What is Government For?

We "dissidents" need to be a 𝗹𝗼𝘁 more radical and visionary in our thinking

1 Introduction

Westminster Palace - the most corrupt place in Britain?

Politics across the West is broken - though that is hardly a strong enough word to describe the dystopian breakdown of democracy and freedom that we have witnessed in recent years and decades. “Broken” suggests that the present situation is fixable, and social media is awash with discussions about how such a fix might be managed. Here, we will argue that a resolution to the problems requires a far more basic analysis than even the most “radical” of commentators is currently attempting.

Those responsible for the tyranny of recent years are motivated by one of two basic drives:

• The need to exert increasingly totalitarian control over the people - i.e. they are power-crazed psychopaths.

• Greed, i.e. they are making money from a rigged market - e.g. vaccine sales, the military industrial complex, wind farm construction, etc.

Politicians are not the only guilty ones of course, but it is politicians in whom we, the people, vest the authority of the state. We have the right to demand that they use that authority in the interests of the people - not to enrich themselves, act covertly to advance their own extremist ideologies, or favour a globalist agenda ahead of that of the UK.

Our goal here is to present a way forward, towards a workable alternative that will genuinely restore democratic freedoms and also stand the test of time for (at least) a century to come. But, to propose a genuine fix, it is first necessary to fully and properly understand the problem.

Politics, and therefore government, has intruded ever more egregiously into areas in which there has never been a true democratic mandate, resulting in widespread mass formation delusions which have progressively worsened the state of the modern world.

An example is the entire concept of fundamental human rights. There are no “fundamental” (natural) human rights, only citizen’s rights bestowed by modern, wealthy societies, made possible by that wealth. Five thousand years ago, no one had the “right” to universal health care, a free state education, or clean running water. Insanely, we now talk about the right not to be offended by “hate speech” - how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

If there is a single genuinely fundamental human right, it is the right to protection from totalitarian state over-reach. The great irony is that crimes against humanity are only ever committed by rogue state actors.

Humanity has taken a serious wrong turn, and now is the time to properly address things. We must do so by uniting on the fundamentals on which we can all agree, not arguing interminably about angels dancing on pinheads.

2 The Current Dystopian Catastrophe

2.1 The United States

Let’s start with the USA, and not mince our words. The sitting President, Joseph (“Joe”) Biden, is a corrupt, senescent, malevolent devil:

1. Consider the quantifiable “achievements” of the Biden administration:

   1. An insane, ongoing, war in Ukraine, in which hundreds of thousands have died, while corrupt actors behind the scenes have become further enriched.

   2. A US national debt now approaching an insane $35 Trillion - over $100,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

   3. The surrender of US sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable, neo-Marxist globalist institutions such as the UN (including the IPCC and WHO).

   4. A porous southern border and the total loss of control over illegal immigration (mirroring that in Europe).

   5. An extremely likely nefarious involvement in the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion.

2. Biden’s son, Hunter, has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, involving substance abuse (including alcohol and cocaine), engagement with prostitutes, tax and gun charges, and more.

   Each scandal has been ruthlessly minimised or suppressed by the mainstream media (MSM) on both sides of the Atlantic. Particularly damning is the cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which surfaced in the final weeks of the 2020 Presidential campaign - greatly influencing the outcome (a Biden “victory”) - and which exposes his corrupt business dealings in China and Ukraine, in which his father has also been implicated (“10% for the big guy”). Anyone who has not previously heard about any of this should be seriously asking themselves why.

   The BBC now claims (December 2023) that Hunter Biden’s laptop “featured prominently” in the campaign, except of course that it did not, at all. This is yet more gaslighting. The story was denied and suppressed throughout the MSM, including by the BBC at the time.

“A laptop abandoned by Hunter at a Delaware repair shop, and the seedy contents of its hard drive, also featured prominently in the 2020 presidential campaign.”

1. Biden’s daughter, Ashley’s, diaries reveal that he took “inappropriate” showers with her when she was a young girl, leaving her “hyper-sexual”. Even corrupted internet “fact checkers” have been unable to sustain the cover-up of this story, in light of Ashley Biden herself basically confirming its veracity - though there is good reason to suspect the motives behind this sudden outbreak of “transparency”, a few months before the upcoming US Presidential election.

