The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[amogles]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	It was illegal to be homosexual pre-1967, or get an abortion pre-1968. The law tends to be in black and white yet the world we live in is shades of grey. I believe in the Rule of Law, however I also see it's not perfect. Just because something is in law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to break the law.

The people who hid Anne Frank were acting illegally.
the people who arrested her and sent her to a concentration camp were acting legally.

The law is not always right.

[22 yards]

	Quote:	NotAllThere
	There's a difference between committing a criminal offence and doing something that it isn't legal. Governments do stuff that isn't legal quite often.

... and as my learned friend NotAllThere has noted, I wasn't breaking the law, I merely did something that wasn't legal.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	It was illegal to be homosexual pre-1967, or get an abortion pre-1968. The law tends to be in black and white yet the world we live in is shades of grey. I believe in the Rule of Law, however I also see it's not perfect. Just because something is in law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to break the law.

Crikey, I can't keep up with you. Now you're an anarchist! I don't think there's a political party for them, is there? It'd be a bit self-defeating, wouldn't it?

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	The people who hid Anne Frank were acting illegally. the people who arrested her and sent her to a concentration camp were acting legally. The law is not always right.

How do you define right?

[HickvonFrick]

	Quote:	marton
	How do you define right?

Where a law is morally justifiable principally because breaking said law would cause harm to someone.

Every single one of us will have broken a law in our time. Most of the time (I hope), it will have been a victimless crime, either because the law was wrong per se (see the Anne Frank example), or even if the law has some justification in general terms we knew it didn't really matter on that particular occasion (think 17 year old self getting a pint).

[st2lemans]

	Quote:	22 yards
	So now you're a libertarian -- laws should be obeyed only when it suits you?

That is not what being a libertarian is about.

Tom

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Remember the sheer outrage when that happened? And what was the result? Boris Johnson won by a landslide a few months later! The moral of the story is clear, just because something is law, it doesn't make it "right". The last Parliament behaved appallingly, and it took an election to make them realise this, and on that occasion breaking the law was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of the people. If, as the Government claim, the Withdrawal Agreement risks the integrity of the UK internal market and sovereignty of the UK, then they may be "right" in breaking international law.

Such actions have their price

	Quote:
	‘Absolutely no chance’ of US-UK trade deal passing Congress if Boris Johnson damages Good Friday Agreement, Pelosi warns

Source

[22 yards]

	Quote:	st2lemans
	That is not what being a libertarian is about. Tom

Libertarians are opposed to laws restricting freedoms, typically where they have been passed for the greater good of society. Speed limits and mandated mask-wearing are examples of this. Some libertarians stick to their principles and make a point of disobeying laws with which they disagree. Most of the time, they do this when the potential consequence aren't too great. Not wearing a seatbelt, for example (low risk of an accident, affordable fine if caught). Presumably that's why you occasionally don't wear a seatbelt.

[amogles]

	Quote:	HickvonFrick
	Every single one of us will have broken a law in our time. Most of the time (I hope), it will have been a victimless crime, either because the law was wrong per se (see the Anne Frank example), or even if the law has some justification in general terms we knew it didn't really matter on that particular occasion (think 17 year old self getting a pint).

Or simply because there are so many laws that we may well break several of them without even suspecting there are laws about that. Some are vague.

For example there is allegedly a law that says you must have at least 5 CHF on you. Maybe the intent back in the day was noble, especially before cell phones and all that. But if you must always have 5CHF and you interpret the law literally, you can't actually spend it so it is of no use - except maybe to your heirs when you pop your clogs.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Such actions have their price Source

I get a bit uncomfortable about this point. The GFA fixed two countries who were at war., which is great.

the UK is trying to leave the EU. To do that you patently arent going to have borders without checks otherwise people will use that route for smuggling (to avoid customers). this is also pretty basic logic.

So as I understand it whats being said is, if there's a border between the two sides, that'll mean the GFA terms arent being met, so we won't give you a trade agreement.

So unless im wrong in my logic, the threat is, you can't leave the EU because of the Irish peace accord. i.e. threat of possible return to violence trumps being allowed to leave an economic trading block.

I follow all the arguments ang logic, but it just comes across to me as "you'll let me copy you're maths homework or I'll smash your face in".

[HickvonFrick]

	Quote:	22 yards
	Libertarians are opposed to laws restricting freedoms, typically where they have been passed for the greater good of society. Speed limits and mandated mask-wearing are examples of this. Some libertarians stick to their principles and make a point of disobeying laws with which they disagree. Most of the time, they do this when the potential consequence aren't too great. Not wearing a seatbelt, for example (low risk of an accident, affordable fine if caught). Presumably that's why you occasionally don't wear a seatbelt.

I think you are describing anarchists rather than libertarians!

[22 yards]

	Quote:	HickvonFrick
	I think you are describing anarchists rather than libertarians!

You could argue that libertarians are essentially self-serving anarchists...

