So Single White Female Trump may be what leads to unification of Ireland.
7 Likes
4 Likes
No, I never said that. I said that if she and Corbyn werenât there then there would be an easier path to a caretaker government. (Nor did I say that Corbyn wasnât fit to lead such a government, only that such a government was less likely to form while he was the putative leader because others would not be willing to join under him.)
These two factors - Corbynâs dmand to be the leader, and Swinsonâs unwillingness to endorse a plan with Corbyn as leader - are both impediments, whether or not one agrees with one of them.
2 Likes
What I find puzzling about these âalternate measuresâ (and suspect is one reason why nobody seems willing to discuss them in detail) is how they are supposed to square the circle of being an EU/UK border without being a border border.
Unless you are willing to move the goalposts with some fairly massive âpersonal useâ tariff/regulation exemptions and build a customs barrier that pretty much isnât a barrier at all (except for the very most auditable firms who keep honest shipping records and can be punished after the fact); the requirements of a customs barrier and a barrier barrier arenât obviously different.
Customs barriers have a somewhat fuzzier reputation just because they are more likely to be in largely peaceful borders where most travelers cooperate without any direct coercion and any defiance is limited to attempts to sneak stuff through, while border borders include a lot of historical examples involving machine gun nests, razor wire; and equilibria maintained only by naked force; but thatâs a difference in context rather than a difference between border types.
Given that this border has poor odds of remaining the kind where everyone voluntarily and politely queues up to present their phytosanitary certificates purely out of respect for the rules; itâs hard to see how a customs border wonât end up looking pretty border-border-y; which isnât considered an acceptable outcome.
Even if they do go for(and stick to) a modernized take on Igloo White/Muscle Shoals; it will still end up being a fairly imposing (in the sense that people feel oppressed by; and resent) because gathering all that sensor data doesnât actually stop, enforce, tax, etc. anyone or anything unless you follow up on sensor hits; with âfollow up onâ likely implying something between the systems that robomail red light camera tickets and a giant stop-and-frisk zone.
Even assuming no issues in implementation; has anyone been nailed down on a proposal for an EU/UK land border that is somehow also Good Friday compliant? I see vague references to âtechnologyâ and âalternativeâ; but nobody seems to have even a stupid plan they are willing to talk about; much less a plausible one.
3 Likes
Because itâs impossible, thatâs why.
The venn diagram of Brexit still applies:
As does the EUâs âBrexit in one slideâ powerpoint, which shows how the Tories have painted themselves directly into the no deal corner with their own set of red lines.
Any possible deal means changing these lines or cancelling A50, otherwise, itâs over the cliff on Halloween And then, the only positive from that situation is that it might be possible to salvage something from the smashed wreckage that was once the UK.
10 Likes
Why remove both of them? You just need to remove Corbyn, Swinson wouldnât be an impediment to the formation of a caretaker government if Corbyn wasnât there, Swinson isnât the only one who would object to a Corbyn led government either, so by your logic half the MPs in the house should resign as well. Youâve not thought this one through.
And youâre not focusing. Iâm not saying we should remove either of them, let alone both, thatâs not my call. Right now the leaders of the 2nd and 4th largest parties in the UK are objecting to the otherâs vision of a caretaker coalition. If they werenât doing that the chance of such a coalition would be greater. You and I might have opinions over who is the bigger problem right now, we might even agree, but right now both of them are standing firm on things the other wonât accept.
2 Likes
5 Likes
2 Likes
if the meat says it has travelled from Germany or the Netherlands or especially Southern Ireland it goes back on the shelf to be replaced by something wholesome from the UK.
âSouthern Irelandâ. See, thatâs how you win the hearts and minds of your neighbors.
7 Likes
Oh, and another great quote:
As an EU member, Germany cannot strike its own trade deals without the approval of the rest of the bloc. Who are these new found customers German food producers have found elsewhere?
ErrâŚ. In all the other countries the EU have various trade deals with?
[largest trading partners of the EU]
(http://List of the largest trading partners of the European Union)
4 Likes
This is fine. /s
7 Likes
This is were we have to agree to disagree.
The courtâs ruling came with provisions.
So in the unlikely case of the UK revoking Article 50, an interested party could sue to have the Court decide if those provisions are met.
All it takes is one member country thatâs vulnerable to a disgruntled populist party.
Sound familar?
Predicted this the moment the Brexit referendum was announced.
UK votes âleaveâ
Good Friday Accords are shitcanned
Republicans say âTold you not to trust the fucking British.â
IRA gets all the recruits it can handle
5 Likes
Thereâs no agreeing to disagree, this isnât a matter of opinion. The matter has already been ruled on, the ECJ is under no obligation to hear the case again. If a case was brought again, and they referred the applicant back to the original ruling then thereâs nothing they could do about it, it would be the end of the matter, doesnât matter how disgruntled any particular member state might be.
The court ruled that X is legal if Y and Z apply. That makes it a matter of opinion and it would be up to the court to decide.
And if the talk of reunification continues, does that mean there will be a similar movement on the other side?
1 Like
Damfino. I was just making a prediction back then. It looks like it was correct
2 Likes
All Iâm saying is that theyâre under no obligation to even hear the case.
Also, I canât imagine a scenario where Y and Z donât apply (the only even slightly believable situation where article 50 gets revoked would be followed by a general election and/or a new referendum, either of which prevent âunequivocal and unconditionalâ being relevant, any new triggering of article 50 following either of those events would be an entirely separate situation, with a new democratic mandate).
No level of disgruntlement from anyone opposed to the revocation will be able to influence their decision either, either thereâs grounds to reopen the case or thereâs not, the only situation where there would be one would be Johnson attempting to revoke as a delaying tactic (with the deliberate intention of triggering it again in the same government), but heâs never going to do that, and even then, itâs hard to see how anyone could legally object without possessing a crystal ball.
