2025-10-09
The country has always run on lawful consent.
No consent, no obligation.
But did we not consent to Parliament doing as it wanted when we participated at the last election?
Well, there's the rub. The nub of the problem.
We as a population may have expressed a wish (assuming that the election result wasn't fiddled, as it now appears the US elections were at times fiddled), but how to refute UN-WEF policies when all major parties support the same? It would require a monumental public awakening to get everyone to spoil their ballot and declare "None of these thank you".
So such "consent" is at best dodgy, and in practice impractical. And even if we may be presumed to vote on the basis of politicians pre-election promises and manifestos, we all know how well carried through those promises turn out to be post-election.
Anyway, whatever the truth of it, Digital Id wasn't in any party's manifesto as far as I know, and the public had previously made its position pretty clear, so to say that it can be imposed in the absence of majority public consent is to stretch the meaning of our "democracy" beyond breaking point.
It is food for thought.
