[ad_1]
What drives politicians like the British Prime Minister to act against their own knowledge? Why this departure from the ability to make a pact and a responsibility?
Political tactics become dangerous, especially in crises. Annoying and annoying because it involves an action that is not based on knowledge and reason, but on moods and the goal of maintaining power.
If the president of the United States, Donald Trump, as Bob Woodward shows in his new book, knew the dangers of the coronavirus from the beginning, but informed the population very differently, he was largely irresponsible. He risked the health of the population by pure calculation of power. If British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for similar tactical reasons, breaks the exit agreement he signed with the EU eleven months ago with a new bill, he will destroy more than just his country’s reputation. Knowingly, you risk misdirection of the population and a new bloody conflict in Northern Ireland.
Why do politicians act against your knowledge? What leads you to lose sight of people’s well-being and peace? Johnson acted against the recommendations of his legal adviser Jonathan Jones, who later resigned. He did not even heed the objections of his secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, who warned against breaching an international treaty. The only explanation for Johnson’s decision is deeply puzzling: it plays on the mood of his constituents, serves those supporters who dream of an all-encompassing sovereignty. It is a dream that you can never fulfill in times of international networking. The Oxford alumnus knows this, but doesn’t act on it.
Let’s put aside all the economic turmoil Britain can expect from Brexit. The agreement to exit the EU is mainly political and not economic. It regulates clean separation and has installed a safety net for the divided Irish island at a central point. This passage is intended to prevent the bloody conflict from erupting again. It is an agreement that guarantees that Catholics in Northern Ireland will not be separated from their relatives in the south and that the peace process can continue with cross-border cooperation.
To secure these core points of the Good Friday Agreement (the Irish internal open border) after Britain leaves the domestic market, controls must be introduced on trade in goods somewhere between Northern Ireland and the British Isles. That would be impractical, but doable. The real problem is that these controls would expose British sovereignty in general as a pipe dream. Rather than relying on the spread of illusions, Johnson could have told his people that these border controls wouldn’t even have to be introduced if Britain and the EU agreed to comprehensive free trade. But the once economically liberal country is now far from this solution. Ruling conservatives prefer state aid and protectionism over open borders.
