2025-11-30
We have been here before, but never as deeply nor pervasively .
The British Isles as history will attest has never been immune from trouble and strife, most recently in Northern Ireland, and before that the previous matter was settled at Culloden - but not truly settled until the English Ordnance Survey mapped the territory of Scotland so that any further rebellions could be pursued through mapped and understood terrain. Our highly prized Ordnance Survey maps beloved of ramblers and campers alike were born of conflict.
Which is no reason to want another such conflict.
Yet governments around the western world seem hell-bent on creating circumstances likely to lead to conflict anew, by importing others of any culture but our own and any religion but our historic Church of England - and by historic I don't necessarily mean merely Henry VIII and his "split" from the Holy Roman Empire under the Vatican.
Our response has been essentially (a) to blame the government (correctly) and (b) to demand protection by law and order (at least partially misguidedly).
Why is it misguided to demand protection through the proper administration of law order and justice?
Simply put, because law order and justice is currently administered by the same governing powers that are busy creating the problem in the first place - it is beyond question now that importing "diversity" of all shades is a government priority which isn't going to change under a different political party.
The principle of demanding respect for law and order isn't wrong, but under the current system of governance the practice is essentially misguided and doomed to fail unless it is allied with additional measures that do not depend upon the current system of governance.
We may also remark in passing that current law and order appears no longer to be impartially administered without fear or favour and is therefore unreliable. Placing all our eggs into this basket is not likely a viable way forward for anybody.
Could we change the current system of governance?
Yes in theory, but in practice we would be fobbed off with cosmetic change that changes nothing significant (eg: "rejoin the EU", "proportional representation", "new political party":- already in train!). With a bit of encouragement it may yet fall apart under its own manifest contradictions, but given lack of an appropriate Act of God, the only way through the current electoral system is to spoil every ballot paper by writing "None of these candidates" across it, politely but unambiguously.
If there are more of these rejection slips than votes for the leading candidate, then legally "None of these candidates" is elected. Note that simply not voting at all doesn't cut it, as there are no such votes to be counted.
Whilst I wouldn't discount such a sea-change in public opinion, it's unlikely at the next general election, but we should make a start.
If we don't like that idea, then we could vote for independent candidates only. But that still creates MPs, many of whom would still be open to control by corrupt parties behind the scenes, by fair means or foul - it would merely be marginally more difficult.
Could we appeal to the diversity already here?
Whilst there are a lot of them, they are still numerically in the minority overall, although within certain conurbations they are already in the majority.
They are however still human, and most humans want to live and raise their families in peace and prosperity. They don't want to fight and despoil their neighbours (even if some of our leadership may be less wise), because we are carefree safe and prosperous when we work together for mutual benefit, and unsafe worried and poor when we fight amongst ourselves.
So we should foster amicable and productive relations with those already here who value peace and prosperity above strife and tension. We should talk with them, understand our strengths and weaknesses, and agree to work together rather than to fight over spoils.
That means that we should first identify where we are in agreement, and agree to work together on these matters, whilst setting aside cultural differences (such as religious dogma) in favour of non-interference. That may upset some people but is there any reasonable alternative?
Thereby we can build trust toward "live and let live". Trust that may ultimately allow further voluntary progress on our differences, in both directions, in due time.
