TOWER OF LONDON

Here as promised is my proposed emergency back-stop to prevent brexit – comprising a draft Parliamentary Bill to outlaw the Tory party for treasonously threatening the destruction of the united kingdom by implementing Brexit against the majority wish of the people of the United Kingdom.

The simple facts of demography are these, that the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union. They will therefore seek to rejoin the European Union if forcibly taken out, and this will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. The logic behind these statements are inescapable and factually based on long observation of the politics of both Scotland and Northern Ireland. So what ? What’s the fuss ? I have had several Brexiteers saying – if Scotland and Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, why not just let them ?

Well, here are just a few of the problems I foresee arising from the breaking away of Scotland from the UK.

  • UK intelligence services: currently MI5, MI6, GCHQ all serve the nation to the best of their ability and try to keep us secure from foreign or terrorist threats. If Scotland becomes an entirely separate sovereign nation, she will either have to build her own intelligence services, and it cannot be pre-determined that her foreign policy will be the same as that pursued by the UK currently, or she will lay claim to a proportion of the existing UK services. Perhaps some serving intelligence officers will defect to join the Scottish service. It will put huge strain on many people and will make the UK a far less safe place to be. If Northern Ireland then follows Scottish independence and secedes, the strain will be even worse.
  • The honours system: currently people who have done great works of service to the nation are honoured with various medal and awards, such as the MBE, OBE, DBE etc. if Scotland breaks away, will she have her own such system ? How can the remaining UK continue to use the term “British Empire” in their remaining medals system; the British Empire only came into being after the union of the crowns of Scotland and England and Wales under King James in 1603. Their dissolution will be the final coming apart of whatever remains of the British Empire. There will be long and bitter disputes about this and new names will have to be found north and south of the border.
  • The monetary system: Scotland will want to use the Scottish pound in their new monetary system; English based national bankers and treasury officials will try to resists this; it will lead to bitterness and recriminations.
  • North Sea oilfields: lines of demarcation will be drawn differently, this will lead to huge conflict and bitterness and legal disputes dragging on for years. The key thing is, both sides will become poorer in the long run and only the lawyers richer.
  • The Ministry of Defence: at present the MOD serves to protect the people of all the UK; after the division of the UK into two or possibly three or four mini-nations, what will happen to the MOD and its resources ? There will be huge splits, arguments, disagreement and divisions about this leading to endless political and legal wrangling. One thing is certain – our nation as a whole will be much less secure than currently. The nuclear umbrella will have to be withdrawn from Scotland for such is undoubtedly the will of the Scottish people.
  • The future of the monarchy will be in doubt, since it is quite likely that after independence, whatever they say in public, once independent, the Scottish government will hold a subsequent referendum on replacing the monarchical system by an elected presidential system. The monarch will thus revert to being monarch of a much smaller realm. It is possible other voices south of the border will also call for the abolition of the monarchy as an irrelevance. If the monarchy couldn’t even prevent the breakup of its own realm, what on earth is it for, voices will argue no doubt. So not only will Theresa May be the last UK Prime Minister, but Queen Elizabeth will be the last monarch, certainly of the UK. It is tragic and ironic therefore that a so cvative party is actually impreillign the constitutional fabir oc of hte UK which has survived since 1603 an d the Union of Scotland and Engla and Wales.
  • If the UK breaks apart and Scotland achieves complete independence, other countries around the world which look to the UK, such as Commonwealth countries, for stability, hope and order in a chaotic and fragmented world, will be bitterly disappointed; they will see yet another once great power falling apart at the We have watched as Yugoslavia fell apart; as the USSR collapsed, as Afghanistan fell apart, as Iraq imploded, as Syria collapsed, as Libya disintegrated, as Ukraine ended up in an uncivil war. In some of these break ups we ourselves have played a not altogether glorious role.  I have always hoped the Uk could play a genuinely creative role in actual peacebuilding and mediation. Now the world will watch as the once great UK follows the same route, and breaks up into warring and argumentative petty countries, leaping directly back into the dark ages. If you think I am being alarmist, then I suggest you study history and philosophy for 40 years as I have done. I also suggest you live in Scotland for 7 years and keep your ears to the ground. I promise you, there is a very strong probability all this will happen once Scotland  votes for full independence from the UK so as to be able to remain in the EU, which was her own democratically expressed will. I take no joy in saying this, but as a Canadian dual British citizen who has lived and worked in both countries, and traveled and lectured in over 33 countries worldwide, I can say that I and my fellow Canadians, not to mention Indian citizens, where I have traveled widely and taught often, are appalled at the prospect of the UK breaking up into residual nations. Both Canada and India are modern federations and we suggest the UK should remain together and follow the same route. The House of Lords could be replaced by a Federal Senate as part of this modernisation process.

