At the risk of providing @blackpool72 with, ahem, "relief"....*
On a day when Theresa May sees David Davis' "Brexit will not be some kind of Mad Max style dystopia", and raises him (in the 'how low can I set the bar for success?' stakes) with "Brexit will not be the end of the World", and I do think that not actually Armageddon and the Second Coming seems to trump the previous benchmark, things seem to be being quietly interesting today (and not just because of the PM's dancing)..
While, at the same time, Liam Fox seems to signal his confidence in both Dominic Raab and Theresa May, by asking Asian countries to negotiate on the UK's behalf: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-asia/liam-fox-urges-asia-counterparts-to-convey-brexit-views-to-eu-cnbc-idUKKCN1LD0WQ?rpc=401& (I'm not really sure that, with the exception of plants/subsidiaries in the UK, Brexit will dramatically affect the trading between Asia and the EU27, and, if it is subsidiaries in the UK that he means, it would, IMHO, strengthen the argument that the Asian countries would lobby the UK for the softest possible Brexit more than the EU).
*Typing this, today, feels somehow dirty, and not in a good way....
What is great about this event is it is where reality meets theory, sloganising, posturing and so on. A bit of good old sweaty reality. This is why I bang on about the land border on the island of Ireland. Soon enough that is going to become some sort of sweaty practical reality, like portaloos on the M2, or no health help abroad when the EHIC card is invalidated. All the brexiters who continually say, just leave, let's get on with it, I'm fed up with it now, are going to have to deal with stuff previously called project fear.
Given that much law is based on John Stuart Mill's principle that people are free to do as they please on the proviso that it doesn't harm others. And given that we know that Brexit will be harmful to the majority. Is there not some way that it would be illegal for the government to pursue Brexit knowing the harm that it would cause? With most government actions there are winners and losers and it can be argued that where individuals are harmed it is for the greater good. What is abundantly clear with Brexit is that there is no greater good and therefore no mitigation for the harm that will be done.
I'll hold the traditionalist legal philosophers back while you make a run for it....
I'm not sure that, in the English, Welsh and Irish Common Law system, too many would agree, with your laws from time immemorial and all that.
Mill was just a 19th Century blow in.
That's a shame, just getting desperate to be honest. Trying to think of anything that could stop this farce.
There is absolutely no need to get desperate. 25% of the 650 Labour constituency parties are contemplating supporting resolutions to the September conference prioritising a shift towards a second/people's vote. Whilst the leadership might contemplate a backlash in the Brexit heartlands there's nothing wrong with Labour moving towards a democratic approach to the final outcome, i.e., no deal, vs whatever might be negotiated vs no Brexit. Especially when their whole agenda is about addressing the causes of inequality and lack of productivity outside the metropolitan areas. Somebody more familiar with Labour structures would have to explain likely outcomes - we can be sure that they will surface in the run up to conference.
Second there are a number of campaigns open to all which are also supporting a second vote. Somebody in momentum is close to securing 4,400 on a petition which in turn will trigger a vote across the whole of Momentums 44,000 supporters. Unite (The other major force in Labour) do not back a second vote but have not ruled it out, depending upon circumstances. So there are two opportunities for you and others to participate - either join Labour and help swing them to a better position or join one of the People's vote campaigns.
And finally, the Tories are going into a civil war over Brexit - Rees Mogg is laying into the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and his ERG is now a party within a party - out of control. The fact that he has just talked to manned (armed?) checkpoints on the Irish border show that he's "for the birds" as the Irish might say.
There is a hard core minority of c.30% looking for a Brexit at any cost and the more likely a "no deal" looks, the more our trading partners, the markets and the polls will kick off. Some now talk of 40 Tory Remain rebels who might block a "no deal" but that's very hard to assess. Things will move from September onwards and the movement will be unpredictable probably turbulent at times.
Q4 2018 looks to be the most dynamic and turbulent since Q4 2008 after they pulled the plug on Lehman Brothers. Don't get desparate, become informed, and make your voice heard - take back control!
