- 6 weeks ago
Category
đź—ž
NewsTranscript
00:00You know, studies showing that anywhere between 20 and 40 percent of British Muslims want to see some significant introduction of Sharia law.
00:07What percentage?
00:09Anywhere between 20 and 40.
00:20Welcome to the Myers Report London reporting.
00:23We have with us Paul McGonigal, a special on international country risk, which he did as a diplomat for the Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations and as an international banker of eventually handling country risk for Chase Bank and also being CEO of a major of Exporters Inc., which was a very significant international insurance company.
00:47We also have with us James Bennett, one of our favorite young London economics students and a budding young leader upholding the virtues of democracy in the United Kingdom.
00:59With James, we will be discussing over there, including elections, trial by jury.
01:07It sounds almost barbaric, trial by jury, trial by fire, whatever.
01:14But trial by jury, freedom of speech, preservation of civil liberties, mass immigration, legal and illegal and so on.
01:22And what's going on in the UK.
01:25James, let's start off with there were some mayoral elections canceled.
01:32First off, how many of them were there and were they canceled or postponed?
01:37OK, so these were elections that have been canceled twice now.
01:41So these were meant to take place in 2025.
01:44So four mayoral elections across four regions of the UK, mainly in the southeast, which were the traditional reform heartlands, just after the general election, before they started to do well in the northeast, the northwest, the more deindustrialized areas.
01:59So these four mayorals.
02:00How many people did these elections impact?
02:04About three to four million, I believe.
02:06That's a significant so that you're talking about eight, eight or nine percent of the British population.
02:14Yeah, yeah, something like that.
02:15Yeah.
02:15So that there were there were county elections in Essex, Hampshire, Sussex and Norfolk and Suffolk, which are combined.
02:23And they were originally meant to take place in 2025.
02:27And these were all areas that reform were predicted to do really well in.
02:31And they pushed them back until 2026 last year.
02:35So this is that it's not the first time that they've canceled them.
02:38And when this happened last year, many people accused them of trying to prevent reform from winning.
02:44They were canceled in 2024.
02:46We're supposed to take place in 2025.
02:49And now we're pushed back to 2026.
02:52Oh, no, they weren't meant to take place in 2024.
02:54They were meant to take place in 2025.
02:56But they got canceled last year and pushed back to 2026.
02:59And many people accused the government of doing that because they were scared that reform were going to win those seats.
03:04The excuse from the government was that they wanted to allow for more local government reorganization in those areas.
03:12And pushing the mayoralties back meant that whichever mayor got elected after the reorganization would have a full term to work in that new environment.
03:19Wouldn't it make it easier if you have a mayor sitting in place for him to be for that mayor to be the focal point for the reorganization?
03:30Well, Gary, I wouldn't rely on common sense when it comes to this government's reorganization of anything.
03:34Never let alone local government.
03:37But, yeah, so it was meant to take place this year.
03:38But now they've been canceled again and pushed back until 2028, meaning that the mayor's currently in office.
03:442028 or 2026?
03:472028.
03:48So it was meant to take place in 26 after it was canceled in 25.
03:52And now it's been pushed back.
03:53It's been canceled again and pushed back to 2028, meaning that the mayors who are currently in office will have their terms extended from the normal four years until seven years.
04:012028.
04:03Wow.
04:05That is crazy.
04:11Okay.
04:12What the other thing that is also going on is the cancellation of a defendant's right to trial by jury.
04:20What the hell is that about?
04:22Yeah, so more or less the government's plan under the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, who's also the Deputy Prime Minister.
04:32He's the same person who doesn't who thinks that Henry VIII was the father of Henry VII, by the way.
04:38He has laid out plans to restrict.
04:42Really?
04:43Yeah, yeah, he did.
04:44He did say that once.
04:44It's quite funny.
04:45Um, he's the guy who, yeah, he's responsible for all the government's judicial reforms and he's laid out plans, uh, to restrict the right to a trial by jury for basically every single criminal case, uh, except, um, uh, murder, rape, um, some assaults and some thefts.
05:08Um, and basically every other case, apart from those, like, very serious ones, would then only be heard by a single judge, um, and there'd be no right to a trial by jury.
