Europe: Ian B on the Need for a Royal Coup d’Etat

Ian B

The problem at the moment seems to be that those who consider they “own” the result- the Vote Leave cabal- are in no hurry to strike when the iron is hot and seem to be doing everything to play into the hands of the EUphiles. I fear that the years of impoverishment of the capacities of our ruling class has led to a situation in which nobody is fit to handle this situation. The Labour Party is largely irrelevant anyway, but the Tories (who I despise equally, to be clear) are more interested in weeks of infighting over the leadership. Party before Country. Career before Party. They are a disgrace.

Furthermore, most of these characters appear to be determined to maintain the very conditions that have caused such anger in the population, including unchecked migration and subservience to the EU “Single Market”. The narrative is already being developed that we are in a position of weakness, whereas any decent political leader would recognise that we are in a position of enormous strength and can be as dismissive of the EU as we like. It should be treated as a crumbling Empire like the late Ottomans or Austria-Hungary. We should be immediately doing everything we can to pull more states out and into a post-EU free trade area with no customs union or political union.

On tariffs, we should simply tell them that we will raise no trade barriers, and if they do more fool them as it will only hurt their own citizens. We should immediately start organising free trade deals with other nations. We may even consider redirecting the corrupt “foreign aid” slush fund to assisting those states wrecked by the Euro to reconstruct their ruined economies. We should stop all payments immediately, implement a moratorium on migration and new citizenships. Once there is calm, we should be reforming our own economy on Misesian lines to end that enormous harm of super-inflationary central banking has wrought since the collapse of Bretton Woods.

Constitutionally we are in uncharted waters with a Parliament which is actively hostile to the population it is supposed to represent. The answer, however, is not a General Election, since this may well lead to the disaster of a “mandate” for a Parliament of Remainers to overturn the Referendum result. I think there is a solution however.

The government is Her Majesty’s Government. It is appointed by the Monarch, hence the pantomime of going to the Palace to ask for dissolutions of Parliament, etc. It is usual held that our Parliament is sovereign; however it could be reasonably argued that it is only so when appointed by the people at an election. There is no good Constitutional understanding of referendums; however one must conclude based on our other arrangements that when the people speak directly, we have taken back our sovereignty from the Parliament on the issue on which we have spoken (via the referendum) and thus the Parliament has no power on the issue. We may also note that the monarch herself is, since the Glorious Revolution, only in her place due to being appointed by the people (via the Parliament). We may thus conclude that she too is our creature.

So I would hold that the answer is for the Queen to, on behalf of the people, dispense with the services of Mr Cameron and appoint a government who are prepared to carry out our will as expressed, using the Royal Perogative since Parliament has no sovereignty on the issue of EU Membership, that sovereignty having been returned to the people. We have given our instruction and our adminstration must carry it out. I would suggest Jacob Rees Mogg, John Redwood, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart, et al. Mr Farage could be made a Baroness, which is the normal route to government for those who can’t win elections these days, as I understand it.

And let Boris Johnson and Theresa May mud wrestle for the Tory leadership in George Osborne’s back garden for all it matters. This is far above the tawdry ambitions of these transient political personages.


  1. Ian, I agree. We should leave now. This delaying Article 50 for months thing is nonsense. Actually, we shouldn’t trigger Article 50 at all. We should just repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and tell them we’ve left. I would offer them no British-initiated change to tariffs — if they maintain free trade, so will we. If they alter anything I would suggest implementing huge tariffs and taking our trade deficit elsewhere.

    I note Boris Johnson and Daniel Hannan continue to preach mass immigration, from the Third World this time, as if our “globalism” is being reoriented towards the entire globe. They seem to want ultra-globalism. But for me this was a vote AGAINST globalism…

    I fully agree that the UK should now actively seek the collapse of the EU. I don’t care if it would lead to short term disruption or recession — previous “combinations” on the continent have led to war, and to achieve the collapse of the EU without war would be a stunning fulfilment of our national interests.

    • I never trusted Hannan, he’s a self-proclaimed Whig.

      As to Article 50, it is only polite to tell the EU we are leaving. Article 50 is in fact their business, not ours; that is, the EU’s response to a member state’s announcement of leaving. We should treat any demands for negotiations by them with disdain. Though to be fair it looks like they just want us to go as fast as possible as well, so it looks like it will be rather perfunctory.

    • I signed a petition on the website to that affect this morning. I noticed that it has around 5000 signatures so far, and is open until some time in September.
      Unfortunately, I’m sure that will be too late. The usual suspects are scrambling to resolve the issue in their favour, not patiently waiting around for proposals to be considered.

    • “I note Boris Johnson and Daniel Hannan continue to preach mass immigration, from the Third World this time,”

      Indeed; whereas in UKIP’s case I think this is purely rhetoric (because they have bandied about figures as low as 50k previously for net migration levels), I think the above are genuine in their twisted desire for more mass immigration. God knows why, it’s not like the Tory free market contingent benefits from it at all; just select cronies of the political elite.

