What happened to Nigel Farage is England’s ultimate betrayal of its principles

The English banking system has betrayed Nigel Farage and, in doing so, also betrayed everything England once represented.

During WWII, when the Brits stood alone against fascism (a leftist ideology), they proudly sang, “There’ll Always Be An England.” At this point, I’m sorry to say, there is no longer an England, at least not the England for which that generation fought. It’s gone, and the fascism the Brits once fought has taken its place.

Although our Founders looked to Ancient Greece and Rome for many of their ideas about small-d democracy, they knew full well that their liberties came to them through the filter of Great Britain. Thus, when they broke from Britain, they did not do so to create a new world with new rights (as the French Revolutionaries wanted to do). Instead, they fought to regain for themselves the rights that British men had earned over the centuries, from the Magna Carta to the English Civil War to the Glorious Revolution and the 1689 British Bill of Rights.

One of the great ironies of the American Revolution is that it marked the decline of the rights of Englishman. That’s because the colonists, in their bid to assert their rights, pointed to the 1689 British Bill of Rights.

You’ll recognize the explicitly stated rights that Parliament had taken from the colonists, among which were the British people’s claims that:

• The King could not unilaterally suspend laws;
• The King could not unilaterally levy taxes;
• All subjects could petition the king without fear of prosecution;
• Protestants could keep arms “for their defence”;
• Elections should be free;
• All debate in Parliament should be conducted without fear of repercussions;
• “[E]xcessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”;
• “[P]romises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void”;

When the colonists argued that, beginning in 1760, England was violating those rights, Parliament insisted that the 1689 Bill of Rights bound only the king, not Parliament.  That is, the rights were not inherent in citizens; they were just limitations on specific branches of government.  Parliament was a completely unconstrained institution.

Parliament’s assertion explains why our constitutional Bill of Rights isn’t framed to ban the government from doing things. Instead, it places the rights firmly in the people: Citizens have the inherent right to be free of government overreach in delineated areas.

The difference is profound. In England, you can be arrested for offending someone gay, while in America, you can’t. However, our rights our real only good if our government acts with goodwill and respects them. That respect is dying, for we’ve seen how the Biden administration worked with tech tyrants to silence those who opposed it, although one honest judge has said “no.” (The WaPo is already asserting, based on minutiae, that the judge, a Trump appointee, had no idea what he was talking about.) Likewise, Michigan is planning to make it illegal to offend its core constituents, a law that must fall if the courts are even slightly honest. And do I need to mention the J6 prisoners, heading for three years in prison without bail or trial?

In addition to the explicit rights the British once had, there was another unspoken right that developed in England, and that was the right to have money flow freely. This was separate from the mercantilist government’s interference in trade (i.e., the high taxation that led to the Tea Party) and its habit of giving monopolies to favorites. Instead, it was that the banking trade kept out of politics. That easy access to cash is part of why the British became so immensely powerful and wealthy.

This commitment to the free flow of money was so important that, during the entire eight years of the American Revolution, George Washington continued his financial life as he had always done: By keeping his money in the Bank of England. Think about that for a minute. Washington knew that the Bank of England would continue to hold his money and act on his orders. And the Bank of England felt exactly the same!

Contrast that fact with this story about the travails of Nigel Farage:

…I was recently told by my bank that it is closing all my accounts without explanation. It is impossible to function without a bank account. It should alarm everybody that a bank has the power to punish those it considers to have erred or strayed.

I wasn’t too surprised to receive a call a few weeks ago informing me that my business and personal accounts would be closed. In recent years, the same thing has happened to colleagues in Ukip and the Brexit Party, and I am well aware of the procedure. No reasons are ever given. The bank simply informs the customer that their accounts will be shuttered.

[snip]

In my case, I was told by the banking group with whom I’ve been a customer since 1980 – and with which all of my business and personal accounts have been held – that a letter would follow the call I received. It would offer a full explanation. The letter arrived, but it merely re-stated the impending closure and supplied the date by which I should remove my money.

I kept this to myself while I sought a different bank. After many hours of trying, this has come to nothing. I’ve been rejected by seven other banks. Apparently, I am a “politically exposed person” and carry too much risk and too many compliance costs.

As best as Farage can tell, the reason for his being de-platformed from every bank in Britain is because of the defamatory (utterly unproven) assertion that he has illegally received money from Russia. Yup. The “Russia, Russia, Russia!” hoax that dogged Trump is used in Britain, too. (I’ll merely point out that leftists were never bothered by Soviet misdeeds and money. Food for thought.) Here’s a video from Farage making the same point:

The contrast is overwhelming: In 18th Century English, when George Washington was the war leader of a battle to break free from Great Britain because of the claim that Britain was depriving colonists of their rights, the Bank of England just kept chugging along. Meanwhile, in 21st Century Britain, when a political figure is slandered over dealings with a country with which Britain is not at war, every bank in England cuts ties to that figure.

Don’t get too smug, though, about how the British have utterly abandoned the rights and liberties they once bequeathed to us. Instead, remember my point about how the American government, despite the explicitly stated inherent rights in the Bill of Rights, is doing exactly the same. From lockdowns to vaccine mandates to coerced confessions to silencing speech…we’re heading down the same path.