“On April 29, 2024, Snopes changed the rating of this fact check from "Unproven" to "True" based on testimony provided by Ashley Biden.”

There is absolutely no question that Biden is a very nasty piece of work, who should be nowhere near the US Presidency. However, he is simply an example of the ubiquitous corruption in US politics - and the institutions which are complicit in maintaining the corrupt status quo.

The flip side of the Biden coin - and the final proof, were it needed, that something is very wrong at the heart of American “democracy” - is the treatment of Donald Trump, which could hardly contrast more with that of Biden. Trump and his supporters have been pilloried and hounded non-stop by the “establishment” - again, on both sides of the Atlantic and including by the BBC - for various “trumped up” transgressions, including the ludicrous charge that he tried to stage a coup on January 6th 2021. As we write this, Trump is - once again - on trial in New York in a transparent attempt to take him down ahead of the Presidential election.

You do not need to be a fan, or an opponent, of Trump, to understand objectively that there has been a concerted and long-standing establishment attempt to destroy him, while protecting Biden. Trump may not be perfect, but he puts the fear of God into “the swamp” and that can only be a massive argument in his favour.

2.2 The UK

We have written previously, at length, here and here, about the issues with democratic freedom in the UK, so we will not repeat ourselves now - other than to reproduce this picture which summarises the current situation:

Three of the four occupants of the “great offices of state” in the UK (the final one being the hopeless, but at least democratically appointed, Home Secretary James Cleverly) are unelected, and unwanted, even by those who voted Conservative in 2019. Sunak, Cameron and Hunt are nothing but globalist puppets, with absolutely no interest in serving the citizens of the UK.

At least in the US, voters in the upcoming Presidential election will be afforded a genuine choice between Biden (or his increasingly probable last minute replacement), Trump, and the wildcard Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In the UK, we will get no such choice. Our options will be between near-identical factions of the legacy uniparty (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, and nationalist clones in the devolved regions), and the Reform party who are, in reality, another (amateurish) incarnation of centre-right Tories.

Since Reform have no realistic chance of winning any significant number of seats they are, in any case, no real choice at all, other than as a means of “sending the Tories a message”. Since most now consider the non-conservative Conservatives to be in terminal decline towards permanent oblivion, giving them a bloody nose at this point (and ending up anyway with a Labour government) would be an entirely futile and pyrrhic victory.

Regardless of the outcome of the UK general election, the “blob” will remain in control, and the surrender of UK sovereignty to home-grown quangos and international neo-Marxist globalist institutions will accelerate.

2.3 The Rest of the West

Things are no better - in fact they are, if anything, far worse, in other western nations.

In the US and UK there is at least a pretence of representative democratic choice. The increasingly deranged, anti-democratic autocrats of the EU do not concern themselves with such naïve, irrelevant trivialities.

Canada, New Zealand, and probably Australia, are already lost to woke tyranny. They have no chance of independent recovery from the inexorable descent into totalitarian communism; they are totally dependent on rescue from the outside.

Argentina may not really qualify as the political “West”, but the outcome of the Milei experiment will be fascinating to see. If he is successful, we should all hope that his approach proves infectious across South America at least.

More recently, agreement on a new coalition government in the Netherlands, with Geert Wilders involved as a central figure, may lead to the implementation of some centre-right policies. Time will tell - it will be especially interesting to see how the EU responds to any specific attempts to control immigration, for example.

3 Back to Basics: Purpose

Regardless of detail, there is a growing, almost universal, consensus among ordinary citizens, that things are very bad, getting worse by the day, and that change is desperately needed.

But there is no agreement on what a changed system should look like. Most “radical” ideas are in fact not radical at all, merely tinkering at the edges; proposing reactive, point issue, “solutions” to each latest issue, rather than a proactive approach to our fundamental political disease. Reform UK, for example, claim that they are “Ready to save Britain”, but their policies are shallow soundbites. They want to stop the boats, slow down Net Zero, and reform the NHS, but they present no detailed analysis of the problems and no long-term vision for Britain.

In short, most individual commentators and political start-ups lack bold ambition. Those that have the necessary ambition, lack the intellectual depth and practical skills to formulate a credible alternative philosophy.

We therefore need to urgently develop a coherent moral, ethical and intellectual framework around which ordinary voters can coalesce and unify. To formulate a real, enduring solution to the disastrous political malaise in the UK, and the world, we need to go right back to fundamentals - a philosophical blank sheet - and take it from there.

