Making Things As Complicated As Possible

There seems to be a trend, throughout history, for authorities to extend their authority further and further and further. You may recall that there used to be ten commandments (what follows is not necessarily the only version):

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour’s house).
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour’s wife).
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour’s servants, animals, or anything else).

I dare say that, as far as our law today is concerned, half of those commandments no longer apply. Well, not in a legal sense.

Now, our laws are so complex and extensive that no one knows what they are. Some lawyers are familiar with a few of them, but even they are not quite sure. And so institutions appear, devoted to getting laws changed, either to simplify them or to extend them. It is odd that those who want to extend laws always seem to win. The number of institutions multiplies, and they lobby harder and harder. Then they become ‘quangos’ (official government) or ‘charities’ (unofficial government in receipt of funding from government). But these institutions so multiplied that they were out of control, so, in respect of the health quangos and charities, it became necessary to simplify government involvement, and so the quango ‘Public Health England’ was created. It took under its umbrella all the previous independent health quangos, but not the ‘charities’. Instead, PHE used the charities, and the charities used PHE, to further the demand for more laws. More and more and more laws.

But, further, these institutions found ways to extend their grip internationally. Secretly, they infiltrated the UN and its institutions, then the Common Market. How did they get away with it? They had two weapons: A) Bad health costs States and industry loads-a-money and, B) bad habits could be taxed. Note how ‘bad health’ and ‘bad habits’ are correlated. They are the same thing. Both can be taxed, either directly, such as smoking, or indirectly, such as being fat.

But it all starts to fall apart when the deliberately engineered complexity starts to work against the institutions which created the complexity. The EU is a case in point. It went from being a benign organisation when it eased restrictions on trade and eased restrictions on movement of people around European countries, to a despotic, incomprehensible collection of ‘departments’, consisting of ‘sub-departments’, consisting of ‘sub-sub-departments’, etc, which are totally out of control and, indeed, uncontrollable.

So, after the referendum, no one has the foggiest idea how to split the UK from the EU. Should we be surprised that the negotiators are floundering about? How can they do otherwise, since successive governments, all over Europe, accepted ‘directives’ which the politicians did not read or understand? And how did ‘tobacco control’ infiltrate the EU?

What bothers me as much as anything is how certain creations, such as the World Bank or the IMF, got any power at all. How did they gain POWER! Who gave them POWER?

There are so many areas which are wide open to secret arrangements that it is hard to know even if they exist, or what is happening. For example, after WW1, Germany was forced to make reparations. What were the reparations, and how were they organised? Who paid what to whom? How did Germany get to rearm to the extend of being able to start WW2? Was it because of the Soviet threat?

In a way, you can understand how ‘statesmen’ (as they regard themselves), such as Blair, want a ‘USE’ – United States of Europe’. But we must note that the USA, and its constitution, was not created by devious and secret associations. It developed from ‘the will of the people’. It depended upon the principles of equality and freedom. Two simple ideas.

I know, I know. George Washington owned slaves. I know. But it is hard for us to put ourselves into those times. For all we know, it may have been that people like Washington, a Christian gentleman, regarded Africans as simple people who were better off working on his plantations than scavenging in Africa. What is different in his attitude from the Remoaners’ attitude that older Brexit voters are incompetent, and that they should be disenfranchised?

The complexity of the Brexit negotiations has been caused by the fact that successive UK and European governments have permitted apparatchiks of the EU to build an empire of regulatory directives, which hardly anyone can absorb. For all we know, if someone clever enough really studied those directives, he would find all sorts of contradictions within them. EG, it is perfectly obvious that fumes from ecigs contain little or no toxins, and that such toxins which might appear are harmless in the long run. It is perfectly obvious from chemical analysis of the vapour. It is OBVIOUS!

Politicians, no matter how well educated, cannot possibly see full picture. They are also easily distracted. For that reason, they should be very, very reluctant to create new laws. If fact, they should be intent upon reducing the number of laws. The reduction of the need to inspect goods traded between EU countries resulted in far less customs officers, who produced nothing. The ease of travel within the EU resulted in a vast saving in Custom Officers, and time, at airports and ports. It would be silly to go back to ‘anything to declare’. In fact, it would be almost impossible. There are just too many travellers and too many goods being moved about. The idea of civil aviation being disrupted is too silly to contemplate.

In my opinion, and I have seen nothing which contradicts it, the immediate consequence of the referendum vote was disassociation. There was immediately no such thing as ‘a UK member of the EU parliament’. There was immediately no such thing as a UK member of any EU diplomacy or board of any kind. No transition was required. All monetary obligations ceased. And, no, the UK had no further obligations to EU pensions. The border between Northern Ireland and the South is a matter for us to decide, and has nothing to do with the Germany, France, etc. It is none of their business.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. The EU apparatus has assumed that it controls nations and peoples. I would be very surprised if the UK was not very strenuously  ‘lobbying’ individual nations such as Poland.

