and he certainly wouldn’t understand one word in ten. He’s a boor, a pervert, a con man and a criminal.
and what if you were Japanese ?
@@terrynolan5831 Agree but he can get away with it where others can't and that's so important
They allowed Starkey to educate everyone including the panel until the precise moment he reached his point, but wasn't allowed to complete his theory and denied the audience the opportunity of independently weighing it up. They then try and deconstruct point by point an argument that had not fully been made.
Alternative tittle : David Starkey against Revisionism.
That's wrong, actually. Starkey's position is the revisionist position. The traditional view was that Magna Carta was the foundation of all our liberties, etc. But Starkey says that's hogwash.
@@wodenravens the traditionalism you refer to is also revisionism.
A Magna Carta against corporations is needed.
Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Bolivia, Nicaragua.
Khadr Trudeau all socialist shitholes
@@khadrtrudeau1662 Equating regulating corporations with communism.. Truly one of the oldest and dumbest opinions out there.
@@oraz. Your living i a fantasy world. Hearing strange voices.
No because corporations don't create laws that, if broken, can lead to execution or jail.
The people, when asked, have always, ALWAYS made far more intelligent and positively effective decisions that politicians.
Don't back down folks, and ever defend your liberties and rights.
Are we sure David Starkey isn't a time traveller?
At 1:11:00 he basically states exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now.
he is amazing
And Rory Stewart is exactly why I despise politicians. He fits the narrative around what the political aims are, but will ditch the narrative when it no long fits his - a politician's - purpose.
David starkey basically said TAXATION is theft. They just take it from us direct from our wages without any real permission.
Taxation is voluntary
Jesus was a Buddha
He was murdered because he promoted everything against the establishment.
ecsactly
We call the police, fire department, drive on highways, go to school-without any real permission.
@@TaxTheChurches. permission.
You get arrested if you don't go to school.
Arrested if you drive without license, rego..
What do you mean ?
Fool.
I could listen to Dr. Starkey all day. Love British history.
Where are you from Rosanne? Is your country influenced by all this today?
@@davidgray3321 I am an American. Irish and Scottish ancestry. My mom was a Canadian from Nova Scotia. She loved the Britons and the Monarchy. I think that is why I love Dr. Starkey. I think we are very influenced by British history.
@@rosanneshinkle4133 Starkey would strike out 'Briton' in your post and replace it with 'English'. He is an English nationalist which is why the American trumputinksis and English Führagers like him... I am English (born) and suffered plenty of (face to face) abuse from the Scots and the Welsh and the Irish......Nevertheless I am an Internationalist with UK and US passports..
@@rosanneshinkle4133 mmm
@@rosanneshinkle4133 mmmmmmmmm
Over 4 years later, Rory Stewart entered a Parliamentary election to become PM. During interviews Rory Stewart was quite closely quoting the Historian on the right that Parliament could do whatever it liked and there was nothing anyone could do about it. This is at a time when we have a Constitutional Crisis after a Referrendum was held in 2016 with the result that the UK was to Leave the EU but elements in Parliament are having success in undermining the Will of the People - despite the European Withdrawal Act, 2018. So, if the Will of the People and Primary Legislation is not in line with Rory's Stewart's views, never mind - ignore the Will of the People and ignore the Law of the Land. He was eliminated from the contest, thankfully. The point is that I have heard other Constitutional experts state that, even today, our Constitutional Law is that the People ultimately have power over Parliament and that 'Parliamentary Sovereignty incorporates this Principal. Furthermore, Parliamentary Sovereignty is really about the Constitutional Law that Parliament can not give away its powers to foreign entities (Princes, etc) - which is what they did of course.
Yes, the UK desperately needs a Bill of Rights that forces Governments and MPs to work for and on the behalf of the People. It's a terrible thing in this day and age that Parliament can, despite the Constitutional contradictions, do the Hell what it likes.
