why shouldn't Ireland have a 'hard' border?!

[SIR]

Fair disclosure - i am fervently anti-monarchy, anti-religion (though i do not deny the existence of a 'higher power', i do deny subservience to it) and pro-democracy (in particular 'direct' democracy); so, that all said, i cannot understand why so many in Britain, Ireland, and Europe are getting so het up about whether or not {'the island of'} Ireland should or shouldn't have a 'hard' border.

Surely, it is in everybody's best interest, particularly those concerned with combating any potential future escalation of sectarian violence, to have a 'hard' border between two separate states, especially these two and after any form of 'Brexit'?

[Linger]

Ehm, i am not sure if i understand you...

Catholics in Northern Ireland want the island to be united, and protestants in Northern Ireland want the island to remain divided. A hard border would antagonize the former, possibly returning to the violence of the 70s and 80s.

So, yeah, the status quo seems the best “no-real-fundamental-solution”, and yeah, the brexit seems to jeopardize it... Your point again please?

[SIR]

My point?! That there is no logical reason why, if Ireland is not unified, there shouldn't be an enforced border.

[Linger]

The “logical” reason would be to prevent the IRA to start again with their measures to unify the island.

The status quo, a divided island but without a hard border between the two countries (Ireland and Northern Ireland), was the compromise to end the violence.

[SIR]

Well, the violence hasn't stopped;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47985469

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49138877

so, that arguement is kind of a non-starter.

[Linger]

Your non-argument is such an important one to all others, that it is holding up any and all alternatives...

Anyway, i am wondering that if 31 October will show a no-deal brexit, the “hard” border will be a de-facto reality...

[SIR]

Yeah, i get that it is apparently really important to a lot of others, or at least if one is to believe the projection of certain mainstream media outlets...

but you don't hear them making a fuss about how antagonistic some, if not all, of the activities of the so-called 'Orange Order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order#Parades)' are!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Violence is addictive to some. Hard to give up something you "enjoy" when you are way past the point where you can remember why you were so exercised in the first place.

People, perverse as they most often are, seem to require problems. You take away this fight and they'll go looking for another. It is endless and it is frustrating.

Just my opinion, of course.

[SIR]

Quite right EoC...

Arrogance, ignorance, pretentions, and apathy towards inequality... just a few of humanity's worst and most enduring weaknesses.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Anyway, what I meant was that there will always be (or so it seems) people involved in any dispute who foment violence because that is their motivation, not the original complaint.

To clarify:


People, perverse as they most often are, seem to require problems. You take away this fight and they'll go looking for another. It is endless and it is frustrating.

By this (bolded) I am suggesting that some people fabricate a problem. They get off on being "the angry crowd".

[Pendragon]

Anyway, what I meant was that there will always be (or so it seems) people involved in any dispute who foment violence because that is their motivation, not the original complaint.

To clarify:


People, perverse as they most often are, seem to require problems. You take away this fight and they'll go looking for another. It is endless and it is frustrating.

By this (bolded) I am suggesting that some people fabricate a problem. They get off on being "the angry crowd".

Maybe people are getting agitated because the media is stoking unrest? Hey, gotta keep those ratings up, and nothing does that better than a violent, angry crowd. I have not heard that a hard border with Ireland is mandatory. Maybe I am wrong on that?

[TSherbs]

Anyway, what I meant was that there will always be (or so it seems) people involved in any dispute who foment violence because that is their motivation, not the original complaint.

To clarify:


People, perverse as they most often are, seem to require problems. You take away this fight and they'll go looking for another. It is endless and it is frustrating.

By this (bolded) I am suggesting that some people fabricate a problem. They get off on being "the angry crowd".

Maybe people are getting agitated because the media is stoking unrest? Hey, gotta keep those ratings up, and nothing does that better than a violent, angry crowd. I have not heard that a hard border with Ireland is mandatory. Maybe I am wrong on that?Well, there is no "will be" about any of this cuz nothing is definite yet. But people are considering the possibility because this outcome is not unreasonable to prepare for. Independent nations can make whatever kind of border they want (in the context of their own laws).

