Westministenders. Boris worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?

[RedToothBrush]

Of all the Westministers intro I’ve done to date, I think this has been the hardest to write.

My first thought is where on earth to start, and then where to stop with how Trump’s victory affects us in the UK. It completely changes international relations. The political fall out is going to be considerable and potentially radioactive in its toxicity.

To hardened Brexiteers, America falling to Trump represents the domino effect in progress. It will embolden them. And the fear is that on 4th December both Italy and Austria could fall next as they respectively, face a referendum and a re-run of the presidential election.

And then there’s France…

All of this is a threat to the EU. It just leaves everyone, including the UK asking what next? And what of our relationship with the US? Who knows? It makes it look around and say, can we rely on the US, and without the US surely we have no choice but to grow closer to the EU. Perhaps there is a role for us in-between but there really are no guarantees and do we want to make that choice?

The suggestion is that May has no love for Trump. And whilst the hard right might harbour fantasies about becoming the 51st State, which seem to be led by Farage himself, this exposes the one red line that could bring the fury of the country down on the government to its extinction. The NHS. Its not for sale. Its not to be subject to a trade deal.

In a curious turn of events, rumours grow that the government will contend at the Supreme Court that a50 CAN be reversed afterall. Davis had personally been responsible for the original line that its not reversible. This was a political decision to tie us into leaving, and show intent and seriousness to Leavers. Yet it was always a crazy one that is not in the national interest.

Going back on this totally changes the game.

It would be a move that will go down well with Remainers and Liberal Leavers but will enrage the hardliners especially if the ECJ is part of this new tact.

It off loads a pile of risk and it is the prudent and sensible approach. It is much needed to protect the best interests of the country overall. Its also that magic ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for that promised Nissan deal.

The change of tact would also help to appease MPs and much opposition to Brexit. And in doing so, also lessens the chances of a HoC rebellion against May and also reduces the chances of an early election, thus is perhaps a more stabilising way forward. It encourages negotiation of a good deal that other parties and rebels will also find agreeable rather than them feeling like they are being held to ransom on.

It would almost certainly delay things and might interfere with May’s precious timetable.

But there’s France… and the Presidential elections are in April/May

Do we really want to trigger article 50, if post Trump, the domino really is likely to fall there too and Le Pen wins the Presidency? There is suddenly a potential ally for major EU reform. Or even its collapse. Now is not the time to do something rash and drastic but to hold our nerve just a little longer.

It makes sense to everyone to hang fire and delay. If only briefly to see what now happens.

There are dangers in doing this though. The prospect of the ECJ being involved in a case which is in essence about our Constitution, is not only embarrassing but could be explosive. It will raise fears of leavers that Brexit will not happen. It will play to the extremes and the agenda of UKIP. It exposes judges to the press and criticism that they are activists and also trying to stop Brexit. Though Gove seems to have changed his tune and is defending them rather more than he was previously...

With tensions running high will Farage get his 100,000 march? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell on that one. He is trying to win through intimidation though, and that makes people fear him if we don’t do his bidding and what’s happening over in the States only emboldens him and makes others fear him more. He is divisive and never will be able to serve the national interest, because of it no matter how honest his delusions of being an ambassador to Trump are.

It just adds to the growing sense of helplessness and growing question of whether the proud tradition of British liberalism can even survive? It becomes appears to many this is ultimately the goal of Mr Farage – and not the EU. The EU is just a protector of it.

Well I don’t believe that Farage does have it all his way and has the monopoly on people power, nor a connection to the public that no one else has.

One of the themes developing on twitter, is one about passion, hope and a new sense of purpose. One to defend British values and not become like Trumpland. We have a warning and an example of how it really could be worse and it’s not a pretty sight.

I remember during the referendum one poster unsure of how to vote, asking simply:
“I don't want to spoil my vote. I want to vote, and vote with conviction”.

It was a question I found difficult to answer at the time. To me it highlighted how much people did want something to believe in and to not having that. We must start to build on that, and provide that alternative.

But I do believe those things to believe in were there all along. The NHS and our open democracy, whatever the flaws and imperfections of our institutions they have endured and survived for a reason – and not just for the benefit of the ‘elite’.

We just took them for granted, and now we are going to have to stand up and make sure people know that by speaking out, and know that while moderates might have it in their nature to compromise there are also some things we just can not loose in the process. We must not be drawn into a battle along violent lines as it will be used against those who do. We can’t loose our soul in trying to defend what is precious, nor should we try and reassure ourselves by finding justification for things that can not and should not be justified.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in notes to himself;

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

I think that message rings true now both for Leave and Remain supporters alike. You might have made a decision on 23rd June but you still have other choices to make now.

Choose to stay sane.

