--- title: Temporary Solutions That Never Went Away description: "Many of history's longest-lived laws and institutions began with reassurances that they were temporary – only for them to still be around to this very day.\n\nAnd, in fairness, very rarely is it some grand Machiavellian ruse to get one over on ordinary folk – oftentimes, the reasons are way more *clerical* than that.\n\nBecause few, if any, introduce a wartime tax with a view to it remaining in force over 200 years later. Just as those who impose martial law, a 'special court', or a peacekeeping mission don't imagine them still being existent *decades* after they were implemented.\n\nBut here's the thing: systems don't like change … at least when they have time to think about it. An 'emergency' measure, *sure*, say no more son, get it in – it's a crisis don't you know. But then amending it, or scrapping it? *No*, suddenly it's complicated then, suddenly contrary opinions prevail through the halls of power. Or the emergency simply never dissipates. Either way… *nothing* changes as a result.\n\nThus, the temporary tax becomes normal. The emergency law gets renewed. The peacekeeping mission stays. The constitutional bodge becomes the constitution. Everyone shrugs, adjusts, and carries on about their day.\n\nAnd that's exactly what we're talking about today: the temporary solutions that simply… never went away …\n\n## Germany's Basic Law\n\nGermany had an *interesting* 20th Century.\n\nThe nation had found itself torn in two after the 1940 Tour De France had gotten a bit out of hand, and the victorious powers of the U.K., the U.S., France, and the Soviet Union divided the conquered nation into four so called 'Zones of Occupation'.\n\nHOWEVER, with the Soviet Union only being an ally of convenience – at bitter ideological odds with the others over the matter of Communism vs Capitalism – when the post-war settlement hardened in 1949, Germany was split in two; the 'Federal Republic of Germany' being founded from the British, American, and French occupation zones, and the 'German Democratic Republic' from the Soviet one – a *totally* separate nation under the hammer and sickle.\n\nAnd this created quite the kerfuffle when David Hasselhoff personally ended the Cold War all by himself, and Germany was made whole again in 1990, as by that point the two halves of Germany had *radically* different legal systems … so however were the two nations' laws to be combined?\n\n*With great difficulty*, turned out to be the answer once the clever sorts had thought it over. They were just *too* different to one by one, go through every single line of BOTH nation's laws, and then debate, discuss, and legislate on what the 'new' one was to be.\n\nAnd so – with the direction people ran when the Berlin Wall fell making pretty clear which Germany had 'won' – the powers that be simply took West Germany's 'Basic Law', that being its constitution, and applied it to the whole lot.\n\nThere was precedent for doing this too, in fairness, as Article 23 stated that, quote:\n\n> \"For the time being, this Basic Law applies in the territory of the Länder Baden, Bavaria, Bremen, Greater Berlin, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Württemberg-Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. In other parts of Germany it is to be put into force on their accession.\"\n\nBUT, the Basic Law – as implied by its name – was only meant to be temporary; an interim 'do the job' measure to tide the nation over until it was made whole again. It's written into the very document itself in fact, with Article 146 stating that, quote:\n\n> \"This Basic Law ceases to be in force on the day on which a Constitution adopted by a free decision of the German people comes into force.\"\n\nAND YET … the Basic Law has *never* been replaced as Article 146 intended, and it remains in effect to this very day. In a nutshell, because just as the leaders in 1990 found it easier to crack on using Article 23, so did the next lot… and the *next* lot… and the NEXT lot.\n\nAnd there *were* protestations about this too, from groups like the East German Civil-Rights Movement and the Central Round Table, to name just two – many of them wanting to invoke Article 146, to do things, as they saw it, *properly*.\n\nBut in the end, they never won the support in the Bundestag needed to force the matter… and now… over 30 years after the fact… no one really cares enough to quibble about it anymore. And so, Germany presses on, with a Constitution, that while perfectly functional sure, was, originally, TEMPORARY.\n\n## (British) Income Tax\n\nIf there's one thing us Brits love, it's paying our income tax – price we pay for a civilised society, don't you know. And damn right it is too, which is why Old Blighty is blessed with roads that have more craters than the surface of the moon.\n\nStill though, at least when His Majesty's Revenue and Customs is bending you over a table and doing as it pleases, there is a certain solace to be found in the fact that taxes are just the natural way of things – one of the two things in life that is certain.\n\nExcept, actually, when it comes to income tax specifically… *no*. That is not the case at all in fact, as sure enough, it was first introduced as a TEMPORARY measure.\n\nAnd because we're talking about the U.K. – the land full of pubs older than most nations – we have to go WAY back for this one. Specifically, to 1799 when, with the French Revolutionary Wars BURNING through London's coffers at an alarming rate, then Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, introduced Income Tax.\n\nIt was nothing too over the top though – *especially* compared to modern levels – with annual incomes over £200 being taxed at 10%, incomes between £60 and £200 paying on a graduated scale rising to that rate, and incomes below £60 paying nothing.\n\nAdjusted for inflation and converted to universally understood American Dollars, that roughly equates to $40,000 taxed at 10%, incomes between $12,000 to $40,000 getting taxed on the sliding scale, and everything there under graciously being allowed to be spent how whoever earned it pleased.\n\nAt first, of course, people HATED it, with Parliament's own history noting that it was seen as intrusive into private finances, and it was also *widely* evaded – the 18th Century equivalent of a modern sole trader *mysteriously* somehow only earning £12,500 each and every year – *but*, the patriotic zeal of the conflict, which only grew ever more as the French Revolutionary Wars became the Napoleonic Wars, allowed it to be bitterly swallowed. JUST.\n\nTo be fair too, it was then killed off in 1816, with the war having ended a year prior … but was then brought back in 1842 by Prime Minister Robert Peel.\n\nHis justification? Once again, the nation was broke, with the Right Honourable Members down in Westminster having royally f*cked up the finances, and p*ssed all of the money up the wall.\n\nAnd so, once again, back Income Tax came. And once again too, it was claimed, it was to be temporary … though this time, that claim was a LIE.\n\nBecause despite the 1842 Act that reintroduced it *explicitly* stating that it was only to be in place \"until the Sixth Day of April, One thousand eight hundred and forty-five\" – so for three years *only* – it was never repealed. There was always some b*llocks flim flam, or yet another monumental bugger up with the nation's finances that justified renewing it again, and again… until eventually… it just became an accepted and ingrained facet of British life; now all but unquestioned in the modern day.\n\n## New York Rent Control / Rent Stabilization\n\nNew York is an expensive city – a shocking and bold claim *we know*.\n\nAnd the current system of Rent Control, aimed at keeping the city ACTUALLY affordable to 'normal' New Yorkers? Yep, you guessed it – a temporary measure that never went away.\n\nOr more rather, a temporary measure that never went away *this time*, because the City actually has a *long* off and on again history with this kind of thing – first being implemented all the way back in 1920.\n\nAnd the top and bottom of those initial measures? They were emergency anti-eviction laws, brought in after New York's post-First World War housing market went completely up the swanny, that made rent hikes challengeable in court, and increases over the previous year presumed as unreasonable unless the landlord could *clearly* justify an economic need for them.\n\nThey lasted until 1929, and then, having been judged as successful, they were scrapped.\n\n14 years later though – so in 1943 – controls were *again* implemented, with it being the *other* World War that sent the housing market to buggery this time.\n\nThe system was a national one though, under the Emergency Price Control Act, which, to give you a summary, built a nationwide price-control system to deal with wartime shortages and inflation; purely temporary, purely for the duration of the war, and slated to be scrapped once 'normal' market conditions returned post-Victory.\n\nAnd sure enough, they did exactly that in 1951 … *at the federal level*. New York STATE was still all about it though, and so chose to independently keep the controls in place – with them remaining in action to this very day.