Brexit discussion thread II

flutered

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Then you just follow the usual template of Northern politics by subtly threatening a return to violence. Mountains will be moved and the taps will be turned on.

if and when money is scarce the the brexiteers will throw n.i. to the wolves, they are already giving the world a classic example in self centeralism

Junkyard Tom

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, Simon Coveney maintains the Government's red lines:

The problem for Britain is that those are EU red lines. Britain isn't dealing with its 'bothersome' little neighbour any more. It's dealing with the world's richest trading bloc.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

NO. First the UK must guarantee the open border by whatever way they can. That is a prerequisite for talks on trade. It is just as good a red line as no ECJ, no Single Market and No Customs Union, only it has the full backing of the EU27.

The UK are asked to come up with a solution, not anyone else. They have suggested magic beans and 'technology' but have failed to show anything that might have even a small chance of succeeding. The EU suggested special status for NI, like they have with the electricity market and animal vetinary standards, so that is one suggestion that might work.

There are no easy solutions, but talking trade comes after the solution to a 'frictionless' border.

Now you are an expert on the thinking of the brexiteers, so tell us what they intend to do. You were right in that they would go to £40 billion, but that is likely to be not enough, but it might be enough for progress to trade talks, if the other two items are covered. So come on, spill the beans - how can we get to a frictionless border?

Good afternoon!

This requires us to get to stage 2 and discuss trade and customs terms. Switzerland isn't in the customs union but yet have come to an arrangement whereby 2℅ of traffic needs to be checked. If there's a will there's a way.

You cannot discuss the nature of the border until you deal with customs and trade terms. That's how you resolve how goods will move you can't discuss the border.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that it can be solved without discussing the trade of goods?

The EU never claimed the UK had to resolve all border issues before moving to stage 2. Any attempt to do so without discussing trade and customs is futile.

Panrich wrote: »

The UK have already started negotiating trade and customs terms by ruling out the single market, customs union and the ECJ. If Ireland and the EU agree to move to phase 2 now, then it is tacit approval of that position and therefore the problem becomes an EU one. The UK will complain long and loud that everyone knew their position prior to phase 2 negotiations and will demand that this is not used to hold up progress.

If the negotiations move to trade and customs then the discussion about how goods are traded over the border can be effectively discussed.

Until that happens there can be no progress on how open the border can be.

That's just common sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Chips Lovell

Making Northern Ireland part of the Stage Two negotiations has never been a goer.

Stage Two is the future trading relationship, i.e. what might happen post-Brexit.

Resolving the Northern Ireland conundrum is something that needs to happen.

To date, all we've heard from the UK regarding the future trading relationship has been wishful thinking and hand waving. You simply can't have Northern Ireland as part of that discussion because, for the moment at least, there's zero chance of it resulting in anything of substance. Which means that when Brexit day finally rolls around, the future trading relationship hasn't been established and nobody has any idea what to do Northern Ireland bar defaulting to a hard border.

flaneur

flutered wrote: »

if and when money is scarce the the brexiteers will throw n.i. to the wolves, they are already giving the world a classic example in self centeralism

Well when you talk to quite a lot of people in England, they've literally no idea of what the history of Irish-British relations and tend to either assume that the Republic is somehow in the UK, or that Northern Ireland is a land, far, far away that they've nothing to do with.

I don't know how many times I have had to explain that Northern Ireland *is* their problem and *is* part of the UK. I have even had to insist to a very junior UK HMRC official that the Republic of Ireland is *NOT* part of the UK too.

I've a few Northern Irish friends who are of unionist backgrounds and the one thing that always strikes me is that they're sort of lost between two identities. On the one hand they don't really consider themselves to be Irish in the way the rest of us do, and on the other hand many English people absolutely do not consider them British. I think it's often a wakeup call when they go to live in England and realise that many of the locals don't really know the difference between Belfast and Cork. I even spoke to one guy who thought Ian Paisley was the head of the IRA !

We still encounter tourists in Cork who get off the plane and are surprised that Ireland doesn't use Sterling.

When you ask them where the EU border is, they'd have assumed Dover as they completely forget that the UK has a land border with another EU country because they really don't consider Ireland "abroad".

My view of it is that the way forward long term in Ireland is probably a federal republic, with Northern Ireland as an independent state. There might even be a possibility of creating proper provincial government. You could easily have a 4-state republic.

However, I digress and am drifting OT.

