Brexit discussion thread II

flatty

Calina wrote: »

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.

Calina

flatty wrote: »

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.

I think mismanagement and frequent game play change as a political football are the issues which affect the NHS most to be honest. But that is a far wider discussion - the point is Brexit in and of itself will not destroy it and nor will preventing Brexit protect it.

The Rape of Lucretia

"EU should not put politics above prosperity" says Davis.


What the fuuuuuck !!!

Does this man even know what his mouth is saying ?

What is Brexit but the greatest case in human history of a country putting politics ahead of prosperity ?

You just couldnt make up such Brexsh it.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well as many posters predicted Ireland signals it will block trade talks unless a satisfactory border plan is guaranteed in writing. From the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times. This needs to happen. A hard border (or any border) would be extremely detrimental for the Irish economy. I think a sea border is the way to go. Unionists will be annoyed but in fairness they tend to be annoyed at everything Irish anyway so who cares.

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

Why would they commit economic suicide by voting for Brexit? They didn't, but they had no choice in the matter. Anyway I fail to see how Northern Ireland staying in the single market is economic suicide. They could actually poach England's financial sector by doing so.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

Northern ireland would still be in the EU. They would be saved from economic suicide.
No brainer.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why would they commit economic suicide by voting for Brexit? They didn't, but they had no choice in the matter. Anyway I fail to see how Northern Ireland staying in the single market is economic suicide. They could actually poach England's financial sector by doing so.

The U.K. are getting thoroughly boxed into a corner on the Ireland issue. I can see the DUP being made to swallow hard on this.
Arlene will probably blame Dublin and heave a silent sigh of relief that she dodged the blame for Brexit bullet.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



If you had read my post properly - then I think you'd be entitled to show holes in my logic.

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Switzerland has a better trading arrangement with China than other European countries.

This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong. It can and it will. There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries. A lot of them are substantially smaller than the UK. Canada and Australia are great examples.

The only thing that defies logic is this strange idea that the UK won't be able to expand trade in the same way that other countries outside of the EU have.

You know, I thought that the stupidest economic decision of all time was Bertie Ahern and Brian Lenihan guaranteeing the banks in 2008 - it made Ireland's economic collapse inevitable and tied the hands of the next two Governments.

However, the path that May is following (and you are advocating) almost makes that bank guarantee look sensible.

What you are saying is "IF" this and "IF" that, then prosperity. Look at the following sentence where I juxtapose your plan with mine.

You know if my lottery numbers come up [if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms ]

then, I'll be posting on these threads from the Maldives I]then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries[/I.

The idea that I can't win the lottery is wrong I][I][I]This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong[/I][/I][/I.

I can and I will. I]It can and it will[/I

There are plenty of lottery winners out there not just in Ireland but in lots of countries [There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries.]

See, it is very easy to write a post that says, whoops, with one leap our hero is free and home safe. A lot harder to actually do it.




P.S. Do you play cards? Like in poker for money?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern ireland would still be in the EU. They would be saved from economic suicide.
No brainer.

How many times has it been explained to you that the Northern Ireland economy is dependent on exports to the rest of the UK and a hard Brexit with a sea border is just economic suicide? The figures have been shown to you time and again. Incredible that you are unable to see this.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How many times has it been explained to you that the Northern Ireland economy is dependent on exports to the rest of the UK and a hard Brexit with a sea border is just economic suicide? The figures have been shown to you time and again. Incredible that you are unable to see this.

I haven't seen any data on what a sea border would cost.

Professor Moriarty

Calina wrote: »

Okay, first up, there is one big condition there. IF the UK can get a trade deal that improves on WTO for them, then yes, the UK wins.

It is by no means certain that such a FTA will occur. One of the key reasons for this is the definition of a good free trade agreement will tend to be different for each side of the negotiating table. So the first thing you have to ask - and I am asking you solo because you are the person who is selling this idea - is what constitutes a good trade deal for the UK with either China or the US?