What is government for? What is the scope of authority that “we, the people” consent to bestow upon government; what mechanisms do we need to effectively ensure separation of powers (traditionally between legislature, judiciary and executive); and how do we ensure that democratic freedoms and social cohesion can never again be hijacked in the way that we have seen in recent years?

The answers to these questions need to be formalised, and documented in a written constitution for the UK - it is clear that we must replace our informal system, based on an assortment of disparate laws and judicial precedence, because we can no longer trust our parliamentarians, our government, or our judiciary, to act independently and do the right thing by the citizens.

Many people have misgivings about adopting a written constitution for the UK. There are concerns about unintended consequences, and recognition that written constitutions in other countries, such as the USA, have not provided a panacea. There are two main tools available to address any risk. Any new constitution:

1. Should be crafted in generic terms of philosophical principle, unrelated to specific examples of any “current thing”. But it should then be tested, in open debate, against such specific examples. This is the approach we have taken in proposing our own ideas below.

2. Could initially run for a pilot period, say five or ten years, and there should be formal provisions after that for amending the constitution following a national referendum.

So let’s get started with reference to questions posed above.

What do we, the people, want from government in the 21st century? To usefully begin to debate that, we need to take a step even further back - to consider our own human nature and how modern civilisation does or should modify our “natural” instincts and behaviour.

Any form of government, or social structure for that matter, is inherently and fundamentally collectivist. The most basic, and strongest, level of collectivist structure is the family. Family bonds are not unique to humans, but shared by most animals. It is, incidentally, no accident that all tyrannical forms of government strive to undo the bonds of family and substitute them with unquestioning loyalty to “the state”.

In social creatures, after the family comes the hive or pack - or, in human terms, the tribe. Pack or tribal social structures introduce three key elements to the equation:

1. Territorial behaviour

2. Hierarchical structures (alpha males, matriarchs and such)

3. Specialist roles (queen bees, worker ants, child care, hunting, etc.)

For we tribal humans, our intelligence - e.g. the transition from hunter-gatherers to farming and animal husbandry - has led to increasing hyper-specialisation throughout our history. In complex 21st century western society, our extreme mutual dependence means that very few of us would be capable of independent survival if suddenly removed from our cocoons. There are significant hive-like features to modern human society.

In summary, our individual and collective lives today are anything but “natural” - yet our basic human nature remains. The obvious and unavoidable demands of civilisational collectivism (aka “government”) are, in a very real and important sense, at odds with our narrow familial and tribal collectivist instincts.

4 Draft Proposals for a New UK Constitution

4.1 Controls on Government & the Establishment

Any system of government which does not acknowledge the fundamental clash of interests outlined above, is unavoidably destined to hit trouble at some point. So it would seem to be appropriate to directly answer the first question, “What is Government For?”, in Article 1 of our written constitution:

Article 1: The Purpose of Government

Advancing civilisation and population growth have massively increased human interdependence which, in the UK today, has three principal pillars:

• The need to maintain the safety and security of the nation: The defence of the realm, from enemies within and without, and the effective policing of borders.

• Shared oversight and use of resource intensive facilities, including: Transport and utility infrastructures, police services, healthcare services, food production, and currency services.

• The UK’s complex society necessitates specialisation of individuals (doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, etc.) in a highly technological world. In the future, specialist human skills are increasingly likely to be challenged by automated systems (“artificial intelligence”).

Central government is therefore a “necessary evil” in order to manage a minimum set of collective concerns, consistent with the above three pillars.

The people of the UK are sovereign. The democratically elected legislature, and their appointed executive, act with “sovereignty” only in as much as they have been granted such authority by the citizens.

The needs of the nation are at all times subordinate to the needs of the individual first, and the family (parental rights) second, while the needs of the international community will always be subordinate to the needs of the UK.

Article 1 therefore formally codifies the principle of small, minimalist government, providing constitutional safeguards against totalitarianism and the ceding of sovereignty to undemocratic international bodies. This is of course completely at odds with the present reality, in which we are descending ever further into the neo-Marxist globalist tyranny, promoted by the WEF and others, at the root of most of our current problems.