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
Just back from Holiday and spent a while pondering my position on Brexit by the pool. I have to be honest and say, I have no love for the EU in its present form. I believe Germany and possibly France have too much power over its direction of travel and it is too dictatorial and beaurocratic. It has followed monetary policies that are damaging to working people and nations. It is too undemocratic in its construction, possibly because it needs to be to control what it has decided it needs to control. Which it doesn't but the beast has to feed itself! It is a construct of Germany in many ways, and an aim was to prevent European wars which understandably Germans are sensiitive about. But I think it is only making conflicts more likely! It has sewn the seeds of discord which is already biting its members with its inability to see that wage suppression and uncontrolled immigration are recipes for rebellion and rascism! Mind you it is no more undemocratic than our own system of government in fairness!
Despite what I believe, we are still very foolish leaving it though. It is too powerful and leaving in the acrimonious way that we are doing is only going to damage us and make most of us poorer in the short to medium term at least. It is more likely we will be made an example of, because the EU fears other countries doing what we have done. It will try to put others off, because it feels weakened and vulnerable and having an organisation of its size with that objective is stupid in the extreme. We were told repeatedly that the EU would be biting our hands off to do deals! That was never going to happen, even if it has to pay an economic penalty. I think that we are entering a point in time where there is scope to change the direction of the EU from within which we look to have missed. Look at the electoral reactions in Italy and Germany. That is what any sensible country would do in our position. We would have been well placed to fight from within and gain alliances to get it to become more like what it should have been, A powerful trading block of like minded, but independent nations!
What we are doing is walking away from the game and taking our ball with us. The problem is, that only works when the people you are walking away from don't have a ball! The game might not be quite so good without us, but they can still play it!
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
How can the EU give or take when we are so damn vague about what it is we want them to give or take, other than items we no they can't move on as we were part of the international treaties amongst the 28 countries that would need to be broken for the EU to give or take what we want.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
I bow to you on that sir, the Chicago Convention stuff. My point remains though, none of this dreadful malarkey would be going on if the UK, and the UK alone hadn't voted for brexit. Voting for brexit was the UK's right, and the responsibilities that flow from that is in my view down to the UK to sort out.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
I bow to you on that sir, the Chicago Convention stuff. My point remains though, none of this dreadful malarkey would be going on if the UK, and the UK alone hadn't voted for brexit. Voting for brexit was the UK's right, and the responsibilities that flow from that is in my view down to the UK to sort out.
Well, I think we're coming from two different points. You see Brexit as the heart of the problem. I see Brexit as a fact that has to be addressed and I believe it is not beyond the grasp of intelligent, practical people to sort out many of the problems. Unfortunately, the process is being driven by politicians whose first responsibility is to politics, not practicality. The EU's main priority is to preserve its own existence and keep the Euro propped up. The UK government's main priority is to maintain it's parliamentary majority under a lame duck prime minister. Not a recipe for success whichever side of the negotiating table you sit on.
I am curious to know why Theresa May thinks that scuttling around Africa, pleading with various countries to allow us to rollover their EU trade deals is such a palatable thing for her supporters. It's curious because, by doing this, the very best possible outcome we could get, is no better than we already have; and there's a risk that we will end up with deals that are worse, or require us to offer more.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
I bow to you on that sir, the Chicago Convention stuff. My point remains though, none of this dreadful malarkey would be going on if the UK, and the UK alone hadn't voted for brexit. Voting for brexit was the UK's right, and the responsibilities that flow from that is in my view down to the UK to sort out.
Well, I think we're coming from two different points. You see Brexit as the heart of the problem. I see Brexit as a fact that has to be addressed and I believe it is not beyond the grasp of intelligent, practical people to sort out many of the problems. Unfortunately, the process is being driven by politicians whose first responsibility is to politics, not practicality. The EU's main priority is to preserve its own existence and keep the Euro propped up. The UK government's main priority is to maintain it's parliamentary majority under a lame duck prime minister. Not a recipe for success whichever side of the negotiating table you sit on.
Yes we approach this from different points of view. You feel that intelligent practical people can sort out many of the problems, but with a no deal brexit those same good people don't only have to sort out many of the problems, they have to sort out all of the problems. There for me is the issue. There has for example been years now for anybody so minded, politician or non politician, academics, or even interest parties concerned about systems and procedures to suggest a practical and workable solution to the (wait for it) Irish border issue. It has been often repeated that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', almost as many times as 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. Without anybody of any persuasion, political position, or nationality, being able to sort out the Irish problem brexit wont happen...axiomatically.