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Pendragon]

Well, there is no "will be" about any of this cuz nothing is definite yet. But people are considering the possibility because this outcome is not unreasonable to prepare for. Independent nations can make whatever kind of border they want (in the context of their own laws).
True, but making a border and effectively enforcing it are two different things. Also, just because a nation can do something doesn't mean it should. @SIR appears to think that a hard border will prevent sectarian violence, but couldn't the opposite well happen? Even the United States and North Korea are unable to create hermetically sealed borders.

[TSherbs]

Well, there is no "will be" about any of this cuz nothing is definite yet. But people are considering the possibility because this outcome is not unreasonable to prepare for. Independent nations can make whatever kind of border they want (in the context of their own laws).
True, but making a border and effectively enforcing it are two different things. Also, just because a nation can do something doesn't mean it should. @SIR appears to think that a hard border will prevent sectarian violence, but couldn't the opposite well happen? Even the United States and North Korea are unable to create hermetically sealed borders.Valid points. I was commenting on the uncertainty of current projections. An internal hard border inside Ireland is a fool's gambit. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[SIR]

Well, there is no "will be" about any of this cuz nothing is definite yet. But people are considering the possibility because this outcome is not unreasonable to prepare for. Independent nations can make whatever kind of border they want (in the context of their own laws).
True, but making a border and effectively enforcing it are two different things. Also, just because a nation can do something doesn't mean it should. @SIR appears to think that a hard border will prevent sectarian violence, but couldn't the opposite well happen? Even the United States and North Korea are unable to create hermetically sealed borders.

No, i certainly am not suggesting a hard border would in any way prevent sectarian violence; my point in that regard is merely that not having a hard border has not prevented so-called sectarian violence.

My suggestion is that if one is to have a defined border between to separate states then it should be an enforceable border.

The Irish border and the question of a UK withdrawal from the EU, particularly considering the arguments regarding unaccountable foreign interlopers and undesirables penetrating the various borders within and on the perimeter of the EU, means that a hard border is at least in the interest of the UK if not Ireland and the EU also.

[SIR]

An internal hard border inside Ireland is a fool's gambit.

Is it?

Pray tell, please do detail how.

[Wuddus]

I'm not anti-monarchy - they serve us more than we serve them. We work them into their 90s, take everything off them that they earn, and only let them have back 20%(?) of everything they directly make for us (and none of the indirect revenue from tourism and the overseas buttering up missions that we send them on). We also make sure that they pay for the running of the palaces out of that percentage, to keep them in good order so the Treasury of our directly elected parliament, to whom the Crown Estate is accountable, continues to yield as much money from them as possible! I think we do bloody well out of them, to be honest. Show me any other landlord and employer that we tax 80%, and does, says, and goes wherever and whenever our Parliament tells them ...

As to the issue of Northern Ireland, I'm still bewildered how May negotiated a deal to leave, which included the EU being able to say "Well, if you're leaving, we're still keeping control of that bit!". No you're bloody well not! :fencing: I don't understand why they think they can tell us which bits we can leave, and which we can't ... but then they've never really understood the concept of democracy. In a way, I wish Her Maj wasn't quite so restrained by parliament, and could wade in and tell 'em, "This is a democracy. My people are getting what they voted for, and none of you lot (here or there) are getting in the way of that, whether you think it's a bad idea or not".

As to a border, I really don't know how much of a difference that would make.

The Good Friday agreement is supposed to revolve around a shared government, which hasn't been in place for ages, because they're too busy playing silly games. If they're not going to do what the agreement was set up to do, then what's the point of tiptoeing around trying to accommodate something that they don't want. That vicar chap at that young journalist's funeral nailed it when he said they should all grow up and get their act together! Maybe we need a border to get everyone back working towards a functioning devolved government. because not having a border isn't getting the people of Northern Island any nearer to the representative administration they're entitled to.

[SIR]

monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work' - they live off the toil of others, they're merely glorified landlords; if you think different, you're a fool.

p.s.
we don't need 'Her Maj', we have Nigel Farage.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work' - they live off the toil of others, they're merely glorified landlords; if you think different, you're a fool.

Want to go and tell that to Prince Andrew, who flew active service during the Falklands War? Or Prince William who flew for RAF Search and Rescue? Or Prince Harry who served in Afghanistan? Or Prince Philip who was involved in the Allied Invasion of Sicily, the Battle of Crete and the Battle of Cape Matapan during WW2? Or the Queen serving as junior officer in the ATS also during WW2? And that's without even touching on the work they do as ambassadors both for Great Britain and the many charitable and other similarly worthy causes.

When you say the monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work', you denigrate all the men and women who have served this country, including me.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a statement of your intolerance for other people's opinions.



As for Ireland. If you pulled everyone out of NI and brought them to the UK, and allowed the whole of Ireland to be a single entity... they'd soon find some other imagined injustice to bitch and complain about. In my opinion there is no solution other than to let the distance of time blur the animosities and perceived slights. Hopefully.

[catbert]

In my opinion there is no solution other than to let the distance of time blur the animosities and perceived slights. Hopefully.

Could take a while if people are still marching about the Battle of the Boyne.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I know, but I am unable to conceive of any other workable solution. Which may be a more accurate gauge of my intelligence rather than the intransigence of the problem. :)

[catbert]

Years ago I favoured a UN peacekeeping force, preferably from somewhere non-Christian because get over yourselves, but since the Good Friday Agreement effectively ended sectarian violence and communities on both sides of the border favour the soft border arrangement (perhaps the best reason for keeping it, by the way) I tend to think a solution could lie in even more devolution and letting the locals work it out for themselves. Worth noting that NI voted remain.

Interesting piece on the GFA in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/good-friday-agreement-20th-anniversary/557393/):

“Having a soft border was crucial because that meant the issue of identity was really removed from the table,” Jonathan Powell, the U.K.’s chief negotiator on the Good Friday Agreement, told me. “You could live in Northern Ireland all your life and be Irish (have an Irish passport, never notice there was a border), or you could be British, or you could be both. If you have a hard border and we go back to the concrete blocks on small roads and the border point crossings and all that, then the identity issue is reopened.”

[Wuddus]

monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work' - they live off the toil of others, they're merely glorified landlords...

.... who pay 80% tax, head up a myriad of charities, generate millions, if not billions in tourism, head the Commonwealth, and serve an administrative function in every single law our parliament passes, with no say or veto. On top of this, the Queen attended 283 engagements in 2018 (Charles attended 398 at home, and 109 overseas, Anne attended 447 at home, and 71 overseas ...). There's also the continual liaison with parliament, serving as emotional and moral support for the PM, being the one true confidant who has always got their back, and with whom anything can be discussed, no matter how much pressure they are under from media, opposition, or even their own party.

I'm afraid it's those who feel the Monarchy just sit there skimming off taxpayers money, who are the fools, and whose notions of what the monarchy does is probably a couple of hundred years out of date. The Queen is in her 90's, and is probably working more hours per week than most of the rest of us do.

[TSherbs]

An internal hard border inside Ireland is a fool's gambit.

Is it?

Pray tell, please do detail how.Nah, I'm just chatting, not arguing. Catbird's quote from the Atlantic sums up my general feeling. A hard border inside Ireland feels like regression to me, back to a darker, less predictable and more violent past. I consider it foolish to wish for that.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[catbert]

More on the impracticality/undesirability of a hard border.

1. Hard Brexiters’ stance on the Irish border is nonsense – I can tell you, I grew up there (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/northern-ireland-hard-border-brexit-customs) (Guardian)

2. Brexit: Why the Irish backstop matters (BBC) — interview with Jonathan Powell


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIGq_eiRBU

---

Let the bits that voted remain (NI, Scotland) stay in the customs union at least, putting the Irish border in the sea. Not sure what happens with the Scottish border but a majority of Scots want one so they'll work it out.

If the union is not to break up, then a more federal state will be needed: FK instead of UK. Imagine the merch possibilities.

[SIR]

Want to go and tell that to Prince Andrew, who flew active service during the Falklands War? Or Prince William who flew for RAF Search and Rescue? Or Prince Harry who served in Afghanistan? Or Prince Philip who was involved in the Allied Invasion of Sicily, the Battle of Crete and the Battle of Cape Matapan during WW2? Or the Queen serving as junior officer in the ATS also during WW2? And that's without even touching on the work they do as ambassadors both for Great Britain and the many charitable and other similarly worthy causes.

Don't get it twisted, it is they who detract from the good works of ordinary people. From their position, background, and upbringing, i would expect something more than what many of us accept as normal and do everyday.

Tell me, if they are 'constitutional' monarchs then why do they have any media coverage? To me that is anti-democratic.



monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work' - they live off the toil of others, they're merely glorified landlords...

.... who pay 80% tax, head up a myriad of charities, generate millions, if not billions in tourism, head the Commonwealth, and serve an administrative function in every single law our parliament passes, with no say or veto. On top of this, the Queen attended 283 engagements in 2018 (Charles attended 398 at home, and 109 overseas, Anne attended 447 at home, and 71 overseas ...). There's also the continual liaison with parliament, serving as emotional and moral support for the PM, being the one true confidant who has always got their back, and with whom anything can be discussed, no matter how much pressure they are under from media, opposition, or even their own party.

I'm afraid it's those who feel the Monarchy just sit there skimming off taxpayers money, who are the fools, and whose notions of what the monarchy does is probably a couple of hundred years out of date. The Queen is in her 90's, and is probably working more hours per week than most of the rest of us do.

Paying tax? Really? Actually, nope.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/15/tax-exemptions-prince-charles-estate-duchy
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/does-prince-wales-pay-tax

Head up charities? You mean are listed as 'patrons', right? Well, we all know how the rich and famous do like privileged access to the needy... and let's not forget how they like to protect other child abusers too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/09/prince-charles-criticised-official-sex-abuse-inquiry-misguided/

Tourism? You seriously think less people would visit the UK if we were a republic? France, Italy, and Germany's tourism must really be suffering, i don't think. In 2017, Italy had the same number of nights stayed in tourist accommodation as the UK, and Italy has only existed as a state for barely a little over 100 years and a republic for even less.

Attending 'engagements'?! The Queen 'working' more hours than the rest of us? You are seriously delusional.

[Wuddus]

Don't get it twisted, it is they who detract from the good works of ordinary people. From their position, background, and upbringing, i would expect something more than what many of us accept as normal and do everyday.

Tell me, if they are 'constitutional' monarchs then why do they have any media coverage? To me that is anti-democratic.



monarchy don't know the meaning of the word 'work' - they live off the toil of others, they're merely glorified landlords...

.... who pay 80% tax, head up a myriad of charities, generate millions, if not billions in tourism, head the Commonwealth, and serve an administrative function in every single law our parliament passes, with no say or veto. On top of this, the Queen attended 283 engagements in 2018 (Charles attended 398 at home, and 109 overseas, Anne attended 447 at home, and 71 overseas ...). There's also the continual liaison with parliament, serving as emotional and moral support for the PM, being the one true confidant who has always got their back, and with whom anything can be discussed, no matter how much pressure they are under from media, opposition, or even their own party.

I'm afraid it's those who feel the Monarchy just sit there skimming off taxpayers money, who are the fools, and whose notions of what the monarchy does is probably a couple of hundred years out of date. The Queen is in her 90's, and is probably working more hours per week than most of the rest of us do.

Paying tax? Really? Actually, nope.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/15/tax-exemptions-prince-charles-estate-duchy
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/does-prince-wales-pay-tax

Head up charities? You mean are listed as 'patrons', right? Well, we all know how the rich and famous do like privileged access to the needy... and let's not forget how they like to protect other child abusers too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/09/prince-charles-criticised-official-sex-abuse-inquiry-misguided/

Tourism? You seriously think less people would visit the UK if we were a republic? France, Italy, and Germany's tourism must really be suffering, i don't think. In 2017, Italy had the same number of nights stayed in tourist accommodation as the UK, and Italy has only existed as a state for barely a little over 100 years and a republic for even less.

Attending 'engagements'?! The Queen 'working' more hours than the rest of us? You are seriously delusional.

I'll consider being called delusional a compliment, when it's coming from someone who does tarot cards, exorcisms and mediumship. You may wish to stray from conventional reality, and I hope you find whatever you're searching for, but I'll be staying put.

[SIR]

I'll consider being called delusional a compliment, when it's coming from someone who does tarot cards, exorcisms and mediumship. You may wish to stray from conventional reality, and I hope you find whatever you're searching for, but I'll be staying put.

And yet you believe in a human being who themself believes they have a god given right to lord it over everyone else in a manner not at all dissimilar to a slaveholder - irony, much?

