-Caveat Lector-
>From Int'l Herald Tribune
Paris, Friday, May 7, 1999
A Nation Asks: What Exactly Does It Mean to Be British?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Tom Buerkle International Herald Tribune
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON - To judge by its symbols, the state of Britain is as solid and
enduring as ever. The guard changes daily at Buckingham Palace, the
Beefeaters patrol the cobbled paths inside the Tower of London, and the
Union flag flies proudly over the Palace of Westminster, the home of
parliamentary democracy.
But as voters launched a historic experiment in self-government with
elections in Scotland and Wales on Thursday, the big question facing
Britons was whether the devolution of political power would undermine their
sense of national identity.
The very notion of what it means to be British, and whether Britain itself
is a useful entity for the 21st century, are the subject of an increasingly
intense debate here, one that belies the popular impression of a timeless
country with nearly 1,000 years of unbroken history.
The postwar era has seen the decline of many of the institutions that
traditionally bound the peoples of the British Isles together, while the
transformation of Welsh and Scottish cultural identities into political
power shows signs of awakening English nationalism. With globalization
pushing people to reassert local identities from Quebec to northern Italy,
some people even question whether the United Kingdom itself can survive
indefinitely.
''Many factors behind the Union have ceased to operate, like Empire and the
dominance of Protestantism, or are coming under strain, such as the cult of
the monarchy,'' said Linda Colley, a historian at the London School of
Economics. Ms. Colley, whose views are widely admired inside the government
of Prime Minister Tony Blair, says the country needs to ''reinvent
Britishness'' as a collection of different identities that draws strength
from its diversity.
Pronouncements about the death of Britain are no doubt premature. Mr.
Blair's Labour Party seemed set to win the largest bloc of seats in
Scotland and Wales after campaigning in defense of the Union and warning of
the potential economic and political costs of independence.
Still, evidence abounds of shifting loyalties in Britain. According to
recent polls, roughly two-thirds of people in Scotland identify themselves
as Scottish rather than British, a finding that has echoes in Wales and
Northern Ireland.
In what many people here perceived as the ultimate irony, the British
Broadcasting Corp. recently warned its own programmers about using the term
''British,'' because Scots get angry if English soccer hooligans are
referred to as British, or referring to Britain as a ''nation,'' since many
Scots and Welsh consider themselves nations within the United Kingdom.
The Times newspaper blasted the BBC under the headline, ''The nation that
dare not speak its name.''
Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer who helped revive the Labour
Party's election campaign in Scotland by championing constitutional reform,
insists that devolution will preserve Britain by making government more
responsive to local needs. Britishness today is best defined not by
unchanged institutions but by common values shared by diverse peoples, such
as ''being creative, adaptable and outward-looking, believing in liberty,
duty and fair play,'' he said in a recent speech.
''We can be proud of a Britain, which becomes the first successful
multicultural, multiethnic and multinational country in the world,'' Mr.
Brown said.
The success of Labour's campaign and the decline in support for Scottish
independence, which polls indicate only a minority would favor, suggest
that Mr. Brown's vision is shared by many Britons.
''I don't see any weakening of attachment to Britain,'' said Vernon
Bogdanor, professor of government at the University of Oxford. ''The
British are not interested in constitutional reform. They're interested in
substance rather than process.'' The appeal to common values does have its
limits, though.
Scottish nationalism developed in the 1980s largely out of frustration at
the right-wing policies of Margaret Thatcher, whose Conservative Party
dominated the British Parliament and, as a result, Scottish policy, even
though it won few seats in Scotland. Today, many Scots see Mr. Blair as
Mrs. Thatcher's heir, who has succeeded by tailoring Labour's economic
policies to middle-class English voters.
Devolution risks a backlash in England itself because the political changes
have drawn fresh attention to the way in which power and money is shared in
the country. Thanks to a 1970s formula that took account of Scotland's
geographic isolation, the British government spends 22 percent more per
person in Scotland than in England, or �4,772 ($7,800) last year compared
with �3,897.
Meanwhile, after obtaining its own Parliament, Scotland will still have 72
members in the British House of Commons, who will be able to vote on
matters affecting England even though English members will have no say over
issues like education and health in Scotland. Scots dominate the cabinet,
including Mr. Brown at the Treasury, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, Defense
Minister George Robertson and Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, the top
judicial official.
''The Scots used to be cold and needy,'' said Teresa Gorman, a Tory member
of Parliament. ''Now they're bold and greedy. Sooner or later it's going to
get up the noses of England.''
<<And then there's the problem with having had this vast empire ... and
from which countries haven't they been asked to leave ? Is this why Blair
is so uppity about Yugoslavia -- because the last outposts of the "Kingdom"
(although they haven't had a 'king' in over 40 years) are engaged in a
cleansing of their own? Well, there's always Sir George, Tony, Maggie and
Bill for tea, what?>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives
Original link: Paul, bipartisan team, sue Clinton over Kosovo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Picture: ltrhd.gif (3146 bytes)>
FOR RELEASE:
May 1, 1999
Lawsuit filed Friday, April 30, 1999
Paul, bipartisan team, sue Clinton over Kosovo
Members say President has violated Constitution, War Powers Resolution
WASHINGTON, DC -- A bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including
US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), filed a lawsuit on Friday, April 30,
1999, in federal court against President Bill Clinton for violating both
the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to
Yugoslavia.
Rep. Paul has led Congress in the opposing the unconstitutional military
action, introducing the first legislation to stop the measure early in this
Congress, and speaking against it last year.
"This president has violated the law and he must be taken to task," said
Rep. Paul. "It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the
president from this destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent upon
us to resort to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of
Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The lawsuit specifically states that the president violated Section 1,
Article 8, Clause 11, of the US Constitution by engaging in war without the
declaration of such from Congress. The suit also notes that the president
violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution for failing to officially report to
Congress on his aggressive actions against Yugoslavia within the mandated
forty-eight hours.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment from the court, stating that the
president has violated both the US Constitution and the War Powers
Resolution. The plaintiffs ask the court to order the president to end
hostilities by May 25, 1999, and withdrawn troops no later than June 24,
1999.
"For more than 50 years, presidents have engaged in foreign adventurism at
the cost of American lives without regard for the Constitution. But for the
first time we have a president who not only refuses to acknowledge the
Constitution, but also the War Powers Resolution which -- in my opinion --
improperly transferred constitutionally non-delegable powers from the
legislative to executive branch," said Rep. Paul. "Apparently this
president thinks he is king, for in our representative democracy no man is
given the power to unilaterally commit troops to battle without the express
authorization of the people's representatives in Congress."
Joining Rep. Paul in the lawsuit are: Tom Campbell (R, CA), Dennis Kucinich
(D, OH), Marcy Kaptur (D, OH), Roscoe Bartlett (R, MD), Bob Barr (R, GA),
Dan Burton (R, IN), Philip Crane (R, IL), John Cooksey (R, LA), Walter
Jones (R, NC), Donald Manzullo (R, IL), Charlie Norwood (R, GA), Thomas
Petri (R, WI), Marshall Sanford (R, SC), Joe Scarborough (R, FL), Bob
Schaffer (R, CO), and Thomas Tancredo (R, CO). The Members have legal
standing in the suit because the president's actions usurped Congress'
constitutional and legal rights to declare war and provide oversight.
"This president is putting American soldiers, and indeed all Americans, in
danger by engaging in this reckless action," said Rep. Paul. "We must not
allow this or any president to declare themselves above the law."
Congress voted this week 427 to 2 against a declaration of war with
Yugoslavia, voted to prohibit funding for ground elements, and finally,
denied support for the ongoing air campaign.
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