The people retain the ultimate redress that the barons exercised in 1215: the right to rebel.
@@williamcooke5627 Ask the miners how that went in the 80's.
Wasn't that prescient of Starkey to foresee Britain post-election as virtually ungovernable. I'm aware it may well have been meant in another context but like to think that he unlike anybody else predicted the present chaos. To quote him on Brexit (which he alluded to here) Britain was the first province to break from Ancient Rome around 400, first to break from Rome around 1530 under Henry and the first to break from The Treaty of Rome any day soon.
Indeed, but he was not alone in foreseeing the nature of post brexit vote Britain. I'm thinking of P Hitchens
Britain wasn't the first province to break away from Rome - in fact it didn't break away at all. It was Rome that decided it needed its troops elsewhere.
Even if Britain had broken away, it wasn't the first because Rome had already lost Mesopotamia and Dacia.(Not counting the almost provinces of Marcomannia and Quadia, that were about to be set up before Commodus did a U-turn on this father's policies). None of these actually broke away, they were all either lost to invaders to given up by Rome.
@@str.77 And those that then lived like Romans destroyed Rome
Rose speaks to me about the true context of the essence of the Magna Carta and what we should take from it. Starkey appears like a buffoon full of himself.
@@robinbreeds9217 ???
If Rory is representative of modern politicians we are in trouble. Ignore history at your peril. Our rights are being removed at the margins - the margins are starting to eat into the body.
He cracked me up when he said the medieval guys holding swords were huge and muscular.
@@GregoryWonderwheel And his comment about body parts
I thought he came across quite well. Willing to listen to other opinions, willing to give way to someone with a better informed view, interested in the past and the future of England. He is the type of politician that is all to rare these days and is a sad loss to our front bench.
Might dictating right in the name of peace and safety, as I write, in this year of our Lord, 2020.
@@extramild1 Exactly
David the historian articulately presents facts as opposed to perception, the lawyer talks about aspirational ‘legalities’ and protocols, the politician constantly refers to ideological romanticism based on his own life experiences it seems
Very much yes, I agree. Ironically this trialogue leaves me thinking of Tony Hancock "Magna Carta, did she die in vain ?" Discuss
I'm not always a fan of David Starkey but he is absolutely right here.
Magna Carta at the time had no effect. The only people granted the 'famous' rights were the robber barons, not the ordinary people.
It is only considered important because it was re-interpreted, in a totally different context, hundreds of years later.
Not read the documents yourself have you.
Article 60.
All the customs and Liberties aforesaid which we have granted to be enjoyed by our people throughout our Kingdom, let all our Subjects whether clerk's or laymen, observe toward their dependents.
"Clerk's and Laymen"
Laymen are the common people. Sick and tired of Ill educated morons like you who know Jack shit of what you're talking about.
On point, unless you consider the fact that Freemen in that day were those emancipated from Serfdom, as opposed to Honorary intituled men of a Burgh. then unless you consider the common folk today to still be(Slaves) - Villeins, Serfs, Cottars, Knaves or the like then it must be that the remaining land-holding in free and common soccage, post 1600 actually is free of de-mesne lords. So this is far from clear cut in terms of provenance. Secondly John was a party under duress to that agreement as the Archbishop quite rightly protested, i guess here it boils down to whether you accept the Barons demands as over-riding the Kings freedom to contract (because he is the King and has a reciprocal duty) or you hold the strict interpretation of Law that an Act by or under threat of Force is not ones Act !
@@genuinearticle33 It established in law for the first time after the conquest that the King was not an absolute ruler and that principle might have been overridden by force from time to time by the principle was there and in 1689 it was recognized as established law.
