It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Saturday, January 18, 2020
HOW MUCH
Harry and Meghan: The big question Canadians have about move
WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN IN THE THOMAS PAINE TRADITION I OPPOSE CANADIAN TAX PAYERS FUNDING PARASITES LIKE THE MONARCHY
By Jessica MurphyBBC News, Toronto
17 January 2020
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend part of their time in Canada
Many Canadians have an affection for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. But one big question is hanging over the shock news of the couple's part-time relocation to Canada - what will it cost?
There has been plenty of chatter in Canada since Prince Harry and Meghan said they would be stepping back as senior royals and spending part of their time in North America.
The duchess is spending time on Canada's west coast with their infant son as the couple flesh out the details of their move away from their role as full-time royals, with her public outings closely followed.
But the main preoccupation hovering over the royal couple's decision to spend part of their time in Canada comes down to who will foot the bill - especially if they are spending the bulk of their time as private citizens.
Some have outright rejected the idea of the public shouldering any costs for the couple.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois - a federal party that represents the interests of Quebec, a province where attitudes towards the monarchy tend to be frostier than in the rest of Canada - said Quebecers should not have to pay a dime.
Yves-Francois Blanchet quipped he was already paying for a Netflix subscription, where he could watch The Crown, a drama about Queen Elizabeth II's reign.
He is not alone in not wanting to fork out any cash.
A public opinion poll released this week by the non-profit Angus Reid Institute indicated that 73% of Canadians have no interest in paying any of the costs for security and other expenditures associated with their relocation.
"This view is consistent across demographic groups including age, gender or region or political preference," the organisation said in a release.
Just 3% of respondents told the pollster that Canadians should pick up the tab for security and other necessary costs, and 19% said they were fine with paying a portion of the bill.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a taxpayer advocacy group, says the current debate over who should ante up for costs related to the members of the monarchy is different from those that regularly bubble up in Canada.
The country is a constitutional monarchy - its head of state is Queen Elizabeth II - and things like Royal tours and the office of the Governor General, who is the Queen's representative in Canada, are paid for by the public purse.
Image copyrightPOOL/GETTY IMAGESImage captionRoyal tours can draw crowds in Canada
"Normally when we get into debates about the cost of the monarchy in this country there's a pretty clear line - people who are monarchists and people who are small 'r' republicans," says Aaron Wudrick, the organisation's federal director.
But the relocation of the duke and duchess has "changed the dynamic".
"The distinction is a bit like a friend who comes over for dinner and you're happy to prepare their meal versus them deciding they're going to move in and still expecting you to cook for them all the time," he said.
"I think that's how a lot of Canadians see this. I actually don't think it's about the dollar figure, it's a general view that people who have a lot of means and the capacity to pay for themselves should be doing it."
The duke and duchess themselves have not said they expect Canadians to pick up the tab, Mr Wudrick notes, and federal officials have admitted it's not clear yet how costs may be divided - or what those costs would be.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told broadcaster Global News this week that "there's still a lot of decisions to be taken by the Royal Family, by the Sussexes themselves as to what level of engagement they choose to have".
The question of security costs is "part of the reflection that needs to be had and there are discussions going on", he said.
So while the Queen has agreed to the couple's wish to step back as senior royals, become financially independent and to split their time between the UK and Canada, the details of the transition are still being worked out.
Mr Wudrick says that "in the interests of settling everyone down - maybe this is all a tempest in a teapot - it would be helpful if the duke and duchess could provide some clarity on what their expectations are".
John Michaelson, with the Monarchist League of Canada, agrees answers should come sooner rather than later.
Most Canadians don't spend much time thinking about the Royal Family or their official role in Canada, he says, and the benefits of the institution are often hidden from view - the thousands of community, ceremonial, and constitutional engagements the family and the Queen's representatives there carry out annually across the country.
Media caption"Just leave them alone" - How do Canadians feel about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex visiting?
The league have released regular reports on costs related to the Canadian Crown for the past 20 years "to try and bring the point home that this is something that we get great benefit from and it doesn't cost a great deal", he said.
The tally is approximately C$1.68 ($1.29; £0.99) a year per Canadian for the general cost of the Crown, according to their most recent study.
Mr Michaelson says Prince Harry and Meghan's relocation is also an opportunity for the pair to deepen their engagement with organisations like the Prince's Trust Canada, a charitable endeavour established by Prince of Wales in 2011.
Meanwhile, a columnist with the National Post newspaper said the debate over the likely negligible relative cost of protecting direct close relations to Canada's head of state "has revealed one of the ugliest elements of the Canadian national character".
"It's true, Canada. We're a nation of cheapskates," wrote Matt Gurney.
Richard Powers, with Toronto's Rotman School of Management, told the BBC that Canada could see some economic benefits from having the famous couple in the country, primarily in the non-profit sector.
Both Prince Harry and Meghan have said they are interested in continuing with their charity work, with the duchess visiting two Vancouver-based women's organisations this week.
But Mr Wudrick dismisses the idea that doing charitable works should be enough to open the public purse strings.
"If a Hollywood star or a pro-sports player with a lot of money moved here and they donate to charity and they do good things, they [still] pay for themselves," he said.
Harry and Meghan will not use HRH titles - palace
Share this with MessengSha
Image copyrightPA MEDIA
Prince Harry and Meghan will no longer use their HRH titles and will not receive public funds for royal duties, Buckingham Palace has said.
The couple will also no longer formally represent The Queen.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also said they intend to repay £2.4m of taxpayer money for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.
The new arrangement comes into effect in spring this year, the Palace said.
A statement from the Queen said following "many months of conversations and more recent discussions" she was "pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family".
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family," the statement continued.
"I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.
"I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family.
"It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."
Buckingham Palace said the royal couple understood they were required to step back from royal duties, including official military appointments.
"They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties," the statement said.
"With the Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations.
"While they can no longer formally represent the Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.
"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."
The palace said it would not comment on what security arrangements would be in place for the royal couple.
Queen agrees 'transition' to new role for Harry and Meghan
14 January 2020this with Facebook
hare this with Messenger hare this with Twitter this with Email
Media captionBBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond breaks down the Queen's statement
The Queen has agreed a "period of transition" in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.
She said she was "entirely supportive" of their desire for a new role but "would have preferred" them to remain full-time working royals.
She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.
Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan's role after they said they wanted to "step back".
In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been "very constructive".
"My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family," she said.
"Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."
She said it had been agreed there would be "a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" after Harry and Meghan "made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives".
"These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days," she said.
The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to "step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family".
They also said they wanted a "progressive new role" within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.
Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after "many months of reflection and internal discussions".
They said that the "inflammatory language" in the claims was "offensive" and "potentially harmful", given their support for mental health causes.
'The Queen's regret is obvious'
This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.
Her regret over Harry and Meghan's move is obvious - she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.
But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.
There are buckets of questions outstanding - on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.
There's still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.
And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.
The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.
Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4's PM programme the Queen's statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to "my family" and "my grandson".
"It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels," he said.
Instead of using the formal titles of the couple - the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - the Queen simply called them "Harry and Meghan".
Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement "read to me like a grandmother talking about the family", adding that it would "take the pressure off" the duke and duchess.
"I think they're in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they're unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling," she said.
"My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability."
How did we get here?
In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple's official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to "step back" as senior royals, spending time in North America, while "continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages".
The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as "relentless propaganda" in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.
The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's foundation in June last year.
Why Iran plane disaster protests mark most serious test yet
By Amir Azimi BBC Persian service 18 January 2020
Many have been angered by the government's actions over the plane crash
The latest anti-government demonstrations sweeping Iran arguably pose the most serious challenge to the administration of any in its 40-year history.
In recent years, Iran has seen two major surges of opposition - in 2017 (late December) and 2019 (October and November). Both were fuelled by poor economic situations and sharp hikes in fuel prices that hurt the lower middle class and poorer families the most.
This time, demonstrations broke out after the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) admitted it had shot down a Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 with 176 passengers and crew on-board after three days of strong denial.
Unlike the 2017 and 2019 protests, and those of 2009 which were triggered by disputed presidential elections, this week's demonstrations started off from universities and spread quickly across many cities around the country.
The initial story by the officials in Tehran was that the plane crashed as a result of engine failure. Iran's aviation authorities even claimed it was impossible that the plane could have been targeted by anti-aircraft missiles. Footage shows missile strike on Ukrainian plane in Iran
The official version had too many flaws and emerging evidence also suggested otherwise. Videos that Iranian citizens had filmed and shared on social media showed a missile hitting the aeroplane right before it crashed. Later CCTV footage emerged from nearby security cameras that showed the plane was actually shot twice, which explained why the pilot lost contact with the airport minutes before the crash.
Although foreign leaders implied the plane had most probably been downed by missiles rather than engine failure, it was the IRGC's delayed confession that sparked the subsequent demonstrations.
