Westminstenders: Break Up or Make Up?

[RedToothBrush]

The next week or so appears to be yet another crunch point (not that any of these crunch points have actually resolved anything so far).

The EU is set to outline the plan for Ireland. Which everyone thought had already been outlined and agreed already. And it had been admitted was legally binding.

Except apparently we don't want to do that, and we are now crying about how the EU want to break up Britain (nothing to do with England wanting to leave the EU and Scotland and NI wanting to stay in it of course).

Jeremy Corbyn has now apparently decided that the customs union is a good idea. David Davis and Liam Fox have responded by saying that this would stop us making our own trade deals. Yes this has obviously stopped Turkey, and why aren't we doing as much trade with China etc as Germany anyway? A vote in the HoC looms before Easter. Will Tory rebels support.

Will Jeremy Corbyn bow to pressure over the single market too? The customs union alone does not stop the border issue in Ireland. Nor does it stop ridiculous queues at Dover. I'm not sure Corbyn is one for listening though. He's got a whiff of power and democracy and reality is just a hindrance to utopia.

As for the Great Repeal Bill. Word has it, its not going too clever in the HoL. The conservatives had something of a show of strength with an unusual number turning up for the debate. But few on the backbenches were willing to speak in favour of...

It all feels like we are making no progress at all. We are still bleating on about cherry picked deals as if this is a negotiation. Its not.

My worry with a second referendum is that there would be more lies from the likes of BoJo and more pro-Brexit hysteria from the right wing press. There would have to be strict rules drawn up to prevent this happening.

It does make me think that if we did (god forbid) go for a second referendum, that we might end up with a completely different set of results - not because opinions have changed as such, but because there would be such a large section of the electorate that just wouldn't show up this time.

There's the c. 30% that didn't vote ... if you swap any mix from those that did to those that didn't ...

It's perhaps hard to see, in the smoke of war. But if nothing else, the referendum and it's fallout have highlighted an interesting aspect of almost all (I'm not learned enough to make a categoric statement) democratic electoral systems.

"One person one vote" might sound like a wonderful ideal. However, is it right that a 90 year olds vote (which plain statistics tells us they are much less likely to live to see the outcomes of) carries as much weight as an 18 year olds vote. Again statistics suggests that an 18 year old might have 70+ years to live with the consequences of their vote ?

All of which may seem to be drifting off the mark until you realise that it's only in the past 12 months I have read the word "gerontocracy" ...

I have no answers. But I would be curious to know if anyone else thinks it's an issue or not.

Put simply, an awful lot of people who (for example) support HS2 are unlikely to live to see it completed. Does that make their views less, or more, or equally valid ????

My worry with a second referendum is that there would be more lies from the likes of BoJo and more pro-Brexit hysteria from the right wing press. There would have to be strict rules drawn up to prevent this happening

Hopefully once bitten ....

In "another" thread, a poster dropped an interesting word into a statement about a legally held referendum.

It's arguable that a referendum whose outcome cannot be measured (as the 23rd June clearly couldn't) is not legal in the first place, and should never have been put before the public.

When we're all dead & gone, it would be interesting to see what advice the government was given (not that it took any) about the referendum. I have a feeling they were strongly advised to frame a meaningful question, with clear parameters and objectives.

However, is it right that a 90 year olds vote (which plain statistics tells us they are much less likely to live to see the outcomes of) carries as much weight as an 18 year olds vote. Again statistics suggests that an 18 year old might have 70+ years to live with the consequences of their vote ?

An interesting question. However, an 18 year old should have ample opportunities to vote over the course of their lives and affect the outcome of any decisions made earlier. I think it's a bit dangerous to argue about limiting the vote - should only parents get to say about education, or the elderly about the standards of care for their age group, or do these issues affect us all? The danger is then that people could say why should they pay for education or social care because it doesn't affect them?

No point posting news stories (wilful ignorance). A brexiteers stock reaction is "it's all going to be alright" followed by "taking back control" and a new round of Brexit bingo.

Any Asimov fans here ? Foundation and Hari Seldon ?

I wonder if there's something in the human genome that stops us overrunning the environment ? Something which binds together large masses of people and manages to get them to shrink the human population down to a manageable size again by repeated bouts of stupidity ? Maybe we are fighting nature ? If so, it's time to give up. Nature always wins. Always. Never failed. Not once. And nature cares not a jot for humankind and all our works - even digital watches.

However, an 18 year old should have ample opportunities to vote over the course of their lives and affect the outcome of any decisions made earlier

Not Brexit though. It's the will of the people. Holy writ and all that.

I think it's a bit dangerous to argue about limiting the vote

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that. Just asking about whether there is any merit to an observations that not all votes affect the voter equally. It's not quite as airy-fairy as it may seem ... maybe BCF could comment, but it's hard to imagine being West German in the late 40s, 50s and 60s, having to carry the can for your forbears miscalculations ?