      • It’s because they are members of the Establishment groupthink who believe in their hearts that any objection to migration is bigotry and racism. Their first concern is keeping the approval of their peer group.

    • Wouldn’t repealing the European Communities Act 1972 cause tremendous upheaval, uncertainty, and (potentially) financial disaster, since nothing will be in place? Will we really have the whip hand in such a situation to afford to take our trade elsewhere if the EU refuses to capitulate to our demands?

      I do not mind short-term economic upheaval (in fact, I have relished it over the past few days), but not suicide. I have wondered about the viability, though, of repealing the ECA 1972, which was, interestingly, UKIP’s preferred route to Brexit until a few years ago.

        • It’s a serious question. Why is repealing the European Communities Act 1972 the best way forward? I am not averse to the idea at all. I just want to know why it is the better option and what the risks of it are.

        • Do you believe that by repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the European Union will rush to give us a deal on our terms to protect its own economies? Or that a trade deal is not desirable at all?

          As I said, I do not mind short-term economic upheaval. I do not mind long-term economic disadvantage as long as we are out of the EU. But I don’t want catastrophe. Nobody has explained in depth the consequences of having no deal at all with the EU.

          I am open to persuasion on the merits of a full clean break order with our decree absolute, rather than alimony.

  2. As a High Tory the Monarchy directly intervening on behalf of the will of the people to form a government which will start negotiating our leaving the EU has my full support. This may also lead to the Monarchy being relevant again and restore some of its power for when Charles III takes the throne.

    • I really do think it’s the Constitutional way forward, if Her Maj has the courage to grasp the nettle.

      • She won’t. Even though William’s suggestion above is quite good; I actually wonder whether Lizzie has a constitutional responsibility to intervene in such a situation?

        But I fear I must disagree with William about her successor. For me, if the monarchy is to survive then William V is the only sane option.

        • GV intervened in 1931 to produce a National Government. GVI oversaw the creation of another coalition in 1940. EII has an obvious duty to insist on an immediate coalition to take us out. Mind you, I shan’t be holding my breath.

        • I would prefer the Monarchy did not survive. I am not a fan of the institution anyway, as I think Britain should be governed by Parliament alone. In my view, this whole situation is an ideal pretext for the establishment of a parliamentary republic, since the institution is showing itself to be redundant and useless. This would also help resolve another burning issue – Scotland. With the House of Windsor gone and the monarchy itself thrown in the dustbin, we can say goodbye to the Scots for good.

          But if we must have a succession, then I would prefer one of the Queen’s other sons – either Prince Andrew or Prince Edward would perform at least adequately, in my view. It is a shame about the Queen’s eldest son because I think he could make a good King and he has patriotic and conservative instincts, but like his mother, he has very publicly endorsed the multi-cultural/anti-British agenda, and for that reason cannot be trusted.

          • Parliament got us into this mess. It needs to be clear that they don’t own our sovereignty.

            • The reservoir of sovereignty will always be we, the People, but let’s say Parliament does decide to ignore us, or as you put it, “own our sovereignty”. I hope this remains hypothetical, but I think it remains a distinct possibility.

              Then what can we do? This is where English pragmatism shows its Achilles heel. We are reliant on informal things such as trust, settled opinion, shared understanding. The first constitutional option is to appeal to the Monarch, who is supposed to embody our sovereignty. She has a legal and moral duty to act. But Mrs Windsor is useless, if not malign, and will ignore us. Thus, our only option – and duty – s to take up arms, as the Sovereign People, but we have been disarmed, again with the assent of Mrs Windsor whose Lords Commissioners signed the Firearms Act 1968 and various gun control laws since.

              I cannot defend the Monarchy here, and if I am truthful, I want it gone. I defend the institution of Parliament, not this parliament or those of the last few decades, because it is the only practicable form of representation available in a mass society.

              In my view, a monarchy has little or no place in this, but as I state above, I am willing to entertain its continuance if it serves a function. Surely the point is that the Monarchy as an institution has been exposed as totally redundant at the proverbial ‘hour of need’. What’s the point of retaining it if it doesn’t work? What function does it serve, other than to provide a convenient vacuum for multi-nationals and globalists, and their unscrupulous puppets at Westminster?

              Isn’t the conservative saying: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’? Well….it’s broke!

              The ‘British’ Monarchy is a Norman imposition anyway. We are better off reverting back to the Saxon system of elected ‘monarchies’, but we need to renew our political system completely, from top to bottom.

