What is in Kelvin's Head?

I’d like a Featherlight Brexit and no-one is offering it

17/01/2017

The trouble is, I agree with Mrs May.

Oh, don’t get breathless and excited. I only agree with her about one thing. I don’t agree with her about the kind of country she wants us to live in. I don’t agree with her about the kind of Europe we are going to create. I don’t agree with her about the kind of economy that she wants, which I think will harm the poorest most.

No, I simply agree with that most pathetic and seemingly banal political slogan – brexit means brexit. I wish I didn’t but I do.

If the people of the UK voted for brexit then the UK has to come out of the EU. I don’t see any way of that being avoided with the possible exception of the government falling and a new election being fought entirely on the European question. However, that isn’t going to happen and so brexit really does mean brexit.

There really is no having a referendum vote and ignoring it.

I don’t know what was ever meant by a red, white and blue brexit but what I want is a featherlight brexit.

I want a brexit that retains all the best of the relationship we have with the EU and which leaves the door open to rejoining after a period outside.

However, that doesn’t seem available.

I find it difficult to understand why there isn’t anything like that available politically.

The Lib Dems seem in denial that the referendum on brexit actually means we are leaving.

The Tory party seems mostly hell bent on the worst kind of brexit.

The Labour party seems mostly hell bent on removing itself as a political force.

The SNP seem to think that all that matters is whether or not it brings Scottish independence any further forward.

Our First Minister seemed ruffled and unsure of herself today as though she had not had a script prepared for Theresa May’s well trailed speech. It seems to me that now is the time when we will see what kind of politician Nicola Sturgeon is. She’s been dealt a very rough hand and we’ve no idea whether she will play it well. You can’t really judge a politician by how well they play a good hand and she’s more or less had that up until now. Massive poll ratings and huge electoral success have been very impressive but I simply don’t believe she can win a better brexit deal for Scotland than the rest of the UK gets. To some extent the SNP have been living in a fantasy since the brexit vote.

Ms Sturgeon’s hand might get very much worse this year. If there’s electoral success for the far right in either Holland or France then it is plain that the question will not be whether Scotland should be independent in Europe but whether there’s a Europe left which we want to be in.

I want a brexit that means that people living in the UK from the EU can remain in the UK and vice versa.

I want a brexit that retains interdependent trading with the UK and the EU.

I want a brexit that leaves the door open to a reformed European project which seems inevitable and which Britain would be better engaged with than disengaged with.

However, I don’t feel as though anyone is offering anything like what I want.

Who will form the Featherlight Party with me?

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply