Supermajorities

23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.

I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).

I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.

Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.

There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.

I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.

St Austell to Istanbul direct

I love trains. I once had a house where there were trains at the bottom of the garden. When we first moved in the noise disturbed sleep; after about a month we no longer noticed them. These were not proper trains, they were just London suburban, carrying drones to and from dreary work. Proper trains are intercontinental.

I once dragged my family onto a train at London Victoria to begin a journey which would end in Istanbul a few days later. This was 18 or 19 years before the Channel Tunnel opened. I was probably seasick on the ferry. I had always dreamed of romantic train journeys: the Trans-Siberian Express, the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver, the Orient Express. The most practical and least expensive option was, I decided, to go from London to Istanbul. Probably the best part of it for me was the months of planning using the Thomas Cook International Timetable, each leg of the journey meticulously planned and eventually booked, hotels in Paris, Venice and Istanbul itself, all ready for the big day. [Note: school teachers = long summer holidays].

Things don't always go as planned. If you miss the once a day sleeper train from Belgrade to Istanbul - not pre-bookable through Cook's because it was run by Bulgarian Railways and there were no signs in English in Belgrade station to show where the booking office was - you may have to adjourn to a Communist era hotel and dinner at probably the only McDonalds in the Balkans. I still have this image in my mind of waving goodbye to the train, but the following day we got our travel tickets early and eagerly awaited the train as it approached, from Berlin I think. We had not, however, got sleeper berths booked but an intrepid English-speaking co-traveller advised us to just get on the train, find a sleeper compartment and occupy it pending purchase of the berths.

We also hadn't realised that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had had some kind of tiff with the Greeks about visas so, when we got to the Yugoslavia/Greece border those without visas had to debark onto the platform and try to deal with it. Middle of the night, long queue at the visa station, only drachmae accepted, we had none of course (we're only transiting), risk of the train going without us, I did what any proper Englishman would do: ushered the family back onto the train and into our compartment with instructions never to move, queued until it was obvious that I would miss the train, got back myself, held breath until the train departed. Ticket inspector - visas? Shrug, point at watch, sorry-no-speakie-Greek, absolutely not moving, arrest us if you will. Inspector moves off, too much trouble. Sleep to Istanbul. By the time we made the return trip the politicians had sorted it out and no visa required.

I loved it all. I thought back on this when HS2 was first mooted in 2009. My dream of cross-European travel might come true; I could embark in Cornwall, where I was now living, bypass the awful London underground, sleep through the Channel Tunnel and wake up somewhere exotic like Barcelona, Prague or Athens. But no, there's no HS2 to Cornwall. And no link to the Channel Tunnel. No link to Heathrow airport. Not even a link to London termini. When I was a boy, I was very much into trainspotting (steam train era) and I used to travel across north London to somewhere called Old Oak Common where an adventurous young lad could find a viewing point to see the trains going in and out of London Paddington; the iconic locomotives of the Great Western Railway.

But Old Oak Common was where HS2 would stop, after which travellers would have to get a bus - maybe even a horse-drawn carriage - into London.

HS2 was never designed to go anywhere interesting. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds - who wants to go there? At least go to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Penzance, Inverness, York - places worth visiting.

Who wants high speed anyway? Classic rail travel is leisurely, taking in the scenery of places you haven't been to before and would love to come back to; not Birmingham. Whilst sipping a glass of cheap plonk.

18 years ago, after my elder son's wedding in Sydney, Australia, I traversed the continent on a 3 day train trip from Sydney to Perth. 

(I know, it's faded with time and the Cornish sun)

Desert all the way but some interesting side trips including to a Kalgoorlie gold mine. Flew back to Adelaide where I joined the Ghan train to Darwin via Alice Springs. Scenery, glass of Aussie Shiraz.

If Britain actually wanted un Grand Projet, as a symbol of national brilliance, openness and ingenuity, HS2 should have joined up [levelled up?] Scotland, Wales, the South West, Heathrow, London termini and linked to HS1. Pay for it all by imposing swingeing air travel taxes.

I dream that one day I'll be sitting on platform 2 at St Austell station

awaiting the arrival of the weekly Penzance to Istanbul sleeper train. £1500 return for senior citizens, plonk included. Book early, it'll be popular. See you there?

Remoralising

Zia Yusuf, the Reform UK chairman (at the time) said, in the aftermath of the party's strong showing in the recent local elections, that young people were being taught to "hate their country", they needed a "sense of pride" about the UK, as he said his party's mission would be to "remoralise" young people.

It's 30 or so years since I was a teacher, and I've never taught in a primary school, so I have no idea what pupils are taught nowadays but common sense would suggest that hating their country isn't part of it. Nor is stimulating a sense of pride in their country. More likely is that teachers are performing their duties to open their students' minds through thoughtful examination and analysis of facts.

There are two issues here. Firstly factual accuracy and context; the job of education is not to close people's minds but to present and explore in a balanced way the history of your own country, say. But there is also the hidden truth that the United Kingdom is a multiracial and multicultural society and not all of a school's pupils will regard the UK as "their" country. Is it not reasonable that young people whose families have strong Asian heritage should be encouraged to have pride in the lands of their parents as well as the land in which they were born? I suppose I should take Yusuf at his word; he didn't say pride about the UK exclusively.

