I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
I've decided that I'm not longer going to lock my house when I leave. After all, burglary is both illegal and morally wrong, and I'm not going to let my actions be dictated by criminals.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
You make the assumption that I concede your post is of substance.
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
Trust me - I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it.
I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
You make the assumption that I concede your post is of substance.
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
I'd never dream of calling you such a thing. Someone who's exploiting disenfranchised young men to gain a cult online following, though? I can call him what I like
I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
You make the assumption that I concede your post is of substance.
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
I'd never dream of calling you such a thing. Someone who's exploiting disenfranchised young men to gain a cult online following, though? I can call him what I like
A wild accusation based on just as little substance as the previous one.
All we now need is someone to make an 'Alt-right' claim and we'll have a Brexit Bingo mini game winner
I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
You make the assumption that I concede your post is of substance.
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
I'd never dream of calling you such a thing. Someone who's exploiting disenfranchised young men to gain a cult online following, though? I can call him what I like
"Liked" this because you referred to me as a "young man"
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
Trust me - I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it.
I've decided that I'm not longer going to lock my house when I leave. After all, burglary is both illegal and morally wrong, and I'm not going to let my actions be dictated by criminals.
Sometimes in order to achieve something worthwhile you need to dance with the devil.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
I've drawn attention to some of the holes in his argument. You don't need specialist knowledge to realise when someone is generalising and extrapolating poorly. I notice that you're not addressing any of the substance of my posts - instead you're attacking me and my lack of experience in the field. Like, duh. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, thank fuck, but I can smell a hamfisted political agenda a mile off. *insert your own comeback here*
You make the assumption that I concede your post is of substance.
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
I'd never dream of calling you such a thing. Someone who's exploiting disenfranchised young men to gain a cult online following, though? I can call him what I like
"Liked" this because you referred to me as a "young man"
I really don't take any pleasure in bursting that particular bubble, but I not overly sure he was referring to you, Rob. ;-)
I do not believe that it is possibe for the UK Government to reconcile the contradictions in its various pronouncements regarding the Irish border, and I don't believe that there is sufficient honesty to make clear to all of us that its version of Brexit will have to have entirely forseeable consequences for the economy and society in Northern Ireland.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
I do not believe that it is possibe for the UK Government to reconcile the contradictions in its various pronouncements regarding the Irish border, and I don't believe that there is sufficient honesty to make clear to all of us that its version of Brexit will have to have entirely forseeable consequences for the eonomy and socieyty in Northern Ireland.
Sums up the situation perfectly. I particularly like the comment left by Lightbulb at the end of the piece.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Farage recommended the Norway model, as did a number of other leave campaigners. He only changed his tune after Leave had won - but then we all know what a fraud he is.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
Trust me - I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it.
I've decided that I'm not longer going to lock my house when I leave. After all, burglary is both illegal and morally wrong, and I'm not going to let my actions be dictated by criminals.
Sometimes in order to achieve something worthwhile you need to dance with the devil.
As per this link from Wiki the Good Friday Agreement is somewhat more complicated and the preparations were not simply a capitulation to the IRA. We are all aware of the killing but some might be less aware that the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution which used to lay claim to all 32 counties. In fact Ireland formally accepted N.Ireland as part of the UK for the first time. And at the same time everybody recognised that if the majority of the people in the North so wished, reunification was possible.
Read the link and be aware that senior columnists in the FT are waking up to what @seth plum has been telling us all along. The border has become the focal point / road block in the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU. The GFA is not only an international treaty but was also upheld by large majorities on both sides of the border. Funnily enough, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
In a poll last April approximately 63% of those who voted leave in the referendum believed in leaving everything. If that was accurate then it would mean that some 11 million leave voters thought that leave meant leaving the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well as the Customs Union. This option was not on the ballot paper but that's not the issue.
We should expect that pattern to develop this year as the core issues are exposed during these negotiations. However I can't find a more recent poll which shares the underlying data and shows Customs Union vs referendum vote. There are several polls mapping views on the Customs Union and Single Market against party preference and the recent Labour move is supported by the vast majority of the membership.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
Trust me - I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it.
I've decided that I'm not longer going to lock my house when I leave. After all, burglary is both illegal and morally wrong, and I'm not going to let my actions be dictated by criminals.
Sometimes in order to achieve something worthwhile you need to dance with the devil.
As per this link from Wiki the Good Friday Agreement is somewhat more complicated and the preparations were not simply a capitulation to the IRA. We are all aware of the killing but some might be less aware that the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution which used to lay claim to all 32 counties. In fact Ireland formally accepted N.Ireland as part of the UK for the first time. And at the same time everybody recognised that if the majority of the people in the North so wished, reunification was possible.