Fundamentally, I think the problem is that the UK is really not a federal state and has never understood how to share power. It's a complete ad hoc mess with a history of extreme centralisation of power that essentially amounts to "England + Others". The same mentality killed their global power, starting with their refusal to allow autonomy in what is now the USA. No taxation without representation? ...

Northern Ireland has always operated a parallel political system and Scotland now effectively is doing exactly the same.

Brexit is very much a creature of English politics and most definitely not Scottish or Northern Irish.

Long term, I can't really see Northern Ireland being a success as a statelet dragged along by and being utterly dependent upon an increasingly unstable and jingoistic England. In the long term, I think you're going to see an increasingly prosperous Republic, with Northern Ireland increasingly sinking into being a UK regional backwater that really has no representation in Westminster. The current situation with the DUP propping up the Tories is just an anomaly. Long term, they DUP, SF, UUP and SDLP are in the "others" category in British political influence.

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

the uk needs a deal with ireland more than ireland needs a deal with the uk, a deal with ireland is a deal with the eu27

solodeogloria

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Making Northern Ireland part of the Stage Two negotiations has never been a goer.

Stage Two is the future trading relationship, i.e. what might happen post-Brexit.

Resolving the Northern Ireland conundrum is something that needs to happen.

To date, all we've heard from the UK regarding the future trading relationship has been wishful thinking and hand waving. You simply can't have Northern Ireland as part of that discussion because, for the moment at least, there's zero chance of it resulting in anything of substance. Which means that when Brexit day finally rolls around, the future trading relationship hasn't been established and nobody has any idea what to do Northern Ireland bar defaulting to a hard border.

Good afternoon!

How do you propose resolving how open the border should be without discussing how goods should pass through that border?

The EU is trying to cajole the UK into accepting single market and customs union membership for NI which isn't on for two reasons:
1) the UK doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the UK and the DUP don't want to introduce friction between Northern Ireland and the UK. Not to mention that far more trade happens between these two - £14.4bn to £3.5bn. It isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to do this.
2) if it's on a UK wide level it doesn't honour the referendum result which was won on the basis of taking back control of money, borders and laws. EEA membership falls short of this.

The bottom line is this insistence leads us to no deal and no resolution rather than a resolution on the border. There won't be movement on those.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Unless you're seriously suggesting that it can be solved without discussing the trade of goods?

Of course it can. We're talking about how goods are transported and checked, not what tarrifs and regulations apply to their manufacture and sale. A trade deal is one which sets out to harmonise tariffs and regulatory standards. There is no reason why this needs to be discussed simultaneously with agreement for establishing and maintaining a border.

Leroy42

It is telling that the UK is almost threatening Ireland over this issue. The standing seems to be that UK don't care and its up to Ireland to come up with a plan and keep its mouth shut otherwise.

Whatever about ones position on NI, it is not exactly the strategy that is going to win them many friends as they embark on signing multiple trade deals over the next few years.

They are basically saying that although they created the problem they really don't care one way or the other.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I am not so sure that the Republic needs a good deal with the UK.

The clear first choice for Ireland is the UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market. This will preserve the status quo access to the UK market and no border with the North.

After that, it gets murkier. Any other option is bad news for Ireland. Paradoxically then, a hard Brexit with a hard border and no financial or legal passporting, may be the second best option as it offers greater opportunities to offset the definite losses.

Any deal in which British financial and legal firms retain the right to practice in the EU is very bad news for Ireland as it limits the opportunity to gain.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

How do you propose resolving how open the border should be without discussing how goods should pass through that border?

The EU is trying to cajole the UK into accepting single market and customs union membership for NI which isn't on for two reasons:
1) the UK doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the UK and the DUP don't want to introduce friction between Northern Ireland and the UK. Not to mention that far more trade happens between these two - £14.4bn to £3.5bn. It isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to do this.
2) if it's on a UK wide level it doesn't honour the referendum result which was won on the basis of taking back control of money, borders and laws. EEA membership falls short of this.

The bottom line is this insistence leads us to no deal and no resolution rather than a resolution on the border. There won't be movement on those.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But based on that there really is only one option and that is a border. Why are the UK continuing to deny that is the plan?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

This requires us to get to stage 2 and discuss trade and customs terms. Switzerland isn't in the customs union but yet have come to an arrangement whereby 2℅ of traffic needs to be checked. If there's a will there's a way.