\n\nAs for how it works in the here and now though – as it has of course changed ever so over the years – the measures are only applied to a finite (and shrinking) pool of pre-1947 built apartment buildings where either the tenant, or their \"lawful successor\", have been there since before July 1971.\n\nAnd basically, they just limit how much rent can be increased every year… leading to a *substantial* difference in controlled over market prices over the years. Somewhere in the region of 50% or so.\n\nHOWEVER, we also have Rent *Stabilization* to consider – a different thing to Rent *Control*.\n\nIt is a system which is both *way* bigger as a slice of the pie – 30 to 40% as opposed to the mere ONE percent of units that are Rent *Controlled* – and also *way* less generous, working out at around 25% cheaper as compared to market prices.\n\nIt too was *meant* to be a temporary system, specifically brought in as an \"emergency measure\" in response to a brutal 1969 housing market … and yet… here we are…\n\n## Ireland's Special Criminal Court\n\nJury trials are *meant* to be a big deal – \"the lamp that shows that freedom lives\", \"the bulwark of our liberties\", blah blah blah, etc etc.\n\nAnd to be fair, you gotta concede to the truth of such notions – because the freedom to p*ss the state off, and then not have that same state be the decision maker on you getting chucked in the clink, is nothing if not *handy* in a free society.\n\n*But yet*, in reality, even in free societies, they're more often treat like a 'nice to have' luxury, rather than a truly vital and non-negotiable freedom. Able to be relinquished or relegated for matters of convenience, or *verrrrrrrrrrry* specific instances where it is argued that the picture is slightly bigger than 'just' stopping an Old Boy in a dusty wig from penalising you for your opinions.\n\nSeriously, pick a free and democratic nation that, at face value, has jury trials, and odds are there's some exception and special cases that show that the principle, while aimed for, is FAR from absolute:\n\nIn Canada, for example, their Charter guarantees \"the benefit of trial by jury\" only where the offence carries a maximum punishment of five years or more.\n\nThen in New Zealand, defendants only get to elect jury trial for offences where the penalty is or includes imprisonment for two years or more, with lower-level cases staying judge only.\n\nAnd of course – because why else would we be bringing it up in this episode – such waverings from the principle are often temporary solution to one calamity or another, that for one reason or more… are simply never done away with.\n\nWhich brings us, nicely, to *Ireland* – probably the most interesting example of a nation that, through having to impose what were thought to be temporary solutions to SERIOUS problems, has ended up accidentally permanently doing away with jury trials to a certain degree.\n\nIn fact, they'd ended up with a whole parallel lane for cases where, in the State's view, a jury simply could not be trusted to do the job safely.\n\nIt all comes down to the 'Offences Against the State Act 1939', thanks to which a 'Special Criminal Court' can be switched on whenever the Government is satisfied that the ordinary courts are \"inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order\" – wording that positively REEKS of a temporary wartime expedient, especially as the Act says this is only to happen \"if and whenever and so often as\" that emergency condition exists, and that if it stops existing, the Government \"shall\" bring the system to an end.\n\nWhy? Officially, it's because of jury intimidation, security concerns, and the fear that organised-crime groups, or paramilitaries can bend, threaten or terrify ordinary jurors in ways that make a fair trial impossible.\n\nMentioning \"paramilitaries\" might sound a bit OTT given the rather chill and pleasant land that Ireland is nowadays, but don't forget, the country was *a smidge* different back in the day. Remember, the IRA, Come Out Yer Black and Tans, the 'unrest' North the border, all of that stuff? *Yeah*, paramilitaries were a fair concern.\n\nTo be fair to Dublin too, given that Ireland hasn't exactly descended into authoritarianism in the near century since it was passed, probably reasonable to take the Offences Against the State Act at face value at this point.\n\n## Hong Kong's Emergency Regulations Ordinance\n\nHong Kong has a… *complicated* relationship with its colonial past. So complicated in fact, that it's impossible to generalise it with a single emotion.\n\nSome Hong Kongers, for example, LOVE having been a British Colony, and hold that part of their history in the highest regard – shoutout to Grandma Wong.\n\nOthers, take a materialistic middle of the road view of the matter; X was objectively good, Y was objectively sh*t, and weighing the two up, they end up believing that Hong Kong *was* in fact better under London's rule.\n\nAnd then there's the ones who FIRMLY believe that British rule was dreadful, f*ck tea and crumpets, thank God China is one step closer to being reunified – next stop Taiwan, ey Big Man Xi?\n\nBut at least the New Government is unified in its position of hating it though, right? As after all, they say things like:\n\n\"(Colonial Law) did not contain any entrenched human rights guarantees.\"\n\nAnd:\n\n\"…the colonial government was wary of Chinese people, and control was exercised through segregation.\"\n\nYet, when it's a tool that benefits their maintenance of power, they suddenly seem to LOVE their colonial history.\n\nWant an example? Well, how about the 'Emergency Regulations Ordinance'; an old Colonial Era law – passed in February 1922 – originally as an emergency and temporary strike breaking measure, that was just NEVER repealed – not by the British, not by the Chinese, still in *full* effect to this day.\n\nWhy? Because when you're ruling a place through force, and denying the people their say – be it openly as London did, or through filtered and limited candidate sham elections as Beijing do – it turned out to be quite the handy thing, as when the authorities considered there to be an \"emergency or public danger\", it granted extraordinary powers of:\n\n- \"Censorship, and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication.\"\n- \"Arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation.\"\n- \"Authorizing the entry and search of premises.\"\n- \"Empowering such authorities or persons as may be specified in the regulations to make orders and rules and to make or issue notices, licences, permits, certificates or other documents for the purposes of the regulations.\"\n\nAnd like we say, it was originally passed to help crush Colonial-era strikes, specifically the Seamen's Strike – a 52-day walkout by Chinese sailors and other port workers, sparked after maritime companies rejected demands for higher wages, and so disruptive that it effectively closed Hong Kong's port.\n\nWith it *never* being removed too, it remained ready to go during the 1925 Canton-Hong Kong Strike, when a cross-border labour dispute on an even greater scale helped paralyse the colony yet again.\n\nWe could go on too, as States of Emergency were declared *all the time* in the Colonial Period: the 1929 Drought Crisis, the 1931 Anti-Japanese Riots, the 1935 Rabies Panic, and so on and so forth – right through to the present day, after the 1997 Handover.\n\nRather than getting bogged down in chronology, however, let us instead pick out two particular flashpoints of note to highlight that *both* of Hong Kong's overlords have made full and enthusiastic use of the legislation: The 1967 Leftist Riots, and the 2019 Anti-Extradition Protests.\n\nThe former State of Emergency was declared on the 24th of May 1967, when Labour Day protests by pro-Beijing elements spiralled into a full-blown leftist uprising. And what followed was months of strikes, street battles, bombings and intimidation, that left 51 dead, 832 injured, and nearly 5,000 arrested when all was said and done.\n\nAs for the 2019 Protests, they began in opposition to a proposed law that would have allowed criminal suspects in Hong Kong to be extradited to Mainland China – a move which many feared would all but finish off the city's judicial independence, and of course also sparked VERY OBVIOUS personal safety concerns.\n\nAnd with tensions only escalating, and there being no sign of the genie being put back into its bottle – a quarter of Hong Kong's ENTIRE population had come out to protest on the 16th of June alone for reference – Carrie Lam's administration invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on the 4th of October; specifically to use the powers granted to proclaim a ban on face coverings, and more broadly move to crush the protests.\n\nSo, there it is; a supposedly temporary law – that because of its undeniable utility – was *never* revoked, and is still being used to crush dissent and shore up power structures over a century later …\n\n## The Patriot Act\n\n9/11 shook the U.S. to its very core.\n\nThe nation, long since having thought of itself as all but invulnerable thanks to geography, had been *attacked*, and attacked in an unprecedentedly horrific manner – with 2,977 victims now lying dead, and the two largest obelisks from one of the world's most iconic skylines now lying shattered and destroyed.\n\nAnd because they were desperate times, the U.S. Government believed that desperate measures were needed, specifically in the form of the 'PATRIOT Act', which passed in October 2001 – barely even six *weeks* after 9/11.