Flags: A Sign of Vulnerability?

Up until quite recently, it felt like flags were a relatively minor feature of life in Great Britain. You would only usually see them flown from public buildings; and, in terms of the public themselves, they would only tend to fly them during significant national occasions: sports competitions usually (with the current World Cup bringing this topic to my attention in the first place), but also major royal occasions like jubilees. Over the past decade though, they have become more prominent and controversial. For me, there are two significant instances of flag flying in the UK that stand out from this period, likely flown by people from quite different backgrounds, and with what you would expect to be very different political views- yet, stemming from a common feeling.

These instances are, firstly, the Last Night of the Proms, and secondly, the flags flown haphazardly by members of the public from their homes or lampposts. In this first instance, whilst the Last Night of the Proms has long been associated with flag-waving, it has historically been an occasion when the flag being waved was mostly a Union flag/Jack; since the 2016 Brexit vote though, the most common flag to be flown on this occasion tends to be of the European Union. Meanwhile, in 2025, council rulings (primarily associated with Birmingham City Council) insisting on the removal of the flags of England/UK, while not insisting on the same for Palestinian flags, triggered a widespread trend of members of the public flying the St George Cross of England and Union flag of the UK.

These two instances involve different sets of flags, associated with different parts of society: attendees of the Last Night of the Proms are from wealthier backgrounds than those typically choosing to fly the flags of England/UK from their homes or local lampposts. The flying of the EU flag on the Last Night of the Proms is also taken as a demonstration of sadness with the UK leaving the EU; while the localised flying of the flags of England and the UK, depending on your point of view, is taken to either be a demonstration of national pride- or to show hostility towards those considered to be putting their country into jeopardy, be it leaders or certain members of the population. 

But what do these groups of people have in common, other than flying flags? I would say that it comes from a feeling of vulnerability, with the flag symbolising either something that has been lost, or feel like they are losing. The relative scarcity of flags before the Brexit referendum seemed to suggest that people across Great Britain felt that they could take much of what they valued about the country for granted. The significant shift in the flags being flown during the the Last Night of the Proms after the Brexit vote, with EU flags being a rare sight before then, suggests to me that the rare sight of those flags previously was due to EU membership (and what was associated with it) being taken for granted. The continued flying of the EU flags since the Brexit vote reflects sadness among certain members of British society with the UK leaving the EU, and perhaps with what Brexit resulted in and symbolised. Meanwhile, before 2025, flying of English/British flags was rare among members of the public, as it had seemed to be a historic right that could be taken for granted- when this was challenged by those councils in 2025 (with anger stoked further by other flags still being considered acceptable by councils to fly) it provoked what seemed to me again (like Remainers flying the EU flag during the Last Night of the Proms) to be a defensive response of flying the flag.  

Finally, notice that, when mentioning the rarity of members of the public flying flags before 2025, I said 'Great Britain' and not 'the UK'. This is because, whilst this seemed to be the case in England, Scotland, and Wales, flags have historically been a more prominent feature of Northern Ireland. However, with the province well known for being divided along religious lines and accompanying ideas on identity, the two dominant sides of Northern Irish society have long been associated with flag waving, most obviously in Belfast, where Protestant communities are known to prominently fly the Union flag/Jack, while Catholic communities do the same with the tricolour flag of the Republic of Ireland. Again, while different communities are flying different flags, they seem united in resorting to flag-waving as a sign of vulnerability and fear of loss, concern for their community that the flag represents, and a defensive act on behalf of their community.

In my opinion, I hope that the act of flag flying can return to being an act that isn't considered controversial, as largely seemed to be the case not very long ago.

Venezuela's Maduro captured by Americans, as they seize control of the country: Trump's Gunboat Diplomacy for the 21st Century

 In a dramatic turn of events, a period of heightened tensions between President Donald Trump's United States and President Nicolas Maduro's Venezuela has culminated in not only military strikes by the United States against Venezuela, but the capture of President Nicolas Maduro by American forces and his relocation to the United States. Whilst Venezuela is without a leader, President Trump has stated that the United States will temporarily run the country until alternative leadership is established. 

The move is yet another unexpected gamble by President Trump and, for me, solidifies comparisons between his approach to leadership and his view of his country, and world affairs generally, and those of the 19th century British prime minister, Lord Palmerston. During the Victorian era, Palmerston was known for his "gunboat diplomacy" whereby, when a country was felt to be acting against Britain's interests, he would be willing to take aggressive, military steps against them- including literally sending gunboats to attack them. A famous case was the Don Pacifico affair whereby Don Pacifico, a British citizen, was wronged whilst living in Greece, and it was felt by Palmerston that Greek authorities had acted inadequately to support him, and so he ordered British gunboats to Greece to blockade a Greek harbour in retaliation. Also, an expression famously used by Palmerston (and could be considered a summary of Trump's stance on foreign policy too) was that "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow".

