TL: The European Community (Anglo-French Union)

[Devvy]

World statesmen who provided the stimulus towards integration; left to right: Schumacher (Germany), Nasser (Egypt), Eisenhower (USA), Stalin (Soviet Union)

Excerpt from "Channel Integration", by Henri Miskin

Many a man could point at two points in history for the eventual union of the member states in to the European Community. The devastation left across Europe following the Second World War was large, even in spite of the huge Marshall Plan loans from the United States. Even the noble statesman that was Winston Churchill famously commented "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" - even though he didn't see the United Kingdom as being a part of that. Those two events are:

1) The Stalin Note. Whether or not Stalin actually intended it to happen - many would comment not, the Note did eventually achieve aims he would approve of. The offer of German Unity between East and West (with the Saarland eventually reunifying later) turned what was West Germany away from moves towards pan-European Unity as fledgling steps were taken with the European Coal & Steel Community. Schumacher's West Germany would chase down union with East Germany with a gusto, consuming much political time to deliberations and motions. The end effect by 1956 was the eventual reintegration of much of Germany, taking a total of 4 years of negotiations, arguments and debates between the 4 major powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union). Much can be attributed to the death of Joseph Stalin, and the passing of the torch in Moscow to Molotov in 1953.

Molotov was found to be far more accommodating to the reunification of Germany - subject, of course, to some conditions. First most was the neutrality of a reunified Germany, which would also forbid the basing of foreign troops within Germany. Secondly, the limiting of German forces to be little more useful then glorified border guards & armed security - a situation that was duly cast in to the spotlight during Germany's messy revolution in 1986. The other demands fall by the way side, but the effect was to enforce neutrality on Germany, keeping the Soviets and NATO a comfortable distance apart, whilst also preventing any German-led resurgence that would punish the Soviets again. The case of "neutrality" was interpreted by the Soviet Union as all-encompassing - not just in military terms, which further detracted German participation in any European integration, whether justified or not.

2) The Suez Crisis. When the UK and France "intervened" in the Crisis to supposedly keep the peace, it was seen by many as an attempt to restore colonial prestige. Whilst the move may have succeeded militarily - Israel occupied the Sinai almost up to the Suez Canal, which was later secured by United Nations Peacekeepers, the UK and France were in for a torrid response diplomatically. Both were swiftly condemned, especially in the United States, who threatened to intervene economically by selling large amounts of British currency causing a crisis - a threat which Eisenhower intended to be taken seriously. A small sale to get the British to actually heed the American "requests" had consequences however - something that Eisenhower has oft lamented, and is recognised as one of the greatest US foreign policy blunders of the 20th Century. The move caused a wobbles in the British economy, and caused significant doubt in the US-UK relationship. The Crisis left the UK and France as defeated colonial powers; both recognised the difficulty of holding on to colonial possessions, and both had little financial ability to pay for it either.

Both recognised they needed to work together to forge a "Franco-British" path forwards, free of interference from both the United States and the Soviet Union - neither of which could be trusted not to act solely in their own interests. Even if Eden, the Prime Minister, was found by MPs to be misleading Parliament over the affair, Government circles were awash with "being betrayed by the Americans" - the whole affair had been a loss-loss for the United Kingdom, with Eden accused of destroying British influence in the Middle East, as well as estranging the United States who had rapidly become one of Britain's closest allies - although Eisenhower deserved some credit too. The final nail in the coffin of the UK-US close relationship came later during the Vietnam War in the early 1960s, when both the UK and France refused flat out to get in involved in any manner. The French for their part were doubly dismayed with the Americans; they saw it as the next step after a distinct lack of US support in the First Indochina War when France attempted to defeat Vietnam communists. Although Britain had taken the lead in requesting a ceasefire, they could hardly be blamed after such economic wobbles caused by further US interference. Following the Suez Crisis, US insistence that Israel withdrew to pre-war borders, ignoring Israeli defence requests only served to strengthen British-French-Israeli co-operation.

