When its many liberties were granted, the City of London was precisely that: a city, with a diverse population accordingly. The liberties reflected that. So, how come its great and (supposedly) good can still maintain a tax haven and a state within the State for themselves, but precisely thereby can deprive the Billingsgate porters of their protected livelihoods?
Constitutional questions of the utmost seriousness are raised by the continuation of the City's ancient arrangements long after Thatcher's deregulation has severed any inherent tie between them and British subjecthood, and by the City's, in principle correctly, reserved representation in the House of Commons when the ordinary law of the land is very largely inapplicable there, even to the point of denying the equal citizenship of all Her Majesty's subjects.
More broadly, why are the rightly restrictive practices of the Bar, the Law Society, the British Medical Association and others of comparable social standing acceptable, while those of trade unions more obviously so called are not merely unacceptable but illegal? Why are there rightly subsidies and other State measures to ensure the social, cultural and political goods delivered by heavily socialised, heavily unionised agriculture when that does not apply to other industries of no less social, cultural and political benefit?
As for those who have pointed to the striking whiteness of the Billingsgate porters when they are in London in general and adjacent to, mostly resident in Tower Hamlets in particular, how is the effective heritability of a place in that Fellowship any different from the hunting, fishing and other rights guaranteed by the Crown to various Aboriginal peoples in Canada (an important reason why a body of Labour MPs voted against Thatcher's legislation to cut Canada's last constitutional ties to the Parliament of the United Kingdom), or to the Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(an important reason why a body of Labour MPs voted against Thatcher's legislation to cut Canada's last constitutional ties to the Parliament of the United Kingdom).
ReplyDeleteThe constitutional ties were cut because the democratically elected government of Canada wanted them cut. The BNA was outmoded and the nation needed to take its full part in the world without any Mother's apron strings.
Cynical, creepy imperialist!
What, like Douglas Jay, David Stoddart and Dennis Skinner? You, on the other hand, are taking the side that was taken by Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell (although he still found some idiosyncratic reason to vote against the Bill itself, I forget what it was).
ReplyDeleteThe provisions given effect by Thatcher's Bill had not been approved by the indigenous peoples to whom Britain had numerous treaty obligations, nor by the Government of Quebec. In legislating, she was deliberately pre-empting court cases on both sides of the Atlantic, which those ethnic minorities had been on course to win, or else she would not have bothered. Their fate since rather confirms both their fears and those expressed by their supporters on the Labour benches.
Looks like Poweful Pierre is a white supremacist. They usually are: America did not abolish slavery until long after the British Empire and kept segregation for another 100 years, there was this in Canada, there is rumbling against Waitangi from time to time in New Zealand, the mistreatment of Aborginal Australians persisted long after independence and was exacerbated when Thatcher (again) abolished appeal to the Privy Council from Australia and Britain's continuing role at Australian state level, apartheid could not have begun except under Dominion status or be completed without abolishing the monarchy and leaving the Commonwealth, Rhodesia declared UDI.
ReplyDeleteCynical and creepy indeed, Poweful Pierre. Unlike David's idea of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic working class as London's protected Aborigines. I really do like that one. But will the City and the GLA, both with pretensions and more to be sovereign states, let the Crown continue to protect those Aboriginal rights? Will the British Government and Parliament fight to do so?
David Lindsay cares about what Quebec thinks! I think I will faint!
ReplyDeleteBarrow Boy has your number. I really must thank him for an excellent contribution.
ReplyDeleteOnly in Canada, within and under the British Empire, and under the Crown to this day, was the old France, “the Eldest Daughter of Holy Mother Church”, able to survive, having providentially passed from French to British sovereignty so early that Jacobinism still forms no part of the heritage there.
The fleur-de-lys, on the Royal Arms of England and then of Great Britain from 1340 to 1800, remains the symbol to this day, and the Assembly quite recently voted without any dissent whatever to retain the Crucifix between the Speaker’s Chair and the Royal Coat of Arms. The Crucifix between the Speaker’s Chair and the Royal Coat of Arms? Perfect. Utterly, utterly perfect.
Barrow Boy (DL sock puppeteering as usual), you do not know the colour of my skin or my origins. I could be like Governor General Jean for all you know!
ReplyDeleteOr be of the blood of Louis Riel. How could you say that Louis Riel was a white supremeist or anti-indiginous?
On the contrary, I wish that I had thought of Barrow Boy's main argument. Funny how the obvious sometimes does not occur to one.
ReplyDeleteBut he is spot on: white settler peoples have always wanted to cut the ties to Britain so that they could carry on being as racist as they liked. As Dr Johnson said of the American rebels, "Why do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" Answering his own question, of course.
Nevertheless, that French-Candians are almost always white is part and parcel of their being the old, old France, with her fleur-de-lys, and with her Crucifix between the Speaker's Chair and the Royal Coat of Arms. We all know which Royal Coat of Arms.
We have you certainly bested Poweful Pierre. You have anyway. You are a frighteningly clever man. I am glad to have been of service.
ReplyDeleteYour point about the GLA is also very important.
ReplyDeleteA city-state with a directly elected Head, very used to throwing its weight around and not averse to seeking to conduct its own foreign policy. Right where the United Kingdom is supposed to be.
It wants watching, all right. Whether anyone will notice until is too late is altogether a different question.
You have written in the past that London Mayor was basically a non job and you are right. But you will agree I am sure that we live in an age when election is seen as alone conferring legitimacy and the more raw votes you receive the more legitimate you are. No politician in Britain receives more raw votes than the Mayor of London and the London media treat him as a big national player even though he is not. In any conflict with Her Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom Parliament the London media would treat the Mayor as more legitimate because he got more raw votes than any one MP. That day is bound to come eventually.
ReplyDeleteThinking David Lindsay is creepy is a matter of opinion but no-one could accuse him of being cynical, he follows his principles wherever they lead.
ReplyDeleteYou are very kind.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 17:00, I quite agree.
"You are a frighteningly clever man. I am glad to have been of service."
ReplyDeleteNow that's creepy.
Has anyone ever said it to you?
ReplyDelete