Ultimately, both China and the US - which are big countries - will be strongly negotiating in favour of their exporting industries, and this is why we've already spent ages talking about chlorine washed chicken for example - and they will not be interested in what is in the UK's best interest. The mere existence of any FTA cannot be considered a victory here. You have to set out what constitutes enough of an improvement in trade terms between the UK and China and the UK and the US such that walking out of the EU will be worth it.

Define that trade deal in detail because there is one big problem here: both China and the US have fairly diversified industry sectors and the UK does not have much to sell either of them. A trade deal that results in the UK importing more stuff will not directly result in more manufacturing or service jobs except maybe in retail. And you cannot build an economy on retail alone.

So, I don't want to hear "the EU doesn't have a deal" or "Britain will be free to". I want to hear what a good trade deal involves. What Britain will be selling and how its economy will be growing and I want to know why you think you're going to get it since it is conditional again on the kindness of strangers, ie, the US and China and quite frankly I wouldn't be betting a country's GDP on it.

Your mileage may vary.

So Britain intends to negotiate the fastest FTA ever negotiated with an institution that has 27 stakeholders who have diverse and competing requirements and many of whom are now hostile to Britain. This is because the very successful FTA that already exists isn't fit for purpose because of reasons.

I gave up debating with people who defend this kind of nonsense.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

How many times has it been explained to you that the Northern Ireland economy is dependent on exports to the rest of the UK and a hard Brexit with a sea border is just economic suicide? The figures have been shown to you time and again. Incredible that you are unable to see this.

Blanch I'm going to ask you again for the umpteenth time. A) How is this the Republic's problem and What choice do Northern Ireland have and what choice did they they have in Brexit?

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch I'm going to ask you again for the umpteenth time. A) How is this the Republic's problem and What choice do Northern Ireland have and what choice did they they have in Brexit?

It's the best of a bad lot for northern Ireland and an absolute redline for us.
It's impressive that there is more or less consensus among parties in Dublin on it. Although I think Boris should have gotten a bigger flea in his ear today.
Time is running out for Theresa.

Enzokk

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

What choice do they have though? The politicians have said that there will not be a border on the island of Ireland. But Northern Ireland cannot be part of the single market and the customs union (no borders) and leave it at the same time.

The only solution that the UK can be talking about is the electronic border that will somehow prevent a physical border but allow NI to leave the EU along with the rest of the UK. Now we have not seen any proposals on how this would work and it would very much be dependent on trade deals and standards that the UK has with other countries as the EU will not allow products to pass into the EU that is not up to standard.

So Northern Ireland is nicely stuck between a crap option and a even worse one. We should be worried about what is the best of the crappy options for us. The fact that the majority in Northern Ireland actually voted to stay in the EU should make the choice a little easier as well. The UK can still allow Northern Ireland to trade with the mainland without customs delays if they choose, but there will be checks for goods that come from the UK mainland to Ireland. This way the trade for Northern Ireland to the UK will not be affected and the UK has decided in all their wisdom to leave the SM and CU so that is what they want as well.

This isn't likely to happen though as long as the DUP holds the Conservative afloat.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's the best of a bad lot for northern Ireland and an absolute redline for us.
It's impressive that there is more or less consensus among parties in Dublin on it. Although I think Boris should have gotten a bigger flea in his ear today.
Time is running out for Theresa.

It's quite clearly not the best of a bad lot for NI but who cares. The best of a bad lot for NI is a hard land border but that's the worst of a bad lot for us so we should push for the sea border to protect our own interests.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It's quite clearly not the best of a bad lot for NI but who cares. The best of a bad lot for NI is a hard land border but that's the worst of a bad lot for us so we should push for the sea border to protect our own interests.

I disagree. NI needs to stay in the EU. A sea border keeps them closest to that.
IMO that is the best all Ireland solution by far, on economic and societal grounds.

Good to see RTE reporting what I suggested may happen. The DUP being forced to accept this. Buttered bread and all that.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I disagree. NI needs to stay in the EU. A sea border keeps them closest to that.
IMO that is the best all Ireland solution by far, on economic and societal grounds.