\n\nAs for what it did … it quite a lot, actually. Little of which was what you would call soft and cuddly. For example:\n\n- It expanded roving wiretaps, meaning investigators could keep following a target across multiple phones or devices without having to start from scratch each time.\n- It widened surveillance powers over internet and electronic communications.\n- It broadened the use of National Security Letters to demand records while often gagging the recipient from talking about it.\n- It authorised so called \"sneak and peek\" searches, where agents could enter a home or business, search it, and then delay telling the target for weeks, months … or even longer.\n- It created the so called 'lone wolf' provision, allowing the government to survey a non-U.S. citizen engaged in international terrorism *without* having to prove they were tied to any specific foreign terror group or organisation.\n- And it let the FBI go to the secretive 'FISA Court' for orders to obtain \"any tangible things\" relevant to an investigation – and not just from telecoms companies and the like, but from basically ANY entity.\n\nNaturally, even in the dazed state that the U.S. was in back then, concerns began to raised far and wide that the PATRIOT Act just might be a *smidge* overkill, and quite the gross infraction upon civil liberties.\n\nAnd the response to such concerns? They're best summed up by the words of Attorney General John Ashcroft, from when he was speaking to the Senate on the matter in December 2001, quote:\n\n> \"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.\"\n\nIn other words, quite literally, 'what, do you want the terrorists to win?'\n\nSolace, at least, could be found in the fact that the act DID have so called 'Sunset Clauses' – i.e. provisions that automatically terminate a law after a certain amount of time, or a particular occurrence – with the PATRIOT Act's being time based, and due to kick in on the 31st of December 2005.\n\n*Except*, for much of the machinery, that did not end up happening.\n\nFor example, Congress made 14 of the original sunset provisions permanent and extended two of the biggest headline powers – roving surveillance and business-records orders controls – while the 'lone wolf' power was also repeatedly extended.\n\nSome of those headline powers later lapsed in 2020, but by then a large part of the supposedly temporary architecture had already been baked into U.S. law. Specifically things like the expanded National Security Letter regime, delayed-notice or \"sneak and peek\" searches, and a good deal of the wider electronic-surveillance machinery.\n\nAll of them, supposedly 'temporary' solutions that never went away …\n\n## Israel's State of Emergency\n\nIsrael – as of the time of writing – has existed for 28,454 days… and it has spent all but FIVE of them in a State of Emergency.\n\nIt was declared the 19th of May 1948 by the Provisional State Council, with no fixed end date having been given, and would be repealed, it was said, once the existential threat to the nation had passed …\n\nAnd therein lies the crux of the matter, because as far as the powers then – as indeed now – were concerned… *the threat to the nation never did pass*.\n\nThere *is* a certain logic to it too when you look at it from their perspective, as Israel's first days were violent, precarious, and defined by the very real fear that defeat might mean total destruction.\n\nHell, the nation was literally BORN in war; as on the day they declared independence, the nascent Civil War in Mandatory Palestine – having only broken out in 1947 – just immediately became the Arab-Israeli War, which saw five Arab nations gunning for them.\n\nToo be frank too, there's also, you know, *the Holocaust*, so can see why those early Israelis just *might* have had their backs up when it came to matters of defence.\n\nAnd then, as the decades rolled on, the twists and turns of history didn't exactly do much to encourage Israel to let its guard down. There was the Sinai War of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the years of Fedayeen and PLO attacks in the '50's, the First and Second Intifadas over several *decades*, the Gulf War missile strikes of 1991, and so on and so forth.\n\nBut it isn't just the 'Fortress Mentality' alone that explains the continued State of Emergency – it's the system that grows therefrom.\n\nBecause today, with the Provisional State Council *long* having become a thing of the past, the arrangement is anchored in Article 38 of the Basic Laws, which upholds the right to declare a State of Emergency by saying the following, quote:\n\n> \"Should the Knesset ascertain that the State is in a state of emergency, it may, of its own initiative or, pursuant to a Government proposal, declare that a state of emergency exists. … The declaration … may not exceed one year; the Knesset may make a renewed declaration of a state of emergency as stated.\"\n\nThus is the situation as it stands today; with the Knesset – that being Israel's legislature – simply renewing it again, and again. Every year, *without fail*.\n\nAnd if you're wondering what all this *actually* means in practice? Well, it means that the Government can issue so called \"emergency regulations\" for the \"defence of the state, public security, and the maintenance of supplies and essential services\". They can be BIG regulations that they issue too, with them being allowed to temporarily alter laws, suspend their effect, or impose conditions upon them. It can even use them to impose or increase taxes and other compulsory payments.\n\nThere *are* limits, sure – they cannot prevent access to the courts, impose retroactive punishment, or allow infringement upon human dignity for example – but even then, it matters not for our purposes today, as after nearly *eight* decades of war, terror, and annual renewals, the 'temporary' emergency has simply become part of the fabric of Israel …\n\n## The Korean Armistice\n\nStrictly speaking, if we want to be pedantic – which we *absolutely* do – the Korean War never ACTUALLY ended.\n\nThe fighting stopped, sure – on the 27th of July 1953 to be precise – but it was only stopped via an armistice. I.e., a TEMPORARY ceasefire, not an actual political settlement. Think WWI, and the difference between the guns falling silent in November 1918, and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919… and you have the idea.\n\nFor Korea though, a peace deal *was* meant to quickly follow up the armistice. Article IV of the Armistice *explicitly* called for it in fact, saying that, quote:\n\n> \"In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.\"\n\nHere's the thing though. It's not that they then just withdrew behind their respective borders, never got around to organising the aforementioned conference, and a 'yeah yeah yeah we get it we're not *actually* at war' unspoken understanding filled the gap.\n\nNo, they DID try to do it properly. Although they missed the three month mark by *quite* a bit – with a summit not taking place until 1954, in Geneva.\n\nIt failed, of course – after 51 days of exhausting deliberation – because the two sides wanted fundamentally incompatible things, and neither was willing to give any ground.\n\nThe UN – or more accurately, the U.S. – for example, wanted to see Korea reunified through genuinely free, *supervised* all-Korean elections. BUT, they were adamant that their troops weren't going anywhere soon, and when they did, it'd be in a gradual, stepped withdrawal, with China also doing the same – because of *very* reasonable concerns that if they withdrew, and China didn't, Kim and Mao would have one last go at nabbing the South.\n\nThe Communist side, however – North Korea, China, *and* the Soviet Union – were adamant that *if* elections happened, the U.S. wasn't allowed to have any part in overseeing them. Further, they were also looking backwards, bringing up all manner of pre-war slights – both real and imagined – for which they wanted restitution.\n\nThere were future attempts to figure it out though. Such as in 1991, when both Koreas signed the 'Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and Cooperation', which committed them to transforming the armistice into a \"solid state of peace\" and to abiding by the Armistice until that peace was achieved.\n\nNice words. Nothing came of them.\n\nThen came the Four-Party Talks of 1997 to 1999 – involving the two Koreas, the U.S., and China – which were *explicitly* aimed at building a permanent peace regime on the peninsula. They too failed, owing to major disagreements over who should ACTUALLY sign any future peace deal, and what such a regime would even look like.\n\nThus is the situation as it stands today; the original 1953 Armistice, and 70 years of interaction thereafter, simply having become an unspoken de-facto peace deal. One where they know they aren't ACTUALLY at war, they know they VERY much are not friends, but they both know – more or less – where and what the lines are to stop it spilling out into open warfare once again.\n\n## UNFICYP and the Cyprus Buffer Zone\n\nCyprus – beautiful Mediterranean island and package holiday hotspot as it is – doesn't exactly scream 'home of one of the world's longest running frozen conflicts', and yet… *it is*.