05:17There's no right to be judged by a group of your peers, as has been the convention that was, as dates back to the Magna Carta and has been, uh, inherited in common law across many Western nations, including the United States of America.
05:29Do you know that in the United States, if you have a traffic ticket, you can request and get a trial by jury?
05:38For a traffic ticket?
05:40Yeah.
05:40Is that in the constitution?
05:43Paul, I don't know that it's in the, is it in the constitution?
05:46I think so.
05:47I have to check.
05:48But at any rate, the, um, whether or not there's a trial by jury is at the option of the defendant.
05:55Right.
05:56Yeah.
05:56So, um, that's what I mean.
05:57Is the right to a trial by jury enshrined in the constitution?
05:59And that can be used for it.
06:01The answer to that is, yes, it is.
06:03Yes, it is.
06:04This is why you need to have a written down constitution.
06:06Um, Nigel, please take notes.
06:08Um, but yeah, so the ones that the only, the only offenses that you can still have a trial by jury for will be, if these reforms go through, will be murder, rape, manslaughter, aggravated burglary.
06:18Um, they're the only ones that retain full jury trials.
06:21Uh, now the reason, the excuses that have been given for this authoritarian action is that, um, many of the criminal courts are dealing with record backlogs.
06:29So it's something like 75,000 crown court cases.
06:32Um, in the UK, we have a, we have, uh, a tier system.
06:35We have a crown court and we have a magistrate's court.
06:37The crown court deals with the more serious offenses.
06:40Um, and the magistrate's court can only sentence people for up to about five years, I believe.
06:43Um, so the crown court is currently dealing with about 75,000, with a backlog of about 75,000 cases.
06:49Um, and essentially the justice ministers are arguing that, um, removing the trial by a jury, um, will enable these, uh, will enable the judiciary to get through these cases much quicker.
07:00Um, there was an independent review, I believe, that was, um, I don't know if it was sanctioned by, directly by the government.
07:07It was just being used by them after it's produced the results that they were after.
07:10Um, but there was an independent review by a, I've just got it up now, a Sir Brian Leveson, who's got quite an extensive legal career, uh, who suggested reducing jury trials to prevent the system completely collapsing.
07:21Um, now, of course, many people argue that this is simply an excuse to cover the, the government's attempt to try and, um, curb the, the, the, the, the traditional ability of the judiciary, um, to prevent them from descending into authoritarianism.
07:38Um, especially, of course, when we're living in a, in a, in a situation where 12,000 people, I say this every single week, but I'm going to keep saying it, where 12,000 people are being arrested for social media posts every year.
07:47Um, many people think, um, that coupled with the already existent problem of many, um, judges in the UK, um, resorting to very sort of left-wing activists, um, attitudes, um, you know, using certain, uh, taking certain, um, human rights and migration legislation out of context, um, in order to, to, to, to push an activist agenda when it comes to these issues.
08:10Um, they think that those two issues, um, issues coupled mean that, um, we're currently living in a, in a, in a, in a situation where restricting trial by jury is going to give the government who's already got very, who's already expressing and demonstrating very authoritarian tendencies, um, far too much power, um, to potentially abuse that the, the, the, the, the, the judicial system, um, to crack down on political opposition.
08:33So it's very, it's very scary, um, milestone, uh, in the government's use of authoritarian tactics.
08:41Um, but thankfully there is a significant rebellion within the Labour parliamentary party who are trying to oppose this.
08:47Um, where they understand that the jury trial has long been seen as, as, as the cornerstone of British justice.
08:52As I said, it's got the roots in the Magna Carta.
08:54It's got centuries of legal tradition, which has now been exported throughout the world.
08:58Many legal professionals, even those on the left, are coming out and opposing this.
09:02And that's why we're seeing many people within the Labour parliamentary party also coming out, um, to oppose this, um, because ultimately while jury trials are far more time and money consuming, that investment is 100% worth it in order to protect the judiciary, um, from corruption and, and from authoritarian government, government overreach.
09:20Um, ultimately, if, if you have a crisis with the backlog, then that's an issue with funding and training professionals, um, rather than restricting the rights of, of defendants to get fair justice.