Good to see RTE reporting what I suggested may happen. The DUP being forced to accept this. Buttered bread and all that.

Francie you just want a united Ireland regardless of the costs. You have previously admitted you would be in favour of a sea border even if presented with evidence that this would be more economically damaging to NI.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Francie you just want a united Ireland regardless of the costs. You have previously admitted you would be in favour of a sea border even if presented with evidence that this would be more economically damaging to NI.

I want what is best for us all. Economics is important but not everything and I think economically, northern Ireland will be better off in the EU.
Northern Ireland economically better off will stave off a UI.
I think the damage a hard border would do would hasten a more problematic UI.
I don't want that.
I think therefore you are just taking a swipe and not engaging with the issues.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

Francie you just want a united Ireland regardless of the costs. You have previously admitted you would be in favour of a sea border even if presented with evidence that this would be more economically damaging to NI.

But Murph the damage to NI is beside the point. The republic has to look after itself first. A sea border is the way to do that.

ancapailldorcha

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

"EU should not put politics above prosperity" says Davis.


What the fuuuuuck !!!

Does this man even know what his mouth is saying ?

What is Brexit but the greatest case in human history of a country putting politics ahead of prosperity ?

You just couldnt make up such Brexsh it.

Post more constructively than this please.

First Up

Calina wrote:

Okay, first up, there is one big condition there. IF the UK can get a trade deal that improves on WTO for them, then yes, the UK wins.

Wins what?

US import tarrifs from the EU average 3%.

The red line of no single market is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with NI's economy.

Any who push their vote to leave as one to remove themselves from political integration, but want trade/prosperity really need to understand that the EEA option (Norway) gives them just that but importantly, without utterly savaging NI's current economic setup.

It is important that the demagogic 'promises' made during the campaign are dissected. The mutually incompatible elements of the slogans need to be brought to the fore and at the very least a discussion about whether the costs of each are tolerable let alone wanted is due.

As before, the idea that 'all will be fine' following the official date of Brexit is simply wrong, given any degree of understanding of legal strictures, geopolitics, world trade and quite simply, the rule of law.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't seen any data on what a sea border would cost.

I haven't seen any data to suggest it is anything other than a disaster for Northern Ireland.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch I'm going to ask you again for the umpteenth time. A) How is this the Republic's problem

If you believe that the problems of Northern Ireland are not those of the Republic, you are clearly one of those "partitionists" that I see regularly derided by "good republicans" on these threads all the time.

I would be careful if I were you because you will upset some people.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and What choice do Northern Ireland have and what choice did they they have in Brexit?

Northern Ireland is in a very difficult place with no easy choices. A sea border is the worst outcome, remaining in the EEA is the best.

Rain Ascending

Calina wrote: »

<<Snipped discussion of FPTP>>

Arguably, [Varadkar] is more secure in his job than May is for the simple reason that his party isn't actually two extreme parties in and of itself. No one sane could call the Tory party united at the moment or even close to being a dependable party.

I think you are on to something here. There is probably a case to be made that the mess that we are seeing in the UK at the moment is in part due to FPTP.

FPTP encourages the emergence of two large parties that are themselves grand coalitions of disparate interests that would in a PR-based voting system, be separate parties. These interests hold together in the one party because of the huge seat bonus granted to the leading party in FPTP elections.

And so we have the Conservatives holding together for decades, but internally split between the pro- and anti-Europe factions. In a PR system, the anti-Europe faction would have joined up with UKIP and be a significant force within Westminister. We may still have ended up with Brexit, but how the UK got there would have looked very different.

Instead, we've had a poorly defined referendum designed to unite the Conservative party by bypassing Westminster. Of course, this gave a result that defines what the country doesn't want (EU membership), but leaves open critical questions about what it does want. My prediction is that as understanding builds regarding the challenge of extricating from the Single Market, the pro- and anti-EU factions will be sustained in yet another bitter struggle regarding how close the UK wants to be to the EU, even while being outside the EU, i.e. Norwegian v. Canadian models.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen any data to suggest it is anything other than a disaster for Northern Ireland.

