David Starkey: Parliamentary Sovereignty

[@davidstarkeytalks]

This series of interviews is courtesy of Reunite, who are launching a campaign to stop Keir Starmer and New Labour 2.0's plans to "reform" Britain's constitution and further dilute the power of parliament. Please sign their petition for a referendum on the matter here: reunitegb.com/

[@radman8321]

Nope. The electorate don't have a great record when it comes to referendums. Too many idiots.

[@NyalBurns]

This is not particularly Starmer’s policy but Gordon Brown. However, Starmer is controlled by Blair. Blair is actually better than Brown. But the better of two, or three accounting for the Torys, of bad options.

[@sebastianguerre6868]

I think I may be missing something because I would say that generally people in England believe that if our government has a massive majority and a mandate from the electorate to perform a task (for example the removal of illegal immigrants from our shores) then that should be overruled by our judiciary or a foreign judiciary or maybe even the King.

[@pedg2894]

Dr Starkey is a British treasure and should be protected at all cost!

[@cailancook9720]

David, these are masterclasses in British history - so grateful for this series! 🙏🏼🔥

[@d.marques4700]

What a lesson! I wonder how many MPs do know all these concepts!?!...

[@gammamaster1894]

Probably very few, if any

[@chrisgibson5267]

Simply break it up into bite-sized pieces, and put it on the form they complete when they claim their expenses. Or offer them free buffet lunches on the understanding that they sit and listen to a 5 minute lecture on the matter.

[@d.marques4700]

@@chrisgibson5267 An excellent recipe, Chris! A 5 ☆ approach used for kids, that could result much better with our lazy MPs than the traditional way! Maybe at least a handful of them could end up being useful for the Country...

[@johnhaynes9910]

Excellent, honing in on just one key point, more like this please David.

[@williammckeen5233]

This guy is brilliant 👏

[@Bob-Horse]

Thank you Professor Starkey, most interesting as always 🙏🏻

[@stevenfarrall3942]

And this is available free on youtube. So how likely is it that teachers will screen this to their classes?

[@damianhunt2187]

We the people are sovereign

[@josephstevano5905]

Do we all fully grasp how smart David Starkey is? Do we fully comprehend how WELL he knows his subject area? How much thought he has devoted to it?

[@mikerodent3164]

Hahaha, carry on, True Believer. Starkers is characterised by his hobbyhorses, and we see one here. He waspishly defends them, nay, won't take "possibly" for an answer. Making him a silly old sausage but also a comedy genius, did he but know it.

[@zeddeka]

As the old saying goes, "It's easy to seem brilliant when you're not concerned with being right."

[@PASKEN458]

They tried to cancel David Starkey but thinking people will always eventually find him.

[@angusmcangus7914]

If it’s a product of something “much more rooted, in the soil, in the people” it’s surely the people who are sovereign. What came first? The people or Parliament?

[@genuinearticle33]

A Priori the People are both Antecedent to the State both in Fact and in Law, even the Popes have been honest enough to admit this, a time of ignorance prevails ...

[@fredneecher1746]

Unless the monarch subdued a people by force and against their will, the people remain sovereign. William the Conqueror DID subdue the English people by force against their will. We are in fact a conquered people.

[@angusmcangus7914]

@@fredneecher1746 surely it’s the 1066 generation of Saxons who are the conquered people, not us.

[@andygriffiths9916]

Thank you.

[@sorrysirmygunisoneba]

Fantastic, thank you. Nice quick 15 minute snippet

[@aaddy5157]

DS is my hero! 👍

[@paulheard3316]

Thank you for that explanation professor. You had mentioned this subject before and it was a bit confusing. I have a better understanding of the topic now.

[@nyckolaus]

brilliant

[@storm19802]

This is brilliant👍

[@gm2407]

@11:40 in fairness that was during the enlightenment when the USA was not only evolving from an English culture, but was drawing heavily on historic Roman and Greek institutions. Particularly Roman with a Senate, instead of House of Lords, and of course being a republic. So you have these three sources as the basis for a federal republic. If anything the legacy is not parliament (despite no tax without representation), it is common law.

[@gammamaster1894]

This will be a fantastic series

[@suzann2531]

Relying on your local mp is a waste of time once they have their feet under the table in Westminster it’s fill your own pockets moment.