\n\nIt all goes back to late 1963, when intercommunal violence EXPLODED between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. It wouldn't calm down until the new year, by which point 538 people were dead in all – 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots.\n\nAnd because it was *quite* apparent that the core issue of 'no it's my island, f*ck you' hadn't been settled, the UN launched a Peacekeeping Mission in March – the 'United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus', shortened to UNFICYP.\n\nThey were tasked to do exactly what you'd expect, with Security Council Resolution 186 – which greenlit the operation – stating that, quote:\n\n> \"… the function of the Force should be, in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions.\"\n\nAND, further, it also stated that, quoting again:\n\n> \"… the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three months.\"\n\nThree months, that's as long as they thought they'd have to be there … and they're still there to this day. Why? Because in a nutshell… there is *no* realistic way that the Greek and Turkish communities on Cyprus, can EVER live alongside each other – generally speaking. The wounds just run too deep, and haven't even begun to scar over – never mind properly heal.\n\nNow too, the situation is also *way* more fractured than it was in the '60's … as in 1974, the whole island was engulfed in FULL armed conflict – despite the presence of UNFICYP.\n\nThe spark for this was a Greek-backed coup on the 15th of July, which toppled President Makarios and installed the hardline nationalist Nikos Sampson – a man *very* much up for unification with Greece.\n\nAnd all that naturally sparked little joy among the Turkish Cypriots, and indeed, Turkey itself, who invaded the island on the 20th – citing its rights as a guarantor power 1960 Treaty of Guarantee arrangements under which Cyprus became independent from Britain.\n\nThere was fighting, there were talks that went nowhere, there was more fighting, and by the end of August Turkey's forces controlled 37% of the island.\n\nAt that point, there were two options for the UN Forces, *still* stationed on the island during all of that:\n\nEngage the Turkish Military, and risk the situation escalating MASSIVELY.\n\nOr accept the military reality on the ground, police the ceasefire line, and prevent the island's de facto partition from turning into another round of massacres.\n\nThey went with B, and thus UNFICYP's mission evolved: to stand between the two sides – *literally* – and try to prevent ethnic violence from ever flaring up again … a mission that… sadly… doesn't appear as though it'll be ending anytime soon …\n\n## Venice\n\nA lighter note, and something a bit different to see us out today: VENICE. Yes, an entire *city* that was meant to be temporary…\n\nSounds weird we know, possibly even outright incorrect when you first hear it. But we assure you all, that *beautiful* city full of canals and palazzi, *genuinely* started out as an explicitly temporary settlement.\n\nBasically, it all goes back to the 5th Century, when locals from the area, fleeing barbarian invaders – what with the Western Roman Empire collapsing and all that – made for a whopping great lagoon on the site of what is now Venice herself. It wasn't glamorous – unlike today – but it was *safe*.\n\nAnd from there… they basically just never left; adapting, fishing, trading, building homes, building communities, and eventually, becoming something of a power in the Medieval World.\n\nAt first, it was practical stuff: fishing, salt, and local trade – same old same old as any nowhere medieval city.\n\n*Except*, Venice wasn't a nowhere city. Quite literally so in fact, as it also just so happened to be sat on PRIME real estate, right between the Italian Mainland and the Eastern Mediterranean… so the city soon became a hub for international trade, bringing VAST riches with it as they took their own little cut of everything that passed through.\n\nPolitically too, the place began to harden.\n\nTradition places the election of Venice's first Doge – its Head of State – in 697, and while historians quibble over the exact early details, the office itself is very much real and would become one of the defining institutions of the Venetian state.\n\nThen, in 828, Venetian merchants pinched the relics of Saint Mark from Alexandria and brought them home, giving the city not just prestige, but a patron saint around whom it could build a proper civic identity.\n\nCombine the two, and suddenly Venice wasn't becoming an ever more powerful city, it was becoming a city*state*.\n\nAnd from there, Venice just kept scaling up. The Arsenal, founded around 1104, became one of the great shipbuilding complexes of the medieval world. The Great Council grew into the Republic's core political body, and from the famous Serrata, or 'Lockout', of 1297 onward, Venice hardened into an oligarchic republic dominated by a closed patrician elite – a process that unfolded over roughly a century rather than in one clean moment.\n\nSo, while it may have started out as a temporary cluster of refuge settlements, *of course*, it became permanent.\n\nAfter all, what Medieval Venetian big wig, knee deep in plunder, living *here*, was going to walk into the Doge's office and say words to the extent of \"this swamp's a bit sh*t init, shall we pootle on back to the Mainland now that the barbarians aren't trying to kill us anymore\"?\n\nNONE, that's who…\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- Many temporary laws and institutions remain in place long after their intended expiration.\n- Temporary measures often become permanent due to bureaucratic inertia and political convenience.\n- Germany's Basic Law, intended as a temporary constitution, remains in effect over 70 years later.\n- The British income tax, introduced as a temporary wartime measure, has been in place since 1799.\n- New York's rent control and stabilization laws, implemented during wartime, continue to regulate housing prices.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### What is the Germany's Basic Law?\n\nGermany's Basic Law is the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was originally intended to be a temporary measure until a permanent constitution could be adopted, but it remains in effect to this day.\n\n### Why was the Basic Law intended to be temporary?\n\nThe Basic Law was intended to be temporary because it was created as an interim measure to govern West Germany after World War II, with the expectation that a permanent constitution would be adopted once Germany was reunified.\n\n### What is the history of income tax in the UK?\n\nIncome tax in the UK was first introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to fund the French Revolutionary Wars. It was repealed in 1816 but reintroduced in 1842, and despite being intended to be temporary, it has remained in place ever since.\n\n### What are the origins of New York's rent control and rent stabilization?\n\nNew York's rent control was first implemented in 1920 as an emergency anti-eviction law and was later reinstated in 1943 during World War II. Rent stabilization was introduced in 1969 as an emergency measure and both systems remain in effect today.\n\n### What is the Special Criminal Court in Ireland?\n\nThe Special Criminal Court in Ireland is a court that can be activated when the government is satisfied that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure justice and public order. It was established under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and remains in use today.\n\n### What is the Emergency Regulations Ordinance in Hong Kong?\n\nThe Emergency Regulations Ordinance in Hong Kong is a colonial-era law passed in 1922 as a temporary strike-breaking measure. It grants extraordinary powers to the authorities during emergencies and has never been repealed, remaining in effect to this day.\n\n### What is the Patriot Act in the United States?\n\nThe Patriot Act is a law passed in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. It expanded surveillance powers and other measures intended to combat terrorism. Many of its provisions were intended to be temporary but have been renewed or made permanent over time.\n\n### What is the status of the Korean War?\n\nThe Korean War never officially ended; instead, an armistice was signed in 1953, creating a temporary ceasefire. Efforts to replace the armistice with a peace treaty have failed, and the armistice remains in effect.\n\n### What is the UNFICYP in Cyprus?\n\nThe UNFICYP (United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) was established in 1964 to prevent a recurrence of fighting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. It was intended to be a temporary measure but remains in place due to the ongoing conflict.\n\n### How did Venice start as a temporary settlement?\n\nVenice began as a temporary refuge for locals fleeing barbarian invaders in the 5th century. They settled in a lagoon for safety and eventually built a city that became a major trading hub and city-state.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Side Projects video: Temporary Solutions That Never Went Away](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=746TwG-W-qs)\n- [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/GillrayBritanniaArtic.jpg) by James Gillray / openverse, cc0.\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://sideprojects.pub/article/temporary-solutions-that-never-went-away.md canonical: https://sideprojects.pub/article/temporary-solutions-that-never-went-away datePublished: 2026-06-17 dateModified: 2026-06-17 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://sideprojects.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: Side Projects image: "https://media.sideprojects.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/746TwG-W-qs/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: 74987ab55ebf52f3878018b3b4434e2e336083559b11aa9cbe4264ecf16dea12 tokens: 9491 summaryUrl: https://sideprojects.pub/article/temporary-solutions-that-never-went-away.md.summary.md --- Many of history's longest-lived laws and institutions began with reassurances that they were temporary – only for them to still be around to this very day. And, in fairness, very rarely is it some grand Machiavellian ruse to get one over on ordinary folk – oftentimes, the reasons are way more *clerical* than that. Because few, if any, introduce a wartime tax with a view to it remaining in force over 200 years later. Just as those who impose martial law, a 'special court', or a peacekeeping mission don't imagine them still being existent *decades* after they were implemented. But here's the thing: systems don't like change … at least when they have time to think about it. An 'emergency' measure, *sure*, say no more son, get it in – it's a crisis don't you know. But then amending it, or scrapping it? *No*, suddenly it's complicated then, suddenly contrary opinions prevail through the halls of power. Or the emergency simply never dissipates. Either way… *nothing* changes as a result. Thus, the temporary tax becomes normal. The emergency law gets renewed. The peacekeeping mission stays. The constitutional bodge becomes the constitution. Everyone shrugs, adjusts, and carries on about their day. And that's exactly what we're talking about today: the temporary solutions that simply… never went away … ## Germany's Basic Law Germany had an *interesting* 20th Century. The nation had found itself torn in two after the 1940 Tour De France had gotten a bit out of hand, and the victorious powers of the U.K., the U.S., France, and the Soviet Union divided the conquered nation into four so called 'Zones of Occupation'. HOWEVER, with the Soviet Union only being an ally of convenience – at bitter ideological odds with the others over the matter of Communism vs Capitalism – when the post-war settlement hardened in 1949, Germany was split in two; the 'Federal Republic of Germany' being founded from the British, American, and French occupation zones, and the 'German Democratic Republic' from the Soviet one – a *totally* separate nation under the hammer and sickle. And this created quite the kerfuffle when David Hasselhoff personally ended the Cold War all by himself, and Germany was made whole again in 1990, as by that point the two halves of Germany had *radically* different legal systems … so however were the two nations' laws to be combined? *With great difficulty*, turned out to be the answer once the clever sorts had thought it over. They were just *too* different to one by one, go through every single line of BOTH nation's laws, and then debate, discuss, and legislate on what the 'new' one was to be. And so – with the direction people ran when the Berlin Wall fell making pretty clear which Germany had 'won' – the powers that be simply took West Germany's 'Basic Law', that being its constitution, and applied it to the whole lot. There was precedent for doing this too, in fairness, as Article 23 stated that, quote: > "For the time being, this Basic Law applies in the territory of the Länder Baden, Bavaria, Bremen, Greater Berlin, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Württemberg-Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. In other parts of Germany it is to be put into force on their accession." BUT, the Basic Law – as implied by its name – was only meant to be temporary; an interim 'do the job' measure to tide the nation over until it was made whole again. It's written into the very document itself in fact, with Article 146 stating that, quote: > "This Basic Law ceases to be in force on the day on which a Constitution adopted by a free decision of the German people comes into force." AND YET … the Basic Law has *never* been replaced as Article 146 intended, and it remains in effect to this very day. In a nutshell, because just as the leaders in 1990 found it easier to crack on using Article 23, so did the next lot… and the *next* lot… and the NEXT lot. And there *were* protestations about this too, from groups like the East German Civil-Rights Movement and the Central Round Table, to name just two – many of them wanting to invoke Article 146, to do things, as they saw it, *properly*. But in the end, they never won the support in the Bundestag needed to force the matter… and now… over 30 years after the fact… no one really cares enough to quibble about it anymore. And so, Germany presses on, with a Constitution, that while perfectly functional sure, was, originally, TEMPORARY. ## (British) Income Tax If there's one thing us Brits love, it's paying our income tax – price we pay for a civilised society, don't you know. And damn right it is too, which is why Old Blighty is blessed with roads that have more craters than the surface of the moon. Still though, at least when His Majesty's Revenue and Customs is bending you over a table and doing as it pleases, there is a certain solace to be found in the fact that taxes are just the natural way of things – one of the two things in life that is certain. Except, actually, when it comes to income tax specifically… *no*. That is not the case at all in fact, as sure enough, it was first introduced as a TEMPORARY measure. And because we're talking about the U.K. – the land full of pubs older than most nations – we have to go WAY back for this one. Specifically, to 1799 when, with the French Revolutionary Wars BURNING through London's coffers at an alarming rate, then Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, introduced Income Tax. It was nothing too over the top though – *especially* compared to modern levels – with annual incomes over £200 being taxed at 10%, incomes between £60 and £200 paying on a graduated scale rising to that rate, and incomes below £60 paying nothing. Adjusted for inflation and converted to universally understood American Dollars, that roughly equates to $40,000 taxed at 10%, incomes between $12,000 to $40,000 getting taxed on the sliding scale, and everything there under graciously being allowed to be spent how whoever earned it pleased. At first, of course, people HATED it, with Parliament's own history noting that it was seen as intrusive into private finances, and it was also *widely* evaded – the 18th Century equivalent of a modern sole trader *mysteriously* somehow only earning £12,500 each and every year – *but*, the patriotic zeal of the conflict, which only grew ever more as the French Revolutionary Wars became the Napoleonic Wars, allowed it to be bitterly swallowed. JUST. To be fair too, it was then killed off in 1816, with the war having ended a year prior … but was then brought back in 1842 by Prime Minister Robert Peel. His justification? Once again, the nation was broke, with the Right Honourable Members down in Westminster having royally f*cked up the finances, and p*ssed all of the money up the wall. And so, once again, back Income Tax came. And once again too, it was claimed, it was to be temporary … though this time, that claim was a LIE. Because despite the 1842 Act that reintroduced it *explicitly* stating that it was only to be in place "until the Sixth Day of April, One thousand eight hundred and forty-five" – so for three years *only* – it was never repealed. There was always some b*llocks flim flam, or yet another monumental bugger up with the nation's finances that justified renewing it again, and again… until eventually… it just became an accepted and ingrained facet of British life; now all but unquestioned in the modern day. ## New York Rent Control / Rent Stabilization New York is an expensive city – a shocking and bold claim *we know*. And the current system of Rent Control, aimed at keeping the city ACTUALLY affordable to 'normal' New Yorkers? Yep, you guessed it – a temporary measure that never went away. Or more rather, a temporary measure that never went away *this time*, because the City actually has a *long* off and on again history with this kind of thing – first being implemented all the way back in 1920. And the top and bottom of those initial measures? They were emergency anti-eviction laws, brought in after New York's post-First World War housing market went completely up the swanny, that made rent hikes challengeable in court, and increases over the previous year presumed as unreasonable unless the landlord could *clearly* justify an economic need for them. They lasted until 1929, and then, having been judged as successful, they were scrapped. 