To not feel proud of my country at the moment?

[Livingtothefull]

I really want to be proud - there are plenty of things to be proud of in the UK (great people/culture/heritage) - but the way we are governed at the moment just sickens me.

We have a liar and a criminal as Prime Minister, I can't bear the sight or sound of him now. 'Partygate' showed us just how much contempt he has for the British public. People are facing huge cost of living rises and poverty, and the Government offered nothing to help address this in the Queen's speech.

The latest is their proposal to break international law.

By the way the Monarchy was shown up as the useless and empty institution it is through the prorogation of Parliament episode, far from a supposed guardian of democracy. I don't have anything against the RF personally, but as an institution it has presided over all of this and yet has nothing to say about it all.

I am sick of hearing about the Jubilee as well, I see nothing to celebrate in what we have all been through over the past couple of years and are facing now. 'Rich privileged woman lives a long time' does not mean anything imo, in the context of the huge numbers of people who have died before their time due to Covid. Many of them elderly and vulnerable people in care homes - where the Government has recently been found (again) to have broken the law by putting them in harm's way.

Perhaps you don't understand Northern Ireland, or brexit? The Northern Irish were doing pretty well until Johnson and his government destabilised their region and their politics by putting a border in the Irish Sea, between NI and GB and colluding with the hardline DUP, despite being supposed to be neutral between the two communities.

(And apart from the events of the last few years, historically NI alone is a good reason for some humility from the British rather than arrogance.)

Yes I'm ashamed too. Every time I go abroad I can feel others judging us, ever since Brexit started being a thing. I'm considering moving abroad but hubby doesn't know any languages. The things we have to be proud of being British are diminishing (e.g. the NHS, politeness, being racially tolerant). I'm not sure what is left really.

Leave literally won the UK vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Not sure what this means. Majority in Scotland and NI voted to remain.

Yes, it is, isn't it?

What's more, the current UN HDI score is the highest the UK has ever had from 1990 to present day. In all that time, it's only gone up, up, up. Higher than under the Government's of Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg, Cameron and May.

Globally, out of 189 countries, the UK ranks 13th. In terms of European states, the UK is 10th.

It does not suit the trashing the UK as a whole from some in this thread.....

Firstly, Scotland and Northern Ireland weren't named on the ballot paper. Only the UK was and only the UK voted since it was only the UK that was the EU member state.

Secondly, look at the numbers closely and you should come to the conclusion that Leave won the day due to votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. You should note that those two parts had the lowest turnouts which only added to Leave winning it there. The numbers tell us England was very much divided and required votes from the other parts.

No, Northern Ireland destabilised our own politics as did the UK wide vote in 2016. But I certainly point the finger at ourselves first. I wouldn't say we were doing well politically before Brexit either, especially since Stormont had already been pulled by SF/PIRA long before they did it in 2017.

Sure, the Government under Johnson looks like it signed up to a WA it didn't fully understand. But we now have an admission from SF/PIRA that the protocol is problematic.

Quite why Sainsbury goods need to be subject to checks on entry to Northern Ireland from Great Britain is anyone's guess. They have no stores in the Republic.

The EU has also pushed and pushed the agenda with Northern Ireland which destabilised it too. We're just a pawn in the EU desire to punish the UK for the Leave vote. Barnier's comments have not been forgotten.

Oh, and the GFA does not actually require the UK Government to be neutral between our communities. After all, the Irish Government has no requirement to be neutral either. All the GFA states is that the result of any referendum would have to be done with strict impartiality.

But nothing about being neutral on the Union. The GFA isn't even neutral on the fact Northern Ireland IS a part of the UK or the fact the UK Secretary Of State has the major power over border polls. Not Republicans or the Irish Government.

Labour's Keir Starmer isn't neutral and Louise Haigh misrepresented the GFA in claiming a Labour Government would have to be neutral. The Conservatives are also not neutral on that.

Firstly I would like to thank you @DownNative for your posts and your engagement with this. You are clearly well informed and your posts have been really helpful to me in thinking these issues through, I have carefully considered the points you have made.

Anyway here goes:

"That is a fair point and I accept I should probably not have used that phrase. However he has broken the law (the first PM to do so, and broken the law he himself put in place), demeaned his office, repeatedly lied about it and insulted all of us who made sacrifices and suffered losses due to Covid."
'And yet ZERO criminal record. Covid laws weren't that kind of law.'

Yet the law was broken - repeatedly - by the very building in which the laws were made and where the PM lives. One of his aides resigned at the time Partygate first came to light, a large number of individuals have been fined - mainly junior staff members it seems - for attending parties at which the PM was also present. A lot of pressure but a refusal to resign and no mechanism for holding him to account.

