Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Y LLys Cymru - The Welsh Court

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Y LLys Cymru - The Welsh Court Reply with quote

In 2011 I decided that this idea was too sophisticated to try and explain and launch as a campaign at that year's Cardiff Bay Republican Day - that I would be biting off more than I could chew given what lay ahead for me the following year - that the level of political education in a roomful of people whose " republicanism " amounted to nothing more than anti-monarchism and that amounted to nothing more than sniggering at savage poems ... and nothing was going to happen was it, although like some Cymric Cassandra I had been flagging up the potential political problems created by the errors in the proposed constitutional arrangements of the Welsh Government as it acquired law-making powers to the All Wales Convention in 2007. What happened there was that the minute that I mentioned that I was a republican I was attacked for simply mentioning the word and the argument that I was making which was drawn from Montesquieu's ' Defense de L'esprit des Lois ' was dismissed as irrelevant - indeed as I remember it one of the committee members alleged that The Law Society had put me up to it ... in other words they had committed themselves to a certain course of action and the All Wales Convention was not a consultation to consider reasoned criticism but a marketing exercise to persuade people to buy their new improved brand of neo-colonialism and have their nation entered into a prize draw on the off-chance that we might win something. I was writing about this at the time on the following topic thread -


Now of course I do not have a monopoly on common sense but rather only a very partial share in it and at the 2012 Cardiff Bay Republican Day Gruff presented a proposal for a more ambitious campaign called ' Cymru Sofren ' and I thought to myself " Ah - good - he is the man for the job ! " and explained the constitutional issue to him and wrote perhaps too much on a thread to promote his campaign. [ http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=500 ] The whole point of ' Repwblic ' is that it is supposed to be an opportunity for people to just talk and not at any particularly high level, as long as they talk about real republican politics as opposed to the hate-and-envy ' politics ' of anti-monarchism and anti-englishism pretended to be republicanism. I see that Gruff updated the front page this year ( repwblic.org 's page has been suffering from writer's block recently and I am debating what to do with it so did not pay the hosting service but retained the .org whist I have a think about its relevance in view of the fact that repwblic.informe.com has turned into blog instead of a ' republic of letters.' ) There is also a blog on Sofren Cymru and I think that the most recent article there by Twm Llewelyn is well written and interesting - and begs the question as to whether we could find a new way of unleashing the power of the Welsh Assembly -


Whilst I thought that it could happen, not even I expected that what I had predicted would happen the very first time that the Welsh Government tried to make a law using its new powers. What I argued was that there should be a division of powers between the Legislature ( the Welsh Assembly ) the Executive ( the Welsh Government ) and the Judiciary ( the Welsh Court - which does not exist, despite the fact that a new jurisdiction has been created.) The Republican argument for this is that it prevents any particular institution of government from concentrating power the hands of a community of people who can then pursue their own interests, in which case they will proclaim their own sectarian private interests to be the public interest : we already have this happening in that it is the interests of the state that are taken to be the same as the public interest. This present situation in the United Kingdom illustrates that Montequieu's argument in ' A Defence of the Spirit of the Laws ' ( which was written in the time of the Ancieme Regime of the French Kingdom against the exercise of a power by a monolithic monarchy that had seized all powers to itself ) may need some serious updating because the public interests of the state which are presented to be the public interest turn out, in Wales at least, to be the interests of the Bureaucracy and the Welsh State is in effect being run for the benefit of those who are employed by it : any business run this way would collapse by the end of its credit limit - but ordinary businesses do not have an enslaved community of customers who can be jailed if they refuse to pay for goods and services that are not as advertised and for which there is no effective complaints procedure i.e. a Welsh Court.

In the USA the argument for many years has been that their civil service is so enmeshed with their military and their military are so enmeshed with the international corporations and the international corporations are so enmeshed with the transnational global banking system and the transnational global banking system is so enmeshed with organized crime that the ' public interest ' has now become that of a new form of monarchy : ' the military-industrial-banking complex ' - and many think that the control of their country has now passed beyond their elected government which is helpless to stop this ... bizarrely the people most concerned with this are against the only thing that can remedy it : a world government which can prevent the weaker countries being conquered or controlled by the stronger countries, which is very much the old republican idea of how to stop wars breaking out by uniting the smaller countries to defeat the stronger countries. Countries of what ever size in future however will be hired mercenaries, their politicians will sell their armies to the highest bidders which will be the corporations, banks and crime syndicates.

[ AND LO !!! Just before I came back to tidy up the grammar and spelling of this topic thread I heard about this piece of news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19940473 - which demonstrates the lack of provisions against the baleful influence of the miitary-industrial-banking complex : this is another aspect of the separation of powers, and another aspect of it is also in the news : republicans would keep the militia under a separate command from the professional military lest either attempt a coup - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19940848 - it is regarded as common sense constitutional politics in other countries.]




Before I get back to the point, it is worth noting the happy coincidence of the seat of the Welsh Government being located in ' Cardiff Bay ' which is colloquially nick named ' Tiger Bay.' Most people think that this has something to do with big cats stalking the streets of Cardiff preying upon the helpless citizens innocently going about their own lives ... and in a way it does ... the original ' tygers ' lurked amongst the reeds in the swampy sea marshes alongside the estuaries feeding down into the Severn Sea : in the 16th century Wales became subject to the rule of the English Parliament where English MP's pursued their own interests and took control over the various exports from the South Wales' ports and auctioned them off so that Bristol's merchants effectively owned the Severn Sea and this is why Cardiff the largest borough in Wales at the time went into a sudden serious decline : the burghers of Cardiff had ships but no cargo - so they turned to piracy : and that is why " sailing the Severn Seas " became a reference to being an experienced sailor - it meant that you had faced the " The Tygers " and got home safely to Bristol. It seems that the original " tygers " hunted down becalmed or slowly moving sailing ships by pretending to be going out fishing, overtaking them in rowing boats from behind ... but where does the word come from ? Medieval bestiaries and heraldries were full of certain mythical beasts described in various ways with various spellings : in English the word was " tyger " and in Welsh the spelling was " teigr " - and the meaning in 16c Welsh of " teigradd " - " tigerish " - was " cruel." When pictured in bestiaries tygers are usually depicted attacking a horseman from behind who has stolen a cub from its mother ( see story below ) and they were reputed to live in marshlands around rivers - but the natural beast was often mixed up with the fabulously dangerous mythical beast the " mantyger " which is another spelling of " Manticore " - " the man-slayer." This then is the imagery summoned up by putting the Welsh Assembly in " Tiger Bay " : murderous thieves lurking in a swamp ... mmm



P.S. Gethin is a kind and generous man, knowledgable about history and full of feelings for the poor souls preyed upon by the pirates of Tiger Bay who took a percentage from the income of every English enterprise that sailed the Severn Seas and beyond. Since theirs is a Welsh operation - and he is very proud of everything Welsh - I have asked him to donate the variant Welsh flag which he designed originally for the Crachwyr - but they politely declined it - for the use of the politicians in the Senedd as a way for them to celebrate these historical associations with the location of their building by hoisting this high over it :

Since this slight detour turned into a holiday excursion, I have decided to say a little more about the ' tygers ' because their reputation as ' murderous thieves lurking in a swamp ' is not the full story, which is an historical lesson in politics. When Henry VIII wanted to get rid of his wife there were several political benefits not least to say a chance to cash in. First of all by the Act of Appeals and then by the Act Of Supremacy 1534 he controlled his most dangerous critics by making himself head of the newly created Church of England and then because they would not be silenced he made death the penalty for anyone complaining about his making himself an absolute dictator by passing the Treasons Act of 1534. The Welsh however still kept on criticizing him and we were not only not living inside the Kingdom of England, and therefore only partially under Henry VIII's control because some was ruled by the Marcher Lords, our ports offered a potential place for Catholic armies from Spain and France to land and invade England. So to silence his Welsh critics and as a matter of security against foreign rulers licensed by the pope to suppress his heresy, he supressed the Marcher Lordships and placed Wales firmly under the control of the crown by the ' Laws in Wales Acts ' of 1535 & 1542 which created The Principality of Wales from which he could also draw a private income ( actual final political union with England took place in 1624 when the so-called " Henry VIII Clause " and the thirty odd Penal Laws imposed since Owain Glyndwr's rebellion of 1404 were repealed.)

Wales was now subjected to both taxation by the English Parliament ( in exchange for Wales having MP's in the House of Commons ) and to being plundered by the monarchy : Welsh merchants not only lost their financial edge in commerce but also found English merchants able to seize control of their trade and carry it in their ships. The poor of Wales who had often been dependent upon not just charity but employment from the Catholic church were now economically marginalized by the aristocracy who seized the Catholic church's land and property - but this marginalization had already been under way beforehand as the marshes and fens bordering the Severn Sea were enclosed and drained and defended from flooding. This was going on all over England and Wales and those who had lived by fishing and fouling for centuries in the tidal marshes and inland fens were often accused of criminality in order to justify depriving them of their way of life by draining these commons which were subject to flooding - and they were commonly called ' tygers ' in reference to the dangerous beast that according to medieval bestiaries dwelt in such places.

Now the following is an apochryphal story about a real ' tyger ' - an illiterate fisherman called Rawlins White whose family had been obedient servants to the Catholic church : he probably fell into poverty because of the Reformation and thus found himself living amongst the people in ' the Dumballs ' which is a Viking name that remained after they were driven out or had their settlement of ' Hunmanby ' reconquered by the Welsh and renamed Caertaf c1000 AD. ' The Dumballs ' means an area of tidal creeks and the surrounding marshland that they flooded at spring tides, and about a mile south of medieval Cartaphe where the old Roman road south had had its embankment raising it above the Dumballs eroded away by the meandering River Taphe was the village of Sodrey which stood on a bend of the river called ' Taphe's Pool.' This was the meeting place of the excluded marginalised people known as the ' tygers ' and whilst Sodrey had once been another Viking settlement ( it means ' South Island ' ) before that we suspect that it is the ' Ratostabos ' in an ancient document describing a visit to pre-Roman Britain. Cardiff had become the county town of Glamorganshire in 1536 as part of the new political system and it became a free borough in 1542 and so the tygers were caught up in rapidly changing economic circumstances and a contested political situation in which Glamorganshire's gentry elected the county's MP and Cardiff's burghers elected a borough MP.

The tygers probably earned some extra income by waiting at Taff's Pool ( the meander was cut through and Taff's Pool is now buried under Century Wharf ) using their rowing boats to tow ships coming in from the sea up to the town quay at modern Westgate Street, and likewise they may have approached becalmed ships on the Severn Sea to offer the same or just to beg from them. So perhaps to begin with the tygers' piracy consisted of opportunistic petty theft - but once they began to bring back part or whole cargoes for sale they needed buyers who would sell on the goods. The gentry had the money to purchase the goods and the burghers had ships but no cargoes because the English merchants had gained control of the legitimate trade - so everybody was happy : were they not ? Not Rawlins White : he was not only disturbed by the exploitation of the desperate poverty of the tygers which drove them to risk themselves in such desperate acts of piracy for so little, ( and in which the wealthy merchants and landowners could deny their involvement in piracy and arrest, try and hang any of those unfortunate tygers who proved disobedient because they were also the magistrates and juries ) he was also concerned for the souls of these poor wretches.

Rawlins White had probably been converted to the Protestant cause by Thomas Capper, a radical critic of the high and mighty who had been tried for heresy and burnt at the stake in Cardiff in 1542 by the new Church of England that had now been imposed on Wales in order to suppress Catholicism after the two Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 & 1542. Although illiterate himself Rawlins White had a prodigious ability to memorize words and, when in 1538 Henry VIII ordered the clergy of every parish church to provide one public copy of the ' Great Bible ' for the parishioners to read, he had his son read it to him every day until he could recite huge tracts of it and freely refer to it from memory. He then set out to preach the word and to pray for the tygers and embarked upon his mission to reach every isolated marshland community along the estuaries of the Ely, Taff and Rhymney. He may not have saved many souls but he was clearly very popular with these poverty stricken and marginalised people who were being exploited by the wealthy gentry of Glamorganshire and burghers of Cardiff who were profiting from their piracy : he was not however popular with the gentry and burgers for his preaching against piracy nor with the Church of England for preaching a Christian morality and ethical code binding upon all including the king.

In July 1553, after a brief power struggle to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne to maintain a Protestant succession after Edward VI who had carried the Reformation even further, the Catholic queen Mary came to the throne ( her accession was later celebrated with a play called Respublica in which her flatterers depicted her bringing peace and harmony - a sick joke, she set about murdering her critics as had her father Henry VIII - the restored Catholic church even tortured and killed children in the name of Jesus.) The gentry of Glamorganshire and the burghers of Cardiff shrugged their shoulders : their business was piracy not religion ... but ... Rawlins White kept preaching : he just would not shut up - and this presented those who wanted to remove the man who could potentially lead the tygers and who steadfastedly opposed the high and mighty, preaching repentance for all lest they be damned for what they did and condemned to the fire ... so they damned him for what he did and condemned him to the fire.

This is what happens when there is no separation of powers in the political sytem : Rawlins White's enemies were the political establishment of his day - they were judge and jury, prosecution and defence, confessor and executioner. He was actually in held in jail for months and given an ample opportunity to set a good example to the other tygers by submitting to the authority of those who were exploiting his community - but he refused. When the soldiers dragged him from prison and manhandled him roughly because the officer claimed that he might escape he led them himself to the place of execution. In front of the assembled crowd who were hoping to witness him recanting what he preached and submit to the authorities he arranged the firewood and faggots himself. He urged them to chain him tightly to the stake lest he be tempted not to be obedient to God ( this took place at the cross roads made by Quay St, High St, Church St and St Mary St - facing onto this used to be the Guildhall and St Pyrans Chapel, on the corner stone of which somebody later scratched a memorial to him.) He was required to listen to a sermon from a priest with whom he started arguing because of his lack of knowledge of the scriptures - the heretic correcting the cleric ! Outraged by this the authorities called for him to be burnt immediately, in front of his wife and children and friends - and as the flames and smoke enveloped him many of his friends defied the high and the mighty present and stood with him one last time by pushing past the soldiers and coming forward to briefly reach through the fire to shake his hand : his friend John Dane held his hand for as long as he could stand it ...