14 years later though – so in 1943 – controls were *again* implemented, with it being the *other* World War that sent the housing market to buggery this time. The system was a national one though, under the Emergency Price Control Act, which, to give you a summary, built a nationwide price-control system to deal with wartime shortages and inflation; purely temporary, purely for the duration of the war, and slated to be scrapped once 'normal' market conditions returned post-Victory. And sure enough, they did exactly that in 1951 … *at the federal level*. New York STATE was still all about it though, and so chose to independently keep the controls in place – with them remaining in action to this very day. As for how it works in the here and now though – as it has of course changed ever so over the years – the measures are only applied to a finite (and shrinking) pool of pre-1947 built apartment buildings where either the tenant, or their "lawful successor", have been there since before July 1971. And basically, they just limit how much rent can be increased every year… leading to a *substantial* difference in controlled over market prices over the years. Somewhere in the region of 50% or so. HOWEVER, we also have Rent *Stabilization* to consider – a different thing to Rent *Control*. It is a system which is both *way* bigger as a slice of the pie – 30 to 40% as opposed to the mere ONE percent of units that are Rent *Controlled* – and also *way* less generous, working out at around 25% cheaper as compared to market prices. It too was *meant* to be a temporary system, specifically brought in as an "emergency measure" in response to a brutal 1969 housing market … and yet… here we are… ## Ireland's Special Criminal Court Jury trials are *meant* to be a big deal – "the lamp that shows that freedom lives", "the bulwark of our liberties", blah blah blah, etc etc. And to be fair, you gotta concede to the truth of such notions – because the freedom to p*ss the state off, and then not have that same state be the decision maker on you getting chucked in the clink, is nothing if not *handy* in a free society. *But yet*, in reality, even in free societies, they're more often treat like a 'nice to have' luxury, rather than a truly vital and non-negotiable freedom. Able to be relinquished or relegated for matters of convenience, or *verrrrrrrrrrry* specific instances where it is argued that the picture is slightly bigger than 'just' stopping an Old Boy in a dusty wig from penalising you for your opinions. Seriously, pick a free and democratic nation that, at face value, has jury trials, and odds are there's some exception and special cases that show that the principle, while aimed for, is FAR from absolute: In Canada, for example, their Charter guarantees "the benefit of trial by jury" only where the offence carries a maximum punishment of five years or more. Then in New Zealand, defendants only get to elect jury trial for offences where the penalty is or includes imprisonment for two years or more, with lower-level cases staying judge only. And of course – because why else would we be bringing it up in this episode – such waverings from the principle are often temporary solution to one calamity or another, that for one reason or more… are simply never done away with. Which brings us, nicely, to *Ireland* – probably the most interesting example of a nation that, through having to impose what were thought to be temporary solutions to SERIOUS problems, has ended up accidentally permanently doing away with jury trials to a certain degree. In fact, they'd ended up with a whole parallel lane for cases where, in the State's view, a jury simply could not be trusted to do the job safely. It all comes down to the 'Offences Against the State Act 1939', thanks to which a 'Special Criminal Court' can be switched on whenever the Government is satisfied that the ordinary courts are "inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order" – wording that positively REEKS of a temporary wartime expedient, especially as the Act says this is only to happen "if and whenever and so often as" that emergency condition exists, and that if it stops existing, the Government "shall" bring the system to an end. Why? Officially, it's because of jury intimidation, security concerns, and the fear that organised-crime groups, or paramilitaries can bend, threaten or terrify ordinary jurors in ways that make a fair trial impossible. Mentioning "paramilitaries" might sound a bit OTT given the rather chill and pleasant land that Ireland is nowadays, but don't forget, the country was *a smidge* different back in the day. Remember, the IRA, Come Out Yer Black and Tans, the 'unrest' North the border, all of that stuff? *Yeah*, paramilitaries were a fair concern. To be fair to Dublin too, given that Ireland hasn't exactly descended into authoritarianism in the near century since it was passed, probably reasonable to take the Offences Against the State Act at face value at this point. ## Hong Kong's Emergency Regulations Ordinance Hong Kong has a… *complicated* relationship with its colonial past. So complicated in fact, that it's impossible to generalise it with a single emotion. Some Hong Kongers, for example, LOVE having been a British Colony, and hold that part of their history in the highest regard – shoutout to Grandma Wong. Others, take a materialistic middle of the road view of the matter; X was objectively good, Y was objectively sh*t, and weighing the two up, they end up believing that Hong Kong *was* in fact better under London's rule. And then there's the ones who FIRMLY believe that British rule was dreadful, f*ck tea and crumpets, thank God China is one step closer to being reunified – next stop Taiwan, ey Big Man Xi? But at least the New Government is unified in its position of hating it though, right? As after all, they say things like: "(Colonial Law) did not contain any entrenched human rights guarantees." And: "…the colonial government was wary of Chinese people, and control was exercised through segregation." Yet, when it's a tool that benefits their maintenance of power, they suddenly seem to LOVE their colonial history. Want an example? Well, how about the 'Emergency Regulations Ordinance'; an old Colonial Era law – passed in February 1922 – originally as an emergency and temporary strike breaking measure, that was just NEVER repealed – not by the British, not by the Chinese, still in *full* effect to this day. Why? Because when you're ruling a place through force, and denying the people their say – be it openly as London did, or through filtered and limited candidate sham elections as Beijing do – it turned out to be quite the handy thing, as when the authorities considered there to be an "emergency or public danger", it granted extraordinary powers of: - "Censorship, and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication." - "Arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation." - "Authorizing the entry and search of premises." - "Empowering such authorities or persons as may be specified in the regulations to make orders and rules and to make or issue notices, licences, permits, certificates or other documents for the purposes of the regulations." And like we say, it was originally passed to help crush Colonial-era strikes, specifically the Seamen's Strike – a 52-day walkout by Chinese sailors and other port workers, sparked after maritime companies rejected demands for higher wages, and so disruptive that it effectively closed Hong Kong's port. With it *never* being removed too, it remained ready to go during the 1925 Canton-Hong Kong Strike, when a cross-border labour dispute on an even greater scale helped paralyse the colony yet again. We could go on too, as States of Emergency were declared *all the time* in the Colonial Period: the 1929 Drought Crisis, the 1931 Anti-Japanese Riots, the 1935 Rabies Panic, and so on and so forth – right through to the present day, after the 1997 Handover. Rather than getting bogged down in chronology, however, let us instead pick out two particular flashpoints of note to highlight that *both* of Hong Kong's overlords have made full and enthusiastic use of the legislation: The 1967 Leftist Riots, and the 2019 Anti-Extradition Protests. The former State of Emergency was declared on the 24th of May 1967, when Labour Day protests by pro-Beijing elements spiralled into a full-blown leftist uprising. And what followed was months of strikes, street battles, bombings and intimidation, that left 51 dead, 832 injured, and nearly 5,000 arrested when all was said and done. As for the 2019 Protests, they began in opposition to a proposed law that would have allowed criminal suspects in Hong Kong to be extradited to Mainland China – a move which many feared would all but finish off the city's judicial independence, and of course also sparked VERY OBVIOUS personal safety concerns. And with tensions only escalating, and there being no sign of the genie being put back into its bottle – a quarter of Hong Kong's ENTIRE population had come out to protest on the 16th of June alone for reference – Carrie Lam's administration invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on the 4th of October; specifically to use the powers granted to proclaim a ban on face coverings, and more broadly move to crush the protests. So, there it is; a supposedly temporary law – that because of its undeniable utility – was *never* revoked, and is still being used to crush dissent and shore up power structures over a century later … ## The Patriot Act 9/11 shook the U.S. to its very core. The nation, long since having thought of itself as all but invulnerable thanks to