The actions of the United States in Venezuela, though very fresh, have the potential to have significant consequences. Mostly obvious is the impact on Venezuela. Maduro was a controversial leader, considered dictatorial, and having fraudulently held on to power. Meanwhile, so controversial has Maduro's period in power been, that particularly large numbers of Venezuelans have fled the country during this period. There is word of celebrations held in parts of Venezuela, marking Maduro's removal. It is also understood that Maduro's Venezuela played a significant role in drug crime affecting the United States. Having said that, the United States' actions will be widely considered disproportionate, and an overwhelming challenge to international law and norms. Returning to Venezuela, there will also inevitably be questions over the country's leadership. How long can the United States really effectively manage Venezuela? And who could and should take over, and be considered sufficiently legitimate to be accepted?

There are also broader potential consequences, questioning the efficacy of international law and order. Perhaps this will be seen as the end (or the beginning of the end) of the New World Order established at the end of the Cold War, an order seemingly confirmed soon after the end of the Cold War by the coming together of countries across the world, with the support of the United Nations, to force Saddam Hussein's Iraq to withdraw from neighbouring Kuwait during the Gulf War. Although this was widely considered successful, international cooperation during the subsequent Yugoslavian wars was generally considered much less successful; and, at the beginning of the 21st century, the United States was widely criticised for its invasion (with few allies, and lacking United Nations support) of Iraq. The case of Iraq also brings to mind the issues surrounding enforced regime change: Saddam Hussein was removed relatively quickly from power in the Iraq War, but years of instability following his downfall undermined the country (and beyond) for years to come, with Libya another troubled country since the end of Colonel Gaddafi's regime. 

The weaknesses of international institutions in the face of military might motivated by national interests was then seemingly gradually exploited by Russia as well under Vladimir Putin, as it first annexed Crimea then, more recently, other parts of Ukraine. The United States' actions in Venezuela seem in keeping with this trend of militarily powerful countries asserting what they claim to be national interests, even if going against international laws and norms. This may well confirm a trend that has developed this century: international institutions, and various countries, may criticise aggression and take certain actions, but their impact will ultimately be limited, and considered by leaders of those challenging those international laws and norms as a lesser evil. It may be the case that, from now on, countries will be more inclined to act aggressively in what they consider to be their national interests, with little regard for international laws and norms. The only effective inhibitor of such acts may then be the involvement (or threat of involvement) of an overwhelming military power like the United States (or maybe China). We will see whether this happens, and whether it will make the world a better or worse place- it will make it more unpredictable at least.

From Britain's perspective, a thought that springs to mind is that, if international laws and norms are being disregarded, it may become more acceptable for the UK to take the steps it wants to to stifle illegal migration: the infamous "small boats" transporting thousands of migrants across the English Channel, that have been the thorn in the side of British governments over recent years. Concerns over international law have stifled numerous attempts by British governments to practically stop illegal migration to the UK; if there is less concern for international laws and norms, British governments may have more freedom to take what are felt to be the most effective measures for the national interest. We could anticipate that Trump's United States would be a powerful and sympathetic spectator to such actions, while other European countries, with similar issues with illegal migration and the legal limits to steps that can be taken to prevent it, could also be expected to be sympathetic.

Royal Round-up: 2025

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.  

King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland removes the titles of his eldest brother, demoting him from a prince to just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, in response to ongoing scandalous revelations about Andrew's connections with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In response to statements by the American president, Donald Trump, in respect of stated intentions of a US purchase of the Danish territory of Greenland, King Frederik X of Denmark gives speeches promoting the unity between Denmark and its territories, and oversees revisions to the royal coat of arms in order to bolster the symbols of the Danish territories, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

The claimant to the Albanian throne,  recognised by monarchists as King Leka II of the Albanians, gets engaged to Blerta Celibashi in a private ceremony.

As announced in 2024, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg abdicates his throne, making way for his son and heir to become Grand Duke Guillaume V of Luxembourg.

The claimant to the Italian throne, recognised by monarchists as King Emanuele Filiberto I of Italy, announces that he has been separated from his wife, Clotilde Courau, since 2021.

King Felipe VI of Spain awards the first noble titles of his reign, including recognising the former tennis player Rafael Nadal as the first Marquess of Llevant de Mallorca.

It seems to be one, big problem...

Both on this blog and the national UK news alike, immigration has been raised as one of the main national issues. And, combined with the national finances (and the consequences of problems with the national finances, being higher taxes, spending cuts, and the threat posed by the growing cost of national debt), they probably cover at least some of the main concerns of all British people right now.