"I don't think the number of millionaires per se is an indicator that poverty is on the increase. That would be about a number of people below the poverty line as a proportion of the population, together with a concentration of wealth in fewer hands."
'The rate of millionaires has a direct impact on the level of poverty as well. 96.5 million people in the EU were in poverty in 2020 and this has since increased.
"It is also unsurprising that Germany has more millionaires than other EU countries, as it has a larger population."
'I did say "unsurprisingly, Germany....". But if we measured it by share of people, then Switzerland has the most millionaires with almost 15% of the population having assets worth £1million or more.
'Population size is not necessarily the biggest indicator.'

Again, I am not aware any direct correlation between poverty levels and the number of millionaires. Correlation is not causation. I would argue that to have millionaires in a country is not an inherently bad thing, provided that poverty and deprivation in said country is not a concern.

More responses to follow:

I can't think of any country that I think is perfect. All countries have their faults and no doubt many people in other countries are ashamed to be citizens of their respective countries. I think the UK is pretty good on the whole, as a woman , I'd much rather live her than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela (or even Canada or Australia after the shit they pulled during the pandemic).

"I have not claimed that ours is the only country with problems or that a perfect country exists anywhere."
'This thread is full of posts suggesting exactly that and it's not surprising some picked up on that implication from your posts too.' That may well be true though for the record here I reiterate I myself have never said it.

'Whilst we do and have to deal with our own problems, it's very helpful to compare and contrast us with other European states.
'Suddenly, we look miles better than what's suggested throughout this thread! The UK is still one of the best countries in Europe in which to live.'
"The House of Commons site itself refers to figures which suggest that 'the UK has among the highest levels of income inequality in the European Union'."
'Yes, it's similar to the core countries of the EU. In fact, the EU as a whole has a slightly higher income inequality than the UK. However, income inequality as measured by GINI is of limited use as some of the poorest countries in Europe have the lowest income inequality rates.
'That's where the UN HDI is much more useful as it looks at several different areas including inequality. For Europe, the UK is at 10th place.

And I would contend that we should be at or near the top of that list based on our overall wealth, and that 10th place is not one to be particularly proud of. The 'core countries of the EU' include those most directly comparable to the UK. The full list of EU countries include those with issues to overcome in their recent past which is likely to reflect in their current standing: eg several Eastern European countries were destabilised following the fall of the Soviet Union.

'Population size doesn't necessarily mean a country will have more or fewer food banks than another country.' True - but a larger number of food banks relative to population size could indicate a greater need for them.

"However, on the subject of comparisons with Germany: their Covid death toll was far lower than that of the UK despite their higher population and despite being largely landlocked at the heart of Europe. That is more evidence of government failure."
'A more likely explanation is that the UK is a much more densely populated country than Germany. We are three places above Germany in the population density table.'

I am not sure this is 'more likely' as population density is only one of a number of known risk factors which include socioeconomic deprivation and relatively poor infrastructure. Also, Covid cases are a separate issue from Covid deaths.

'Another is how the UK and Germany reported their cases as well as rates. That matters because the UK has been stricter in recording data than many, including Germany.
'The WHO has data on the first two years of the pandemic. According to them, Germany had a higher excess death rate direct and indirect due to covid than the UK.
'According to the WHO, most countries have underreported and several don't like WHOs findings.'

The latest WHO data states that Germany has a total 138,204 deaths, whilst the UK has 177,890 deaths. Why would they state these figures if they consider them inaccurate? The vaccination rates for the UK are stated as N/A (unlike for other countries) so clearly this is an option in the case of unreliable data. covid19.who.int

The EU has also pushed and pushed the agenda with Northern Ireland which destabilised it too. We're just a pawn in the EU desire to punish the UK for the Leave vote. Barnier's comments have not been forgotten

This trope that the UK is being punished is embarrassing. It was the UK that held the referendum and voted leave. It isn't for the EU to then accommodate this ridiculous decision.

"You see that is all part of the problem of the Monarchy imo. How exactly would the Monarch be the final line of defence against a dictator?"
'Suppose we had PM who became a dictator, the Monarch would be able to command the Armed Forces to depose that person. Same happens for a dictator from outwith the UK.
'The Armed Forces are in no doubt to whom allegiance is owed in that case.
"Why do the Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch and not the people? That seems more of a recipe for dictatorship if anything."
'Why would they pledge allegiance to the people? That would be chaotic in batte or times of emergency. Crucially, the Monarch cannot become a dictator because the Crown Prerogative is exercised by the democratically elected PM.'

