Thanks for the link.
Interesting perspective.
I wonder if politicians can be tried for dereliction of duty the same way soldiers, nurses etc can be.
Their duty surely is to act in the best interests of the country?
Ah - then we’re in agreement. It sounded as if you didn’t think countries had reason to apologize, in the context of which you wrote it. And while I’m kinda “meh” on the entire Prime Minister/Monarch/President makes a pretty but usually meaningless speech to apologize for some historical injustice thing, I do think the willingness to actually “apologize” - even indirectly - was crucial to the post-war process. The Germans, of course, were forced to apologize for WW2 many times over as the losers, but what was unique was the willingness of Robert Schuman to acknowledge history and take some of the blame on France in public speeches and statements. Absent that olive branch, I doubt Adenauer would have been able to steer West Germany successfully in the direction that he did (he was opposed by a very strong Socialist, pro-unification movement that was not particularly interested in integrating with the old enemy).
Depends on the state and situation, of course, but it’s often a bit difficult to hold people responsible who create the legislation by which they would be held responsible. There’s really only one definite way - absent of obviously criminal activity - and that is by voting.
And I’m not sure any other way would work. Part of the problem of being in a leadership position (which is, after all, what a politician is supposed to be) is always difficult - who is to say what is in the best interests of the country? How would one distinguish between politicians acting against the interests of the country, and those who make honest mistakes (either from lack of good information or ideology)?
Aceris
1959
Remember, Every referenced to Liam Fox should be prefixed with “The disgraced”.
It’s a scandal that he’s back in government. Urgh.
Given we can’t negotiate any trade deals yet, and they’re pretty worthless compared to the Single Market and Customs Union, and it looks more and more like we’ll end up staying in the Customs Union to resolve the Iriish Border, you can at least take solace that he’s not actually doing anything while in government.
It was a long post. Could have been written better. Sorry.
Basically I think, naively perhaps, we ought to focus on the matter (s) at hand in Europe and work together.
the EU working properly (efficiently and with all the countries together) would be capable of some extraordinary advances regarding better food and water management, recycling, immigration absorption.
The bickering seems so wasteful.
We’re very much in agreement on that, @BloodyBattleBrain.
The idea of staying in the Customs Unions, which is essentially a Norway++ style deal certainly seems like the least damaging solution, but I struggle to see it being a realistic option for May. One of the issues with the Norwegian solution (even in Norway) is that you have to follow EU rules for pretty much everything, but don’t actually get much say in what those rules are. If that is the way this ends up for the UK, there really wasn’t any point in leaving - at all. I don’t see how she can go for that solution and still remain in power.
And I do understand and agree that a backstop agreement is going to be a tough sell as well. But if the choice is between that and a hard brexit… well.
We live in interesting times, as the saying goes.
Just an interesting point on this that i found out recently. It’s not a Chinese proverb. Earliest known use is The Yorkshire Post in 1936 by Austen Chamberlain, who was probably just quoting his father, Joseph Chamberlain. (Neville is other son)
She’s doing it. Let’s see if she survives.
Chances on it being some variation on the “and then technology happens” previous proposals that the EU will just go “LOL, nope” at?
Or just denials on Marr on Sunday. Telling people what they want to hear is her thing.
It seems like the options now are hard Brexit or Norway transition, and the options later will be hard Brexit or Norway status. The Brexit referendum was political malpractice, and everything since the referendum has been political malpractice. The elected representatives are supposed to protect us from ourselves. Otherwise, what are they for?
antlers
1968
What would happen if Britain went hard Brexit with no border established in NI and no intent to set up one?
Wouldn’t that leave Ireland with the unenviable task of policing the border to maintain the integrity of the EU?
They would lose control of their trade policy and the free movement of people? Anyone who wanted to could enter the UK through Ireland and NI? Anyone who wanted to smuggle things could do the same?
I mean, it doesn’t sound like what Brexit voters voted for.
Brexit voters knew what they were voting for?
There’s also the issue of WTO, you can’t just decide not to have a border with someone, that stuff needs to go into treaties, otherwise every other country will want the same treatment, no tariffs, no border checks, for the entire world.
Never mind them, because “there’s billions of people in the British Empire.”
I mean, I thought they were dumb to vote for Brexit, but my god.
And yet Corbyn & May have ignored it.
