Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I don't think option 1 ('no Brexit') was feasible given we had a referendum on it and that option lost.
Option 3 ('harden the Irish border') risked all manner of troubles starting again and the breaking of the Belfast agreement - don't think anyone wanted that.
Option 2 ('Norway') - yes, that could have worked, and for a while I supported that option myself. I think there were some good arguments for that. But a lot of people who voted for 'Brexit' didn't think staying in the single market and customs union and keeping freedom of movement was 'Brexit', and I think they had a point too.
And MPs couldn't agree on any of these things - remember the two rounds of 'indicative votes' in the Commons where every option was rejected?
I still think an awful lot of problems on this issue stem from the fact that 'leave' was never properly defined. We knew what 'remain' meant, but 'leave' encompassed so many options it was always going to cause major issues if that side won. And that problem, of course, stems back to Cameron.
(FWIW : I voted to remain, but somewhat unenthusiastically as I saw good and bad arguments on both sides, and I considered myself at the time philosophically Bennite, and obviously Tony Benn and his followers were always opposed to remaining in the EU. If the referendum was re-run today, I'd vote to leave.)
Well it’s your specific reference to the “Irish and their Government being unblemished” that I’m getting at here as you seem to be implying some State collusion here.
I’d remind you that members of the Irish defence forces and members of An Garda Síochána lost their lives in terrorist murders during the troubles.
The provisional IRA and their acolytes were viewed as a threat to the security of this State too, hence the Offences Against the State Act is still on the statute books.
Politics is politics. NI was not going to be allowed to prevent the UK from leaving the EU & Customs Union. Maybe you feel that the Irish situation should have taken precedence, but I think that this would be to misread the resolve of the UK Government at that time. As you quite rightly say, NI is never straightforward and there was no chance of missing the opportunity to leave the EU/Customs Union by spending the next 20 years talking about the Irish question (which has plagued these Isles for a very long time).
Now of course you could entirely blame the UK Government for this situation, or perhaps look to the reasons why the UK wanted to leave and how that had been caused, and why those issues weren't addressed rather than risk this armageddon? Politics/missed opportunities/disbelief/cussedness - take your pick.
Well I’ll tell you why I think it should have been given the attention it deserves. 3,636 people were needlessly murdered over a 33 year period. That’s over 100 people a year.
I would have thought that having achieved a very hard won peace, that any UK government would have moved heaven and earth to come up with a deal that respected that.
Instead they have run roughshod over it, there is no proper government or active Parliament in NI, and we have one party vetoing any moves to deal with that.
Meanwhile hospital waiting lists grow and no new government policies or funding can be implemented, and we have loyalist discontent.
Why?
Because some people didn’t give a damn and were determined to implement an impossible policy.
Well I’ll tell you why I think it should have been given the attention it deserves. 3,636 people were needlessly murdered over a 33 year period. That’s over 100 people a year.
I would have thought that having achieved a very hard won peace, that any UK government would have moved heaven and earth to come up with a deal that respected that.
Instead they have run roughshod over it, there is no proper government or active Parliament in NI, and we have one party vetoing any moves to deal with that.
Meanwhile hospital waiting lists grow and no new government policies or funding can be implemented, and we have loyalist discontent.
Why?
Because some people didn’t give a damn and were determined to implement an impossible policy.
There was no heaven and earth that could be moved to get a deal that would be acceptable to NI and the UK out of the EU SM/CU within the time frame of the opportunity window. There simply was/is no solution that is acceptable to the EU, the UK Government and the population of NI. Something has got to give and the UK Government was determined that it was not going to be UK not leaving SM / CU. (NI tail wagging the UK dog, so to speak, stinks too).
As they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the UK is in possession of being out of the EU SM/CU. Outmaneouvred the other factions. So where to now on Northern Ireland?
I don't think option 1 ('no Brexit') was feasible given we had a referendum on it and that option lost.
Option 3 ('harden the Irish border') risked all manner of troubles starting again and the breaking of the Belfast agreement - don't think anyone wanted that.
Option 2 ('Norway') - yes, that could have worked, and for a while I supported that option myself. I think there were some good arguments for that. But a lot of people who voted for 'Brexit' didn't think staying in the single market and customs union and keeping freedom of movement was 'Brexit', and I think they had a point too.