The vote for brexit will be invalidated not because of the mendacity of any particular force but because of two simple almost scientific factors.
1 The UK voted for brexit. 2 The UK voted for the impossible.
What has the EU to gain by going out of its way to help the UK? I think it has everything to lose if Brexit became a success. So it is stupid for it it to act against its own interests and us expect it to do so. I made this point prior to the referendum repeatedly. Some Brexiters said, we shouldn't want to be part of an EU which is capable of punishing us. But we shouldn't want to be part of a UK that sells arms to the Saudis to murder children with, but we are. I think the EU, trying to protect itself and disuade other nations from acting as stupidly as us, is far less of a crime, and we have the opportunity to stop this act of madness. A soft Brexit would at least damage us far less, even though it makes no sense compared to no Brexit!
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Seth you are an intelligent person but your posts are now bordering on hysterical rants. Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
He may be - we do differ on that point. I think the EU will never admit to it - why should they? But if leaving the EU was possibly as beneficial to you as it was to the UK, wouldn't it become the fashion? I think it comes down to logic.
To be honest I am not in favour of a second vote. The schisms the UK has already had over brexit will be ramped up to the N'th degree, and if remain wins it won't be decisive, and will lead to a call of best of three.
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
This is the sort of stuff that degenerates any sensible discussion on Brexit - which seems to be a commodity rarer than hen's teeth these days. Nobody voted to ground all air traffic and it's false argument to say they did. Air transport should be one of the more straightforward things to address as the majority of it is governed by international treaties and Eurocontrol already has non-EU members and has done for years. The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem. The institution of the EU is quite prepared to visit suffering on its member states to preserve its own existence. Greece and Cyprus know all about that.
I am afraid i disagree, even if you would like to shut down such a comment as I made as the degeneration of any sensible discussion (have you met Chippy by the way).
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
100% seems a very certain number. Negotiation is never 100%, the best outcomes are between reasonable parties seeking a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, I see very little give and take in the EU's approach to anything over Brexit. Witness Leo Vradakar making unfounded claims on Ireland overflight rights, which are guaranteed by the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and have nothing to do with the EU.
For what it's worth, and I think he was cack-handed at best in saying it, I believe what Leo Varadkar was attempting to refer to was the Open Skies agreements with the USA and the right to fly into and out of countries within the ECAA, together with issues like EASA and recognition of the UK safety authorities. In which case, he would have a bit of a point.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
So if I walk out of one bar and into a second, and I'm shot by the owner of the first bar because I left, it's my fault? Wow - great logic Seth.
Eh? If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either. If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Seth you are an intelligent person but your posts are now bordering on hysterical rants. Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
Your advice is probably good advice, but i am really really struggling wrestling with this brexit demon, I admit that.
If what I write is a series of hysterical rants then maybe I would find it easier to calm down if they are shown up for what they are as hysterical.
The problem for me is that on here at least, and elsewhere too, no brexiter can paint a scenario where life will continue in anything other than an incredibly diminished form.
There can be a debate on how diminished. Some Brexiters are ok with that happening. I think there can be conflation between left and right on certain principles - and this is one of them. If you look at Tony Benn, who is a hero of Corbyn's, he was always against the EU - but on a fundamental point of principle. He believed that it is better to have a bad government, the people could get rid of, than a benign one that they couldn't. His reasoning is the benign one can change and act against your interests and you can't stop it! He saw the EU in those terms and the argument from many on the right about sovreignty is not far from the same source. The EU has been responsible for imposing austerity that the left are angry about, and for imposing rules to protect workers, that the right see as doing the opposite, because it damages the ability to create wealth. Different sides of the same coin.
I take the pragmatic view - if we are going to be worse off - don't leave it. Try to fight to make it more what you want, but don't cut your own throat to spite your face.
Comments
On a day when Theresa May sees David Davis' "Brexit will not be some kind of Mad Max style dystopia", and raises him (in the 'how low can I set the bar for success?' stakes) with "Brexit will not be the end of the World", and I do think that not actually Armageddon and the Second Coming seems to trump the previous benchmark, things seem to be being quietly interesting today (and not just because of the PM's dancing)..
The Swedish view: https://theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/irish-border-question-must-be-solved-by-uk-not-eu-says-sweden, and the hardening (can I say hardening, or would that excite @blackpool72 too much?
