Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).
A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it.
If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
Not exactly. If there's enforcement, it will be done by other actors in the system will cooperate to enforce those "customs and principles." There's no appealing to some higher authority for enforcement (and especially not criminal law, which would be a lower authority).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
It makes the constitution some abstract thing, rather than a very factual set of rules, which you want the constitution to be.
Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down?
North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?
To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc.
Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
What does ‘right to bear arms’ precisely means? Nobody knows.
> Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
There are millions of different mental interpretations of the US written constitution.
Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best.
I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly.
But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
> a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated
Sounds like you’re thinking of law or code rather than a constitution?
Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
"What happened before" in the UK has for thousands of years favoured (to put it mildly) the incumbent powers-that-be.
Seems like a convenient way to perpetuate inequality.
I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is.
Why does writing it down make it more equal?
The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change.
You suggest:
> The UK constitution is based on precedence.
It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents.
It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated.
Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt.
Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here).
Why not write it down?
Imagine running a project like this.
Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?"
Boss: "We've always used MATLAB."
Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?"
Dev gets bundled into a police van
Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
And as has been said a few times - precedence and literally ‘written down’ are not mutually exclusive - you’re after a red herring by obsessing on the ‘unwritten’ part.
Most legal systems use precedence - the US uses judicial precedence to interpret the constitution - because the written one isn’t usable without it!
More correctly, I believe 'unwritten' is not accurate, since as you point out precedent can be set e.g. in the courts or parliament, and these precendents are written in judgements and Acts. So a more accurate term would be uncodified rather than unwritten, meaning there is no single constitution but an ever-changing collection of precedents. (This isn't to accuse you of inaccuracy - everyone in this thread has used the same inaccurate terms, including me.)
There are pros and cons to a codified constitution. We see some cons in the USA, where the Constitution has become sacred, and changes to it are extremely difficult to achieve. That's a shame, and an artefact of its importance within the partisan politics of the USA. Most other nations have a codified constitution and don't seem to have this issue - at least, not to such a paralysing degree.
Another con is so-called wiki-constitutionalism [0] i.e. the attrition of the utility of the constitution by continually amending it to strengthen and expand the role of government.
One pro of a codified constitution would be to clarify the customs surrounding existing precendents, especially the consequences attendent with flouting them. See proroguement [1]
> > "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
> Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
My larger point was about admitting the possibility of change. If an authority figure says "we do X because we've always done it" then we need a way to challenge that. Personally, I'd prefer that to be written and codified, and open to change. You're quite right to point out that legal precedent provides a way to do this in law, and democracy ostensibly enables that. The thread was about protestors being arrested at ceremonial events; my concern was about silencing the questioning of the status quo and authority, and the deferential manner in which public representatives and protectors have fallen in line. Protest is central to change. Arresting protestors at the recent events is a bad look - it smacks of protecting incumbent power. Quelling protest is something that has historically been done on the say-so of authority figures. I'd prefer that to be consigned to the past.
My smaller (?) point was about monarchic ceremony. Personally I find it extremely distasteful for people [2] in archaic uniform to march into cities across the Commonwealth at the behest of tradition. It's not mere "cosplay" (as someone else here described it), it's emblematic of incumbent power, and a harking back to more authoritarian times.
As for my 'obsessing', I didn't introduce the 'written down' bit, and it feels to me that you're the one obsessing over the status quo. Perhaps we're looking past each other. I see no reason to continue with a non-codified constitution. Apparently you do. We've tried to explain to each other, but clearly we're not getting through. Oh well, we tried!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-constitutionalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr...
[2] Including representatives of state, church, and military throughout the Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_accession_of_C...
(Edited for formatting and clarity.)
The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.
I think part of it is that culturally the British monarchy is the most relevant in the English speaking world, so it’s just considered a bigger deal than if the Swedish monarch died. It gets TV time even in other countries. But yes, it does also expose a huge amount of excess and brings to light a lot of lesser known aspects of the monarchy.
Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native Americans? Will individual tribes hand land back over to the tribes to originally inherited it before historical conquests? Etc. It's a more complex issue than first appears with history so long that it's almost impossible to track who is owed what.
Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles...
Whether that's fair or not/applicable in the modern world is totally a discussion to be had by the public. Though perhaps the monarchy being so up-front and visible contributes to this.