geography, had been *attacked*, and attacked in an unprecedentedly horrific manner – with 2,977 victims now lying dead, and the two largest obelisks from one of the world's most iconic skylines now lying shattered and destroyed. And because they were desperate times, the U.S. Government believed that desperate measures were needed, specifically in the form of the 'PATRIOT Act', which passed in October 2001 – barely even six *weeks* after 9/11. As for what it did … it quite a lot, actually. Little of which was what you would call soft and cuddly. For example: - It expanded roving wiretaps, meaning investigators could keep following a target across multiple phones or devices without having to start from scratch each time. - It widened surveillance powers over internet and electronic communications. - It broadened the use of National Security Letters to demand records while often gagging the recipient from talking about it. - It authorised so called "sneak and peek" searches, where agents could enter a home or business, search it, and then delay telling the target for weeks, months … or even longer. - It created the so called 'lone wolf' provision, allowing the government to survey a non-U.S. citizen engaged in international terrorism *without* having to prove they were tied to any specific foreign terror group or organisation. - And it let the FBI go to the secretive 'FISA Court' for orders to obtain "any tangible things" relevant to an investigation – and not just from telecoms companies and the like, but from basically ANY entity. Naturally, even in the dazed state that the U.S. was in back then, concerns began to raised far and wide that the PATRIOT Act just might be a *smidge* overkill, and quite the gross infraction upon civil liberties. And the response to such concerns? They're best summed up by the words of Attorney General John Ashcroft, from when he was speaking to the Senate on the matter in December 2001, quote: > "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." In other words, quite literally, 'what, do you want the terrorists to win?' Solace, at least, could be found in the fact that the act DID have so called 'Sunset Clauses' – i.e. provisions that automatically terminate a law after a certain amount of time, or a particular occurrence – with the PATRIOT Act's being time based, and due to kick in on the 31st of December 2005. *Except*, for much of the machinery, that did not end up happening. For example, Congress made 14 of the original sunset provisions permanent and extended two of the biggest headline powers – roving surveillance and business-records orders controls – while the 'lone wolf' power was also repeatedly extended. Some of those headline powers later lapsed in 2020, but by then a large part of the supposedly temporary architecture had already been baked into U.S. law. Specifically things like the expanded National Security Letter regime, delayed-notice or "sneak and peek" searches, and a good deal of the wider electronic-surveillance machinery. All of them, supposedly 'temporary' solutions that never went away … ## Israel's State of Emergency Israel – as of the time of writing – has existed for 28,454 days… and it has spent all but FIVE of them in a State of Emergency. It was declared the 19th of May 1948 by the Provisional State Council, with no fixed end date having been given, and would be repealed, it was said, once the existential threat to the nation had passed … And therein lies the crux of the matter, because as far as the powers then – as indeed now – were concerned… *the threat to the nation never did pass*. There *is* a certain logic to it too when you look at it from their perspective, as Israel's first days were violent, precarious, and defined by the very real fear that defeat might mean total destruction. Hell, the nation was literally BORN in war; as on the day they declared independence, the nascent Civil War in Mandatory Palestine – having only broken out in 1947 – just immediately became the Arab-Israeli War, which saw five Arab nations gunning for them. Too be frank too, there's also, you know, *the Holocaust*, so can see why those early Israelis just *might* have had their backs up when it came to matters of defence. And then, as the decades rolled on, the twists and turns of history didn't exactly do much to encourage Israel to let its guard down. There was the Sinai War of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the years of Fedayeen and PLO attacks in the '50's, the First and Second Intifadas over several *decades*, the Gulf War missile strikes of 1991, and so on and so forth. But it isn't just the 'Fortress Mentality' alone that explains the continued State of Emergency – it's the system that grows therefrom. Because today, with the Provisional State Council *long* having become a thing of the past, the arrangement is anchored in Article 38 of the Basic Laws, which upholds the right to declare a State of Emergency by saying the following, quote: > "Should the Knesset ascertain that the State is in a state of emergency, it may, of its own initiative or, pursuant to a Government proposal, declare that a state of emergency exists. … The declaration … may not exceed one year; the Knesset may make a renewed declaration of a state of emergency as stated." Thus is the situation as it stands today; with the Knesset – that being Israel's legislature – simply renewing it again, and again. Every year, *without fail*. And if you're wondering what all this *actually* means in practice? Well, it means that the Government can issue so called "emergency regulations" for the "defence of the state, public security, and the maintenance of supplies and essential services". They can be BIG regulations that they issue too, with them being allowed to temporarily alter laws, suspend their effect, or impose conditions upon them. It can even use them to impose or increase taxes and other compulsory payments. There *are* limits, sure – they cannot prevent access to the courts, impose retroactive punishment, or allow infringement upon human dignity for example – but even then, it matters not for our purposes today, as after nearly *eight* decades of war, terror, and annual renewals, the 'temporary' emergency has simply become part of the fabric of Israel … ## The Korean Armistice Strictly speaking, if we want to be pedantic – which we *absolutely* do – the Korean War never ACTUALLY ended. The fighting stopped, sure – on the 27th of July 1953 to be precise – but it was only stopped via an armistice. I.e., a TEMPORARY ceasefire, not an actual political settlement. Think WWI, and the difference between the guns falling silent in November 1918, and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919… and you have the idea. For Korea though, a peace deal *was* meant to quickly follow up the armistice. Article IV of the Armistice *explicitly* called for it in fact, saying that, quote: > "In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc." Here's the thing though. It's not that they then just withdrew behind their respective borders, never got around to organising the aforementioned conference, and a 'yeah yeah yeah we get it we're not *actually* at war' unspoken understanding filled the gap. No, they DID try to do it properly. Although they missed the three month mark by *quite* a bit – with a summit not taking place until 1954, in Geneva. It failed, of course – after 51 days of exhausting deliberation – because the two sides wanted fundamentally incompatible things, and neither was willing to give any ground. The UN – or more accurately, the U.S. – for example, wanted to see Korea reunified through genuinely free, *supervised* all-Korean elections. BUT, they were adamant that their troops weren't going anywhere soon, and when they did, it'd be in a gradual, stepped withdrawal, with China also doing the same – because of *very* reasonable concerns that if they withdrew, and China didn't, Kim and Mao would have one last go at nabbing the South. The Communist side, however – North Korea, China, *and* the Soviet Union – were adamant that *if* elections happened, the U.S. wasn't allowed to have any part in overseeing them. Further, they were also looking backwards, bringing up all manner of pre-war slights – both real and imagined – for which they wanted restitution. There were future attempts to figure it out though. Such as in 1991, when both Koreas signed the 'Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and Cooperation', which committed them to transforming the armistice into a "solid state of peace" and to abiding by the Armistice until that peace was achieved. Nice words. Nothing came of them. Then came the Four-Party Talks of 1997 to 1999 – involving the two Koreas, the U.S., and China – which were *explicitly* aimed at building a permanent peace regime on the peninsula. They too failed, owing to major disagreements over who should ACTUALLY sign any future peace deal, and what such a regime would even look like. Thus is the situation as it stands today; the original 1953 Armistice, and 70 years of interaction thereafter, simply having become an unspoken de-facto peace deal. One where they know they aren't ACTUALLY at war, they know they VERY much are not friends, but they both know – more or less – where and what the lines are to stop it spilling out into open warfare once again. ## UNFICYP and the Cyprus Buffer