Friday 22 June 2018

Gina Miller on the Stump

So, earlier this week I attended this meejah-related bash, after which the guest address was given by none other than Gina Miller, billed as a "philanthropist".

Now a very large % of the audience were in at least one, but mostly two (or even 3?) of the following categories (a) academics [albeit University of Westminster**];  (b) meejah-wallahs, particularly in broadcasting & political correspondents;  (c) metro-types.  So we're kinda expecting a bit of Remain-bias, yes?

Well.  Ms Miller got a respectful hearing; but the lengthy Q&A should have been less than encouraging for her.  Basically she got rock-all: a thorough, if genteel, going-over.

Naturally, this was all couched in reasoned terms.  But one has to suspect her attitude also doesn't help her cause, leading to a bit of ad hominem flak coming her way from people who otherwise might be quite inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.  Her demeanour, unsurprisingly, is one of being quite exceptionally pleased with herself.  She then lets fly with remarks like "people should never have been given a vote on Europe".  Apparently (someone told me afterwards) she is prone to turning up wearing a fur coat.++

All in all, she might well have gone away sadder and wiser.  But it seems unlikely.

Added to the jollity of the evening for me, anyway.


** in case anyone thinks this unfair, check the rankings (in the range 56th to 108th in five I quickly checked)
++ though not on a hot evening in June


Lord Blagger said...

"people should never have been given a vote on Europe".

Ah yes. People who love telling others what to do, don't like it when the tables are turned.

We need to move to a relationship with the state based on informed explicit consent.

That means the right of the public to withdraw their consent in a peaceful way without the state resorting to violence.

Electro-Kevin said...

She told us all she wanted to do was make sure that proper procedures had been followed.

So she did and yet she's still campaigning.

Who elected her ?

Lord Blagger said...

No one.

The general issue here is one of consent. One of the main reasons why people voted to leave was they had no right of consent, in more than just the case of the EU. The more general case, of people being screwed over by the state, with no right of consent was a major other reason for the no vote. The public decided to protest.

That's why we need a right of consent.

So lets put some examples up, and compare what the state does, with what should happen with sex.

1. Who gets to decide on what is good? Who decides on harm?

Sex. Both parties have to agree that its good for them. One party can't say I want to get my rocks off, you have to give it up. The 'victim' gets to decide on if it harms them.

In the case of the state, its one sided. Take Corbyn. A minority group are going to be harmed, forced to pay, and they are not allowed consent.

2. Informed consent.

You could decide, as a pair to sleep together. However your partner didn't tell you they are HIV+. You have consented, but it wasn't informed consent.

Same as the state. You aren't told about their off the book debts. You are just expected to pay

3. Explicit consent.

You can't assume consent, it has to be explicitly given. Except the state presumes consent when it comes to body parts, to paying its debts.

4. The right to say no.

When it comes to sex, you have the right to say no. When it comes to the state, if you don't give it up, the state uses violence or you have to leave town to get away. There is no right to peacefully say no.

Heck the state even reserves the right to slave labour. See article 4, HRA

So what changes with a right of consent.

First lots of people will start opting out of state services. They will view them as not in their interest. In particular they will opt out of paying for state debts. e.g Being born into debt bondage.

For non common goods, that's easy. Those that want the services, pay for it.

For common goods its harder. Here why would those who are paying for them consent to people free loading? They wouldn't. But its quite funny, since that's an argument the socialists make and say its evil. Next they are claiming that redistribution, freeloading, is a good thing.

The end result however is that the state very quickly finds out what people want it to do and not do.

In practice its that the state finds out its not liked.

E-K said...

So was that hard or soft, LB ?

K said...

Did she really say "vote on Europe" or are you misquoting her?

You can't trust anyone who conflates the EU and Europe. It might seem pedantic but if you actually do business with the EU and Europe then it is an important distinction (amongst many). Anyone mixing them up is either a true believer (MEPs do it a lot) or just ignorant of what the EU actually is. Neither should be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

@ Neither should be taken seriously.

You got that right, K

Lord Blagger said...

Hard or soft,

clean or messy,

Who cares so long as you consent.


Electro-Kevin said...

Well clearly Parliament doesn't consent to being told what to do by plebiscite.

Gina Miller is a very well chosen front person for a Smith Square organisation.

I don't understand how she was ever a model though. Does not do it for me. An unpleasant resting face expression.

Raedwald said...

'face like a roofer's nail bag'

As the unreconstructed lads on site would have it.

Anonymous said...

"Who cares so long as you consent."

(And turn the lights out.)

andrew said...

Is there a video of the bash?

Nick Drew said...

Andrew: strangely enough - for a broadcasting-media affair! - it seems not ...

(youtube has the 2010 award, when BJ spoke)

phil5 said...

I can understand how. I would. (Don't like her politics though.)