And MPs couldn't agree on any of these things - remember the two rounds of 'indicative votes' in the Commons where every option was rejected?
I still think an awful lot of problems on this issue stem from the fact that 'leave' was never properly defined. We knew what 'remain' meant, but 'leave' encompassed so many options it was always going to cause major issues if that side won. And that problem, of course, stems back to Cameron.
(FWIW : I voted to remain, but somewhat unenthusiastically as I saw good and bad arguments on both sides, and I considered myself at the time philosophically Bennite, and obviously Tony Benn and his followers were always opposed to remaining in the EU. If the referendum was re-run today, I'd vote to leave.)
Option 3 ('harden the Irish border') risked all manner of troubles starting again and the breaking of the Belfast agreement - don't think anyone wanted that.
There was no heaven and earth that could be moved to get a deal that would be acceptable to NI and the UK out of the EU SM/CU within the time frame of the opportunity window. There simply was/is no solution that is acceptable to the EU, the UK Government and the population of NI. Something has got to give and the UK Government was determined that it was not going to be UK not leaving SM / CU. (NI tail wagging the UK dog, so to speak, stinks too).
As they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the UK is in possession of being out of the EU SM/CU. Outmaneouvred the other factions. So where to now on Northern Ireland?
Well the ball is in the UK Government’s court on that one.
But it says a lot about priorities. 3,636 deaths should be a priority.
They need a PM who is prepared to do what Tony Blair did and sit down and come up with a deal. It’ll be a fudge for sure, and everyone won’t get what they want, but what we have right now is a disgrace, with over a million people not having a functioning government.
They also need a Secretary of State who gives a damn about everyone, like Julian Smith did.
There was no heaven and earth that could be moved to get a deal that would be acceptable to NI and the UK out of the EU SM/CU within the time frame of the opportunity window. There simply was/is no solution that is acceptable to the EU, the UK Government and the population of NI. Something has got to give and the UK Government was determined that it was not going to be UK not leaving SM / CU. (NI tail wagging the UK dog, so to speak, stinks too).
As they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the UK is in possession of being out of the EU SM/CU. Outmaneouvred the other factions. So where to now on Northern Ireland?
In other words they were prepared to ride roughshod over everything, including deceiving the British public, to get what they wanted. And now we are all suffering the consequences.
They need a PM who is prepared to do what Tony Blair did and sit down and come up with a deal. It’ll be a fudge for sure, and everyone won’t get what they want, but what we have right now is a disgrace, with over a million people not having a functioning government.
The Good Friday agreement is a complete fudge as you put it. Tony Blair basically gave NI to Ireland, were only looking after it for the time being.
If a deal is required why don't you moan at the Taoiseach and the EU. Boris and the Government clearly though that with the background to the situation in NI the EU wouldn't fully enforce NI Protocol but as ever with the EU rules are rules when it suits them.
There isn't going to be a renewed troubles in NI the people wouldn't stand for it.
The Good Friday agreement is a complete fudge as you put it. Tony Blair basically gave NI to Ireland, were only looking after it for the time being.
If a deal is required why don't you moan at the Taoiseach and the EU. Boris and the Government clearly though that with the background to the situation in NI the EU wouldn't fully enforce NI Protocol but as ever with the EU rules are rules when it suits them.
There continues to be an ongoing campaign of punishment shootings on both sides and significant loyalist agitation too. This whole Brexit process has fanned those flames.
Are you seriously trying to imply that the Good Friday Agreement was not a good thing, finally giving parity of esteem to both communities?
Partition created two sectarian states on this island and we have had to live with the consequences of that ever since.
As to who governs NI, I’ll remind you that the Irish Constitution was amended to remove any claim over NI.
I don’t see NI leaving the UK anytime soon - for one Ireland couldn’t afford it and secondly over a million unionists aren’t going to change their allegiance.
There’s a massive amount of cross-border movement for education, health and work that happens every day, yet that wasn’t even considered.
NI is a divided society with significant cross-border movements. It’s not Finchley but a very unique part of the UK, where the society is divided.
And I’m sorry but if you’re asking to believe what a proven liar is saying (Boris Johnson) over a man who thankfully still understands what being PM means and has some integrity (Micheál Martin), there’s no competition.
In fact, you’d be hard pushed to find a single person on the island of Ireland hat believes a word Boris Johnson has to say - that’s some achievement for a UK PM.
