UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Purgatio]

Reading back the last few pages, I have to say, I'm genuinely surprised that, save for one or two posts, there isn't more discussion and debate on here about the unprecedented step of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to "step back" from their essential royal duties (and their upcoming crisis meeting with Her Majesty), in blatant and flagrant violation of royal protocol and their essential responsibilities. Akin to the abdication crisis, this latest radical step, portending a most unnecessary constitutional crisis, evinces a very troubling disrespect on their part for Her Majesty's position, and is likely to undermine the prestige and institution of the British royal family by undercutting all the roles, responsibilities, and functions that come attached with being members of 'the Firm'.

Because we know it's being played up by the press to keep our attention off of things.

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

[Ifreann]

Not many people give a flying fuck.

A senior royal acting in open defiance of the Sovereign and dereliction of royal duty should be important to anyone who cares about the prestige and respect of the British royal family.

Exactly. Not many people.

The Royal Family, or 'the Firm', engages in more than 2,000 official royal engagements every year and many other unofficial ones, this is how the royal family remains relevant and prominent within British high society and within British public life and the charitable and cultural sectors, it ensures that respect for the monarchy remains high amongst the British public and the royal family discharges its duties and responsibilities to the nation, necessary to ensure the Sovereign and the senior royals continue to embody the heritage and legacy of the British nation. All the senior royals have to cooperate and work together to ensure those functions are efficaciously discharged, and when a senior royal unilaterally decides to forgo those responsibilities, it selfishly throws the remaining burden onto the other senior royals, it blatantly disrespects the Sovereign and undermines Her Majesty's prestige and respect, and disgraces his title as the Duke of Sussex and Earl of Dumbarton.

Yes, the royals have to work constantly to convince the British public not to fire them all and fund the NHS instead. Rather says something, doesn't it?

[Purgatio]

I'm not sure how exactly the sixth in line to the throne retiring from public life is somehow a constitutional crisis on par with Eddie's abdication either.

I have to agree with this. Other than allowing the tabloids to use the family as a live action soap opera, why is this particularly important? And the idea that it is a severe as a crisis that almost caused the commonwealth system to collapse (back when it still was important) is silly.

The idea that the abdication crisis could destroy the Commonwealth is largely the product of the media hyperbole at the time, the two crises have a lot of similarities, in particular both of them involve prominent members of the British royal family acting in flagrant disrespect and dereliction for royal duties and responsibilities, in a fashion that undermined public respect and confidence in the monarchy, and both crises had at least some connection to that member's marriage and spouse. Of course the abdication crisis is worse simply because the senior royal acting in dereliction of his royal duty was the Sovereign himself rather than merely another senior royal, but the underlying principle is the same, a member of "the Firm" refusing to discharge the functions, duties, and responsibilities attendant to their social position and role.

[Hirota]

Not many people give a flying fuck.

I don't know what to think.

Yesterday I couldn’t give a toss about the whole thing, then, when I woke up this morning, I couldn’t give a shit. Tomorrow I won't give a fuck.

Its confusing and nobody knows what to think.

[Philjia]

Right, so the final list of Labour leadership contenders is in. We've got:
- Keir Starmer - The anti factionalist soft left candidate. Supported second referendum but has now reneged on that after the election. Supported by Unison, the largest trade union. Capable in the media. An all round solid choice, so is unsurprisingly widely predicted to win.

- Rebecca Long Bailey - The Corbynite. Likely to get some union backing, but will struggle without any of the big hitters. A high risk choice, given what Corbyn ultimately achieved.

- Lisa Nandy - The anti Corbyn soft left candidate. Quite localist. Tipped to possibly recieve GMB's endorsement. Good at social media.

- Jess Phillips - Blairite. Abrasive personality. Doesn't like trans people or sex workers. Unlikely to get far.

- Emily Thornberry - Bit of a nonentity. Might be a Blairite? Possibly somewhat elitist.