[@HouseOfBread.]

Brilliant again Mr Starkey. I love the way our governance is formed, it stops cranks like Hitler having a free for all. If someone like him and his party rose up, the laws they pass would have to be vetted by the House of Lords. When one charismatic leader has the 100% absolute power such terrible cruelty occurs.

[@peregrineslim4446]

Yeah, sure, Hitler happened because Germany had no House of Lords.

[@katherinecollins4685]

This was fantastic 👏

[@patrickmahuinga5358]

We call it Fonua ❤

[@NyalBurns]

I assume he was supposed to say; parliament is routed in the existence of the English race.

[@dorothywarren1441]

Do you mean rooted? A very different thing to routed.

[@fredneecher1746]

'Race' is a very bland word. Until recently, it meant nothing more than a large group of beings identifiable by a common characteristic. Napoleon called the English ' a race of shopkeepers'. Darwin called species 'races' in his most famous book. Only subsequently did it acquire the sense of biological determinism, which is frankly unwarranted. The English are a people because we share common ancestry on a common land. Neither of these is ultimately immutable.

[@BetjeWolff-v2s]

We are all the human race in the sense of physical antropologie. What the media call 'race' are just variations within the same race.@@fredneecher1746

[@jack2453]

The fact that you have explain what 'fourteenth century' means speaks volumes about your audience.

[@stuartnoyes2615]

Starkey says on another video that parliament is the legal sovereign and the people are the political sovereigns. Guess that makes the monarchy the ceremonial sovereign?

[@brontewcat]

Pretty much yes.

[@Ethelred966]

No, remember what he said. Parliament is a tripartite body. He is talking about the King in Parliament, not just the House of Commons. Without the authority of the monarch (represented by the mace), there is no Parliament.

[@stuartnoyes2615]

@scottdragland2191 We are a constitutional monarchy. The monarch has no political power, it being used by the government. They swear the coronation oath to govern us by our laws. Some bright spark once contended the Queen broke that oath by consenting to the accession treaty of the eec.

[@peterwebb8732]

Is there not a doctrine that the Monarch is held to "embody" the People? To represent all, not just their constituents and Parliamentarians are wont to do?

[@123weedave]

Yes, think mono, monastic, singular and complete before law. Royal Assent is the ceremony which represents every sovereign man judging acts and statutes for lawfulness. Every man witness and juror..

[@CommonSwindler]

Splendid small video, however I’ll challenge that, as English medieval monarchs go, the brilliant and incomparable Henry II beats Edward I for absolutism and, certainly, for intelligence.

[@matthewpayne5205]

Really nice hearing David unscripted

[@legionnairegonk4425]

Parliamentary sovereignty - a thing EU Remainers are seemingly happy to give up.

[@dorsetbigcats6292]

I doubt you would find too many Remainers willing to discuss that inconvenient truth.

[@brontewcat]

Huh?

[@Ethelred966]

The masked vaccinated Remainers are unaware that England even has a constitution. And if they knew, they wouldn't care.

[@70AD-user45]

​@@dorsetbigcats6292 Remainers don't view that as an inconvenient truth because they don't even believe in the sovereignty of nations. They believe in open borders, which is what we have now. Open borders is a betrayal of Brexit, so they've got what they wanted....a loss of sovereignty.

[@BetjeWolff-v2s]

Me too: Huh ?....the EU is first and in essence an Economic Union, initiated to facilitate the easiest trade: like streamlining the coinage, the banktransfers, the roadconnections and roadsigns, trainconnections, policing, telephone connections, possibility to work everywhere, etcetera.....nothing to do with the sovereignty of our parliaments. Charles De Gaule did not want Britain in and called a veto, because they would be a contineous cause of trouble....

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

❤

[@BetjeWolff-v2s]

A question entered my mind, no doubt because of recent events. Parliament even decided on religious matters DS says......this weird phenomena in Britain, where victims are present in the courtroom in criminal cases, with emotional confessions and the not even convicted criminal has to listen as a form of punishment perhaps? before the judge has sentenced even. Is that an old religeous thing ? Normally no one is allowed in a criminal courtroom, to keep out the strong emotions. The judge must make a rational and objective decision. Lynching and throwing stones, publicly shaming and hunting and shouting abuse and all that, and speaking of eeeevil is from the dark middle ages.

[@rexlex7784]

@davidstarkeytalks can you do a talk on why Millet 2 (prorogation case) was a constitutional outrage. Would be interested get your take.

[@peregrineslim4446]

Endlessly repeating the legal formalism while forgetting how it works in practice is a recipe for stagnation.

[@gerrypowell2748]

English parliament😮😮

[@uingaeoc3905]

NO - that is part of the attack on the UK as proposed by Blair-EU and the so called 'devolution' assemblies..

[@patricktracey7424]

the people are not represented by politicians in parliament, once an MP is elected they quickly forget any promises made to their constituents any promised manifesto and do there own thing. listening to no one except there party whips , the people are not allowed to address parliament directly so the status quo of an unrepresentative parliament carries on, the monarch is supposed to guard and preserve the rights, privileges and freedoms of the people over parliament but no monarch has done this since magna carta, even king john who signed it reneged at the first opportunity, what we have is a puppet king whose strings are pulled by parliament.

[@ResistanceGB]

Some useful historical context. However, the fundamentals of our constitution are predicated upon Natural Rights and Natural Law. Individual rights take primacy over a capacity to vote. Starkey needs to recognise this and any campaign should be pushing for these rights and a better constitutional settlement and enforcement, rather than simply rallying against Labour's proposals, which is just a reactionary measure. Starkey himself admitted that he was flawed in his argument for First Past the Post in the AV referendum. The nationalisation of culture via media (newspapers, radio, TV and social media) at the same time as the Long March Through the Institutions resulting in the abolition of equality before the law, alongside the powers of a jury (majority debased from 12 to 10 in 1967), have led to a stagnant and criminal political tyranny. Some form of proportional reform is necessary. This is not to say it should be designed by Labour or the rest of the uniparty. However, it may eventuate, though unlikely, that PR would offer some meaningful opposition and representation for the oppressed masses and be a path to peacefully reassert our freedoms. As an intelligent and capable man, Starkey should be drafting alternative proposals rooted in the rights of the individual to stave off the impending collapse of our civilisation and riots over the next decade. He should be focusing of restoring jury unanimity, the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy, the right to silence, equality before the law and other rights to ensure that our life, liberty and property are defended. This is the utmost priority. It is not enough to fight against something to the benefit of a rancid status quo. Indeed, a referendum would grant seeming legitimacy to either system. We must fight FOR something and demand that be on any ballot foisted before us.

[@--legion]

Your Natural rights and natural law is predicated on the assumption that these political systems and rights existed in a state of nature before any societies were created. These rights never did exist in a state of nature. Further, if one accepts this preterhuman ideal, then one also has to accept that man has a 'natural' right to power. And it necessarily does not follow that your 'oppressed masses' will naturally benefit.

[@genuinearticle33]

Absolute bollocks Pal, Without God there is no Monarchy, your presumption negates God and the repositry of sovereign power thereof.@@--legion

[@--legion]

@@genuinearticle33 Kingship arose out of the practical need for a ruler and had little to do with God. To validate that rule (and the subsequent absurdity of the divine right of kings) divine power was invested in that ruler. Divine rights like natural rights are a fiction. The overthrow of kings and revolutions resulted from the divine delusion of monarchs. But it's clear that you would be the first to defend this delusion.

[@Ethelred966]

​@@--legion wrong. Read Blackstone if you're interested in this topic. Natural rights are pre-political.

[@--legion]

@@Ethelred966 The question of 'natural rights' has long been a subject of enquiry. Here it is succinctly dismissed in a few words: "We likewise sometimes hear of certain rights, styled natural rights, which are supposed to be anterior to civil government, and to be paramount to it. Hence these supposed natural rights sometimes receive all the additional epithets of indefeasible, indestructible, inalienable, and the like. This theory of natural rights is closely connected with the fiction of a social compact made between persons living in a state of nature; which theory, though recommended by the authority of Locke, has now been abandoned by nearly all political speculators." 1848 As I've said, these so-called rights do not exist in a state of nature, they are fabricated. All major rights are essentially moral. Nietzsche thought that morality is the instinctive-egotistical search for happiness or the instinctive effort to banish pain. But actually morality and, to a limited extent its offspring, rights, are simply the self-preserving instincts of society without which society would collapse. I'm not a socialist, and unlike certain members of the Left-collective, I do believe morality exists. I'm merely giving my take on what is 'natural' and what is constructed.