I’ll go back to my main point - if a government negotiated an international agreement, then they should stand by it. Otherwise you end up with chaos and a lack of trust.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Boris Johnson’s government is trustworthy? Come off it.
The people of Northern Ireland, be they nationalist or unionist deserve better than this.
Having no functioning government in part of an advanced society that purports to be the leading democracy in the world should be something that everyone should be ashamed of.
Brexit is a huge upheaval in the country's status quo of the last 40 odd years, of course there will be issues, but you almost suggest that it is being done on purpose. Should Brexit have been stopped because of NI? As the other poster sad tail wagging dog.
Peace is a good thing in NI anybody denying that is an idiot. But to then deny any criticism of the GFA itself is equally stupid. For example if the GFA is so good why is there no functioning executive?
As to who governs NI, I’ll remind you that the Irish Constitution was amended to remove any claim over NI.
I don’t see NI leaving the UK anytime soon - for one Ireland couldn’t afford it and secondly over a million unionists aren’t going to change their allegiance.
And I’m sorry but if you’re asking to believe what a proven liar is saying (Boris Johnson) over a man who thankfully still understands what being PM means and has some integrity (Micheál Martin), there’s no competition.
In fact, you’d be hard pushed to find a single person on the island of Ireland hat believes a word Boris Johnson has to say - that’s some achievement for a UK PM.
I’ll go back to my main point - if a government negotiated an international agreement, then they should stand by it. Otherwise you end up with chaos and a lack of trust.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Boris Johnson’s government is trustworthy? Come off it.
What has the trustworthiness of Boris Johnson got to do with anything? He won't be PM in a months time. You seem to be making an excitedly parochial UK left wing point for someone who claims to care so much about the people of NI.
International diplomacy is full of ambiguity, just take the GFA as a prime example, the EU could be a whole lot more accommodating in implementing the NI protocol.
The people of Northern Ireland, be they nationalist or unionist deserve better than this.
Having no functioning government in part of an advanced society that purports to be the leading democracy in the world should be something that everyone should be ashamed of.
Perhaps because the EU are pragmatic people too. They well know the dangers, as we do, when countries are pushed into a corner. They are well aware of the need for diplomacy and accommodation, even if their utterances appear otherwise for the benefit of any other country that may dare to consider a similar stunt.
In other words they were prepared to ride roughshod over everything, including deceiving the British public, to get what they wanted. And now we are all suffering the consequences.
They were prepared to prioritise leaving the EU SM/CU over the entrenched NI position. This was not 'everything', nor were the British public deceived (unless they were incredibly naive).
This is a very Irish, Northern Irish viewpoint. Mostly deaths of Irishmen by Irishmen, over a period of 50+ years, in a seemingly endless conflict involving Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange. It is perhaps understandable that those in the rest of the UK do not always have this as their no.1 priority.
Is this actually the case? Do France and Germany actually hate us?
If they do right now, I suspect it's only because the Johnson government has wound them up.
If the UK government starts having a positive attitude to the EU (whether via a new Tory or via Labour) then maybe the EU will follow likewise.
So the UK should have good relations with the likes of Xi (a monstrous authoritarian tyrant), Modi (who mistreats those of other religions), Erdogan (an aggressive and unpleasant imperialist tyrant) and Putin (what can I say), rather than the EU?
No, we should have good relations with the EU and be harsh and firm on nasty pieces of work like these four.
Friction with the EU is an inevitable consequence of Brexit. The EU regards the UK in a similar way to Russia's view of its "near abroad" post 1991, and has weaponised the situation in the north of Ireland in its own interests. The EU could commandeer all Norway's gas exports in the next few months to protect its energy supply, with grave consequences for the UK.
I did not state that the UK should have "cordial" relations with other large states, merely that the UK should not take the lead in being hostile to such countries. Outside the EU, the UK needs all willing trading partners it can get, so a working relationship with major foreign countries is desirable. It is foolhardy to make what these states do in their own backyards, however unpalatable, a major determinant influencing trading relationships.
If the UK gave up NI to the Irish State, would the peace walls and segregated schools disappear? I don't think so. The UK should have let the EU build the border posts between the NI and Ireland but the government was too weak or the civil service to complicit with Michel Barnier. Whatever happened to him?