Leaving the EU is a disaster for northern Ireland. Anything that diminishes that is good. May not suit unionism ideology but practically that is just a hard swallow.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would Northern Ireland commit economic suicide by agreeing to a sea border?

You claim it is economic suicide, by referring to the gross value of trade. But of course this tells us very little without information on the composition of the trade; types of products, intermediate or finished products, whether it is time sensitive etc. Unless you are making your argument in these terms then it is just the usual Brexiteer misprepresentation.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leaving the EU is a disaster for northern Ireland. Anything that diminishes that is good. May not suit unionism ideology but practically that is just a hard swallow.

The DUP's Supply & Confidence deal with the Conservatives precludes any sort of exemption for Northern Ireland though. It's not just Unionist ideology, it's also the glue holding the government together.

Nate--IRL--

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen any data to suggest it is anything other than a disaster for Northern Ireland.

In your opinion what is the least worst outcome for the Republic?

If it means crippling NI to get it, I don't care - the UK didn't care one jot about Brexit's effect on us.

If we can engineer a Sea border to our benefit, regardless on the detrimental effect on the UK, well then so be it. If our best outcome doesn't involve that, that's cool too.

The UK basically declared economic warfare on its previous partners, why should Ireland accommodate them? We have to be completely callous for our own interests. NI is secondary.

Nate

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So Britain intends to negotiate the fastest FTA ever negotiated with an institution that has 27 stakeholders who have diverse and competing requirements and many of whom are now hostile to Britain.

Don't forget that one reason the UK is leaving is that they say the EU is too slow and inflexible to negotiate free trade deals.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Don't forget that one reason the UK is leaving is that they say the EU is too slow and inflexible to negotiate free trade deals.

Well we'll see how quickly and how well the UK agrees trade terms with the US. In particular we'll see if they improve on the terms under which they currently export - i.e average import duty of 3% as negotiated by the EU.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The DUP's Supply & Confidence deal with the Conservatives precludes any sort of exemption for Northern Ireland though. It's not just Unionist ideology, it's also the glue holding the government together.

I agree with what was reported on RTE last night. The alternative (Labour in government and dodging the bullet of Brexit blame without being seen to sell out the north) may be changing the DUP's mind. As I said they may get snookered on this.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen any data to suggest it is anything other than a disaster for Northern Ireland.

Are you a resident of NI? Do you think that a sea border would be more beneficial to the republic?

Samaris

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

It also requires a lot of ROI trust in the integrity of the UK. Is the UK going to stop goods that do not match EU standards coming to the island? Ireland isn't going to be able to do customs checks on an 'internal' UK sea border. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the UK would stop non-accredited goods coming to NI. Sooo...how does the Republic stop such goods coming south? Components currently manufactured in NI will still have issues being used in the south, albeit they are likely to be substantially (and temptingly) cheaper for at least a decade. Where will the checks be on those, part of the supply chains of southern businesses? May's own statements indicate she isn't even aware that packaging, country of origin info etc aren't some totes unfair EU rules, but part of the WTO framework, so I hope we're not relying on the cop on of British Ministers for Trade to ensure regulations and standards are kept. If so, we're on a hiding to losing exports and revenue ourselves. I am somewhat biased here in a sincere belief that the current British government could not identify an arse on an anatomical chart and would be utterly lost if it only had a map to find its own, let alone rely on them to understand complex trade standards and rules, but it seems pretty justified based on current performance.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Now, despite the issues and despite that it sucks for NI, it would be the preferred choice for Ireland to have a sea border even so. The Republic is in the EU (and will take a hit either way). NI will soon not be (and will take a hit either way). So there will likely be a push for it from the EU side of the table, particularly Ireland. So it goes.