Thinking about it I managed to go through school and university, where I studied History, without studying any European history

Which is bonkers from the POV of understanding English history ! Without a pan-European overview of (say) 1066-now, the emergence of England, then Britain as a dynastic and military force really makes no sense. The relatively early development of England as a single Kingdom, compared to France and Germany. The reason Henry V was fighting at Agincourt, why the ancestral seat of the Malboroughs is "Blenheim", why there are streets with English names in Palermo.

I blame the Normans. They never bothered to integrate into France - and when they took over England, they never bothered to integrate into Europe.

I wonder how many Leave voters would consider themselves familiar with history generally, compared with remain voters ? And more pointedly what history ?

The Normans also invaded Ireland and a thousand years later Ireland is a member of the EU and has no plans to change that.

LurkingHusband I am interested in what you wrote about Scottish people being better able to learn French or speak French fluently without a heavy accent. I have noticed that in language courses at the University the English have the most outrageous accents to begin with (some do soften over time) when speaking pretty much any foreign language, why is this do you think? (apologies not intending to be offensive wrt accents just an objective observation).

I am hardly fluent in any language, so possibly not the best person to ask

I was living with some friends who were working in France for a year as part of their (French language) course. The English complained that it was very hard to strike up conversations because as soon as people heard their accent - even a trace - they tended to speak English. Hardly helpful. The one person who never experienced this was a girl from Glasgow. She'd natter away in French - not only were they able to tell the difference between French with an English accent and French with a Scottish accent ... apparenty (men and women) find French in a Scottish accent "incredibly sexy"

Whenever I try to speak another language, I have been told to try and imagine how a native speaker of that language would speak english and then apply the same speech patterns to whatever I am trying to say. It does result in speaking French with an outrageous accent but also helps get closer to the vowel sounds you need.

Trying to speak a foreign tongue in a foreign country is not for the faint-hearted. Especially when you bear in mind "Lurkings law" that if you ask something in a foreign language, you should really be prepared for the answer to also be in a foreign language .

Of course, we are all well behind the times, Last year, at a works awayday, I was chatting with one of our recent graduates, who was originally from Myanmar. He was telling me that he'd spent a week in Paris. I asked if he spoke French, and he just took his smartphone out, and showed how he got around the entire time using google translate !

I used google translate once to say "thank you" in polish to a barista in a Costa near me. Got some odd looks from the natives ...

The Normans also invaded Ireland and a thousand years later Ireland is a member of the EU and has no plans to change that.

Shamefully, I probably know more about France 1066- than Ireland All part of our overlords design ?

(reminds me of the Yes Minister quote where Hacker bangs on about great Englishmen ... Wilde, Shaw, Sheridan ...)

(reminds me of the Yes Minister quote where Hacker bangs on about great Englishmen ... Wilde, Shaw, Sheridan ...)

Oh, and Arthur Wellesley

Thanks Lurking

Lurking Come to think of 1066 and how it was taught in my school there was actually quite an emphasis on the role the Vikings, being a Viking part of the UK..... and throughout my school career in fact UK history was taught with an emphasis on the north, the rising of the north, Thomas Fairfax, Foster, Salt and the great northern philanthropists. I do feel my northern identity, which probably underpins my political views too, comes before my English one, and the way I was taught history was probably part of that. Interesting thoughts, thanks Maths Anxiety

I got a warning about porn from the Facebook gnomes for a post I had translated into Italian on google translate.

I always think that the 'Special Relationship' which we kid ourselves we have with the US, is because we haven't quite admitted that they got away, and they are still part of the Empire.

Funnily enough, I did study European History but that's because I did it for A level, so I do know about people like Philip II, and Catherine the Great, and what seemed to be a procession of Fredericks, or Frederick Williams of Prussia. Plus odd bits of information about Prince Rupert fighting in the 30 years war and bringing techniques he learned there back to the English Civil War.

My daughter's though are very different, not just because they spent a chunk of their childhood in another culture entirely. They have travelled all over Europe as a family, been on exchange visits to France and Germany and two other study trips to Austria and Berlin, spent more than one summer interailing, and have close friends who they visited on Erasmus years in Eastern Europe. There is a strong foundation to their feeling of being European which is why they feel so betrayed by this vote.

But aren't you worried that they will be all rootless and elite????

Lurking Come to think of 1066 and how it was taught in my school there was actually quite an emphasis on the role the Vikings, being a Viking part of the UK

The thing is, the "U"K is more diverse to start with than most people realise. A fact that the emergence of DNA analysis is confirming with startling results. You could almost use the motorway network to carve out: North East+West, Midlands, Fenlands, Wales, Essex+Middlesex+Sussex+Kent, Wessex, and Cornwall. It's in the language, the customs, the genetics ....

