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)?
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 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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
The EU has no need to play fair…it’s an international negotiation not the playing fields at Eton. If the Govt actually had a position or a policy or a clue then we might be in a better position.
What do we think is going to happen when we having these marvellous free trade deals with the US, India or China? Trumps going to be peeing over his hands as he shoves chlorinated chicken and antibiotic stuffed beef and forces the sell of the even more NHS service. india is going to make free movement like a family outing and China will kill off what’s left of our manufacturing industry.
Of course, we continuing to benefit from that EU’s power and be the big dog at the table but that’s not what 52% of those that voted want.
Reform of the EU, well we’ve definitely decided we don’t want to do that either.
You are a Sun sub-editor and I claim my £5. Did they bomb your chip shop as well?
Do people learn anything about Empire at school? And I’m not even talking if it was good, just the conditions required for the UK to get to India, plant a flag and go “This ours now”.