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I get a bit uncomfortable about this point. The GFA fixed two countries who were at war., which is great. the UK is trying to leave the EU. To do that you patently arent going to have borders without checks otherwise people will use that route for smuggling (to avoid customers). this is also pretty basic logic. So as I understand it whats being said is, if there's a border between the two sides, that'll mean the GFA terms arent being met, so we won't give you a trade agreement. So unless im wrong in my logic, the threat is, you can't leave the EU because of the Irish peace accord. i.e. threat of possible return to violence trumps being allowed to leave an economic trading block. I follow all the arguments ang logic, but it just comes across to me as "you'll let me copy you're maths homework or I'll smash your face in".

Politicians have big mouths, Speaker Pelosi has an especially big one. Remember "back of the queue"? It's just words at the end of the day, times change, politicians change, the make up of the Senate changes. She should rather concentrate on finding a new hair salon!

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	22 yards
	Libertarians are opposed to laws restricting freedoms, typically where they have been passed for the greater good of society. Speed limits and mandated mask-wearing are examples of this. Some libertarians stick to their principles and make a point of disobeying laws with which they disagree. Most of the time, they do this when the potential consequence aren't too great. Not wearing a seatbelt, for example (low risk of an accident, affordable fine if caught). Presumably that's why you occasionally don't wear a seatbelt.

Search for Ron Swanson on youtube and you'll find plenty of such examples.


Ron Swanson is actually how I imagine St2lemans

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Politicians have big mouths, Speaker Pelosi has an especially big one. Remember "back of the queue"? It's just words at the end of the day, times change, politicians change, the make up of the Senate changes. She should rather concentrate on finding a new hair salon!

The makeup of the Senate might change, but Pelosi is Speaker of the House and at this stage, she's basically furniture bolted to the floor. The people in her district will never vote her out.

The same is true for dozens of members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. People share memes on social media all the time about how term limits should exist, but keep voting in the same people over and over.

Yikes, that's OT for this topic so I'll try to bring it back around.

Is there any reasonable solution to this current issue of customs/hard border/GFA that wouldn't break an existing international agreement or law?

[HickvonFrick]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	The makeup of the Senate might change, but Pelosi is Speaker of the House and at this stage, she's basically furniture bolted to the floor. The people in her district will never vote her out. The same is true for dozens of members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. People share memes on social media all the time about how term limits should exist, but keep voting in the same people over and over. Yikes, that's OT for this topic so I'll try to bring it back around. Is there any reasonable solution to this current issue of customs/hard border/GFA that wouldn't break an existing international agreement or law?

She is, however, 80 years old, and so presumably won't be around forever.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	The makeup of the Senate might change, but Pelosi is Speaker of the House and at this stage, she's basically furniture bolted to the floor. The people in her district will never vote her out. The same is true for dozens of members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. People share memes on social media all the time about how term limits should exist, but keep voting in the same people over and over. Yikes, that's OT for this topic so I'll try to bring it back around. Is there any reasonable solution to this current issue of customs/hard border/GFA that wouldn't break an existing international agreement or law?

The way I understand it is that the UK believed they could get a trade deal which would remove the need for the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU see Northern Ireland as a means to drive a hard bargain. They threatened to put GB onto a "third country" list which would mean tariffs applied to certain imports between GB and NI. A trade barrier within a country is obviously unacceptable which is why this new legislation has been brought forward by Boris Johnson Government.

There is a reasonable solution and that is for a trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately the EUs demands for the trade agreement are anything other than reasonable. Well there is a reason behind it, the absolute worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK leaves and thrives outside its clutches. Understand this and everything becomes a lot clearer!

[marton]

	Quote:	HickvonFrick
	She is, however, 80 years old, and so presumably won't be around forever.

Not relevant, the size of the Irish vote in the US ensures Congress protecting the sanctity of the GFA.

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	HickvonFrick
	She is, however, 80 years old, and so presumably won't be around forever.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is 87 years old and still serving, as is Representative Don Young. If Pelosi matches their longevity that means at least 3 more terms in the House.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	There is a reasonable solution and that is for a trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately the EUs demands for the trade agreement are anything other than reasonable. Well there is a reason behind it, the absolute worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK leaves and thrives outside its clutches. Understand this and everything becomes a lot clearer!

So the EU wants to play tough so as to discourage other countries from getting their own exit ideas, and Johnson is willing to call their bluff even if it breaks an existing law or agreement?

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Politicians have big mouths, Speaker Pelosi has an especially big one. Remember "back of the queue"? It's just words at the end of the day, times change, politicians change, the make up of the Senate changes. She should rather concentrate on finding a new hair salon!

Obama said "back of the queue" over four years ago and today there is not even a draft of a deal in sight. So he is proven correct, thanks for reminding us.

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	The way I understand it is that the UK believed they could get a trade deal which would remove the need for the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU see Northern Ireland as a means to drive a hard bargain. They threatened to put GB onto a "third country" list which would mean tariffs applied to certain imports between GB and NI. A trade barrier within a country is obviously unacceptable which is why this new legislation has been brought forward by Boris Johnson Government. There is a reasonable solution and that is for a trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately the EUs demands for the trade agreement are anything other than reasonable. Well there is a reason behind it, the absolute worst case scenario for the EU is that the UK leaves and thrives outside its clutches. Understand this and everything becomes a lot clearer!

Part of the GFA is to have an open border in Ireland.
If the UK reneges on the deal to have a trade barrier between N. Ireland and the GB then there will be an open border between GB and the EU which will not be ideal for either side.