Children are the future – I’ve been hearing this particularly
trite aphorism since at least the eighties. It’s trotted out whenever the
future is being discussed, regardless of whether or not the issues under discussion
have any direct effect on children. But what utter, disingenuous tripe this all
is. That crayon-covered child there, the one licking that window, is that the
future? Or the one busily tying fireworks to a cat; is it him? How about the
one who, at the age of three has been encouraged to self-identify as non-binary
gender? Maybe that’s where we’re headed?
I heard this phrase yet again this morning and it made me
think; it seems to stand for something, taken at face value, but it dissolves
under analysis into a mushy, shapeless puffery of meaningless sounds. Who was
the future when your grandparents were children? And to how much future are we
referring; is it the future as in tomorrow, or the day after, or next
week/month/year? Is it when these children are adults (in which case are they no
longer ‘the future’) and if so, how old? Twenties? Forties? Eighties? It’s a
moving goalpost whereby those who have built the world we live in are
discounted as irrelevant in favour of an unknown hereafter.
To take a currently topical political figure, Hitler was once a
child, as were Pol Pot and Mao, Stalin and Peter Sutcliffe. So, also, were
Rembrandt and Shakespeare, Beethoven and Sir Clive Woodward. What does this any
of this prove? The future will happen whether or not the upcoming generation are up to the challenge, but by constantly pandering to the culture of youth we
seem to be determined to ensure they are not. Education, behavioural standards,
entitlement, privilege, and an absurd set of unrealistic beliefs in spurious ‘equalities
‘which will never be realised; all the ‘investment’ in this future strikes me
as counter-productive.
Anyway, I thought we had given away their future with the
Brexit, so where does that leave us? Cue the superannuated, dribbling crybabies
of the House of Lords as they struggle to grasp the concept of the European
Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17 which has only one purpose. It
is a bill ‘to confer power on the Prime
Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the
United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU’.
The EU, in the form of once-was-the-future Angela Merkel,
has already refused to offer reciprocal rights to UK citizens in the EU, or
indeed discuss any future arrangements, until after Article 50 has been
invoked. All the oh-so-noble Lords have done is foment further uncertainty, one
can only presume to prolong the very uncertainties they accuse Brexit voters of
causing. It’s been this way since 24th June last year; having failed to vote
the way they were told, the plebs must be punished.
Remember when this idiot child was the future?
The only way to secure any certainty for the future is to
push ahead with the process of leaving the sclerotic European Union. That’s
what grown-ups would do, that’s what most of us want to do, but the supposed senior
chamber has concerned itself, as children do, with meaningless sloganizing about
‘bargaining chips’. All this action has done is to bring their status and
privilege under scrutiny. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? But I know a
certain unelected House of Cronies who may want to consider their future.
It would seem our noble(?) lords have selected Brexit as the
ReplyDeletehill they want to die on. So be it...
Oh, I so hope this turns out to be true.
Delete