Recently, I have come to the conclusion (whether rightly or not) that the two issues of precarious national finances and excessive immigration are linked by one, big problem: misuse of the welfare state. The concept behind the British welfare state, and the good it has achieved over the decades, are something I take pride in. However, whilst it has long been known (and is a problem with most systems created to provide support, I'm sure) that there are those who exploit the welfare state when they don't really need its help, the amount of people relying on the welfare state has grown significantly in the twenty-first century, and particularly since Covid. But the impression given of the increase seems excessive- and, surely, there can't be so many people incapable of working who are claiming that that's the case. Nevertheless, despite politicians repeatedly talking of clamping down on misuse of the system, welfare costs remain vast, and seemingly ever-growing numbers of people use it to sustain their way of life- both rightly and wrongly. People relying on the welfare state to live have two significant consequences on the UK, which link to those two major national issues originally mentioned. People relying on the welfare state cost a lot of money (the last I saw: the biggest single expense the UK government has), which then has to be funded through a combination of high taxes, spending cuts in other areas, and/or increased government borrowing, which means debt repayments in turn require even more tax increases/spending cuts. Then there is a double hit, because people are not only receiving money to fund their lifestyle, but they are then not contributing money to the state to cover their costs. 

This loss of income from potential workers relying on the welfare state is recouped not only from other workers already in the country, but also taxes from new immigrant workers- who the government and businesses alike have come to rely on to fill the vacancies left in the job market by the growing number of people receiving an income from the welfare state instead of a job. 

The impression you get is that, rather than focusing on really getting to the bottom of the ballooning welfare state and people dependent on it; politicians, civil servants, and doctors instead find it easier to allow this to continue uninterrupted, given the effort of investigating all cases, and the threat of legal action when people contest that they are deserving of welfare support for health reasons (rightly or wrongly). So, over recent decades, we have seen governments of all political parties just sustain this system through growing taxes, cutting spending, and/or borrowing more money, to the detriment of the country. Then, with the gaps in the workforce, instead of focusing on cultivating the British workforce to fill gaps in the labour market, it is cheaper and easier for governments and businesses to import those with the required skills from abroad. As a result, twenty-first century Britain has consistently seen net migration in the hundreds of thousands of people, despite repeated promises by governments to bring these numbers down. And the impact of this has been seen widely across the country, in terms of strain on the national infrastructure (not least housing supplies that can't keep up with the demand, most sharply felt in the southeast of England) and the integrity of communities. It is widely felt that this was a leading factor in the decision of the vote in favour of Brexit almost a decade ago.

So, rather than take the difficult steps to review the welfare state and clamp down on those not entitled to use it, governments instead seem to continue to rely on the short-term fixes to the issues an overwhelming welfare state creates: harmful, short term economic management, and large scale immigration. Until a government decides to seriously address this issue, I fear that dubious national finances and heated debates on immigration will continue to be overwhelming characteristics of modern Britain.

Widespread Ignorance (it's not just them- but us as well!)

 It's maybe a trend seen across the developed world now, but I can see it in Britain at least. Society seems very divided and, while there have always been political/tribal differences, these divisions appear to be more deeply entrenched now thanks to the modern media. For Brits (or others around the world, if they can also relate) may assume this is a criticism directed at the opposite view to themselves- but there is a good chance that I direct this at you IN ADDITION TO not INSEAD of them. 

As I said, while there have always been political differences, people had in the past at least been unified by accessing news from a very limited number of sources, be it newspapers, television, or news websites. This limited number, and the stated aim of the BBC to be a neutral news source, meant more commonality of sources of news, meaning that, whilst people would still have differences of opinion, those opinions would be based upon mostly consistent facts. Over recent years though, there has become a plethora of news sources, with the likes of YouTube, Twitter, and podcasts becoming a lot more popular in addition to (and maybe instead of) the original sources. And these new sources unquestionably have benefits: they can allow you to focus on more niche news stories that interest and concern you. However, they have drawbacks that concern me: when absorbing news from these alternative sources, they have a tendency to be under far less regulation and scrutiny for accuracy, and they can also cherry-pick facts and focus on subjective opinions instead of more objective facts. 

As a consequence of the above, I feel that, instead of a majority of people taking their news from the same or similar sources, and basing their opinions on largely the same facts; an increasing number are instead focusing on niche sources that have a specific outlook and clear bias, and seem set to reinforce existing opinions, rather than paying much (if any) attention to alternative viewpoints. Seeing different stories and a range of opinions can feed our own, and inform them, rather than encourage us to become increasingly more narrow minded. For example: the British politicians, Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Many readers may think one of these figures is always right and the other always wrong (or almost always) and take the view that, whoever supports the other politician is ignorant. People who sympathise with Corbyn may write-off Farage supporters as racists, while Farage supporters may mock Corbyn backers as not being in touch with the real world. 

It is perfectly fine and natural for there to be differences of opinion but, in a democracy, we should respect all opinions (including those we don't share) and, whilst we may disagree to varying strengths, we should at least try to see where those of other opinions are coming from, rather than just writing them off as ignorant in some way. And it seems healthier to me to, instead of having a black and white view, where something is either purely right or wrong, or good or bad, actually looking for merits in both sides- even if you do clearly have leanings one way or the other. After all, compromise is a major part of democracy: it is unlikely that a politician or political party exactly reflects your views, so you have to compromise and support who you agree with most. To conclude: think of where you get your news from, how much you are receiving objective facts from it (rather than being fed specific, biased opinions), and if you are genuinely exposed to a range of points of view, so that you really are well-informed in your opinions.