QEII is, relatively speaking, the worst monarch so-called Britain has had since the Normans - the loss of territory she has presided over trumps even those lost by the heirs to the great empires of Caesar, Alexander, and Genghis.

Believe me, I fairly well know I can never satisfactorily vet any interaction with 'the other side', how about you? How do you know that they serve your best interests?!

[Pendragon]

Tourism? You seriously think less people would visit the UK if we were a republic? France, Italy, and Germany's tourism must really be suffering, i don't think
I'll bet fewer people visited France, Italy and Germany when their monarchs were deposed. It would be like going to see a circus without the elephants and trapeze artists.


Interesting piece on the GFA in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/good-friday-agreement-20th-anniversary/557393/):
The Atlantic? That leftist rag? It is like an ultra-liberal elitist counterpart to Breitbart, hardly sources of unbiased information.

[SIR]

I'll bet fewer people visited France, Italy and Germany when their monarchs were deposed. It would be like going to see a circus without the elephants and trapeze artists.


Interesting piece on the GFA in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/good-friday-agreement-20th-anniversary/557393/):
The Atlantic? That leftist rag? It is like an ultra-liberal elitist counterpart to Breitbart, hardly sources of unbiased information.

Serious point, yes the UK has a very large number of tourists, but is that directly related to the number of people being exploited and forced to exchange sexual favours with their otherwise absentee landlords to pay for their grossly overinflated rent?

Not much has changed since Whitechapel 1888, if anything the situation is getting worse.

[TSherbs]

The Atlantic? That leftist rag? It is like an ultra-liberal elitist counterpart to Breitbart, hardly sources of unbiased information.

So, you didn't read the article, I presume. You don't mention a thing from it.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@SIR

Perhaps you have a story? If there is some way in which the monarchy has directly negatively impacted your life - beyond your personal dislike of the institution - then perhaps you should share. Otherwise your arguments just don't float, and neither does cherry picking outlier examples (statistically speaking).

As a Brit I have never felt that having a monarchy was detrimental to my life or to anyone I knew. Any society is an exercise in compromises and acceptance of decisions that we may not agree with. If you don't want that then go find a desert island.

[Pendragon]

Serious point, yes the UK has a very large number of tourists, but is that directly related to the number of people being exploited and forced to exchange sexual favours with their otherwise absentee landlords to pay for their grossly overinflated rent?
Try coming to San Francisco or Silicon Valley if you want to see what overinflated rent is actually like. Think Mayfair rents for average accommodations and areas, thanks to a deliberately engineered housing shortage. Many working class people live in caravans. Some are drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally ill, but most are average ordinary people. The lack of a monarchy does not necessarily translate into affordable housing.


So, you didn't read the article, I presume. You don't mention a thing from it.
I read the article, and a number of other recent articles from the Atlantic. In fact, I used to enjoy reading it 40 years ago, when it and many other publications were much less biased. I have also read Breitbart. The problem with any media outlet heavily influenced by politics is trustworthiness. How do I know the information is accurate? The larger problem, particularly for magazines and television, is increased competition, and hence increased focus on profits. That leads them to say whatever will maximize cash flow. It is understandable, as many are now struggling with the shift to the Internet. The ad revenue models are different there, and much less profitable than that form traditional channels. Magazines, newspapers and television, each formerly with its own ecosystem, are now competing directly with one another online. Telling people what they want to hear gets page views and subscriptions, but often compromises accuracy. "Fake news" is usually not fabricated, but simply biased to the point of great distortion.

Not all publications are equally affected, and some make a concerted effort to be unbiased. USA Today would is one example of a generally reliable news source. Reuters is another.

[catbert]

Tell me, if they are 'constitutional' monarchs then why do they have any media coverage? To me that is anti-democratic.

Or simple media economics. More traffic for opinion and scandal than fact-based discussion. As witness this thread.


Tourism? You seriously think less people would visit the UK if we were a republic? France, Italy, and Germany's tourism must really be suffering, i don't think. In 2017, Italy had the same number of nights stayed in tourist accommodation as the UK, and Italy has only existed as a state for barely a little over 100 years and a republic for even less.

I imagine one of the main attractions in future, on a par with museums of looted stuff, will be the low, low pound.


QEII is, relatively speaking, the worst monarch so-called Britain has had since the Normans - the loss of territory she has presided over trumps even those lost by the heirs to the great empires of Caesar, Alexander, and Genghis.

Empires run their course. One can argue the balance of culture and oppression. The new empires are virtual and far more insidious.

[TSherbs]

Try coming to San Francisco or Silicon Valley if you want to see what overinflated rent is actually like. Think Mayfair rents for average accommodations and areas, thanks to a deliberately engineered housing shortage. Many working class people live in caravans. Some are drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally ill, but most are average ordinary people. The lack of a monarchy does not necessarily translate into affordable housing.


So, you didn't read the article, I presume. You don't mention a thing from it.
I read the article....

Which attributed quote do you think is made up? There are no unnamed sources, no hidden stats. What is it about this piece that you don't trust? It is long, so you get to use your own mind and test its thinking through the linkages. It's not all that complex or nuanced. It's central claim is that the Compromise has been widely supported and has brought violence and fear far down from the peak in the Troubles. This is not a radical or biased claim. It's virtually a given, now. To upset that improving trend requires strong exigencies of a greater and real threat (and not just to one's sensibilities).



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Fermata]

Both Governments have said that they do not want a hard border as it has every possibility that it may lead to a situation where conflict can arise in a troubled area. We have just acheived the first peace in Ireland for almost 100 years, too much blood has been shed on both sides, Ireland deserves peace and if a hard border threatens the Peace then a hard border be damned.

It is said that a No Deal Brexit will be bound to mean a hard border, may God help us all because it looks like a No Deal is inevitable.

I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would have voted to leave the EU if they had understood the consequences of their vote, too many had just had enough of their Society being taken over by Eastern Europeans and they thought that voting to leave would have seen an end to that, there will be no change to that situation.

[SIR]

cherry picking outlier examples (statistically speaking)

Do you think that The White House or The Forbidden City would attract more, less, or the same number of visitors if they were occupied by an monarch?

By the way, what do your Chinese friends think of your unmutual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner) opinions?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Do you think that The White House or The Forbidden City would attract more, less, or the same number of visitors if they were occupied by an monarch?


This is the kind of woolly thinking we need to be on our guard for. You are kind of suggesting that, as a thought experiment, we go and ensconce a monarch in these places and see what happens. The reality is that this never occurs. Monarchs are a part of the society over which they reign. Their presence is part of the social fabric and the collective thoughts of the populace. They are not an isolated attraction.


Edit:
By the way, what do your Chinese friends think of your unmutual opinions?

This looks like a deliberate provocation just for the sake of it. Not an argument.

[catbert]

Monarchs are a part of the society over which they reign.

Eventually.

But maybe 'heritage' as an attraction works better without sitting tenants.

[Fermata]

cherry picking outlier examples (statistically speaking)

Do you think that The White House or The Forbidden City would attract more, less, or the same number of visitors if they were occupied by an monarch?

By the way, what do your Chinese friends think of your unmutual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner) opinions?


King Donald the First and Prince Donald Junior, Princess Ivanka.

Absolutely Fabulous.

[SIR]

You are kind of suggesting that, as a thought experiment, we go and ensconce a monarch in these places and see what happens.

Not at all, I am suggesting that you need to realise that removing the so-called British 'royal' family from their established positions would in no way change the number of tourists who come to visit the UK, and even that such an act might improve visitor numbers.

You claimed my example of Italy was a statistical outlier, so naturally I must bring your attention to USA and China who have massive tourism revenue and are both well established republics.


This looks like a deliberate provocation just for the sake of it.

Not really, actually a genuine casual query regarding your time spent in the company of Chinese society and whether they are aware, and if they are what they think, of your counter-revolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary#China) tendencies.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Your wording is provocative, and I believe this is deliberate. Your ascribing of tendencies to people you don't know anything about kind of cements this point. Any argument with regarding monarchies is without merit because it appears your mind is closed to any view other than your own.