Who makes the judgment that a PM has become a dictator? At what point is the command to depose the dictator made and by what process is it triggered? By the Monarch (who is supposed to act on the advice of the PM) or through another source? Why is it 'crucial' that a Monarch cannot become a dictator if others can?

I disagree entirely that the Armed Forces pledging allegiance to the people would lead to chaos in battle; I think it is pretty clear what it means to defend one's country. By way of example, how about Germany's military oath: 'I pledge to loyally serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to courageously defend the rights and the liberty of the German people.'

'Essentially, the PM and Monarch are able to provide checks and balances to each other, if needed.' Again, I just don't see any checks and balances happening in practice. What I see is the PM being free to act without restraint as the Monarch acts on the advice of the PM. Monarchy, and a lack of appropriate division of powers, is imo at the root of the problem.

Come the GE vote accordingly and get another party in 😳😳

Be careful what you wish for 😳

"As in my original post, when it really mattered - the prorogation of Parliament - the Monarch proved to be useless as a defence. We had to rely on the Courts, not our Head of State, to find the prorogation to be unlawful."
'No, you're simply misunderstanding what the Constitutional role of the Monarch is - to deny power to any would-be usurper and to be a figurehead for the UK under the Government's orders.
'It is the role of the Supreme Court to rule on constitutional matters. Even the Scottish Parliament was found to have acted beyond their powers.
'We have a Constitutional Monarchy and the Monarch has a passive role except for the highly unlikely situation aforementioned.'

I am not misunderstanding anything, I am saying that the current model does not and cannot work both in practice based on experience, and on its own terms. How would the Monarch deny power to a usurper or dictator in practice? How would/could they do that? Who decides whether an individual is a usurper and at what point?

"Returning to comparisons with other countries; many have written constitutions and elected Heads of State with real power to hold politicians accountable to the constitutions and act as effective arbiters of the democratic system."
'You're suggesting here that the UK doesn't have a written constitution which is completely wrong. We actually do - it's written in Acts of Parliament. Unlike the United States, our written constitution is uncodified which allows the UK to change constitutional laws very quickly if needed.'

There is no actual "British Constitution" just a set of rules and regulations constituted by jurisprudence and laws (English and Scottish law), and by various treaties and international agreements to which the UK has signed up.

The lack of a written constitution caused a major constitutional argument about what a government can do without the consent of Parliament. Just to summarise here, the problems this led to following the 2016 Brexit referendum:

Constitutional experts agreed that Parliament had to be consulted, and vote, before the Prime Minister could activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, to take the UK out of the European Union. However Theresa May (PM at the time) did not want a debate, or a vote, in Parliament before Britain left the EU, and sought to go ahead with Article 50 regardless.

In July 2016, a group of citizens appealed to the High Court to stop the government activating Article 50 without Parliament's consent.
The verdict was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24th January 2017; Parliament must vote before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty could be triggered. It did so.

Nevertheless, Parliament was not bound by the result of the Brexit referendum, which was consultative, not legislative. Before the referendum, three quarters of elected MPs were against Brexit, and until the 2019 General Election, it remained possible that Brexit would not actually take place; Parliament had the power to veto it.

Vetoing Brexit, however, would have been a dangerous step. If Parliament had vetoed a process that was approved (however marginally and on the basis of however many lies) by a popular referendum, it would have sparked a massive constitutional crisis and possibly serious public unrest. In the end, Parliament held up the Brexit process, but could not stop it. While some Conservative MPs rebelled, enough remained loyal to their party to ensure a situation of stalemate (impasse) in Parliament, where MPs could not agree on a way forward.

Eventually there was a new General Election in the autumn of 2019, and Boris Johnson secured a majority on his promise to "get Brexit done". Although the Conservatives secured the highest total number of votes, overall fewer voted for them than for other parties. In some countries that might have resulted in (the equivalent of) a hung parliament, however with our first past the post system that was enough to secure a huge majority for the Conservatives. With this Parliament approved Brexit, and the UK duly left the EU.

The debates and arguments did not stop there. Later in 2020, Johnson proposed a law that would allow the UK to renege on parts of the international agreement signed with the EU concerning Britain's terms of exit from the Union (the Withdrawal Agreement). So apparently, despite the Constitution being constituted in (among other things) international treaties, those treaties can be broken at will by the PM of the day and there is no mechanism for stopping this. Parliament is accountable, but not the Government.