The emergence of "England" out of all that is a minor miracle. But it wasn't bloodless, and it certainly wasn't easy.

As an historical oddity, it's interesting that "England" never really followed Europe (particularly Italy) in the establishment of city states - despite being (like Italy) heavily dependant on maritime trade.

My Great Unfinished Novel was a future reimagining of the Arthuruan legends in a post apocalyptic Britain, where each region had reverted back, and there was fractious in-fighting between petty Kingdoms.

I stopped writing it when it started coming true

Catherine the Great

the average man in the street has no idea how English and British history are entwined with Russian history .

I always think that the 'Special Relationship' which we kid ourselves we have with the US, is because we haven't quite admitted that they got away, and they are still part of the Empire.

Well, of course if it hadn't been for the French, we would have still have America! (Or realistically, a smallish chunk of America on the East coast might still be part of the commonwealth). I'm never quite sure where places like California and Louisiana fit into the American independence narrative.

I'm never quite sure where places like California and Louisiana fit into the American independence narrative

Louisiana was bought ($1,000,000). Well eventually bought. When I was in Baton Rouge, the museum had an interesting display outside of all the flags that have flown over Louisiana (I have a photo somewhere - there were at least 5). Presciently the Union Jack (pedants can just imagine I typed Union Flag) was upside down

The US constitution really is a manual on how to run a country (as P.J. O'Rourke points out, going to to add that at 23 pages, it's more succinct than a car handbook). It outlines how the US can expand ... territories, observers to Congress, a suitable constitution, vote by the Union states and so on. It's how the US added states.

I suspect the EU equivalent (if it exists) will be 2,300 pages (in 15 languages) and is still ambiguous.

The thing is, the "U"K is more diverse to start with than most people realise. A fact that the emergence of DNA analysis is confirming with startling results.

conversely I read this book recently that concluded that genetically there isn't a huge amount of difference between British people and they are all pretty much Celts. (Although 'celt' is a bit of a made up concept - I think the point was more that Anglo Saxons hadn't made much of an impact on the population).

I suspect arguments about variation on DNA it depend a bit on the point that is being made.

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0593056523/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8

This book

Louisiana was bought ($1,000,000). Well eventually bought.

Well exactly, but apparently everywhere in America celebrates independence from the English.

In elementary school history lessons, Lewis and Clark feature prominently in the Louisiana Purchase story, and the contribution of Sacagawea is duly acknowledged much as the contribution of the native Americans to the Thanksgiving story is covered.

The invasion of northern Mexico (the Mexican-American War) that resulted in the creation of California followed hot on the heels of The Alamo (the Texas Revolution). The US initially offered to buy the territory it wanted and declared war when the offer was refused. The Alamo tends to stand alone as an example of heroics. The existence of the Texas Republic is barely mentioned, maybe in order to avoid giving anyone any ideas.

In the middle school years, students find that the events of the Mexican American War are subsumed into the run-up to the Civil War because the acquisition of the new western and south western territories caused an imbalance between slave holding and non-slave holding states and territories.

Well exactly, but apparently everywhere in America celebrates independence from the English.

There are many references to tyrants (i.e. George III) in the Declaration of Independence.

The US now, acts like Britain then: fuck the rest of the world.

The US constitution really is a manual on how to run a country

Except for that whole bit on the right to bear arms. That has caused all sorts of problems.

Except for that whole bit on the right to bear arms. That has caused all sorts of problems.

How so ?

For all the handwringing, a bit of thinking provides clarity:

1. The constitution can be amended (as evinced by the fact it's the second amendment which is being regarded as problematic)
2. The second amendment was introduced in 1791
3. The second amendment is followed by 25 other amendments
4. It is possible to change the second amendment
5. The fact it hasn't been changed suggests that - handwringing aside - the US population is happy with it.

Compare with the UK, where public outcry has led to quick (and botched) changes in the law - dangerous dogs for example.

It's also worth noting that the first act of dictators is to disarm the population. And whilst, personally, I believe the UKs gun laws are still too lax, I understand the observation:

Do you know why there's a second amendment ? It's in case the government forget the first one.

Lurking Did you say North East +West? Wars have been fought over those different identities [Grin] And then there is Geordieland just 60 miles up the road where they speak another language.........

Merriemouse "traitors" too

whatwouldrondo

you're only proving my point - York v. Lancaster ? But in general "the North" in medieval England was markedly different to "the South".

And still is.

And we should rejoice in it !!!!

On balance I think the UK has coped fairly well without a written constitution enshrining the right to bear arms, and dictators are under no obligation to follow any constitution.

I take your point about amendments, but they can only work if people can view the constitution and guns objectively.

Despite the constitution. I don't think America has better dog laws than the UK.