But why pride at all? I'm British, having been born here of British parents, but I can't honestly say I feel proud to be British, any more than to be a European or a citizen of the world. I don't remember at school the issue of pride in my country came up at all. Maybe I missed that class; my secondary school History teacher was the most unpleasant person who ever taught me, and I failed his subject miserably.

I could talk about football here but not all my readers are interested so I'll go for cricket instead. Remember Norman Tebbit and his "cricket test"? I think it was in the 1990s that he used the phrase to suggest that it was necessary for South Asian and other immigrants to the UK to support England against, say, India in a test match. If they "failed" the test, they were insufficiently assimilated (his word, not mine).

Of course it's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to respect the culture and values of a country in which they choose to live. To learn the language, abide by both laws and customs, absorb and understand the history of their new country and, above all, integrate. Maybe inter-marry. Retain pride in both old and new heritages.

I had begun floundering here, because immigration is such a complex and treacherous issue to debate. Then along came Emma Duncan. She is a regular columnist in the Times, where she writes mostly on economic issues from - in my opinion - a centre right perspective. Today she wrote about Parallel Histories, an educational charity. She describes their teaching of controversial history using a dual-narrative methodology. A teenager states "the repeated refusal by Palestinian groups to accept the existence of Israel is a major obstacle to peace. There cannot be a negotiation when one side refuses to accept the other's existence." The student is then required to change sides and articulate contrary views: "Israel has to be accountable for its actions. Until then there will be no peace, just a surrender and the people of Palestine will never accept surrender disguised as diplomacy."

This sounds to me a better type of education than dog whistles about pride and hate.

We’ve got some but you can’t have any

"Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons". The nations which say this just happen to be those who already have such weapons. “It’s OK for us but not for you” seems to be the mantra. If it’s fine for “us” to demand you forgo such weapons should not “we” get rid of ours?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been signed by 191 countries since its inception in 1968. Five of those countries were given special recognition for already having nuclear weapons - USA, Russia (earlier the Soviet Union), China, France and the UK. Since the Treaty has disarmament as one of its three pillars, it is suggested that these five were expected to get rid of their nuclear weapons over time [some hopes!]. North Korea left the Treaty in 2003 after years of trying to have it both ways by continuing to contravene the Treaty whilst remaining a member, and conducted a nuclear test in 2006. Three major nations never signed the Treaty: India and Pakistan actually conducted nuclear tests in the 1990s, Israel has never confirmed whether it has nuclear weapons. Which leads us to Iran.

In 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons as forbidden by Islam and stated that Iran was not pursuing them. Iran remains a member of the Treaty and has consistently maintained it has the right (under the Treaty) to enrich uranium to the level required for the production of peaceful nuclear energy. Three days ago Iran announced that its parliament was drafting a bill to withdraw from the NPT.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed its latest resolution regarding Iran on June 12, formally declaring Iran non‑compliant with its nuclear safeguards obligations. As Israel is not a member of the Treaty, the IAEA has no jurisdiction to inspect its facilities.

Does anyone actually know whether Iran has nuclear weapons or is imminently planning to build and use one? Israel believes they could have the capability soon and is determined that that shouldn't happen. That's easy to say if you've already got your own. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Neither do I want Israel to. Or India or Pakistan for that matter.

I fear the Non-Proliferation Treaty is pointless.

If you don't want to be Anonymous

Don't be anonymous - let's see who you are. Here's how to do it.

1. Select the Google app - press/click the big G:

2. Tap on your profile picture at the top right:

3. Select Google account:

4. Select Personal Info:

5. Go to NAME and click the right arrow:

6. Click the right arrow once or twice and edit your Name:

and Save.

16,540 miles

Auckland City are the current champions of the New Zealand National League. Football is the third most popular sport after rugby union and cricket in that country. By winning the league the club, who play in a stadium with a capacity of just over 3,000, qualified to compete in the OFC (Oceania Football Confederation) Champions League against clubs from Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. In April this year they actually won it. In fact they have won it for the last four years in a row and in 11 of the last 13 years.

They’re not even the best team in Auckland. Auckland FC play in the Go Media Stadium which has a capacity of 25,000. But they can’t play in the OFC Champions League because they play in the Australian A League and Australia is in the Asian Football Confederation. They actually finished top of the A League in 2024 but were denied the opportunity to play in the Asian Champions League because they are based in New Zealand which, as we know, is in the Oceania Football Federation. In fact, although they finished 1st in the league phase they didn’t win it because 1st through 6th compete in a series of playoffs to decide who wins the title and they were beaten by Melbourne Victory.

I hope you’re keeping up.

Anyway a couple of weeks ago Auckland City flew 8,270 miles to Cincinnati to take part in the FIFA Club World Cup.

And got beaten 10-0 by Bayern Munich.

Why bother?

The answer: $6.25 million. Just for turning up. Theoretically they could get an extra $2.5 million if they win a match. In a couple of weeks' time they will take the 8,270 return journey home. Maybe they could buy a new stadium.