09:32You know, it seems that for the sake of giving up civil liberties, for the sake of corporate efficiency, uh, that was a hallmark of, uh, Benito Mussolini.
09:43He made the trains run on time at great price.
09:47The other thing about jury trials is our jury in the United States can override and can keep a judge in check.
09:55That's one of the parts of the checks and balances.
09:59Yeah.
10:00And, of course.
10:02Say again?
10:03And vice versa, of course.
10:05Yes.
10:06Uh, Paul, do you have a, do you have a question or comment on this from your own experience?
10:10No, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I was a jury foreman a couple of years ago, um, and it was, it was a pretty tortured situation.
10:22The defendant was a pedophile, so it was all kinds of emotion involved in it, but, um, uh, the, the process of the sitting jury, uh, is, is very interesting.
10:35And it's, and it's hardly ever the case that all the jurors are on the same page, right?
10:41And so sorting through that and evolving consensus gives me confidence that you're getting something somewhere close to the right answer, right?
10:54And you may not, you don't always get the right answer, right?
10:57You can, you can either let, uh, criminals go free or you can convict innocent people.
11:02I mean, it's a type one and a type two error, right?
11:04As the economists would say, the statisticians would say, um, or false positives and false negatives, as the medical community would say, same syndrome.
11:13At any rate, um, I, uh, my limited direct experience with juries is that it, it might take a while.
11:21Um, you know, if a judge were making this decision, you would have been done in an hour, right?
11:26And it took us three days.
11:28And some knocking of heads together by the jury foreman, which was me.
11:32Which, so would you have, would you, uh, be in favor of a more efficient judge or the jury?
11:40No, I, I think, I think you would need to accept the messiness of the process because it's your maximum chance of getting the right answer.
11:48It's, Paul, from your experience.
11:50I don't think you can sacrifice efficiency.
11:52Um, I don't think you should sacrifice, uh, a higher likelihood of getting the correct, not to say right, but the correct outcome on the altar of raw efficiency.
12:05I, I, I don't, I don't think that is the right way to think about it.
12:09Now, there may be other ways to reduce that backlog, James.
12:13And what, what, what, what are people recommending?
12:18Uh, the simple, um, you know, just, uh, looking at other ways to reform the internal processes, um, and the internal hierarchies and trying to establish inefficiencies that already exist, um, simply as a result of flaws in organizational work.
12:33There's also arguments that we should, they should try and, um, resort to, um, looking at reforming the way that jury trials take place rather than, and how they unfold rather than just trying to get rid of them entirely.
12:47Um, you know, looking at more investment in ensuring that, that, that the, um, administrative work of ensuring and carrying out those trials, um, can be improved and also training more legal professionals, um, to, to, to achieve the same end.
13:03Um, but ultimately the, the, the, the absolute last and ideally non-existent result should be to remove that fundamental right entirely from the judiciary.
13:12Right.
13:13What strikes, what strikes me as being most disturbing is that there's even a discussion of this, dealing with the inefficiencies, uh, versus the civil liberties.
13:26The civil liberties has to come first.
13:29And that, and that anybody would be even trying to weigh a balance between efficiency and civil liberties, I find fundamentally frightening.
13:43Paul?
13:44Unfortunately, we've, we've, we've lost that, um, sort of core democratic principle, uh, in British society that, um, like civil liberties and, and, and freedoms and rights, um, can't just be gradually.
13:59And gradually eroded all the time and sacrifice, um, because ultimately like once you set that precedent and we're seeing it with, with the freedom of speech.
14:07And once you set that precedent, it becomes much easier for governments to get much more comfortable with doing that to other liberties and other rights.
14:15And that's why we're seeing, um, such as significant and radical change, um, to the, to the judicial process.
14:23Um, now suddenly being so mainstream.
14:27Some people are still not aware that in the UK, you can get arrested for what you're thinking.
14:34Even if you're not verbalizing, it's like just, uh, people who are praying silently by themselves outside an abortion clinic.
14:42Do you want to explain that James?
14:43That's correct.
14:44So essentially, um, it's illegal to, um, pray outside an abortion clinic.
