Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
philosophical
Well-Known Member
The common travel area negates borders in the usual sense.
When you travel from Lewisham to Bromley the speed limit changes, but there are no border checks as such between those boroughs. I think of the CTA in Ireland as being like going from Lewisham to Bromley.
The significance is that it you leave something there is a border.
When you travel from Lewisham to Bromley the speed limit changes, but there are no border checks as such between those boroughs. I think of the CTA in Ireland as being like going from Lewisham to Bromley.
The significance is that it you leave something there is a border.
philosophical
Well-Known Member
The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.
So the common travel area applies to both the UK and the EU.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So all states with common area treaties are then, by this absurd logic, also members of EU style supra-states. We could literally annul every piece of EU legislation but if we have a common travel area agreement with Ireland we are still in the EU. Right.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
There's a sort of bittersweet feeling watching all the great expectations on both sides being dashed by the price they suddenly realising they have to pay to get their choice through.
Even two years after the result, there's no rest for the fantasists on both both sides thinking that one more push will lead them towards a brave new world be it some mythical pan-European free market or the 51st State of a WTO based Atlantacist market.
Such fantasy poison. Street by street faith in liberal democracy is collapsing as social concerns are dismissed as stupid questions. Migrants are villified as vagabonds if they happen to be poor or feted as innicein victims if they're on an Erasmus.
Yet, the Remainer vote has yet to translate into a political voice for Lib Dems or Green and grey men in grey suits chip away at liberal democracy in the name of democracy.
The howl of "get me out" that the referendum result gave voiced is portrayed as impractical Brexiteer purity by the media and the soi-disant moderates as they Scrabble for BINO, but their failure to address this voice leaves a space for others to fill, others perhaps more intent on exploiting division, for good or ill. Here comes the war.
Ignore these voices at your peril, for vengeance will be sought, one way or another
May's deal is not a wonderful way to go. Obviously, she's not the Queen of My Heart or anything, nor anyone elses, but this island is simmering with discontent on all sides. The clock for Article BD3 or whatever it's called is ticking and it's wired to s powder keg that's gonna blow....
I think that's all of them. I'm really, really sorry. Blame butchersapron
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I knew i shouldn't have gone that route!
ska invita
back on the other side
To repeat, the hypothetical-proposal (ive not heard any MP propose it, just some non-parliamentary constitutional nerd who found a precedent) is that the appointed figures act as place holders BEFORE the next EU parliament sits. It would be a way of buying two months of negotiating time. The appointed figures would not sit in parliament or have any power. So meaningless in terms of technocratic power.
Will never happen, file under "dreams"
There is a super slim chance that will happen. A vote on a different plan is a cross-bench alliance of sorts I guess. Not sure any version of that's particularly technocratic though. That would be the (representative) house of commons taking back proverbial control, rather than technocrats taking over.
In short I don't think the 'Dictatorship' angle has anything to it, and even the above suggestions are tame in terms of power at best.
Now, if a Crash Out No Deal happens and one things leads to another and a state of emergency results.....maybe then.
-------
ETA: Just read this on the point #1 appointment of MEPs, which suggests that in one eventuality they might take their seats after all :
"Ambassadors seem keen to signal that they would respond if Boles succeeded in allowing parliament to vote to suspend article 50, so removing the 29 March deadline for the UK’s departure.
A diplomat said: “It must come from the UK parliament, but if it passes a simple bill to delay article 50, then that means no deal is off the table, and Europe, I am sure, will respond not flexibly, but super flexibly.”
The previous assumption that Europe would only accept deferral if there was a clear plan to hold a second referendum seems to be misplaced.
The key issue is not the principle of the suspension, but its duration. Some say suspension can only go so far as the first meeting of the newly elected European parliament in July, but that may not be long enough.
One diplomat suggested the UK’s political parties could appoint MEPs to the new parliament for the interim, probably distributing the seats between the parties on the basis of the last 2014 European elections. “Some federalists in the European parliament might object, but there is a bigger prize there.”
This diplomat claimed the democratic objections could be overridden in the interests of an orderly Brexit."
Would see UKIP back for more lol
philosophical
Well-Known Member
In this specific case there is a CTA with an EU state, Logical or not in order to leave you have to not have a common travel area. Right?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Would have been all over by now at least.
philosophical
Well-Known Member
There is a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.
The UK intends to leave the EU.
There will be differentiation between the EU and the UK in some way or another.
The differences manifest on the/a border.
There will be a border between the UK and the EU.
There exists a common travel area between the UK and the EU, put into place by treaty and a referendum.
So in order to differentiate between the EU and the UK the common travel area has to stop, unless some kind of solution is found.
If the common travel area stops, it happens either because the GFA is changed in some way, or it is ignored in a kind of 'turn a blind eye' way.
So enlighten me and explain which bits of what I have written are wrong.
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
The point is they are trying to do this without changing the GFA, which is the circle they can't square.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
6 has the wrong tense - there already is a border between the UK and the EU
7 is wrong, as there was no referendum on the issue, it predates the ECSC, let alone the EU.
Even if they weren't wrong, your conclusion is not supported by your premises. You haven't shown that a CTA can ONLY exist for countries within the EU (or similar such body).
This is very basic logic, as a 'philosopher', you should be able to construct a basic argument using aristotelian logic. You failed.
Or, just go look at the Nordic Passport Union.
philosophical
Well-Known Member
The common travel area started in the 1920's, but there was a hard border as any cursory research would reveal. So 7 is wrong in that it reads like the common travel area happened after the EU. I apologise for that.
However events like both countries joining the EU in the form/name it was at the time, the modern 'troubles', the Good Friday Agreement, has eventually led to a common travel area such as it is today.
1998 Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement referendum - Wikipedia
I have never mentioned that a common travel area can only exist in one particular place, I am not really that aware of others that exist between two countries with different customs arrangements, maybe you know of some examples.
In the Nordic situation there is a Schlengen aspect, and checks at borders on documentation and other paperwork we (re?) introduced in 2015 and 2016 because of the 'migrant crisis'.
If you want to seize on my posts in order to either put me down or put yourself up, go ahead, but it is a handy way of avoiding the notion that the Good Friday Agreement established, more firmly or recently if you like, the common travel area to an extent that border posts were dismantled.
Leaving the EU clashes against the current common travel area within the EU.
If it doesn't, then perhaps you could explain how the land border in Ireland will operate in the future.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the 1923 introduction of the the cta does indeed pre-date the european union
and yes the comparison one which boris de pffefer wanker johnson was roundly mocked for
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
so, basically, you agree you were wrong, and are talking about the GFA not the CTA. The GFA had no formal effect upon the CTA. You are confusing the two.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Easy enough, both are three letters, ending with 'A'.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
It makes a thread so incredibly boring when people get caught up in trying to force a person to admit they are wrong, with endless back and forth about the details of how they are incorrect. Why not just correct the person and move on? No important decisions are being made on the basis of errors people make here, unlike in parliament.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
That's cool, until the original person goes 'no, I was right.' And, occasionally, the person making the correction is wrong. It's a bugger.
I’m sure May wants her withdrawal agreement, or a version of it, to be agreed. The question is what her plan B is if some form of it can’t be agreed. I suspect she would be willing to go for a no deal rather than a fundamental change of approach or another referendum. Either that or she’s bluffing quite well. What she has been successful in is holding her party together. If she had gone for a softer brexit in the first place she would probably have split the party and would have had to depend on opposition support. And if she leads us into a no deal brexit at the end of March, or a few months later, then her party should still be largely intact, whatever the consequences for everyone else. From the point of view of delivering brexit without splitting the Tories her leadership could still be seen as a success.
I’d say some kind of Norway type deal could have been achieved but would have been very difficult for any Tory leader to sell to their own party without it leading to a split.
Last edited:
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Yes, and if anyone doubts that they should read Varoufakis account of Greece's negotiations with the EU/IMF/ECB. What's more the current debate here in Britain - which is basically what model/route allows us to remain as close as possible to the neo-liberal EU single market project as possible - has only been possible because Corbyn failed to outline what a left exit could mean and would entail and left the stage open for the various administrative wings of neo liberalism to battle it out.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that's because auld corbo's really not that left wing, look at his taxation policies for example and compare and contrast with auld red jim callaghan's
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Not that much happening today, so since this is one of your favourites...
Agree that Corbyn is failing to show much radicalism but the 1970's and 2019 are quite different contexts. The point was made in 2015 that the 1997 Labour manifesto was to the left of 'Red' Ed Milliband's manifesto. Context is important when making comparisons across time.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if the left of the labour party now is far to the right of the labour party in government in the 1970s then it's not really left is it, if the people everyone thought then were right wing shits are now almost revolutionary in comparison to the dross so many people are lauding as leftists nowNot that much happening today, so since this is one of your favourites...
Agree that Corbyn is failing to show much radicalism but the 1970's and 2019 are quite different contexts. The point was made in 2015 that the 1997 Labour manifesto was to the left of 'Red' Ed Milliband's manifesto. Context is important when making comparisons across time.
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
By that logic, the Tory party in the 1950's and 60's was to the left of Corbyn.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh, it's not a good look for auld corbs, to the right of anthony eden, harold macmillan and arguably edward heath
Similar threads