  3. I’ve just found that Hannan was already watering down the gruel on Conservative Home before the vote-

    If today’s vote should result in a similarly even split, the same logic will apply. If, as I hope, we vote to leave, we won’t be able simply to ignore the concerns of those who wanted to stay. A narrow leave vote is not a mandate for anything precipitate or radical. It is a mandate for a phased repatriation of power, with the agreement, wherever possible, of our European allies. Many of our existing arrangements will remain in place; and those which we want to disapply won’t be scrapped overnight. Brexit, in other words, will be a process rather than an event. It will be the moment when Britain starts to pursue a different trajectory, away from political union with the EU and toward a looser arrangement based on trade and co-operation.

    Apparently we weren’t really voting to leave at all, just change things a bit.

    • So it does seem as though very few in the Tory group of Eurosceptics are genuine about this. IDS, perhaps. Other than that, all we have is UKIP and various rebels defying their parties on the issue.

    • Ian, Hannan is a disgrace. We should ignore the concerns of the 48%!!!! It’s time we told them to stop being sour losers!!! We won and need to start acting like winners.

      • Like I said, I never trusted him. I think he’s most interested now in a long career as a “negotiator” with the EU deciding the terms of our “phased repatriation”.

  4. “Constitutionally we are in uncharted waters with a Parliament which is actively hostile to the population it is supposed to represent.”

    Thank you for the insight, Ian. In fact, after a little contemplation I am coming to think that this has been the situation for decades; since 1992 at least, probably earlier.

    I noticed that, in that same article you quoted, Hannan also said: “In a democracy, large minorities can’t be ignored.” That’s a fib. Try telling it to the 76% of us who didn’t vote Labour in 2001, or the 78% who also didn’t vote Labour in 2005.

    This small “slip” from a supposed Leavite suggests, to my cynical mind, the possibility that the political class are simply going to try to ignore the result of the referendum. I think we can expect delays, distractions, filibusters, more delays, and then Brexit will be quietly brushed under the carpet. You have my full permission to gloat if I’m wrong.

    • Indeed, Neil. How many times have people been told “you lost, suck it up, lolz”?

      I don’t think Hannan, as a Whig (he likes to say this himself), has any interest in outcomes of leaving the EU. He’s not interested in, say, an opportunity for liberty, or anything else. He just cares in a theoretical sense about the sovereignty. Effectively, re-fighting the English Civil War over who is in charge.

      • I’ve never had much of a liking for Carswell or Hannan, and I am someone amenable to their classical liberal message. They strike me as very abstract thinkers, who don’t grasp the very visceral issues that drove this Referendum. However, even (I should say, especially!) a full blown libertarian should be able to appreciate the huge threat to liberty mass subsidised migration and the EU approach to governance bring.

  5. I have just been watching, via iPlayer, the detestable, treacherous Anna Soubry on the recent edition of Question Time. This woman should have done with it and move to Scotland. She’s be at home there.

    As difficult as it is to believe, she actually condemns members of the public for voting Leave on account of mass immigration. This is delivered with a straight-face and without a hint of irony.

    The woman is despicable, and should I go on about her further, I would probably need to reach for a dictionary in a desperate hunt for adjectives. One recalls at this point the great conservative journalist, William Rees-Mogg, who in 1995, in a famous attack in his Times column on the government of John Major, exhausts all the names under the sun to convey the sense of moral outrage at the corruption of Major’s government and the misdemeanours of backbench Tory MPs.

    There just aren’t enough words in the English language to describe the villainy of these people, and much like John A. Stormer, I wonder aloud whether that is the reason they can get away with it and practice their treason. Their weapon is the word. Treason is enough.

    You don’t advocate violence on this site, so you’ll forgive me if I refrain from spelling out what I think she be done with this creature.

  6. Ian’s analysis that the Monarch is there as a last resort mechanism when those in charge become turncoats is absolutely correct. This is the whole point of the Monarchy. The Queen, as the embodiment of the Crown, is above and separate from the state and Parliament and is the root source of sovereignty, which she holds in trust for we, the People. If Parliament betrays us, we are supposed to be able to rely on the Crown. To draw a chessic analogy, the Monarch is the king piece on a chessboard. She (or he, as the case may be) may be weak, has to move slowly, and only has reserve powers which must be used deliberatively, but those powers, if used wisely, are very considerable and can change the whole frame of a situation.

    The difficulty is a personal one – Elizabeth Windsor, in stark contrast to her Early Modern-era namesake, is a useless, talentless nobody. That is our misfortune, an accident (or mishap) of history. If a million people were to petition her, it would attract attention, but would she act? I doubt it. She doesn’t have the stuff. I think her level is more selling Tupperware at country flea markets. She would thrive in that sort of role. Her chippy husband would establish a rapport with all the customers, to ensure repeat business – but when it comes to reigning as Monarch, she is out of her depth.

    One of the most important characteristics of the English is that we favour messiness and informality over constitutional neatness. We don’t like to codify things. We prioritise tradition and custom over written-down rules. We rely on trust and the solemn word of somebody. When the Queen was coronated, she gave us her solemn word – and she has broken it.