Zone Cyprus – beautiful Mediterranean island and package holiday hotspot as it is – doesn't exactly scream 'home of one of the world's longest running frozen conflicts', and yet… *it is*. It all goes back to late 1963, when intercommunal violence EXPLODED between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. It wouldn't calm down until the new year, by which point 538 people were dead in all – 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots. And because it was *quite* apparent that the core issue of 'no it's my island, f*ck you' hadn't been settled, the UN launched a Peacekeeping Mission in March – the 'United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus', shortened to UNFICYP. They were tasked to do exactly what you'd expect, with Security Council Resolution 186 – which greenlit the operation – stating that, quote: > "… the function of the Force should be, in the interest of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions." AND, further, it also stated that, quoting again: > "… the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three months." Three months, that's as long as they thought they'd have to be there … and they're still there to this day. Why? Because in a nutshell… there is *no* realistic way that the Greek and Turkish communities on Cyprus, can EVER live alongside each other – generally speaking. The wounds just run too deep, and haven't even begun to scar over – never mind properly heal. Now too, the situation is also *way* more fractured than it was in the '60's … as in 1974, the whole island was engulfed in FULL armed conflict – despite the presence of UNFICYP. The spark for this was a Greek-backed coup on the 15th of July, which toppled President Makarios and installed the hardline nationalist Nikos Sampson – a man *very* much up for unification with Greece. And all that naturally sparked little joy among the Turkish Cypriots, and indeed, Turkey itself, who invaded the island on the 20th – citing its rights as a guarantor power 1960 Treaty of Guarantee arrangements under which Cyprus became independent from Britain. There was fighting, there were talks that went nowhere, there was more fighting, and by the end of August Turkey's forces controlled 37% of the island. At that point, there were two options for the UN Forces, *still* stationed on the island during all of that: Engage the Turkish Military, and risk the situation escalating MASSIVELY. Or accept the military reality on the ground, police the ceasefire line, and prevent the island's de facto partition from turning into another round of massacres. They went with B, and thus UNFICYP's mission evolved: to stand between the two sides – *literally* – and try to prevent ethnic violence from ever flaring up again … a mission that… sadly… doesn't appear as though it'll be ending anytime soon … ## Venice A lighter note, and something a bit different to see us out today: VENICE. Yes, an entire *city* that was meant to be temporary… Sounds weird we know, possibly even outright incorrect when you first hear it. But we assure you all, that *beautiful* city full of canals and palazzi, *genuinely* started out as an explicitly temporary settlement. Basically, it all goes back to the 5th Century, when locals from the area, fleeing barbarian invaders – what with the Western Roman Empire collapsing and all that – made for a whopping great lagoon on the site of what is now Venice herself. It wasn't glamorous – unlike today – but it was *safe*. And from there… they basically just never left; adapting, fishing, trading, building homes, building communities, and eventually, becoming something of a power in the Medieval World. At first, it was practical stuff: fishing, salt, and local trade – same old same old as any nowhere medieval city. *Except*, Venice wasn't a nowhere city. Quite literally so in fact, as it also just so happened to be sat on PRIME real estate, right between the Italian Mainland and the Eastern Mediterranean… so the city soon became a hub for international trade, bringing VAST riches with it as they took their own little cut of everything that passed through. Politically too, the place began to harden. Tradition places the election of Venice's first Doge – its Head of State – in 697, and while historians quibble over the exact early details, the office itself is very much real and would become one of the defining institutions of the Venetian state. Then, in 828, Venetian merchants pinched the relics of Saint Mark from Alexandria and brought them home, giving the city not just prestige, but a patron saint around whom it could build a proper civic identity. Combine the two, and suddenly Venice wasn't becoming an ever more powerful city, it was becoming a city*state*. And from there, Venice just kept scaling up. The Arsenal, founded around 1104, became one of the great shipbuilding complexes of the medieval world. The Great Council grew into the Republic's core political body, and from the famous Serrata, or 'Lockout', of 1297 onward, Venice hardened into an oligarchic republic dominated by a closed patrician elite – a process that unfolded over roughly a century rather than in one clean moment. So, while it may have started out as a temporary cluster of refuge settlements, *of course*, it became permanent. After all, what Medieval Venetian big wig, knee deep in plunder, living *here*, was going to walk into the Doge's office and say words to the extent of "this swamp's a bit sh*t init, shall we pootle on back to the Mainland now that the barbarians aren't trying to kill us anymore"? NONE, that's who… ## Key Takeaways - Many temporary laws and institutions remain in place long after their intended expiration. - Temporary measures often become permanent due to bureaucratic inertia and political convenience. - Germany's Basic Law, intended as a temporary constitution, remains in effect over 70 years later. - The British income tax, introduced as a temporary wartime measure, has been in place since 1799. - New York's rent control and stabilization laws, implemented during wartime, continue to regulate housing prices. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the Germany's Basic Law? Germany's Basic Law is the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was originally intended to be a temporary measure until a permanent constitution could be adopted, but it remains in effect to this day. ### Why was the Basic Law intended to be temporary? The Basic Law was intended to be temporary because it was created as an interim measure to govern West Germany after World War II, with the expectation that a permanent constitution would be adopted once Germany was reunified. ### What is the history of income tax in the UK? Income tax in the UK was first introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to fund the French Revolutionary Wars. It was repealed in 1816 but reintroduced in 1842, and despite being intended to be temporary, it has remained in place ever since. ### What are the origins of New York's rent control and rent stabilization? New York's rent control was first implemented in 1920 as an emergency anti-eviction law and was later reinstated in 1943 during World War II. Rent stabilization was introduced in 1969 as an emergency measure and both systems remain in effect today. ### What is the Special Criminal Court in Ireland? The Special Criminal Court in Ireland is a court that can be activated when the government is satisfied that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure justice and public order. It was established under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and remains in use today. ### What is the Emergency Regulations Ordinance in Hong Kong? The Emergency Regulations Ordinance in Hong Kong is a colonial-era law passed in 1922 as a temporary strike-breaking measure. It grants extraordinary powers to the authorities during emergencies and has never been repealed, remaining in effect to this day. ### What is the Patriot Act in the United States? The Patriot Act is a law passed in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks. It expanded surveillance powers and other measures intended to combat terrorism. Many of its provisions were intended to be temporary but have been renewed or made permanent over time. ### What is the status of the Korean War? The Korean War never officially ended; instead, an armistice was signed in 1953, creating a temporary ceasefire. Efforts to replace the armistice with a peace treaty have failed, and the armistice remains in effect. ### What is the UNFICYP in Cyprus? The UNFICYP (United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) was established in 1964 to prevent a recurrence of fighting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. It was intended to be a temporary measure but remains in place due to the ongoing conflict. ### How did Venice start as a temporary settlement? Venice began as a temporary refuge for locals fleeing barbarian invaders in the 5th century. They settled in a lagoon for safety and eventually built a city that became a major trading hub and city-state. ## Sources - [Original Side Projects video: Temporary Solutions That Never Went Away](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=746TwG-W-qs) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/GillrayBritanniaArtic.jpg) by James Gillray / openverse, cc0. ## Related Coverage