@@tomjackson4374 That is perhaps correct, but not my point, the point is the 1215 charter does not articulate the rights of the people, the Bill Of Rights does, it clearly expresses the People and their Laws and Customs to be a-priori and antecedent to Parliament and its Legal realm, otherwise all these Declarations and subsequent Acts would have achieved is to replace a Tyrant Sole with a Tyranny assembled, this is the Contract the Monarch has with the People to govern accordingly, it is this that reigns in tyrannical and despotic Government and ensures we the people make our laws and customs so as not to become slaves to a dictatorial legislature and executive, the caveat to all of that is keeping the Judiciary held to account as they are really the last line of defence, without descending into lawlessness.
very wrong
Starkey is a legend.
I think he is extremely rude. I believe he has far more knowledge about this area than the other guests but they know more about other things than he. I think Rory made some good points and he was dismissed out of hand.
After over a year of having all my rights removed in the name of safety I can only conclude that Starkey was right and his comments on human rights being guff are now objectively provable........ More's the pity.
They've been eroding for years
@@perperson199 they have never been a “thing” so there's nothing to erode
@@vlad3192 Do we have any rights?
I've just watched his brilliant speech at Goldsmiths Hall--where he destroys modern, so-called 'Art' . Unfortunately, no comments are allowed. Watch him.
agree)) cool lecture) thanks
A great lecture that
Link?
"Modern Art" and Contemporary Art are not the same thing. Are we really to dismiss every development in Art since the French Revoultion, or is it simply another tiresome rant against abstraction? Many thousands of deeply thinking artists can't be so wrong.
This is the equivalent of the saying that "If God meant us to fly, he'd have given us wings."
What Magna Carta also achieved was the breakdown of feudal obligations of rulers toward the ruled. What had been held in trust -- the land -- by the feudal monarch was now subject to private ownership by means of the issuance of deeds. Any sense of an equal birthright to the land disappeared, and the history of Britain (and essentially all other societies that abandoned societal ownership of nature) became institutionalized domination by rentier interests. As Winston Churchill observed in his 1909 campaign for a seat in Parliament, the enemy of the people is monopoly, and land monopoly is "the mother of all monopolies."
As an American we are taught that the Magna Carta gave rights to the lords of England. This discussion is fascinating!
The birth of Liberty
@@TheChrissy1977 English liberty goes back further to the Anglo-Saxons
David .... An example of power and victory when you have deep knowledge .
PS. David moved his chair in a massive display of confidence in the company of lesser IQ .
Only the moderator was lesser. Probably why IQ2 picked him.
Haha he's great
He sits like a King who is annoyed at his subjects
I wish David Starkey would be on IQ2 more. This has been one of the most interesting debate i've seen and i really enjoyed this. Thank you for the video, on the side note, that Rory spoke a whole lot of nothing
He spoke like a politician
Starkey's head shake is my spirit animal.
Gosh!
@@stephenhardy312 h
Hahahaha
Oh you rascal Lucas, I concur 😂
His finger pointing is to that woman for me 🤣
He tells these stories like he was living at those times...incredible historian..He's a real icon.
David Starkey clearly demonstrated why its important to put events into historical context .
.
I want Starkey's spectacles!!
I forgot her name, I'm not good with names, but the moment she talks about the family courts, my respect went up hugely. I trust Starkey more on his position on the Magna Carta, but have a lot of respect for her bringing up a serious issue in British society that does not get talked about.
So unusal, albiet common to see folks ridicule and almost mocking behind the back of someone giving fact. They are just that. Fact. Not opinion. Well done Dr Starkey. You are a credit to historical research and knowledge, and also a huge asset to our liberty and country. Hats off
I don't really like Dr Starkey but his astonishment on that woman sputtering on the Clarendon Code (which she obviously needs) is spot on. And of course I'm with him in opposing Brave New World.
To lose the right of freedom of speech, is the same as losing all your rights.
Freedom of truthful speech is preferable.
Freedom to lie pollutes the informational commons and must be punished as though you'd dumped toxic sludge.
I love David Starkey.
So do I, been listening to him for years..
1:11:02 David Starkey is a prophet!