On Friday - a day or two after the Islamic Republic held official burial ceremonies for some of the victims - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led the weekly prayers in Tehran.
The last time he did so was eight years ago, after most of the region was engulfed by the Arab Spring. On this occasion, he devoted most of his prayer speech to his top general, Qasem Soleimani, who was killed by a US drone strike, and to Iran's retaliatory missile attack on a US base in Iraq.
The killing of Iran's top commander brought many Iranians out in a show of solidarity
He mentioned the plane crash and paid condolences to the families of the victims but he did not apologise nor place responsibility on the IRGC, which reports directly to him.
Ayatollah Khamenei said there were ambiguities in how the plane had crashed and thanked the IRGC for the explanations it had provided in recent days after accepting responsibility. Cracks on the inside
The crowds that took to the streets this week, unlike in previous demonstrations, were formed mostly of middle and upper-middle classes whose anger was mainly driven by what they saw as humiliating incompetence that killed so many innocent civilians - mostly Iranian dual nationals - followed by a series of bizarre lies and made-up excuses that officials had produced about the cause of the crash. Protests outside Amir Kabir university, calling for resignations
and accusing officials of lying
In years and months gone by, the Islamic Republic has been able to quash unrest by blaming the country's poor economic performance on US sanctions, and by using excessive force that left many killed or injured. The establishment has also been successful in unifying its ranks and filling the gaps between them against the demonstrators, but this time cracks have started to appear on the inside.
The leader's speech did not provide many answers to what has angered the people. The government has distanced itself from any responsibility for the plane crash.
President Hassan Rouhani has called for a full investigation and says those responsible will face retribution. There could actually be an opportunity for him here, with the IRGC, a powerful rival for his authority, in trouble.
But he and his government are not in the clear either. President Rouhani's government stood by the IRGC, until it finally accepted responsibility. Iranian students refuse to walk over US and Israeli flags
His government repeated the false claim that engine failure was the reason for the crash. His government and himself as the head of Iran's National Security Council are also under heavy criticism for not closing down airports during the hours after Iran fired missiles in response to the killing of Soleimani.
For demonstrators on the streets, though, it does not really seem to matter which officials say what anymore - their demands have gone beyond the ranks of the establishment and they are directly asking for the leader himself to resign.
Now the question is whether this event can bring demonstrators who were angered by the economic situation and those who are incensed by the administration's lies about such a tragic event closer together.
It took three days for Iran to admit the truth. Hours after it launched missiles at bases in Iraq that house U.S. troops on Jan. 8, a Ukraine International Airlines passenger jet bound for Kyiv crashed shortly after taking off from Tehran, killing all 176 on board. Iranian officials suggested the cause was technical failure but backtracked on Jan. 11, saying “human error” had led its military to shoot down the plane and blaming “U.S. adventurism” for creating the situation. Angry and distrustful, Iranians poured onto the streets as footage circulated of protesters chanting, “Death to the dictator.” Sentiment Swing
Days earlier, millions of Iranians had gathered in grief and rage after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 3. But the feeling shifted when it seemed Tehran was trying to cover up its role in the crash. “We are not citizens. We never were,” one of Iran’s most popular actors, Taraneh Alidoosti, wrote to her nearly 6 million Instagram followers on Jan. 12. “We are captives.” That night, police reportedly fired live ammunition at protesters in Tehran, injuring several. (The police deny firing the shots.) Renewed Protests
The period of national unity that followed Soleimani’s death marked a rare moment of reprieve for Iran’s leadership, which was rocked in November by the largest antiregime demonstrations since the 1979 revolution. Sparked by a domestic gas-price hike amid crippling U.S. sanctions, that unrest prompted a nationwide Internet blackout during which security forces killed more than 300 demonstrators, according to Amnesty International. Damaged Trust
As the U.S. sanctions bite, lower-income Iranians in traditionally pro-regime areas have joined protests normally populated by the middle classes and students. But after the crash, critical voices emerged from even less likely quarters. Resigning from the state broadcaster, a journalist asked viewers to forgive her for “the 13 years I told you lies.” The editor in chief of the right-wing Tasnim news agency also blamed “officials who misled the media,” tweeting, “We are all ashamed before the people.” With President Trump warning that the “world is watching,” Iran’s next steps will be under the spotlight both at home and abroad.
GETTY IMAGES
POOL/GETTY IMAGES
PA MEDIA