You cannot discuss the nature of the border until you deal with customs and trade terms. That's how you resolve how goods will move you can't discuss the border.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that it can be solved without discussing the trade of goods?

The EU never claimed the UK had to resolve all border issues before moving to stage 2. Any attempt to do so without discussing trade and customs is futile.

But doesn't Switzerland have some free movement of people with the EU? So the Swiss model will not work for the UK as their red line has been drawn. So you can stop mentioning the Swiss model as it will not fit into the vision that the UK wants with the EU.

If anything an open border with NI will be a good thing for the UK, but you seem to be so dead set on burning the bridge after you crossed you don't care if it will be in your favour or not.

flaneur

Well, the UK's not threatening us. The British tabloid press are and the DUP is getting its nose knocked out of joint, which is fairly predictable.

What concerns me about the UK is that it is increasingly government run by a bunch of tabloid journalists and newspaper editors, rather than anything in a normal sense.

In fact, I would say the UK is far further along that particular road to doom than the US is. There's a very long tradition of government by tabloid in England.

There's a huge amount of totally unaccountable power wielded by British tabloid press editors and certain media empires. I know we've a bit of a problem with concentration of media power in Ireland, but the situation in England with certain news outfits is absolutely frightening. The only thing that's historically saved them is the independence of the BBC and fairly stern regulation of the independence of television broadcasters. The UK press doesn't even pretend to be unbiased, it might as well be a group of political parties.

Chips Lovell

solodeogloria wrote: »

How do you propose resolving how open the border should be without discussing how goods should pass through that border?

The point is that at the moment there's little or no chance of any agreement on how goods should pass through, because what's been proposed is unrealistic. So the UK needs to clarify how this is going to work in the absence of that agreement.

It won't of course, because it can't square that circle. But, for political reasons, it's going to pretend that it can for at least six more months.

Call me Al

Considering all people born in the 6 counties are entitled to Irish passports and citizenship how will or can their recourse to EU courts work. Or does that all fall by the wayside once the UK brexits in spite of the fact those in the North are all Irish citizens?

flaneur

Given that Northern Ireland (and also Scotland) has a completely distinct legal system to England and Wales, it might be quite feasible to do something to allow the ECJ to remain in the loop there, while not being part of the system in England.

It would be messy and unprecedented but, so is Brexit and also so are many of the arrangements in the UK.

Already, the UK Supreme Court has to deal with several legal systems when considering cases, so I don't really see how it would be THAT much different.

I mean, does anyone know any country anywhere else in the world that allows commercial banks to print their own money!? It's a strange "country" at times.

What worries me a little about spinning Northern Ireland out on its own as an independent state, perhaps as a crown dependency, is that it has a long history of being incapable of self-governance without causing conflict. I don't mean this as any insult to Northern Ireland posters, but the history is worrying.

If you consider the period from 1921 to 1972 when the original Stormont Government was disbanded, the way the state had managed to go completely off the rails and become nearly a 1-party sectarian government. Then after the troubles and since the new Northern Ireland government came about we have had periods where it's been incapable of forming a power sharing government. The current deadlock gives me no confidence in Northern Ireland really being able to self-govern.

If the UK were to spin Northern Ireland out as a largely independent state, would it survive or just swing into some kind of economic crisis or sectarian conflict?

You're still really looking at a region that's a bit like it's learning to ride a bike and the two national governments and other structures have acted like stabilisers.

flutered

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm based in both Colorado and Southampton in the UK as part of an American dept of energy project. However our lab has lost 200k (2 x PhDs) due to loss of EU funding. I see myself leaving here for America soon.

how many times has this been replicated throught the uk, never mind for the next 10 years

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This requires us to get to stage 2 and discuss trade and customs terms. Switzerland isn't in the customs union but yet have come to an arrangement whereby 2℅ of traffic needs to be checked. If there's a will there's a way.

You cannot discuss the nature of the border until you deal with customs and trade terms. That's how you resolve how goods will move you can't discuss the border.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that it can be solved without discussing the trade of goods?

The EU never claimed the UK had to resolve all border issues before moving to stage 2. Any attempt to do so without discussing trade and customs is futile.



If the negotiations move to trade and customs then the discussion about how goods are traded over the border can be effectively discussed.

Until that happens there can be no progress on how open the border can be.

That's just common sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There are two issues with the border - people and goods.

People - easy, just introduce a mandatory UKID card for all citizens (and residents) that will be used to access services, work and accommodation.

Goods:

Well, for goods, there are two issues - imports to NI from UK and exports from NI to UK.

Let us look at the second one - goods exported from NI to UK. They have free access if they have a documentation showing they are of NI origin, otherwise they are subject to inspection at port of entry to GB. Should be no trouble for that as it is similar to what they are suggesting for the 'frictionless' border with ROI.

Now let us look at imports from GB to NI. For non agricultural goods, they are subject to the same inspection as goods would be into the EU, if the UK leaves the customs union. Agricultural goods would be banned on animal health grounds, plus they would be subject to 40% tariffs so easier to just ban them. Ireland is a net exporter of most food anyway.

Now there is a start.

Chips Lovell

I can't really see a deal where bits of the UK have a closer relationship than other parts. The EU wants to avoid a repeat of the Switzerland situation where it has an overly complex series of agreements with a third country.

I think the only realistic options are hard Brexit or leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Unless it loses control of the situation, I think the UK government will opt for the latter as the less unpalatable of the two. Only the extremist wing genuinely want the former.

The real challenge is selling it to the party and the public. But that's a hole it dug for itself given the promises that were made during the referendum campaign.

flaneur

I'm beginning to think that Charles de Gaulle was spot-on about the UK back in the 1960s.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

How do you propose resolving how open the border should be without discussing how goods should pass through that border?

Easily done solo. But it means the UK has to give up some of its mutually incompatible red lines. UK. Not EU. I explained this yesterday.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU is trying to cajole the UK into accepting single market and customs union membership for NI

Actually tbh I suspect they'd have taken SM CU membership for the entire UK (which would have been in their economic interest at least) if the UK would have taken it. That they aren't complicates matters. The EU cannot be blamed for the outcome of a UK decision.

solodeogloria wrote: »

which isn't on for two reasons:
1) the UK doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the UK and the DUP don't want to introduce friction between Northern Ireland and the UK. Not to mention that far more trade happens between these two - £14.4bn to £3.5bn. It isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to do this.

IMO NI is screwed either which way.

As a general note, it was obvious before the vote that a vote in favour of Brexit had implications in terms of the integrity of the UK. This is as true for NI as it is for Scotland. That one, other or both might stay with the UK initially for practical reasons does not change that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) if it's on a UK wide level it doesn't honour the referendum result which was won on the basis of taking back control of money, borders and laws. EEA membership falls short of this.

Seriously, iirc, quite a lot of Brexiters promised that the UK would continue to be part of the single market. So I think arguably, the referendum result encompassed leaving the decision making process but staying in the single market. I seem to remember a lot of discussion around Norway before the referendum for that very reason. So I don't think it is fair to say it wouldn't honour the referendum - although as it occurs to me, if one or other of the leave campaigns gets really dragged through the mud for not complying with campaign regulations, how sure are you that the referendum should stand?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The bottom line is this insistence leads us to no deal and no resolution rather than a resolution on the border. There won't be movement on those.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think that would be fine if the UK was negotiating with a strong hand. I don't believe that they really are for reasons I'm fairly sure I outlined yesterday when you were throwing acceptable settlement terms around. For many people, the problem is that technically, the UK needs a trade deal faster and more urgently than the EU does.

But in any case, I'm coming to the conclusion that the UK does not want an exit deal and is too short sighted to recognise that this will have a knock on impact on their ability to negotiate a trade deal. The negotiating behaviour to date points either in that direction or in the direction of utter incompetence. It is hard to make a call on which it is although to be honest, given that the UK has lost its seat on the bench of the ICJ, it suggests their diplomatic nous has slipped somewhat lately.

solodeogloria

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The point is that at the moment there's little or no chance of any agreement on how goods should pass through, because what's been proposed is unrealistic. So the UK needs to clarify how this is going to work in the absence of that agreement.

It won't of course, because it can't square that circle. But, for political reasons, it's going to pretend that it can for at least six more months.

Good evening!

Why is there "no chance"?

If there is "no chance" then I agree the talks are at an impasse.

What I do know is that dropping out if discussions on this and on trade isn't in Ireland's interests so I'm hoping that these talks will continue to discuss the trade and customs terms that are required to discuss the border issue effectively.

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are two issues with the border - people and goods.

People - easy, just introduce a mandatory UKID card for all citizens (and residents) that will be used to access services, work and accommodation.