It is often said that the cause of fusion is two parts; firstly the compatibility of two atoms who are receptive to each other, and secondly an external stimulus which pushes them together. We can see from the events of the 1950s that the causes of fusion were both present; the UK and France both felt chastened by their former major ally, and also felt threatened by a "neutral" Germany - which rapidly came to show many left-wing looking policies, and had little to repulse a Soviet Union from rolling across it if it felt threatened by the west.

--------------------------------------------
Notes: So I supposed the root PoD here is the election of Schumacher as Chancellor of Germany. He chases a unified Germany with far more gusto (and as a bypoint ends up with the German capital in Frankfurt); as a result German efforts are on reintegration, scuppering attempts at European integration. However, the Suez Crisis occurs, with the US causing a wobble in the British economy after the Brits ponder whether to side with the French or listen to the Americans, which eventually leaves the UK and France looking at each other with nowhere else to turn; the UK-USA relationship having been shaken badly, and Franco-German rapprochement scuppered by German policy dictated by internal efforts.

 

[CantyTiger]

You have my curiosity and my attention. Great start!

 

[Devvy]

Anglo-French relations have improved year-on-year since the signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904; left to right: Anglo-French Exhibition Artwork, Anglo-French Scouts, Anglo-French Ministerial Summit

Excerpt from "L'Entente Speciale", by Philippe Cambonne

"The effects of the Suez Crisis was immediate and visible. The UK and France began processes to withdraw from the NATO Integrated Command, although remaining inside NATO itself. Du Gaulle in France declared the country would be "free from foreign nuclear weapons" and reclaimed control of air bases used by the US Air Force. The UK took less immediately drastic steps, allowing US forces to remain in the country, and staying clear of the case over foreign nuclear weapons, but Government sources betrayed the mood in Westminster:

... "When New York is vulnerable to attack, the United States will not use her strategic weapon in defence of London. The United Kingdom must, therefore, have its own retaliatory defence. Our defence must be plausible and respected to have effect. This can only be achieved by the sovereign control of weapons and means of retaliation." ...

What came next was the re-appraisal of military programmes and, in short, a wide-ranging agreement with France on the co-development of many military products. Struggling with finances, the planned fleet carrier project CVA-01 was planned in the 1960s, but was cancelled in favour of co-operating with the French and modifying the "Clemenceau Class" air carrier design for British usage, with 3 planned. The Tornado variable geometry multi-role jet also originated in Franco-British design work, despite efforts by Dassault to scupper the project, whilst most importantly, the Franco-British joint work had at it's core the nuclear retaliatory force. 1957 would see the first detonation of a British nuclear device, followed rapidly by France in 1958, with research shared both sides of the Channel in secret. The joint development helped later down the line as well; as the UK and France formed their own integrated command for their military forces following their withdrawal from the NATO integrated command, the shared nature of many components and machinery vastly increased interoperability as well as improving the spare parts supply chain; French and British naval aircraft could use each other's carriers where required. The integrated command and co-operative development of expensive military products were later joined by Belgium and the Netherlands, with later members also joining where appropriate. In later years, some US Presidents have accused the Community of seeking to undermine NATO and split "the west"; others would say that's not bad thing considering their viewpoint of US foreign policy.

Joint nuclear research was formalised for civilian purposes under the banner of "Joint Atomic Research Committee", in order to aid deployment of nuclear power to both countries for electricity generation. The modern level of safety standards and transparency in the purchase of fissile material owes much to the work of the JARC. While there are many high-profile opponents today of nuclear energy, it's undeniable that much of the energy independence of the European Community is achieved through nuclear power, and that the strict standards laid out by the JARC go along way to avoiding catastrophes such as that seen at Quad Cities in the United States or Novovoronezh in Russia - although there have been a couple of high profile scares in the United Kingdom and France nonetheless.

The deep Anglo-French relationship was not found to be temporary, a transaction of convenience, but has stood the test of time, with Belgium (pre-split), the Netherlands, Germany and other Eastern countries now also all participating in joint development projects, with projects ranging from the Typhoon and Tempest aircraft, the Dunkerque class aircraft supercarrier, and a common reference design (although heavily customised, with the British favouring protection and the French favouring mobility) for tanks. Such co-operation has also extended to operations; Caribbean security around the Community Lesser Antilles is heavily leveraged upon a joint Franco-Britisk task-force, whilst several African civil wars have seen Franco-British joint forces intervene to settle the dispute one way or another. Such action still remains controversial however, with many detractors calling it "New Colonialism", whilst advocates label it "Peacekeeping".

1957-58 would also see the enactment of a free trade agreement, covering most goods - only agriculture was left separate, in part due to the perceived significant amount of Commonwealth trade in agriculture; something that was quickly rendered moot as the volumes of trade dwindled against imports from Europe. Much of the plan originated from the United Kingdom's "Plan G" of ideas to formulate a position which kept the UK as the bastion of the Commonwealth, but also participated in the European economy, and which also proved suitable given France's huge agricultural sector (both to the French who did not particularly want to unravel the agricultural economy with rash attempts to reform subsidies, and the Brits who wanted to maintain economical - primarily agricultural - links with the Commonwealth). Such a free trade pact contrasted with the evolution towards a single market in the Nordics at the time, where a treaty on the free movement of people and enactment of a passport union had already occurred - even if Finland looked hamstrung in it's participation due to it's policy of Paasikivi–Kekkonenism.

GDP growth in both the United Kingdom and France dropped to 0 in late 1958 however, which provided an extra spur to free trade agreements. By the early 1960s though, with economic growth still wobbly and seemingly little stimulus to trade with protectionist policies apparent on both sides of the channel, a new shot-in-the-arm was desired by both leaders to stimulate their economies.

 

[Devvy]

You have my curiosity and my attention. Great start!

Thanks

 

[Analytical Engine]

I approve of this TL and would like to subscribe to its newsletter.

 

[Devvy]

Standardisation comes in many forms; left to right: the UK plug, decimal currency, UK time, Swedish switch to right-side driving.

Excerpt from "The makings of an economic union", by Gabriel Bondini

The early 1960s saw a fundamental shift in both British and French economic interests; for the UK, trade with it's Commonwealth family dwindled, whilst France reeled from releasing Algeria it's links to the metropole. An offer of a free trade agreement between the UK and Canada, rejected by Ottawa in 1957, probably did little to help the British interest in maintaining the Empire. Much was lost to independence and local economic relations rather then with the mother country, and Canada especially, due to it's extensive border with the United States was stuck between economic reliance on the United States and protectionism to maintain it's independence. Australia and New Zealand continued to export agricultural produce to the United Kingdom, but in much lower volumes then previously.

The news that the United Kingdom and France were considering a new partnership agreement, based on heavily aligning their economic and political interests therefore came partly as no surprise and huge surprise between two countries whose relations had been defined by centuries of war (literally in some cases). The Republic of Ireland was the first to make noises about joining any multi-lateral agreement - the country was so economically dependant on the United Kingdom for trade that is could hardly afford to be left out of any wider free-trade agreement lest it's exports were later disadvantaged. Whilst any such partnership solely between the UK and Ireland would be seen as "submitting to the enemy", a multilateral approach with France was more palatable, and was quickly backed up by the interest shown by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, forming a new 6 member group.

Non-tariff borders formed as much a part of discussions between the working group of the 6, as much as tariffs did. Many advocated for a "Common Market"; dropping all tariffs and creating a customs union with a common external tariff. Both French and British delegates rejected any substantial supranational institution, the smaller 4 countries advocated for common standards, but the pressure to form a new bloc, resistant to outside pressures was substantial. Germany, largely demilitarised and neutral, was rapidly investing money in reinvigorating it's industry - and with little military to pay for, had the means to outspend the British and French. The German military machine had been defeated, but it seemed the German economic machine was about to rise instead.