People do not want government to interfere in their personal or family lives, or their private moral codes. We did not ask for, or agree to, dystopian laws about “hate speech” or fake pandemic house arrest. We do not consent to ever more outrageous power grabs by the EU, the ECHR, the UN, the WEF, or anyone else.

If parents do not want their children indoctrinated with critical race theory (CRT) and nonsense about gender fluidity, they have the right to demand that their children are not subjected to it. Moreover, the rest of us have the right to demand that our tax money is not spent on such neo-Marxist globalist propaganda.

Article 1 also emphasises the rightful primacy of the family over the state. Staying with an education example, if parents want to take a child out of school in term time for a week’s family holiday, what business is it of the state or an individual school?

Note finally that “shared oversight and use of resource intensive facilities” does not automatically imply shared (state) ownership. It does imply a degree of centralised state planning, e.g. for national road and rail networks, as well as a role for government regulation in critical areas such as water supply, pollution, nuclear safety, and so on. Ownership questions are a political, not a constitutional, concern - and ownership responsibilities should at all times be fully ring-fenced from constitutional responsibilities.

A UK Constitution needs specific provisions to deal with the unique situation of the Monarch as head of the Commonwealth. It is inconsistent with the concept of absolute sovereignty for the people that we share an, albeit ceremonial, Head of State with other nations, because it means that the Monarch can potentially speak on matters “on behalf of the Commonwealth”, which the British people and their elected representatives have not sanctioned.

Article 2: The Role of the Monarchy

The position of a hereditary Monarch as Head of State is purely ceremonial. Members of the Monarchy, including the Monarch themselves. shall:

• Have no power above any other citizen to make or influence the law.

• Have no authority to advocate on the international stage for any position which conflicts with, or goes beyond, the established position of the UK as reflected in UK statute.

• Act exclusively on behalf of the British people and shall not undertake any international appointment or role, whether formal or informal.

Article 2 means that the Monarch might have to vacate the role of Head of the Commonwealth. Establishment critics will argue that this will reduce the UK’s influence in global affairs, and there is certainly a risk of unintended consequences. However, there is an unavoidable conflict of interest involved in the existing arrangement.

While the British state has every right to restrict a ceremonial monarch to act only “under instruction” from a democratically appointed government in accordance with this constitution, we have no authority to impose such constraints on other Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth as a whole should be free to appoint whoever it likes as its Head, and bestow upon that Head whatever such authority as it sees fit.

If the Commonwealth adopts a different majority position on a particular issue to that of the British government - say on Climate Change or the proposed WHO International Health Regulations - for whom does the Monarch then speak? The late Queen balanced the demands of impartiality and leadership with consummate skill; our current King, less so.

Separating the roles of British Monarch and Head of the Commonwealth might appear to reduce the “soft power” of the state, but the intent here is to limit the authority of rogue individuals. We can no longer tolerate any informal constitutional arrangement based on “trust” in key establishment figures - blind trust in the establishment must be a thing of the past.

Britain will still be able to play a full and valuable role in world affairs, as a leading member of the Commonwealth, a G20/G7 economy, a beacon of democracy, a generous benefactor (inter alia, through a continuing foreign aid programme), and a valued trading partner to other nations.

In order to protect ourselves against abuses of the constitution, and creeping over-reach by future governments, we propose articles 3 and 4 as follows.

Article 3: Defence of the Constitution

No person or state institution shall have the right to disregard or over-rule any part of this constitution. Powers of the state shall be restricted to managing the UK in accordance with:

• Such laws as are constitutionally agreed by the legitimate, democratically elected legislature (the UK Parliament).

• Such regulation as is constitutionally adopted by the legitimately appointed UK government executive.

Interpretation of laws and regulations, and the determination of criminal guilt of those who transgress, shall be the responsibility of an independent judiciary, whom Parliament and the government shall not seek to influence in any way (other than in passing new legislation/regulation or amending/rescinding existing legislation/regulation).

This Constitution shall only be altered or amended following either:

• A 90% percent majority in a free parliamentary vote.

• A simple majority result in a referendum of the British people.

• Any legitimate (secure) petition supported by at least 10% of the British people shall result in a referendum on the subject of said petition.

Capital punishment is expressly prohibited, except in the case of

• crimes against humanity,

• crimes against the citizenry, or

• illegal hostilities against a foreign state,

committed by individuals acting with the authority of the state.