‘Freedom’ is under attack everywhere, including ‘The Land of the Free’, and yet no one is prepared to take on the SOURCE of the attack. That source is academia. Academia, by its nature, seeks perfection. EG, the plebs are not ‘educated’, and their wishes and aspirations can be denigrated and ignored. They are not fit to decide.  Meanwhile, traders of all sorts are getting richer and richer, which must really, really annoy academics.

I should imagine that Trump has kicked the academics into touch. At least, I hope so.

I must to bed. But there is a lot more to be said.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Making Things As Complicated As Possible”

  1. Rose Says:

    Your post reminds me of this article from 2009, sometimes it’s hard to remember what we have lost in the transition from Common Law to the Napoleonic Code (everything is forbidden unless it is expressly allowed)

    Life under Labour: the worst of worlds
    2009
    “From MPs’ expenses to our over-regulated, badly-governed society. Is it any wonder we British are so angry?”

    ” Normally when the British get irritated, we respond with a resigned and embarrassed shrug rather than shout and bellow. We are not like the French who take to the streets at the drop of a hat to chuck cobblestones at the police. But our characteristic mildness as a nation is being tested to destruction by our politicians – whether in national or local government – who have forgotten that if they must interfere in our lives, to do so only when it is absolutely necessary. We have the worst of all worlds – not only are we over-governed; we are badly governed as well.

    We are snooped on more than the average North Korean, harried by marauding armies of parking enforcers and wheel-clampers; pestered by health fascists and safety obsessives and shaken by speed humps. If we smoke we are told where to puff; it we drink we are made to feel guilty; if we drive a big car we are pariahs; if we hunt we have been turned into criminals; if we make an “inappropriate” remark we can expect a visit from the police; if we stand up to hooligans we can end up in court.”

    “This Government has brought in more legislation than any of its predecessors. Since 1997, the Home Office alone has introduced 50 Bills, launched more than 100 consultation papers, made at least 350 regulations and created an astonishing 271 new offences.

    Overall, more than 3,000 new criminal offences have been created by Labour – 1,000 of them punishable by imprisonment.”

    “Labour has created new offences at twice the rate of the previous Tory administration, which was bad enough in this regard, and it has done so at an accelerating pace. Now you may support some or all of these new laws. What cannot be denied is that we have had a frenzy of law-making that has changed the character of the nation in a way that many of us neither expected nor wanted – even those who voted Labour (especially those who voted Labour, perhaps).

    What is that drives the legislative mania of modern governments? Will any of them really, truly commit themselves to stop frustrating the activities and livelihoods of Her Majesty’s law-abiding subjects with unwarranted interference, intrusiveness and incompetence? Have they no sense of history, no philosophical framework within which they can understand the point at which government activity must end and the private citizen begins? They have lost all concept of the impact of excessive law-making on the freedom of the individual.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5369324/Life-under-Labour-the-worst-of-worlds.html

    2016
    “Britain is especially vulnerable to judicial overreach. The ECJ is informed by a corporatist philosophy under Napoleonic law, prone to consider everything forbidden unless codified, in contrast to the very different enterprise spirit of English Common Law. But the clash does not end there.

    Lord Mance said Parliament gave the ECJ a blank cheque when it drafted the 1972 European Communities Act in such a way as to give the EU a higher status. “No explicit constitutional buttress remains against any incursion by EU law whatever,” he said.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/08/britains-defiant-judges-fight-back-against-europes-imperial-cour/

    We used to know what the law was, or at least could hazard a good guess, now there are so many unknown regulations that you can’t be sure if you are breaking the law just walking to the shops.

    It makes me feel very uncertain and insecure and I don’t like that.

    • Richard Joyce Says:

      Excellent post and response – thank you both – the uncertainty is very accurate

    • junican Says:

      Perhaps I should have found out something about how the Napoleonic Law works because I have not much idea. It is not enough to say that everything is forbidden unless explicitly permitted by Law. Perhaps the answer lies in the word ‘explicitly’. Perhaps Napoleonic Law was much looser than we imagine. But I can see a problem if judges have to decide whether or not the Law permitted some action in the French Law, as compared with judges deciding, in Common Law, if the the law prohibited an action.
      But even Common Law is being eroded by vague definitions of ‘crimes’, such as ‘hate speech’. Remember that such things as ‘hate speech’ are statutes, and not common law. Can I put a penknife in my luggage when I go abroad? I have no idea, but I know that I would be stupid to carry a penknife in my pocket onto an aeroplane, and yet I have no idea if having a penknife in my pocket is forbidden by common law or statute law.
      The whole thing is a massive mess, and that is what I am complaining about. It has been allowed to build up into a mountain of uncertainty.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: