Divisions in history

Right now, the UK is at an intriguing crossroads in its history, whereby whatever happens a very large proportion of the population will be quite cross (the middle ways of an associate membership of the EU or EFTA/EEA membership were not offered in Cameron’s renegotiation and were rejected by May, respectively).

However, whilst fringe lunatics on either side shriek and wail, and a great many in the middle would just like reason to prevail, it’s worth noting that this ideological polarisation is nothing new. And nor is it anywhere near as bad as it has been in the past.

If we go back about two and a half thousand years, there’s the Peloponnesian War. This was between democrats, led by Athens (ironic, given Athens had a maritime empire), and the oligarchs, led by Sparta. Perhaps because there aren’t overriding personalities like Hannibal and Scipio, the war is less well-known than some ancient conflicts. As well as inter-city rivalry (which is more serious than it sounds. In Greek xenos [root of xenophobia] referred to another Greek but who came from a different city [barbaros referred to a non-Greek]), there was the clash of ideals. Democracy inherently sounds better to us, but it’s worth noting the Athenians executed most of their best admirals after a successful naval battle.

Yes, you read that correctly. The admirals in question failed to retrieve Athenian bodies from the water (not an easy task) and were punished for this with death. Democracy and mob rule are not so very far apart.

Within other cities that weren’t as firmly rooted in either camp, rival factions of pro-oligarchy and pro-democracy thugs arose. Thucydides wrote of how nuance and being reasonable was seen as cowardice, and treacherous backstabbing, ambushing the enemy, was seen as the height of bravery. As well as the major battles and prolonged warfare, a huge amount of bitterness was kindled all across Greece. This was quite unusual as warfare generally is about seizing resources or trying to avenge a misfortune.

More recently, but still about a thousand years ago, Byzantium was in the throes of iconoclasm. There was a clash between traditionalist iconodules, who adored icons (sometimes too much), and iconoclasts, who wanted to smash them. Icons were venerated but sometimes to such an extent that one might be named a godparent. This reached such extremes that a backlash movement arose, intent upon destroying the icons, smashing the physical substance and restoring faith and worship to the intangible. Countless works of religious art were destroyed before, eventually, the furore died down and a sort of soft iconodule solution was reached.

Hundreds of years ago, in Italy/Germany, there was a religious and political clash between those who supported the Pope and those who supported the Holy Roman Emperor (arguably the least accurate title in history). The Guelphs supported the Pope, and the Ghibellines backed the Holy Roman Emperor.

The first so-called Holy Roman Emperor was Charlemagne, who was crowned by the Pope in Rome on Christmas Day 800AD. This was not a continuation of the (Western) Roman Empire, but in the same way that Latin was used by the Church long after the Empire fell and Russia once described Moscow as the Third Rome, the Roman Empire still loomed so large in the cultural memory that both the Pope and Charlemagne wanted to be associated with it.

Such closeness between emperor and pontiff was not always the case. Centuries later, sometimes for more political reasons than religious or philosophical ones, the Guelph and Ghibelline factions arose. Often, pro-imperial Ghibellines lived in places at risk of rising papal power, and pro-papacy Guelphs dwelt in areas at risk of waxing imperial authority (so they were frequently bound together not so much by love of the one they supported as fear of the one they did not).

And that has some relevance to the present day. Many in the UK both dislike the EU’s politics and drive to integrate, and dislike the thought of utterly going it alone. For some, it’s a question of what they dislike more, rather than what they strongly support.

Thaddeus

Grasping Power

Today, Theresa May (UK Prime Minister) announced a snap election. This came after saying for some time she wouldn’t do this, and just two years after the last UK General Election (UK terms are usually four to five years).

Obviously, it’s a big gamble, and on 8 June we’ll see how it pans out. Of course, it’s not the first such gamble in history.

The classic would be Julius Caesar, standing with his army on one side of the Rubicon. He’d been ordered back to Rome, without his army. Caesar had understandable reservations. The unofficial triumvirate that had dominated Roman politics had fractured. He was one member, and another, Crassus, had been killed whilst on campaign in Parthia. Pompey, the third member, had been married to Caesar’s daughter, but she had died.

Caesar and Pompey found themselves on opposing sides of Roman politics. The two men, previously allies, were now to fight for control of Rome (still technically a republic). Caesar had a choice to make. Obey the summons of his city and probably be prosecuted, or march an army into Italy.

He crossed the Rubicon, crossing the river with a loyal army at his back. It was a decision from which there could be no turning back (the phrase is still sometimes used today, and could well apply to the Prime Minister’s decision). Ultimately, it paid off. Caesar won the war and briefly ruled what was in effect an empire, until his assassination a year or so after the civil war ended. His adopted son, taking the name Augustus, won his own civil war and became the first emperor, reigning for decades.

It was not the last civil war the Roman Empire would see. Julian, appointed as Caesar (junior emperor) by his cousin Constantius II (largely on the basis he was the only surviving male relative the emperor had) to govern Gaul and protect it from the rampaging Germanic tribes, set about his task with surprising confidence for a man plucked from obscure academia. Julian was so competent, in fact, that his soldiers proclaimed him emperor, which put him in a tight spot. He could either accept, and embark upon civil war against the man who had appointed him in the first place, or decline, and risk getting murdered by his own men.

Julian decided to accept.

The two sides geared up for war, and Julian scored perhaps the most perfect victory in a civil war in the history of mankind. Before the armies met, Constantius fell terminally ill. On his deathbed, he named his cousin as his successor. Not a drop of blood was shed, and Julian the Apostate became emperor.

Of course, snap decisions to achieve sovereign power don’t always work out well, and rarely as well as Julian’s bloodless triumph.

Sir Roger Mortimer had been a relatively close friend of Edward II. However, the latter’s capacity for alienating others, not least at the behest of Hugh Despenser, gradually led to Roger becoming disaffected and then rebelling outright. The Mortimer, as then known, was imprisoned and destined for death.

However, he managed to escape to France, where he formed a political (and personal) alliance with Edward II’s wife Isabella. The pair returned to England, successfully overthrowing Isabella’s husband. Edward II was imprisoned, and Roger Mortimer became ruler of England.

This left Edward, Isabella’s son by her husband, in a very precarious position. He was effectively under house arrest and too young to exercise, or even try to assert, his authority. The youth became a young king, Edward III, when his father was (probably) killed whilst in custody. His uncle was also executed.

Things looked rather bleak. Edward III was nearing adulthood, and Mortimer, who was gathering vast power and endless titles unto himself, seemed unlikely to suffer a rival. However, hope was not lost. A small group of friends, young and intrepid fellows, sought to free Edward. A secret passage was unlocked, and the rescuers made their way into Nottingham Castle, where Edward, Mortimer, and Isabella were all living. Edward III was freed, Mortimer captured, and a rather sombre conversation had between mother and son.

Sir Roger Mortimer appeared to have won. The old king was dead, Queen Isabella was his mistress, and the young king his prisoner, to be dispensed with once the time was right. Yet despite all these advantages, his rapacious greed had made the nobility fearful, and the loyalty of his friends saved Edward III.

Those seeking power should beware that in the getting of it they don’t plant the seeds of their own destruction.

Thaddeus

Milo and Clodius

Recent political doings made me think this might be relevant.

In the fractious latter days of republican Rome, the democratic aspect of the city’s politics was on the wane. The prolonged period of republic had enabled dynasties to establish deep-rooted power bases, and army reforms meant that soldiers often felt more loyal to generals than the state.

A few decades earlier Marius and Sulla, erstwhile colleagues in the Jugurthine War, had tussled over supremacy in Rome. This ended up being a warm-up act for the Caesar/Pompey clash that was destined to determine the destruction of the Republic.

Soldiers were not generally allowed in the City of Rome, for the rather obvious reason that having thousands of armed men might just upset the balance of power, and move the governance of Rome from the Senate to whomever commanded the legions.

At the same time, gladiator games (which were used by politicians and aspiring politicians to improve or cement their popularity) were increasingly common and occurring on an ever larger scale. It didn’t take long for the men plotting supremacy to realise that having hundreds of professional killers as bodyguards or hired thugs could be useful for both protection and aggression.

Milo was a supporter of Caesar, and Clodius of Pompey. The two men were political enemies and frequently travelled with gangs of armed men, including gladiators. They encountered one another, Clodius attacking Milo (according to some accounts, others say they met by chance and a fight started by their followers). Clodius, however, was the man who ended up dead.

Cicero defended Milo, but despite that, Milo was found guilty and sentenced to exile. The trial was notable for the mob drowning out Milo’s lawyers and intimidating Cicero. The mob also meant Pompey’s cohorts turned up to ‘ensure order’, but as Clodius was his ally this also helped the jury to give a result that would have pleased Pompey.

Democratic or mixed constitutions rarely slip into tyranny or political violence overnight. The arms race of protection and aggression in latter day republican Rome added to the powder keg of politics in the city at the time, caused by the erosion of institutions and the rising power of particular individuals.

When political violence becomes widely endorsed, accepted or commonplace, power shifts away from the people, or even the political class, and towards those willing and able to commit acts of violence to acquire and maintain power.

Rome never solved this problem when the Republic became the Empire. At times, transition was orderly (notably during the Golden Age, until Marcus Aurelius buggered it up). But the fundamental problem of the lawful nature of who the emperor was remained unresolved. It, ultimately, always came down to the same answer, an answer that resulted in increasingly common civil war, and the Empire devouring its own strength in petty power struggles.

Might was right.

Thaddeus

The UK has voted to leave the EU

I don’t write much about politics on this blog, preferring to mess about with fantasy and sci-fi, history and videogames. But today might well be the most momentous political event of my adult lifetime, and the article I had pencilled-in (videogames of E3) seems a bit limp given what’s happened overnight.

Instead, here’s a concise, hopefully objective, rundown of what has happened and what the future might hold.

Background

Around 2014 UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party, which focuses [or focused...] on leaving the EU) was doing very well in the polls. It had enjoyed two defections from the Conservatives (MPs Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless) and went on to win the European Elections in the UK.

To help counter this threat, both at the General Election and in terms of stopping more MPs defecting, Prime Minister David Cameron chose to include a referendum on the country’s membership of the EU in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto [NB an earlier referendum had been promised by both major parties over the Constitution, which became the Lisbon Treaty. This referendum was never held, and Brown signed the Treaty anyway].

The Campaigns

There were various Leave and Remain campaigns. Almost all were characterised by exaggeration, misleading statements and ill-humour. Importantly, the traditional party lines were worthless. All parties were split, the governing Conservatives more than any other party, and the polls (after a very inaccurate 2015 set of forecasts) were viewed with some suspicion.

The prime advantage of Remain was the economy. For Leave, it was immigration. Other areas such as security/defence were more evenly split.

Foreign intervention during the campaign (for Remain) appears not to have worked well, with many taking Obama’s claim that the UK would be ‘at the back of the queue’ as insulting. However, such interventions were rare and did not play a major role.

[NB the first MP in a quarter of a century, Labour’s Jo Cox, was murdered about a week before polling day. This led to a suspension of campaigning for a few days. Opinion is divided as to the polling impact].

The Vote

On polling day there was extensive rainfall, initially in Essex (mostly Leave) and then in London (strongly Remain). Turnout was generally high, around 72% (highest for a UK-wide vote this century, I think) but a little lower in Scotland than elsewhere.

The turnout in England was 73%, with 53.4% voting Leave.

The turnout in Scotland was 67.2%, with 38% voting to Leave.

The turnout in Wales was 71.7%, with 52.5% voting to Leave.

The turnout in Northern Ireland was 62.9%, with 44.2% voting to Leave.

So, England and Wales voted to Leave, Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to Remain. The overall result was 51.9% for Leave.

What Now? Part 1 – the EU

Leaving the EU happens by triggering Article 50. This is done by the PM (more on that role below). When triggered, a 2 year formal negotiation period occurs, at the end of which either a deal is agreed (it may be interim or permanent, I believe) or not. If not, the UK still leaves the EU but trade occurs under WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules. [Edited extra bit: the process of negotiation may be extended if both the UK and EU agree to it. Cheers to the comments for that].

More widely, pre-vote polling suggested if the UK voted to Leave a majority of Swedes (in the EU but not members of the single currency eurozone) would also want to leave the organisation. There are also significant numbers in France, the Netherlands and other EU countries who are sceptical or wish to leave.

A problem for the EU is how to react. If it tries to be harsh to the UK to deter other departures, that would substantially harm the Irish economy (Ireland has more trade with the UK than the rest of the EU combined). Not only that, the UK is a massive net importer from EU countries, so making trade difficult would hurt the EU a lot as well.

However, if a more lenient approach is taken and the UK does well, other countries may conclude that leaving the EU may work for them. That said, very few countries are in the EU but outside the eurozone, so we may see non-eurozone countries leave and eurozone nations integrate further (the latter is already underway).

A final note on Ireland: the particular political history here is fraught. Currently, the Northern Ireland/Irish Republic border is open. This may or may not be the case, depending how the exit negotiations go. It will almost certainly make the political situation even more turbulent.

What Now? Part 2 – party politics

David Cameron resigned the morning after the night before. His speech was dignified and statesmanlike, and I can’t help but feel had he spoken that way during the campaign Remain would have won handily. He anticipates a new Conservative leader (and therefore Prime Minister) being in place by October of this year.

There are various candidates. Boris Johnson is the first name that springs to mind, but, personally, I feel he will not get it. The single issue of British politics now is the departure from the EU, and whilst Boris is seen by many as a likeable man, he is seen by few as a hard-headed negotiator with a head for details. Teresa May, who kept largely out of the fray, must be a strong contender. Others such as Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan and George Osborne seem unlikely (respectively: don’t want it, not sharp enough, too disliked).

Cameron has said he will not trigger Article 50 (see above), and that it is a matter for his successor.

At the time of writing (12.39pm on Friday), Labour MPs are rumoured to be laying down a motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. We may have an unprecedented degree of disunity and leadership elections in both major parties.

A General Election is scheduled for 2020, but it is possible the Fixed Term Parliament Act could be repealed and a snap(ish) election held in the next 6-12 months. It is possible UKIP could do very well at such elections, although they’ve flattered to deceive in both 2010 and 2015.

It’s just over a year ago that Cameron won a shock majority in the 2015 General Election.

What Now? Part 3 – end of the UK?

In 2014 Scotland voted 55% to remain within the UK. A second referendum north of the border looks very likely. It is not certain, however.

There is a possibility the new PM may opt for a close relationship with the EU, whereby free trade and movement of people continues to occur (this would necessitate, in all likelihood, a second UK-wide referendum as migration was such a critical concern in the vote just gone). If that were the case, and it were accepted, an independence vote in Scotland seems unlikely.

However, it is more likely than not that within a few years Scotland will have another vote. Some serious issues from last time remain unanswered (what currency to use?), but Scotland’s strong showing for Remain will be seen by many as reasonable grounds for another vote (although it must pass in the Holyrood Parliament).

Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland, has stated today that she would want the referendum to be held within the 2 year negotiation period following the instigation of Article 50. The timing is interesting as, if held then, it would mean Scotland may not actually leave the EU but continue inside it, but also that Scotland would be voting whilst negotiations between the UK and EU were ongoing.

There are also (as above) potential difficulties in Northern Ireland, with a possible resurgence in republican sentiment that may cause a corresponding rise in unionist feeling.

But, apart from the UK’s position regarding the EU, the next Prime Minister, the next Leader of the Opposition, the continuing existence of the UK and whether other EU nations may elect to leave it, everything’s looking pretty stable.

Thaddeus