Now - be careful of people like me who tell such sentimental stories for a political purpose : read John Dane's eyewitness account in Foxes' Book Of Martyrs, and other better accounts by historians using less ideologically slanted records than that which set these events in their historical context. If you go in via the south door in St Mary Street of the House of Frazer's Howells Department Store you can see the following plaque on the wall of the chapel that was incorporated into the building.

BEFORE LEAVING THE HISTORY BIT I THINK THAT I OUGHT TO NOTE THAT CARDIFF HAS A LONG HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL AND RACIAL INTOLERANCE AND I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT IT HAS ENDED : So I think that it is only fair to note the two Catholic martyrs and point out that whilst the high and mighty had declared Wales officially Protestant in 1536, poorer Welsh people in general were not having it : as a general rule you can tell if somebody is Welsh by trying to tell them what to do. It took the Welsh over two hundred years to finally obey the monarchy's demand to stop being Catholics opposed to the Church of England : around 1745, after the Welsh Jacobites had clearly backed the losing side in joining in with the Scottish Jacobites, the Welsh nation took the momentous decision to become - Methodists opposed to the Church of England.

The two Catholic martyrs died on what Cardiffians have dubbed " Death Junction " on the same scaffold on the same day - 22nd July 1679, although the actual site of the gallows was in the angle of the cross roads, between Richmond Road and Crwys Road where the bank stands : there is a blue plaque on the wall opposite the pub and about half a mile away in St Peter's Roman Catholic church there is a pair of stain glass windows commemorating them. The famous part of the story took place after their trial when the under-sheriff finally came to serve the warrant for their execution which was to be the next day : they declined to accept it until they had finished their game of tennis ( this was a medieval ' royal tennys courte ' which was to the side of the Tennis Court Inn, which is now The Owain Glyndwr whose extension called Y Tair Pluen is mostly built over it.)

Philip Evans was a Jesuit priest from Monmouthshire, and after making speeches to the crowd assembled for their execution in Welsh and English, he turned to his friend and said " Adieu, Mr Lloyd, though for a little time, for we shall shortly meet again." and then John Lloyd had to stand and watch him die. John Lloyd was secular priest from Breconshire and before he died he made only a short speech and his last words were " ‘I never was a good speaker in my life." The notable thing I think is that many people came to visit them whilst they were in jail, still defying the high and mighty 143 years after Henry VIII declared his critics to be traitors.

( I thought that I actually had a photo of the stained glass windows erected in St Peter's Roath in 1929 on the 250th anniversary, but no and I can't find any on the internet either but I did came across this page which mentions Evans and Lloyd : there were four Welsh Catholic priests martyred in 1679 - http://lastwelshmartyr.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/330th-anniversary-part-1.html )


To return to the constitutional game of scissors beats paper beats stone beats scissors ... that a Welsh Court should draught the bills originated by the Welsh Government - and then draught any amendments to those bills for the Welsh Assembly before they make them into acts - and then finally confirm them as compatible with the existing laws of the jurisdiction of Wales - then the following would probably not have happened ... but the question is whether a Welsh Court should be subject to direction by the Welsh Government ( and it was the fact that the lawyers in the Welsh Government at the moment who drew up this faulty legislation were subservient to and not independent of the Executive and that probably caused this problem.) If the lawyers become nothing but hired and fired scribblers they will not really be of much use in the political system - but if they become independent, if a Welsh Court is established as truly a Judicature and not a sham institution, then we potentially have so much more that is urgently needed in Welsh politics.

The committee of the All Wales Convention did not like the idea of lawyers making laws but it should be the case that they ought to be good at it in terms of legal expertise. The business of an independent Judicature is not to originate legislation but to check that it is properly constructed, written and applied, they are in essence the mechanics who service and repair the vehicle of government : when the Executive ( the Welsh Government ) controls the Judicature it is more or less like paying a mechanic to give an MOT certificate instead of actually putting the charabanc of democracy in for the test - what was happening ( I think it has stopped now ) was that the Legislature ( the Welsh Assembly ) were not getting to even examine the dodgy MOT certificate and were trying to repair the vehicle as it was being constructed, before it was sent out on the road, with no mechanics actually present to advise them. Inevitably, even with the proper attention of a Judicature, the charabancs of democracy as designed by the Executive ( the Welsh Government ) will break down occasionally having left the Legislature's ( Welsh Assembly's ) garage of dreams and somebody ( typically a local authority ) will have to call the breakdown service ... and the charabanc of democracy will at present end up being towed all the way to a court in London because we do not have a Welsh Court although we have a Welsh Jurisdiction ... surreal isn't it ?

This is more or less what has just happened with the very first law passed by the new improved formula mega-sized with 50% extra soap box called the Senedd which now contains added law-making powers for the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly - but no Welsh Court to administer the jurisdiction thereby created. What I predicted five years ago to the All Wales Convention was that Welsh politicians in the Welsh Government might ignore their lawyers or their lawyers would advise them badly because they were not independent, and the Welsh politicians in the Welsh Assembly would do the same ( those in the Welsh Assembly did not have access to the same standard of legal advice from their lawyers ) and a bad law would be passed and its interpretation or application would be disputed and end up in a court room in a county court somewhere and the losing side would appeal the case to a higher court - but there is not one in Wales. There is in Northern Ireland, and in Scotland and in England - and the appeal about a law made in Wales would end up in a higher court in London : laws made by elected representatives in Wales would be determined by unelected judges in England. I suggested that the use of the Welsh Language is such a touchy subject that it might well be a Welsh language issue that ended up in a higher court in London with the matter argued for and against in English and the judgement on the fate of the Welsh language in that instance given in English but of course then translated into Welsh for the benefit of the appellant ... I think that pandemonium would break loose !!!

Now at the present moment the lawyers in the Welsh Assembly are not independent, they are at best scribblers who draught the bills according to the instructions given them by politicians in the Welsh Government who then present them to the politicians in the Welsh Assembly who turn them into acts with amendments draughted by the lawyers, and when the whole process has come to an end the scribblers - sorry - scribes bring forth the final written form of the law enacted, written in gold within finely illuminated manuscipts made upon vellum scrolls, with pomp and ceremony in order to have the Great Little Wax Seal placed upon them by Carwyn the First

Minister who casts blessings upon all around him as he receives it with tender care into his safe keeping, ready to defend it against all who would deny its righteousness - and treats his backside with equal tenderness as he sits down again, for deep within the folds of his underpants are two tattoos ... for he has taken many such blows in his political career and has always been prepared to turn the other cheek ... OK ! OK ! I do not seriously think that anybody has been handing out free tattoos in order to get this first law past, but as you can see for yourself - I can imagine a Wales in which such things will happen unless we set our political system upon a firm foundation in the first place ! If ' Bae Teigr ' is not to become a swamp lurking with murderous thieves or rather petty fraudsters it has to be policed : wherever there is a concentration of power and money there will be gathered round that place people and organisations who want access to it and we should learn from the examples set by other countries who had to deal with such problems and get the institutions in place to deal with them before they start.

The institution that is most obviously lacking in the Welsh political system is a Welsh Court to administer the Welsh jurisdiction, and if the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly are to be more than a colonial administration then we need to see the rudiments of a properly designed state set out with a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judicature. The Welsh Court can not just be a passive assenter of correctly draughted legislation, advising the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly how to write the bills to avoid inconsistencies in the legal system, nor must it be merely a disinterested tribunal determining the cases brought before it in litigation and occasionally deciding how to interpret legislation by making precedents, it has to have the powers to protect the political system from corruption by being able to initiate investigations into the Executive and the Legislature and to be able to protect the people of Wales from misgovernment by hearing representations from them.

" Who guards the guards ? " is the usual cry that goes up at the idea of giving the judiciary inquisitorial powers, and the Republican answer is that the Legislature and the Executive should also have reciprocal powers to investigate the Judicature and keep the character of the judges under scrutiny - but not I think on the lines of what happens in the USA where politicians appoint the Supreme Court which seems to me to be a bad idea, sectarian politics have set the balance of the Judicature in the USA see-sawing back and forth when judges retire from the bench. Furthermore I am not at all keen on the public election of sheriffs in the USA which is also dominated by sectarian political concerns instead of competency to do the job. The latter throws into question the relationship of the Judicature to the police : clearly the two should not be allied lest collusion to convict certain types of people or be lenient or dismiss cases against them should occur. In terms of the separation of powers, if the Judicature could direct the police force or even worse the security services against the Executive and Legislature that would upset the balance of power between them. Equally if the Executive could direct the military force against the Judicature and Legislature it would be very dangerous. If the Legislature could direct the local authorities to resist the Judicature and the Executive ... well perhaps that might not be so bad in practical terms, but in terms of the political system it would be chaotic : there might be free tattoos being showered out all around - which sort of brings me round to where I should have started.




I think that I will quit and scour the interweb for more of this crap to power my next contribution - tomorrow or later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THESE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM BETSAN POWYS' BLOG THIS PAST WEEK - Betsan is BBC Wales' Political Editor and her blog is I suppose good at evoking atmosphere but lacks edge for my tastes - but I am glad that she is tapped into these events : use the links please to read the lot, the excerpts are just to convey the gist of the story.

( My feelings about this potential quagmire are mixed : it is apparently much worse than I predicted in 2007 - and all they are doing to remedy it is fiddling with committee procedures - " In future members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will ask ministers whether any issues of competence have been raised about proposed legislation." - but it is the ministers who screwed all of this up ! )


It was the day that byelaws regulating tattoo parlours in Swansea came to the highest court in the land.

The magnificent main oak-panelled courtroom in the Supreme Court, across the road from the Houses of Parliament, was packed with judges, lawyers, constitutional scholars, journalists - and some profoundly baffled foreign tourists - to hear the debate as to whether the first bill passed by the Assembly was lawful or not....

....The UK Attorney General had referred the case of the Local Government (Byelaws) (Wales) Bill to the court because - in his opinion - the assembly had overstepped the mark by taking away the right of UK ministers to confirm Welsh byelaws in areas such as swimming baths, mortuaries, tattoo parlours and acupuncturists....

.... Jonathan Swift QC, was that there was an important point of law, that the assembly should only pass acts which were firmly within its powers....


A bill to reform local government bye-laws exceeded the Welsh assembly's powers, the Supreme Court has heard.

Lawyers for the Welsh and UK governments clashed in court over the first piece of legislation passed since last year's referendum.

The Local Government Byelaws Bill was passed by the assembly in July this year.

But it was blocked from becoming law by the attorney general and referred to the court.

QC for the Attorney General, Jonathan Swift, told the court it was "plain as a pikestaff" that the bill exceeded the assembly's powers by changing the powers of UK ministers.

Under the law that governs the assembly's operation, the assembly cannot do this unless it is "coincidental on or incidental to" other parts of legislation......

.....If the UK government succeeds in getting a declaration that parts of it are unlawful, the Welsh government will face the prospect of another vote in the assembly to amend it before it can become law.

Meanwhile, a committee in the assembly has changed its procedures in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the case.

In future members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will ask ministers whether any issues of competence have been raised about proposed legislation.


BBC Wales understands that the Wales Office is now questioning whether the Official Languages (Wales) Bill - that makes Welsh and English the official languages of the Assembly - goes beyond its legislative competence. They've asked the Attorney General to take a look at the bill before it receives Royal Assent. The suggestion is that under the Government of Wales Act 2006 the Assembly can legislate in relation to the Welsh language but not in relation to English.

The Assembly Commission say that any reference to the English language is incidental to the provision that the Bill makes in relation to the Welsh Language and so "in light of these factors the Assembly Commission has concluded that the right course of action is that the Bill should proceed as originally intended."

The Bill was passed just last week on what Rosemary Butler called a "historic day in the history of devolution and of Wales."

If this does end up in the Supreme Court, you start to wonder whether Groundhog Day would be more appropriate. ....

....The Welsh Government doesn't want to be seen to have messed up the drafting of its very first attempt at making a Welsh law from scratch. That would be both embarrassing and humiliating. But then neither does the UK Government want to be seen in the highest court in the land to have tried - just that little bit too hard - to slap down the first Welsh law.


.... the constitutional status quo between Wales and Westminster is becoming, to use the First Minister's word, "unsustainable".

Having sat in the Supreme Court last week and listened to the Welsh Government's Byelaws Bill be pushed and pulled this way by the finest legal minds in the country, it was clear that there are all sorts of difficulties buried within the devolution settlement - some now emerging, others buried but ready to explode.

That case remains to be resolved but hardly had "all rise" been called as the arguments over byelaws drew to a close that it was disclosed that another piece of Welsh legislation may well find itself making its way to the Supreme Court - this time the Official Languages Bill. It remains to be seen whether this will happen but I don't think it would meet with the warmest welcome from their Lordships should it come before them.

Today we've had yet more constitutional wrangling, this time over the fate of the Agricultural Wages Board, which has the power to set pay and conditions for low paid farm workers in England and Wales, and which Westminster is looking to abolish. My colleague David Cornock has outlined the issues here but, much like byelaws, the upcoming wrangle over the AWB is largely down to the drafting of the devolution settlement itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now I have been so busy for months I have not been browsing newspapers on line which, is a fine activity ... so I decided to look see what is being said about this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ --- nothing in past week, nothing in /wales part of website either

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/uk-supreme-court/ ---- nothing, nor in ---- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3367150.ece ---- most recent hit in search :


Should the principality of Wales be a separate legal jurisdiction — in the way that Northern Ireland and Scotland are?...

New legal system for Wales proposed

Frances Gibb

Published at 12:01AM, March 29 2012

The Welsh Government wants a debate on whether it is time for the principality to have separate legal jurisdiction

Should the principality of Wales be a separate legal jurisdiction — in the way that Northern Ireland and Scotland are?

Proposals for the move were launched this week by the Welsh Government, which wants a wide-ranging debate on whether it is time for Wales to have its own legal system.

The consultation comes after a vote in March last year when Wales voted “yes” in a referendum on giving the National Assembly for Wales primary law-making powers in 20 devolved policy areas.

Laws made in Wales, for Wales, still form part of the law of England and Wales and senior judges ... ( YOU HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO READ THE REST )

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news ---- none

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/10/15/carwyn-jones-referendum-deal-proves-uk-status-quo-unsustainable-91466-32038969/ ---- no this is not about it either, this is about Carwyn refusing to face up to constitutional issues
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are probably any number of news stories that might touch upon a campaign for a Welsh Court ... once I have had a look at the science and technology sort of news, which is usually up-beat because scientists and engineers actually work for the benefit of humanity and small unpopular animals threatened with extinction ( such as those rare hybrids of the Republicani Cambrianae ) ... I will have a look for some ...


MPs are claiming rent on taxpayer-funded second homes in London at the same time as letting out other properties in the city.

The BBC has found that 22 MPs have such arrangements, which do not breach the rules but raise further questions about loopholes in the expenses system....

... The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) said it was up to MPs how they handled their living arrangements and the current expenses system was designed to be fair to both Parliamentarians and taxpayers.

Senior Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem figures are among the MPs to claim the cost of rent on subsidised second homes while also receiving rental income from other properties in London. ...


... It has also emerged that four MPs are currently sub-letting their subsidised properties to other MPs, who are then claiming back the cost of rent on expenses. ...

... Labour MP Iain McKenzie, who rents a flat from colleague Linda Riordan, told the Daily Mail: "If I had known beforehand that the flat was owned by an MP then I probably wouldn't have taken it.

"You've got to apply the test of how it looks to the man in the street, regardless of whether it's above board or not."



The story above started in The Telegraph which is the newspaper online that I tend to reach for first, and moving over to read it - ooops those MPs are again up to insisting that if only they do not get caught it must be alright -


" George Osborne, who was last week forced to pay a £160 rail upgrade after sitting in first class with only a standard ticket, had already been caught making the same "error" five months ago, it has emerged. ...



More than 180 MPs - including a third of the shadow cabinet - are enjoying first-class train travel at the taxpayer’s expense, an investigation has revealed.



Of course the above were merely oversights and ministers are normally properly concerned that taxpayers' money is not given to arrogant ungrateful chiselling scroungers falsely claiming benefits that they have no need of -


" Roll up your sleeves and find jobs, minister tells unemployed - Jobless people who do not make enough of an effort to find work face a “rude awakening” from tomorrow under new rules which could see them stripped of their benefits for three years. ... A series of escalating penalties comes into force from tomorrow which will see the maximum period for which Jobseekers’ Allowance (JSA) can be withdrawn rise from the current 26 weeks to three years. "

Obviously Mark Hoban the Minister of Employment in the UK government is not unaware of the fact that starving wretches will henceforth be begging, threatening or mugging me for money on my own doorstep and thereafter will break down my door whilst I am away at work and steal anything they need which will be everything - not unaware because of course he also lives at an inner-city address, 11 Downing Street, which must surely be subject to the same problems of mass chronic youth unemployment, poverty, social alienation, drug abuse and crime.

OK - let's not be so cynical, the Conservative Party in general only suffer from the latter four problems, except I suppose that their kids living solely upon stocks and shares and offshore investments upon which they pay no taxes and having no actual occupations in which they contribute to the world beyond flying in from tax-havens four times a year to attend board meetings in order to collect their dividends from their dads ... makes them also unemployed ( and unemployable ) and living off the rest of society ... they deserve a suitable portion of our pity as well ...


NOW ... could a Welsh Court stop these sorts of abuses ? Yes ... if you understand that a certain entrenched principle in the " unwritten constitution " of the UK has to be overthrown and rooted out : it is not an unwritten constitution, it's just utterly disorganised - i.e. organised for the purpose of political subversion by the " establishment " which is more or less the UK's older-established military-industrial-banking complex which President Eisenhower tried to raise the alarm against the rise of in the USA in the 1950's. Eisenhower worried that the USA did not have the political institutions in place to resist the military-industrial-banking complex's take-over of the Federal Government, and he failed to understand that organised crime had been so ambitious as to have already penetrated deep into the political institutions that he was trying to defend and would thus profit from the conduits that they had created when the military-industrial-banking complex needed to find friends upon Capitol Hill. The Kennedy brothers knew that they had to work with the Mafia in order to get elected but did not reckon with the powerful friends that the Mafia had made in the American Establishment : it was not Sam Giancana but the military-industrial-banking-crime Syndicate that killed the Kennedy brothers.

Does " The Syndicate " sound like an off the wall conspiracy theory with no relevance to Welsh Government or political institutions in Wales ? A false analogy with what happened in the USA fifty years ago ? It is the underlying principle that holds good and has been recounted in various ways over centuries, it is very much like how the Mafia really works. The victim emerges from work and finds himself accosted for the money in his wage-packet by a government official offering his family " protection " - only if he declines to pay for this " protection " then he will be arrested, jailed, his property taken in lieu and his wife and children made homeless - and his boss won't employ him again afterwards, who gave him the money in the first place but now it turns out is demanding a tenth of it or so back because the government is just another one of his enterprises and the official is just another one of his employees ... and then the proportion taken from the guy's wage packet becomes more and more and more ... and perhaps inflation and economic circumstances also erode the purchasing power of his wages ... until he can not afford to support himself and his family and has to apply to the government for welfare payments to subsidise his wages - whilst still paying taxes ...

The logical end result of such a process is that the victims of the military-industrial-banking-crime Syndicate end up enslaved firstly for the purposes of industrial production and secondly for the purposes of sexual reproduction of further generations of victims to replace themselves once they have ceased to be profitably exploitable. For the victims, gradually eased into a state of utter dependency by a process of adjustment that takes generations, the situation seems fine, right and just - until economic conditions change and their previously benevolent superiors - ( who had so generously subsidized their wages in order to enable them to live in dignity in their bare poverty : nobody having explained to them that the meaning of the word ' dignitas ' is ' to be possessed of equal rights ') - decide that they are superfluous and resolve to get rid of the financial burden of those who are dependent upon them ... yeah, think that through : almost an example of the " contradictions " which Marx argued that arose in societies about to rise up and liberate the oppressed masses ... only Marx was wrong, people will not rise up against the UK's state because perversely they believe that they are dependent upon it.

This is the sort of perverseness that lies in the heart of the UK's Syndicate, this argument from the UK government that demonstrates its affinity to organised crime in which it argues that its victims are receiving " protection " and must show respect and gratitude. This is akin to the attitude of the banks who ague that they can charge interest because they are the ones taking the risks and their clients are the dependent ones - yet the bankers demand security for their loans, it is the people taking the loan who undertake all of the risks : if the bank defaults on its side of the contract, very few can sue the bank and bankers are careful to settle such claims privately lest they cause a flood of clients and investors making a wave of claims. When a run on a bank occurs the game of conjuring magic money out of thin air, as much as the bankers dare, is over and the dependency of the bank upon its clients and investors is clearly exposed to inspection. Whereas the bank would have bankrupted those who defaulted on their loans, the individual bankers walk away from a failed bank safe from being sued and more or less safe from prosecution despite the laws on the statute books. Prior to seeing themselves financially ruined, investors and clients will have been graciously assured of the protection that the bank was offering them for the percentage that the applicants were offering respect and gratitude for ... Now this sort of scenario recently happened, the banks had to be bailed out by poorer people to prevent richer people ... er ... ending up as poor people ... yet as the bankers now re-establish the illusion that we are dependent upon them, that the UK government and therefore all of its poor people are deeply in debt to the banks, we need to question that illusion : who created this " National Debt " that has mostly been used to fund wars ? Well, it is the bankers who have mostly benefited from the wars that the UK's governments have waged on behalf industrialists over the centuries, and the expansion of the British Empire was ever led by organised crime.

What then of the industrialists' contribution to The Syndicate ? Once the military-industrial-banking-crime Syndicate has penetrated the State the different parties involved vie to gain control of a portion of the resources that can be disposed of by the elected governments and therefore the right sorts of government have to be elected : political parties are not merely lobbied but actively court the various interests that they must deal with. Governments need money in order to fund the State that will implement their policies, so it is entirely necessary to create the basis for taxation and therefore giving money taken from poor people to give to rich industrialists is entirely rational from the point of view of democratic republican parties who instinctively know " The Robin Hood Principle " i.e. it is not worth robbing the poor but promise your protection to the them and take a share of their fare in exchange for their support. The taxes raised on the poor who do not have the means to provide for their families are higher as a proportion of income than those raised on the rich - but a smaller percentage of much larger incomes is much more worthwhile in terms of taxation. In the end however, all taxes are paid by the poor : when taxes are raised on the rich they simply force down wages and raise up prices and having levered open the gap between move the remaining money sideways in order to place most of it beyond the reach of taxation. One of the most striking facts about the UK economy is how much the rich receive in government handouts whilst all of the shouting and screaming is about the poor being dependent upon various benefits. These handouts are more or less planned by industrialists, being sold as policies to political parties on the basis of the increased tax revenues that they will create to enable elected governments to spend more - this is just the normal business of politics in the UK, political parties reflecting the society that they arose in : they are in the business of manufacturing the consent of the electorate to be governed by the party who can strike the best deal with those whom the poor believe themselves to be dependent upon.

One of the easiest ways to manufacture consent, or at least to marginalize and suppress political opposition, is to start a war and justify every political policy thereafter as necessary to national security. The military really hate criticism especially from poorer people who properly belong in the front rank as cannon and machine gun fodder : the plebs have kept on complaining about this century by century as if their disobedience was somehow inherited in the same way that richer people inherit their wealth and superior rank, growing taller and speaking properly as a consequence. From the military point of view it is obvious that certain people are destined for leadership and all that the British Armed Forces need do is provide them with the training to meet their individual potential ... in the case of those marked down for slaughter their training requires an officer to treat the faceless babbling rabble beneath him with contempt, to ensure that the lower ranks are brutalised and cowering in obedience and more willing to walk forwards to almost certain death than to dare ask their officers why not only their own lives but those of their victims of such little account to their superiors ? Questions such as these may be religious in their origins but they are political in their implications and warfare, by definition, excludes moral and ethical discussion : declaring war means declaring the suspension of religion and politics, wherever its enemies are to be found without the United Kingdom its enemies within are those turbulent priests and prating politicos who are disloyal to The Crown, presently Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces - but if she won't keep Charlie Boy's mouth shut ...

The last paragraph brings to mind one of the most controversial episodes in Welsh history whose meaning has been endlessly debated : why did Poyer, Laugharne and Powell - previously loyal to the cause of Parliament - switch sides in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and combine to lead a under-equipped, under-fed and under-strength Welsh army into the heroic defeat of the Battle of St Fagans in 1648 when the Royalist armies in England had been beaten into submission and the Charles Stuart had effectively already been deposed ? For Wales to declare war on England, then as now, was to face overwhelmingly suicidal odds of fifteen-to-one just in terms of numbers, and England was always wealthier than Wales. The various reasons that motivated them and the men who rallied to them have been much disputed but there are some salient points that are of interest to republicans in Wales. The continuing adherence of the Welsh to the Monarchy and to Catholicism and its proximity to Ireland worried the English Parliament but above all religious and political radicalism in the ranks which questioned not only the authority of their officers but of the high and mighty led the English Parliament to order those regiments deemed potentially dangerous to disband. The armies in Wales along with others in England had not been paid which united their officers in sympathy with their men, and the English regiments not being disbanded had been paid and threatened to obediently impose on the Welsh the kinds of religious ordinances that would destroy the tacit tolerance that had limited the conflict in Wales such that the all-out warfare that had erupted in England had not spilled over into Wales. It seems to me that the Welsh united upon that point : without a Welsh army to offer a defence there could be no possibility of arguing their case to settle their own affairs and the English Parliament would impose their will with pike and sword, musket and cannon. Perhaps the Welsh misread the intentions of the English Parliament when they declared once again for the King, that they did not realise that Charles Stuart would not bend and the English Parliament had decided to break him and his power forever. Perhaps they believed that Oliver Cromwell being so allied in his family and friends to Wales would be sympathetic and parley : the Welsh were wrong and on the eighth of May 1648 the River Ely ( Afon Lai ) ran red with the blood of the last Welsh army to defend their homeland in open battle. The political point to republicans is this : the United Republic of Great Britain and Ireland was unable to place effective constitutional controls upon its military forces and having supressed the religious and political radicals in the ranks of the New Model Army and disbanded the other regiments, Cromwell then coerced and finally overthrew the elected representatives that he disagreed with and effectively became the agreed - but not really the appointed - monarch of the United Republic. His son Richard was appointed to succeed him but lacked the charisma and was effectively deposed by Monk and other military leaders who thought that they could remove the threat of both foreign invasion and internal insurrection by inviting back the Stuart brothers who then misbehaved and when James proved dangerous he in turn was removed by the military and replaced with Mary and William who was an obedient soldier.

Thus whatever it is now, the probable reason why the United Kingdom of Great Britain and ( Northern ) Ireland is kept as a constitutional mess is to conceal the fact that its foundations are built upon the United Republic of Great Britain and Ireland : from the point of view of ardent admirers of the British Monarchy who think that its origins lie way back beyond Edward the Confessor this is totally embarrassing. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is named as Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces but the republican question in terms of the separation of powers is " How loyal are the British Armed Forces ? " i.e. if somebody were to try to piece together all of those historical documents in order to clearly write out the constitution of the United Kingdom in order to illustrate that it is basically a hybrid monarchistic / aristocratic republic born at the very juncture circa 1650 of Renaissance Republicanism and Neo-Classical Republicanism. This written constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and ( Northern ) Ireland would probably state right at the beginning that the monarchy is expendable if they are disobedient and so is the rule of law if people will not do as they are told.

And who will be doing the telling ? That is the problem with a written constitutions : it is like putting up a sign saying that ' trespassers will be prosecuted ' and thinking that that will stop everyone.

Republicanism is about making good laws ( and very occasionally deliberately breaking bad laws in order to make a public demonstration of the injustices that they perpetrate, whilst still upholding the rule of law as the supreme bonum publicum ) and we advocate making laws with the positive objective of educating people into correct behaviour, of setting up a public standard so that not behaving correctly can be rationally subjected to reasonable correction : republicanism does not admit cruel or unusual punishments nor does it allow allow revenge even if a person has been convicted of a crime. From a republican point of view there are no private laws : all laws are public because it is the nature of law to govern those relationships between people that are not consented to e.g. a contract consented to and kept is of no legal interest to republicans but a contract broken is a matter of public interest because the whole basis of republican society is consensual and that requires trust in others. A harm to one is a harm to all and crimes are not things that happen to other people - by definition a breach of the law is an offence against all.

Coerced relationships destroy society which is why republicans have historically been critical of the heirarchies inculcating ideas, monarchies vaunting violence, aristocracies manipulating money, democracies menacing minorities etc and any other kind of political system that leads to the rationality of hatred, lies, war and enslavement that destroys the possibility of consensual relationships. Relationships that are not clearly understood are a common place and people consent to them on the understanding that they are going to develop their understanding, take marriage for example. Societies have extensive bodies of law governing marriages because relationships still go wrong and do so in ways that create problems that in general are well known with some of those societies' tried and tested solutions written into their laws. But despite the conventions of marriage in their laws people often experiment and devise other solutions by consent and these is the sort of innovations where republicans see opportunities for revolution - not in mad catastrophic upheavals imposed by heirarchies, monarchies, aristocracies or democracies imposing radical changes dictated by their ideologies upon unconsenting people. The republican argument against the United Kingdom's political system reflects these sorts of concern and above all objects to the lack of a written constitution to enable the exercise of political power to be accounted for and its misuse progressively limited so that the business of the state is conducted on a rational basis and in a reasonable way in order to be effective and so establish the rule of laws that people can consent to as a well founded and rounded description of the Res Publica.

But can a republican government striving to constantly refine its laws describing the Res Publica in order to keep up with developments in the circumstances of society, which its citizens are improvising solutions for by experiment, really know enough of the reality of the situation to know what " The Syndicate " is doing even within its territory - let alone beyond its borders to be able to resist its subversion of the Bonum Publicum ? That of course can only be debated but solutions from the past are instructive : in 1660 Monk chose " The Restoration " and thereby brought the external and internal enemy of the United Republic back into government - then " The Glorious Revolution " expelled that enemy in favour of another stronger potential foreign enemy in order to make an alliance between two weaker Protestant countries against a more powerful Catholic power that threatened both. The political revolutions that created the aristocratic republican governments that underpinned the development of the vigourous Dutch and British empires stood in contrast to the sluggish French imperial project which was guided by the absolutist monarchical republican government which finally fell in 1789 having not responded to the huge wave of political criticism that it had generated. By 1794 the monarch and his republican critics had all been guillotined and the attempt to impose democratic government by the use of terror and violence had failed - but by 1815 the French had a constitutional monarchy sitting on a republican aristocratic political system just like the Dutch and British, and all three are still intact ... even if France no longer officially has a monarchy or aristocracy. The USA has much the same political system, indeed when it first began it was openly mooted as to whether it would indeed be explicitly an aristocratic not a democratic republic. The USA's imperialism demonstrates that the roots of its political system are buried deep in Neo-Classical Republicanism's aristocratic republics - but arguably The Syndicate's roots go even deeper into Republican history and theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I am obviously having fun ... if this is the first time that you have read anything here I might point out that the objective of Repwblic.informe.com is to raise the level of the discourse, but it remains a conversation not an academic debate as such : I do not seek to be authoritative but entertaining.

That also involves entertaining myself : I find the phrase military-industrial-complex bad enough but military-industrial-banking-crime-complex was obviously getting unwieldy and I coined the term " The Syndicate " above on the hoof - but it is not an imaginary thing, it is just that I needed a shorter term and I like to use words that are evocative, provocative even.

" The War of the Three Kingdoms " is also a term recently coined, but not by me but by professional historians who wanted to re-frame " The English Civil Wars " and set them within a broader context with a more continuous narrative that made for a more complete sense of the history of seventeenth century Ireland, Scotland and England through which the wars spread in that order ( and thence into Wales which is once again not mentioned, nor all too often are the wars that were being fought with the Netherlands, Spain etc in the same period and their relevance as well.)

I also talk of the " United Republic of Great Britain and Ireland " because de facto that is what it was but the term acually used at the time was " The Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the Dominions thereto belonging " as appears in the title of " The Humble Petition and Advice of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses now assembled in the Parliament, of this Commonwealth."

I think that I mentioned above that people wanted Cromwell to be king and he declined but they tried to change his mind : before the Humble Petition was finally presented in its final form in May 1657 there was a speech about its development on the 31st of March 1657 in the Banquetting House - i.e. at the very place where the Republicans had executed the king - describing the proposal for the written constitution :

Speech by the Speaker regarding the Humble Petition and Advice - Mr. Speaker's speech to the Lord Protector in the Banquetting House, the 31st March, 1657, at the tendering of the humble Petition and Advice, as it was at first tendered in the presence of the House of Parliament. [ From the diary of Thomas of Burton ]

" May it please your Highness,

I am commanded by the Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and in their name, to present this humble Petition and Advice, unto your Highness. ... The Parliament hath been in travail almost forty days, and after great deliberation, at last this is the production, a creature of one body, but many parts. ... and what did arise out of that excellent discourse and debate, which was there used, upon framing of this Petition, and of the Government presented by it. ...

... I shall first be bold to take the frame of it in pieces, and then look upon it as an entire body. The first part of the body of this is the head, which they did well approve of, but liked not the name, they desire to give it a new name, which is of King, and that your Highness would be pleased to assume that name. It is a change of name only, and you are desired to take it by the agreement of the representatives of three nations in Parliament. It is the ancient way by which good Kings were ever made. All Israel gathered themselves together at Hebron to make David King.

The Parliament, did apprehend this name more congruous for the body than that of Protector, which was not formerly known in these nations, ... The name and office of a King is better known, and more suitable to the laws and constitutions of these nations than that of a Protector. That name is ancient in this land; and taken notice of in Holy Writ, which is far more ancient, and there looked upon in a very good sense ...

Aristotle, in his Politics, speaketh of two sorts of Kings. He calleth one an absolute King, Tyrannus, who had no rule but his own will. These nations never acknowledged such a King. And secondly, a King secundum legem, according to the law. (fn. 3) The Kings of England were, in their constitutions, such Kings, however some of them in the exercise of their power made their will the law. Kings here are the guides of the people, but the laws are their guides. They are above the people, but the laws are above them. (fn. 4) Kings (as King Saul was) may be taller than the people, they ought not to be taller than the laws.

The law is the safeguard and custody of all private interests. The lives, liberties, and estates of the people, are all in the keeping of the law; without this, every man hath the like right to every thing, et cum teneant omnes omnia, nemo suum. The people of these nations were never out of love with the name of King, but have been, with some of their persons, for their mal-administration. ...

The office of the King standeth with the liberty of the people, else certainly it would not have been used so long here. Anglica gens, libera gens. They are a free people: their liberties have ever been precious unto them. Witness the multiplied confirmations of Magnet Charta; the great charter of their liberties. And, comparatively, England is more free than any other of their neighbour nations, and yet they have been governed by Kings; and I never heard that that office was presented as a grievance in any Parliament; et difficile est tacere, cum doleas. And it standeth with Christian liberty. ... "

When I try explain to people how republicanism developed, how the War of the Three Kingdoms occurred at the critical juncture between monarchical Renaissance Republicanism ( circa 1450 - 1650 ) and aristocratic Neo-Classical Republicanism ( circa 1650 - 1850 ) this is the sort of material that I draw upon to make that argument - the first of the following is what the above has been quoted from, the second is how the Humble Petition and Advice was finally presented after Cromwell rejected the title ' king.' Clearly in the second the Commonwealth was being constructed as a monarchical republic with Oliver Cromwell confirmed as the Lord Protector who was being conceived as the Chief Magistrate who would be employed ' in the settling and securing our Liberties as we are Men and Christians, to us and our Posterity after us ... ' ' treading down the Common Enemy, and restoring us to Peace and Tranquillity ' ... ' whose Common Peace and Interest you are intrusted with ... coming to a settlement upon just and legal Foundations ' [ = a monarchical republic, similar to Venice - see below.]



" ... That your Highness will be pleased by and under the Name and Stile of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging, to hold and exercise the Office of Chief Magistrate of these Nations, and to Govern according to this Petition and Advice in all things therein contained, and in all other things according to the Laws of these Nations, and not otherwise: That Your Highness will be pleased during Your life time, to appoint and Declare the Person who shall, immediately after Your Death, Succeed You in the Government of these Nations. ... "

[ Just to tack a bit on the end here about Venice as a republic with an elected monarchy at the heart of it : the monarch of a republic is usually elected and can not nominate his / her own successor, the electoral system of the Venetian Republic was bizarrely complicated but the end result was a man bearing the title ' Doge ' which has the same origin as the English word ' Duke ' and the Welsh word ' Dwg ' - they all mean ' leader ' and come from the Latin word ' Dux.' In medieval Europe there were several ' crowned republics ' of which Venice was but one - but that does not mean that they were monarchical republics in the sense of who held and could exercise power within their constitutions. As the only Roman Province not overthrown and plunged into the Dark Ages, it is curious that Britannia Prima - most of whose territory is now modern Wales - had a famous leader titled ' Dux ' - whom we commonly know as ' King ' Arthur. This begs the question as to whether early medieval Wales was in fact some sort of monarchical republic, which theory the facts tend to support : the ' Laws of Hywell Dda ' have a distinctively republican ring about them in that a pauper can sue a prince - and win.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MMM ... to return to the present day from those idle reveries ... the Supreme Court of the UK ruling on the first ever law passed by the Welsh Assembly decided that the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill did not breach the Assembly’s law-making competence ... but I just have to ponder the constitutional incompetence that took it there in the first place


" In the judgement, handed down by the Chief Justice Lord Neuberger, the justices said the removal of confirmatory powers was necessary for the Byelaws Bill to work.

It added: “The removal of the Secretary of State’s confirmatory powers by the Bill in relation to the scheduled enactments would be incidental to, and consequential on, this primary purpose.” "

In other words, the design of WAG mark III is constitutionally defective : having to refer such a basic procedural issue such as this to the Supreme Court is farcical - but it suggests that the UK government did not want there to be a reasonable constitutional process because it wanted to keep as much power to itself as possible lest the rationality of Welsh politicians differ from British politicians and they introduce legislation which the UK government disliked - implicit in :

" Welsh Secretary David Jones said he was “grateful” for providing clarity on the boundaries of the devolution settlement, and said that referral of Assembly Bills should not be seen as hostile to the devolution settlement."

Perhaps what has happened was strategic :

" Carwyn Jones said that it was confirmation that the Welsh Government’s position was right.

He said: “As part of our evidence to the Silk Commission, we will be making a strong case for the Welsh devolution settlement to be reconstituted on a reserved powers basis.

“This would have the benefit of reducing the differences between the UK devolution settlements, and ensure that we are considerably less likely to have to appear before the Supreme Court in future." ...

... Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, Rosemary Butler, said that the judgement was a “victory for the National Assembly for Wales”.

She said: “It confirms the authoritative legal advice given to me and demonstrates that the Assembly is a mature institution that has the right procedures and staff in place to interpret and implement the devolution settlement.

“Our system of law-making in Wales is unique in the world and still evolving. It is more complicated in its approach than the Scottish and Northern Irish models, and this ruling today is another chapter in that process which demonstrates that the Assembly is making good law for Wales.” "

I think that it is pretty stupid, if not actually sinister, to boast that our law-making process is uniquely complicated in the world : every other country has the sense to copy what works in other constitutional arrangements and we are lumbered with everything that has been found to be bad elsewhere. The WAG mark III disregards the best practices in electoral representation in that we don't know whether AM's represent a political viewpoint or a constituency and so legislative scrutiny is doubtful, it has no division of powers and no clearly defined division between executive and legislature - and no court. To deal with WAG III is to await an audience with a minister in some Byzantine palace where the interermediaries between him and us are the eunachs of the officers around him / her.

It seems that WAG III will now remain emasculated and sterile, the forever infantalised catamite of Downing Street : let us wait and see whether this will be confirmed by Westminster re-asserting the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales ?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


First broadcast: Tuesday 19 February 2013 - Availability : over a year left to listen - Duration : 28 minutes

Whistleblowing, forgotten children and the legal future of Wales

... Joining us this week is Theo Huckle QC, the chief legal officer of Wales who - controversially - says it's "inevitable" that Wales will become a separate legal jurisdiction. Are centuries of legal union with England really coming to an end? ...

This afternoon's BBC Radio 4's " Law in Action " programme reflected in an oblique way on the issue of there being an increasing number of separate Welsh laws and asked at what point will a separate Welsh jurisdiction arise - the answer offered by Theo Huckle QC the Counsel General was that there was no need for it, that talk of the importance of a legislature having a corresponding judicature was unnecessary and that of the separation of powers is " fighting talk." I mean, this is exactly how lawyers think - exactly the contrary to what you might suppose : Huckle's main concern apparently is to seek to evade the Welsh Government being held to account in any court room and yet to exercise as much power and influence as possible : this is to strike down the principles that all are to be held accountable to the law and that all are to be held equal before the law.

Huckle claimed that he preferred to drop the ' D ' and have " Evolution instead of Devolution " which I found to be immediately suspicious, that he will connive at his and his masters' political ambitions to exercise more and more powers less and less accountably, by dint of arbitrary attritional attempts to seize what they can when they can without anybody noticing - e.g. he talked about not needing a Welsh Court but of having a ' Welsh Judge ' in the existing Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, but he could not define how such a ' Welsh Judge ' would be selected, how they would be qualified or even definable - except that he said that he himself as Counsel General, that Carwyn Jones as First Minister, etc, would be able to select this Welsh Judge on the principle that " We will know one when we see one."

[ P.S. - There was no mention of any secret handshakes in which brown envelopes are to be exchanged, nor of which gentlemen's club the gentleman will come from ( obviously no women will be offered the job, and presumeably no women will be offered with the job ), nor indeed of any of the sorts of serupticiously selective systems of suspiciously successful submissions through sertain sivil servants to secretly secure several of singular social standing to symbolise significant status for scrupulessly soliciting excuses for senators savagely screwing their stupidly servile supplicants.]

Well - I too know one when I see one - let's not have Devolution nor Evolution nor any other words pretending that we have in the Welsh Government is anything other than Despotism or Fleshpotism or Pisspotism or whatever other words that we may coin to use to define what the true nature of the Welsh political system really is : let us resolve to work to be finally rid of it and maintain thereafter the necessary Perpetual Revolution to keep whatever political systems that we create thereafter healthy, clean and fit for the purpose of governing this country.

ALSO featured on the programme - briefly - was Manon George, from the School of Law in Cardiff University ( why was there nobody interviewed from the School of Politics ? Or from Aberystwyth's prestigious School of Politics ? Or some local comprehensive students, you know - somebody more educated in law that Theo Huckle, or politics than Carwyn Jones ? ) - Manon George made the straight forward, standard, world-wide accepted point about the need for a legislature and executive to have a matching judicature, and for the latter to be independent - indeed for there to be a separation of powers between the three. Since this reporter was from London ( I guess ) he actually for a moment paid Manon's comments some respect and consideration ... and then moved on to Theo Huckle QC, because after all it is much more important to be powerful that to be right - that is the whole basis of the UK's political system, and that is the reason why Republicans in Wales constantly ponder whether there are any real benefits to Devolution or whether or not Wales should urgently try to get out of the United Kingdom altogether -

- AND THAT IS WHY PEOPLE CONFUSE REPUBLICANISM WITH NATIONALISM, republicans are not interested in asserting some inward-looking politics concerned with notions of national identity derived from the past : the concerns of republicans are centred upon the creation of better political systems that are oriented to the future and are outward-looking. The final political objective of republicans is that of a united world brought into peaceful coexistence through global government, and the latter is absolutely necessary in order to deal with many issues like war and environmental degradation, tax evasion by the wealthy and organised crime syndicates etc. From a republican point of view, we are happy to address national identity in terms of political institutions that are possibly over-lapping subsets within the creation of an overall framework of global government that can maintain peace between them by being able to determine legal disputes between them and enforce the judgement. CONTRAST THIS WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE U.K. - HOW CAN IT DETERMINE LEGAL DISPUTES BETWEEN WALES AND ENGLAND WHEN IT POSSESSES NO POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE FROM THE U.K. GOVERNMENT WHICH IS ALWAYS AN ENGLISH GOVERNMENT - ?

Even if we were to get a separation of powers for the Welsh Court, we would still be struggling with the fact that final arbitration would be taking place in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which is not an independent and disinterested tribunal, and which anyway is subject to political influence by United Kingdom governments which are always English. Because the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom can not be deemed to be a credible international tribunal in arbitrating matters disputed between Wales and England - that is why Wales needs the rule of a global government, in order to have universal law and a world court.


I thought that I would take a look around for to see any of Manon George's works that I might find on line - Manon George is a PhD Candidate at the Wales Governance Centre, Cardiff University for which apparently her working title is - " The Challenges facing the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales in exercising their powers under Part 4 and Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 " - and she won


leads to -







A new online resource that lets you see the laws made in Wales; THURSDAY ESSAY
Devolution has unleashed a revolution in the laws that govern Wales and a team of academics have decided to create a unique statute book for the nation. Cardiff University's Marie Navarro, Manon George and David Lambert describe their unfolding project. ...

... In 1999, Cardiff Law School created the Wales Legislation Online Service in order to assist members of the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales, the legal profession, academia, the private sector and the wider public to identify the functions transferred to and performed by the National Assembly for Wales and by the Welsh Assembly Government. It is the only comprehensive statement of the powers which have been devolved to Wales. ... Wales Legislation Online is a unique electronic legal service: it is specific to Welsh devolution; it is free; it does not depend on the continuing commitment of bodies whose priority is inevitably focused on "England and Wales" or UK legislation; it is comprehensive, embracing Welsh primary legislation (Assembly Measures) and also Welsh delegated legislation, as well as devolved executive and legislative functions; it presents information in a systematic way, organised by reference to devolved fields; its approach (and in particular the systematic organisation according to fields) enhances its attractiveness to non-lawyers. .... Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 the Assembly can, for the first time, make laws for Wales only which have the same effect as Acts of Parliament. This is the first time for 1,000 years that Wales has been able to make its own laws. The powers to make laws are directly linked to the executive powers which the Assembly Government already has. ...

YES - it just has to have been the Western Mail, these facts are all wrong.



Presently funded by the National Assembly for Wales, Wales Legislation Online assists members of the legal profession, the academic and wider public and private sector communities, and the public at large, to identify the Assembly’s functions. The database is managed by Professor David Miers, David Lambert and Marie Navarro. Renowned for their expertise, they have given evidence at official enquiries in to the ongoing devolution debate in Wales.


After twelve years of ensuring that the people of Wales are better informed about the law that applies in post-devolution Wales, Wales Legislation Online has now been wound-up. We would like to thank all those who have used the service as well as the various organisations that have provided financial support.

OH. Just when we needed them too ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


FINALLY - the logic of the constitutional situation between England and Wales begins to bite :

" There has been controversy over the so-called West Lothian Question - the ability of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs to vote on England-only matters - for several decades, but this intensified after devolution. ... In 2004, support from Scottish and Welsh MPs allowed the government to push through the introduction of university top-up fees in England. ... The commission concluded that the current situation was "unsustainable" and changes were needed. ... It proposed the principle that Commons' decisions with a "separate and distinct effect" for England should "normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs sitting for constituencies in England". "

BUT - they can not make sense of the situation if they have to resort to such practices as these :

" Specific Parliamentary time could be allocated to debating plans for England, and MPs would be given an opportunity to vote on motions endorsing or rejecting them. ... Committees for scrutinising bills could also be weighted to represent the party balance in England, the report suggested. ... However, the commission dismissed as "flawed and impractical" a more drastic suggestion, which would require England-only legislation to get a majority of English MPs, as well as an overall majority. ... Instead of such a "double lock", the commission floated the idea of a "double count", where the proportion of English MPs supporting a Bill would be published alongside the overall result. ... "If a government was seen to have failed to attract the support of a majority of MPs from England [or England and Wales] for business affecting those interests, it would be likely to sustain severe political damage," it says. "


" "Surveys have shown that people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and support change. ... "There is a feeling that England is at a disadvantage, and that it's not right that MPs representing the devolved nations should be able to vote on matters affecting England. ... "The status quo clearly cannot be sustained." "

NOW - read my submission to the CoD - Commission on Devolution - to use the principle of ' de iure ex civitate gentium ' as argued by Samantha Besson - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=565 - which refers back to my submission to the All Wales Convention on Law Making Powers for the Welsh Assembly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:20 pm    Post subject: Welsh Assembly Ministerial Code : Alun Davies Reply with quote

When I started this thread I felt that a campaign for a Welsh Court was obvious both from a Republican point of view and from the point of view of Common Sense, which are normally one and the same anyway - but that for most people the necessity for this institution might seem doubtful : but how can I illustrate why a court is a necessary corollary for a law making institution & why should it be independent of those making the laws & be able to act in a passive capacity to strike down bad laws and in an active capacity to police the behaviour of the elected representatives ? Well take a look at some recent events : closely watch the way in which First Minister Carwyn Jones behaves in the video on this first web page from the 8th July 2014 - ( there was a longer session broadcast on BBC Parliament where there was some better debating in the Welsh Assembly for a change too - but nothing too wonderful ... ) - the more that I look into this issue, the more that I find myself muttering " There : we have imported into Cardiff the self-same crooked political system that devolution was supposed to be a response to."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28212914 [ VIDEO ]

" Environment Minister Alun Davies has been sacked - He had asked for private financial information about senior opposition AMs - First minister Carwyn Jones rejects claims the controversy raises questions about his judgement - Sacking comes days after another row over Davies breaking the Ministerial Code of Conduct ..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28206154 [ THREE VIDEOS ]

" Sacked environment minister Alun Davies has apologised to his former civil servants after pressuring them for private information on opposition AMs. ... He was already under scrutiny over his handling of plans for a racing circuit in his Blaenau Gwent constituency. ... Mr Davies had been told by his staff that the information he had requested on five AMs was not publicly available. ... Despite this, he put pressure on them by asking again for it to be provided. ... The comments from the former minister were made in a statement, however Mr Davies rejected BBC Wales requests for an interview on Tuesday. ... He also said he was "sorry to be leaving government at this point in time," adding: "I will continue to support the first minister and the Welsh Labour government". "

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


When they insist upon pissing on you_There's simply nothing that you can now do_Against The Heirarchs and The Democrats,_The Monarchists and The Aristocrats -_Excepting erecting a Repwblican umbrella - true ! ... We can't get rid of those who use_Credal politics - or abuse_Emotions - or coerce with Violence -_Or those who Enslave us through high finance_But The Rule Of Law we can let loose ... When every woman and every man_Has recourse to The Law - it's then we can_Remove these criminals bit by bit_Until our society is once again fit_And then we will proclaim once more our Wales to be " Repwblican." dai repwblic - Dai Saw - David B Lawrence - the moral right of the author is asserted not to sue for copyright : that is the argument in this nutter's shell.

When they insist upon pissing on you_
There's simply nothing that you can now do_
Against The Heirarchs and The Democrats,_
The Monarchists and The Aristocrats -_
Excepting erecting a Repwblican umbrella - true ! ...

We can't get rid of those who use_
Credal politics - or abuse_
Emotions - or coerce with Violence -_
Or those who Enslave us through high finance_
But The Rule Of Law we can let loose ...

When every woman and every man_
Has recourse to The Law - it's then we can_
Remove these criminals bit by bit_
Until our society is once again fit_
And then we will proclaim once more our Wales to be " Repwblican."

dai repwblic - Dai Saw - David B Lawrence - the moral right of the author is asserted not to sue for copyright : that is the argument in this nutter's shell.


" Until our society is once more fit_
And then we will proclaim once again our Wales to be " Repwblican."

- " once more fit " and " proclaim once again " seems more " rock and roll " to me now ... BUGGER ... I wish I had noticed that before I sent out all of those texts ... Ah well ... poetry is for the poverty stricken ... Poetry has so often been all that we possess as a political tool : I am beginning to think that what I write on Y Repwblic is in fact a political art form rather than any kind of the really deep analysis which I aspired to create with the " I-RA " - NO !!! - that is the " Ideo-Rational Analysis " with which I intended to fully " explode " [ OK ... ok ... " DECONSTRUCT " ] the ideological pretensions of all of the politicos around me back in the 1980s ... [ THE LAW RULES OK ? - BUT THE UK RULES THE LAW ? ] ...

It was a joke in very poor taste even back then, when IRA bombers were pouring shit all over the name " Republican " - but please let me assure you that even in the 1980s Sinn Fein still had a few " Whites " in it because the original pre-WW1 Sinn Fein was a " White " party. After WW1 the original Sinn Fein was overwhelmed by an influx of Reds and Greens and then this broadened party in 1919 won the greatest election landslide victory in 20c Democratic history - but after the Irish Free State was established the Reds and Greens then destroyed it in the Irish Civil War in which many in Sinn Fein fought for a full-blown republic. This resulted in De Valera leading the Greens and Whites out to found Fianna FAIL which became a huge success - and so hugely corrupt. The remaining part of Sinn Fein was predominantly Red and as it drifted further to the " Left " it became unelectable and therefore became enamoured of a defective version of Sinn Fein's history and was flirting with Rebolutionary Socialism at the worst possible moment - as " The Troubles " began ... I will leave you to read the history books.

The " Whites " came to view DeV as a traitor to the Republican cause because what emerged in the 1930s was essentially exactly what the Protestant communities in Northern Ireland had feared and rightly so : a Hierarchical Republic. I analysed the decline of this Hierarchical stasis and its gradual replacement by the present Democratic stasis using the " I-RA " - but more of all of that another day : note how the Catholic Church's economic power over the Irish " Republic " enabled it to write the laws in its own interests e.g. enslaving young women in the Magdalene laundries.


POST SCRIPT : I normally avoid casually mentioning the situation in Northern Ireland or fragmentary comments about Sinn Fein and its relationship to the IRA because for the most part the mere mention of the subject evokes strong passions pro- and con- by those who feel licenced by figures of authority in their own communities to indulge themselves in a thoughtless partisanship. Frankly the modern situation has little to do with Republicans in Wales other than that there are a number of refugees from both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland in Wales - as there are in England - and it has become the focus in literature, poetry, drama, music, etc for the projection of various sentiments, both pro- and con- ... the correct Republican approach is one of sympathy but of detached analysis, and that is one reason why I have tried to restate this by formulating it as the idea of " The Left Hand Path of Sinister Politics V The Right Hand Path of Dexterous Politics " - in other words, to drive home that as a simple handy rule - " Lies, Hatred, Enslavement, War & The Death of Society V Truth, Love, Freedom, Peace & The Life of Society."