All these issues are huge problems in themselves. Compared with the breakup of the UK and all that it brings into focus, the prospect of remaining inside the EU however comes as a welcome option to remain together as one nation, at peace with itself (more or less) and with its neighbours. The question before us, is do we  hate the EU so much that we are prepared to see the UK collapse, after over 400 years of common history as a result of this burning hatred? Or do the people of Britain love their own nation, the UK, more than they hate the EU ? After all, the EU is reformable,  but once the UK is destroyed however, it cannot be rebuilt, and 400 years of history will have vanished like a pipe dream. A country whose unity was forged by Saints, as reflected in our national flag, will ave been broken apart by politicians.

I have tried again and again to impress upon the Prime Minister over recent weeks and months, but she has utterly and totally ignored my warnings to the point of adverse rudeness. She hasn’t the intellectual capacity to argue against me, and instead retreats behind bland platitudes which are as dull as they are factually incorrect. You can join me in any last minute efforts trying to impress upon the Prime Minister the urgency of this situation which now threatens our very future as a nation. I cannot see another way to retrieve this situation apart from calling a second EU referendum. I believe this policy would have the very greatest support from all thinking UK citizens. The Terms on which the second EU referendum should be conducted would have to be fairer than before; all voters 16 and over should vote, UK citizens living in Europe or elsewhere who remain UK citizens should all get to vote with plenty of time for their voting papers to arrive and return, and these votes should be counted at a separate central location in the UK. Unless there is a second referendum, I am afraid we are going to live through the breakup of the UK and I for one will not be happy unless I had done my utmost to prevent that happening.

It is also a thoroughly false argument repeated an nauseam by Tory Ministers to say that Brexit represents the will of the people of the UK. Of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU), of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters did not vote to leave the EU. What it means, is that if we are to leave the EU, 34% of the voters will have imposed their will over 64% of the rest. This is hardly a ringing mandate for such a massive change affecting the nation for years to come, and indeed, affecting the entire history of Europe. Or to put this another way, the combined number of voters who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742. The combined total of those voters who either voted to remain in the EU or who voted to keep the status quo by not voting at all, was 29,089,259. which is 64% of the total. Please have a quiet word with the Prime Minister and do what you can to prevent UK break up. In addition, the Tory Party, which is masterminding this whole process, has only 120,00 members. So a minority gtroup, with reactionary views, mostly of an anti-intelectual antuyre, who stand for a variety of semoi-fascist, ractist adn xenophobic views, will have effectely engineered a secret coup in whch their own xenophopbic racist attitudes will have led to teh break up of the Uk, as the rest of the nations which make up the UK reject what is essentially a little Englaish attitude.

Who am I to be saying all this ? Why should anyone care ? Well, I have no outer political power or office and have never striven for such.  I am merely a philosopher and intellectual, a Druid and an Anglican Christian, an expert in interfaith philosophical studies, an historian, and a poet,  who has always believed in our constitution and in the UK, and believed that we can turn this UK into a peace-loving nation and help advance democracy, the rule of law, justice and fair play around the world, through our work in the UN and in the European Union,. This is why I accepted the job, on graduating, of setting up an International Institute of Peace Studies in London, and why I organised countless meetings, seminars, courses, and publications in the cause of an intelligent peace policy to be followed by the UK as a nation. I did this work not in any party politically biased fashion but on behalf of the whole community of our multitextured patchwork of peoples.

The majority of voters of Northern Ireland voted to remain  in the European Union. The majority of voters of Scotland chose to remain in the European Union.  The great majority of British citizens now want a second referendum of this most vital of political questions.  Why has this current government interpreted the referendum results as a mandate for an absolute Brexit ?  In my work as a political scientist and philosopher of peace over many years teaching at both the Universities of London and Oxford, I have never known of such a fatal miscalculation.  The immediate consequences of this policy will result in the citizens of Northern Ireland being given a referendum by choice to join with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the European Union.  All the demographics point to this as an almost certain outcome.  Likewise the people of Scotland will lawfully demand a second independence referendum, and this time will vote for becoming an independent nation state within the European Union.  Again, the implications of the Brexit policy are that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to be renamed Little Britain (England and Wales).