[TSherbs]

....Not really, actually a genuine casual query regarding your time spent in the company of Chinese society and whether they are aware, and if they are what they think, of your counter-revolutionary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary#China) tendencies.

wtf is this?

hello, Ireland?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Pendragon]

Which attributed quote do you think is made up? There are no unnamed sources, no hidden stats. What is it about this piece that you don't trust? It is long, so you get to use your own mind and test its thinking through the linkages. It's not all that complex or nuanced. It's central claim is that the Compromise has been widely supported and has brought violence and fear far down from the peak in the Troubles. This is not a radical or biased claim. It's virtually a given, now. To upset that improving trend requires strong exigencies of a greater and real threat (and not just to one's sensibilities).
I did not say that any particular quote was made up, only that biased publications are unreliable sources of information. For example, this quote makes it seem like a sectarian conflict is inevitable if there is a hard border after Brexit:

"A Sky News poll published Monday found that approximately half of people in Northern Ireland have few to no friends of a different religion to theirs—a metric that also stands in for political divisions. These are evident in the country’s government, or rather, its lack of one. Though one of the Good Friday Agreement’s principle achievements was the establishment of a power-sharing arrangement that allows Unionists and Republicans to govern in coalition, a political row between the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and its Republican counterpart Sinn Féin caused Northern Ireland’s government to collapse in January 2017."

A poll in the Belfast Telegraph (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-northern-ireland-voters-will-back-united-ireland-after-brexit-37275256.html) implies the opposite:

"Voters in Northern Ireland will back a united Ireland after Brexit, a new poll suggests."

Quotes are easy, one can be found to support any position. There problem is that the mainstream media in the US is becoming increasingly partisan, and thus increasingly questionable as a news source.

In the case of newspapers, I have twice seen them report several events with a few kernels of truth, but with the rest largely made up. It wasn't like they were trying to be biased or dishonest, but simply treating reporting like a creative writing class assignment in school. An alternative weekly newspaper in my area used to regularly report blatant inaccuracies and conflicts of interest in stories reported by one of these newspapers, a much older, larger daily. It was shocking to see some of the nonsense that went on, especially glaring omissions to cover up misdeeds by local politicians and some of their business associates. One accurate story will not make a publication a reliable source of information overall. The stories that sell, that play to the audience, and don't antagonize the wrong people, are paramount.

[SIR]

Your wording is provocative, and I believe this is deliberate. Your ascribing of tendencies to people you don't know anything about kind of cements this point. Any argument with regarding monarchies is without merit because it appears your mind is closed to any view other than your own.

touché?

[TSherbs]

Which attributed quote do you think is made up? There are no unnamed sources, no hidden stats. What is it about this piece that you don't trust? It is long, so you get to use your own mind and test its thinking through the linkages. It's not all that complex or nuanced. It's central claim is that the Compromise has been widely supported and has brought violence and fear far down from the peak in the Troubles. This is not a radical or biased claim. It's virtually a given, now. To upset that improving trend requires strong exigencies of a greater and real threat (and not just to one's sensibilities).
I did not say that any particular quote was made up, only that biased publications are unreliable sources of information. For example, this quote makes it seem like a sectarian conflict is inevitable if there is a hard border after Brexit:...

.

The article does not argue for inevitability. It shows that the situation is complex, with multiple tensions even though in the larger sense violence is down. It is you who is reading "inevitability" from this.

To the rest of your point, of course any single source, any single article, cannot explain all the facts and factors. News journalism is not a research-based book-length publication. Even books ultimately have to have a thesis that it ends up trying to prove. Even this is a form of bias, to be technical. But rather than dismiss all, it is better to read all and decide for oneself (where more biases and filters reside). It's the best we have.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[snoopy]

Having a hard border at Northern Ireland would break a key clause in a previously agreed internationally ratified peace accord - namely, the Good Friday Agreement. The EU had a very significant role in bringing that together (as did the US at the time), so I can fully understand their desire to see it preserved. Apart from that the purely practical side of functioning would be put under considerable strain. There are economic consequences for both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but the economists seem to have decided that it will be extremely negative for Northern Ireland, possibly creating an economic wilderness and further isolation. Such vacuums in Europe usually give a foothold to certain far right thinking and deeper radicalisation; at least historically they have. Economics isn't the only thing though. 'The Troubles' were very much focused in Derry, Belfast and along the border. The EU has significantly funded peace projects in the cities and those which span the border in an attempt at bringing communities together and dispelling suspicion and ignorance. It's hard to drill down into exact figures, but it's somewhere in the region of a couple of hundred million per annum (taking into consideration both the Republic and the UK EU budget specific to Northern Ireland). It covers all sorts of things like infrastructure, arts, sports, literature, community groups etc, etc. With an hard border that will be much more difficult to do, especially if you have one community with a renewed antipathy to the EU and suspicion of it. The social aspects will be significantly effected by a hard border and many thousands of families will feel a line - albeit somewhat imaginary - has been drawn between them as their families and communities live either side of the proposed hard border. There are many, many other reasons, but these stated above are perhaps the main ones.