At what point was the question of the first gentleman answered? Ignoring a totally valid question is down right rude.
The point at 46 mins where she is talking about the removal of legal aid is so true. My male friend likes thousands more are being stopped from seeing their children. The mother on the dole would refuse visitation and again my friend would have to pay out of his own pocket the court fees whilst hers were free of charge and then she would agree on court but later would revert back to the same old tricks of blocking the father from seeing the children. She keeps getting away with it to this day as it would cost the tax payer more to take the children away from the mother whilst the father gets screwed over..
Terrible.
Evil allowed to prosper.
And all the wealthy men with the conservative MP on the stage try to shut her up.
These clever experts on the panel,seem to make the magna carter irrelevant !?
Strange that they do not have anyone from Common Law debating here , only a lecturer,politician and a lawyer ? This is an in house debate by the Establishment !
Yes, they should have a freetard there for comedy effect.
James it's good to hear a debate it teaches me something
David Starkey is brilliant. I can and do listen to him all day.
"I disagree with what you say,
but I will defend your right to say to the death" - Voltaire
Our fathers and there fathers understood what morality is, how is it possible we dont?
I wouldn't fight for the right for someone to spew false propaganda.
The cultural marxists are trying to normalise pedophila nowadays.
Just for the record, the QC is wrong about the European Arrest Warrrant NOT contravening the Magna Carta as the rule of law was not its only important provision. Access to justice in a speedy manner is contravened.
Very important that. It is also a problem in America where cases might take a decade to resolve.
But in the UK when two laws contradict one another, the newer law wins out. Thus the EAW was longer while we were still in the EU
What a terrific English debate, wit, banter, cantakerouness, and nitty gritty ways of talking to get to good old fashioned truth and facts, brilliant.
Well done, David! Not that I agree with you, BUT, we need your voice. Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath needs to be read in the context of the times, apart from the 'symbolic' significance they acquired subsequently.
Idealism versus Realism, that's the basic distinction between the viewpoints of Rory and David.
The opening speech completely bored the life out of me but I am glad I held on to listen to David.
Rory Stewart... How do you expect the people of the UK to take an interest and even know about the Magna Carta and constitution if is only taught at primary school level in the UK. Harold Wilson stopped the teaching of Constitutional Law and Manga Carta at 12-18 year olds. Reinstate the teaching of this historical subject, include it in the GCSE exam instead of dumbing down our people and keeping them ignorant to historical law, rebellion, rights and constitutions. This is why only a minority take an interest. Most people feel they are helpless, purely because the modern education system has failed them, it’s designed to dumb down a child’s curiosity and created obedient sheep instead. That coupled with useless television programming entertainment and celeb culture that is designed to distract us from the important things in life.
This is an amazing discussion that is even more important for the present than when it was being done live.
Only 3 clauses of Magna Carta remain legally binding today.
1. The rights of the Church of England
2. The rights of the City of London
3. The right of trial by jury
Isn't trial by jury going? Or gone
@@perperson199 Not yet, more serious offences are still heard by a Jury. Minor offences are dealt with by Magistrates.
@@hogwash9140 That's good. Thank you
@Light_n_Fluffy Depends on the offences he was charged with mate. Some can be tried by a jury, others can only be dealt with at Magistrate level. I'm not defending the system, just stating what it is.
@Light_n_Fluffy No idea. But if they have, it's because they can and because they can justify it legally. I saw the video of him being arrested outside of the Court by a van load of police for "Breach of the Peace" - which looked awful and, as there has to be an immediate danger of violence or damage to justify such an arrest, seemed unlawful. The Court actually imprisoned him for Contempt however. Look, as unfair and totalitarian as it all seems he's never going to disappear in some dungeon is he? There's always some barrister who wants to make a name for himself by defending high profile personalities, and he's too well known for any injustice to be thrown at him and anyone getting away with it. The British legal system needs an overhaul and an injection of transparency and modernism, but it's far fairer and just than many systems around the world.
