Sovereignty of Parliament eh? The judgment in Finch is going to set a precedent that is going to enable the Luddite cult to use the courts as their way of bypassing it endlessly. The only way to stop this is by repealing everything EU related and leaving the courts nothing to 'interpret'! We need direct democracy to counter this techno-judicial tyranny. Not going to happen under the Uniparty of course, which the drones will obediently vote for next week - the prison bars are multiplying so fast, we shall never be able to fight our way out.
Maybe unfair - I'll qualify that statement: anyone who votes for a party without reading their manifesto is a tribal drone. How many voters would that cover? 😉
I just started a (free) subscription to this substack, and I have to say this is one of the most informative and enlightening things I've read in a while. I'm writing from Canada but, boy, the analysis here sure explains a lot of what has gone on here in this country. Kudos!
Brownsword’s statement that “legislatures legislate… to delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts (or politicians advised by such agencies and experts) to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; issue guidance and recommendations; publish codes of conduct; give and revoke licenses; and so on” probably should also have said “and fine people for non-compliance”.
We see examples of this in the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office, both of which can fine people (“levy administrative penalties”) without recourse to the courts.
Which brings up an interesting irony: in facilitating this new form of non-democratic governance, the courts are assisting in making themselves obsolete. The courts exist to interpret and enforce laws made by Parliament. If laws made by Parliament are now irrelevant, then so are the courts. There is no need for them, because the quangos can decide themselves. Such rule would of course be entirely capricous, because nobody would be clear in advance what rules they had to follow.
Of course this is a completely totalitarian system of governance, but it ultimately does not need their lordships on the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter.
That isn't Brownsword - it's me. But you're right about the admin penalties.
Regarding the courts - who knows? Even the Soviet Union had courts. There is something about the existence of a judiciary that advanced human societies need to at least pay lip service to.
This article raises a lot of questions, David. As a non-legal person looking in, the EIA seems like bunk rubber stamping unless it takes into consideration the full impact of the mining operation, including it's downstream impacts. I'm not going to get into the climate issue here. I'm just talking about the idea of an EIA and what it ought to represent.
As far as impacting democracy, I wonder if it's democracy at stake or industry. Industrialism is arguably erosive to democracy, since it enriches a few at the expense of the demos, and ultimately results in corporate feudalism.
The joke with respect to climate activism is how it greenwashes new, destructive mining operations and industries that are at least as polluting (if not more so) as the existing ones, with both local and downstream environmental impacts that are forgotten by users, owing to the novelty. (I'd love to see a video of someone charging their Tesla from a gasoline-run generator, so we can find out the actual carbon footprint.)
The deeper, metaphysical question is of interest to me. I would very much like to hear about "natural law" in a future essay of yours. I have heard the term bandied about, but have no idea what it is. When I hear "natural law," I think of the law of the jungle and the Marquis de Sade: the idea that plants and animals left to wild conditions are stronger and healthier than tamed and cultivated, and that the strong and healthy ought to prevail over the weak. So I'm curious to hear more on this subject from a legal mind.
Natural law is really the opposite of that. It is the idea that there is such a thing as a natural order - there are things that are objectively right and wrong - and that this can be deduced by human reason and given effect in human law.
Are there any sources you could recommend on the subject?
Why would we need laws and philosophies of ethics, if right and wrong were objective?
I think slavery is a perfect example of how right and wrong are not objective. I mean, slavery was understood as the natural way of things dating back to earliest records. To my knowledge, it was also pretty universal. So what changed? Surely there's an evolution of what is felt to be right and wrong. (And let's not forget that slavery continues today both overtly in the black market, and covertly through various forms of indenture. My point here is that it appears to be as natural as any other proclivity.)
Readers of history look at laws to learn what folks of the era were getting up to... activities that required reigning in. In other words, laws reflect actual behaviour in an inverse way.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the subject. I do understand the notion of knowing right and wrong in one's heart. But even there, I encounter dead ends.
Without wishing to deliver a lecture, the idea would be that over time we applied our reason to discovering that it is naturally good to understand all human individuals as deserving of equal concern and respect, and that while it took us a long time to get there, the abolition of slavery is in alignment with that underlying truth. I suppose the person to go back to is Thomas Aquinas, but the best modern person to read might be John Finnis.
When you say "the EIA seems like bunk rubber stamping unless it takes into consideration the full impact of the mining operation, including it's downstream impacts", you reproduce, in summary, the majority judgement (which, taken on its own, does look persuasive), while ignoring the reasons the minority gave for disagreeing with it. If you are truly going to comment on David McGrogan's essay -- rather than just take a side in the dispute -- surely you have weigh up (or, to use your own phrase, 'take into consideration') the strength of that minority criticism?
David - I have been involved in delivering infrastructure projects for over 30yrs and have seen first hand the increasing complexity that is at play when one tries to deliver projects.
I take a slightly different view of the impacts of the legislation (maybe naive?).... I think almost every bit of legislation drives diametrically opposite results to their intended outcome but i'm not convinced it's by design. IMO the OEP which came out of the Environ Act is a great example of two things....