It is arrogant nonsense to dismiss any problems with it as "Unionist". Not every person who disagrees is an ideological enemy, nor are they neccessarily aligned with unionists, republicans or the damn Tooth Fairy. Both choices are crap for a large number of people and it is an honest part of discussion to acknowledge that.

It is a sh*t sandwich and it won't be a great deal of fun to be on either side of it. All the Republic can do is try to get further away from the sh*t that we had absolutely no say in and the land border gets the sh*t quite up close and personal. Sticking it in the sea doesn't change that it is still smelling pretty unpleasent though.

Nody

The funny thing is people have got the argument reversed regarding unionist/republican when they argue the sea border. A united Ireland would come way faster if NI gets to crash out with the rest of UK and really struggle while living next door to a country not only prospering but offering them job opportunities (if you marry an Irish lad/lass you're highly unlikely to argue for current statusand if you work in Ireland you are that more likely to marry/relocate there accordingly). That would drastically undercut the unionists wish of keeping NI with UK simply because as more people see the benefits & life in Ireland, moved over there etc. the idea of merging will make so much more sense for them esp. as they know it was a UK decision to inflict the pain on them in the first place and their base would dwindle away over the years rapidly. On the flip side with a sea border in the water the Unionists do not suffer significant pain since the EU payments will keep coming, they will feel more isolated (and hence tighten their "UK bonds" accordingly) and push more on the UK connection etc.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

It also requires a lot of ROI trust in the integrity of the UK. Is the UK going to stop goods that do not match EU standards coming to the island? Ireland isn't going to be able to do customs checks on an 'internal' UK sea border. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the UK would stop non-accredited goods coming to NI. Sooo...how does the Republic stop such goods coming south? Components currently manufactured in NI will still have issues being used in the south, albeit they are likely to be substantially (and temptingly) cheaper for at least a decade. Where will the checks be on those, part of the supply chains of southern businesses? May's own statements indicate she isn't even aware that packaging, country of origin info etc aren't some totes unfair EU rules, but part of the WTO framework, so I hope we're not relying on the cop on of British Ministers for Trade to ensure regulations and standards are kept. If so, we're on a hiding to losing exports and revenue ourselves. I am somewhat biased here in a sincere belief that the current British government could not identify an arse on an anatomical chart and would be utterly lost if it only had a map to find its own, let alone rely on them to understand complex trade standards and rules, but it seems pretty justified based on current performance.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Now, despite the issues and despite that it sucks for NI, it would be the preferred choice for Ireland to have a sea border even so. The Republic is in the EU (and will take a hit either way). NI will soon not be (and will take a hit either way). So there will likely be a push for it from the EU side of the table, particularly Ireland. So it goes.

It is arrogant nonsense to dismiss any problems with it as "Unionist". Not every person who disagrees is an ideological enemy, nor are they neccessarily aligned with unionists, republicans or the damn Tooth Fairy. Both choices are crap for a large number of people and it is an honest part of discussion to acknowledge that.

It is a sh*t sandwich and it won't be a great deal of fun to be on either side of it. All the Republic can do is try to get further away from the sh*t that we had absolutely no say in and the land border gets the sh*t quite up close and personal. Sticking it in the sea doesn't change that it is still smelling pretty unpleasent though.

Part of the problem (temporary, until there is a change of gov. Then they will not matter to the UK gov. like the rest of Ireland) with it is Unionist though. No point in trying to water that down.

We need to make it matter, like we have been doing.

6541

Okay, can I get a prediction of what will actually happen. Take the emotion out of it, what are folks cold hard predictions ?

Nody

6541 wrote: »

Okay, can I get a prediction of what will actually happen. Take the emotion out of it, what are folks cold hard predictions ?

Same as the last couple of months; hard crash out brexit without any deals what so ever because May will never be able to settle the initial 3 issues to get to a deal (the Irish border is basically impossible with the red lines in play of EU - no hard border and UK - NI can't get a special deal).

FrancieBrady

6541 wrote: »

Okay, can I get a prediction of what will actually happen. Take the emotion out of it, what are folks cold hard predictions ?