The candidates for deputy leader are:
- Angela Rayner - Soft left. Wants a National Education Service to run education more like the NHS. (Operating the assumption that the NHS would be run well under Labour)

- Ian Murray - Last of the Scottish Labour MPs. Soft Left to Blairite, probably.

- Dawn Butler - Corbynite. The only black candidate. Past behaviour suggests she might be a bit of a media liability.

- Rosena Allin-Khan - Wants a "Ministry of Fabulosity", which as far as I can tell is DOSAC from The Thick of It. The only Asian candidate. Mad as a box of frogs.

- Richard Burgon - Corbynite. Lawyer. Metalhead. Probably a communist.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because we know it's being played up by the press to keep our attention off of things.

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

That framing of this particular dispute ignores that it was the press that provoked this outcome through their continued toxicity. It's like we've found out Grenfell burned down and you're up in arms over how one of the fireman wasn't wearing his helmet properly and decide to frame the entire story around that, with the rest just fading into the background.

He wouldn't be wearing the helmet improperly if there wasn't, you know. A fire. Caused by the right wing and their politics.

Same here. Harry did an oopsie daisy. But he wasn't the instigator of this mess. That was the pedophile infiltrated, phone hacking, psychological warfare deploying personal army of Rupert Murdoch.

You can't claim to care about our image and our traditions and not see the media as the biggest problem here. This will be the second royal in as many generations they've chased away.

[The New California Republic]

[...] 'the Firm'. [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

[...] Boss of the Firm, the Sovereign herself [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

Please stop that. It's just cringe.

[Andsed]

Because we know it's being played up by the press to keep our attention off of things.

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

Why should we care about the “prestige and respect” of the royal family though? It really does not effect us.

[Purgatio]

Question: This whole Harry and Meghan thing, is anyone calling it Rexit? It's very intuitive, but I haven't seen the word in any headlines.

(Rexit = Royal Exit. And rex is the Latin word for king so it works on multiple levels)

Megxit i'm afraid.

Also;

Prince Harry: 'I will not be bullied into playing a game that killed my mum'

Straight to the face of a reporter.

Oof.

Yes, because we all know the announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they will be 'stepping back' from their royal duties served to reduce media coverage and public interest in the two of them. Oh look, here are some examples of that reduced attention from the paparazzi (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-prince-harry-canadian-billionaire-mansion, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/world/canada/harry-meghan-royal-family.html, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prince-harry-meghan-quit-royal-family-because-they-want-have-ncna1113651, https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-asking-disney-ceo-meghan-markle-voiceover-work/, to name but a few)

Strange way to attempt to avoid the fate that befell the Princess of Wales, surely, which was brought on by excessive attention and fixation of the British press and paparazzi

[Vassenor]

Because we know it's being played up by the press to keep our attention off of things.

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

And what are the constitutional ramifications of someone almost certain to never take the throne choosing to retire from public life?

[Ostroeuropa]

Megxit i'm afraid.

Also;

Prince Harry: 'I will not be bullied into playing a game that killed my mum'

Straight to the face of a reporter.

Oof.

Yes, because we all know the announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they will be 'stepping back' from their royal duties served to reduce media coverage and public interest in the two of them. Oh look, here are some examples of that reduced attention from the paparazzi (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-prince-harry-canadian-billionaire-mansion, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/world/canada/harry-meghan-royal-family.html, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prince-harry-meghan-quit-royal-family-because-they-want-have-ncna1113651, https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-asking-disney-ceo-meghan-markle-voiceover-work/, to name but a few)

Strange way to attempt to avoid the fate that befell the Princess of Wales, surely, which was brought on by excessive attention and fixation of the British press and paparazzi

I think they're aiming to reduce it in the long term even if it intensifies for a while. You can't really blame the victim if someone says;

"I'm quitting my job because you keep harassing me" and then that person escalates their harassment.

I guess you'd decide "Well obviously that can't be why they quit then, because the harassment got worse. They must be lying.".

[Purgatio]

[...] 'the Firm'. [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

[...] Boss of the Firm, the Sovereign herself [...]