[welch]

Consider this, in addition: while PM Boris Johnson says he will ignore the agreement with the EU over keeping the no-hard-border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK's Northern Ireland, VP Joe Biden says that, if he is elected President of the US, he will not look favorably on a free-trade agreement with a hard-border UK government. President Trump seems to have promised Johnson that the US will make up a free-trade agreement to soften UK losses after Brexit.

[Boston Brian]

It is more than time for a new USA President to keep his nose out of British domestic policies , heavens knows he is going to have enough problems state side! As a person from Northern Ireland, I could not overstate how much we resented US presidents sticking their nose in our situation! How would Biden react to criticism and advice by British Prime Ministers to any one of the social and domestic problems in America? Not too well I suspect!

[welch]

(1) Trump supported and encouraged Brexit

(2) Trump promised that a Bexit'ed UK would "quickly" get a nice trade deal with the US

(3) Trump lost, and lost by the same electoral vote by which he won in 2016, but by bigger margins in the swing states. His term runs out in January, and he seems to have lost hope.

(4) There is no reason that President Biden would carry out Trump's promise to, somehow, compensate the UK for whatever it loses through Brexit.

(5) The "soft border" was a key to the Good Friday peace. No reason to expect that US policy will change to back a "hard border" in Ireland, against the previous agreement between the UK and EU. Certainly not just to keep Boris Johnson from being embarrassed. Johnson chose to become best-buddy of Trump, so, while the US will continue to be closely allied to the UK, there is no reason for President Biden to change what has been US policy. Trump was a freak, or, as Biden keeps saying, "an aberration". Whether Trump's variety of racism, xenophobia, and friendliness to near-dictators continues, and even rises to challenge for control of the country, for the next four years Trump is out, and, it appears, and US policy will return to what it has been ever since Lend-Lease, and since Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter.

[SIR]

(1) Trump supported and encouraged Brexit

(2) Trump promised that a Bexit'ed UK would "quickly" get a nice trade deal with the US

(3) Trump lost, and lost by the same electoral vote by which he won in 2016, but by bigger margins in the swing states. His term runs out in January, and he seems to have lost hope.

(4) There is no reason that President Biden would carry out Trump's promise to, somehow, compensate the UK for whatever it loses through Brexit.

(5) The "soft border" was a key to the Good Friday peace. No reason to expect that US policy will change to back a "hard border" in Ireland, against the previous agreement between the UK and EU. Certainly not just to keep Boris Johnson from being embarrassed. Johnson chose to become best-buddy of Trump, so, while the US will continue to be closely allied to the UK, there is no reason for President Biden to change what has been US policy. Trump was a freak, or, as Biden keeps saying, "an aberration". Whether Trump's variety of racism, xenophobia, and friendliness to near-dictators continues, and even rises to challenge for control of the country, for the next four years Trump is out, and, it appears, and US policy will return to what it has been ever since Lend-Lease, and since Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter.

aw, shit... well, never mind, eh?

Guess us Brits (English) are gonna have to stop paying for everyone else in so-called Europe's economic deficit, including the Welsh and Scots, it seems - let them have their independence and get treated the same by EU as we did.

[Linger]

Guess us Brits (English) are gonna have to stop paying for everyone else in so-called Europe's economic deficit, including the Welsh and Scots, it seems - let them have their independence and get treated the same by EU as we did.

Wow. A factually incorrect and morally tendentious statement. I guess with that attitude, you are better at your own.

[Johnny_S]

Wow. A factually incorrect and morally tendentious statement. I guess with that attitude, you are better at your own.

@Linger, I think you really ought to edit your post so that it's abundantly clear you were replying to @SIR and levelling your criticism at him and not @welch.


Not really any of your business though is it?

[Linger]

Well, he is correct, and I have corrected my post.

[RobJohnson]

Perhaps he is not the only one.