Meanwhile companies sit in Ireland/Malta/Switzerland/etc and go on tax dodge binges and the public don't bat an eye. People seem to have a very short memory/modern world is so complicated we have to resort to apathy to handle it; remember the Panama papers? Was anything _really_ done about those?
Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.
If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.
For starters :)
The main thing you seem to criticise is the ritual itself, which to me seems pretty normal, albeit grandiose.
When there is ambiguity in who holds power, there is conflict, instability, bloodshed, etc. This is why countries used to throw enormous festivals celebrating the birth of a monarch's first-born son — it means the succession plan has become entirely unambiguous, and stability has been ensured for years to come.
The public proclamations of the accession of Charles to King have included representatives of the state, military, police, and church. They have been made in public spaces. The mildest of protestations have resulted in arrests (albeit very few, and by seemingly confused police officers).
For me, the issues here are around obeisance and imposition. Apparently it's fine and "normal" for some elite [1] class of people to march into public spaces and make declarations that cannot be challenged.
The ornate outfits and ceremony are there to indicate a few things, the most obvious being that you are not one of them. In the strange post-modern Western world, pompous ceremonies come across as quaint and fun, another one of those bizarre things that the upper classes apparently get up to, silly them, aren't they funny hahaha. But it's not quaint, it's a public declaration that a tiny number of the ultra-priveleged still call the shots.
Bizarrely it seems that we lap it up. The message is almost subliminal now: you're there and we're here, and that's the way it's going to stay.
[1] I know the word elite is a dog-whistle but have you seen these dudes?? A more florid flaunting of elitism is hard to imagine.
If you dislike monarchies because of their power transition methods, I'd love to hear that reasoning.
I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago.
Honestly, be grateful. I watch parliament for some sort of fucked up cathartic release because even the worst of your MPs have a base moral compass that would dwarf almost anyone in the US government. Just the fact that Johnson's party initiated the no-confidence is incredible, I can't imagine that happening in the US - 15% of a party turning against their party representative? Impossible here.
If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.
is it though? The UK isn't the only country that has removed its leader in a no-confidence vote. Republics do it regularly just fine. The relationship to the monarchy you have to explain to me, British people don't receive their moral compass from the crown, although the barrage of Netflix shows on that family may create that image in the mind of people who romanticize Britain.
That said, I think you've misunderstood my post entirely.
a) If you think this system is just now creaking into life, I frankly don't know how. Again, major news very recently with Black Rod stomping in and various MPs protesting.
b) It's not that big of a deal relatively speaking. The monarchy is very clearly increasingly irrelevant, as it has been for some time. Obviously abolish that shit, but the initial post is a bit dramatic.
c) You should compare parliament to cspan sometime - our illiterate representatives don't even bother to show up.
Obviously the UK has plenty of issues, it's an interesting system to watch. Removing the monarchy might be a good step forward, obviously you should all do that. But it's not some 'creeking' 'deep state' system, it's very front and center, and it's really not your biggest problem by a longshot.
The older I get, the more I agree.
Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. Bureaucracy still remains the largest and still a unelected branch of the government. You still can't interfere with anything to do with Armed Forces and Judiciary, and they too are unelected. Only thing the public got was a way to elect the (prime-)minister(s). But even the merits of this are up for a debate, Democracy doesn't work well if your masses are not empowered to make good decisions, or they have all the empowerment or they just can't make right decisions for themselves.
Ask yourself this, why would anybody want to be elected? To serve the people? People do anything because its personally profitable to them, that begs the question, do they even have your best interests in their decisions and work?
Regardless a huge range of decisions remain outside the control and scope of the common masses.
Also beyond all this, these are political definitions, just like boundaries they expand and contract every century or so, this is with any country. So you really have to ask at the end of the day, what are you fighting for?
Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy?
"what are you fighting for"
Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
>>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is.
The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society.
"The monarchy just maintains a veto"
Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable.
There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
All the wealth the royal family hordes could help with that. Those "Royal" palaces could be converted to museums or hotels and earn money instead of costing money.
To be a monarchist is to accept the claim of inherent superiority by self-professed "Royalty".
Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.
To be frank, it seems the onus is on you to explain your position. My explanation here and in other comments seems fairly clear: I find bald-faced elitism supported by the state, church, government and opposition, police, and media to be worrying. You may say that's just my "opinion", but I have explained my position.