Royal Round-up: 2024

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.  

King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is diagnosed with cancer, a diagnosis which, unusually for a British royal, he is quick to share with the public. His duties and engagements will be scaled back as a consequence while he receives treatment.

At the age of 87, King Harald V of Norway becomes the oldest reigning monarch in over 1000 years of Norwegian royal history.

The abdication of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark leads to the accession of her son and heir, the new King Frederik X of Denmark.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Pavlos II of Greece, successfully has the Greek citizenship of himself and his family reinstated, having been stripped of this in 1994.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Leka II of the Albanians, divorces from Elia Zaharia.

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg delegates some of his powers to his son and heir, Prince Guillaume, who consequently becomes Regent of Luxembourg. Grand Duke Henri later also announces his intention to abdicate in 2025.

The death of the claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Victor Emmanuel IV of Italy, leads to his claim being inherited by his son, recognised by monarchists as King Emanuele Filiberto I of Italy.

Soon after arriving in Valencia to visit those affected by floods, King Felipe VI of Spain and other visiting senior figures are harangued by members of the public and have mud thrown at them, as a sign of anger with their country’s response to the floods.

Royal Round-up: 2023

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark triggers widespread surprise as she announces in her New Year’s message her intention to abdicate in January 2024. She says that this is in response to her declining health and mobility, making way for her son and heir, Crown Prince Frederick, to succeed her and become King of Denmark.

Celebrations are held to mark the Golden Jubilee of King Carl XVI of Sweden.

The former King Constantine II of Greece, the last monarch of his country, dies aged 82. His claim to the former Greek throne is inherited by his son who, among monarchists, would be recognised as King Paul II of Greece.

Following the death of his father and inheritance of the position of head of Greece’s royal family, Crown Prince Pavlos, recognised among monarchists as King Paul II of Greece, relocates to Greece with his family.

Prince Emmanuel of Italy, heir to the claimant to the Italian throne, announces his intention to abdicate his position in the Italian line of succession in favour of his eldest child, Princess Victoria.

Blair in Bloom: Seeds Sown in Tony Blair's Premiership Now Come to Fruition

 A generation is widely considered to be 25 years, meaning that a generation has now passed since Tony Blair became Britain's Prime Minister in 1997. I feel, that for better and worse, Blair's premiership has significantly shaped the Britain we live in today.

To try to start on a positive note, I feel that the "Levelling Up" still technically championed by the current Conservative government, but more closely associated with Boris Johnson, can be largely traced from the Blair era. A need for "Levelling Up" at all seemed to be a negative consequence of the Margaret Thatcher era. Whilst the changes made by her government made the economy more efficient and successful, it was a job that was seemingly half done: whilst the successful areas of the economy (and parts of the country they were based in) were able to thrive; insufficient steps were taken to compensate for the winding down of unsuccessful aspects of the economy (and, as a result, the parts of the country they were based in). This created a clear "have" and "have not" division across the UK, something which the Blair government seemed set to overcome, looking to reduce that gap. Then, starting with David Cameron's government's discussion of a "Northern Powerhouse" to encourage growth in the north of the country, Boris Johnson would then encourage this development on a broader scale as "Levelling Up", which Johnson's successors have said they want to continue to support.

And now for the more controversial legacies of the Blair era. In terms of British foreign policy, and military involvement in particular, they have marked a significant reaction against the approach taken by Tony Blair's government ever since. Blair advocated an active foreign policy, encouraging a moralistic stance of encouraging the good and opposing the bad, with the latter handled by a relatively great willingness to use Britain's armed forces. This was most obviously, and controversially, demonstrated with the deployment of armed forces to Afghanistan and Iraq. The great length of this involvement, the regular loss of life, and questionable final success, have appeared to restrain Blair's successors from taking a similar approach when other opportunities have since arisen. During the "Arab Spring", whilst David Cameron favoured involvement in Libya's Civil War, he was keen to emphasise there would not be British soldiers actively fighting there (or "boots on the ground", as it's often described), then parliament (in an apparent reflection of public opinion) opposed Cameron's later proposal for greater involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Meanwhile, though there have been significant displays of military support from British governments for Ukraine with the ongoing Russian invasion, there has been no talk of any significant "boots on the ground" being deployed from Britain.

Devolution is another major legacy of Tony Blair's, having introduced a devolved parliament and assembly to Scotland and Wales respectively. This was apparently intended to calm nationalism in these Home Nations of the UK. However, nationalism gathered much greater momentum after devolution- and arguably due to devolution. While both the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly started out as bodies dominated by Labour politicians (still the case in the Welsh assembly), this shifted in Scotland as the Scottish National Party (SNP) took over, and calls for an independence referendum grew impossible to ignore. Even after the referendum on independence, the issue still seemed to dominate Scottish politics for the decade since, with the SNP remaining the most popular and powerful party in Scotland since, with calls for a further independence referendum continuing to be made. Meanwhile, it is said that separatism in Wales has also been relatively high since the Welsh assembly was created, and English nationalism also emerged as a distinct movement, notably revolving around calls for an English parliament. This was to address the anomaly of Scottish/Welsh/ Northern Irish MPs still being able to vote on English issues, while the reverse was no longer the case for English MPs, due to the devolved institutions of the other Home Nations. Having said this, David Cameron appeared to address this with the "English votes for English laws" principle, so that Scottish/Welsh/ Northern Irish MPs could no longer vote on English only matters.