These can be memorised by counting those values out using the fingers of the Left Hand V Right Hand. I re-designed it this way for the important purpose of teaching children to remember the difference between wrong and right, which they are never taught in our schools in neither The United Kingdom nor apparently in the schools of The Republic of Ireland. Both of these states are built upon the same political principle, which is that unquestioning submission to authority is " right " - the Republic of Ireland was founded and its political structures were designed by those who even in reaction to The United Kingdom still had their belief systems shaped by it, recreating it in a sort of mirror image. This is this culture of conformity and of obedience to leaders which produced the modern Sinn Fein ( not the original Sinn Fein, whose politics, name and symbols it has betrayed - that was " White " and therefore it had the correct Republican stance which I am here describing, which unfortunately also involved being very nice to The Democrats and believing that criminals would be easily reformed by folk dancing, poetry and playing Gaelic tiddly-winks - which are of course never to be confused with those damned imperialist British tiddly-winks.) To those divided as ardent supporters of - and ardent opponents of - the modern Sinn Fein I pose this simple question : what kind of political community appoints its leaders for life and pursues its political objectives through warfare ? Not a Republican one : modern Sinn Fein is a Monarchy.

I also proposed reviving The Manus - the symbol of The Populares in Rome, the standard carried by the poverty-stricken cannon-fodder of the Roman Legions in the platoon-like battle-groups called The Maniples - because if they survived the wars they returned home to live in the same kinds of poverty and neglect where they were manipulated for their votes by cheating lying imperialist demagogues like Julius Caesar ... as in Northern Ireland ? ... anyway, it seems like an obvious symbol to me to use for the friendly kind of peaceful politics which Republicanism in Wales is : with its widely spread fingers, The Open Hand is the universal human greeting to say " Hello ! " - but it is also the way in which we say " STOP ! " - and " I want to ask a QUESTION ! " - and " Can I be EXCUSED please - I do not like voting, you ****ing Democrats in Wales are talking vicious rubbish and - ulp ! - I - I - I WANT TO THROW UP !!! " ... and of course, it is also used by those who do like voting : they present The Left Hand in the hope that somebody will then put something into it - cash, guns, other people's property - etc ...

... politics is about The People and not about The Property : hence whilst it may seem reasonable to some ardent Irish nationalists pretending to be Republicans to argue that Ireland is an island and therefore all one parcel of property and therefore by majority vote to be made into one political entity - " The Thirty Two County Republic " - but imagine translating the same argument over onto the island next door ... Majority voting is the very principle by which in the 19c the very existence of The Welsh and The Scottish and The Irish nations was denied : we were all supposedly made over into being British, and of course that being one political entity it was only rational and reasonable to desire to have everybody conform to the prescriptions of the majority i.e. " The English " - BUT - NOTE : " The English " did not even include the majority of The English nation either ... it was the language, culture, religion, politics, science, history etc and above all the economics and therefore the spirituality of a very small community of interest, The Aristocracy of The United Kingdom who had secured their power over both Britain and Ireland at The Battle of The Boyne in 1688. It is surely no coincidence that that battle has such iconic significance in The Troubles i.e. low-level civil war in Northern Ireland which is being fought between the proxies of The Aristocracies of The United Kingdom and The Republic of Ireland : left to their own devices, to define their own Res Publica, The People in Northern Ireland would soon and inevitably conclude that they have more in common with each other than The People Who Are Elsewhere ... I have talked to The People On Both Sides, and aside from their professed loyalties I simply can not tell them apart - they can not even tell themselves apart, and when they start to do so they are only able to do so in terms of their mutually meaningful identities - identities which are unintelligible and therefore meaningless elsewhere ... in other words the only viable Republican solution for Northern Ireland is for The Republicans in Wales to launch an all out assault with our " I-RA " - the " Ideo-Rational Analysis."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whilst I have strong feelings about the lack of constitutional knowledge of my compatriots - that they can so meekly accept being treated so badly by those who claim to represent them in Y Senedd and Westminster, not to mention those elected to their local councils - no individual like me can be sufficiently on the ball on all matters and even when we are acutely concerned and well informed upon an issue our presenting facts and arguments has to be more or less on the level of bearing witness against their behavior rather than ever stopping it ... Of course I want Repwblic to succeed in what it set out to be, to be a forum for conversations from out of which the participants can discover allies and go on to start campaigns, but I never envisaged Repwblic becoming a political party and as such it was not supposed to be a platform to support campaigns from ... yet there have to be practical outcomes from such conversations or they will cease to be directed towards political goals and so remain essentially religious in character ... The interesting consequence of those professing themselves to be political whilst suppressing the publicly conducted discourse which is politics is that now those professing themselves to be religious are stepping into the political vacuum which has been created by The Democrats in order to promote those necessary public ethical discourses.

Now I have just been looking on Cytun's website for a copy of this and I hope that the whole thing will be published there in due course : I am in half a mind to publish it here entirely to make sure that everybody can read it and quickly, because what it is talking about in more detail is exactly what I said " Devilution " had been designed to do - the opposite of what The Labour & Cooperative Party - which is not to bring the political system within reach of The People in Wales and make it more responsive, but to erect yet another obstacle to our getting anything useful done and thus to further armour the non-political system against political reform. It seems that The Conservative & Unionist Party are now trying to unpick the agreements already made and that they are going to succeed because those agreements were written to uphold the non-principle of Sovereignty i.e. The Democrats in Westminster not only recently lied to The People in Scotland to persuade them not to vote for Independence, they are about to be clearly exposed as having lied to The People in Wales in the promises made in successive phases of " Devilution " that The Labour & Cooperative Party, The Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru all said were good ... I admit that it was always going to be difficult to make contracts with the Devil - but it was plainly stupid to agree to those contracts being submitted for determination by The Courts in Hell ...

... But perhaps in Cytun we may see Wales' own band of Christian soldiers marching as to jaw - in this first instance with The Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Crabb ... " for Wales " ? ... mmm ... not " of Wales " ? ... over The Draft Wales Bill ... why not a separate thread for this ? ... Well, may be later - but this nicely illustrates what I have been arguing about in the need for The Welsh Court. The email that I received about this - from a person not identifying themselves as a Republican - says " Thank goodness that Cytûn has responded to the Secretary of State for Wales's consultation on the opaque bill to change the relation between UK and Wales governments and (allegedly) to clarify devolution powers permanently. ...This matter is impenetrable. It looks to me that the UK government wishes to cut back on Wales's degree of independence. In particular, they are annoyed by the WG's on the whole successful appeals to the Supreme Court in support of some of their legislative proposals. They want to stop this. ... I am attaching then Cytûn's response. Even if you haven't had sight of the bill, it lays out serious concerns. Democracy is at risk." ... >SIGH< ... I simply do not know which way to turn, I mean - I would like to help ...

Rt Hon Stephen Crabb MP
Secretary of State for Wales
Wales Office
Gwydyr House
London, SW1A 2NP.

8th January 2016

Dear Mr Crabb

Draft Wales Bill

... having read the evidence submitted to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, and the evidence to and report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the National Assembly for Wales ... we are aware of the complexity of the current devolution settlement, and we are very supportive of your aim to achieve a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales which will stand the test of time ... Our assessment of the draft Bill as presented is that it does not currently fulfil these aims. We do not wish to duplicate the array of evidence already presented on these matters, but would draw particular attention to a few as examples of our concern ...

... 1. We share the desire expressed by both the Welsh and UK Governments to minimise the need for further referrals to the Supreme Court. We would contend, however, that the very large number of reservations in Schedules 7A and 7B may make such referrals more likely, as almost any conceivable legislation could be said to ‘relate to’ at least one of the reserved areas and/or engage at least one of the general restrictions. We have been particularly impressed with the point made by Huw Williams in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee that Only a thorough analysis of the reservations will address the lingering effects of the “opportunistic” accretion of powers by the old Welsh Office. Our colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland suggest that the lack of Supreme Court referrals in those settlements relates in large part to the relatively small number of reserved matters in their legislation. ...

... 2. The provisions of Schedules 7A and 7B are immensely complex. While an element of complexity is inevitable in constitutional legislation, we believe that the average intelligent citizen should be able to have a clear understanding of which level of government is responsible for what. We have found it impossible to gain such an understanding of these schedules, and suggest that this means that the settlement is not clearer than the current settlement. The frequent references in Schedule 7A to ‘the subject-matter of…’ particular Acts of Parliament are not accessible to anyone other than legal experts. We have contributed to the Law Commission’s current investigation of The form and accessibility of the law in Wales and believe that its view should be sought on this draft legislation, and that in any case its report on this matter should be awaited before proceeding with further constitutional legislation, which could benefit greatly from attention to its conclusions. ...

... ( mis-numbered 2 ? ) We have read the evidence submitted by legal experts regarding the necessity test, Minister of the Crown consents, and the introduction of the concept of reserved bodies. It appears to us that, taken together, these provisions have the potential to reintroduce the difficulty the Assembly was designed to remedy, viz. that yourself and other Ministers of the Crown are answerable to the UK Parliament, in which representatives from Wales are a small minority, rather than to the elected representatives of the people of Wales. A number of our member churches supported affirmative votes in the 1997 and 2011 referendums precisely in order to remedy this difficulty, and would find it impossible to support a measure which appeared, even if unintentionally, to reverse this. ...

... ( mis-numbered 3 ? ) Furthermore, we note that the 2011 referendum ballot paper included the phrase If most voters vote 'yes' - the Assembly will be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for, without needing the UK Parliament's agreement. We believe that voters would not therefore expect that the consent of Ministers of the Crown would be expected for legislation within these subject areas (as opposed to legislation regarding other matters), nor that amendments to civil or criminal law in Wales within these areas would be subject to a necessity test, nor that public bodies exercising functions in these areas would be regarded as reserved. We are also concerned that the UK Parliament could continue to legislate for new Minister of the Crown functions in these areas, which would retrospectively require Minister of the Crown consent for Welsh legislation. In this respect, we are very concerned that the proposed legislation is not fair in that it resiles on some of the commitments made to voters in 2011.





Draft Wales Bill 'English veto on Welsh laws', says Jones - 20 October 2015

" New powers being offered to Wales amount to an "English veto on Welsh laws", the first minister has said. ...Carwyn Jones said the draft Wales Bill would "fan the flames of nationalism", requiring UK ministers to back much legislation before it became law. ... But the UK government accused Mr Jones of "playing a dangerous game" and "peddling nationalist rhetoric".
A Wales Office spokesman said the claim there would be an English veto over Welsh laws was "complete nonsense". ... The spokesman added : "Notwithstanding the fact that the UK government represents all four nations in our United Kingdom, the Welsh government will still be able to legislate in all the devolved areas it currently can as well as in the important new policy areas being devolved to it." ... Publishing the draft bill, earlier on Tuesday, Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb said new controls over energy, transport and running the assembly were on offer and the legislation would meet the "appetite" for devolution and build a "stronger Wales within a strong UK". ... Mr Crabb called the current devolution arrangement "unstable and unclear". ... "It's time we had a robust devolution settlement that works for the people of Wales," he said."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34632425 - Draft Wales Bill defended by former Lib Dem minister

... Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams has said the proposed law "cannot be acceptable to the people of Wales" in its current form ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34807678 - Draft Wales Bill 'worst' attempt to sort out Wales' powers

... On Monday, First Minister Carwyn Jones warned MPs that every future piece of Welsh legislation could end up in the Supreme Court if proposals are enacted ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34830422 - Draft Wales Bill unclear and unworkable, Dame Rosemary says

... Dame Rosemary claimed the current nine tests to decide whether is something is devolved would rise to 10 under the planned legislation. ... Elisabeth Jones, the assembly's director of legal services, told the committee the draft bill placed locks and impediments on the assembly ...First Minister Carwyn Jones, also giving evidence on Monday, told AMs that the draft Wales Bill went against the wishes of the people who voted for more power for Wales in the 2011 referendum. ... "There is no doubt in my mind that every bill that passes through this place will be challenged in court, not only by the attorney general but by individuals," he said. ... "What we would have here is a situation where instead of the elected assembly deciding what is necessary, the courts would do it - and that can't possibly be right."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35093454 - Wales Bill claws back power from assembly, Plaid Cymru claims

Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb has said he thought the bill as it stood kept too many powers at Westminster. ...More power over energy, transport and assembly elections is being offered, under a "reserved powers" model where anything not listed as the responsibility of Westminster is assumed to be devolved. ... Opposition parties have said the list of reservations is too long, with First Minister Carwyn Jones claiming the bill effectively proposes an "English veto" over Welsh legislation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35092540 - Wales Bill: the talking is over (for a bit)

Well, that's that then. The select committee on Welsh affairs has completed its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Wales Bill. MPs will now spend the next few weeks reviewing the evidence received and drawing conclusions. ... The MPs hope their report will be published in mid-January, before Mr Crabb unveils the real (re-drafted) Wales Bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35097007 - Wales income tax powers for better government, Crabb says

... The Welsh government cannot "duck and dive and avoid" responsibility for raising some of its budget through taxes, Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb has said. ... The Welsh government said it was trying avoid "the range of traps on tax and powers laid by the UK government". ... Chancellor George Osborne has said a referendum will no longer be needed for the power to be transferred. ... [ Stephen Crabb ] added that he would "re-craft" the draft Wales Bill on the next stage of devolution in the new year. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25436549 - Christmas reading choice: the draft Wales Bill

[ Christmas 2013 ] ... There are few surprises for the anoraks who follow these things. The Bill will more or less enact the recommendations of the Silk commission but includes the controversial "lockstep" that means any future Welsh government won't be able to change an income tax rate in isolation - if it took a penny off the top rate, it would have to take a penny off the standard rate too. ... So what else did we learn today? The Welsh government's borrowing powers will be set at £500m for capital spending and £500m for its current account. The former will be used to help finance major infrastructure projects such as the M4 relief road; the latter is designed to allow the Welsh government to cope with fluctuations in its tax revenues - stamp duty, for which it will become responsible, is notoriously volatile. ...