(i) Govt trying to demonstrate enviro credentials to the electorate and cash in on votes and,
(ii) Govt setting up another quango to outsource accountability so when things go wrong so those in power can say 'nothing to do with me Govnor'
But as Ben Pile cites.... Govt enviro policy has blown up in their face - just look at what is happening to our rivers and sewage spills (my area of expertise).... rivers cleaner than pretty much ever but everyone thinks they are WORSE than ever, all on the back of (more European) legislation (i can explain more if people are interested). As an aside the mother statute (Town and Country Planning Act) was set up to facilitate development in 1945. It most certainly doesn't operate in this way today so anothe example of unintended outcomes).
Activists are hijacking legislation at every opportunity to fulfill their beliefs through lawfare. Whilst very sad what makes me laugh out loud is that the indirect effects of 3m barrels or refined oil are almost nothing but good for our Society. However, Surrey CC couldn't possibly argue that because they are fully locked into the climate emergency. Indeed they have a section called Surrey's Climate Emergency in their Climate Change Strategy
Even if you believe in man-made climate change (which must self evidently global in nature) it is demonstrably false to suggest this proposal would have a 'significant indirect impact' on the environment (as far as I'm aware this appears to be readily accepted by both parties). It's impact would actually be undetectable. Appreciate this is not the main point of your article but doesn't it show how strict adherence to philosophy (Climate emergency in this case) has prevented the Council from arguing that this is indeed NOT significant, rather than not within the purvue of what indirect actually means?
Where will all this end? I'm 55 and in my life I expect it to continue. But at some point people will have enough and rebel (which I think is what you are saying). I do like the explanation of Law 1.0 and 2.0 but I'm not yet convinced Govts are deliberately moving to Law 2.0 to push stuff through the back door - basically because most civil servants and Govts do not have the competence to manage the complexity involved. No doubts some are Machiavellian but most do not posses the required capability to design these sophisticated mechanisms and see that they get activated. I think many are blindly idealistic. Remember Tony Blair being staggered that one couldn't book a doctors appointment beyond 48hrs?
Yet again another fantastic essay David. Congratulations.
In the last paragraph you talk about "tackling this problem", but what is the problem? For me in situation you discuss it is corruption of science that has created this problem and many others. There is no human caused climate crisis. It is utter nonsense that is not supported by any known physics or empirical evidence.
Sovereignty of Parliament eh? The judgment in Finch is going to set a precedent that is going to enable the Luddite cult to use the courts as their way of bypassing it endlessly. The only way to stop this is by repealing everything EU related and leaving the courts nothing to 'interpret'! We need direct democracy to counter this techno-judicial tyranny. Not going to happen under the Uniparty of course, which the drones will obediently vote for next week - the prison bars are multiplying so fast, we shall never be able to fight our way out.
Describing the voters as drones is unfair - they do not have brilliant options to vote for. I’ll be writing something about this over the weekend.
Maybe unfair - I'll qualify that statement: anyone who votes for a party without reading their manifesto is a tribal drone. How many voters would that cover? 😉
That’s really comprehensive analysis, thank you for writing it.
Thanks Jonathan!
I just started a (free) subscription to this substack, and I have to say this is one of the most informative and enlightening things I've read in a while. I'm writing from Canada but, boy, the analysis here sure explains a lot of what has gone on here in this country. Kudos!
Thanks very much for the kind comment, Robert.
Brownsword’s statement that “legislatures legislate… to delegate power to administrative agencies or technical experts (or politicians advised by such agencies and experts) to make ad hoc, flexible rulings; issue guidance and recommendations; publish codes of conduct; give and revoke licenses; and so on” probably should also have said “and fine people for non-compliance”.
We see examples of this in the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office, both of which can fine people (“levy administrative penalties”) without recourse to the courts.
Which brings up an interesting irony: in facilitating this new form of non-democratic governance, the courts are assisting in making themselves obsolete. The courts exist to interpret and enforce laws made by Parliament. If laws made by Parliament are now irrelevant, then so are the courts. There is no need for them, because the quangos can decide themselves. Such rule would of course be entirely capricous, because nobody would be clear in advance what rules they had to follow.
Of course this is a completely totalitarian system of governance, but it ultimately does not need their lordships on the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter.
That isn't Brownsword - it's me. But you're right about the admin penalties.
Regarding the courts - who knows? Even the Soviet Union had courts. There is something about the existence of a judiciary that advanced human societies need to at least pay lip service to.
This article raises a lot of questions, David. As a non-legal person looking in, the EIA seems like bunk rubber stamping unless it takes into consideration the full impact of the mining operation, including it's downstream impacts. I'm not going to get into the climate issue here. I'm just talking about the idea of an EIA and what it ought to represent.
As far as impacting democracy, I wonder if it's democracy at stake or industry. Industrialism is arguably erosive to democracy, since it enriches a few at the expense of the demos, and ultimately results in corporate feudalism.
The joke with respect to climate activism is how it greenwashes new, destructive mining operations and industries that are at least as polluting (if not more so) as the existing ones, with both local and downstream environmental impacts that are forgotten by users, owing to the novelty. (I'd love to see a video of someone charging their Tesla from a gasoline-run generator, so we can find out the actual carbon footprint.)
