An Englishman, an Irishman, a Welshman and a Scotsman walk into a bar . . .

If only it was that easy! 

From Romans to Saxons to Normans to Vikings, England’s history has been quite intense. From the Dark ages where Roman Gods were lost, christianity took over and monasteries were highly fortified, to the 17th century English revolution, where Oliver Cromwell’s military dictatorship in Ireland could be compared by some to the holocaust. The United Kingdom, being made up out of former independent kingdoms (England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) went through a lot of drama in order to achieve the union that is held today. 

The Glorious Revolution (sometimes called the bloodless revolution) in 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy in England. It could be argued that the revolution was more of an invasion, as Dutch forces landed large numbers of troops in England. With William 111, or William of Orange (who governed most provinces of the Dutch Republic) becoming king in England following the Revolution, although the constitution seemed to be the more important factor. But does England need a constitution? We already have the Magna Carta (issued in 1215) which was the first document forced onto an English King to limit his powers, and therefore protect the publics privileges. As well as the Bill of rights and common law.

However, the main point that The Glorious Revolution highlighted was that there would be no possibility of a catholic monarch, as well as restricting the monarchs powers. (For example the monarch could no longer suspend laws.) But has England’s constitutional monarchy been the best solution after all these years? As the royals power over the country becomes less and less, parliaments power rises. The corruption and greed within parliament will always be there and the monarch cannot help this factor. 

The Prime Minister can be classed as being chosen ‘by the public for the public,’ some could argue that the monarch should cast this vote. But should power rule? As far as I’m concerned this country is screwed up enough already, the government already changes and ignores the constitution as it is. I feel that this quote sums up my feelings in one: 

‘A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who exercise government’

 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1795

Politics . . . . ok, here goes nothing!

The one phrase that has stuck in my mind from tuesdays lecture is ‘A PRIORI,’ this Latin phrase stands for ‘independent of experience.' I know it sounds far fetched but when you break it down I guess it doesn’t seem that scary. An example of an a priori statement is ‘the grass is green,’ you don’t have to examine the point you just know it to be true, it is innate inside you as there isn’t a longing for you to find out the answers to how and why. You don't have to look to the outside world for advice, therefore showing that without prior experience you can know certain statements to be true or false. 

‘There are 60 seconds in a minute’ is an a priori statement. Therefore could you say that time is a priori? (It's one of those points that if you think about it to much in an empirical way your brain starts to hurt, so just think 'a priori' and you'll be fine)  

The philosopher Immanuel Kant once said that: 

 ‘Although all knowledge begins with experience, it does not all arise out of experience.’ 

I think this idea lies between a priori and empiricism perfectly as it takes into account empiricists inability to accept assumptions, while also stating how knowledge doesn’t need to be experience for it to be known. However, in general a priori principles oppose empiricism. An example of an empirical argument is ‘what came first the chicken or the egg?' Relating this to current news stories, one example is: 

'I revere this man (and his book on earthworms)... Andrew Marr on the real legacy of Darwin'

This is an example of an empirical argument because Darwinism challenges our beliefs and the meaning of what it is to be human. There is no straight forward answer as everyones views on the subject differ. This means that empiricists will question Darwin's theories and try to figure out the meaning behind them.  

On the other hand an example of an a priori argument is: 

'Can jumbo elephants really paint? intrigued by stories, naturalist Desmond Morris set out to find the truth.'

This article is an example of an a priori argument because we are brought up knowing that elephants can't paint, it is innate inside us as humans to know this and therefore we do not question this fact. As well as this the article doesn't actually answer the question as there is not yet any scientific knowledge to prove that elephants can paint. The answer given, as politicians are fond of saying, is 'yes and no.' A great example of how the mix of empiricism, a priori and politics cannot always be as straight forward as you expect.