So lets have a look at the DRAFT WALES BILL ( first published 20-10-16 )



111B Scrutiny of Bills by the Supreme Court ( protected subject-matter )

(1) The Counsel General or the Attorney General may refer the question of
whether any provision of a Bill relates to a protected subject-matter to
the Supreme Court for decision.


21 Super-majority requirement: amendments relating to procedure etc

(1) Section 111 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (proceedings on Bills) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).

(2) In subsection (6), before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) the Supreme Court decides a reference made in relation to the
Bill under section 111B(2)(b) or (c) (reference following Presiding Officer’s decision that Bill does not contain protected subject-matter),”.

(3) After subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) The standing orders must provide for an opportunity for the
reconsideration of a Bill after its rejection if (and only if), on a reference
made in relation to the Bill under section 111B(2)(a) (reference
following Presiding Officer decision that Bill contains protected
subject-matter), the Supreme Court decides that no provision that is
subject to the reference relates to a protected-subject matter.”


(Cool In section 115 of that Act (Royal Assent)—

(a) in subsection (2)(a), after “section” insert “111B or”;

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The Presiding Officer may not submit a Bill for Royal Assent if the Supreme Court has decided on a reference made in relation to the Bill under section 111B ( protected subject-matter reference ) unless since the decision the Bill has been approved in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of section 111(7).”


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not paying enough attention to these consultations over The Draft Wales Bill 2015 - here are a few quotes from the National Assembly for Wales' Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's Report on the UK Government’s Draft Wales Bill ... most of the interesting stuff is from p20 onwards ...


64. In light of the evidence we have received, we believe the Secretary of
State should consider a number of changes to the Bill.

Single jurisdiction of England and Wales

65. As we have already indicated, we consider that the express policy
intention of the UK Government to retain a single jurisdiction has been one
of the key drivers in shaping the draft Bill. The Secretary of State told us:

“We’ve committed to preserving the integrity of the England-andWales
jurisdiction. Now, if you’re going to do that, if you are going to
preserve that single jurisdiction, you actually do need to build into
legislation a way to give freedom to Welsh Government to be able to
legislate and enforce its legislation, but also some kind of boundary that preserves the fundamental underpinnings of the single Englandand-Wales

68. The First Minister expressed similar sentiments to those of Professor
Watkin and said:

“The retention of the existing England and Wales jurisdiction will
result in a measure of complexity for the Welsh settlement which is
incompatible with the Secretary of State’s aspirations for clarity and

69. He added:

“The Lord Chief Justice recently said that “it is right for me to say that
there is no reason why a unified court system encompassing England
and Wales cannot serve two legal jurisdictions”. As an interim
measure, this could mean the creation of a Welsh legal jurisdiction
that is distinct but not separate from that of England – a Welsh legal
jurisdiction supported by a shared Courts system, run by the Ministry
of Justice with the same judiciary and administrative system,
buildings, etc as now. The Welsh Government will be undertaking
further work with regard to the thoughts of the Lord Chief Justice
over the coming weeks.”

70. The creation of a distinct jurisdiction was seen by Professor Richard Wyn Jones as a pragmatic approach to addressing the issue of the jurisdiction, which was clearly described by Emyr Lewis:

“I believe that the root of the problem is not the jurisdiction of the
courts, but it is that, on the one hand, we have the concept of the
laws of England and Wales, and, on the other, we have laws that are
different in Wales and in England. We have the laws that apply in
Wales and the laws that apply in England. They are diverging more
and more. But, simultaneously, we are trying to retain this concept
that there is only one law of England and Wales …
… in order to try and maintain what I believe is a paradox, there is a
great deal of complexity and a great deal of very complex drafting
going on in order to try and maintain that paradox.”

71. The First Minister identified a distinct jurisdiction as his preferred
approach and in supplementary evidence set out his further thinking on
this issue.

Our view

72. The prominent role that the maintenance of a single legal jurisdiction
has had in shaping the Bill has been reflected in the concerns raised with us that it has hampered the clarity and workability of the proposed reserved powers model. This suggests to us that it may not meet the needs of our growing Welsh legal identity and indeed may be frustrating the developing consensus that led up to the St David’s Day announcement.

73. We believe there would be merit in exploring further the concept
referred to by witnesses above of a distinct Welsh jurisdiction as a means of delivering a clearer, more workable settlement. Theory would then catch up with practice: the axiom that all law extends to England and Wales but Welsh law is only applied in Wales would be superseded. Indeed, distinct bodies of Welsh and English laws would be administered within a unified court system in England and Wales.

74. This would have the benefit of recognising that there is a body of Welsh law that is distinct from English law. It will also highlight that distinction to the legal profession throughout the UK for the benefit of citizens who from time to time need access to legal advice.

75. We also believe that such an approach would be consistent with our
report on a separate Welsh jurisdiction, in particular as it would help
provide greater clarity to Welsh citizens about the laws to which they are

Now what you can read into those kinds of statement is the Ultraist struggle for the power to arbitrarily do as you wish i.e. the non-principle of Sovereignty which underpins the methods of exercising coercion over others and calling it authority - which is claimed by Hierocrats, Democrats, Aristocrats and Monocrats ( and indeed several other kinds of -rats ) ... but this is the business of making laws and laws are by definition justice equally and universally applied - if the " laws " made by " governments " do not meet these criteria then both the " laws " and the " governments " which created them are not valid. It is therefore the duty of a Republican to resist them on the grounds that they have no authority i.e. no " author-ity " - they are not possessed of the qualities of " author-ship " because they do not have the qualities of Truth, Love, Freedom and Peace : bad laws are born out of and foster Lies, Hatred, Enslavement and War. Good laws are valid everywhere and therefore a geographical jurisdiction is not needed : the very fact that there is a power struggle for control of The Laws in Wales immediately tells us that those contending must be Ultraists.

Because Ultraisms are founded upon the pursuit of injustice they are full of contradictions and the contention between The Labour and Cooperative Party in Wales and The Conservative and Unionist Party in Westminster over The Laws in Wales provides a good example of this in contrast to the contention between The Conservative and Unionist Party and The ( Party of Sorts in the ) European Community. The Conservative and Unionist Party contradicts itself in demanding power back over The United Kingdom from The European Community whilst simultaneously refusing to grant power back over Wales - and The Labour and Cooperative Party contradicts itself in demanding power back over Wales whilst simultaneously refusing to grant power back to those they rule over ... The fact is that Democracy is all about obtaining the power to make laws in order to use them to pursue sectarian interests which inevitably means perpatrating injustices against minority groups : this is why The Welsh Nation will never be able to obtain justice in a Democracy - but will be able to in a Republic.

Why ? Because in a Republic the non-political non-principle of Sovereignty is correctly identified as a licence for criminality and therefore Democrats are correctly classified as criminals and placed in the same category along with Hierocrats, Aristocrats and Monocrats : they are all Ultraists. In a Republic the purpose of making laws is to advise everybody as to what The Public Interest is i.e. the laws are created in order to describe justice and as much as they succeed they are possessed of authority and in their creating them and asserting them the governments which authored them thus gain true authority - not through the use of violence upon The People but through obtaining their admiration and support for promoting justice in their society. In contrast The Democrats in Wales and Westminster use violence upon The People in Wales and The World - they cite their Sovereignty of The United Kingdom as their authority to do this within Wales yet they disregard the very same Sovereignty of The Other States whenever it proves to be inconvenient to the pursuit of their interests - and to any admission of their crimes or responsibilities ...

... In seeing that Wales and The World are equally victims of the same injustice, we can equally understand that the cause of that injustice is Sovereignty - the idea that certain communities of interest can both make the laws which govern us and also supposedly legislate themselves to be unaccountable to their own laws i.e. that they think that they can licence themselves to break all laws and with impunity ... but Republicans argue that Wales and The World does not work this way : we Republicans think that The Democrats are deluded to think that they can simply legislate away the consequences of their actions. We think that The Democrats have so corrupted and destroyed the historic record of advice as to how to live together successfully which was left to us by our ancestors in their laws - their understanding of The Natural Law - that they simply do not understand ( still less believe ) that every action has a reaction, that the laws which govern human societies result in consequences as predictable as the law of gravity : Canute was not a successful king because he did not understand that he could not command the waves ...

... Canute understood that the sea was not a separate realm but that as a sailor he knew that the tide was subject to the unbreakable law - The Nomos - which in making a show of trying to defy he could demonstrate to his courtiers that he too was subject to, that his authority as a ruler rested solely upon his governing in accordance with what he took to be The Divine Law i.e. that if he tried to defy God and hoped to abuse his power the consequences would be that God would punish him for his impiety i.e. that if he ruled unjustly then his authority as a ruler would collapse. Canute therefore accepted that there were limits to his power to rule over the sea and over others which were defined by his own understanding of them derived from his own experiences and the knowledge gained from those who counselled him. Theologians would later argue that God being perfect in every way could not himself break his own laws even though he was possessed of Sovereignty - and therefore could in theory choose to do so - because in His perfect goodness and wisdom He would not do so : therefore God could not violate The Natural Law in performing miracles ... because that would threaten the result of actions having no consequences.

The Democrats in Wales and The World however keep on promising The People Who Are Naive - not to mention gullible - that they will perform a multiplicity of contradictory miracles whilst asserting that they must be possessed of Sovereignty in order to do so ... Most of The People in Wales and The World treat their ballot papers as " free " lottery tickets - as if they get something next time if " their " Democrats " win " the election ! ... But some of us at least try to treat politics as a rational and reasonable activity and therefore we want a Republican political system which is organised for the purposes of good decision making : therefore we do not want The Democrats' non-political systems based upon bribing and threatening The People to vote for candidates who then proceed as elected representatives to bribe and threaten each other to vote upon legislation that is arbitrarily promulgated on the basis of Sovereignty i.e. willfulness. In a Republican political system the aim is not to obtain power but justice, and therefore whilst the decision making processes can be very diverse the overall procedure is akin to a court hearing in which evidence is given, statements heard, experts cross-questioned, juries debate - and judges rule : that is why Republicanism is sometimes referred to as Nomocracy - " The Power of The Law."

But what if you disgree with the laws made in a Republican political system ? ... Libertarian dissidents in the USA have been declaring - Sovereignty !


The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American and Canadian litigants, commentators, tax protesters and financial-scheme promoters. Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state or municipal levels ... It is similar in doctrines to the freemen on the land movement, more commonly found in Britain and Canada ... According to a 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism ( START,) a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists ... Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, who was convicted in 2004, was a member of the sovereign citizen movement, having asserted individual sovereignty in at least three court cases ...

... The Sovereign Citizen Movement is simply the logical outcome of one of the ideas supposedly underpinning Democracy which so many take to be plausible : however hairy-fairy Pure Republicanism might sound to you, it is far better to found a political system upon the best methods for making laws - upon the pursuit of justice, not upon the lottery of general elections - and the methods used by The Democrats for making laws is more or less akin to the justice of a lynch mob.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


... My own thoughts on dependence remain the same : independence from the rest of the world is not possible - therefore the critical question is the relationship between The People in Wales and The People in The World and this is why the anticipated referendum on The United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is such a bloody nightmare of mine. The People in England - as in Wales - are easily played upon to regard The People in The World as " other " and The Democrats are relying upon this to get The People in Wales to vote away our only remedy to those abuses which are licenced by themselves to themselves through their non-political system The United Kingdom. The European Union may be but a fig-leaf but it does help to cover up our most vulnerable area in Wales - which is not only the lack of a proper political constitution in The United Kingdom but the fact that Devolution has resulted in the focus of our political problems being divided between Westminster and Wales which whether it was intended to do so or not has doubled our troubles because Wales lacks what England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Gibraltar and doubtless many other even smaller dominions of The United Kingdom possesses : a Court to determine laws being passed in Y Senedd. ...

... Republicanism is founded upon The Rule of Law and the limit of that is to not interfere in consenting relationships and absolutely not to make any laws which govern a person's relationship with his or her self : there are no thought crimes in Republicanism therefore there are no prescribed beliefs, which is rather different from what happens in The United Kingdom laws which privilege religious beliefs over political, philosophical, scientific etc beliefs. A Republican political system protects and promotes consenting relationships as the basis of a healthy society : it does not guarantee happiness any more than a gardener can guarantee a crop by preparing the ground, planting seed and promoting its growth - and by weeding : the laws are created to be " the seeds " which advise us how to act to build a healthy society upon the basis of consenting relationships - " the weeds " are those acts which are deemed to destroy a healthy society and are therefore proscribed by laws i.e. prevented not punished. The implications for this are in favour of the continued existence of Iaith Gymraeg because those acts which prevent its use in consenting relationships will be illegal - but equally illegal would be those acts which coerce its use because that equally violates the Republican ethos : Republicanism is not Nationalism, but has similar consequences. ...

... I used to advocate Republican Democracy as a cohering political philosophy to use as an umbrella for many diverse campaigning groups but now that The Democrats have drawn many charities into financial dependence upon The State I no longer believe this to be either feasible or desirable. I think that The Chartist strategy was right - to build our own state within a state - to be as independent of The United Kingdom as possible and to resist every attempt by The Democrats in Wales to control us. The only viable and authentic form of independence has to be vested in institutions which can resist being captured by any who will subvert them. ... In order to oppose the injustices and cruelties being perpetrated against The People in Wales and The World an extraordinary number of different types of mutually organised but independent social organisations were created which associated themselves with the political objects The Charter - in other words they recognised that their guarantee of independence lay in their mutual support : they had learned from The Campaign Against Slavery that our freedom is only ever in the gift of others - if we try to seize freedom by force from each other then nobody can be free because we are at war. ...