By virtue of needing a 90% Parliamentary majority for changes, Article 2 protects the constitution from being politicised (while providing a means to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy in the case of universally supported change initiatives) and means that any citizen may petition changes which, if supported in sufficient numbers by their fellow citizens, could lead to updates and amendments.

Article 2 also implies that, in certain circumstances where the only truly fundamental human right - freedom from a totalitarian state - is breached, a politician or state official could face the death penalty, for example:

• If a court finds that a politician, acting unlawfully (e.g. imposing lockdowns, mandating vaccines, or banning the burning of fossil fuels, without empirical, written evidence), has caused lasting damage or death to a large group of people.

• If a home office official grants an unconstitutional bulk amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants, some of whom then go on to commit the rape or murder of a British citizen.

• If a British Prime Minister makes false claims to illegally invade a foreign country - say on the basis of a “dodgy dossier” - leading to the deaths of many thousands and the rise of anti-western terror groups which then seriously impact the safety and security of the British people.

While Article 3 explicitly protects the Constitution itself, we also need to specifically limit the potential for state over-reach in “routine” operations. Events in the USA in recent years have proven that the existence of a Constitution itself is insufficient guarantee against creeping tyranny.

Article 4 is intended to address this issue. Note that, as non-lawyers, we have used naïve lay terminology, which would need to be made more precise by legal experts. The principle though should be clear - to limit the practical reach of government and prevent frivolous interference in our lives.

Article 4: The Limits of Government

The people of the UK consent to limited government, in recognition of the need to collectively address collective concerns. In order to prevent government over-reach, the authority of the legislature and the executive shall be limited at all times after 2040 by specific, binding metrics:

• No Act of Parliament or Executive Regulation, other than an Act of Amendment to this Constitution, shall be valid if it seeks, or its practical implication is, to bind the actions of any future government.

  There shall be the following explicit exemptions, whereby pre-existing international treaty obligations are incorporated into this Constitution (provisional list to be completed):

  • Nuclear non-proliferation treaty/ies

  • The Commonwealth Charter

  • Treaties protecting Antarctic (& Arctic?) environment

  • NATO membership

  • Other…

• At any time, the total number of active laws on the statute book shall not exceed 1,000.

• No Regulation or Code shall exceed 250,000 words.

• Total government expenditure, including debt interest and repayment costs, shall not at any time exceed 25% of gross domestic product (GDP).

• Government money shall not be used to fund non-governmental bodies.

The reference to 2040 in Article 3 would provide for a transition period in which the statute book could be slimmed down and government spending brought under control.

The first listed item means that no Parliament or Government can commit the UK to binding long-term targets, beyond their elected term. This would prohibit, for example, legally obligatory Net Zero targets up to 2050 - which are not only an affront to sovereign democracy, but are completely impossible in practice as we have previously argued.

The first point also protects against the ceding of significant sovereign power to undemocratic international bodies, or via significant new international treaties. For example, handing over any authority to the WHO relating to future lockdown or vaccination mandates, or vaccine sharing agreements, would bind any future government in direct contradiction of this principle. Any such new treaty would require explicit approval in accordance with the provisions for constitutional amendment in Article 3.

With regard to explicit restrictions on the quantity and volume of legislation, the right to legislate should be seen as a sacred responsibility for parliament, not the opportunity to spew meaningless soundbites or score cheap political points from your opponents. Yet we are forever hearing about the need for trivial new laws and regulations, while ordinary people become ever more frustrated that a woke policing and criminal justice system fails miserably to enforce many of the laws we already have.

The UK tax code is possibly the perfect example of where it has all gone wrong. Depending on the source, it is the longest in the world, reportedly anywhere between 10 and 20 thousand pages long and contains up to 10 million words. This is clearly insane - unless of course you are a highly paid accountant or tax lawyer who has built your entire career on the resulting bureaucratic gravy train, or a fabulously rich individual who has benefited from every loophole your personal lawyers and accountants can find.

According to the statista web site, UK government spending in 2022/23 was 45% of GDP. Left wing activists argue that this is reasonable, based on comparison with other European and global governments. In absolute terms though, it is completely inconsistent with any notion of limited government focussed only on essential collectivist concerns.

We will not get into the details of specific departmental budgets or spending priorities here - prioritising how to spend (up to) 25% of GDP should be for legitimate debate between competing political parties. However, it is clear that there is no transparent majority mandate for existing levels of spending in all kinds of areas - before considering any questions relating to corruption and (e.g. benefit) fraud.