What resulted was a wide-ranging document, endorsed by all 6 parties of delegates on a "European Community". Prospects of a union or supranationality were dashed; the community was to be run on an intergovernmental basis by a "European Council" of the 6 members, with decisions primarily implemented via national law. A Common Market would eventually be established between all six, with free movement of goods, people, services and money (for people, effectively an extension of the "Irish Model" in the UK), whilst tariffs between all six would be dropped in the short term - whilst keeping some import quotas for produce from British allies (notably Australia and New Zealand), a key British demand. Urged by the Federation of British Industry, Britain and Ireland committed to a comprehensive system of metrication, as well as decimalisation of the British and Irish Pounds. The UK and Ireland also committed to switching to driving on the right - what would be called "H-Day" after the Swedish and Icelandic switch when it eventually occurred in February 1971. This actually formed a slightly backhand move by the UK, whose Ministry of Transport had been analysing a switch to right-side driving anyhow. In return, the continental Europeans committed to adopting the British & Irish AC plug & socket system (a move which would also disadvantage German industry), with the whole community standardising at 230V at 50Hz, and moving an hour back to synchronise with the Brits and Irish - which restored the correct geographic time anyway. Both the UK and France also committed to the construction of the Channel Tunnel - seen as vital to boost trade between the UK and Europe.

Reform of agriculture was also a key French demand. French farmers had been subsidised for years, to shore up the economy of France's "nation of farmers" - which were primarily small in scale as opposed to the UK's fewer but larger farms. However, the size of France compared to the UK, and definitely other members, meant that French farmers would dominate any pan-European subsidy. However, the prospect of a pan-European scheme - required in order to make free-trade possible - meant that the UK would be subsidising French farming. The end solution was to create several separate Community funding pots, with each being ring fenced from one another, and then a fixed formula for the Community Agricultural Fund weighted on GDP (1/2) and amount of farmland (1/2). The result was a scheme where France funded almost half (48%) of the CAF budget, with the United Kingdom funding around a third (34%), Belgium, Netherlands and Ireland a far smaller amount (4-5%), and Luxembourg the tiny remainder (1%). With the accession of the eastern countries, the funding proportion for the UK and France has dropped considerably - France now funds just under a third (28%), the UK a fifth (20%) and Germany just under a quarter (23%), with the other countries funding the remainder to a greater or lesser extent. The other ring fenced funds included "Regional Development" - a fund for investment in infrastructure in ailing areas, and "Governance" for the administration costs of the Community itself.

It was certainly one of the most ambitious documents, but certainly more realistic then some of the suggestions floated around, which ranged from other countries recognising Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as the head of the European Community (almost certainly designed to cripple the Community idea) to an international Parliament and transfers of sovereignty. The only noteworthy concession on this side was the creation of the European Court of Justice, in order to arbitrate in disputes between the members on Community matters. Many believed it to be essential to introduce more competition and larger markets to aid both countries' economies - especially Britain's ailing manufacturing industries.

Overall however, it was a harmonisation of standards and intergovernmental structure envisaged rather then any kind of pooling of sovereignty.

---------------------------
Notes:
- The UK DoT did study switching left->right side driving, but considered it not worthwhile for the expense. It's pushed through here to help the ailing motor industries.
- Metrication has long been an aim of the UK Govt, and like OTL, I think most things will be metrified, but many unofficial weights and measures will remain in lingo.
- The UK plug becomes more popular as a "Community standard". The bastion of left-side driving is sacrificed in order to make the UK plug more popular
- The CAF (OTL:CAP) is OTL funded mostly by GDP - here it's funded by GDP and agricultural land size, which means France funds more a bit more then OTL as it has more farm land.

 

[Analytical Engine]

NOOOO, Britain must never submit to driving on the wrong side of the road!

 

[CrazyGeorge]

This is great.

 

[Devvy]

Issues surrounding British devolution; left to right: Barbados in the Community Antilles, Troubles flaring in Northern Ireland, Big Ben in it's former years, and the Royal Navy at Valletta (Malta)

Excerpt from "The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Lands Beyond the Seas", by Nicole Steur

Looking back, it's easy to be unable to recognise historical Britain. The result of centuries of slow absorption of power and Westminster centralisation had created a Government in one corner of the country which ruled supreme over all other corners. Despite the growth, adoption of self-government, evolution to Dominion and eventual independence that occurred in much of the British Empire, the United Kingdom itself had been ruled indivisibly until the seeds of devolution were sown in 1920 by the creation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Although later abolished in the 1970s as the Second Ulster Crisis flared, it became the model and blueprint for devolution for the United Kingdom's "lands beyond the Isles".

The former terms of devolution to Northern Ireland, in general, devolved most aspects but those required for the broad governance of the United Kingdom. It was copied, first and foremost, as a model for the integration of Malta to the United Kingdom, which allowed broad local government in Valetta by the Maltese Parliament, but subject to the British Parliament as a matter of law. The proposed deal was, however, in a right royal mess, almost wrecked after the Royal Navy announced that it would no longer require the port at Malta due to budget cuts. What occurred afterwards, was a collapse of the movement due the widespread employment the Royal Navy provided, both directly and indirectly, to the local economy. It was only rescued late on, after a last "take-it-or-leave-it" Parliamentary vote was held on the proposition in the Maltese Parliament, after the Royal Navy decided it would retain a base there. The work spent on the integration movement was rapidly copied; it served as the blueprint for the integration of Gibraltar (despite Franco's best efforts) and most of the Caribbean islands in the Lesser Antilles following the collapse of the West Indies Federation, and later the normalisation in the status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The irony that the Royal Navy still maintains a (smaller) presence in Malta, despite it's stance in the 1950s, is not lost on many locals - much of which is down to the role the Community plays in the Mediterranean.

The West Indies region (that of the Lesser Antilles) is definitely an area that provokes wide interest. Following the collapse of the British West Indies Federation and reassertion of "Colonial Rule" (as some would put it), and the establishment of the European Community between the UK, France and Netherlands, integration with the UK meant an opportunity for pan-regional work; the French Antilles islands and Dutch Antilles were open for trade and movement if the islands integrated with the United Kingdom - with the prospect becoming more attractive the more subscribed to it. Trinidad and Tobago gained independence (it did, and still does, possess a far larger population then the other islands), although it remains a Privileged Partner of the European Community; the rest of the smaller islands all remain integrated parts of the European nations, with varying degrees of self government, but all enjoying an integrated economy between them as befits members of the European Community; the risk of being cut off from the joint economy is a strong argument that keeps the islands all integrated with Europe.

Following the Suez Crisis, the requirement was for both Britain and France to exercise as much control of the Suez Canal short of intervention again, and both countries initially retained their Somaliland territories before centralising support around the strategic port facilities at Djibouti. The move would eventually form a naval chain from west to east of bases - Gibraltar, Toulon, Malta, Akrotiri & Dhekelia and Somaliland through the region, prompting some Soviet advisors to label the Mediterranean as an "EC lake". What was left of British and French territories in the Arab world quickly evaporate (most leaning to Soviet or American foreign policy) after the Arab-Israeli war, with strong support for Israel continuing by Britain and France, a move that played a significant part in the 1970s oil embargo by many of the Arab states, prompting an energy crisis in the European Community.

Attempting to follow the examples of Malta, Gibraltar and the various other territories that have come to receive devolved Parliaments, the Royal Commission on Devolution in the 1970s eventually came to judgement on the United Kingdom itself. The reaction was mixed to devolution to any portion of Scotland, Wales or England (or English region). In the end, events largely overtook the Commission Whitepaper with a new incoming Government with it's own manifesto pledges for devolution. The new Government implemented limited administrative devolution to "City Regions" in 1972. Strathclyde (Glasgow), Lothian (Edinburgh), East Glamorgan (Cardiff), Merseyside (Liverpool), Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire (Leeds & Bradford), South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Tyneside (later Tyne & Wear, Newcastle & Sunderland) and the West Midlands (Birmingham & Wolverhampton) all received a "Regional Assembly" with wider strategic powers - transport, emergency services, regional development, strategic planning, libraries, social care, health care, libraries were amongst the powers, to a greater or lesser extent, devolved to the city regions. These regions were all based on a well populated city, and it's wider hinterland, and were widely regarded as semi-successful - such a move seemingly reduced pressure for more regional devolution, feared by the British Government as leading to the breakup of Great Britain, and the United Kingdom with it.

The city regions were later joined by a further group of city regions, ranging from Aberdeen to Swansea, from Preston to the Solent, and from Norwich to Bristol, providing much of what we now recognise as the devolved system of the United Kingdom. Later additions to devolution were Northern Ireland, and then London & Home Counties; the former as a result of the Good Friday Agreement which resolved the Ulster Crisis, and the latter as a new wider regional and less powerful body after the abolition of the Greater London Crisis following political deadlock. The deadlock had many factors, not least the Leader of the Council, Ken Livingstone's close links with Irish Republicans and quiet support for them over the consternation of the British Government.

The Second Ulster Crisis, which had been brewing for decades, flared up in the 1970s until the 1990s,as Republicans and Loyalists faced off with each other for control over Northern Ireland, with the United Kingdom also intervening in favour of the Loyalists. Several thousand lost their lives, not only due to paramilitary action within Northern Ireland, but also due to a widespread terrorist bombing campaign in the United Kingdom - the most high profile of which saw the bombing of the Palace of Westminster, leading to it's demolition. The iconic "Big Ben" clock tower was however saved, and now sits in a memorial park to the 32 killed in the event, watched over by the national personifications of most of the original Community members who donated to the restoration; Britannia, Marianne, Eriu, Germania and the Dutch Maiden (both latter women often mistaken for Britannia by foreign tourists). The UK Parliament now sits at a far more modern - and larger - building on the site of the former Battersea Power Station, in a layout resembling the Canadian Parliament buildings at Ottawa. The highly visible move by the Republican IRA galvanised political action towards a clampdown in Northern Ireland, and moves to finally resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, with French mediation (as both British allies, and Catholic brethren). The end result was an agreement that the status of Northern Ireland was currently that of a region of the United Kingdom, but that it's status could change by the wishes of it's people alone. Devolution was restored to Northern Ireland as a devolved region of the United Kingdom, similar to the existing city regions, but with added powers reflecting it's unique position in the United Kingdom.

-----------------------------
Notes:
Some stuff about British devolution; rather then devolution to the home nations, it's facilitated through devolution to the "city regions". Devolution to wider regions is seen over the seas; many smaller territories have followed the example of Malta and integrated in to the UK with significant devolution, although this has only really been allowed with small populations.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Westminster having to be demolished due to an Irish Republican bombing...

Hopefully the replacement will be fully modernised, and also have a decent architect.

 

[Devvy]

Westminster having to be demolished due to an Irish Republican bombing...

Hopefully the replacement will be fully modernised, and also have a decent architect.

Yah, figured there's no avoiding "The Troubles", although this time with French instead of American mediation to end it. The IRA managed some big bombings in London and Manchester, so I figured that getting the Palace of Westminster isn't too far of a stretch, and will act as a massive push to end things as long as nobody important gets killed - which given the IRA's penchant for warnings isn't unrealistic.

It's an opportunity to rebuild on the area where Battersea power station sits though, a much larger area, with the opportunity to build chambers that are adequately suited to the numbers required as you say. Much as I'd like to suggest some kind of redesign, I think the push in such circumstances would be to preserve as much as possible of the old design, so I guess just a larger version of the Houses to give everyone a seat.

 

[Gonzo]

I have just found this and I really like this TL so far.

Though decimalisation, destroying Westminster, and driving on the wrong side of the road are unforgivable sins...