Goods:

Well, for goods, there are two issues - imports to NI from UK and exports from NI to UK.

Let us look at the second one - goods exported from NI to UK. They have free access if they have a documentation showing they are of NI origin, otherwise they are subject to inspection at port of entry to GB. Should be no trouble for that as it is similar to what they are suggesting for the 'frictionless' border with ROI.

Now let us look at imports from GB to NI. For non agricultural goods, they are subject to the same inspection as goods would be into the EU, if the UK leaves the customs union. Agricultural goods would be banned on animal health grounds, plus they would be subject to 40% tariffs so easier to just ban them. Ireland is a net exporter of most food anyway.

Now there is a start.

I don't get the obsession with ID cards. They are a waste of money. The UK already issues biometric ID to those on visas and passports are sufficient for demonstrating nationality. This is how it works today. On the first day of work my passport was scanned by my employer.

Goods crossing the border can't be dealt with until trade terms and customs terms are resolved. It's premature for people to make grand projections.

There's not going to be an internal UK border. (Edit - I've explained pretty clearly as to why. It won't get through parliament and it'll be bad for NI trade)

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur

A bad deal from the EU’s perspective would also be very contrary to Ireland’s interests.

If the UK positions itself as a tax and regulatory haven with full access to the EU single market, it would basically destroy the Irish economy.

So yes, a deal is in Ireland’s interests, but, a deal where the UK “has its cake and eats it” could be very bad for Ireland.

Any deal the UK gets cannot simply be “business as usual” without any of the regulatory burdens.

No deal is going to give the same degree of access as being an EU member.

Call me Al

Something tells me the UK government will willingly jettison £14.4b NI trade if it gets them something much more lucrative further down the line that actually matters to those who vote for the Tories who sit in Westminster .
Especially since their "frictionless border" stance all along has been a circle that cant be squared.

And that should be a wake up call to those in NI who profess loyalty to the Union Brexit and London.
I think the Dublin government care more for the well being of those who live there no matter their allegiance than the Brexiteers in Parliament do. They didn't even afford the subjects of NI the courtesy of learning about the GFA before this whole thing started.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't get the obession with ID cards. They are a waste of money. The UK already issues biometric ID to those on visas and passports are sufficient for demonstrating nationality. This is how it works today. On the first day of work my passport was scanned by my employer.

If the UK wants to control immigration, it needs to be certain those within its borders are legally there. The way most countries do it is with ID cards. The UK Gov wants landlords to check possible tenants immigration status but not giving them a creditable way of doing so. The same with employers. ID cards will do this.

Your employer scanned your passport for what purpose? How did he verify it? How did s/he verify that you are allowed to work in the UK? [In your case, it could be assumed as an Irish passport holder, you are entitled to work, but what if you had a Romanian passport?]

An ID card issued by the UK Gov moves responsibility for immigration controls to the UK Gov, where it belongs.

Why are you obsessed with wasting money?

The cost of the ID card could be mitigated by making it part of the driving licence, for example, as most adults have one already.

It is a waste of money to set up 30 or so regulatory bodies to mimic those that exist within the EU, and to duplicate their work, at a cost approaching the cost shared by the 27 other EU governments. If only the UK could continue to share the cost and the fruits of these bodies.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the UK wants to control immigration, it needs to be certain those within its borders are legally there. The way most countries do it is with ID cards. The UK Gov wants landlords to check possible tenants immigration status but not giving them a creditable way of doing so. The same with employers. ID cards will do this.

Your employer scanned your passport for what purpose? How did he verify it? How did s/he verify that you are allowed to work in the UK? [In your case, it could be assumed as an Irish passport holder, you are entitled to work, but what if you had a Romanian passport?]

An ID card issued by the UK Gov moves responsibility for immigration controls to the UK Gov, where it belongs.

Why are you obsessed with wasting money?

The cost of the ID card could be mitigated by making it part of the driving licence, for example, as most adults have one already.

It is a waste of money to set up 30 or so regulatory bodies to mimic those that exist within the EU, and to duplicate their work, at a cost approaching the cost shared by the 27 other EU governments. If only the UK could continue to share the cost and the fruits of these bodies.

Good evening!

My employer was required to scan my passport to ensure my identity and my right to work in the UK before employing me because that is employment law in the UK. Again, immigration status can be checked using biometric ID (issued with a visa) and a passport. Meaning the Romanian would be issued his visa, and his passport and would show both in the same way as someone from India or Pakistan does today. This is a legal requirement and employers are required to report violations to the Home Office.