14:51Um, yeah, pray, pray within a certain radius of an abortion clinic.
14:55So if let's say I go outside.
14:57But you're, you're not talking about praying out loud and screaming at the top of your lungs or using a megaphone.
15:03So if I go outside an abortion clinic and I sit on a bench and I just like, literally just, just sat there, like closing my eyes or whatever.
15:10And the police officer comes over and says, uh, what are you doing at the minute?
15:14Um, then they're trying to say, are you praying for the lives of the unborn or are you praying for, for the victims of abortion?
15:21Uh, and then if you say yes, then it's an arrestable, then you get arrested.
15:27Even if you're not saying or like presenting anything, that's, that is what.
15:30I mean, with, with no sign, no buttons, just sitting there.
15:34Correct.
15:35That, that is, that's definitely Orwellian.
15:40Uh, how are people taking, how bad is it getting in the UK right now socially with all, with these erosions of freedoms?
15:49Uh, I mean, obviously we continue to see lots of, lots of social unrest and, and polarization and division as a result of people reacting quite understandably, um, to the dismantling of all their freedoms and the erosion of their country.
16:05Um, you know, in, in, in terms of what the end goal of that's going to be, it, it seems that that's, that seems to be discovered if you like.
16:15Um, obviously the, the, the, you know, the, the Starmer himself who, who's leading this regime is under a lot of pressure, as we've discussed, um, several times.
16:25Um, but the reality is if, if he's going to, um, be overthrown within the next five years and the head of the regime is just going to be replaced with someone who's even more radical.
16:35Overthrown is a strong word.
16:37It implies a revolution.
16:39You're not implying that.
16:40He means by the Labour Party.
16:43Within the, within the Labour Parliamentary Party, it's probably not incorrect to say overthrown because it's not a democratic process.
16:50No, but Trump isn't that.
16:53Hmm.
16:54Although, yeah.
16:55So, so the, the problem is it is quite a scary thought to think, um, how this all ends.
17:02Like how, how do we get to a, a, a solution, um, it's now being genuinely floated around that it's a possibility, partially because, you know, Zelensky's managed to successfully do this, that Keir Starmer or whoever replaces him will get to 2029, realize that they're going to lose to reform and then try and take the, or close to 2029, and then try and take the country into war in order to cling on to power.
17:24Um, and with the current geopolitical situation, it does seem that, you know, that could lend itself to that potential strategy.
17:29Well, wait a second.
17:32The, the British changed prime ministers, uh, and brought Winston Churchill in while they were at war.
17:39Uh, Britain is still.
17:41What?
17:42There's absolutely precedent for it.
17:44No, no, yeah, but there was no general election.
17:46So there was a general election scheduled for 1940, but Britain entered war in 1939.
17:51And so the next election, the next general election didn't happen until 1945 after the war had ended.
17:58Okay.
17:59Uh, in light of what's going on in Australia, uh, regarding the attack in, uh, Bondi or Bondi, uh, what's happening with anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom?
18:14Um, yeah, so obviously this continues to, to be a significant debate.
18:20Um, you know, we, we, we, we're still continuing to see Palestine, uh, like pro-Palestine protests and, um, a lot of sort of pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine action rhetoric gets thrown around quite a lot.
18:31Um, it does seem that the line between, you know, um, uh, opposing some of the actions that have been, um, perpetrated by the Israeli government during the war and then pure anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish people, um, and, um, expression of the belief that the Jewish state should be eroded.
18:48Um, that line is because it's, it's, it's still very, very blurry and it does be crossed quite easily, um, which does unfortunately facilitate, um, a significant rise of anti-Semitism over the past two years.
19:00Is anti-Semitism in the UK being used as a tool to disrupt, uh, the overall structure of governments, of the government of the UK and the civil, civil liberties of UK citizens in general?
19:16Um, I don't think so. I think that the, the mainstream political parties are quite united on this issue. I mean, Starmer himself is, is Jewish, um, and the conservatives and, and the reform have been very, very clear in their support for the Jewish community.