 

[Devvy]

I have just found this and I really like this TL so far.

Though decimalisation, destroying Westminster, and driving on the wrong side of the road are unforgivable sins...

Haha, glad you're enjoying it!

Decimalisation....well, even as a 1980s child, I just can't figure out the attachment to pounds, ounces, miles and inches. The UK DoT apparently had a ringfenced fund aside for the cost of replacing all the roadsigns anyway

Driving on the wrong side, well you have a point there!

 

[Gonzo]

Haha, glad you're enjoying it!

Decimalisation....well, even as a 1980s child, I just can't figure out the attachment to pounds, ounces, miles and inches. The UK DoT apparently had a ringfenced fund aside for the cost of replacing all the roadsigns anyway

Driving on the wrong side, well you have a point there!

I'd have thought I had something with Westminster being bombed.

Next you'll have full fat milk being banned!

 

[Analytical Engine]

I have just found this and I really like this TL so far.

Though decimalisation, destroying Westminster, and driving on the wrong side of the road are unforgivable sins...

I care not for opposing decimalisation, and, frankly, the Palace of Westminster needs either massive refurbishment or outright replacing.

I have already given my opinion to driving on the wrong side of the road, however. I agree that it is heretical.

 

[Gonzo]

the Palace of Westminster needs either massive refurbishment or outright replacing.

Though you'll admit that it is a lovely and historical building(?).

 

[Analytical Engine]

Though you'll admit that it is a lovely and historical building(?).

I've been a couple of times - I agree that it's a lovely building. It's also really old and badly in need of refurbishment.

However, if it wasn't the Houses of Parliament, and was instead just another large Georgian/Victorian building, it would probably have either (a) been torn down and replaced by now, or (b) closed off to the public for several years whilst the entire interior is refurbished.

I'd much prefer that a totally new building be constructed, with sufficient seating for all the MPs, electronic voting*, and a decent architect**. The old Place of Westminster would still be used for its office space, but the remainder would be used either for the State Opening or a public museum.

*I also realised that this will probably make the Politibrits want to lynch me
**If someone designs an ugly building, I would start foaming at the mouth. Like Prince Charles, I have Views on certain modern types of architecture, though I may be a touch more lenient

 

[Devvy]

I'd have thought I had something with Westminster being bombed.

Next you'll have full fat milk being banned!

Hahahaha. Well, ............I jest, I jest.

I've been a couple of times - I agree that it's a lovely building. It's also really old and badly in need of refurbishment.

However, if it wasn't the Houses of Parliament, and was instead just another large Georgian/Victorian building, it would probably have either (a) been torn down and replaced by now, or (b) closed off to the public for several years whilst the entire interior is refurbished.

I'd much prefer that a totally new building be constructed, with sufficient seating for all the MPs, electronic voting*, and a decent architect**. The old Place of Westminster would still be used for its office space, but the remainder would be used either for the State Opening or a public museum.

*I also realised that this will probably make the Politibrits want to lynch me
**If someone designs an ugly building, I would start foaming at the mouth. Like Prince Charles, I have Views on certain modern types of architecture, though I may be a touch more lenient

Quite. I've done the tour inside too, and while it's steeped in history it does also look like it's held together by tape. It's in desperate need of refurbishment and considering the size of the Houses, enlargement. Having more members then seats is an absolute travesty.

And I wanted something that showed a) not everything is rosy here despite my penchant for writing optimistic timelines, b) something to finally resolve the Norn Iron issue, and c) something that allows the Community to bind together.

 

[Gonzo]

Hahahaha. Well, ............I jest, I jest.

I swear if you ban the blue capped milk...

 

[Analytical Engine]

I swear if you ban the blue capped milk...

On the other hand, I would be quite happy if the only milk on sale was semi-skimmed.

Skimmed milk is horrible, and I've never really drunk full-fat, BTW. I'm just used to semi-skimmed, because that's more or less the only type of milk I've drunk.