I have even written to the Queen warning her of the risks from imposing this fanatical and hard line Brexit by the Tories and received a polite reply from her correspondence secretary.

I wrote to her because I believe we all  have a constitutional duty to help defend the integrity of the realm.  Privy Councillors have a special sworn duty to protect Her Majesty from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I wrote therefore not as a Privy Councillor but as a loyal subject, to warn the Queen of the impending danger which I foresee for the UK.  I assured her that if she consults with any genuine academics, constitutional experts, legal advisers, political scientists etc. they will also confirm that what I  wrote  is as true as anything ever can be when it comes to political science.  I explained to her gently that If she is being told otherwise (the Scots will back down, the Northern Irish are not serious, etc.), then she is being mis-advised by party political place-men lacking in a fundamental overview of the situation.  I explained to her that Melbourne was appreciated by Queen Victoria as a great Liberal Prime Minister, precisely because he told her the truth, not because he told her what she wanted to hear.  I also pointed out that we seem to be lacking statesmen and stateswomen of his calibre nowadays.

 

Why am I going public with all this ? Well, Brexit is such a major policy blunder that all of us must do what we can to stop it.

 

So now I going the extra mile – and having tried warning the Prime Minister (politely) having tried warning her Majesty, having tried warning the general public, I have come to the realisation, in view of Theresa May’s recent performance in Strasbourg, where she attempted, ignorantly, to bully all 27 other European Union country leaders into “accepting her vision and view of what Brexit should look like, or she will just leave anyway” – which is frankly not how things are done in European politics. Most of the other European Union leaders do not want the UK to leave at all, and have now said openly they think the UK should be given a second referendum. I wholeheartedly agree with them.

 

Yet incredibly the Conservative Party and its leader continue on as before, steaming straight into the iceberg.

 

For this reason, I have now drafted the following legislation, and would ask that anyone with parliamentary contacts should share, copy, paste and publicize it. We need some politicians of integrity to come forward and back this Bill.

 

We are faced with an imminent tragedy of the destruction of the UK, which has been in existence since 1603.

 

The main party that is pursuing this policy against all common sense, right reason and democratic precedence, is the Conservative Party, hence the only final answer to solve this problem is to outlaw them as a treasonous body whose politicians must be either maliciously, or ignorantly,  intent on destroying the country. Here follows the text of the Bill, whose text is I hope self-explanatory. I have also integrated this bill with the text of my earlier Parliamentary Duty of Veracity Bill, because the two issues are inextricably intertwined. The only reason we have got into this mess is because politicians have been lying and getting away with it, and still are. There therefore ought to be at the earliest opportunity a new Bill which makes lying in Parliament illegal, and here it is.

 

THE PROSCRIPTION OF THE BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE

AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND PARLIAMENTARY VERACITY BILL

 

Be it enacted by the Lords, spiritual and temporal and by the Commons here assembled, that a new bill be brought forward concerning THE PROSCRIPTION OF THE ILLEGAL, TREASONOUS AND TERRORIST BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN


An Act to make provision in relation to the PROSCRIPTION OF THE ILLEGAL, TREASONOUS AND TERRORIST BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

 

To ensure that members of parliament, members of the House of Lords and others should renounce membership of this illegal and treasonous body known as the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN or face arrest and imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation

 

The purpose of this act is to enshrine in law the proscription of the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain as an illegal, treasonous, and terrorist body whose continued existence is inimical to public well being, democracy and the rule of just law in the united Kingdom as well as of the continuation of the United Kingdom itself as a political entity.

