I'll think of a quippy title for this later.

So finally, girls have equal opportunity to succession of the throne in Britain. I know we briefly discussed this in class, but it is pretty significant because this rule undoes about three-hundred years of British monarch tradition—and without baby steps!

Albeit, it took them a really long time for this aspect of gender equality, but it is impressive nonetheless.

With this new law, not only could William and Kate’s potential daughter be queen over her potential younger brothers, but the law that states that the monarch has to marry a Roman Catholic was also overturned (Britain, Mrs. Garber’s AP Comparative Government Class would formally like to welcome you to 21^st century). This is a huge deal because we all know how rapt Britain is with their history and traditions and taking things slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

Changes to and consideration of the following documents will ensue: >the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706, Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937. This change is a great one and will require a lot of revision of previous rules.

This plan may not be implemented for about four years, but so far has received unanimous support and realization that the old law was seriously obsolete in modern times.

What you may not have known about this is that members of Parliament have been trying to pass a bill almost identical to this at least eleven times in the past few years. Why now? Is it because of William and Kate (and how much everybody loves them)? Do you think the Queen supports it (not that it matters)? Seriously, why now? Will Britain start changing other things now? Do you think the House of Lords or House of Commons had more control on this issue? 

What's the deal with negotiations? Pun intended.

Since we’re on the topic of the UK in class, I figured I would blog about something that was going on with them.

A lot is actually going on with them. The Unions are planning a “one-day stoppage” on November 30 to protest the government’s plans to raise pension contributions.

According to the two articles that I read (the links will be at the end), the government is planning to lay off one million public sector workers “who are due to retire in the ten years from April 1, 2010.” These people won’t have to work anymore but will keep their salary. Additionally, the government is trying to get a more generous rate for pension value build-up. The government is doing this because people are living much longer and the government can no longer afford the system. The government argues that this is a good solution because the pensions are generous and comparable to those in the private sector.

The protestors say that this isn’t enough…it’s a good start but not good enough to convince them that they will have good enough pensions. Their plan for the protest is to gather at one o’clock and make as much noise as possible. They say the government has become deaf to their negotiations so that are forming One Voice at One to try to get the government’s attention through bells, whistles, car horns, singing, chanting, and many other obnoxious noises.

The government’s plan doesn’t sound that bad to me, but I don’t know how well it will hold up long-term. There is some improvement that needs to be made, but this seems like a good foundation. But it is slightly concerning that the government seems to be offering this up as a “this is as good as it gets” offer. But what more can they do? It doesn’t seem to me that the union protestors fully understand the economic situation in UK and the in the rest of the world, i.e. EVERYONE’S ECONOMY SUCKS (basically).

Also, these benefits are just for the public sector. Do these protestors know that no one in the private sector get this economic insulation and these benefits?

Now, what do you guys think?

Should the government just go on with their pension plan, work out the minor kinks, and risk having millions of public sector protesters?

Should the unions try to work with the government more before going to the extreme measure of protesting?

Is either side being unreasonable in the negotiations?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15549321

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/uk-britain-politics-unions-idUKTRE7A146V20111102