Read the link and be aware that senior columnists in the FT are waking up to what @seth plum has been telling us all along. The border has become the focal point / road block in the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU. The GFA is not only an international treaty but was also upheld by large majorities on both sides of the border. Funnily enough, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
Well quite. The agreement was the culmination of a process that took into account all the stakeholders whom without would have made the discussions worthless. Each no doubt made concessions but without the participation of the terrorists both republican and loyalist the last years of peace would not have been possible.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
But that’s not how the existing period of peace came about. All those with a stake had involvement in that process. How far do you think the peace process would have got if the previous dogma of not talking with the IRA had been adhered to ?
Honestly - to me - allowing the IRA to influence British border policy is as mad as asking ISIS how we should organise airport security.
But in part at least it ( the IRA) did and has. Before the GFA the border crossings were places of danger and criminality. People died regularly from all sides of the argument. What has transpired since is I believe worth keeping.
Trust me - I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it.
I've decided that I'm not longer going to lock my house when I leave. After all, burglary is both illegal and morally wrong, and I'm not going to let my actions be dictated by criminals.
Sometimes in order to achieve something worthwhile you need to dance with the devil.
As per this link from Wiki the Good Friday Agreement is somewhat more complicated and the preparations were not simply a capitulation to the IRA. We are all aware of the killing but some might be less aware that the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution which used to lay claim to all 32 counties. In fact Ireland formally accepted N.Ireland as part of the UK for the first time. And at the same time everybody recognised that if the majority of the people in the North so wished, reunification was possible.
Read the link and be aware that senior columnists in the FT are waking up to what @seth plum has been telling us all along. The border has become the focal point / road block in the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU. The GFA is not only an international treaty but was also upheld by large majorities on both sides of the border. Funnily enough, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
The GFA was voted on by the whole island of Ireland, so should the people of the Republic have a say on this also?
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
In a poll last April approximately 63% of those who voted leave in the referendum believed in leaving everything. If that was accurate then it would mean that some 11 million leave voters thought that leave meant leaving the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well as the Customs Union. This option was not on the ballot paper but that's not the issue.
We should expect that pattern to develop this year as the core issues are exposed during these negotiations. However I can't find a more recent poll which shares the underlying data and shows Customs Union vs referendum vote. There are several polls mapping views on the Customs Union and Single Market against party preference and the recent Labour move is supported by the vast majority of the membership.
On your last point, that is because the Labour membership is now overwhelmingly middle class and southern and always was Remain.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
In a poll last April approximately 63% of those who voted leave in the referendum believed in leaving everything. If that was accurate then it would mean that some 11 million leave voters thought that leave meant leaving the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well as the Customs Union. This option was not on the ballot paper but that's not the issue.
We should expect that pattern to develop this year as the core issues are exposed during these negotiations. However I can't find a more recent poll which shares the underlying data and shows Customs Union vs referendum vote. There are several polls mapping views on the Customs Union and Single Market against party preference and the recent Labour move is supported by the vast majority of the membership.
On your last point, that is because the Labour membership is now overwhelmingly middle class and southern and always was Remain.
Middle class, metropolitan elite - why has this got to be about class.
If the economy is strong then the business leaders prosper greatly and the workers prosper as well - big win, not so big win, but I accept not enough as they should. If the economy is weakened the business leaders don't prosper as much but the workers lose - not so big win, lose.
We are being lead out of the EU into a shitstorm by your metropolitan elite and the biggest losers will be the demographic that voted disproportionately higher on the leave side.
Comments
Come to parliament, Sinn Féin, as saviours of Ireland – and Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/01/parliament-sinn-fein-saviours-brexit-impasse?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Attacking you? Like calling you a c*nt, for example? Nah, I'm better than that.
"Failing to strike a Brexit deal would put "hundreds of thousands" of jobs in the car industry at risk, MPs have said...
bbc.com/news/business-43226102
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
All we now need is someone to make an 'Alt-right' claim and we'll have a Brexit Bingo mini game winner
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/01/irish-border-hard-theresa-may-brussels
I do not believe that it is possibe for the UK Government to reconcile the contradictions in its various pronouncements regarding the Irish border, and I don't believe that there is sufficient honesty to make clear to all of us that its version of Brexit will have to have entirely forseeable consequences for the economy and society in Northern Ireland.
So you have a land border 310 miles long.
There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too.
What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points?
How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
Read the link and be aware that senior columnists in the FT are waking up to what @seth plum has been telling us all along. The border has become the focal point / road block in the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU. The GFA is not only an international treaty but was also upheld by large majorities on both sides of the border. Funnily enough, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
We should expect that pattern to develop this year as the core issues are exposed during these negotiations. However I can't find a more recent poll which shares the underlying data and shows Customs Union vs referendum vote. There are several polls mapping views on the Customs Union and Single Market against party preference and the recent Labour move is supported by the vast majority of the membership.
If the economy is strong then the business leaders prosper greatly and the workers prosper as well - big win, not so big win, but I accept not enough as they should. If the economy is weakened the business leaders don't prosper as much but the workers lose - not so big win, lose.
We are being lead out of the EU into a shitstorm by your metropolitan elite and the biggest losers will be the demographic that voted disproportionately higher on the leave side.