If the UK gave up NI to the Irish State, would the peace walls and segregated schools disappear? I don't think so. The UK should have let the EU build the border posts between the NI and Ireland but the government was too weak or the civil service to complicit with Michel Barnier. Whatever happened to him?
So we should have a hard border between NI and the Republic? Not only would that end freedom of movement between the two political units of the island of Ireland, inconveniencing its residents, but it would severely hack off republicans, and rightly so. Worse, it risks possible republican terrorism. Scarcely a good idea.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They were prepared to prioritise leaving the EU SM/CU over the entrenched NI position. This was not 'everything', nor were the British public deceived (unless they were incredibly naive).
But it's a big deal. The NI position since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 seems to have stopped the terrorism that characterised the 80s and early 90s. Prioritising leaving the SM/CU over the NI position shows up the current UK Government for what they are. Inflexible dogmatists. Hence my likening of Hard Brexit to a cult, in all honesty.
I am utterly ashamed of the current UK Government; they have brought our country into disrepute and this is something I will never, ever forgive the Conservative Party for. They can absolutely forget ever getting a vote from myself for as long as I live, and I will always actively vote, tactically, against them in every election I am offered to vote in.
The UK was long (from what I can make out) well-regarded, from WWII onwards, as a rational and reasonable country in the international community, making pragmatic decisions (even if many disagreed with them - I include the controversial Thatcher and Blair in here). In the past six years, all that has gone out of the window and we're now seen, it seems, as a difficult and irrational country by many, making silly decisions driven by dogma and pride rather than reason. This situation must not be accepted and it must end. And it can end, it just needs the political will.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Friction with the EU is an inevitable consequence of Brexit. The EU regards the UK in a similar way to Russia's view of its "near abroad" post 1991, and has weaponised the situation in the north of Ireland in its own interests. The EU could commandeer all Norway's gas exports in the next few months to protect its energy supply, with grave consequences for the UK.
It's an inevitable consequence of the current situation, yes. But if some future government improves relations with the EU, there is no reason why it cannot end. And I believe that, once the cost of living crisis (obviously the priority now) eases, this needs to be a high priority for the UK government of that time.
Rational countries do not want cold wars with each other if they can help it. It's the UK Government who are the "aggressor", if you like, in this situation, as they started it by implementing Hard Brexit. Cameron's weakness in holding the badly-designed referendum in the first place, May's willingness to suspend freedom of movement and the customs union, and Johnson's belligerence; is it any wonder many in the EU dislike the UK Government right now? Thus, as the initiators of the situation, the onus is firmly and utterly on the UK Government to resolve the situation.
Put it this way, if you attacked a normally peaceful dog, can you then blame the dog for then ripping you to shreds? In this case, the culpable party is the attacker, and not the dog. The dog would likely then be untrustful of humans for a while. But if the dog then gets a kind and reasonable owner, that owner may regain its trust.
And if the EU do indeed "commandeer Norway's gas", the Brexiters are wholly and utterly to blame for any consequences for the UK and I hope people will realise this. If we had remained in the EU, such a (theoretical, currently) situation would never exist.
So we should have a hard border between NI and the Republic? Not only would that end freedom of movement between the two political units of the island of Ireland, inconveniencing its residents, but it would severely hack off republicans, and rightly so.
Well the Common Travel Area should ensure there is no hard border preventing movement of people. Trade of goods however is problematic: I don't personally want to see custom controls/etc., but I can see it might eventually be necessary if we want to avoid having some kind of border between Northern Ireland and GB.
As for hacking off Republicans... Is it possible to do *anything at all* regarding NI politics that won't severely hack off one group or another?
There are arguments to say it was feasible, such as the very narrow lead for Brexit (not enough for a mandate), some of the lies told by the leave campaign, and the fact that EU citizens were denied the vote. This, to my mind, makes the whole referendum questionable. But I'll just accept this argument "the narrow lead for Brexit means we must have Brexit" for now.
Option 3 ('harden the Irish border') risked all manner of troubles starting again and the breaking of the Belfast agreement - don't think anyone wanted that.
Option 2 ('Norway') - yes, that could have worked, and for a while I supported that option myself. I think there were some good arguments for that. But a lot of people who voted for 'Brexit' didn't think staying in the single market and customs union and keeping freedom of movement was 'Brexit', and I think they had a point too.
