[Skybird]

Morals are desirbale or not, but not legally binding, and a legal obligation of the Irish to not brexit into a hard border I do not conclude from good Friday Agreement. Therefore the author, while practically probbaly describing a likely scenartio for the future of Brexit beiong endlessly delayed, doe snot describe a hardw-riutten fact, imo, but describes excuses why a hard Brexit could not be done because it should not be done, from his pov.


Anyhow, a treaty that cannot be cancelled, in my book in this specific detail is always already non-valid from geginning on, becasue wehre it needs consent for sides to come toegther, any side necessarily also must have the right to cancel its consent. The freedom to decide for something, necessarily must include also to decide against it, or to alter one'S views later on due to changinging times and conditions. I agree iuts can be tricky to find a reaoisable bvalöance there when to still stick with a treaty and when to concel it, practical life on many levely and ordinary laws and court cases prove it every day. But the pricniple here is what I am about. There can be no irredeemable law or treaty or agreement. Where this is claimed in it, it is naturally invalid a claim from start on.



This is not to say that it would be desirable to have the good friday agreement gone. The problem I see over Ireland is that both sides so far argue with maximum demand-positions of their opwn,. and that the eU also wants to prevent a successful Brexit by Britain at all costs to turn this whole mess into a precedence intimdating for all time to come other people thinking about leaving the eU.


Germany also has another interest here, which is behind its Euro- and credit-polcies as well: the germans have heasldessly agreed to lend so much money to others, that any collpase of the Euro and any debtor leaving the currency union would ciost Germany hilasriosu, fan tastic ammounts of money that already is goine by now, but still gets "sold" to the poublic as money we will get back later on. Germany cannot afford to help raising threats to a desintegrating Euro union, and for the same reason it can not afford to ever leave the Euro itself: the losses then could no longe rbe hidden from the german voters, ranking in the trillions (plural), if adding up everything. The last thing the Germans want, is the threat of a UK being econimically successfull in thelong run, not beign affected as much ba a Euro collapse in the forseeable future, and beign able to raise a low-tax-competitiopn against the high-tax reghime in the block that is the only thing that keeps German social systems still afloat, more or less.



Really, morals are ther last thing playing a role in international politics. On this the author of that article really is naive. Its about power and money interests.