Taking health spending as an example. It is natural for any compassionate person to feel sympathy for couples unable to conceive children, or for any individual suffering from gender dysphoria. But there is no “fundamental human right” to have children, or to “feel comfortable in your own body”. Gender counselling, gender reassignment surgery, and fertility treatment should therefore (depending on individual political perspective) not be priorities for public funding from limited state resources.

We have a plethora of self-declared, multi-billionaire, altruistic philanthropists in today’s world. If these individuals - such as Gates, Soros, Schwab, Fink et al want to support some specific worthy cause, let them donate privately via charitable contributions. We should not allow them to use their financial clout to dominate press coverage or lobby for public funding of either their ideological priorities or to gain business advantage.

The final item of article 4 would “defund the quango’s” - and put an immediate stop to the present corrupt practice whereby special interest lobby groups - almost all advocating for extremist far-left positions - are able to undermine democracy, by receiving state funding to agitate covertly for causes which are not publicly supported. The recent controversy over the Global Disinformation Index is the tip of a very large iceberg.

4.2 Protection for Individuals

A crucial component of an appropriate Constitution must, of course, relate to a simple “Bill of Rights” for the people.

Article 5: The Rights of the People

The age of majority in the UK to which these rights are fully applicable shall in general be 18 years, except where specifically stated. Equivalent rights for minors shall be conditional, subject to parental (or legal guardian) consent:

• Absolute Freedom of Speech, except for the purposes of:

  • Inciting violence.

  • Intending to promote public panic in the face of false threats.

• Absolute bodily autonomy with regard to all medical interventions.

• Freedom of Religious Belief (and practice, consistent with the law).

• The right to conscientious objection on the grounds of moral or religious belief.

• Freedom of Sexuality (the age of consent shall be 16).

• Freedom of Travel, Domestic and International.

• Freedom of Assembly, including for the purpose of peaceful protest.

• Freedom to Establish and Operate any Lawful Business.

• No Taxation without Representation, for citizens over the age of 18.

The acknowledgement of the need for parental consent applies to decisions which a minor may wish to take - for example with regard to “gender reassignment surgery” or to travel abroad.

“Absolute freedom of speech” formalises the right to criticise or lampoon religion, race, gender, etc. The specific exceptions mean no freedom to incite violence, shout “fire” in a crowded public place, or to call a false “pandemic” or “climate catastrophe”.

It will be valid for working people under 18 to pay tax, prior to being able to vote, but non-citizens (e.g. temporary visa holders and asylum seekers) shall not be entitled to vote.

“Freedom to establish and operate any lawful business” does not explicitly prohibit frivolous or bureaucratic interference in business, but - together with the restrictions on the quantity and volume of legislation contained in Article 4 - should act to discourage petty state over-reach. The state should have no legitimate interest, for example, in setting a minimum wage.

The provision for religious freedom means, for example, that people can attend church (synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) whenever and wherever they choose. Any interference with these rights is therefore unconstitutional and consequently illegal.

The reference to conscientious objection prohibits any form of military subscription and means that nobody can be forced to act against their religious or moral principles - for example to preside over the marriage of a same sex couple. Since no fundamental constitutional principle over-rides any other, this does not mean, for example, that a catholic priest who was unwilling to officiate at a same-sex wedding would have the right to interfere with, or seek to prevent, such a wedding conducted by others - though they would, of course retain the right to advocate for their beliefs in accordance with their absolute right to free speech.

In general terms, the citizenry is not only at risk from government, but also from over-reach by inappropriately zealous or politicised, prejudicial policing - as we have increasingly seen in recent years. Our Article 6 proposal therefore deals with the role of the police (and security services).

Article 6: Policing by Consent

All police and security services (including branches of the military) shall act at all times:

• In accordance only and exclusively with the constitution and the law.

• Impartially, treating all citizens as equal before the law, without fear or favour.

• With absolute disregard to any issues of a political or campaigning nature.

• In a manner principally concerned with applying the law, rather than covert forms of taxation.

Point 1 will protect against the encroachment of police and security services into “thought crimes”, “hate speech” or “on line transgressions”, and will outlaw these services from engaging in covert extra-curricular propaganda or monitoring on behalf of state or other actors.