Sea border with DUP and UK blaming Ireland. UK to take any deal it can get and blaming EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't forget that one reason the UK is leaving is that they say the EU is too slow and inflexible to negotiate free trade deals.

They knew this when they pushed the button on Article 50.

It makes sense if the goal was to blame the EU for forcing a Hard Brexit.


They could have got their ducks lined up before triggering Brexit, they could have taking soundings, but no.

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Part of the problem (temporary, until there is a change of gov. Then they will not matter to the UK gov. like the rest of Ireland) with it is Unionist though. No point in trying to water that down.

We need to make it matter, like we have been doing.

Great, so all of the above definitely under the current lot and then continuing from decisions made by this lot under another government who may or may not be any better also dealing with an impossible situation. I'm very relieved!

I really don't see the Unionist connection to the points I made, and frankly, I think it is reaching. Can you refute any of the points I actually made, or see any problems at all that cannot be ascribed to mysterious Unionist sympathies? Merely that the DUP doesn't like it does not mean that there are no problems at all. I couldn't give a flying monkey's for what the DUP want, especially after they fecklessly abandoned NI to go play in Westminster. I do, however, care deeply about the practical implications to a decision that will fundamentally impact my country and home though.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

Great, so all of the above definitely under the current lot and then continuing from decisions made by this lot under another government who may or may not be any better also dealing with an impossible situation. I'm very relieved!

I really don't see the Unionist connection to the points I made, and frankly, I think it is reaching. Can you refute any of the points I actually made, or see any problems at all that cannot be ascribed to mysterious Unionist sympathies? Merely that the DUP doesn't like it does not mean that there are no problems at all. I couldn't give a flying monkey's for what the DUP want, especially after they fecklessly abandoned NI to go play in Westminster. I do, however, care deeply about the practical implications to a decision that will fundamentally impact my country and home though.

I have already said it is the 'best of a bad job'.
I agree it is a mess either way.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree with what was reported on RTE last night. The alternative (Labour in government and dodging the bullet of Brexit blame without being seen to sell out the north) may be changing the DUP's mind. As I said they may get snookered on this.

The DUP are ideological zealots, they simply won't accept any disparity between NI and the mainland.

Labour are on the way in, it's happening. This is the first time in British history that any Northern Irish party has been anywhere near being a part of the government. This is the only scenario where NI is relevant in terms of government composition.

The current government will be unable to pass its deal. Everyone knows this. I fully expect another General Election in 2018.

Capt'n Midnight

Samaris wrote: »

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

A Canada deal for the UK means phyto sanitary checks at wherever the border is.

If the border is on land the Northern Ireland farmers will no longer be able to claim "I'm British but my cows are Irish"

Yes a sea border would affect trade between NI and the UK. But the UK has been going on about a magic invisible border with pre-certified companies so should be very easy for them to do.

A land border means a return to smuggling. Based on previous fuel smuggling and current carbon tax I'd guesstimate a Billion euro loss in duty between both governments.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Yes they are entitled to EU passports via the ROI.
And yes they are in the CTA.
Also there are checks on Air and Sea links across the Irish Sea. Also in the past the UK government has banned certain people from NI from travelling to GB.

Look at Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to see how these things actually work in practice.

Christy42

A sea border would be best for Ireland.

It is a little late to be worrying about NI which will suffer regardless. The UK voted for economic suicide. Ireland should push for what is best for the Republic and let the UK deal with the mess of its own vote.

Yes I get some want a 32 county country but right now the government needs to do what is best for the citizens in the Republic that are it's constituents.

Samaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A Canada deal for the UK means phyto sanitary checks at wherever the border is.

If the border is on land the Northern Ireland farmers will no longer be able to claim "I'm British but my cows are Irish"

Yes a sea border would affect trade between NI and the UK. But the UK has been going on about a magic invisible border with pre-certified companies so should be very easy for them to do.

A land border means a return to smuggling. Based on previous fuel smuggling and current carbon tax I'd guesstimate a Billion euro loss in duty between both governments.


