David Starkey and Donald Trump Jr.

Last Sunday historian David Starkey wrote in the Mail on Sunday:

800 years of democracy is unravelling before our very eyes: Distinguished historian DAVID STARKEY on how our self-satisfied politicians have launched a coup over Brexit

…The referendum was a very British revolution. And it’s been followed by a very British counter-revolution, which shows every sign of succeeding.

Don’t be deceived by the lack of violence or the comparative good manners of those now seizing control. This is a coup, and what is at stake is the nature and legitimacy of Parliament itself.

Ruled by comfortable, smug elites, Parliament is choosing to ignore the ordinary British people as they attempt to hold power to account.

It is no exaggeration to say that British democracy, which stands in direct line with Magna Carta, is now unravelling before us.

If today’s self-satisfied MPs and Ministers – I have already described them as a Parliament of Pygmies – have no time for the voters, they have little time for history, either.

They seem to have forgotten that the original power of our Parliament lay in its claim to represent everybody and not just a few privileged groups, as in continental Europe. (Take for example the Estates General in France or the Cortes Generales in Spain, two early parliaments which promptly died out in the 17th Century.)

They should remember, too, that our Parliament owed its survival to its willingness, with more or less of a struggle, to adapt and remain representative. As time went by, Parliament broadened out to include newly powerful social groups as they appeared.

and he goes on to declare

the EU referendum tore apart the veil: it was now the People versus the Parliament.

Parliament no longer includes large social groups. It instead excludes them. Or it includes only those of which it approves (gays, lesbians. Muslims, etc).

No better example of this is to be found than in Britain’s smokers, who were exiled to the outdoors on 1 July 2007, and have remained there ever since.

Britain’s smokers now have no representation whatsoever. Nobody speaks for them. They are instead serially robbed and driven further and further outside society.

If British democracy started unravelling, it wasn’t with the Brexit vote in June 2016, but with the smoking ban of July 2007, or the Health act of February 2006.

Or perhaps it started unravelling when Britain joined the unrepresentative and undemocratic managerial state of the EU, which declared, way back in 1989 that

…to ensure respect for the right to health of non-smokers, it is essential to ban smoking in public places in certain establishments and in forms of transport;

The British government ceased to represent the British people when it ceded its sovereignty to the European Union, and since then it has acted simply as a rubber stamp for legislation required by the EU (such as the smoking ban of 2007).

And the same is true of every other formerly sovereign state in the EU. For the French government no longer represents the French people, and neither does the Spanish government or the German government or any of the others represent their own people. And that’s why there’s a Yellow Vest uprising in France. There’s a nationalist populist revolt gathering momentum all over Europe. It’s a revolt by people who want their countries back, who want their parliaments and assemblies to represent them, not rule them.

It’s happening all over Europe. Not just Britain and France.

Writing along similar lines as David Starkey, Donald Tump Jr:

It has now been 1,000 days since the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but despite nearly three years of ‘negotiations’ between the government and the European Union, the country seems as far as ever from actually leaving. Prime Minister May has even gone so far as threatening the country with no Brexit at all if politicians don’t line up to support her unpopular and controversial Brexit deal.

Mr Trump compared the no-holds-barred tactics by the British and European establishment to stop Brexit from going ahead to attacks on his father in the U.S., stating that the fight for independence was not yet over and that “the people of both the UK and the US must reaffirm the decisions they made in 2016 to stand up for themselves against the global elite.”

Noting the “desperate, last-gasp attempt by those previously in power” to overturn the 2016 revolutions, Mr Trump was particularly scornful of UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who has led the United Kingdom through the bulk of the Brexit process, while achieving little for the British people.

Maybe when Donald Trump Sr. steps down, Donald Trump Jr. will step into his shoes?

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to David Starkey and Donald Trump Jr.

  1. garyk30 says:

    It is about power and always has been.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    It’s not just Britain and Europe. Smokers are being assaulted worldwide in a rush toward total prohibition.

    For example in Australia, social control has run amok: “The outrageous rules killing a city” [Sydney] at https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/sydney-slammed-as-a-city-with-shopping-list-of-out/3676632/

    And in San Fransisco: “Nation’s first e-cigarette ban proposed in San Francisco” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-e-cigarettes-temporary-ban-proposed-vaping-juul/

    Other pending bans in the news today included a beach ban at Cape Cod (Massachusetts), an apartment/hotel smoking ban in Healdsburg, CA (Sonoma County), a prison smoking ban in Pennsylvania, an outdoor (side walk, ATM line, outdoor eating area) ban in Pismo Beach, CA, and numerous outdoor bans throughout New Zealand (Wellington for example).

    The prohibitionist social controllers are enacting every conceivable typee of ban in their continuing increment charge toward total prohibition.