Point 3 will put an end to the completely unacceptable practice of “2-tier policing”, whereby activists for Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Palestinian Cause, LGBTQ rights, Extinction Rebellion (XR), Just Stop Oil (JSO), and others, have been treated sympathetically by the police, while perceived “right wing” protests have been ruthlessly suppressed.

Covert forms of taxation refers, for example, to the excessive priority often given to policing traffic activities, such as speeding tickets, parking fines, trivial bus lane violations and such, as an illegitimate form of fund raising rather than from any real policing need. For example, a motorist fined after being “clocked” by a mobile traffic camera at 75 mph on an empty stretch of dual carriageway in daylight, in good weather, might reasonably argue in court that the police are indeed prioritising fund raising - which would then give the police pause for thought as to where they allocate limited resources going forwards.

4.3 Other Considerations

In sections 4.1 and 4.2, we have presented proposals for some key areas of a written UK Constitution. There will naturally be other items which people will want to include - for example the definition of a “citizen”, our electoral system, the provision of free state education, the rights and wrongs of a “public service” broadcaster (i.e. the BBC) operating globally in the name of the state, or the right to reasonable self-defence in the face of home invasions and muggings.

In terms of the electoral system, for example, our politics at present is completely controlled by a tiny group of party administrators and strategists within each of the legacy parties - facilitating easy capture by neo-Marxist globalists or other ideologues, and leading to ever more ingrained, delusional group-think. The system desperately needs transparent, democratic reform, but the “new, radically different” Reform UK party simply offers more of the same - if anything, even more tightly controlled from the centre.

Our view is that the power of political parties needs to be seriously curtailed, with a far greater role for independent candidates - and a reformed system for managing democracy should rightly be part of the Constitution. But we leave these additional matters for future, more widespread, debate within the Freedom Movement. Our principle aim here is to argue the case for a formalised, written Constitution, not to monopolise its content.

5 Conclusions

As we were finalising this paper, a TwiX user posted an opinion which, perfectly and serendipitously, encapsulates everything we have said above:

“The solution to loss of trust in governments is: Smaller governments, with fewer powers, led by honest people, who are accountable to the electorate, not to opaque global quangocrats!”

Credit: A1an_M on X

This “mission statement” will surely resonate with every member of the Freedom Movement, regardless of their detailed personal views on every point issue such as immigration, Covid, climate change and net zero, gender ideology, and more.

A written UK constitution, such as the one we propose, is the mechanism by which the entire movement can unite around a set of shared values, as a first step in making a smaller, less authoritarian, more accountable, and more patriotic, government a reality - to begin an organised, meaningful fightback against the growing tyranny. But it is only a first step. As another TwiX user commented in the response thread to A1an_M’s post:

“They aren't going to give up power voluntarily.”

Credit: Fenbeagle on X

To actually implement a truly reformed system of government, and a detailed policy agenda, we need a completely new political force, as we called for in our earlier work; The Battle for Albion (Britain).

At this stage, we must not get hung up on manifesto point issues or personalities. Not everyone will agree on every item, and no political figure is flawless. The point issues need debate, but to make them the central foundation of a genuine reform programme would be a mistake. Aside from valid political disagreements, even within the freedom movement, each “current thing” is transitory, while the threat of totalitarian tyranny is ever present. Trying to coalesce, from nothing, around a shifting array of detailed policy questions is to continue to play a rigged game. It hasn’t worked for the past four years, and it will not work now.

No senior, high profile political individuals have yet taken up the challenge to lead a new movement. They are all either unwilling to take the personal political risk, or genuinely believe that they can reform the legacy parties, and the corrupted overall system, from within. The latter seem unable to contemplate that the fundamental problem is our system of government itself.

So we conclude that the peaceful revolution must begin initially from the bottom up, before it can be adopted top-down by a newly formed political party. We citizens must make it clear to potential political leaders that we “have their back”, and the best mechanism to facilitate that would be for all the disparate individuals and organisations - such as the HART group, together, usforthem, pandata, netzerowatch, dontdivideus, the New Culture Forum, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and others - to work jointly on the drafting of a written Constitution such as we have outlined here.

The eventual alternative is increasingly looking like a violent revolution, and surely nobody sane wants that?

If you agree, please share this article as widely as you can.