This is just conjecture and assumption. This would have been the obvious compromise position, have Brexit, so you can make the "respect the referendum result" claim (despite the misgivings about the referendum many have, see above), but don't have all the restrictions and difficulties Hard Brexit entails.
And why should the Hard Brexiters be allowed to have their way on a marginal 52% result, while the Remainers have been completely and utterly ignored with no consideration of their views whatsoever made?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well the Common Travel Area should ensure there is no hard border preventing movement of people. Trade of goods however is problematic: I don't personally want to see custom controls/etc., but I can see it might eventually be necessary if we want to avoid having some kind of border between Northern Ireland and GB.
As for hacking off Republicans... Is it possible to do *anything at all* regarding NI politics that won't severely hack off one group or another?
But in this case, the whole thing is just so unnecessary. There was a simple solution, remaining in the customs union. Like we have done throughout modern times. Then the whole NI question would never have arisen.
But it's a big deal. The NI position since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 seems to have stopped the terrorism that characterised the 80s and early 90s. Prioritising leaving the SM/CU over the NI position shows up the current UK Government for what they are. Inflexible dogmatists. Hence my likening of Hard Brexit to a cult, in all honesty.
Maybe a big deal for you, but I do not think that extends to the vast majority of the mainland population, who are pretty weary of the intractable, unending NI situation and would not prioritise it over everything else.
I am utterly ashamed of the current UK Government; they have brought our country into disrepute and this is something I will never, ever forgive the Conservative Party for. They can absolutely forget ever getting a vote from myself for as long as I live, and I will always actively vote, tactically, against them in every election I am offered to vote in.
But it is that kind of talk that has got Ireland into the position it is now - never forgive Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, the Fenians, Michael Collins, etc etc etc. I am not ashamed of the UK Government at all - got a divorce from the EU against impossible odds. Could things have gone better - of course, but we are where we are.
The UK was long (from what I can make out) well-regarded, from WWII onwards, as a rational and reasonable country in the international community, making pragmatic decisions (even if many disagreed with them - I include the controversial Thatcher and Blair in here). In the past six years, all that has gone out of the window and we're now seen, it seems, as a difficult and irrational country by many, making silly decisions driven by dogma and pride rather than reason. This situation must not be accepted and it must end. And it can end, it just needs the political will.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's an inevitable consequence of the current situation, yes. But if some future government improves relations with the EU, there is no reason why it cannot end. And I believe that, once the cost of living crisis (obviously the priority now) eases, this needs to be a high priority for the UK government of that time.
None of this means that we have to be a member of a political union, or a trading union that seeks to impose political will via the trading rules. We wanted a divorce from the EU. It is usual in divorce cases for them to be a little acrimonious. It is always inevitable - the person being 'divorced' sees this an act of treachery - but they will get over it. It is usual for people to feel embarrassed and awkward around divorce cases, and other relationships can be affected as collateral damage. At the time they can be unpleasant, but they are not the end of world as we know it. Of all the countries that know about such an event it is Ireland 100 years ago.
Of course the UK needs a good relationship with the EU, and when both sides get over the rhetoric and the emotion of the divorce [ which will probably need the departure of the individual protagonists on both sides ] I am sure relationships will improve and an accommodation worked it. Just not quite so close. It did, eventually, between Britain and Ireland, and it will again.
Rational countries do not want cold wars with each other if they can help it. It's the UK Government who are the "aggressor", if you like, in this situation, as they started it by implementing Hard Brexit. Cameron's weakness in holding the badly-designed referendum in the first place, May's willingness to suspend freedom of movement and the customs union, and Johnson's belligerence; is it any wonder many in the EU dislike the UK Government right now? Thus, as the initiators of the situation, the onus is firmly and utterly on the UK Government to resolve the situation.
Put it this way, if you attacked a normally peaceful dog, can you then blame the dog for then ripping you to shreds? In this case, the culpable party is the attacker, and not the dog. The dog would likely then be untrustful of humans for a while. But if the dog then gets a kind and reasonable owner, that owner may regain its trust.
And if the EU do indeed "commandeer Norway's gas", the Brexiters are wholly and utterly to blame for any consequences for the UK and I hope people will realise this. If we had remained in the EU, such a (theoretical, currently) situation would never exist.