Tying back with the topic mentioned earlier of Blair's original "Levelling Up" to reduce the gaps in wealth in the UK; a large amount of the funding for this great investment came from significant borrowing. The issue of government borrowing forming a large part of the government's spending, and the interest on this borrowing becoming one of the largest expenses of UK governments, formed a central issue in the 2010 election that brought David Cameron's Conservatives into government. Although Cameron's government was associated with significant cuts to spending to address this, and Theresa May after him seemingly looking to carefully manage government finances; Boris Johnson appeared to return to the bigger spending the British had got used to under the Labour government, most clearly during the pandemic, with the government's generous offers of support (but causing debt to hugely amass once again). Since then, Britain's leaders have struggled with how to reduce the national debt without upsetting the public too much. With cuts already previously carried out under Cameron, the short-lived government of Liz Truss believed short-term borrowing could be used to spur an economy that could ultimately fund itself; however, it seems that there was insufficient confidence in this approach, leading to Rishi Sunak's subsequent government using higher taxes to cover government spending. However, with both tax demands and national debt being quite exceptionally high, one wonders how long this approach can continue. It seems governments will have to either ween the British public off the large and expensive state they have grown used to- or find alternative ways of funding it.

Immigration is also a major legacy of the Blair government. It was during that time that net migration of hundreds of thousands of people to the UK per year became the norm instead of tens of thousands. Also, as members of the European Union (EU) at the time, while other members tended to be more cautious and restricted arrivals from the new EU member states in 2004 (all largely poorer than existing members), Blair's Britain did no such thing, seeing exceptionally large numbers of arrivals to the UK. It was at this time that immigration evolved from a fringe concern to a mainstream issue, as illustrated by the rise of the UK Independence Party (primarily concerned with immigration and leaving the EU) from obscurity to one of the UK's leading parties (most popular in the European Parliament, and coming second in many results for parliamentary seats in 2015, suggesting that popularity would have continued to grow had a referendum on EU membership not been held). Therefore, with the actions of Blair's government overseeing the drastic escalation of immigration, it could be said that Blair was the father of Brexit.

To conclude, there is one specific aspect of current British politics which combines two of Blair's legacies. Throughout the Brexit process, Norther Ireland has been a focus. This is because of its unique position of being politically united with the UK, yet geographically united with the EU via its border with the Republic of Ireland. Management of this position owes much to the Good Friday Agreement, overseen by Blair's government, which  was widely deemed a success in significantly reducing tensions and violence among Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has had to adjust its relationships with the EU, Republic of Ireland as a result of Brexit. In the years ahead, we will see how the various debates of modern Britain, for which the seeds were sown in the Blair era, continue to evolve.

Royal Round-up: 2022

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland celebrates her Platinum Jubilee, marking 70 years on the British throne. This year also marks her meeting the milestone of second longest serving monarch in history, only coming after King Louis XIV of France.

With declining mobility in recent years, the health of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deteriorated rapidly in September of this year, ultimately leading to her passing away aged 96 years old. She was both the oldest and longest reigning monarch in British history.

At the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, her son and heir becomes King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By that point, he had become the oldest and longest serving heir to the British throne.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark celebrates her Golden Jubilee.

 Queen Margrethe II of Denmark downgrades the formal titles and status of the descendents of her second son, Prince Joachim, encouraging them to live lives more independently of the Danish monarchy. The move proves upsetting and controversial in the eyes of Prince Joachim.

Grand Duchess Maria, claimant to the Russian throne, condemns her country’s invasion of Ukraine.

Karl II, claimant to the Austrian throne, remarries, wedding Christian Nicolau de Almeida Reid, a Portuguese woman.

Summer of 2022 in the UK

 Although the sun has been out and the sky has been blue for an unusually great amount of time in the UK this year, this is not to suggest that all is well (by British standards anyway). Humdrum tasks and day-to-day life are being undermined for virtually everyone (to varying extents) due to several issues. Strikes, not a prominent feature of British life for decades, have been unusually frequent and widespread this summer; access to water is increasingly being restricted; and the fairly obscure idea of "inflation" is manifesting itself in increased prices for various essentials. For most, these are inconveniences (fortunately, that is the case with me so far); for others, they are having a greater impact.