While, at the same time, Liam Fox seems to signal his confidence in both Dominic Raab and Theresa May, by asking Asian countries to negotiate on the UK's behalf: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-asia/liam-fox-urges-asia-counterparts-to-convey-brexit-views-to-eu-cnbc-idUKKCN1LD0WQ?rpc=401& (I'm not really sure that, with the exception of plants/subsidiaries in the UK, Brexit will dramatically affect the trading between Asia and the EU27, and, if it is subsidiaries in the UK that he means, it would, IMHO, strengthen the argument that the Asian countries would lobby the UK for the softest possible Brexit more than the EU).
*Typing this, today, feels somehow dirty, and not in a good way....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
More of this to come, once Brexit has happened?
Agree that this is only likely to be the beginning. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
A bit of good old sweaty reality.
This is why I bang on about the land border on the island of Ireland. Soon enough that is going to become some sort of sweaty practical reality, like portaloos on the M2, or no health help abroad when the EHIC card is invalidated.
All the brexiters who continually say, just leave, let's get on with it, I'm fed up with it now, are going to have to deal with stuff previously called project fear.
Second there are a number of campaigns open to all which are also supporting a second vote. Somebody in momentum is close to securing 4,400 on a petition which in turn will trigger a vote across the whole of Momentums 44,000 supporters. Unite (The other major force in Labour) do not back a second vote but have not ruled it out, depending upon circumstances. So there are two opportunities for you and others to participate - either join Labour and help swing them to a better position or join one of the People's vote campaigns.
And finally, the Tories are going into a civil war over Brexit - Rees Mogg is laying into the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and his ERG is now a party within a party - out of control. The fact that he has just talked to manned (armed?) checkpoints on the Irish border show that he's "for the birds" as the Irish might say.
There is a hard core minority of c.30% looking for a Brexit at any cost and the more likely a "no deal" looks, the more our trading partners, the markets and the polls will kick off. Some now talk of 40 Tory Remain rebels who might block a "no deal" but that's very hard to assess. Things will move from September onwards and the movement will be unpredictable probably turbulent at times.
Q4 2018 looks to be the most dynamic and turbulent since Q4 2008 after they pulled the plug on Lehman Brothers. Don't get desparate, become informed, and make your voice heard - take back control!
The only solution I can think of, is that if brexiters want home grown democracy, then our MP's (or parliamentary candidates in an election situation) should be brave enough to tell their constituents where they stand and act accordingly, even at the risk of being de-selected, not elected, or losing their seats.
The other way is to have a full on no deal brexit where there is absolutely no compromise or accommodation from anywhere, and we get in to full scale chaos where scallop wars would be the smallest of skirmishes.
A good place to start with this would be the abandonment of all air travel co-operation, which is what brexiters voted for, and then let each horror happen day by day, like no radioactive isotopes, no medication imported or exported, all EU citizens forcibly repatriated, and all UK citizens forced to return...and so on and on and on.
This is (in my view) absolutely what each and every brexit voter has ushered in with their vote.
Brexit won, then in the absence of brexiters themselves leading any climb down, then brexiters themselves should be the ones to manage the hell created with their no deal.
Despite what I believe, we are still very foolish leaving it though. It is too powerful and leaving in the acrimonious way that we are doing is only going to damage us and make most of us poorer in the short to medium term at least. It is more likely we will be made an example of, because the EU fears other countries doing what we have done. It will try to put others off, because it feels weakened and vulnerable and having an organisation of its size with that objective is stupid in the extreme. We were told repeatedly that the EU would be biting our hands off to do deals! That was never going to happen, even if it has to pay an economic penalty. I think that we are entering a point in time where there is scope to change the direction of the EU from within which we look to have missed. Look at the electoral reactions in Italy and Germany. That is what any sensible country would do in our position. We would have been well placed to fight from within and gain alliances to get it to become more like what it should have been, A powerful trading block of like minded, but independent nations!
What we are doing is walking away from the game and taking our ball with us. The problem is, that only works when the people you are walking away from don't have a ball! The game might not be quite so good without us, but they can still play it!
You said: The only reason for international air travel to be dislocated over Brexit is if the EU wants it to be, and therein lies the core of the problem.
I disagree because there is one (other?) fundamental reason, and that is that the UK voted for brexit. Not the EU, not any other country on earth.