I do not think it is helpful to look at it in the way of 'aggressor' . Is that the way of looking at a divorce? It takes two to tango in a divorce - the UK was unhappy with its relationship with the EU, and the EU was unable/unwilling to deal with the UK issues (quite possibly for good reason, but that doesn't detract from the inaction and unhappiness). I don't like the analogy of 'normally peaceful dog' because the EU were proposing/introducing all sorts of rule/law changing which affected the UK. Whatever, the UK wanted a divorce, which is hardly 'attacking' - the EU has not been attacked, unless you consider member states as their property?
But in this case, the whole thing is just so unnecessary. There was a simple solution, remaining in the customs union. Like we have done throughout modern times. Then the whole NI question would never have arisen.
Because as has been said before, remaining in the customs Union means remaining in the Single Market, which entails abiding by all the EU rules, which is what the UK was unhappy about. There was no point in leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU, therefore no Brexit.
Maybe a big deal for you, but I do not think that extends to the vast majority of the mainland population, who are pretty weary of the intractable, unending NI situation and would not prioritise it over everything else.
Maybe not everything, but think of it as a trade-off. A risk of terrorism (which, obviously, affected mainland UK), even if small, is too big a risk to make leaving the SM/CU (which seems to have few or no benefits) worth it.
But it is that kind of talk that has got Ireland into the position it is now - never forgive Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, the Fenians, Michael Collins, etc etc etc. I am not ashamed of the UK Government at all - got a divorce from the EU against impossible odds. Could things have gone better - of course, but we are where we are.
Perhaps, but it also means that if enough people express that attitude about the Government publicly, they may change. It appears that in other countries (according to claims on this thread) they are, so why not in the UK too? Countries do not have to respect their own governments; this is a fundamental principle of democracy.
Of course the UK needs a good relationship with the EU, and when both sides get over the rhetoric and the emotion of the divorce [ which will probably need the departure of the individual protagonists on both sides ] I am sure relationships will improve and an accommodation worked it. Just not quite so close. It did, eventually, between Britain and Ireland, and it will again.
I do not think it is helpful to look at it in the way of 'aggressor' . Is that the way of looking at a divorce? It takes two to tango in a divorce - the UK was unhappy with its relationship with the EU, and the EU was unable/unwilling to deal with the UK issues (quite possibly for good reason, but that doesn't detract from the inaction and unhappiness). I don't like the analogy of 'normally peaceful dog' because the EU were proposing/introducing all sorts of rule/law changing which affected the UK. Whatever, the UK wanted a divorce, which is hardly 'attacking' - the EU has not been attacked, unless you consider member states as their property?
But was the "UK" unhappy, or just 37% of the adult population of British citizens? Scarcely a majority vote. But (as I am trying to get at) I will accept the "Brexit had to happen due to the referendum result" argument for now, and with caveats, namely that due to the marginal result, it had to be a soft Brexit.
Because as has been said before, remaining in the customs Union means remaining in the Single Market, which entails abiding by all the EU rules, which is what the UK was unhappy about. There was no point in leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU, therefore no Brexit.
But as I have said, the only moral argument for Brexit which is legitimate is the "respect the referendum result" one. And because "leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU" is, technically, Brexit, it does respect the referendum result.
Maybe not everything, but think of it as a trade-off. A risk of terrorism (which, obviously, affected mainland UK), even if small, is too big a risk to make leaving the SM/CU (which seems to have few or no benefits) worth it.
Do you also believe we should do everything that Islamic terrorists demand? I mean, it's a trade off... if we don't don't do what any Islamic terrorists and potential terrorists demand of us, then we could have a risk of terrorism, which would obviously affect the UK mainland.
But as I have said, the only moral argument for Brexit which is legitimate is the "respect the referendum result" one. And because "leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU" is, technically, Brexit, it does respect the referendum result.
I'm pretty sure there were other moral arguments for Brexit. One obvious one is the discrimination against non-EU citizens when it came to things like travel to the UK that EU membership entailed. Another one would be the issue of involvement with EU agricultural subsidies that (according to credible reports) significantly damage the environment.
You don't really do your case much credibility when you deny that there are arguments on the other side - because that just looks ridiculous. With most things in politics, there are perfectly valid arguments on both sides, and you have to decide which side has the stronger case - and Brexit is no exception to that.