... But whilst the legacy of the 19c Republican movement is " one person, one vote " they would probably be appalled by the present political system of The United Kingdom - and they would be probably be raging at The Democrats in Wales for demanding of us a superstitious faith in a " Democracy " which within thirty years has perpetrated the passive neglect or the active destruction of every social benefit created through centuries of struggle by those who did not trust The United Kingdom and who only wanted The Vote in order to end the injustice being done to The People by The Aristocrats. ... 19c Republicans - or " Radicals " as they took to calling themselves in the latter part of the 19c - would never have handed over to The United Kingdom the social legacies which they had inherited from previous generations of struggle against The Aristocrats : that to them would have been like handing over the keys of their homes into the safe-keeping of burglars ! ...

... Sovereignty is a myth : The Laws in Wales are not - but they are not Welsh laws although made by Y Senedd because they are determined in England.

Devolution has produced an abnormal constitution in Wales even in terms of the non-constitutional non-political system called The United Kingdom.

The Welsh Court can be a remedy for the behavior of The Democrats in Wales if The Judiciary in Wales are independent of The Welsh Government.

If The Welsh Court is empowered to draft the bills and amendments and to refuse to make acts into laws it can stop these abuses by The Democrats.

The Democrats in Wales will of course object - but they can not deny their abnormal constitution and The Isle of Man has such a constitution already.

An independent Wales with the same bad government is worthless. An independent Welsh Court which can remedy that bad government is priceless.

Once we have got The Welsh Court and an independent judiciary determining The Welsh Law we can campaign to get rid of The English Legal System.

Republicans however do not wish to get rid of " The English Legal System " because it is " English " but because it is determined by money not justice.

Notionalist sentimentality should play no part in politics : government is about translating morality into ethics and laws into justice - and into Welsh !

( OK ! ... I do happen to think that a modicum of sentimentality is allowable in politics ... for the Republican purpose of tempering justice with mercy ... )

( ... but surely there should be no mercy for Hierocrats, Democrats, Aristocrats, Monocrats and any other Ultraists - there ought to be a law against ... ) ...

SEE FULL EMAIL IN - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=3140#3140
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 11:39 pm    Post subject: Wall of flicking Txt Reply with quote

Does anybody read this stuff?

I know you gotta do your whimsical short cuts

, BUT pls at the end do a long cut and tell us what the flicking point is.
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well clearly you do ... I certainly don't - but obviously I enjoy writing it ...

Look at it this way : this is my version of what you do with mathematics.

Are you seriously telling me that you or anybody else reads your stuff ?

What you can do on a bulletin board is judge whether people look at all.

Marianne gets some very high scores in the index - people like her style ?

As to my scores some puzzle me : this generation neither read nor write ...

... they sort of gawp and presumeably search for a button to click on ?

I see no reason to get screwed up about this : treat this as a game of patience.

I want many people to write because as a hard-line White I distort the overall picture of The Republicans in Wales who as you well are a mixed bag of nuts who come in assorted flavours of fruit : I would not censor any particular version of Republicanism in Wales e.g. if Adam were to argue it from Liberalism or Amanda argue it from Conservativism that's OK - likewise if you want to sit down and finally work out your Republicanism in terms of Communism.

The way I see it for you is this : you are willing to play endless games of chess against your computer - and not only will she never love you, you know damn well that she must be cheating in order to win that often ... Whereas this game is even more challenging and you know how easy it is to beat me at chess : just write about what interests you and choose an eye-catching title with an eye to a Googlewhack ...

... BUT - please! - NO pornography - NO violence - NO sports : you will sport with me mercilessly as usual ( and as you yourself have said, I am passive aggressive and I have the administration login and rip your posts to pieces you ... Ahem ... ) ... I WANT YOU TO LAY OFF THE CASUAL SLURS ON OTHERS THOUGH - PLEASE ! - LAY OFF ME TOO FOR A WHILE ALSO ... I am feeling fragile ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: Y Repwblic Yng Nghymru
Sent: 03 August 2017 21:28
Subject: Fw: POEM : Dear Western Mail - I must implore :_

I first wrote to The Western Mail and then BCC'd it to several European newspapers to tell them about The National Court issue.

Then I decided that I ought to write about it to all of the Welsh Assembly Members in the hope that they will finally take notice.

From: Y Repwblic Yng Nghymru
Sent: 03 August 2017 21:06
To: carwyn jones
Subject: Fw: POEM : Dear Western Mail - I must implore :_

Dear First Minister Carwyn Jones and other Welsh Assembly Members,

I have been arguing for years from basic Republican political theories that Wales needs a National Court to determine its laws.

Doubtless you will not like my argument that only The National Court should make successful acts into laws by affixing its seal.

The political point is that Wales is part of a wider legal system which presently has all of its laws determined in London's courts.

The National Court ought to be determining whether the proposed bills and the acts passed are consistent with the existing laws.

I predict that this proposed omnibus Brexit bill in Parliament for repealing European legislation will contradict Wales' new laws.

I have already successfully predicted that the laws made in Wales would be challenged and end up being determined in London.

Please listen to me this time : please give Wales a conventional constitution and please start this process with The National Court.

It would also be nice if you were to notice that there are 600,000+ law-abiding Republicans in Wales who deserve representation.

Then we could describe Wales as a Democracy if not a Republic.

Yours Sincerely,

" dai repwblic " - administrator of http://repwblic.informe.com/index.php -

David B Lawrence,

From: Y Repwblic Yng Nghymru
Sent: 03 August 2017 19:59
To: Western Mail
Subject: POEM : Dear Western Mail - I must implore :_

Dear Western Mail - I must implore :_
Debate what Brexit will have in store_
For Wales if we lack that institution_
Which will complete our constitution :_
A National Court to determine The Law.

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !


The Western Mail surely knows how I sign off my " proems " but whilst you continue to stir up indiscriminate antipathy towards The Republicans in Wales - as if we are all potential terrorists - I would prefer you not to publish my personal address and telephone numbers which you have on file from other correspondence. Anybody who wishes to respond can contribute to our discussions on our bulletin board at http://repwblic.informe.com/index.php - and be re-assured by what they read there as to what we argue about. If you do not wish to publish the above as a letter please consider promoting a proper debate about this.

Propose Popular Political Pundits, Posher Politics Professors, Perversely Polemical Politicos Putting Plentiful Proper Pontifications.


A " proem " or " texterick " which I wrote earlier today may amuse you more than my arguments about The National Court -


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2377

Post Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:00 am

Both / Marx and Engels each got on / once took their trains_And met / To meet in the middle to discuss society's / all of their pains_Whilst taking a ramble from a small country station_During which they got lost to their consternation_To Engels - at a crossroads - Marx (then) declared " We have nothing to choose but four lanes."

" Marx and Engels once agreed to go by separate trains "
Marx and Engels once agreed to go and get on trains -_
Hence meeting in the middle to discuss society's pains :_
They planned to take a ramble from a smaller country station_
Then found that they had lost their way but - to Engel's consternation -_
At a crossroads Marx declared " We have nothing to choose but four lanes."

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !

Apparently that needs to be explained to some people : it is a pun on " We have nothing to lose but our chains " which ... er ... is a sort of quotation from Rousseau's ' The Social Contract ' which was the origin of the Socialist idea -


"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"


Furthermore the idea of " to go and get on trains " is because The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 a year and decade of both political and industrial revolutions as the railways rapidly expanded : Marx lived in London and Engels in Manchester and trains were both a technological novelty but also a Capitalist disaster which inspired Marx to predict that Capitalism would proceed from crisis to crisis until it collapsed in its own contradictions as many railway share speculations had ... perhaps the first line might be bettered as -

" Marx and Engels once agreed to go by separate trains "

- because that suggests their divergence of - " trains of thought " ?

Last edited by dai on Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:37 pm; edited 2 times in total


I ( almost ) got a reply from Carwyn - is that a first ?

Eich cyf/Your ref
Ein cyf/Our ref TO/FM -/00889/17

David B Lawrence

repwblic@hotmail.co.uk [ OUR ADMINISTRATION ADDRESS ]

Dear Mr Lawrence, 15 August 2017

Thank you for your emaiI to the Rt Hon Carwyn Jones AM, First Minister of Wales. I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

The First Minister has made clear the Welsh Government’s opposition to the European Union (withdrawal Bill) as it is currently drafted. I attach a link to the written statement made recently by the First Minister on this matter:

In response to your comments on a conventional constitution, the First Minister has consistently called for a Constitutional convention. On 15 June 2017, the First Minister launched the “Brexit and Devolution” Policy Document, which sets out the Welsh Governments’ thinking on how these new constitutional arrangements can be developed. This policy document is intended as a constructive contribution to the important debate
needed across the UK, building on issues raised in the “Securing Wales’ Future” White Paper. For ease of reference I have attached the link to both documents. https://beta.gov.wales/brexit

The National Assembly does not have the power to establish a National Court in Wales nor change the process by which Bills become Acts. However, devolved Welsh law is regularly adjudicated upon by judges sitting in courts and tribunals in Wales in the criminal, civil, family and tribunals jurisdictions. The UK Supreme Court has a role, as the final court of appeal for civil cases in the UK, of adjudicating upon devolution issues, including reviewing
the legality of primary legislation made by the devolved legislatures.

Yours sincerely,
Melodie Streeter
Constitutional Affairs and Inter Governmental Relations

Parc Cathays ● Cathays Park
Caerdydd ● Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="dai"]Moritz imprisoned Grotius_Because he thought him odious_But he let him have a chest_Of books to read but it then messed_Up his plan : the idea was not judicious = Grotius advocated Natural Law - a key thinker in what emerged c1650 as Neo-Classical Republicanism = https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MkLXsPJLC3M

Moritz imprisoned Grotius_
Because he thought him odious_
But he let him have a chest_
Of books to read but it then messed_
Up his plan : the idea was not judicious

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !

= Grotius advocated Natural Law - a key thinker in what emerged c1650 as Neo-Classical Republicanism = https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MkLXsPJLC3M


I have asserted that Republicanisms are based upon Natural Law and this is why the supporters of the United Kingdom disparage these political philosophies and treat them as inherently subversive but that is not strictly true because ( a ) Natural Law is used as a source for some laws in The United Kingdom's statute book - and ( b ) that is not the original basis of Republicanism which is in Cicero's book De Res Publica although that does place philosophy at the centre of his political critique - and ( c ) the supporters of The United Kingdom are deliberately mis-educated and do not know what Natural Law and Republicanism, morality and ethics, actually are ...

... Let us have a little Natural Law video fest ... plus some salt and pepper ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IQqKHVhJ0g - Natural Law Theory in less than 6 minutes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo - Natural Law Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #34

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw - Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI - Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDvRdLMkHs - Existentialism: Crash Course Philosophy #16

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI_7rt9cLnQ - Rule of Law, Types of Law and Sources of Law

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lBJxx34uLuw - Constitutional Law - Rule of Law

Hence Republicans are opposed to The United Kingdom because as a political system it does not have The Rule of Law - Parliament is not accountable to The Rule of Law - Republicanism is therefore not a form of Nationalism ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JMF7dCsmtlo - Constitutional Law - Parliamentary Sovereignty
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reader will recognise that I am babbling away here as an enthusiast not an expert and reaching for a conception of Nomocracy which forked [ Y ] from mainstream thinking some two hundred years ago ... however there are examples of this kind of Nomocratic thinking around in the contemporary world and towards the end of this video there is an example of it where the barrister Harry Potter is complaining about how the judiciary i.e. The ( medieval ) Nomarchy have been replaced by The Democrats in Westminster who are spewing out laws which lack coherence with existing laws because The Supreme Court is powerless to stop them because of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty i.e. the idea that The Democrats are privileged not to be responsible for the consequences of their actions and so can create contradictory laws and break the laws which they make with impunity. This is not supposed to happen in a Republican political system where the legislators must be bound by their own laws however they are selected ( hence it is claimed that you can have such things as Monocratic, Aristocratic, Democratic, Hierocratic and other kinds of Republic e.g. you can select the legislature using a postcode lottery or the colour of people's eyes or whether they like cats - provided that they do not break the laws which they make.)


The Strange Case of the Law, episode 3 of 3, Presumed Innocent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two programmes on tonight that I may be missing - the first illustrates the mess in the judicial system which has resulted from the meddling driven by populism courted by The Democrats i.e. the fact that The Nomocrats that we do have are not sufficiently independent ... The second is about the constitutional mess which creates such.problems in The United Kingdom ...


Sentencing [ Unreliable Evidence ]

Against a record rise in the number of sentences being made more severe after being found to have been unduly lenient, Clive Anderson and guests discuss whether sentencing law is fit for purpose.

Should judges have the freedom to reflect a defendant's mitigating circumstances, even if that means wildly different sentences for the same crime? Or should rigid guidelines ensure consistency across the country, so that a shoplifter in Penrith is treated the same as one in Peterborough?

The Law Commission has just published a report which says complexity in current sentencing law is causing costly delays and prompting judges to make errors, and even leading to unlawful sentences. In a recent study, 30% of sentences were found to have been handed down incorrectly.

The prison population has doubled in the last 25 years. It is now the largest in Europe. Lord Justice Treacy, Chairman of the Sentencing Council, believes an increased focus by courts on victims has seen so-called sentence inflation - increasingly harsh sentences handed down for the same crimes.

Barrister Michelle Nelson is alarmed by the findings of David Lammy's review of the criminal justice system that ethnic minority offenders face bias and even overt discrimination in the way they are handled. BAME people accused of drugs offences are 240% more likely to be sent to prison than white offenders.

The legal director of the Howard League, Laura Janes, asks if the aim is to rehabilitate offenders or simply to punish them. She says the UK should follow Germany and make more use of suspended sentences - opportunities for offenders to reform themselves - rather than automatically handing down custodial sentences.


The Constitution

David Baddiel Tries to Understand, Series 3

David Baddiel tries to understand the United Kingdom's constitution.

What does a constitution do? Does not having a written constitution mean we don't really have a constitution at all? Should we? And where does the Royal Family fit in? David speaks to Lord Lisvane, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, and to Lord Turnbull, once the country's top civil servant, to understand these and other puzzling questions about the constitution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games