But I agree with your sentiment.
People's excuse for being lazy illiterates online is, "FU grammer nazi its only online so hu carez"
EVERYONE should care. People learn by READING. And where does most reading take place now, sadly? ONLINE. So people propagating ignorance and lashing out against those who promote literacy ARE the problem.
It's sad to see that on a site like this. It indicates decline.
You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
Gotta keep those plebs in their place right.
However I could be misinterpreting the comment.
"The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her?
"Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power!
The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements."
This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
> it's not like the king of england has any real power
This is a widely-held belief.
The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment.
Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly.
Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.
> You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft.
The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's an accomplishment of inherited power backed by incumbent powers-that-be.
Unless you mean the ceremonial aspects are "state craft"? In which case I'd say they're certainly large, complex, and dangerous (terrorist risks etc), but more administration than state craft.
> This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean resistance against elected representatives? It certainly is remarkable. It's not exactly modern, though, is it?
> Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
Elizabeth hung on until death. Hard to retain power beyond that (although many have tried). It was discussed ad nauseam that she could have stepped down long ago, that the monarchy could have reformed further. I guess reframing the question you quote, and asking Elizabeth or Charles, it might become "will you consider transitioning all your inherited authority to more modern, democratic processes?" But - like Trump, only to a far greater extent - there are thousands of people whose livelihoods and reputations derive from working with the incumbent powers.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
"Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament."
Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
"Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
Except the monarch is a billionaire with power over even more money and public opinion and elected representatives are rightfully afraid of the monarchy's well funded and well oiled propaganda machine being turned against them.
Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
"We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement.
"Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy.
"But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
[0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
"Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A parliamentary Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options."
I'm not a royalist or British but I would be more concerned about the financial subsidy and the ruling party's deference to the monarchy than the theoretical possibility of them witholding consent. It isn't much of a negotiation if one side can immediately win though right? The prime minister can just threaten to go public that he can't obtain consent and the monarch has to back down immediately.
But prison might not be in it for him, that I agree. Or some very special prison.
If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
It's peanuts in the scheme of things. The royal family aren't even that rich amongst the billion class in the US.
yes
> government can magic up 150 billion
that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
It is a tremendous amount indeed, but i don't know why you think it's only pensioners and skiers who would benefit from not having to choose between food and energy.
It is important to distinguish the "Crown" (essentially the monarchy-as-government) and the queens' family and hangers-on...
You get used to falling in line with whatever going on, cause you're not getting to the traffic light before the corner-shop, if you fight it.
It's not "deep state" in the UK, it's the peak of the class system (or anglican faith). People aspire to go up these ranks, and having the royal family guide it all, directly or as a counterbalance.
It's no less or more weird than people stopping to watch the new Pope get elected or George Clooney and Julia Roberts try and go for a quite coffee on some sleepy sunday morning, just to be surrounded by people who should have better things to do than gawp at hollywood stars.
Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless centuries of history embedded into almost every location.
If this wasn't the case then I wouldn't have learnt so much as to why my life in New Zealand was so different to my one here.
But who knows, maybe people here really are ready to forgo all that, but from what I have seen so far I don't think so. Hell even the religious differences (NZ, it's not a huge part of our lives) are stark.
Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m...
Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.
I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".
Not sure what the problem is with a decidedly popular multi century tradition? I'm okay with this even if you don't like it. The British people could always vote the them out if they actually wanted to.
As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some sort of referendum. Unlikely for a long time :) And as you point out, not currently likely to be popular.
As for what's wrong with an unelected elite family of multi-millionaires who are protected by the police, military, church, and all other state machinery... plenty has been written elsewhere :)
It seems odd to me that the monarchy could be viewed as merely "tradition", and a benign one at that. I guess this view has been aided by the way Elizabeth kept a steady hand on the wheel and expressed only the most anodyne opinions in public. I confess I am intrigued to see how Charles manages.
UK is understandable. Why other countries, even supposedly "hostile" nations, constantly, year after year shove this British royal crap down our throat (and we barely ever hear about other so-called royal families but they do exist) is an interesting question. "People want it" is the usual excuse like advertising is the usual pretext/excuse for surveillance capitalism. And who are these "people" who are clamoring to know every tiny details of this not so noble family? The lumpen masses? The media usually doesn't give an F about what they "want", except on this topic. [They comprehensively saturate the information space, from highbrow journals all the way to tabloid sheets. There is no other topic like this.] Very interesting.