Do you also believe we should do everything that Islamic terrorists demand? I mean, it's a trade off... if we don't don't do what any Islamic terrorists and potential terrorists demand of us, then we could have a risk of terrorism, which would obviously affect the UK mainland.
Though Islamic terrorism hasn't required the deployment thousands of British Army troops over decades onto the streets of towns and cities in large chunk of the UK in a never-ending attempt to stem the violence and bloodshed so there's considerably less need to make concessions than there was in Northern Ireland where that was exactly what was happening. Rather different scale of issue!
You don't have a divine birthright to just move and work anywhere because you have a reason you believe to be compelling, that is how nearly all the borders of the world work.
If the UK gave up NI to the Irish State, would the peace walls and segregated schools disappear? I don't think so. The UK should have let the EU build the border posts between the NI and Ireland but the government was too weak or the civil service to complicit with Michel Barnier. Whatever happened to him?
So we should have a hard border between NI and the Republic? Not only would that end freedom of movement between the two political units of the island of Ireland, inconveniencing its residents, but it would severely hack off republicans, and rightly so. Worse, it risks possible republican terrorism. Scarcely a good idea.
Who's we? I am not suggesting the UK do it.
As Ukraine is discovering there is a huge fifth column that operates within the respective countries, ours is the civil service. Maybe Norway's history has dictated why their people do not want to enter the EU.
They've got free movement and an open border with the EU. They aren't in the customs union but they are in the single market. So they've got most of the benefits of the EU.
It wasn't a divine birthright, it was through a multi-lateral agreement predicated on accepting all sorts of rules as a quid pro quo. Not quite the same at all.
It wasn't a divine birthright, it was through a multi-lateral agreement predicated on accepting all sorts of rules as a quid pro quo. Not quite the same at all.
But the odds of losing free movement, say 20 years ago, were probably 100-1 or longer. So it was a reasonable assumption that the benefit of free movement would continue.
But was the "UK" unhappy, or just 37% of the adult population of British citizens? Scarcely a majority vote. But (as I am trying to get at) I will accept the "Brexit had to happen due to the referendum result" argument for now, and with caveats, namely that due to the marginal result, it had to be a soft Brexit.
But as I have said, the only moral argument for Brexit which is legitimate is the "respect the referendum result" one. And because "leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU" is, technically, Brexit, it does respect the referendum result.
There will always be argument on this, but in our democracy only the electorate is considered, and then only the electorate who exercise their vote.
If the electorate was totally unhappy about Brexit then they would not have resoundingly voted for a pro-Brexit government in the subsequent General Election.
I am sorry, but so called 'Soft' Brexit is only Brexit in name, and I don't think this would have been acceptable at all to the Brexiteers. To think it would have been is to misread the country. Only the naive would have voted for Brexit at the referendum, and subsequently the Conservative Government, expecting 'soft' terms.
But the odds of losing free movement, say 20 years ago, were probably 100-1 or longer. So it was a reasonable assumption that the benefit of free movement would continue.
It wasn't a 'divine birthright' however. 20 years ago its ending would have been seen as improbable, but what has happened since just shows how politics can change, so unless you have a divine birthright, always consider the possibility. This sort of thing is not that unusual around the world. (In 1950 Rhodesians thought their world was quite stable..... If Ireland were united, the country may well join Schengen and abandon the CTA.....)
I am sorry, but so called 'Soft' Brexit is only Brexit in name, and I don't think this would have been acceptable at all to the Brexiteers. To think it would have been is to misread the country. Only the naive would have voted for Brexit at the referendum, and subsequently the Conservative Government, expecting 'soft' terms.
And yet the Leave campaign were describing leaving the Single Market as "Project Fear".
The fair way to sort this mess would have been to have a second referendum on exactly what Brexit meant to people (not including a "remain" or "rejoin" option - just the different directions that "Leaving the EU" could entail); or a confirmation referendum where the negotiated deal was put to the general public and either sent back to be renegotiated or agreed.
I am sorry, but so called 'Soft' Brexit is only Brexit in name, and I don't think this would have been acceptable at all to the Brexiteers. To think it would have been is to misread the country. Only the naive would have voted for Brexit at the referendum, and subsequently the Conservative Government, expecting 'soft' terms.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