[@patrickmahuinga5358]

👏

[@Ann-qf5vk]

Can I ask your opinion re the Scottish/English relationship as your emphasis is on England? I understand you are speaking from a historian's perspective

[@lee9650]

What's the "R word" ?

[@andypitch]

What's the naughty 'R word' ? 🤔☺️

[@finnzy2315]

Royals? or Republic?

[@Guillhez]

in the soil, in the people, in the race (?)

[@finnzy2315]

@@Guillhez I think you're right, race sounds the most apt

[@Ethelred966]

English sovereignty was initially codified in the statutes of Praemunire under Edward III. These laws forbade the establishment of imperio in imperium, or a realm within the realm. Of course that is exactly what the EU was with its own courts, laws, warrants, etc. Inglorious Revolution, by Gerard Batten, gives a good explanation.

[@rosheaheather9855]

TIME TO GET RID, OF CHARLIE!!

[@pipnipipa7627mimmahappunchaol]

Mystery leaving out the R word ?

[@benz.]

The planned changes to the constitution are hideous, but I am nevertheless not a fan of proposing a referendum on this issue. By giving some semblance of 'democratic legitimacy' to such a vote, a future government who wishes to reverse any changes would be stymied at every turn with their opponents principal objection being that they're going against 'the will of the people'. That view of course implies that such a referendum would have a result in favour of reform. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that that would be the outcome. Can anyone really expect that voters en masse would understand or even care about the intricacies and benefits of the current constitutional arrangement? It's not all great, and I would reverse a lot of changes that have been made by certain suspects, but what is left of its former self is far better than this Americanised third-rate nonsense that Labour is proposing. My view of the electorate is very dim, just look around you and you will see why. They would fall heart over heels for an elected second chamber instead of the current arrangement, regardless of its implications. By dangling the words 'democratic' in front of the electorate, I don't think Labour would have a hard time winning. I would avoid giving this clap-trap any hint of 'democratic legitimacy'. More likely than not, they will offer a referendum on the changes anyway. - Even if they don't offer one and try to pass legislation from day one, their suite of recommendations is so large that it would likely require multiple terms to implement them. That in itself offers opportunity for a different government (Tory in all likelihood) to be elected and reverse their changes. To reverse them, it would require at least two things to be true: 1. That the changes to the constitutional landscape have not made it so a new parliament is bound by a former parliament. 2. That the new government would have the will to even reverse these changes. On Point 1. From what I have read in the document, although the 'second chamber' will be reformed, the primacy of the commons will be in some way maintained. Even if its hamstrung by a 'supermajority', a government with a comfortable majority or support from other MPs or parties could easily beat this threshold. On Point 2. This is where the largest issue lies. Labour have been vandalising the constitution for decades, but the Tories have done nothing to reverse the changes. The Tories accept the new paradigm with open arms because they're just as progressive as the Labour party. To give some examples of Acts that should have been repealed: House of Lords (Reform) Act 1999, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1999. None of these acts have been touched, and in most cases have been added to by these dimwits. To properly reverse these inevitable changes, it requires an opposition party with the will to change. Something tells me that won't happen... Regardless, it can be reversed. - By campaigning for a referendum on this issue, you leave the net wide open for them to hammer you. If they're going to make the changes, stymie them in parliament until they pass it anyway. Then its for us to manoeuvre and plan so that it can be reversed at the next possible instance. Don't fall for the trap.

[@ResistanceGB]

You make a good point. Any referendum would offer an illusion of choice, whereas both options are likely terrible.

[@NyalBurns]

The issue should be decided by parliament alone. Not referenda. It would create even more chaos. Such as the ‘leaving European Union’ referenda did.

[@benz.]

@@ResistanceGB Absolutely right.

[@benz.]

@@NyalBurns Exactly right. This was a point best made by Lord Sumption in his recorded talk "British politics after Brexit: reflections on the last three years and the next fifty".