  3. E.G. says:

    Mr. Trump Jr may be looking to run. That might be a good explanation why he is counting the days in another country. May might deliver something by May maybe?
    They both have nothing for regular people.

  4. waltc says:

    Dan Crenshaw is the Republican comer. (Remember you heard it here)🙂

  5. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Hello all, I did not see any posts to the effect that readers of Frank’s blog submitted comments to the loaded tobacco consultation survey here:

    https://consultations.health.gov.au/population-health-and-sport-division/review-of-tobacco-control-legislation/

    Note they seek comments from “interested stakeholders”, which would obviously immediately excuse self-appointed curtain twitching prodnoses who have no standing or moral authority to interfere in the life decisions of others, but get exclusive red carpet privileged treatment from the bullies known as the dictatorial anti-freedokd.
    The sham “consultation” period closed on 18 March, but for your edification please see text extracted from my response to the so called Health Dept survey, seeking yet more intrusive prohibitionist anti-smoker regulation (obviously because the range of punitive measures introduced over the last half century have failed to validate their Nirvana thinking on how everyone else should live)…

    Response ID ANON-MQNK

    Submitted to Review of Tobacco Control Legislation
    Submitted on 2019-03-07 15:25:49

    Contact details and general demographics

    What is your name?

    Name:
    Mark Jarratt

    What is your email address?

    Email:
    gimprat@yahoo.com.au

    Are you a current smoker?

    Yes

    Are you a current e-cigarette user?

    No

    Are you providing a submission primarily as a representative of an organisation/professional association or consumer/individual?

    consumer/individual

    Australia’s obligations under Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC

    Are you or your organisation/professional association in any way associated or affiliated with the tobacco industry?

    No

    Are you or your organisation/professional association in any way associated or affiliated with the e-cigarette industry?

    No

    Have you or your organisation/professional association ever received services, assistance or support (whether monetary or non-monetary in nature) from the tobacco industry and/or the e-cigarette industry?

    No

    Australia’s obligations under Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC

    Have you or your organisation/professional association ever provided services, assistance or support (whether monetary or non-monetary in nature) to the tobacco industry and/or the e-cigarette industry?

    No

    Submission options

    You are invited to:

    Respond to some or all general consultation questions.

    Consultation questions – tobacco advertising

    What is working well in relation to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Regulation 1993?

    The various statutes prohibiting tobacco advertising are blatant censorship, unduly interfering in the ability of manufacturers to market their highly legal excessively taxed products, freely chosen by millions of Australians although tobacco advertising has been banned for decades. This indicates tobacco advertising does not have the behavioural modification powers claimed by tobacco control paternalists. If advertising had such power, smoking rates would be NIL, as only government approved QUIT OR DIE propaganda is legally permitted.

    Do you consider the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Regulation 1993 simple, clear and easy to read? If not, which elements of the regulation pose particular challenges and what changes would you suggest?

    The regulations are deeply illiberal and intrusive and should be repealed. Ease of reading is irrelevant when the threshold issue is what standing or moral authority do governments have to engage in mass scale lifestyle modification programs without the consent of those affected.

    What, if any, changes could be made to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Regulation 1993?

    Repeal all legislation which unfairly discriminates against the manufacturers and suppliers of a particular product. Otherwise, be consistent by introducing censorship of other products claimed to be harmful such as alcohol and “junk” food.

    Are there any studies that would support the measures that you are suggesting?:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629600000540

    Do you consider the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Regulation 1993 (or provisions within) redundant, unnecessary or otherwise not fit-for-purpose?

    Yes, the provisions are patronizing, redundant, and useless. Such hyper regulation is evidence of significant overreach, an insult to intelligence and lack of respect for individual choice.

    Would you like to:

    Respond to some or all consultation questions on tobacco plain packaging.

    Consultation questions – tobacco plain packaging

    What is working well in relation to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011?:

    The so called plain packaging of tobacco products legislation does not achieve the stated aims, and is a deeply illiberal example of appropriating the branding and trademarks of legitimate business as a vehicle for behavioural modification propaganda, interfering in the free market solely to appease anti-tobacco lifestyle control fanatics. The only post implementation review of the propaganda pack legislation was conducted by a leading proponent of “plain” packaging, predictably finding the policy was effective by blatant misuse of statistics. This is evidence of the absence of objective analysis and intellectual acuity applied to the failed plain packs policy. Evidence is “cherry picked” to bolster preconceived conclusions, while any facts contradicting such notions are ignored or suppressed.

    Do you consider the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 simple, clear and easy to read? If not, which elements of the legislation pose particular challenges, and what changes would you suggest?:

    The legislation is firmly based in narrow and unsophisticated hard coercive prohibitionist paternalism. The ease of understanding the provisions is irrelevant, as the legislation should be repealed in entirety.