Here is an example of the biometric ID:


The UK Border Force already deal with deportations as a result of overstaying without issuing ID to everyone. The UK's immigration policy is a matter for parliament. Irrespective of however open or closed it wants its borders will be will be a matter for legislation passed through the House of Commons and Lords. This is a domestic matter in the UK.

Edit: I don't know why you point out the regulatory bodies. The UK is leaving the EU and therefore will have to have these to one degree or another. Some will already exist (e.g banking) and some will need to be created. The same as Australia, Canada, or New Zealand do. This is a part and seal of taking back control of its own affairs.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the UK wants to control immigration, it needs to be certain those within its borders are legally there. The way most countries do it is with ID cards. The UK Gov wants landlords to check possible tenants immigration status but not giving them a creditable way of doing so. The same with employers. ID cards will do this.

Your employer scanned your passport for what purpose? How did he verify it? How did s/he verify that you are allowed to work in the UK? [In your case, it could be assumed as an Irish passport holder, you are entitled to work, but what if you had a Romanian passport?]

An ID card issued by the UK Gov moves responsibility for immigration controls to the UK Gov, where it belongs.

Why are you obsessed with wasting money?

The cost of the ID card could be mitigated by making it part of the driving licence, for example, as most adults have one already.

It is a waste of money to set up 30 or so regulatory bodies to mimic those that exist within the EU, and to duplicate their work, at a cost approaching the cost shared by the 27 other EU governments. If only the UK could continue to share the cost and the fruits of these bodies.

Good evening!

My employer was required to scan my passport to ensure my identity and my right to work in the UK before employing me because that is employment law in the UK. Again, immigration status can be checked using biometric ID (issued with a visa) and a passport. Meaning the Romanian would be issued his visa, and his passport and would show both in the same way as someone from India or Pakistan does today. This is a legal requirement and employers are required to report violations to the Home Office.

Here is an example of the biometric ID:


The UK Border Force already deal with deportations as a result of overstaying without issuing ID to everyone. The UK's immigration policy is a matter for parliament. Irrespective of however open or closed it wants its borders will be will be a matter for legislation passed through the House of Commons and Lords. This is a domestic matter in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I asked how your employer checked that you were entitled to work in the UK, but as usual, you fail to answer how your identity was checked. An EU national requires a biometric card to work in the UK - is that true? Do you need one? Do EU nationals require visas?

I thought there was free movement of EU nationals within the EU.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

I asked how your employer checked that you were entitled to work in the UK, but as usual, you fail to answer how your identity was checked. An EU national requires a biometric card to work in the UK - is that true? Do you need one? Do EU nationals require visas?

I thought there was free movement of EU nationals within the EU.

Good evening!

You were asking me about the future and what that would look like. Probably passports and biometric ID for non-British and Irish citizens. At present all someone in the EU requires is their passport. Non-EU citizens require passport and biometric ID which contains the terms of their visa. Note - one is not required for all citizens.

Also - when I got my NI number issued they had to take my passport and they asked for my Irish PPS number. If you don't have an entitlement to work in the UK you won't get an NI number which is required by employers.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

Call me Al wrote: »

Something tells me the UK government will willingly jettison £14.4b NI trade if it gets them something much more lucrative further down the line that actually matters to those who vote for the Tories who sit in Westminster .
Especially since their "frictionless border" stance all along has been a circle that cant be squared.

And that should be a wake up call to those in NI who profess loyalty to the Union Brexit and London.
I think the Dublin government care more for the well being of those who live there no matter their allegiance than the Brexiteers in Parliament do. They didn't even afford the subjects of NI the courtesy of learning about the GFA before this whole thing started.

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

Call me Al

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

There are groups in Scotland who are already calling for a border. Nothing new there.
But they don't have a GF agreement in their hands, a recent bloody history of very troubled times and a nosey neighbour a few miles down the road who understandably wants to look after the interests of all its citizens.
Arlene with her snippy interview earlier is thinking of the DUP and the DUP only.

Leroy42

I hope this is the time that the voters in NI finally grow up and start voting for what is best for NI rather than simply what side of the street their Daddy was born on.