[...] "the Firm" [...]

Please stop that. It's just cringe.

That's just the normal phrase for the British royal family, it even appeared in a line in The King's Speech, specifically its a phrase that came from Prince Phillip, and is just how the media typically refers to the responsibilities and functions of the senior royals all the time, here's just a few examples of "the Firm" being used in the press:

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30434455/royal-family-2020-predictions-questions/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/europe/prince-charles-andrew-queen.html

[The New California Republic]

Please stop that. It's just cringe.

That's just the normal phrase for the British royal family [...]

When you are using it as much as you are, it is at cringe levels. Please tone it down eh?

[Purgatio]

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

And what are the constitutional ramifications of someone almost certain to never take the throne choosing to retire from public life?

Its not about whether he chooses to take the throne, its constitutional convention for senior royals (defined based on their position in the line of succession) to collectively help the Sovereign discharge the responsibilities of the royal family, and spread out the burden of the more than 2,000 official royal engagements the family engages in annually, in addition to many more unofficial functions and engagements arising out of individual charitable trusts set up by individual royals or their membership in various social organisations. It's poor taste for a senior royal to try and throw that burden onto every other member and could set a very negative precedent for future senior royals to follow in future.

[Vassenor]

And what are the constitutional ramifications of someone almost certain to never take the throne choosing to retire from public life?

Its not about whether he chooses to take the throne, its constitutional convention for senior royals (defined based on their position in the line of succession) to collectively help the Sovereign discharge the responsibilities of the royal family, and spread out the burden of the more than 2,000 official royal engagements the family engages in annually, in addition to many more unofficial functions and engagements arising out of individual charitable trusts set up by individual royals or their membership in various social organisations. It's poor taste for a senior royal to try and throw that burden onto every other member and could set a very negative precedent for future senior royals to follow in future.

Well then maybe the press should've considered that before hounding his wife just for existing.

[Purgatio]

That's just the normal phrase for the British royal family [...]

When you are using it as much as you are, it is at cringe levels. Please tone it down eh?

Fine, I will, I didn't think the phrase was anything to raise an eyebrow about because that's literally how they are referred to in the media and is how senior members of the royal family refer to it themselves, but if you don't like then I won't use it. I don't see why its a big deal though.

[The New California Republic]

When you are using it as much as you are, it is at cringe levels. Please tone it down eh?

Fine, I will, I didn't think the phrase was anything to raise an eyebrow about because that's literally how they are referred to in the media and is how senior members of the royal family refer to it themselves, but if you don't like then I won't use it. I don't see why its a big deal though.

It's a big deal because it is cringe. It is cringe because in normal discourse it doesn't get said constantly, like you are using it. Even media articles don't use it as much as you are using it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Its not about whether he chooses to take the throne, its constitutional convention for senior royals (defined based on their position in the line of succession) to collectively help the Sovereign discharge the responsibilities of the royal family, and spread out the burden of the more than 2,000 official royal engagements the family engages in annually, in addition to many more unofficial functions and engagements arising out of individual charitable trusts set up by individual royals or their membership in various social organisations. It's poor taste for a senior royal to try and throw that burden onto every other member and could set a very negative precedent for future senior royals to follow in future.

Well then maybe the press should've considered that before hounding his wife just for existing.

The press engaging in psychological warfare against a person for years after doing the same to his mum and killing her, obviously shouldn't be examined as the reason for this breakdown. It's his personal moral failing, and not an inevitable consequence of allowing the press to operate this way.

https://politics.theonion.com/obama-tur ... 1819572828

Reminded me of that.

[Purgatio]

Like what? You can focus on important issues like the Labour leadership election, marriage equality in Northern Ireland, and the continuing aftermath of the Soleimani crisis, while also focussing on the constitutional rammifications of the surprise announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the impact that will have on prestige and respect for the British royal family

Why should we care about the “prestige and respect” of the royal family though? It really does not effect us.