19:29Um, and then obviously, uh, since he took off the Labour Party in 2020, long before he even got into power, um, Starmer and his, the, the rest of the Labour leadership, um, have been very sort of, they've, they've, they've made a high priority to, to, um, a road anti-Semitism from within the party.
19:47Um, and that is of course a result of many of the criticisms that were levied against the party during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
19:53Of course, Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer and so he, he, when he was leader, the party became very vulnerable.
19:59Um, to anti-Semitism and so since Starmer took over, he has made a high priority to get rid of it.
20:03So I think ultimately the main parties are very united in, in attacking anti-Semitism and that, that sort of problem generally comes just from the fringes.
20:11And in fairness, the fringes, well, I say the fringes, I mean, both the left and the, the far left and the far right.
20:17How is it looking for, uh, feelings about, uh, Islam in the UK?
20:23Yeah, well, of course, um, you know, the, the, the questions about integration, um, continue to remain, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the most common statistic that gets, that gets flown around is, you know, studies showing that anywhere between 20 and 40% of British Muslims want to see some significant introduction, um, of Sharia law.
20:43Of what percentage?
20:45Anywhere between 20 and 40, uh, studies vary.
20:47So that's a lot, that's a big number, no matter how you look at it.
20:52Exactly.
20:53So of course, unfortunately, um, you know, that means you have significant, you do, you do have, um, significant figures on sort of the far right who want to, um, try and misapply the ideology to every single Muslim in the country, which leads to unfair hatred and bigotry towards that group of people.
21:09Um, but then you also have the more reasonable, the reasonable voices and the more mainstream rights who, who do argue that, um, you know, while there are millions of Muslims who contribute and integrate into British society, when you do have that significant proportion of the British Muslim population, um, who do think of that way and do want to implement that, that, that, that radical and, and frankly, completely un-British, un-democratic, un-Western and un-progressive, um, form of government into Britain.
21:35Um, Dan, that, that is a significant problem.
21:37It's an existential problem for everything that we believe in and we are as a country.
21:43This seems like it's a really difficult time for the UK.
21:47Do you think that the UK and its democratic principles are going to survive?
21:52Um, we have one last chance in 2029, as I, as I continue to say.
21:58Um, and it's why, it's why it's really, it's really scary to consider that the Labour government, um, do have an out from that election, uh, if the geopolitical system continues to worsen and it gives them that possibility.
22:10Because the reality is there are several, there are several people within that, um, Labour government and within, within the left, um, who do genuinely believe that the hatred for Nigel Farage and reform is so strong that it's not out of the question that they would justify some sort of action, um, that prevents the 2029 election.
22:31And they've already set the recent precedent for it by what they're doing with the local elections.
22:36You know, if, if they can make excuses for cancelling local elections for one and up to three years, then who's to say they won't find an excuse to cancel the general election that's going to potentially put them out of government.
22:47Is the hatred for Nigel Farage anywhere near the Trump derangement syndrome we've seen here in the United States?
22:53Um, probably about the same, but the difference is, is that, um, the American constitution is far more effective at protecting the democratic systems of government, um, from being upheld.
23:04So obviously you, you, you can't cancel a president, you can't postpone a presidential election or a governorship election.
23:10I suppose that would be the equivalent.
23:11Like imagine if, if Donald Trump tomorrow, um, postpones, um, four state governor elections for three years because he knows he's going to lose them.
23:21Imagine, imagine what, I mean, he couldn't do it, um, because the American constitution is far better at protecting, um, devolved government from authoritarian actions like that.
23:32Uh, but if he did imagine that your parole that you would get, that's essentially the equivalent of what's happening in Britain at the minute.
23:37The only difference is that our government is allowed to do it because we don't have the constitutional protections that America does because we decided.
23:43Which motivates my next question.
23:45Um, what is the, is there any significant sentiment in the UK among politicians or among the population for constitutional reform?
23:56Um, I feel like if, if it became, if it became a more mainstream idea, which it very much could be under the next government, you know, we, they're already, they've already made it party policy that there will be a British bill of rights, which essentially just the first 10 amendments of the constitution.
24:11Right.
24:11Right.
24:12Um, our constitution, you guys don't have one.
24:16Yeah.
24:17Yeah.
24:17Yeah.