DUP are going putting the NI economy in a precarious position with this stance. Whatever about the UK as a whole being big enough, NI relies heavily on trade with the South and actively opting to put constraints on that is very strange. Coupled with the fact that as 1st Minister surely, if we take the line of the Brexiteers, then she should follow the democratic will of her people and look to minimise Brexit(if not cancel it altogether).

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

Who is there to champion Scotland's case to remain within the EU? It has been told before that it can't remain in the EU. A land border in Ireland complicates things for the EU, putting another one between Scotland and England would create another problem, not remove one.

Sand

The UK really ought to look at the NI situation from another angle. Leaving NI in the SM/CU will be seen as a significant step towards resolving the Irish issue to the satisfaction of almost everyone.

It does create a problem of a GB-NI internal border. However, that very problem could be an advantage in the phase 2 talks in encouraging the EU to be generous. The necessity to mitigate the GB-EU border lends itself to the EU and the UK agreeing a very ambitious FTA to mitigate the problems, both for NI-GB trade, and for wider GB-EU trade.

I've been impressed with the Irish governments calm, firm and consistent message on Phase 2. Unfortunately, the British have shown no intention to honestly engage with the problem of the Irish border so their noses are going to have to be held in it for quite a bit longer.

Leroy42

What would be the impact on Irish economy of a hard border with NI?

It is a given that we will have one with the UK mainland so just wondering it is really is worth the political capital to push for a solution rather than focusing on other areas?

flutered

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

they can ask, but will they get it

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

What would be the mechanism to propose this?
It wouldn't be coming from the Tories and it won't be coming from the EU.
Northern Ireland is different as the EU and Ireland were involved in the peace process.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Someone pointed out a while back that if we get a sea border, what's stopping Scotland from demanding a border along Hadrian's Wall? That will be the fear that stops the Conservatives from agreeing to special status for NI.

England would have to cede quite a bit of territory if Hadrian's Wall were the border.

flaneur

Leroy42 wrote: »

What would be the impact on Irish economy of a hard border with NI?

It is a given that we will have one with the UK mainland so just wondering it is really is worth the political capital to push for a solution rather than focusing on other areas?

It's hard to calculate, but the impact would be quite significant for communities on the border, on both sides. A lot of businesses have been built on the assumption that the border was gone. You're really redefining the whole playing field for many businesses, farmers, and individuals and could end up causing a lot of businesses to fold.

The Republic, away from the border regions, which basically includes all of its most populous parts, would be largely unaffected. The North, however, would see a fairly big impact as it is likely that more businesses up there depend on the all-island market as the Republic is significantly bigger. 1.8 mil vs 4.773 million

There's also a very significant difference in wages between NI and ROI and weakening sterling will make those worse. So, you're going to see purchasing power in NI fall relative to their southern counterparts.

steddyeddy

Call me Al wrote: »

There are groups in Scotland who are already calling for a border. Nothing new there.
But they don't have a GF agreement in their hands, a recent bloody history of very troubled times and a nosey neighbour a few miles down the road who understandably wants to look after the interests of all its citizens.
Arlene with her snippy interview earlier is thinking of the DUP and the DUP only.

Very well said. NI has unique circumstances that set it apart from Scotland.

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

Very well said. NI has unique circumstances that set it apart from Scotland.

Both voted to stay in the EU.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both voted to stay in the EU.

Indeed but Ireland, co-signatory in the GFA is trying to avoid a hard border. There's no comparable situation in Scotland.

steddyeddy

The UK is confident that the border won't be a problem when it comes to trade talks. The same way they were confident that the EBA and EMA wouldn't leave.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/21/uk-confident-that-irish-border-will-not-stop-progress-of-brexit-talks

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both voted to stay in the EU.

I'm not sure you can say that. Certainly not technically. Yes, those areas within the UK voted for the UK to remain but the referendum was about the UK staying or leaving. You can't extrapolate and say that NI voted to stay in the EU or that Scotland voted to stay in the EU because those two questions weren't asked.

Capt'n Midnight

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think a hard border is what the DUP is secretly hoping for and is the main reason it campaigned for Brexit. Anything that widens the division between Northern Ireland and Ireland is fine by them. They don't care about the economic consequences since, for a long time now, Northern Ireland's largest industry has been the extraction of subsidies from Westminster by its politicians. Anything they lose from Brexit they can demand from the Exchequer. Keeping the place in a permanent state of tension eases that extraction greatly.

At present the border is a non-issue. It doesn't affect daily life. So there is little pressure to change the status quo.

