Risen eyebrows, perplexed faces: some visitors at The Society Club on Cheshire Street in Shoreditch, London looked slightly confused at the sight of the city’s very first Nanny Store on April 20. For one day only, the student group Students for Liberty and the Consumer Choice Center took on themselves to ridicule the creeping interventionist nature of what is often referred to as the Nanny State: the overregulation of people’s habits.
Chocolate bars, cans of soda, crisps: all plain packaged and covered in warning labels such as “Chocolate seriously increases your risk of obesity,” the products sold at the student’s Nanny Store surely come off as patronizing. “I wouldn’t want to live in country where this would be real,” says one customer.
“It was our goal to start the Nanny State Store in London to mock the increasing level of lifestyle regulations being passed by all levels of government. Students For Liberty has done this successfully around the world, and we wanted to bring the fight to the UK,” says Alex Christakou, local coordinator with Students For Liberty
Read more at the Daily Caller
The UK High Court has struck down Brexit. Such a repudiation of the national will, and of legislation already approved by parliament, has the potential to permanently warp Great Britain’s rule of law. Indeed, it may already have.
This controversy, at the core, highlights a battle over democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. An indispensable feature of both is that there must be a warranty that once a fully rendered decision is arrived at and approved through proper means, that decision must hold.
Once such a warranty no longer exists, people will lose faith in their government. This loss of confidence may require a new government, which is normally the case in smaller, less threatening crises. Prime Minister David Cameron himself resigned after campaigning to keep Britain in the European Union and failing to do so.
Big crises, constitutional crises, happen when a sovereign power is meant to or guarantees to abide by the results of a decision by the people and then reneges on that promise. And that is precisely what happened when three judges from the UK High Court ruled that Britain can’t leave the EU without having a parliamentary vote to do so. Yet that parliamentary vote already happened with the European Referendum Act of 2015.
Great Britain has contended with crises of serious proportions before, involving existential questions about nationhood. And although British rule of law survived, the resolution required a wholesale reconfiguration of the constitutional monarchy.
Continue reading at Townhall.
Following the horrific and tragic events in Paris the House of Commons is considering today whether it should commit to airstrikes in Syria, in order to combat the threat posed by ISIS. As the times’ current agent of evil, it is necessary that action be taken to eliminate this barbaric threat to civilization. That being said, the actions should not come from Great Britain but from the region where these attacks are originating.
It is important to understand the nature of how ISIS operates in the region, and how it draws in new recruits. Their goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate, and they seek to achieve this through whatever violent means they deem necessary. But ISIS’ strategy relies as much on recruitment as on their ability to keep those within their sphere of influence docile and subdued. Airstrikes from western nations only seek to strengthen their hand on both these counts.
In reality, there is nothing that ISIS would like more than for the UK, and other western nations to not only send airstrikes, but to launch an invasion with boots on the ground. This may seem counterintuitive, but there is a method to their madness.
The children of Iraq who faced the operations of our military in 2003 are the fighting age males who are now joining ISIS. For every wedding or village hit by a western drone, more and more people have been spurred into joining Islamic extremists.
This is certainly not a justification for their actions. But we must understand that intervention in the middle east comes with heavy consequences. Even if involvement is kept only to the level of airstrikes, it is unlikely to have positive results.
read the full article at CapX.