Questions for our British friends

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by palo5

I completely agree, but that's what almost none of us do. The last time the English did it was in 1649 and maybe 1688. The last time we did it was 1918. The last time the Americans did it was.... well, they never did it. The most you'll get from them is "we investigated ourselves, and found we're not guilty". Where did they get that from?

Having a revolution and completely destroying the old order is not actually taking leaders to account
That's what elections are for.
Revolutions often end up with an even bigger bunch of bastards in command.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Having a revolution and completely destroying the old order is not actually taking leaders to account
That's what elections are for.

I was thinking in a modern sense. What will they do with Kissinger, Bush & Blair, or even with Hillary?

Nothing, obviously

But they have different standards for Africans, Asians, and some east Europeans (Jugoslavs)

Do British people not see an illogical sequence here?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I completely agree, but that's what almost none of us do. The last time the English did it was in 1649 and maybe 1688. The last time we did it was 1918. The last time the Americans did it was.... well, they never did it. The most you'll get from them is "we investigated ourselves, and found we're not guilty". Where did they get that from?

Revolutions are nasty things and people often get killed in them, which is why we British don't go in for them much. BTW the Americans did it in 1776 and IMHO it was a dreadful mistake on their part; but I have never met an American who agrees with me.

Holding government to account doesn't always mean revolution. If you are living in a free society, then holding government to account is an organic and peaceful process.

We held government to account peacefully in June 2016 by voting to get rid of a political settlement which was deeply unpopular and which had been imposed on us without asking for our permission. To explain my own reasons for voting to leave the EU (a very hard decision for me because I tend to like what I know and am accustomed to and to dislike radical change) I cite the Five Questions of Tony Benn:

1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interests do you use it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. How do we get rid of you?

In the case of the EU the answer was that "there can be no democratic opposition to European treaties." The more I thought about that the more it worried me and in the end this is what tipped the scales; I voted to assert democratic opposition to European treaties which have been imposed on the British people without their say so.


No blood, no foul, no Revolution and no bloodshed: but we have peacefully and bloodlessly turned the world upside down and while this is something I naturally shy away from doing, I feel in my bones that this time we had to do it.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

In the case of the EU the answer was that "there can be no democratic opposition to European treaties."

Where does that come from?

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by palo5

Where does that come from?

Jean-Claude Juncker

There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties, one cannot exit the Euro without leaving the EU.
Original quote in French:
Il ne peut y avoir de choix démocratique contre les traités européens, on ne peut pas sortir de l'euro sans sortir de l'Union européenne.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Revolutions are nasty things and people often get killed in them, which is why we British don't go in for them much. BTW the Americans did it in 1776 and IMHO it was a dreadful mistake on their part; but I have never met an American who agrees with me.
.

Hey leave us alone. Because of our revolution against unjust taxes we now have umm uuumm well we don't speak funny anyway.

[Brecht]

Sometimes revolutions are necessary to bring forward a nation, society and even civilization. A revolution is a much bigger event than a change of government because it means a radical system change. Revolutions can be peaceful but in most cases they're not. The reason is very simple: revolutions are not bloody and nasty because the revolutionaries are violent and nasty people but because the guardians of the old order are never going to give up their power. Most modern democratic revolutions were faced with both internal and external enemies. Think of the French Revolution: it had to deal with the reactionary royalist and clerical forces at home and the entire European continent, whose monarchies united to crush the French.

The Russian revolution of 1918 faced a similar scenario. It's a miracle the Bolsheviks survived considering the fact that the entire world sought their destruction. They were victorious over their enemies but the price was high: millions of dead and the degeneration of the Soviet into an authoritarian bureaucracy. It all reminds you of the French Reign of Terror led by the Committee of Public Safety from 1793. But none of this delegitimizes the very essence of a revolution. It changed France forever and none of the subsequent regimes, bourgeois and royalist, could reverse the achievements of the revolution. Most importantly, the French have gained political consciousness. They were a nation and political force now. The revolution was defeated and the king reinstated but now he had to live and rule in fear which was proven once again with the Paris Commune in 1871. The revolution of 1848 should also be mentioned.

The UK is a civilized country and so are its people. But the lack of revolutionary experience left the British people passive and compliant. It's not much different in other European countries but most of them sent their kings, queens, earls and dukes into museums. Britain is no longer a monarchy in the old sense but the monarchy is still an important part of its politics and identity which is not exactly good for the culture and conscience of a nation because it keeps it spirit dull.

I think palo5 uses the term Ango in reference to the Anglo-Saxon cultural world. But I agree, it's better to talk about the British, Americans etc. instead of "Anglos". I'm only saying that palo5 didn't mean to insult anyone.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Hey leave us alone. Because of our revolution against unjust taxes we now have umm uuumm well we don't speak funny anyway.