Wonderful to see and hear someone else articulate what I have addressed over and over. Paper democracy, paper treaties, paper Charters, and so on. Always breaking them and then using those papers to say, look we have these papers.
Assange has an access to the court. How does it help him?
What a legend, telling it like it is.
Brilliant. I really loved this. I am half way through Danziger and Gillingham's "1215: the year of Magna Carta" and was therefore motivated to see if there were some good videos on YT about this topic. That's how I found this excellent debate. Thanks to all....very enlightening and entertaining.
Honest historians have a much more nuanced view that politicians or lawyers they work for and within the established system real historians don’t have that limitation.
yes agreed. Honest historians, try to be objective based on the historical evidence, as far as they can. They do their research. In a funny kind of a way, a little like scientists. They are just looking for the truth of something, without as much bias as possible.
46:26 -- God bless that lady for citing the evils of family law and family court.
Man has always been used as a non-gender-specific term, like feeding the "ducks".
Yes Mankind
David is so deliciously "tetchy" and "arrogant".
Really dislike the moderator shouting over Starkey so often
None of them can agree , how the hell is the ordinary person supposed to understand M.C. but the female commentater raised a good point that to day access to court , high fees , removal of legal aid , has all but removed access to courts at the mid and lower income groups , so in other words magna carta is being eroded, and the fight for freedom/rights continues every day
Starkey is such a wonderful example of how a member of an out community can become a member of the in community through often specious Establishment confirmation that all forget this is an exercise in self promotion.
Starkey is a good example of the gay community because he does not push it down everybody’s throat. He keeps is private life private. He his a top historian and he his excellent, but people do not want to know about his private life.
@@Sebastian-ip2wc but he does talk about his private life. for example, he talks about his regret for not marrying his partner before he died.
what an orator Dr David Starkey could listen to this man all day 👍👍👍👍
One of my faves.. good question, good host, good range of panellists.. good audience even!!
Much so halodavy
The personal rights only applied to the barons in 1215 and only was applied to ordinary people centuries later in different circumstances. The 1215 charter wanted to establish a republic and the 1216 William Marshall reissued the charter to undermine the barons and King Louis the first of England. The charter survived in later centuries because it said the church was free of taxation and the church kept it alive for that.
Adore David Starkey!
Can't sustain this level of inquiry across the pond. Value what you have now.
"You shut up for a minute!" I've gotta like David Starkey.
More to self: NEVER INTERRUPT DR. DAVID STARKEY!
It is amazing looking at this discussion at this time on 21st May 2019, when much of what the establishment hold dear, will probably be reversed or scrapped in the very near future.
...greetings from the end of 2020.
Magna Carta was never the basis of the law of Britain. It disappoints me that none of the participants in this discussion point to the Ancient Triads of Britain (pre Roman) as the basis of our laws and customs.
Whether rights are universal or cultural, they are at minimum a foundational value of OUR culture, and are absolutely indispensable within our culture.
I LOVE David Starky
I had Starkey as a professor.
You were a professor, and you HAD him? Not sure I would boast about that, he's no oil painting you know.
@@sureshot8399 I was a student at the London School of Economics and took a full-year course David taught.
Rory Stewart seems to me to be a modish, and much overrated thinker - his sort of arrogant moralizing ( including, as here, positing absurd anachronisms ) brought about the sad PC culture in Britain today.
He is certainly in denial of reality and not living in the world the rest of us inhabit.
@Repeat After Me: yes great wasn't it 😊
Let the members voting to repeal constitutional standards issue a declaration after issuing their vote that "I believe the principal of ... is not moral and must be rejected" which must be published to every person in their constituency and their electors are asked if they recall their member before the member's vote is counted.
History allows us to see the present in context.
I love listening to Starkey speak, he’s always brilliant.
rights in this country are what you can afford,the rich are doing ok,If the poor want justice forget it!
thomas clare what Country do you speak?