24:17But in America, the American bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution.
24:20And when most people talk about the American constitution, they're often referring to, um, elements of it, which are contained within the bill of rights rather than the original constitution itself.
24:28Um, but the, the, the problem with talking about having a written constitution in Britain, and it probably sounds quite simple, but we do sort of have a, have a cultural, um, aspect within Britain, which does permeate into our politics, where we try and resist any sort of Americanization, um, of our politics.
24:47Um, now I do hope that that's ultimately not going to be so serious that actually prevents this very much needed reform from becoming, um, party policy of the next government.
24:57Um, because ultimately I do think, um, for the, for the long, long, long term to, to prevent another government, um, acting in the way that the current one is, we would need a written constitution because clearly having, having an unwritten constitution, which we've had for hundreds of years, um, no longer, no longer works.
25:12Um, so I do think there is an appetite for it, um, but in terms of trying to mainstream the idea and, and making it popular to borders, unfortunately, we, we actually do have to address, um, the, the, the, the, the backlash that we might get for being, um, perceived as trying to Americanize our government.
25:30Well, is Americanization in this, in this particular instance that bad?
25:34Well, parents don't like taking instructions from their children.
25:39Yeah, that's actually a very good summary.
25:41We've met the head and hit the nail on the head there.
25:43We still see America as our offspring correctly.
25:45We do see America as our offspring.
25:47Are you familiar with, I guess, Lord David Starkly?
25:52Uh, yeah, I've heard the name.
25:55Okay.
25:55Because apparently, uh, there's a question about, um, his wanting to, uh, wanting to make a, the great repeal act to repeal the 1997 Blair reform.
26:11Yeah, so there's been a lot of, um, there's been a lot of people on the right have pushed this idea, um, of a very radical piece of legislation.
26:20It will be one of the most significant piece of legislation in hundreds of years, um, called the great repeal act, which will essentially look at every single piece of legislation that's been passed since 1997, which is when Tony Blair came into power.
26:31Um, and we'll basically try and gut that entire 28 year period of legislation, 32 year by the time the next government comes in, um, and produces one piece of legislation, which completely sort of filters through that entire 32 period and gets rid of all the legislation that was passed during that period.
26:50Um, which they, they, they believe needs to be gotten rid of.
26:53Um, so yeah, it's essentially, it's going to be a very, very, it's not a mainstream idea yet.
26:59Um, but it's becoming a very significant, very talked about idea because many people believe it will become mainstream.
27:05Um, well, ultimately the problem with such significant, such large scale legislation like that is that there becomes so much room and so much opportunity for disagreement, um, that it, it, it becomes, um, less politically palatable.
27:20Um, but the idea of, of, of significant radical repeal of Blairite legislation is of course something that I can get behind and I think will become, um, more mainstream as we get closer to the, um, potential incoming reform government.
27:35Um, okay, uh, Hillary, um, can you, uh, can you ask the question that you had coming up right now, if you'd like?
27:48Oh, James, you're on the ground, you're English, I'm obviously very American.
27:52Um, I, I've just listened to a ton of Starkey, David Starkey's, uh, videos and his comparison was, uh, numerous conservative governments,
28:05who post-World War II never got rid of the socialism.
28:08And then eventually Keith Joseph, advisor to Margaret Thatcher, um, sort of basically convinced Thatcher to sort of repeal a lot of the post-war consensus.
28:19And so that there is a template for there being a great repeal act of the various, uh, Tony Blair, quote, reforms, unquote, which, you know, there's a ton of them, uh, getting rid, getting out of the, uh, anything having to do with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is used, uh, in order not to expel violent, uh, illegal aliens.
28:42Um, uh, and then, um, sort of really thinking about the structure of England, I mean, in the devolution, Scotland has a parliament, Wales has a parliament, uh, there's devolution in Northern Ireland, but, but England, the core of Britain, uh, doesn't have its own sort of entity to the point of erasure of, uh, England.
29:04And so if you, if you repealed some of these, and then there's more things on, on, uh, on, on judicial reform, um, so if you repealed the basically very specific post-1997 Blair stuff, you would like, you know, it's sort of, you'd go back to, to the structure pre, pre, uh, pre-1997 and sort of English common law as we know it.
