4 ms·

I am so confused why a nuclear power is so worried about a line in a contract. Breaching a contract always happens and as long as something good comes out of it

by oaiey 8y ago

I am so confused why a nuclear power is so worried about a line in a contract. Breaching a contract always happens and as long as something good comes out of it no one cares. AND everyone wants to have a good outcome here. No one wants an explosive Northern Ireland again.

AndrewDucker 8y ago
Are you suggesting that the UK makes the EU trade with it by threatening to nuke it if it doesn't? Because that's horrifying, and I can't see how else to read your comment.
- oaiey 8y ago
  No not at all. They negotiate like two normal entities. But I think it is funny to have a nuclear power being scared about a line in a contract it signs. It can just declare: I ignore that line and then wait what the other side will do. The worst case is that the EU is also breaking the contract - maybe completely - which is then ... the same as no-deal.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    I don't really see what relevance nuclear weapons have on trade agreements. Trade is an iterated cooperation game. Nuclear weapons have no second turn.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    So, you're suggesting that if the EU responded with trade sanctions that we'd ... what, threaten them with nukes? You don't think there might be a point in the future where we want to trade with any of the other 26 countries of the EU ever again? You want to declare war on them to support our project of making UK an economic backwater ... I thought I'd heard it all ... wow. What's your position on importing food? Given we don't produce enough to feed us and if we revert land to food use we'll have to sacrifice higher profit uses (e.g. we export seed potatoes, but import potatoes, because that's financial beneficial). Do you think other countries have excess to sell us just sitting around in warehouses?
    - oaiey 8y ago
      What I wanted to express, obviously very bad, that it is just a contract among countries. Powerful countries which cannot be pressured it anything. There will not be nuclear war, food shortages or polish plumpers invasion.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Yes, I'm aware that dishonourable people in powerful positions will ignore their commitments and contractual agreements. That works, mostly, when you're a large org doing things like not paying workers (but, unions!) or you're a government disenfranchising citizens (but elections, coups), etc.. However, try it with someone who has power over you - like your police force, your bank, your boss ... now realise that the EU is the strongest organisation in the region. We, in the UK, really, really, need them for food security, for energy security, possibly for defense of things keep going the way they are with Russia. Sure, they want us, but if we piss off the EU even more then we're going to have to dramatically change our lifestyle in order not to starve; and I don't know about you but I want the UK, and the EU, to thrive.
celticninja 8y ago
I'm really not sure what your point is. Clarification?
- growlist 8y ago
  It's clear to me - why is such a powerful country acting like such a cowardly custard?
  - afiori 8y ago
    It is like asking why a powerlifter is scared of cancer... you are not really talking about comparable things
frostburg 8y ago
Nuclear weapons won't do much about car bombs in London or help with EU negotiations unless the UK wants to re-enact a more rainy Mad Max after leaving.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
If a hard border returns to Northern Ireland, as it might, all it could take is one border incident to kick things off again. This contract matters, as does keeping free movement on the island. For everyone in Ireland, north and south, and many in Britain too.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  I'm just old enough to remember the IRA blowing thing up in the late 80's and nineties on the mainland. I don't think any sane person wants to go back to mortar attacks on Westminster. It seems strange how we dealt with the ever present threat of the IRA differently to the threat of Islamist terrorism. Yet in terms of casualties the IRA killed more people more regularly.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Me too, I was working in Docklands when there was the bombing [1]. First time I ever saw an armed policeman in a mainland UK street. Forget pistol, they were wielding MP5s. > threat of the IRA differently to the threat of Islamist terrorism Fully agree. The overreaction has been extreme. I don't understand why the political reaction hasn't been more like it was. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing
    - noir_lord 8y ago
      I have a theory that during the cold warn western democracies behaved better towards their own people because they had a 'bad guy's to compare against. A sort of 'would they do this in East Germany? Then maybe we shouldnt' yardstick. Also I think a lot of the over reaction to terrorism is just a power/land grab by the intelligence services, I mean they do valuable work but we don't really know how much and what the net benefit of any is. The leaks have been egregious fairly consistently though. Snowden has my respect for confirming what a lot of us techies suspected but couldn't prove.
      - 8y ago
dalore 8y ago
Because then no country trusts or will do deals with you again. Let's see Britain is struggling to get trading partners, so let's show ourselves unworthy to be trading partners. That doesn't help.
- growlist 8y ago
  Doubtful. I'm sure plenty of countries would hold their nose and rub their hands together at the prospect of better access to the UK's market.
notahacker 8y ago
The UK has the theoretical capacity to renege on the Withdrawal Agreement after signing it and declare that Northern Ireland is leaving the Single Market permanently regardless of whether the EU and Ireland still have reasonable objections to the alternative border arrangements. But intentionally breaching an international agreement probably isn't the best way of starting a brave new era of signing new international trade agreements, even before the likely resulting strife in NI is considered.