For years now I have trained my eyes to immediately look away from any headline that mentions a Brit royal family member. They are like the Kardashians. A completely 'who cares and why should I care' informational nuisance.
Get outside and spend some time in nature why don't you?
As for what I expect to happen, as I've said elsewhere here: a conversation, and not unquestioning deferential acceptance of centuries-old privilege.
The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized.
You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.
Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.
As for your specific points, are you being facetious? They seem deliberately outrageous, but... oh dear...
The UK military routinely recruits minors: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html
The Opium Wars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
Prince beat dogs (sorry, couldn't find anything about kicking them): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-sco...
The one and only time I visited London I just happened to wander by Buckingham Palace on the opening day of Parliament, so all the royals were coming out.
The part that floored me was all the pop and show of the uniforms, bayonets and those massive black fluffy hat things with the chin strap.
I've never been to the UK or Russia before, but I felt 100% like I was watching a Russian show of pop and flair, not a British one.
It dawned on me then that in many ways, they're indistinguishable.
Seriously. I am not taking sides here. I have visited the UK as a tourist and on business a zillion times over the last four decades. And yet, I am not qualified to voice opinion as to the realities of living there. From the outside, as someone visiting from the US, for lack of a better term, it feels like home. Comfortable. Orderly. A place where anyone can live and, should they be inclined to, excel.
I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere. It isn't like the world is closed to relocation. It happens all the time. My own family emigrated to the US when I was almost a baby precisely for this reason. My grandparents fled from genocide, that's more of a forced migration.
The point is: If it is so bad. If it is revolting. Find your paradise, sell your possessions, book a flight and leave.
The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics (which is a revolting thought pretty much anywhere in the world) or violence (which some seem to think is a way to make things better, which is as weird as can be).
I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all. As the son of immigrants who decided "enough is enough", I am grateful for the very hard decision my parents made.
It is because I understand this that I am perplexed by people who hate where they live and choose to stick around living in misery. Relinquishing your life to a sunk costs fallacy scenario isn't a formula for success. Go find your paradise. The world is a very large blue marble with lots of wonderful places you can call home and be happy.
Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and family for a less familiar setting. By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
People who read comments and make-up shit the post didn't actually say. At all.
I was expressing a general idea; one that was not at all addressed at the OP. Just a thought, inspired by reading a comment. I even went out of my way to clarify this much with:
"I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all."
It was about that and a lot more if anyone bothered to engage with me rather than the opposite. There's much depth in the concept. I'll discuss this at the end of this comment.
To address @opportune's post specifically:
> people who argue with others preferences on the internet
I was not arguing with anyone. That was made abundantly clear.
It was not an attack aimed at the OP.
It was not critical of the OP.
In fact, the example I give is:
"I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere."
The OP is in the UK. I don't even suggest the OP should move out of the UK, at all. Why this need to fabricate a story where one does not exist?
> I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate.
Show me where I said I hated any post on this entire thread.
You can't. Because that's a fantasy.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
Another fantasy.
In fact, I very much said that: "The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics".
The fact that politics is revolting (is anyone going to argue with that?) does not mean one cannot seek change through voting, at all.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
These things are completely unrelated.
I'll show you just how unrelated they are: A good friend of mine is a UK citizen who lived in the US for many decades, became a US citizen, didn't like the direction the country was on and moved his entire family to New Zealand.
He votes on every single US election, because he is a US citizen.
You can move elsewhere and still engage in voting to affect change. You can do that while enjoying a different environment.
Over the decades I have met lots of people who, for a variety of reasons, are miserable where they live. Not just in the US. Without fail, those who go-on to have a happy life are those who make the decision to change their circumstances.
For example, the aforementioned UK citizen ending-up in New Zealand after decades of living in the US. I know US citizens who did the same and moved to Costa Rica. Another family left Australia for Singapore. Ecuador for Los Angeles. Argentina for Spain. Peru for Miami. Various spots in the Middle East for the US, Europe and Latin America. I know loads of people who left California for Arizona (sometimes you don't have to go another country). Etc.