If you don't think the royal family is culturally relevant or socially important, then that's an argument for doing away with the monarchy altogether. But if Britain retains its monarchy, then the purpose of that royal family, so long as they continue to remain the royal family, is to be a living and breathing embodiment of British history and culture, all the senior royals are collectively symbols of British heritage and her historical legacy. That position comes with essential roles and responsibilities. If you are to remain a prestigious symbol of national cultural heritage, you have to remain relevant and participate in British high society, in British public life, particularly her social, cultural, and charitable sectors of society. The 2,000 annual royal engagements I keep harping on are central to the very function of the British monarchy, its entire raison d'être is to be living embodiments of Britain's historical legacy and identity as a nation, and that comes with basic duties and responsibilities, as well as perks and privileges.

[Purgatio]

Its not about whether he chooses to take the throne, its constitutional convention for senior royals (defined based on their position in the line of succession) to collectively help the Sovereign discharge the responsibilities of the royal family, and spread out the burden of the more than 2,000 official royal engagements the family engages in annually, in addition to many more unofficial functions and engagements arising out of individual charitable trusts set up by individual royals or their membership in various social organisations. It's poor taste for a senior royal to try and throw that burden onto every other member and could set a very negative precedent for future senior royals to follow in future.

Well then maybe the press should've considered that before hounding his wife just for existing.

The press didn't hound his wife, Princess Diana, Kate Middleton and her family were criticised a lot too so this is by no means anything unique to the Duchess of Sussex particularly. It just comes with the job of being a member of the royal family and, by extension, a public figure.

[The New California Republic]

Queen agrees "period of transition" in which Harry and Meghan will spend time in Canada and UK - statement.

You don't need to be so worked up about it anymore Purgatio, as ma'am has spoken.

[Purgatio]

Yes, because we all know the announcement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they will be 'stepping back' from their royal duties served to reduce media coverage and public interest in the two of them. Oh look, here are some examples of that reduced attention from the paparazzi (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-prince-harry-canadian-billionaire-mansion, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/world/canada/harry-meghan-royal-family.html, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prince-harry-meghan-quit-royal-family-because-they-want-have-ncna1113651, https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-asking-disney-ceo-meghan-markle-voiceover-work/, to name but a few)

Strange way to attempt to avoid the fate that befell the Princess of Wales, surely, which was brought on by excessive attention and fixation of the British press and paparazzi

I think they're aiming to reduce it in the long term even if it intensifies for a while. You can't really blame the victim if someone says;

"I'm quitting my job because you keep harassing me" and then that person escalates their harassment.

I guess you'd decide "Well obviously that can't be why they quit then, because the harassment got worse. They must be lying.".

It is an argument because it casts doubt on the claim that 'reducing media attention and coverage' is the reason for the shock announcement that the two of them will be withdrawing from their royal duties. More likely this is just a desire not to have to discharge the burdens and responsibilities of attending royal engagements, avoiding all the time and effort involved and pushing that burden onto all the other senior royals.

[The Blaatschapen]

Fine, I will, I didn't think the phrase was anything to raise an eyebrow about because that's literally how they are referred to in the media and is how senior members of the royal family refer to it themselves, but if you don't like then I won't use it. I don't see why its a big deal though.

It's a big deal because it is cringe. It is cringe because in normal discourse it doesn't get said constantly, like you are using it. Even media articles don't use it as much as you are using it.

Well said. A firm response

[Purgatio]

Queen agrees "period of transition" in which Harry and Meghan will spend time in Canada and UK - statement.

You don't need to be so worked up about it anymore Purgatio, as ma'am has spoken.

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future. I'd be curious to see what the full agreement looks like when it's reached, as well as how long that transitional period will be.

[The New California Republic]

Queen agrees "period of transition" in which Harry and Meghan will spend time in Canada and UK - statement.

You don't need to be so worked up about it anymore Purgatio, as ma'am has spoken.

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future.

That's...not how I interpret that statement...

She said in a statement she is "entirely supportive" of their desire for a new role but "would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family".

It's pretty clear it won't be temporary...