Not Brexit though. It's the will of the people. Holy writ and all that

Things change. In the mid 17th Century the King was beheaded. 12 years later the Monarchy was restored. I certainly can see the Brexit decision being reversed at some stage, when the wonderful trade deals don't materialise, and the economy doesn't make this miraculous recovery.

Well blow me down

Tony Tassell
@TonyTassell
The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after #Brexit than it had as an EU member - @FT scoop by @KatrinaManson @alexebarker @tanyapowley

amp.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

Pity that Open Skies stuff is only in the FT. People might get interested if the Mail started screaming and they couldn't have their flights to Disneyland.

"Pity that Open Skies stuff is only in the FT. People might get interested if the Mail started screaming and they couldn't have their flights to Disneyland."

It's getting ever closer to the time when they're going to have to, as travel agents won't be able to offer the holidays (as flight schedules for the coming year will have to be published soon) and insurance companies won't cover cancellations.

Why will people not change their minds?
^Because admitting they are fundamentally wrong is much too painful.

This article in the Economist about the classic book by Toby Young's dad explains it very well (and rather depressingly)
www.economist.com/news/britain/21736524-book-published-60-years-ago-predicted-most-tensions-tearing-contemporary-britain

Things change. In the mid 17th Century the King was beheaded. 12 years later the Monarchy was restored.

I long ago came to the conclusion that the key word in the historical period "English Civil War" is English. (And not just because it reveals an arrogantly Anglocentric view of history). It wasn't an angry hungry mob that overthrew the established system. It was a bunch of privileged landed gentry who were afraid of losing their privilege. We know this, because the said privileged landed gentry then got to (re)write history and paint themselves as having the moral right.

The English Civil war was between two cliques of history writers.
Most of the yeoman folk were too busy trying to stay alive.

The Waterside in the New Forest never took sides - because they did not know it was going on
says it all really

I studied the Civil War for A level, a long time ago! Our basic textbook was Christopher Hill's Century of Revolutions. His premise was that this was the emerging Middle class taking on the aristocracy, as far as I remember. I didn't find out until later that Hill was a Marxist and would have had a particular view probably not shared by others.

The English Civil war was between two cliques of history writers.

And the British Civil war ? The one which had battles in Ireland and Scotland ?

Just calling it "English" tells you who won.

When I studied it at school, it was just called "the Civil War" ...

From what I've learned, as a non-historian who reads, watches, and listens a lot, is that the civil was was an attempt for the side that had chosen wrongly during the reformation to try and reverse that loss. Using idiot-attracting soundbites about parliament and sovereignty ...

I was writing a year ago about the similarities between Brexit and the reformation ....

Showing my age ....

I read a book about the civil war last year and I'm afraid to say I saw an awful lot of similarities between leavers and parliamentarians (and this was a pro parliamentarian book - the cavalier siege of Birmingham (lasted one night) got three chapters of gory detail - Cromwell in Ireland (lasted a year) got a whopping page and a half!) . They wanted something different to what they had, though they all wanted something different and weren't entirely sure how to get it. So they tore the country apart - dragged it down to it's knees -and then not one of them were happy with what they got afterwards. Hence why we went back to monarchy in the end. All that pain for nothing.

I don't think it's arrogant to refer to the English civil war as the 'English' civil war...It was a war between the English parliament and the crown. Ireland had declared itself independent prior to the outbreak - so Irish soldiers on the cavalier side were part of the foreign mercenary contingent. And it was before the unification of England and Scotland (so does that mean the part that Scotland played is just regular war and not 'civil'?)...plus Scotland was having their own war between royalists and covenanters, then they arrested Charles I and handed him over to the roundheads...and then they went to war with Cromwell and crowned Charles II - their involvement was a bit more complex than the two sides of the war in England. The battle of Marston Moor et al really were 'English civil war' - two groups of Englishman fighting each other.
At most it should be referred to as the English and Welsh civil war.

But then the wars just before, including, and after the English civil war are referred to as the 'wars of the three kingdoms' - England, Ireland and Scotland - poor Wales still not getting a look in.
And yes - in English education it is largely called 'the civil' war - 'English' is used on that there interweb to distinguish it from all the other many civil wars that have broken out across the planet.

Too late now, but this programme was very interesting about the wider effects of the civil war.

Charles I was of course King of Scotland and Ireland in his own right.

Interestingly enough, the Scottish crown was mentioned during the IndyRef ...

I call it English because my other passport goes with the Confederate / Yankee one

And the British Civil war ? The one which had battles in Ireland and Scotland ?
Is called the war of the three Kingdoms. 'English Civil War' does not cover the battles outside of England- though there are obviously strong ties between them, as it was part of the same political background.
No such political entity as 'Britain' back in the 1640s - three separate kingdoms with the same King. So 'British civil war' would be inaccurate for the time - and inaccurate today as it still wouldn't cover Ireland!

I'm so pissed it's costing me not much shy of £500 to ensure the kids and I keep our FOM
Ffs
And why???
WHY???????