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.
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.
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:
“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.”
Empty_of_Clouds (August 7th, 2019), SIR (August 8th, 2019)
.... 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taxpayers money, who are the fools, and whose notions of what the monarchy does is probably a couple of hundred years out of date.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.
Empty_of_Clouds (August 7th, 2019), junglejim (August 7th, 2019)
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
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 (Guardian)
2. Brexit: Why the Irish backstop matters (BBC) — interview with Jonathan Powell
---
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.
Last edited by catbert; August 7th, 2019 at 07:39 PM. Reason: ambiguity
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.
Paying tax? Really? Actually, nope.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...s-estate-duchy
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/doe...-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/201...iry-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.
Empty_of_Clouds (August 8th, 2019)
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?!
Last edited by SIR; August 8th, 2019 at 11:39 AM.
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.
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.
@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.
Last edited by Empty_of_Clouds; August 8th, 2019 at 07:41 PM.
catbert (August 8th, 2019)
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.
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.
Last edited by Pendragon; August 8th, 2019 at 06:30 PM.
SIR (August 9th, 2019)
Or simple media economics. More traffic for opinion and scandal than fact-based discussion. As witness this thread.
I imagine one of the main attractions in future, on a par with museums of looted stuff, will be the low, low pound.
Empires run their course. One can argue the balance of culture and oppression. The new empires are virtual and far more insidious.
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
catbert (August 8th, 2019)
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.
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 opinions?
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.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?
Edit:This looks like a deliberate provocation just for the sake of it. Not an argument.By the way, what do your Chinese friends think of your unmutual opinions?
Last edited by Empty_of_Clouds; August 9th, 2019 at 06:31 PM.
TSherbs (August 9th, 2019)
Eventually.Monarchs are a part of the society over which they reign.
But maybe 'heritage' as an attraction works better without sitting tenants.
SIR (August 10th, 2019)
Bookmarks