mr peters usually speaks on government in clear ways and does so here again in ways that might surprise your preconceived notions;

If you’ve ever read about abusive relationships, you already know one of the top five criteria defining such:

If you try to leave me . . . I’ll kill you.

The relationship, in other words, isn’t consensual and thus by definition violent. More precisely, it is one-sidedly violent. The violent party uses threats of violence (and if those aren’t sufficient, actual violence) to force the other party to remain when she – or he – would rather go.

The same applies politically – to they.

As for example the cohort of American colonists (it wasn’t all of them) who no longer wanted to remain in a political relationship with the government of Great Britain, its king and parliament. The king and parliament would not accept a peaceful parting-of-the-ways and sent troops to use violence against the “rebellious” colonists. The latter in air-fingers quotation marks to make note of the abusive verbiage. The colonists who objected to being forced to submit to the king and parliament (who are these people? – as Seinfeld used to say) were etymologically framed as “rebellious” – implying they had an obligation to remain in a relationship they considered abusive.

Which was abusive, by definition. Because any relationship you’re forced to remain in (with threats of violence and actual violence used to keep you in it) is abusive by definition. Even if it is not entirely malignant. Most relationships have their good points. The king and parliament weren’t all bad and the colonies did enjoy some benefits arising from the relationship with Great Britain, such as the protection of the Royal Navy..........more.......