Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Krill]

So that is why I ask: if someone starts blowing up bombs again, this, in your opinion, is ok?

Krill : no, but it was a foreseable consequence of brexit that was disregarded by the leave side. Either they didn't care or they were too stupid to realize there was a problem

So what you are saying, is that terrorism is not OK, but it should have been expected, that is is foreseeable.

So another question for you: if the UK government can foresee that terrorism is likely to increase in a no deal situation, what steps are reasonable to take to protect citizens lives from it?

[ipecac]

It really does seem like a game of chicken.

Irish considerations aside, Brexit already is a game of chicken.

Them's the breaks, really. The UK can just not man its side of the border, whatever the other side does is on the RoI.

So another question for you: if the UK government can foresee that terrorism is likely to increase in a no deal situation, what steps are reasonable to take to protect citizens lives from it?

Go around the law.

terrorist

Terrorist, freedom fighter, tomahto.

[Mardoc]

The unavoidable response from the EU and Ireland was labeled early on as "project fear". It was quite obvious from the start. If you kick a bear in the nuts after being told not to do that it's definitely on you. 
So yes the border is 100% on the UK, and everyone agrees on this. The Irish agree. The EU agrees. The European population agrees.

The difference is that a bear is not a person, not a moral actor. Even if the EU wants to play this as 'look what you made me do' or 'just following orders' the fact remains that they are people with a moral responsibility for their own actions.

That said, I would definitely put the primary responsibility on the bombers if this happens. It doesn't make sense that twenty guys with some explosives should get to dictate terms to a hundred million Brits plus Irish.

[Gustaran]

EDIT: Still, to respond to your question: a custom union with Ireland with Ireland staying inside EU is perfectly possible, this is Lichtenstein model, for all intents and purposes.

No, it's completely different, because Liechtenstein participates in a customs union with Switzerland, which in turn is NOT part of the EU's customs union.
The RoI on the other hand IS a member of the EU customs union, so having a customs union with them means having one with the EU, which the UK doesn't want.

I have now answered several of your posts in depth and I still haven't heard a workable solution, expect phrases the EU is either mean or stupid or is trying to punish members who are trying to leave

I wonder if you really understand all the implications of the EU customs union? Just as an example: Imagine if the EU makes a trade deal with Japan, that agrees on car tariffs of 15%. Now the UK agrees with Japan on a car tariff of 5% and weaker safety regulations. Japan would obviously start importing all cars in the UK an then through Northern Ireland and Ireland into the EU, if there are no border custom checks.

Your suggestion would mean all 27 countries of the EU are supposed to give up on their ability to negotiate international trade policies. The idea is just ludicrous.

No self-respecting sovereign country would ever accept a custom border across its territory, even raising this suggestion is insulting as hell.

Well sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Once the UK decided to leave the customs union there is automatically the issue of the border between the RoI and Nothern Ireland, so there is going to be some kind of disadvantage. And I daresay that the delicate situation in Ireland is really not Brussel's fault.

[Gustaran]

So that is why I ask: if someone starts blowing up bombs again, this, in your opinion, is ok?

Krill : no, but it was a foreseable consequence of brexit that was disregarded by the leave side. Either they didn't care or they were too stupid to realize there was a problem

So what you are saying, is that terrorism is not OK, but it should have been expected, that is is foreseeable.

As written above, I feel AdrienIer has a point there. If you decide to vote for Brexit, you should have at least some idea what is realistically going to happen to the border in Northern Ireland. Of course nobody wants any violence to reappear and saying "we told you so" is not going to solve the problem now. But at the same time, one can certainly argue that it was deliberately careless by the leave campaign to ignore such an important issue.

Maybe this was a problem with the Brexit referendum in the first place: Voting for Brexit could mean many different things, because nobody really knew what the Brexit would actually look like. I can imagine some people voting "leave", because they were unhappy with their current economic situation and the NHS and not necessarily, because they thought reintroducing a border between the RoI and NI was a fantastic idea.

It probably would have been better to plan two referendums in the first place: One to vote on "start negotiations for Brexit" and another one in the end, with the options "remain", "accept deal with EU" and "leave with no deal", so it becomes clearer what the consequences of the vote actually are.

But then again, it can hardly be blamed on the EU, if UK voters were making wrong assumptions.

I actually like this short excerpt from Gogglebox in "Last Week Tonight", in retrospect it was completely correct:

https://youtu.be/HaBQfSAVt0s?t=1089

[Mardoc]

Your suggestion would mean all 27 countries of the EU are supposed to give up on their ability to negotiate international trade policies. The idea is just ludicrous.

They've already given up that right for 26 other countries, the ones with the highest combination of proximity and wealth (and hence trade volume), and they've pretty much benefitted from the decision...why not extend it to the other 180?  There are only practical arguments, not ideological ones, why free trade is good but only if it is trade with EU members.

Anyway, the negotiation is primarily on the question of where the borders end up: at the RoI/UK border, in the Irish Sea, or generally around Ireland.  Everyone has reasons why they want the border to be someone else's problem and I don't personally see a principled argument for who should pay the cost of having a border, just practical arguments on how much cost and who pays it.  Of course most of the cost is the time/hassle rather than monetary.

Maybe this was a problem with the Brexit referendum in the first place: Voting for Brexit could mean many different things, because nobody really knew what the Brexit would actually look like. I can imagine some people voting "leave", because they were unhappy with their current economic situation and the NHS and not necessarily, because they thought reintroducing a border between the RoI and NI was a fantastic idea.

Personally I think this comes back to the bewildering idea (to an American) that a bare majority is enough to make drastic political changes.  People complain about the US system being 'dysfunctional' or 'congress not doing its job' or 'nondemocratic' or whatever as a result of our supermajority requirements (especially since they aren't always described as supermajority requirements), but it does tend to avoid this sort of issue.  If a supermajority was for 'some form of Brexit' then it would be likely that a majority would be in favor of 'this exact form of Brexit now that we've negotiated'.

[AdrienIer]

There are only practical arguments, not ideological ones, why free trade is good but only if it is trade with EU members.

There are common norms and regulations, hence why completely free trade is possible. Bangladesh doesn't have the same norms in place as the EU, so can't have completely free trade with it. If they don't want tariffs they need a trade agreement, and even then the border (in this case airports and ports) will not be unmanned to avoid fraud.

[Bacchus]

The polls you cite AdrienIer, do not really speak to the issue under discussion -- the UK will be under no obligation to institute a border, and if Ireland does on its side, to fulfil EU's wishes of protecting its markets, it will be a really, really hard sell that it's the UK that is at fault here.

[Krill]

Varadkar could go big or go home: demand the referendum on Irish reunification, but to do that he has to uphold the Belfast agreement himself and remove RoI from the common market. If Ireland reinstated a border (and breaks the Belfast agreement in the process) then no way Westminister agrees to that.

[Grotsnot]

So what I'm hearing is that because the UK decided to leave, that pissant upstart colony next door better do what's best for itselfLondon and follow suit. Otherwise it's their fault if the GFA gets broken.