[@wednesdaynightbusiness6296]

the r- ... 😉

[@anglosaxonbreed]

We need to change. To have domocracy we must change to proportional representation. We also must be able to remove MP within 14 days if the move to another agender than that where elected on.

[@christopherburns5262]

PR has its own prooblems.

[@benz.]

'More democracy! More democracy! More democracy!'... You really think that having non-functioning governments and fragile coalitions that inevitably result in more progressivism is the best way forward? If you really think that recalling or removing MPs against some arbitrary standard is a good idea, you need to give your head a wobble. Actually, just give it a wobble regardless.

[@NyalBurns]

We need a conservative aristocratic state.

[@foundationofBritain]

no, proportional representation is the product of an undeveloped parliamentary tradition... and is a destructive and foreign idea... there is a very good reason way England develops first past the post... because a workable parliamentary system dose not have, nor could have the separation of powers... the parliamentary system is fundamentally a triparted system, the Crown, the Lords, the Commons... its also one of many main reasons why we could never be able to get rid of our Crown and continue to have a properly functioning workable parliamentary system... the same with the Lords & the Commons... Blair in the 90s removing the proper function of the Lords has resulted in the mess that our parliamentary system is in now. Change is not good, it got us in to this mess to begin with... and it will not get us out of it, unless its in the form of a restoration of proper parliamentary function... we did it before at the end of the mid 17th.c... we can do it again... and democracy is an afterthought... not the central tenant... restore proper parliamentary function, then democracy can have its place within it... but democracy can not, nor could be the basic central unit of our English governmental system... it never was, and it never could be, let alone ought to be... our traditional English governmental system need not have been change or even messed with for idealistic reasons... the English tradition is King... progress is gay... end of story.

[@BetjeWolff-v2s]

How about educate the nation on recognizing narcissism ? Stop voting for these people. They scientifically proven follow the same pattern every time: entitled, manipulating, don't care about anyone but themselves, create conflicts and bring chaos and destruction in every aspect of life. Charismatic ? Charming ? ......Run !

[@alanfleming4828]

So many people do not know our history and how we came to where we are. The more we learn the more we would retain and protect our Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Australian Constitution is based on the "Westminister System" yet the current left-wing Labor Australian Government seeks to dramatically change it and no one seems to understand why the fathers of Federation choose it. Even the Americans have forgotten how and why their Constitution was written. All to their peril.

[@patrickhouston2610]

English parliament?

[@peregrineslim4446]

Starkey is talking of the triumph of the Medieval 1% over the ONE, but now he wants the 1% to triumph over the many.

[@mihaelatudor2417]

As a foreigner and an ex-communist country citizen, I would be very sad to see the British democratic system changed. I can understand that conditions are not very good at the moment, but te alternative is much much worse…..Do not think that by changing how the Parliament works now will give the man in the street more power……And do not imagine that taking away the riches of the uper classes or of the newly enriched will make the life of the poor people better……Look at what happened in Russia, France, and all the old monarchies where the “republic” was installed……Travel to these countries to see for yourself……

[@peregrineslim4446]

So Parliament was an upper class club? It remains true enough today, unfortunately.

[@tomlarpins7889]

I believe that Parliament should not be all powerful and that we should be a federation. this will make things far more efficient, including the NHS, transport and other public services.

[@andrewcox2810]

Parliamentary Sovereignty,I thought we gave that to the EU to decide.??

[@genuinearticle33]

Every 'Body' is represented ..... Ah yes that old Jesuit chestnut - Parendi A cadaver! No thanks

[@dnstone1127]

The Norman parliament, imposed on the English.

[@davidmorris3981]

I wish D S would stick to these historical videos - where he is very interesting and insightful - rather than messing around commenting on contemporary politics, where, unfortunately, he comes across as a pompous golf club bore.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Unlike all the other pompous bores who sound off in those interviews.

[@anglosaxonbreed]

I personally like him to comment on politics of the day.

[@jrobs1133]

Ironic considering this is how you've just come across.

[@bgg-jp5ei]

Pathetic comment

[@nemosays6337]

I agree he comes across better with subjects of which he holds authority, I don't mind his political opinions, I just find I mostly disagree with his take for example about a cashless society which I believe stems from his own naivety!

[@No1Buzznut]

Old man until I get a vote on where my tax money end off