It is false to say people can't move due to financial or family links. Sure, it's hard, yet the history of immigrants tells a very different story. My parents left everything behind --parents, siblings, friends, profession, etc.-- to move to the US. They came with nothing and barely spoke the language. And yet, they managed, lived a happy life and made something of themselves. Yes, it's hard. No, it is not impossible.
Philosophically speaking, this is about an expression of freedom like not other.
This applies to jobs as well. How many people do you know who are miserable at work and never do a thing about it? I have known more than a few over the decades. They have nothing good to say about their company, and yet, endure misery for years.
Denying your contribution to a society or business is probably the most powerful expression of freedom one can possibly exercise.
If a society or company isn't serving you, why continue to contribute in any way? Go become a part of one whos values you share. The first entity loses one of the most valuable assets anyone can have; people interested in being a part of it in various ways.
My post was about freedom and the most powerful way to express it.
Not to go too far, just a couple of weeks ago I fired one of our clients. This account was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to us. And yet, I had to vote with my feet. This client was miserable to work with. Nobody at the office enjoyed working with them. So, we walked. Was it hard? Of course. Impossible? Nope. Done deal. We feel 100% better about our work and will soon have a better client who will likely appreciate our contribution to their mission. And, in turn, we are going to feel great about working with them.
You (plural, not addressing anyone in particular) might want to consider the idea that a better life could exist elsewhere. There is no need to suffer through decades of grief. You are free. And, yes, this means you are free to vote with your feet. Their loss, not yours.
Don't put-up with shit you don't want to live with, at work or where you happen to live.
You don't have to.
You are free.
I suspect every right and freedom each of us enjoy in our respective countries is the result of people unhappy with their country seeking to better it. In the UK we even had a civil war over the monarchy centuries ago! Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Also it completely ignores that people have family, dependents, friends, history that they may not wish to abandon.
For some additional context, in the UK, "why don't you leave" is a particularly toxic argument often directed exclusively at ethnic minorities - including those who were born here, or are eg third generation Brits. You'll typically find it paired with calls to "go back where you came from".
You have a overly-romanticised vision of the UK based on a few visits, which I'm afraid doesn't quite match the reality.
So perhaps dial it in?
Of course. I say this much. Over a dozen visits, yet mostly as a tourist and one business (which means you don't get to see anything because you are in meetings and conferences all the time).
That's the nature of tourism, right? It's the fantasy of where we visit vs. the reality of it.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the philosophical core of my comment is more about freedom than anything else. It isn't aimed at the UK at all. In fact, the example I gave is about the US.
We can apply this to working a job or company one dislikes. The highest expression of freedom is to leave and find a job one might enjoy and a company that appreciates what one might contribute.
It's about freedom. One can choose to stay and endure, hoping things change. That, too, is freedom.
> Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Matters of history at that level are far more complex than the idea of mere peasants like us seeking a better life and better outcomes by choosing the playing field --whether that means career, employer or where we live.
As I mentioned in another comment, as you get older you tend to move away from complexity and stress in your life. When one it in their 20's it is easy to think about being a revolutionary. Later in life those ideas tend to lose their shine very quickly. The only people who live in that kind of mayhem are, for the most part, the politicians who get to directly benefit from driving masses of young people into resonance with ideology and movements that benefit them --often at the expense of everyone else.
BTW, thanks for the insight into "why don't you leave" in the UK. I think that is somewhat universal. I know there are idiots in the US who use that kind of language. I hope it is obvious that isn't what I was saying or implying at all.
I am talking about exercising the freedom to choose who will benefit from your contributions to society or your work. This isn't about nations. There are places in the US I would not live in because I know I would be miserable. A simple example, I am an atheist. I don't think I would be happy in some of the more intensely religious areas of this country. I don't have a problem with those who are religious, just not my thing and I prefer not to have it in my face all day, every day.
It's about freedom.
Hate is a very strong word. What about people who love the place they live in, but have a few things which they would like to chane?
It is perfectly conceivable that someone would love their life in the UK yet thinks that there should be no exceptions written into the law about the business of a particular family.
Then they don't hate where they live. Right?
You are right, it is a matter of degrees. That's why I chose a strong word. If someone has reached that level, they can exist in anguish or choose to go elsewhere.