When are the poor going to grow a spine and fight back against their oppressors? Newsflash, they never will unless they have a rich person leading them. Rich people are more intelligent. Fact.
@@brianhelmuth9414 People who assert “Fact.” - can they possibly be intelligent?
Context of the moment when something occurs is so important. When the Magna Carta was implemented it was a time of turmoil. What is missing from this discussion is the power of the common people and how overtime, when people are oppressed, control can and does shift. It does take time - maybe 800 years? When the Magna Carta was born it was essentially a dictatorship in existence. The power of the commoner is serious understated and rather those that recorded history say it was the elites who pushed for common rights. We seem to look to find a single hero when more than likely, as politicians do, they read the their public, and if in touch, move on matters before being pushed and loosing all or a lot of power. In other words we can romanticise history when it was really an imperative to survival of the power held by the monarchy.
A baron's political power came from the number of men that would fight and die for them. " Risk your lives for me, and I will give you benefits ! "
Starkey = legend
I hadn't really thought about it, but there is a striking similarity in attitude between Blair and Pol Pot
A Brave New World, unless we have freedom of speech that so many want to take away we will go there, how true Dr Starkey!!
Freedom of truthful speech is preferable.
Freedom to lie pollutes the infotmational commons and must be punished as though you'd dumped toxic sludge.
Most Americans don't even know what the "Magna Carta" is. Most would be confused if you quizzed them on it.
I cannot stand the facilitator interrupting the guest speaker David Starkey.
great debate, the chair really should let the historian finish though.. by giving him 2 min warning or something similar..
no wonder he became distant..
he obviously knew his stuff..
most enjoyable all the same
She said no secrets courts there has been many secrets courts in England putting people in mental homes or using the secret courts to hold them indefinitely till the secret court decides to let them free 🤷♂️🤷♂️
David Sharkey tells the truth. Unfortunately the interviers are ignorant and completely rude. He's the only person I know that is honest and straight forward. That's why he's not liked.
The nobles in 1215 were solely protecting their vested interests and power bases. No consideration for the ordinary folk....
But the rules of “Law” can be changed to restrict rights to an abysmal degree depending on who the “leaders” are, so do there need to be unalterable human rights ?
Magna Carta is based on Gaelic/Celtic Brehon Law and was simply the ancient legal norm in the British (Breton/Brehon) Isles
@Sam Black The Saxons like to think nothing existed here before them.
@Mr Spoon I am happy to have been corrected on that.
With regard to the European arrest warrant,, if a law is passed in parliament that contravenes Magna Carta doesn't that new law become treasonous???
This is a key point you've raised , how can a government sign away any of its sovereignty , or the sovereignty of its citizens , with trade agreements ? How is that even Constitutional ?
.
Its amazing that our US Government can still take our property and possessions at any time and also hold us in jail without any charges for any amount of time...our society is moving backwards
Love David xxx
Was that the Guantanamo detainee that once released went on to travel to Syria once the invasion took place and was photographed with ISIS fighters??
I love it when it cuts to starkey's face and he looks like someone just killed a baby in front of him
Has anyone ever clicked on a Recommended video only to find out you have already gave it a thumbs up a year ago?
This man is a gift to us all.
Starkey’s points are well put. And they point to the fragility of the entire enterprise. There is nothing inevitable in our civil liberties, as precious as they are.
Simon Jenner Totally agree. Mr Starkey‘s point is all on this. I agree with him. Modern lawyers and politicians based their belief on ideals what was once shaped by facts and circumstances. They are much more fragile than we imagine. It is not like what Jefferson says „we hold this as self evident“. The enlightenment is the jewel that I take from listening to this debate.
We thank you All
Nice to hear the intense David Starkey mention "four impossible things before breakfast" showing despite his lofty credentials, he is also an appreciator of the great Douglas Adams.