by oaiey 8y ago

AndrewDucker 8y ago

Are you suggesting that the UK makes the EU trade with it by threatening to nuke it if it doesn't? Because that's horrifying, and I can't see how else to read your comment.

oaiey 8y ago
No not at all. They negotiate like two normal entities. But I think it is funny to have a nuclear power being scared about a line in a contract it signs. It can just declare: I ignore that line and then wait what the other side will do. The worst case is that the EU is also breaking the contract - maybe completely - which is then ... the same as no-deal.
- barrkel 8y ago
  I don't really see what relevance nuclear weapons have on trade agreements. Trade is an iterated cooperation game. Nuclear weapons have no second turn.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  So, you're suggesting that if the EU responded with trade sanctions that we'd ... what, threaten them with nukes? You don't think there might be a point in the future where we want to trade with any of the other 26 countries of the EU ever again? You want to declare war on them to support our project of making UK an economic backwater ... I thought I'd heard it all ... wow. What's your position on importing food? Given we don't produce enough to feed us and if we revert land to food use we'll have to sacrifice higher profit uses (e.g. we export seed potatoes, but import potatoes, because that's financial beneficial). Do you think other countries have excess to sell us just sitting around in warehouses?
  - oaiey 8y ago
    What I wanted to express, obviously very bad, that it is just a contract among countries. Powerful countries which cannot be pressured it anything. There will not be nuclear war, food shortages or polish plumpers invasion.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Yes, I'm aware that dishonourable people in powerful positions will ignore their commitments and contractual agreements. That works, mostly, when you're a large org doing things like not paying workers (but, unions!) or you're a government disenfranchising citizens (but elections, coups), etc.. However, try it with someone who has power over you - like your police force, your bank, your boss ... now realise that the EU is the strongest organisation in the region. We, in the UK, really, really, need them for food security, for energy security, possibly for defense of things keep going the way they are with Russia. Sure, they want us, but if we piss off the EU even more then we're going to have to dramatically change our lifestyle in order not to starve; and I don't know about you but I want the UK, and the EU, to thrive.

celticninja 8y ago

I'm really not sure what your point is. Clarification?

growlist 8y ago
It's clear to me - why is such a powerful country acting like such a cowardly custard?
- afiori 8y ago
  It is like asking why a powerlifter is scared of cancer... you are not really talking about comparable things

frostburg 8y ago

Nuclear weapons won't do much about car bombs in London or help with EU negotiations unless the UK wants to re-enact a more rainy Mad Max after leaving.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

If a hard border returns to Northern Ireland, as it might, all it could take is one border incident to kick things off again. This contract matters, as does keeping free movement on the island. For everyone in Ireland, north and south, and many in Britain too.

noir_lord 8y ago
I'm just old enough to remember the IRA blowing thing up in the late 80's and nineties on the mainland. I don't think any sane person wants to go back to mortar attacks on Westminster. It seems strange how we dealt with the ever present threat of the IRA differently to the threat of Islamist terrorism. Yet in terms of casualties the IRA killed more people more regularly.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Me too, I was working in Docklands when there was the bombing [1]. First time I ever saw an armed policeman in a mainland UK street. Forget pistol, they were wielding MP5s. > threat of the IRA differently to the threat of Islamist terrorism Fully agree. The overreaction has been extreme. I don't understand why the political reaction hasn't been more like it was. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing
  - noir_lord 8y ago
    I have a theory that during the cold warn western democracies behaved better towards their own people because they had a 'bad guy's to compare against. A sort of 'would they do this in East Germany? Then maybe we shouldnt' yardstick. Also I think a lot of the over reaction to terrorism is just a power/land grab by the intelligence services, I mean they do valuable work but we don't really know how much and what the net benefit of any is. The leaks have been egregious fairly consistently though. Snowden has my respect for confirming what a lot of us techies suspected but couldn't prove.
    - 8y ago

dalore 8y ago

Because then no country trusts or will do deals with you again. Let's see Britain is struggling to get trading partners, so let's show ourselves unworthy to be trading partners. That doesn't help.

growlist 8y ago
Doubtful. I'm sure plenty of countries would hold their nose and rub their hands together at the prospect of better access to the UK's market.

notahacker 8y ago

The UK has the theoretical capacity to renege on the Withdrawal Agreement after signing it and declare that Northern Ireland is leaving the Single Market permanently regardless of whether the EU and Ireland still have reasonable objections to the alternative border arrangements. But intentionally breaching an international agreement probably isn't the best way of starting a brave new era of signing new international trade agreements, even before the likely resulting strife in NI is considered.