If the South moves ahead of the North AND guarantees to match existing social welfare and NHS then a border poll is more likely to go south.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What would be the impact on Irish economy of a hard border with NI?

A lot of the drinks industry would move south. Lots of processing happens both sides of the border. Baileys Cream crosses the border lots of times during processing. Things like Guinness canning and bottling are done in the North.

I can't see much of the current cross border processing moving North and going through the whole customs and delays and tariff thing just to stay in the UK.

jm08

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present the border is a non-issue. It doesn't affect daily life. So there is little pressure to change the status quo.

If the South moves ahead of the North AND guarantees to match existing social welfare and NHS then a border poll is more likely to go south.

A lot of the drinks industry would move south. Lots of processing happens both sides of the border. Baileys Cream crosses the border lots of times during processing. Things like Guinness canning and bottling are done in the North.

I can't see much of the current cross border processing moving North and going through the whole customs and delays and tariff thing just to stay in the UK.

I heard someone from Baileys talking about that - they said they could probably arrange production to suit the market that they were exporting to as they have facilities both side of the border - so Baileys for export to EU/Rest of World would be produced in ROI and Baileys for UK market processed in NI.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

Since Brexit


Sterling has fallen.
Tourism should have had a massive upsurge. It didn't, ourselves and the continent had more improvement than the UK

UK productivity has remained flat. It should be going up at 2% a year like it used to. It isn't . Output has gone up but productivity hasn't, one explanation is that no one is investing in new technology it's easier to just hire more workers. This also explains the UK's low level of unemployment.

Yes there are new jobs but inflation means real wages have fallen too

And you can't keep increasing productivity that way. If everyone else is getting 2% better a year and you are competing by lowering real wages well that's completely unsustainable.


It's a libertarians dream. ( are there any poor libertarians ? )
If you have a good job you'll be fine. But I can see those at the sharp end being squeezed.

Capt'n Midnight

jm08 wrote: »

I heard someone from Baileys talking about that - they said they could probably arrange production to suit the market that they were exporting to as they have facilities both side of the border - so Baileys for export to EU/Rest of World would be produced in ROI and Baileys for UK market processed in NI.

Which market is bigger ?

Most of the cross border processing will be going south.

Distillers will keep Bushmills in the North but after that there's no guarantees.

NI Agri sector would be decimated by a hard Brexit, economies of scale would be lost.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/opinion-irelands-farming-and-food-sectors-must-be-put-on-border-alert/

half a million lambs are exported from Northern Ireland annually for processing in the republic. Around 100,000 store cattle are imported from the west of Ireland for finishing in the north
...
75% of the pigs produced on this island were slaughtered in Northern Ireland
...
75% of the processing capacity in the north is now wholly or jointly owned by southern co-ops. And this figure would increase to almost 100% if United Dairy Farmers were ever to do a deal with the likes of Glanbia

At present NI exporters can go via Dublin , Rosslare , Waterford, or Cork.
You can save an hour by car from Omagh to London by going through Dublin. And when margins are tight that's a huge overhead to adsorb.

blanch152

Leroy42 wrote: »

I hope this is the time that the voters in NI finally grow up and start voting for what is best for NI rather than simply what side of the street their Daddy was born on.

DUP are going putting the NI economy in a precarious position with this stance. Whatever about the UK as a whole being big enough, NI relies heavily on trade with the South and actively opting to put constraints on that is very strange. Coupled with the fact that as 1st Minister surely, if we take the line of the Brexiteers, then she should follow the democratic will of her people and look to minimise Brexit(if not cancel it altogether).

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

What would be the mechanism to propose this?
It wouldn't be coming from the Tories and it won't be coming from the EU.
Northern Ireland is different as the EU and Ireland were involved in the peace process.

The Scottish Assembly, you know the democratically elected one.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not sure you can say that. Certainly not technically. Yes, those areas within the UK voted for the UK to remain but the referendum was about the UK staying or leaving. You can't extrapolate and say that NI voted to stay in the EU or that Scotland voted to stay in the EU because those two questions weren't asked.

The question asked was 'Should the UK remain or leave the EU?' The vote was counted mostly by constituency but totals were given for England, Wales - both of which voted to leave, and Scotland and NI - both of which voted to remain.

I am not saying that there was any unasked question driving the way the UK was to leave or remain - unlike other posters. There were no indications on the ballot paper as how leaving was to be achieved, but plenty of motives have been claimed since.