The strikes very much seem to be linked to the issue of inflation, as various trade unions (most noticeably, the railway unions) demand hefty pay increases in response to inflation. From speaking to people, there seems to be quite a lot of sympathy for them- not from me though. My view is that they are drawing the public into an issue, and punishing them, for something that isn't their fault. From my perspective, it is like the unions are squaring up to their bosses, as the public look on... then the public walk away with a black eye. This seems fundamentally wrong to me. When it comes to pay increases, I, like most British people, don't have a trade union to fight my corner for me- let alone have the ability to blackmail anyone with the threat of strikes. If I'm not happy with my working conditions or salary, I have to fight for myself- or look for another job. And, right now, with unemployment low and demand for workers high, employees are in a position of strength- without needing to strike and sabotage the daily lives of the public in the process. It's quite startling that part of unions' strategy is to calculate the most damage they can do to get their way; e.g., noting that many workers can now work from home, railway unions have shifted their strategy from strikes on weekdays only, to straddling weekdays and weekends, to harm a greater cross-section of people... What a terrible outlook to have! These workers aren't the only ones in the country unhappy with their wages; and, as a result of their actions, they do serious damage to people who rely on rail services. Included in this category are those businesses still recovering from the disruption of covid over recent years; it's almost as if the unions are privately thinking "the more businesses that fail because of us, the more likely we are to get our own way"... I think it's perfectly fine to make your case for higher wages- just leave the public out of it! In fact, I think it could be fairer all round if strikes were abolished and, in scenarios when unions would  hitherto call a strike, they instead summon their employers to court, each side makes their case, and a court decides who is most in the right and compels according action. Fortunately, the government (despite the awkward limbo it is currently in, as the country is now effectively between prime ministers) seems to be taking steps to prevent such situations from having the same impact in the future. We will see how this pans out...

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, our unusually hot weather in the UK has led to water shortages- and this is expected to be a more regular occurrence in the future. From what I've seen, the long-term plan to deal with this so far is to muddle through, and water companies hinting that the usage of hosepipes being restricted could be an annual feature of British summers. Rather than placing the onus on the British public, to restrict their water usage (while paying the same water bills), I get the impression that there are fairer and more effective measures that could be taken now, and in the future: water companies are notorious for wasting large amounts of water through leaks- this should fundamentally be addressed instead of wagging fingers at the public about their water usage; the UK is being unevenly affected by this- therefore, those parts of the country with larger water supplies could share with those in greater need during the most difficult times; more reservoirs could be built so that we are better prepared and self-sufficient for when the dry periods arrive; then, of course, there is that aid to many of the UK's issues: reducing demand by limiting immigration further.

Finally, there is inflation. This has been triggered by numerous factors largely out of the UK's control, namely the coronavirus and its repercussions, then combined with the war in Ukraine. This has been a key point in the debate between the candidates to be the next British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss (it has also been the key differentiator between them). While Truss advocates tax cuts to allow more of the British to keep more of their earnings to cope with increased costs, Sunak advocates sticking with high taxes to deal with the British national debt. On the face of it (and as Sunak has repeatedly said), Truss' approach of scrapping taxes would increase the amount of money sloshing around the UK, thereby making inflation even worse; on the other hand, high taxes and high cost of living will ultimately lead to the public spending less, and thus would hopefully slow inflation. At the same time, as Sunak highlights, the higher taxes can be used to reduce our national debt; the interest accumulated as a result of this debt being one of the largest government expenses- and sees ever-growing chucks of taxpayers' money being passed on to those we have borrowed money from. 

Inflation seems to be the worst issue of the above, as I have faith that the problems of strikes and water shortages will pass (for now at least) in the very near future. However, rather than sweeping these issues under the rug until next time, they should be addressed. I hope the next Prime Minister, and those responsible for Britain's current issues, will adopt the philosophy of fixing the roof when the sun is shining (or, in the case of water shortages, make the most of the rain before the sun shines too much again next time!).

Evaluation of Boris Johnson

 With Boris Johnson's time as UK Prime Minister due to end in the very near future, I wanted to share my thoughts on his tenure. Although the manner of the end of his term of office isn't a positive one, it's difficult to think of a time when a Prime Minister's term DID have a happy ending for the Prime Minister concerned. Whilst much emphasis has been placed on his apparent lack of honesty and inappropriate conduct; perhaps controversially, whilst I of course believe that Prime Ministers should behave appropriately, I personally didn't want him to resign, as it's my view that a Prime Minister should only step down if they have made mistakes in terms of policies/laws they have passed or decisions directly impacting the country. The two main motivations behind his resignation were, firstly, attendance of "parties" during the Covid lockdowns; and, secondly, for allowing a politician to remain in office despite being found to have behaved inappropriately. Whilst both acts deserve scrutiny and criticism, neither involve the direction of the country in my opinion, which are primarily what we should be concerned with with regards to our Prime Ministers. The impression I get is that his fundamental decisions as leader, and policies pursued (which are the most important aspects of a Prime Minister to me), were relatively popular, and I'm not convinced that most of the public have turned against his policies. 