29:30Um, and then, um, and then I, I just saw, like, uh, I, I, it's, I, I, I, I'm on Starkey's Patreon account, and he had some pretty incredible ideas that were just very core English-British, not American.
29:43So it's, it's not, it's not to have an American system.
29:47It's, it's reaching into, uh, British history and finding the seeds of how to go forward.
29:53He even quoted Chaucer in terms of the past is something living to draw from creatively.
29:59And so he even had, uh, because, because England is precedent-based, um, okay, fine, you get rid of this legislation, the Great Repeal Act, but then you have all the sort of incorporated EU, um, sort of legislation that's, that's basically alien to the progression of, of, uh, English or British government.
30:21And so, so he was even reaching into history, and maybe this is getting really out there, but even reaching into history of Henry VIII's time in terms of annulments.
30:33So as if something never occurred, therefore, there can't logically be progression.
30:38Um, so I, I mean, I was personally excited in terms of, you know, not writing off the, the Britain that we've all, you know, known and loved as, you know, quote, the mother country of America.
30:50And, you know, just, uh, that there, there's some, like, pretty creative ideas, but it doesn't, because the problem is the word constitutional.
30:59Um, there, there, there's ways of doing this where it's not Americanized.
31:04If Parliament is sovereign, and in the traditional thing, everybody is represented in Parliament, so everybody has a say.
31:12Um, and then also, uh, Lord Toby Young of the, the Free Speech Union, uh, he's gone through logically why having, sort of, a First Amendment, uh, doesn't work in the English context, but then how to, how to get at it.
31:29So, I mean, I personally, if, if, if I was English, British, whatever, I'd be very self-confident that there are approaches that are right there in the, 800 years of English and British history to, uh, to draw from, to get back on the, well, what we would consider, obviously, the right track, without it being coming out of, uh, you know, basically coming out of American solutions.
31:57Okay.
31:58Paul, what is your take on the difference between the UK and European view of civil liberties, particularly freedom of speech, versus ours?
32:11The relationship between, um, citizens and government in Europe and the UK, um, as near as I can tell, is, is, is significantly different, uh, than that between the Americans and the American, the American government and the American population.
32:27In fact, that difference is one of the reasons why we left.
32:34And, and, and, and, and so, so in particular, in the Canadians, uh, tend to, at least in, in, in Eastern Canada and Ontario, which is what we're really talking about here, uh, political culture in Western Canada, Canada is more like the Western United States.
32:51Quebec is, Quebec is, Quebec is, Quebec is, it's its own thing.
32:53So we're really talking about, um, uh, Ontario.
32:57And of course, they, like the Australians, still have a Governor-General.
33:02That represents the King.
33:04Who's literally speaking the head of state, right?
33:07It doesn't operate that.
33:08Functionally, that doesn't matter.
33:10But I mean, it is juridically the case.
33:12Anyway, um, um, Americans are, uh, Europeans and, as near as I can tell, Brits,
33:21Even though the agitation in Britain and restrictions on freedom of speech, the Brits are still more apt to accept more constraints on their freedom of speech than the average American would.
33:33And I would say the same about the Europeans.
33:36James, in closing, are you still optimistic that Britain, as we know it or knew it, in theory, can survive and thrive?
33:47Yeah. Can I just briefly address some of the previous points that I made?
33:53So I think when I talk about concerning British politics for Americanisation, I do accept that it is somewhat irrational.
34:00Unfortunately, it's a cultural sprout of this sort of little friendly rivalry that we tend to have with Americans.
34:09But no, you're absolutely right that there's no way that we can't try and borrow from America while still ensuring that it's integrated into our constitutional framework in a style that's more in line with the history of how English common law has worked.
34:26Now, many of the most commonly talked about examples of this relate to a lot of the post-war doctrine, a lot of post-war legislation,
34:38where it sort of became called to surrendering on national sovereignty to international agreements and international courts,
34:48with the idea being that it's each country's responsibility to ensure that future governments can't act in ways that a certain government in a certain country did not too long before.
35:03Unfortunately, the consequence now and the way that that affects British politics today is with the ECHR, for example, or even the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
35:13What is DCHR?