    The only mechanism we now have is to topple the Windsor Family, or Parliament and Whitehall itself – or both – by force and install replacements. That of course won’t happen because the political and media elite, understanding this point already, have made a revolution near-possible by creating a soft police state.

    As for Ian’s hypothetical suggestions for replacement political leaders:

    [quote]”Jacob Rees Mogg, John Redwood, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart, et al. Mr Farage…”[unquote]

    This is a good spread of representative views. Mogg, Redwood, Field, Hoey and Farage are all sound as a pound. Gisela Stuart is a racial liberal who would betray us.

    • Also, on Farage, Ian made the point of not being able to win elections. I think this is true but it is important to stress that this is due to collusion within the political establishment and also Labour’s electoral strategy of mass subsidised migration as a political weapon now coming to fruition, slowly but surely, as was seen in e.g. Oldham. The system is fundamentally corrupt and the demographics turning against any forces that could bring about improvements to England.

      • That was actually part of a joke about Farage being made a baroness which Sean thought was a mistake and sadly “corrected”, thus changing the tone entirely.

  7. The danger lies in this EEA shit.

    North is pushing this as part of “Flexcit.”

    While any further influx from Eastern Europe is now unlikely the danger is the Turks joining and badge-up RoPrape “refugees” moving here. Yes–it is supposed to take 8 years to become an EU citizen but that won’t last.

    Johnson and Gove are talking about a points system but you can’t do that and be in the EEA.

    This seems the biggest danger. There will be no re-run of the referendum.

    • I agree that the EEA/EFTA iceberg is looming. Personally I don’t think it can be avoided and we wil probably have to settle things by remaining in the EEA as members of the EFTA – for now. That is North’s FLEXCIT plan.

      I also don’t think we can rule out another referendum. They are conniving bastards and have most of the press and media under their control. I have been watching some of the live media and BBC programmes today and you can see how they are spinning it. Yes, many of these politicians are ruling out a second referendum, but they can’t be held to that.

      The oily creep Heseltine was on Sky earlier and he was talking-up a second referendum, and he seemed quite at ease with himself (if you’ll pardon the throwback expression). He didn’t seem perturbed by the situation at all – and that leaves ME highly perturbed.

      These people are pros. They know what they are doing.

      • Indeed. Although funnily enough, no one in the political elite would push a second GE simply on account of the absolute number of voters as a % of the total eligible voting public being low. In the end, people chose not to go and vote on the EU referendum, and even so its turnout was high by historical accounts. Yet on the logic the elite and its pawns are now trying to push, low turnout justifies another round, as does being “too old” (basically, any group prone to not voting in the “right way”.)

        • In his biography of his tumultuous premiership, John Major recalled how whenever there was some scandal or trouble – which was basically every two minutes under that government – Helseltine would always turn up with a twinkle in his eye. He was like a laughing clown at a wake.

          Well, the oily creep was on Sky today, with his lizard-like eyes darting around, and it was clear from what he was saying that their aim is a second referendum and they are now actively at work engineering this. The old traitor was in his element.

          It’s not over.

    • That is the point I am making; that our evolving Constitution must recognise that a referendum is a return of sovereignty to the people. This should be among other things the start of a process of limiting the sovereignty of Parliament and identifying that sovereignty as resident in the people.

      And to clarify, I am not a great fan of our (mostly) unwritten constitutional arrangements, but we are where we are. “I wouldn’t start from here” and all that.

  8. It is all becoming clear that Johnson and Gove are not reliable. They will take us into the Norway model, which is 90% the same as being in the EU — you still pay the fee, still get the free movement of scroungers, and you still get most of the laws. UKIP has a valid place in politics, and Farage should start addressing the untrustworthy of the Conservative Eurosceptics, in particular on the free movement of people thing.

    As I have said, the free movement of people issue is beclouded by Farage’s nonsense about preferring Indian to Polish immigrants. We should be clear that there will be some, maybe quite a lot, of immigration from Europe (and European-descended people in America, Australia, etc), but that it will under our control — people with certain skills, people without criminal backgrounds, people who are not Muslim, etc (the Paris bombers were “French citizens”, don’t forget). Under no circumstances should we accept any immigration from Asia or Africa.

    If UKIP can’t enunciate our need to keep our country permanently, then we are left without a dog in the race entirely. As for claims of “racist attacks” in the wake of the referendum, I do not believe shouting “go home” is an attack! I don’t think it is wise or productive to shout such things at immigrants, and would encourage patriots to confine such arguments to conversations with English people, but in point of fact, they are not racist attacks and we should defend the people who shout such things. I’m way past the point of wanting to see them go home! I want to know: when is the programme of Enoch Powell going to be implemented in the UK? Can UKIP be Powellite or not?

Leave a Reply