Yes they are entitled to EU passports via the ROI.
And yes they are in the CTA.
Also there are checks on Air and Sea links across the Irish Sea. Also in the past the UK government has banned certain people from NI from travelling to GB.

Look at Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to see how these things actually work in practice.

Specific note on the land border and smuggling - it's going to happen either way. No land border, no checks on goods going between EU and a murky part-EU/part third country zone. I don't see an honour system working there, but that is what it will have to be. NI will recieve UK and EU goods and pinky promises not to move either to where it shouldn't be. (Also, does anyone know where to even start on questions of NI-produced goods for international trade? If it is sort-of EU does it have to follow EU or UK standards? Which take precedence?)

Overall, I am more towards a sea border as it screws ROI slightly less. I am worried that it may be regarded as some sort of magic bullet that solves everything (or, well, anything) though. Most of the problems remain, they are just further away from us. And on the flipside, it drastically lessens the control the ROI has over them. We will be relying on the integrity of the sea border with no ROI oversight. The land border option thoroughly sucks, mind you. The looser the sea border controls for Britain, the better they will go down politically internally, and I do not like relying on the gov of another country to do politically unpoplar things that will primarily benefit another country (regulations are likely to be more stringent in ROI ; Ireland more at risk of unregulated goods movement). That is what makes me most nervous of this sea border from a purely Irish pov.

Capt'n Midnight

Samaris wrote: »

Specific note on the land border and smuggling - it's going to happen either way. No land border, no checks on goods going between EU and a murky part-EU/part third country zone. I don't see an honour system working there, but that is what it will have to be. NI will recieve UK and EU goods and pinky promises not to move either to where it shouldn't be. (Also, does anyone know where to even start on questions of NI-produced goods for international trade? If it is sort-of EU does it have to follow EU or UK standards? Which take precedence?)

It's much easier to check a few ports than two crossings every three miles.

Also a lot less work to check a ship than thousands of road tankers or coal trucks.


Also it's not just food and mouth out there.
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/bluetongue-risk-low-321966

Last month, a number of cattle imported into Scotland were identified as having bluetongue, however DEFRA has said that the risk level remains low for the disease making landfall through the air.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

No response to the clear point - third countries import services into the EU today? These services are required and therefore are imported.

Which services ?

And how much are they worth relative to what the UK currently have ?

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you a resident of NI? Do you think that a sea border would be more beneficial to the republic?

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

For the Republic, a sea border makes little difference economically. Some border areas will suffer but how we perform post-Brexit will be more about how we maximise the opportunities and minimise the downside. Making sure that we can take financial jobs from London is more important than whether there is a sea or a land border.

Samaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's much easier to check a few ports than two crossings every three miles.

Also a lot less work to check a ship than thousands of road tankers or coal trucks.


Also it's not just food and mouth out there.
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/bluetongue-risk-low-321966

Oh aye on the diseases, F&M is just one that everyone knows outside the rather unique BSE.

Regarding the ports, do we get to have any oversight of them? Are we just relying on British inspectors to enforce the rules? What -are- the rules? "Yep, this is definitely for NI only so it's under UK standards and regs and nothing to do with the EU or Republic". Well, that's nice and all but my issue is how is that enforced once they're passed? There are to be no practical checks at the Irish/NI crossing points, so how can anyone know whether it is EU regulated goods/livestock coming south or not?

This can be solved by stringent and deeply unpopular policies to only allow EU-standard goods from Britain to NI, which will mean that NI more or less entirely relies on non-British goods, but is a UK government going to enforce potentially debilitating conditions on NI for the good of an external market populated by non-voters such as ROI. Or will they fudge it for convenience and popularity because the ROI should look out for itself.

Believe me, I know the problems with a land border are immense, I'm just dubious on whether all the implications of a sea border are under consideration in the talks and I hear very little practical examination of whst problems may exist from the negotiations.

Problems won't be seen immediately, but as soon as there is regulatory divergeance (and there will be), it starts to get hairy.