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of Scotland contrary to their express wish

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of Northern Ireland contrary to their express wish

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of London contrary to their express wish

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of many parts of England and Wales contrary to their express and growing wish

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of The United Kingdom as a whole contrary to their express and growing wish, and to refuse to permit them to obtain redress at a second national referendum on continued membership of the European Union

 

Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of The United Kingdom as a whole contrary to right reason, and in the face of imminent and direct threats that the consequence will be the imminent and immediate destruction and fracturing of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

 

Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as ILLEGAL, because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions and customs of British democratic law and legal procedures, with principles of common law and the invisible architecture of the British constitution, both formal and informal, and with the principle of self-preservation that any nation state retains unto itself, and which is the fount and principle of law, duty and moral righteousness

 

Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as TREASONOUS  because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions and customs of British democratic law and legal procedures, with principles of common law and the invisible architecture of the British constitution, in as much as they bound to lead to the imminent self-destruction and self-dismemberment of the United Kingdom as a political entity, with the ending of the Act of Union of 1603 and the independence of Scotland, and the ending of the Province of Northern Ireland as part of the UK and its reunification with the Republic of Ireland

 

Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as A TERRORIST ORGANISATION  because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions of national self preservation and are leading directly to the dismemberment, destruction and fracturation of the state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This outcome is so obvious to any analysis, that the conclusion is that it must have been entered into the same wilfully and malevolently by senior Conservative Politicians in collusion with foreign powers who wish to see the destruction of the United Kingdom, and who have already set their sights on the ending of the UK as it currently exists and therefore can be proved to have treasonous purposes at heart.

 

Be it THEREFORE enacted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lord’s spiritual and temporal and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows; –

 

  1. Legal obligation laid on members of parliament to renounce membership in the henceforth illegal CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, which is pursuing policies deliberately and malevolently which will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom
  2. Legal obligation laid on all employees, committee members and officials of the sometime CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN to resign and dissolve the said association, which has been entered into for nefarious and illegal purposes and which is pursuing policies deliberately and malevolently which will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom
  3. In view of the fact that the current imminent self-destruction of the United Kingdom has come about due to the deceitful, manipulative, and dishonourable ignoring and silencing of genuine oppositional voices in parliament, and by the pursuance of policies such as brexit which are likely to lead to the breakup of the UK, there is henceforth a Legal obligation placed on all members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords henceforth to tell the truth on all political matters brought before them, on all matters of official businesses or all matters of parliamentary business

 

  1. a) All members of the House of Commons (of whichever political party) are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    b) If found to have dissimulated, lied, obfuscated, falsely denied, prevaricated or otherwise mendaciously attempted to deflect the questioner, or to dissuade from asking the question, then a formal procedure would be inaugurated whereby an independent investigative committee on parliamentary truth standards would be convened to consider the evidence for mendacity.
    c) If the charge of mendacity were upheld and proven to a high degree of likelihood, the Member Of Parliament would be automatically sent back or recalled to their constituency and a fresh election triggered for the said constituency.
    d) Private and personal matters would be excluded from this provision, except so far in that they have bearing on matters of State or the business of government. Financial matters and other professional matters that have bearing on their official roles however would be included.
    e) All members of the House of Lords likewise are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    f) All members of local councils and local authorities or their executive officers or staff are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    g) All government employees, members and officers of government bodies, committees and quangos and all civil servants, are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any British citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    h) All members of the Royal Household and the Privy Council, the armed forces and all other agencies of the British state are likewise so required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any British citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    i) Matters of national security concerning which questions might be put, would have to be argued before the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) as being genuinely matters which cannot be answered in public. Truthful answers would however still have to be given to all such requests to a special committee of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, who would have the final say on whether to make the answer public or to communicate it to the respondent.
    j) All holders of Public office, including those mentioned above, and also anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in: the civil service, local government, the police, the courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies, health, education, social and care services. The principle of honesty also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.
  2. The procedures for the calling of Parliamentary Investigative Truth Committees would be under the auspices of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL)
    5.The jurors of the Parliamentary Truth Committees would be taken by random lot chosen from the official jury rolls of Westminster. No jurors would serve on more than one such Parliamentary Investigative Committee
    6.The juries of other officials to be established in each local parliamentary constituency and to be formed of ad hoc members taken by lot from the local jury rolls.
    7.The Oaths (or Affirmations) taken for formal and official office would be updated to reflect this new obligation of Veracity on taking up appointment.
    8. If any holder of public office or government official has been found to have dissimulated, lied, obfuscated, falsely denied, prevaricated or otherwise mendaciously attempted to deflect the questioner, or to dissuade from asking the question, and a formal procedure has concluded there is affirmative evidence for mendacity, then the official concerned would be required to resign from office immediately, with one months’ severance pay only permitted.
    9. This principle of honesty runs parallel to Parliamentary Privilege laws and privileges. Members of parliament are no longer permitted to make untrue accusations, deliberately lying, against fellow parliamentarians. Henceforth they are required to observe the principle of honesty if they wish to accuse their colleagues of wrong doing.
    10.The new legal duty of veracity imposed by this Bill on all holders of Public Office cannot be refused by hiding behind “freedom of information” legislation. There are no cost ceilings involved in truth–telling. Nor can public officials refuse to respond honestly to questions on the grounds of “confidentiality” except without giving very good grounds to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL).
    11. Frivolous, time-wasting and vexatious questions soliciting nonsensical information in inappropriate ways would be dealt with according to their desserts, and costs accrued to the frivolous questioner. Common sense rules would apply (e.g. what colour tie did you wear on December 19th 2014).