As I mentioned in other comments, this applies to a job one might hate just as well.
In the end it is about freedom.
You're still emotionally attached to a few people around you, who might not be so eager to migrate. Migration is often messy, and incurs on financial, temporal, and emotional costs. Adaptation itself also incurs on the same costs, as you learn that your native land's "common sense" is "crazy talk" in your new land and vice versa. There's a real risk that the locals of your new place actually hate you.
And nothing prevents you from hating that new place too, and if you hate it as much as your older place you spent a lot of your money, time, and emotions on nothing. You know that you have incomplete information about the new place. No paradise survives experience.
Furthermore: people are fairly verbose on what they hate, and often their complains about a specific aspect of that place might give you an impression that they hate everything there, or at least hate it enough to be better off elsewhere.
I don't. My parent did it with nearly nothing. So did my grandparents before them. It isn't easy. Yet it is not impossible.
> why should they leave rather than fight hard for change?
It's a matter of degrees, right? I know people who hate the US to the bone and yet, they still live here. That's the kind of thing I don't understand. And, in the case of the couple of people I have in mind, money isn't problem at all.
Also, if you notice, I did mention the option to stay and fight for change is still there.
The question is one of what someone might want to have their life focus be about. I have to tell you that as you get older you tend to appreciate the idea of moving towards less drama and complexity in life. Why live life in a fever of anguish and dissatisfaction when other options might exist.
Also note that, philosophically speaking, my comment extends to situations related to working at a job or for a company one might not enjoy. One can stay and fight for change or just go. It's one of the most powerful expressions of freedom I can think of. They lose. You win. And someone (a nation or company) who might appreciate what you have to offer benefits from your decision.
In the end, it's about being free.
Exactly how feasible do you think that suggestion is? What’s your guess on the budget you’d need for legal fees alone? (Using EU freedom of movement laws is cheating.)
My grandparents emigrated with absolutely nothing to their names. My parents emigrated US with very little. It isn't easy. At all. It also isn't impossible.
Part of doing this is being really loud and annoying about problems
> under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
I just find it immature. I've got better things to do that either praise or disdainfully scorn at the monarchy. Exactly, who cares! On internet points, ufff... I see the irony already.
The problem here is that none of us can see the future. We can't know if democracy is a "blip". Let's come back in oooh another 10,000 years and see.
There is literally no evidence for this.
Humans come with built-in abilities to establish small ad-hoc social structures. You'd probably have some members of the community that were generally charismatic or bright (or particularly good at violence) who'd generally tend to get their way, but it is a complex web of social pressures.
I mean, just think of your friends -- you've probably got somebody who is broadly the "ideas guy" or kind of a natural leader, but they don't just automatically over-rule everybody.
Although "proof by Civ" is incontrovertible, of course.
If I am right, and you know it, then you are arguing in bad faith attempting to derail the convo or just troll.
If I am right and you don't know it, and arguing in good faith, then I think the exercise of supporting your claim would be good for you. You might be surprised.
So: do you have a link to a "real survey" of the type you mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_eco...
> Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[17] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule.[18][19] For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.
> Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.
Anyway, IMO the null hypothesis should be that small humans tribes in nature act like large extended families or groups of friends and acquaintances -- generally friendly, collaborative, and driven by a consensus of stakeholders interested in a given problem. With less ability to horde wealth, you'll get shallower power structures -- more need to keep everyone broadly happy (or at least convinced that they are better off working with you).
Nobody owes you a refutation of your vibes-based nonsense historical theories.
Personally I've found it borderline sickening.
If there was a curtain that could have slipped, we all knew what would be behind it: a bunch of cherry-nosed coffin-dodgers with old-school-tie chums ensconced in the machinery of state, parliament, the military, whatever.
Sure. Fine. Yadda yadda, blah blah. The "deep state" dancing hand-in-hand with the old school elites. Yuck. Disgusting but hardly a clear and present danger.
But to see this machinery spring rustily, creakily into action has been truly eye-opening. Hitherto unknown people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. And this has been broadcast 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. Elected representatives from all political parties have fallen into line.
It is not okay to ritualistically march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country, under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
And yet, that's what has happened. And it keeps happening.
It's bizarre in the extreme, and we really should not be okay with this.