The taxes may have seemed unjust but they were the result of wishing the American colonies to foot the bill for their defence instead of the cost being met by London.Taxes actually rose after Independence because there were no more subsidies.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by knobby109

The taxes may have seemed unjust but they were the result of wishing the American colonies to foot the bill for their defence instead of the cost being met by London.

Sounds like the NATO bill issue in reverse.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Sometimes revolutions are necessary to bring forward a nation, society and even civilization. A revolution is a much bigger event than a change of government because it means a radical system change. Revolutions can be peaceful but in most cases they're not. The reason is very simple: revolutions are not bloody and nasty because the revolutionaries are violent and nasty people but because the guardians of the old order are never going to give up their power. Most modern democratic revolutions were faced with both internal and external enemies. Think of the French Revolution: it had to deal with the reactionary royalist and clerical forces at home and the entire European continent, whose monarchies united to crush the French.

The Russian revolution of 1918 faced a similar scenario. It's a miracle the Bolsheviks survived considering the fact that the entire world sought their destruction. They were victorious over their enemies but the price was high: millions of dead and the degeneration of the Soviet into an authoritarian bureaucracy. It all reminds you of the French Reign of Terror led by the Committee of Public Safety from 1793. But none of this delegitimizes the very essence of a revolution. It changed France forever and none of the subsequent regimes, bourgeois and royalist, could reverse the achievements of the revolution. Most importantly, the French have gained political consciousness. They were a nation and political force now. The revolution was defeated and the king reinstated but now he had to live and rule in fear which was proven once again with the Paris Commune in 1871. The revolution of 1848 should also be mentioned.

The UK is a civilized country and so are its people. But the lack of revolutionary experience left the British people passive and compliant. It's not much different in other European countries but most of them sent their kings, queens, earls and dukes into museums. Britain is no longer a monarchy in the old sense but the monarchy is still an important part of its politics and identity which is not exactly good for the culture and conscience of a nation because it keeps it spirit dull.

I agree with most of the reasoning in this comment Brecht, but you argue that our spirit is dull [a bad thing] whereas I would argue that our passions are kept in check [a good thing].

When Queen Victoria passed away on 22 January 1901, she was arguably the most well loved and highly regarded monarch we have ever had: of the rest, only King George VI and his daughter, our present Queen, come anywhere near. Most of our kings have been ne'er do wells and playboys and those who weren't have usually meddled in government much more than a constitutional monarch should.

What is significant about Queen Victoria was not how popular she was, but rather the fact that, when she died, she exercised far far less real power in the land than her uncle, King William IV when he passed away in 1837. Through various reforms of the franchise and of the relative powers of Parliament vis a vis the Crown, the country had become recognisably the country it now is. Of course there was more to do: enfranchisement of women; reduction of the powers of the hereditary House of Lords; legal protection for trade unions and for workers rights; old age pensions; a national health service etc. etc. The strength of our arrangements was that these things were possible and could be achieved bloodlessly by political debate and the democratic process.

Our constitution is not written down and thank God it is not. It can be exactly what we think it should be and for government to rule with the support and consent of the people that is a vital necessity. The main safeguard of the rights of minorities and of the right to freedom of the individual is our tolerance and on our innate sense of decency and fair play. We also have an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which are important checks on the natural despotism of government.

In order to function, government requires the obedience and respect of the governed, and for this to be possible, the government has to answerable to the people just as the people have to be answerable to the government:

Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.
~ The Gospel According to Saint Luke: Chapter Seven, Verses 6 to 10.

In general terms it is our duty as citizens to sustain the authority of the nation state but in return the nation state owes a sworn and solemn duty to us, who are the citizens it exists to defend and to care for. Revolutions happen when the compact between the state and the citizens has irretrievably failed. The last time this happened in Britain was in 1919, when the people of what is now the Republic of Ireland withdrew their consent and could only be made to submit to Westminster rule by using brute force to a Cromwellian extreme, and in 1919 the willingness to go those lengths was no longer there in the rest of the UK, not even in Winston Churchill. Once it became a full blooded shooting war, and it was clear that the will of the people as a whole was to leave the United Kingdom, it was inevitable that the British would accept the need and leave Ireland.

If the people of Scotland ever vote to leave us, we will not shed blood to stop them from leaving because our system depends on willingness and mutual respect and consent, and where these have gone, our compact is dissolved.

I have quoted Chief Ten Bears rather a lot lately, but he has one of the best lines I ever heard in a film, a line which really succinctly explains the importance of mutual consent in human relationships at every level.

Chief Ten Bears: It is sad that governments are chiefed by the double-tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see; and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The word of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life.
Josey Wales: I reckon so.