35:15The ECHR, ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights.
35:20So it's essentially, it's used a lot to block a lot of deportations and it compromises Britain's ability to maintain sovereignty over its own borders.
35:29And so it's reformed party policy that we are going to withdraw from basically every single international agreement or international piece of legislation
35:37that constrains Britain's ability to deport people and to re-establish sovereignty over its borders.
35:43So that is sort of the first step, if you like, into significant legislative and bordering constitutional types of reform.
35:53That's the next, well, hopefully the next government is already promising.
35:58But in terms of sort of the major, more long-term constitutional reform that was being talked about before by Hillary,
36:05I do think that there will be an appetite for that, but I almost think that's going to be a question for the next general election after 2029.
36:15But no, it is definitely something that I think has a political future, has a future in the political mainstream,
36:21because ultimately many of the problems that people already recognise and people already want something to be done about
36:26in terms of being solved in the long, long, long term might require significant constitutional reform.
36:31And I think it has to somewhat follow the American system, to be honest.
36:34I think we almost have to concede that the Americans have done a better job of guaranteeing those rights and freedoms.
36:39I think we do need some form of written constitution.
36:41And that's already going to start with the British Bill of Rights, which is already a significant aspect of reform party policy.
36:49So I do want to make that clear.
36:50But I think regarding what Paul said about how the average European has less concern for freedom of speech than the average American does,
36:58I think that's an unfortunate consequence, at least on our end, of us not having an American-style constitution.
37:05Because ultimately, with the constitution being such a source of national pride in American discourse, in American culture,
37:12that has ultimately been extended to the First Amendment of said constitution, freedom of speech,
37:17where it's become political suicide to ever question the First Amendment in America and the extent and scope of its protections,
37:26which unfortunately we don't have that in Britain.
37:29And since we don't have it written down in a constitution, which is a significant source of our national pride,
37:35we now don't have that same cultural protection where politicians are obliged to support and defend that important aspect of our legal system
37:49and of the framework of rights and freedoms that are accepted within society.
37:54So I think there is, on relating to the issues that are already affecting the country,
38:00such as the migration issue, such as the freedom of speech issue,
38:03it becomes very easy for those discussions to eventually evolve into conversations about constitutional reform in Britain,
38:11as that may be the, well, I think it is.
38:14It will end up being the long, long, long-term solution to fixing those issues.
38:20So I think that is definitely on the cards.
38:21But in closing, regarding my optimism about the future of the United Kingdom,
38:26I think ultimately we have to focus on 2029.
38:29I think once we win that election and we get into power,
38:35that buys us time, essentially.
38:37It buys us time.
38:37We need to ensure that that government that gets in has a majority that's broad and decisive
38:42to ensure that the legislation that it enacts and the policy platform it pursues
38:47will be strong enough, will be efficient enough, and in some cases will be radical enough
38:52to ensure that the long-term survival of the country.
38:56Who do you think is going to be elected prime minister in 2029?
39:00I hope whoever is leader of the Reform Party.
39:03It might be Nigel if he decides to stay on as leader until the general election,
39:07or it might end up being someone else.
39:09Who knows?
39:10Okay, and the general level of measuring your optimism,
39:14with your background, you could easily come over here.
39:18There are lots of people that we know that would love to have you working over here.
39:22If you have your choice, are you going to stay there or come here?
39:26I'm going to stay here and fight for this country until the last drop of blood.
39:32And then maybe I'll come over if we lose.
39:33Paul, what's your view?
39:38We know, we've already discussed this.
39:40We want you to stay there because they need people like you.
39:44Paul McGonigal, do you think Britain's going to make it?
39:47Yeah, I do.
39:49I do too, because of their historical background.
39:54History will out, and civil liberties runs too deep
40:00and isn't going to go away quietly.
40:02And the British people have already demonstrated,
40:05literally as well as figuratively, that it's not going to happen.
40:10That being said, I want to thank everybody.
40:13Be well, stay safe.
40:15God bless the UK, and God bless the United States of America.
40:30God bless the UK, and God bless the UK, and God bless the UK.
Comments