The end of the Common Law

The British turn their backs on 900 years of legal sovereignty:

Today Parliament votes on extending the European Arrest Warrant scheme. Indefinitely.

I’m perplexed. Usually when we approach a significant milestone in this country we hold a national commemoration of sorts. But alas, thanks to David Cameron’s Three-Line-Whip, and the grim tendency of today’s MPs to fall into line by putting Party before country (and self before children/grandchildren), we seriously face the prospect of Britain falling one year short of a worthy 900th anniversary next year: of the independence of the British legal system.

How can I say this?

Because we appear to be tearing up almost a millennium of hard-won legal rights, to accommodate the free movement of (at most) several hundred European criminals – or ‘alleged’ criminals. At least, that’s how I would explain it to an alien in an elevator pitch.

As a police officer told me recently, “we wouldn’t be supporting these powers if politicians didn’t keep pushing free movement and EU expansion.” So, before this ‘wicked’ Parliament (and I don’t use this word as enthused street-slang) fires another nail into the coffin of citizenship and justice, not just for Britons, but all European residents, let’s reiterate some highlights from times before November 2014, when British generations slowly triumphed to be the masters of their own judicial system.

These cultural wars are long-wave historical events. They won’t be won or lost in our lifetimes. We can, of course, ignore them and simply go along to get along. Or we can take part of them, acting in the full knowledge that while we might win, or lose, a battle here and there, we will not get the chance to see the final outcome.

But we can influence it. Don’t you think Pelagius and the Asturians would look on the results of the Reconquista and feel that theirs had been lives well-lived?

Some thing that these extended timescales proves that there is no conspiracy and “progress” is a mere accident of history because no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences. The logic is correct, but then, logic also suggests an alternative, which is that there is something, or someone, that exists on a larger timescale and is capable of guiding events of these temporal proportions.

So, the question comes down to this: given what we can observe with the limited means at our disposal, which do you find more unlikely? A coin almost always flipping tails at random or some sort of unknown, long-lived being imposing its will on the coin toss?

I very much disagree with Sherlock Holmes. Vox’s 4th Law of Logical Analysis states: once you have identified the improbable, look more closely at what you assume to be impossible.