The deeper, metaphysical question is of interest to me. I would very much like to hear about "natural law" in a future essay of yours. I have heard the term bandied about, but have no idea what it is. When I hear "natural law," I think of the law of the jungle and the Marquis de Sade: the idea that plants and animals left to wild conditions are stronger and healthier than tamed and cultivated, and that the strong and healthy ought to prevail over the weak. So I'm curious to hear more on this subject from a legal mind.
Natural law is really the opposite of that. It is the idea that there is such a thing as a natural order - there are things that are objectively right and wrong - and that this can be deduced by human reason and given effect in human law.
Are there any sources you could recommend on the subject?
Why would we need laws and philosophies of ethics, if right and wrong were objective?
I think slavery is a perfect example of how right and wrong are not objective. I mean, slavery was understood as the natural way of things dating back to earliest records. To my knowledge, it was also pretty universal. So what changed? Surely there's an evolution of what is felt to be right and wrong. (And let's not forget that slavery continues today both overtly in the black market, and covertly through various forms of indenture. My point here is that it appears to be as natural as any other proclivity.)
Readers of history look at laws to learn what folks of the era were getting up to... activities that required reigning in. In other words, laws reflect actual behaviour in an inverse way.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the subject. I do understand the notion of knowing right and wrong in one's heart. But even there, I encounter dead ends.
In any event, the subject intrigues me.
Without wishing to deliver a lecture, the idea would be that over time we applied our reason to discovering that it is naturally good to understand all human individuals as deserving of equal concern and respect, and that while it took us a long time to get there, the abolition of slavery is in alignment with that underlying truth. I suppose the person to go back to is Thomas Aquinas, but the best modern person to read might be John Finnis.
When you say "the EIA seems like bunk rubber stamping unless it takes into consideration the full impact of the mining operation, including it's downstream impacts", you reproduce, in summary, the majority judgement (which, taken on its own, does look persuasive), while ignoring the reasons the minority gave for disagreeing with it. If you are truly going to comment on David McGrogan's essay -- rather than just take a side in the dispute -- surely you have weigh up (or, to use your own phrase, 'take into consideration') the strength of that minority criticism?
It always comes back to God in the end ;)
All questions are in the end theological, but this is quite a hard topic to address for understandable reasons.
David - I have been involved in delivering infrastructure projects for over 30yrs and have seen first hand the increasing complexity that is at play when one tries to deliver projects.
I take a slightly different view of the impacts of the legislation (maybe naive?).... I think almost every bit of legislation drives diametrically opposite results to their intended outcome but i'm not convinced it's by design. IMO the OEP which came out of the Environ Act is a great example of two things....
(i) Govt trying to demonstrate enviro credentials to the electorate and cash in on votes and,
(ii) Govt setting up another quango to outsource accountability so when things go wrong so those in power can say 'nothing to do with me Govnor'
But as Ben Pile cites.... Govt enviro policy has blown up in their face - just look at what is happening to our rivers and sewage spills (my area of expertise).... rivers cleaner than pretty much ever but everyone thinks they are WORSE than ever, all on the back of (more European) legislation (i can explain more if people are interested). As an aside the mother statute (Town and Country Planning Act) was set up to facilitate development in 1945. It most certainly doesn't operate in this way today so anothe example of unintended outcomes).
Activists are hijacking legislation at every opportunity to fulfill their beliefs through lawfare. Whilst very sad what makes me laugh out loud is that the indirect effects of 3m barrels or refined oil are almost nothing but good for our Society. However, Surrey CC couldn't possibly argue that because they are fully locked into the climate emergency. Indeed they have a section called Surrey's Climate Emergency in their Climate Change Strategy
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/community/climate-change/what-are-we-doing/climate-change-strategy/2020#section-5
Even if you believe in man-made climate change (which must self evidently global in nature) it is demonstrably false to suggest this proposal would have a 'significant indirect impact' on the environment (as far as I'm aware this appears to be readily accepted by both parties). It's impact would actually be undetectable. Appreciate this is not the main point of your article but doesn't it show how strict adherence to philosophy (Climate emergency in this case) has prevented the Council from arguing that this is indeed NOT significant, rather than not within the purvue of what indirect actually means?
Where will all this end? I'm 55 and in my life I expect it to continue. But at some point people will have enough and rebel (which I think is what you are saying). I do like the explanation of Law 1.0 and 2.0 but I'm not yet convinced Govts are deliberately moving to Law 2.0 to push stuff through the back door - basically because most civil servants and Govts do not have the competence to manage the complexity involved. No doubts some are Machiavellian but most do not posses the required capability to design these sophisticated mechanisms and see that they get activated. I think many are blindly idealistic. Remember Tony Blair being staggered that one couldn't book a doctors appointment beyond 48hrs?
Yet again another fantastic essay David. Congratulations.
In the last paragraph you talk about "tackling this problem", but what is the problem? For me in situation you discuss it is corruption of science that has created this problem and many others. There is no human caused climate crisis. It is utter nonsense that is not supported by any known physics or empirical evidence.