My wish is therefore that Boris Johnson's successor hopefully maintains the same approach to flagship policies such as "Levelling Up", continues working on Brexit to make it as practical and beneficial to the UK as possible, and attempting to address issues with illegal migration via the English Channel. Based on my understanding (which has, admittedly, been learnt rather than directly seen or experienced), there have been clear disparities in wealth and opportunities across the UK for decades (perhaps the worst legacy of Margaret Thatcher's premiership, which I generally otherwise speak highly of) and "Levelling Up" not only expressed intent to address this, but also showed how this could actually be achieved: by encouraging investment and improving infrastructure. 

Given that Boris Johnson's policies do not appear to have been rejected by the public, I hope that his flagship policies are maintained until at least the next general election (and, potentially, reaffirmed in that election as well). As regards Boris Johnson personally, I feel that he generally got the balance right between seriously governing the country, and also sharing his trademark sense of humour. It is disappointing that he did behave inappropriately though, in a way that led to his downfall.

 Nevertheless, with those policies of his that can (and should) be maintained for the foreseeable future, and looking back on his actual handling of the coronavirus, Brexit, and the economy, he seems to me to have done a good (and difficult!) job. It is easy to criticise him (and many have extensively carried out this easy exercise), but I'm pleased that he has remained his positive, bullish self, and trumpeted his achievements in a way that is justifiable- and necessary, to try and counter the potentially overwhelming tidal wave of criticism he experiences from much of the establishment.

Vote for World Peace?

 At present, it feels like there is quite a lot of underlying tension in the world, often resulting from long-running territorial disputes. A few examples of this that spring to mind include recognition of Taiwanese independence, and the status of both Crimea and Kashmir. Apologies if this makes these issues too simplistic, but I feel like, if a referendum that was agreed by all sides to be free and fair was held, could this result then be used to draw a line under these issues and allow the world to move on? An example of this could be the Falkland Islands: ownership of the islands has been disputed for hundreds of years now between Great Britain and Argentina. However, a 2013 referendum on whether the Islands would remain a British Overseas territory (voted on by the people who lived there) resulted in over 99% of people voting to preserve the status quo. Regardless of the past, what should be top priority in territorial disputes is the will of the people who live there, here and now; and, in the Falkland Islands, they overwhelmingly rejected becoming an Argentine territory; a result which can, and should, be respected and accepted by all, as stated by the people living there and most affected by the issue.

Although referenda often don't have as decisive a result as the one in the Falkland Islands, it gives an example nevertheless. I would therefore like to think that similar votes could be held in Taiwan (on unification with the People's Republic of China; or continued independence); Crimea (on whether it forms part of Russia or Ukraine); or Kashmir (on whether it forms part of India of Pakistan) to draw a line under these issues that undermine global instability and international relations. Such votes could be overseen by all sides, including objective external powers, that could be agreed by all concerned parties, and the referendum results would hopefully allow peaceful progress to be made around the globe with issues that have hitherto threatened conflict and complicated global relationships.

Royal Round-up: 2021

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

2021

After 73 years of marriage to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh, born a prince of Greece) dies aged 99.

George, son and heir to the claim of Grand Duchess Maria of Russia to the former Russian throne, marries Italian Rebecca Bettarini in St Petersburg, Russia.

Princess Marie, consort of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, dies aged 81.

Parties a high priority?

 For what feels like quite a long time now, the British media seems to have made an apparent Christmas party at No. 10 Downing Street, residence of the British Prime Minister, in 2020 the most important news story. You get this impression from the fact that it is regularly the first news story on TV news shows, and front page story of the newspapers. However, whilst it obviously does reflect badly on the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and any colleagues involved, and, if accurate, shows them to be hypocrites- should this really be the main news item? And this happened a year ago: if it was THAT important and ground-breaking, why wasn't it revealed at the time, rather than a year later? It seems that the timing was deliberately picked to prioritise dramatic affect over getting an important story in the public eye as soon as possible. 

Of course it's an important feature of a free country that the press can scrutinise the government and hold it to account, but surely it's overkill when it's the top news story every day. Rather than point scoring against the government, and focusing on a petty matter and foolish error of judgment, the media can quickly prioritise other matters of more national/international significance.

Is it me, or is Macron's France coming across as petty and petulant lately?

 Although Emmanuel Macron has been President of France for a number of years now, I haven't heard anything about him that has made me feel strongly about him, one way or the other- until autumn 2021. Anglo-French relations have been under the spotlight more recently, and appear to be at their worst for quite a while. Earlier in the autumn, Britain was negatively linked by France with the AUKUS agreement between the UK, Australia and USA over submarine support lent to Australia by the UK and USA, implicitly to boost their collective presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counter Chinese power there. As a consequence of this agreement, ongoing negotiations between Australia and France on submarines were brought to a halt, at France's expense. In retaliation, France criticised AUKUS and recalled its ambassadors to both Australia and the USA for a time (Britain avoided this, getting off lighter). Nevertheless, whilst AUKUS (an acronym reflecting a combination of the initials of the countries involved) worked in some ways to the detriment of France, it was all a consequence of the decisions of Australia as a sovereign state, which it is therefore perfectly entitled to do, on the basis of what is in their best national interest. Moreover, seeing as the three AUKUS countries are allies of France, any cooperation and consolidation among allies should be seen in a larger context as part of a greater good. France's negative response however instead seems to have shown the country in a bad light, and indicates an almost childish bitterness over being left out...