    What, if any, improvements could be made to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011?:

    Completely repeal the Act and Regulations as a proven instance of failed intervention in the market, useless meddling when tobacco products are already obliged to be concealed from view at the point of sale, unjustified appropriation of intellectual property, a disrespectful insult to the free choices of smokers, and to the intelligence of those viewing tobacco packaging. Otherwise, be consistent and introduce plain packaging legislation for other targets of tax and ban prohibitionist wowsers, such as alcohol, sugar and “junk” food.

    Are there any studies that would support the measures that you are suggesting?:
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2780938

    General consultation question

    What are the benefits to you associated with the current regulatory arrangements?:

    There are no benefits at all for smokers under the current discriminatory and punitive Australian prohibitionist tobacco control regime. Smokers are treated as second class citizens with no voice in regulatory decisions which directly adversely affect millions of adults daily. The subjective lifestyle preferences of crusading moralistic anti-tobacco zealots are given exclusive priority, while smokers have no rights, other than the right to be targeted for officially sanctioned bullying, relentless QUIT OR DIE propaganda, bans and punitive excessive taxation.

    What are the costs or disadvantages to you associated with the current regulatory arrangements?:

    Taxation of tobacco products at 900% ad valorem is a significant and unjustified impost. Smokers clearly unjustly subsidize other taxpayers, while shrill anti-smoking activists continuously demand yet more taxes and bans. Taxing products valued at AUD$20 on import (1 x carton of 200 cigarettes) at AUD$179.84 (current rates of import duty and GST, with more increases planned), can reasonably be described as state sanctioned theft, classically regressive, and unconscionable punishment of smokers by de facto prohibition. The socially divisive and illiberal hyper regulation of tobacco creates deadweight regulatory costs for all of Australian civil society, including empowering intolerant citizens to confront total strangers, even in the open air, and demand they cease smoking. The so called plain tobacco packs are a blatant insult to free choice and personal autonomy, with stratospheric taxes levied on a debased product.

    Do you consider that any of the legislation generates unnecessary administrative burden? If so, what changes could be made to address this?

    The current unjust prohibitionist hyper regulation of tobacco demonstrably creates deadweight regulatory costs while fuelling the black market, denying useful consumer information in favour of outright lies and “shock horror” propaganda, uglifying the built environment by shouty NO SMOKING signs, appropriating intellectual property by stealing branding, acting as a vector for corruption of law enforcement, and providing employment to sanctimonious rent seeking “public health” paternalists who believe they know best how other citizens should live. Tobacco control and government lifestyle regulation in general demonstrably does more harm than good, and should not receive any public funding. If support for zealous and intrusive tobacco controls is as strong as is claimed, there should be no need for such intrusive and draconian laws at all levels of government. Forcing proprietors of establishments such as bars to enforce anti-smoking provisions makes them untrained unlicensed tobacco control inspectors, with potential for additional adverse consequences (witness for example the tragic case of Dr Patrick Pritzwald-Stegmann at Box Hill hospital).

    Do you consider that any of the Department of Health tobacco control legislation imposes significant unnecessary compliance costs on business, community organisations and individuals? If so, how could compliance costs be reduced?:

    Yes, the costs of the current petty and intrusive wide ranging tobacco control legislation far outweigh any perceived or putative benefits to “public health”, merely a convenient fig leaf for single issue political activists to impose their preferences on other members of society with uncritical support by legislators. The costs to Australian society with corruption, black marketeering, and robberies of tobacco products, often involving violence, will continue to trend upwards while tobacco is now more valuable than pure silver bullion, solely as a result of excessive government taxes.

    Are there any other measures for tobacco control regulation that you think the Australian Government should consider and prioritise?

    Yes. All tobacco control provisions should be repealed forthwith, as proven examples of unjustified government overreach into individual lifestyle choices based in hard coercive paternalism. Australia should also withdraw from the anti-free choice and anti-industry (except industry purveyors of useless smoking “cures”) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This loaded survey question implies yet more regulation is needed, when the existing failed illiberal regime already exceeds any test of reasonableness, balance and perspective, and is totally at odds with principles of free choice, ethical philosophy, and personal lifestyle autonomy. Tobacco prohibitionist lobbyists are exclusively heeded by government while those directly affected by their bullying persecution are denied a voice. If “public health” is the aim, government should have no reservations in prohibiting tobacco completely, foregoing the billions in revenue extorted from smokers annually.

  6. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Should read dictatorial anti-freedom government! Mea Culpa.

  7. slugbop007 says:

    That was great, Mr. Jarratt. The same tactics have been deployed here in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Not only is it anti-personal choice, it’s also a tax grab. If they were obliged to go door to door to gather up funds for their Crusade we wouldn’t hear a word from them.

    Go Brexit!

    slugbop007

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.