No wonder there is lasting anger from many people about Brexit. It has opened up the deep divisions among people within the UK; how we are meant to repair that, and how the Monarch is meant to act as a 'unifying' figurehead I don't know. BTW Johnson's actions were severely criticized by ALL of Britain's living former Prime Ministers (3 Conservatives, 2 Labour), as well as another former leader of the Conservative Party.

There are therefore strong arguments for the need for a UK constitution which are made by many. The attached article is helpful for further explaining the issues: www.ft.com/content/bf81ea49-96b0-4329-bbaf-f58fdf6e0630

You cited a number of existing models for the role of Head of State. I agree that there are pros and cons with each of them; I point out that in other countries the HofS would have the power to force the Government of the day to comply with its own laws.

I would disagree with you that the UK's checks and balances work well: imo they do not. Or nowhere near well enough.

I agree, OP, we’re an international embarrassment.

Governed by liars and crooks, out to line the pockets of themselves and their friends, a government prepared to destroy the GFA to keep the 1922 committee quiet. Brexit was a nation making itself irrelevant and impoverished in an no act of self-harm. The work-shy compulsive liar in Downing Street shows us up every time he opens his mouth.
Food poverty rising, foodbanks were almost unheard of pre-2010 and are in record demand. Services cut to the bone, the vulnerable of society abandoned by a government that ought to serve and protect.

A police force riddled with violence against women and not prepared to do anything meaningful about it.

I’ll still be volunteering at the street party. Not because I give a stuff about monarchy or flag-waving, but because it’s great to get together with my neighbours and have fun.

From Le Point International in 2016 regarding Barnier's role:

"I would have succeeded in my mission if, in the end, the deal is so hard for the British that they would prefer to stay in the Union", he told his friends during the summer of 2016. Because for Juncker - and the majority of European leaders are, at this time, in the same state of mind - Brexit must be a form of punishment for these "deserters" and dissuade any other Member State from doing the same... the survival of the EU is at stake.

The choice of Barnier is also a signal sent by Juncker to 10 Downing Street. Indeed, the former Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services (2009-2014) is the public enemy number one in the City. Throughout his mandate, British officials had conducted an endless skirmish with malicious attempts to trip the Savoyard [native of Savoie], who is anxious to push the fires of banking regulation to the markets in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The 28 texts regulating the markets which he had driven to adoption had earned him strong enmities on the shores of the Thames."

It's quite common for some to claim the EU has no reason to punish the UK for the Leave vote with a firm eye on Euroscepticism in the EU without a shred of evidence. And attempting to downplay it as a "trope".

Much the same way some baselessly claimed Brexit breaches the GFA with Jo evidence at all.

Thank you very much @SunscreenCentral, that is a really kind message.

Quite why Sainsbury goods need to be subject to checks on entry to Northern Ireland from Great Britain is anyone's guess. They have no stores in the Republic.

This can't be serious? You cannot bring meat or dairy, certain plants and plant products etc into the EU from a non EU country. Are they just supposed to pinky promise that they won't end up over the border and that's grand? Ireland is supposed to accept the risk of pests and diseases from non EU regulated food etc because why? What's in it for us exactly?

Your gripes are fair but you are fortunate enough to be moaning about it on the internet without fear of reprisals, not everyone can enjoy that freedom. I am proud to live in the UK.

It's quite common for some to claim the EU has no reason to punish the UK for the Leave vote with a firm eye on Euroscepticism in the EU without a shred of evidence. And attempting to downplay it as a "trope

Again, the UK left the EU.

My dear, try to understand the nuance.

The UK LEFT the European Union.

The consequences are on the UK.

Possibly hard for you to accept.

But what is unfolding is because we left.

The UK will continue to suffer as a result.

I will remain gutted over the Brexit result.

How you aren't appalled about how you and your children have been robbed by this is beyond me.

There is a disconnect between these threads and this

Then again I find a big gap between these threads and posts and rl

On that note I'm getting rather fed up with Americans rolling along and pretending to be experts in Northern Irish politics (usually on the basis that their Great-Great-Great Grandmother was from Limerick). Perhaps they might try sorting out their shitshow of a nation, where I bet that they have more violent deaths per capita than NI ever did, even in the height of the Troubles.

Thought you were going to say you were Russian!

Some consequences of leaving may be inevitable. Some on the other hand are a result of deliberate attempts to make the process as bumpy as possible pour encourager les autres.

You know, I'm really sick of people - and tory mps - saying we should "move on".

No, fuck off. We'll move on when we have a government that isn't entirely consistent of either corrupt wankers of people who are just. plain. stupid.