 

  1. The dissolution of the Conservative and Unionist Party shall take immediate effect on the passage of this legislation, and likewise, the Duty Of Veracity shall immediately become a principle in parliamentary law and procedure.

 

This act hereby passed and approved by order of Parliament and through the Grace of Queen Elizabeth 2nd, Sovereign, so help us God.

 

 *******************

 

This provisional parliamentary legislation has been drafted by Dr Thomas Daffern, September 2018, in an effort to prevent Brexit coming into force, by the proscription of the key political force that is pushing it, an illegal treasonous and terroristic organisation, by any definition of the words, with only 120,000 members throughout the UK, yet which is imposing a policy against the wishes of the vast majority of the 62 million people who lives in the UK. Dr. Thomas Clough Daffern B.A. (Hons.) PGCE. D.SC. (Hon), PhD. is a philosopher, historian, teacher, poet, author, lecturer, musician, thinker,  educator, consultant and peace studies specialist. His academic background includes degrees in European and world history (with political philosophy) and religious education, plus a long period of intense personal study in philosophy, religion and the history of ideas – together with over 30 years teaching experience in the same fields. He has also trained and practised in conflict management within communities and schools, specialising in multifaith and multicultural mediation. He is also a trained and experienced teacher in secondary schools, specialising in philosophy, religious education, history and citizenship studies. He was awarded his PhD from the University of London for a thesis which explores the history of the search for peace from 1945-2001 and which proposes a new field of historiography, Transpersonal History, as the best way to establish a rigorous discourse on peace among rival and contending spiritual and intellectual traditions, currently battling for hegemony on the planet. He is an expert in research techniques and methodologies on all aspects of history, religious studies, the history of world philosophy and transpersonal psychology. He has lectured in peace studies, philosophy and religious studies for many years at the Universities of London and Oxford, and has spoken  at the UN Headquarters about the role of Universities in changing the climate of fear and violence on the planet to one of trust and wisdom-seeking. He is a founder and coordinator of International Philosophers and Historians for Peace and has worked with philosophers and intellectuals from many countries worldwide to help establish intellectual and spiritual networks for peace and goodwill. In 1990 he was elected in Moscow as Coordinator of International Philosophers for Peace, a specialist body of philosophers worldwide searching for peace and international understanding. He is Director of the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (IIPSGP) which works across many academic fields to bring together all those with an interest in and a commitment towards the study of peace and philosophy on all levels of the personal and global and to applying the qualities of love and wisdom to the resolution of the problems and tensions of today’s world. IIPSGP arose out of a feasibility study which Thomas undertook for the University of London into the proposed establishment of an Institute of Peace Studies (from 1989-1992). IIPSGP now operates as an autonomous Institute with members scattered worldwide. Thomas is also Founder of The Global Green University, which has arisen from the work of IIPSGP and was launched in 2000 as a pilot project in complementary higher education, to bring into being a new global higher education initiative which can provide space for the deeper, holistic, transpersonal and ecological  kind of learning. Dr Daffern is also European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum a new initiative like the World Economic Forum, but with a wider intellectual participation. Dr Daffern is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party in recognition that they are the major political force fighting brexit in the UK at present. He has personally co-chaired over 35 seminars in the House of Lords from 1993-2007 concerning all aspects of peace, policy and ethics, with the friendly help of members of the House of Lords. Further details about his work can be found on here: http://www.educationaid.net   Comments, feedback, offers of legal help, offers of parliamentary support, to thomasdaffern@gmail.com