Any actual or potential disruption to air travel would be 100% down to the UK and it's brexit vote. If the UK had not voted for brexit nobody would be even contemplating that air travel could be disrupted. How on earth can it be laid at the door of the EU?
My point remains though, none of this dreadful malarkey would be going on if the UK, and the UK alone hadn't voted for brexit.
Voting for brexit was the UK's right, and the responsibilities that flow from that is in my view down to the UK to sort out.
But, as this thread has moved towards the issue of international flights, I thought I would have my two penn'orth on that.
Air travel is one of the simplest ways of determining whether someone understands the concept of a "no deal" Brexit.
We voted Leave and, as things stand, we will be leaving in a few months' time, either with a deal, or with no deal. A no deal scenario means the UK no longer participates, or is required to adhere to, any of the institutions of the EU or its regulations; we save the c£39bn cost; we no longer contribute to forward costs; we lose the benefits of EU regulations. A lot of people like that.
However, when it's suggested that this same scenario means that we will lose the benefit of passenger and freight traffic passing through EU airspace, the number of people pushing for a no deal Brexit diminishes. When it's further pointed out that we would lose the opportunity to operate flights to or from the UK that pass anywhere through EU airspace (so flights to the US, Africa, Middle East, etc, are ruled out; and flights to the Far East and Asia Pacific would have to be routed via a more expensive, slower North Pole route) the no deal cheerleaders fall away even faster.
The same is true of Galileo access. And Euratom. And all other EU institutions from which we might want to pick and choose.
So *either* you want a no deal Brexit, *or* you want to be able to fly to places, drive to places and ensure you have access to cancer treatment in the UK.
No deal means no deal. It doesn't mean no deal, but with some deals for some things. The curious thing is that some people *still* think that there could be a deal worse than no deal.
Bonkers.
You feel that intelligent practical people can sort out many of the problems, but with a no deal brexit those same good people don't only have to sort out many of the problems, they have to sort out all of the problems.
There for me is the issue.
There has for example been years now for anybody so minded, politician or non politician, academics, or even interest parties concerned about systems and procedures to suggest a practical and workable solution to the (wait for it) Irish border issue.
It has been often repeated that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', almost as many times as 'no deal is better than a bad deal'.
Without anybody of any persuasion, political position, or nationality, being able to sort out the Irish problem brexit wont happen...axiomatically.
The vote for brexit will be invalidated not because of the mendacity of any particular force but because of two simple almost scientific factors.
1 The UK voted for brexit.
2 The UK voted for the impossible.
Wow - great logic Seth.
If you mean the EU are after shooting the UK for leaving, not only is that not what I am suggesting, it isn't what the EU is threatening either.
If you leave a bar, what happens next is down to you.
Are you mixing up what I said with what @MuttleyCAFC said?
Just chill a bit mate when Brexit happens life will continue.
But, even if he wasn't, a significant number of airlines are banned from EU air space because of safety problems or inadequate national supervision - handily, the CAA publishes the list (what happens if, at 11pm on 29 March, the CAA is not considered to have sufficient oversight of UK air lines?).
If there is no agreement of any sort, and the UK crashed out of the EU on 29 March, not having any replacement regimes in place (including safety certificates - which could make insurers very jittery, which they would seek to reduce by the application of huge amounts of cash) it is debatable whether UK carriers could lawfully fly anywhere outside the UK (though the same would hold true for EU and, for example, US carriers seeking to fly into the UK). I know the American authorities are willing to agree a new deal with the UK (I don't know if one can be signed off in advance of leaving the EU), but it will, almost by definition, be weighted in favour of American interests, with fewer opportunities available to UK carriers than now.
I do, actually, think that, even without a wider deal, an interim agreement would be put in place for air transport, until such time as new relationships could be negotiated.
PS The Chicago Convention is not my regular reading material, but would Article 6 not be worthy of consideration?
If what I write is a series of hysterical rants then maybe I would find it easier to calm down if they are shown up for what they are as hysterical.
The problem for me is that on here at least, and elsewhere too, no brexiter can paint a scenario where life will continue in anything other than an incredibly diminished form.
I take the pragmatic view - if we are going to be worse off - don't leave it. Try to fight to make it more what you want, but don't cut your own throat to spite your face.