Then, playing out over a longer period have been specifically Anglo-French tensions over migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK. This route, involving migrants climbing aboard very small boats in greater numbers than they should, should not be encouraged as a way of settling into the UK: it puts migrants' lives in danger, and strains the resources of the UK and France. It seems that some cooperation was achieved, with French police taking action to prevent some migrants from crossing the English Channel; but the effectiveness of this appears to be very limited, with a majority still making it across, incentivising more people to follow in their footsteps, and implying that paying the equivalent of thousands of pounds is a price worth paying by migrants, as the ends justify the means if they successfully make it across the Channel. This issue affects both countries, and should involve constructive cooperation; however, this weekend, it appears that France has revoked an invitation to Britain's home secretary to visit and discuss this, to retaliate against a letter stating British aims for these talks being made public. Again, as with the AUKUS situation, this seems to portray France as prioritising petty ill-feeling over achieving solutions for the greater good.

There has been speculation that France, under President Macron's leadership, has been particularly prickly of late because Macron is standing for re-election next year, and wants to come across as a strong leader when handling international issues. However, I don't know how the French generally feel about Macron and his handling of the abovementioned issues, but I think I would personally be embarrassed by the petulant image he has presented through his comments and actions. 

The relationship between Britain and France is a long one of mutual importance, with valuable trade and military ties, as well as cultural ones. In spite of Brexit, Britain's relationship with other European countries (particularly those in the European Union) will always be important and, as a leading country of both the EU and NATO, France is particularly important to the UK. For a long time there seem to have been three key sets of international relationships for the UK: with Europe, with the USA, and with former empire/current Commonwealth countries. In Europe, France is bound to be one of the most important relationships the UK will focus on- potentially the most important. I therefore look forward to a time when Anglo-French relations are a lot more positive and constructive, recognising what a positive impact this relationship can have in Europe and beyond; and hopefully petty bickering can become a thing of the past that we look back on and laugh at, rather than endure to everyone's detriment. It is often said that Macron is keen to undermine Britain in response to Brexit; but pettiness is surely never going to encourage the British to regret leaving the EU (in fact, the opposite). Moreover, just as Brexit was divisive in the UK, and "remainers" here have had to accept the result and make the best of it, I would hope that pro-remain politicians around the world would similarly accept that Brexit has happened and look to recreate relationships for the greatest mutual benefit possible. Causing disruption between the UK and EU, seemingly out of spite, surely doesn't send the message that the EU is an organisation to admire, and that countries should aspire to join?

Afghanistan: The West's Departure and Taliban's Return

 A major feature of the news in the UK currently (and I suspect across much of the world) is the departure of troops from the US and other allied countries from Afghanistan, and coincident success of the Taliban retaking control of the country. Most opinions and comments I see expressed on the matter say how this is a defeat for the West, and that the West are deserting the Afghan people. Although I'm no expert on this, this seems very unfair to me. 

The USA and their allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and have remained there since. The initial objective, which was achieved, was the removal of the Taliban from power, and since then support has been provided for a democratic government. This has manifested itself in the aid, investment and military support that has poured into the country from the US and allied countries, with the hope that this would enable the democratic Afghan government to stand on its own two feet. To achieve this goal, many lives and large funds have been contributed over the past two decades by the Western powers. This demonstrates a remarkable contribution from the United States and other nations in terms of time, money and sacrifices for the betterment of Afghanistan. 

As these forces now withdraw, the Taliban has made swift progress in undermining the Afghan government and seizing control from them. To me, this says more about the Afghan government than those other countries hitherto providing it with support. Surely the United States and others have contributed more than enough over the years, and enough time has passed to enable a new Afghan regime to gain a sufficient foothold to function independently? Otherwise- how long? Should outside governments remain indefinitely? Two decades seems a long time to prop up a regime before allowing it to function alone...

Unfortunately however, it appears that loyalties amongst Afghan police and government troops are directed more at families and tribes than an Afghan nation, so morale is low and the risk of corruption is high. From what I have read, despite the significant overseas investment in equipment and training for Afghan forces, this seems to explain  why the Taliban has been able to get control of so much of the country so quickly.

To put it very basically, I can't help but think of the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Despite how much time, money and effort has been contributed over the past twenty years, if those given the responsibility of the country (the Afghan government and security forces) are unwilling and/or unable to uphold their regime, that is down to them and not the countries that have already contributed so much to enable them to do it for themselves. From what I understand if, as expected, the Taliban take full control of Afghanistan, it will impose a regime considered appalling to most (though, in terms of treatment of women, extremism of attitude to religion, lack of democracy, and harshness of their penal system, there seem to be many areas of common ground with existing (or recent) rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia), and it would be a great shame (it can't really be expressed in words, particularly by an outsider like myself)- but I don't think it is right to put all blame on to Western governments and to regard this as a Western failure.