Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

Most NI exports go to GB. That's reason enough to believe a vote to exit the UK common market would be a hard sell indeed. But I don't care personally. It would almost certainly be the lesser of 2 evils for the republic.

First Up

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

Because that would look like they were accepting instructions from evil Europe.

(I tried to put it more succinctly but the mod wouldn't let me.)

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

Good question. The answer is because they intend to deviate from the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (once they have scrapped and replaced the act). This is verbatim from a Tory policy document. In particular, notice the pieces that I've highlighted in bold:



The key objectives of our new Bill are:
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]• Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act.
[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation. [/FONT][/FONT]There is nothing wrong with that original document, which contains a sensible mix of checks and balances alongside the rights it sets out, and is a laudable statement of the principles for a modern democratic nation. We will not introduce new basic rights through this reform; our aim is restore common sense, and to tackle the misuse of the rights contained in the Convention.
[FONT=Open Sans,Open Sans][FONT=Open Sans,Open Sans]•
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]Clarify the Convention rights, to reflect a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. [/FONT][/FONT]This will ensure that they are applied in accordance with the original intentions for the Convention and the mainstream understanding of these rights.





For instance:

1. We will set out a clearer test in how some of the inalienable rights apply to cases of deportation and other removal of persons from the United Kingdom. The ECtHR has ruled that if there is any ‘real risk’ (by no means even a likelihood) of a person being treated in a way contrary to these rights in the destination country, there is a bar on them being sent there, giving them in substance an absolute right to stay in the UK. Our new Bill will clarify what the test should be, in line with our commitment to prevent torture and in keeping with the approach taken by other developed nations.
2. The Convention recognises that people have civic responsibilities, and allows some of its rights to be restricted to uphold the rights and interests of other people. Our new Bill will clarify these limitations on individual rights in certain circumstances. So for example a foreign national who takes the life of another person will not be able to use a defence based on Article 8 to prevent the state deporting them after they have served their sentence.
3. Some terms used in the Convention rights would benefit from a more precise definition, such as ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, which has arguably been given an excessively broad meaning by the ECtHR in some rulings. For example in one case, the simple fact that an individual would have to live in a particular city in Somalia was deemed put him at real risk of degrading treatment.
4. It will not necessarily be possible to clarify every potential application of Convention rights in the new law. Parliament will consider the Convention rights set out in the law in all the legislation it passes.

[FONT=Futura,Futura]

[FONT=Futura,Futura]

[/FONT][/FONT]

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

because the option isn't on the table. the EU Fundamental charter on Human Rights and the UK's adoption of the ECHR are two completely separate issues.

The EU charter essentially gives the final say to the ECJ, the ECHR to the European Court of Human Rights. The former is an EU body, the latter is an instrument of the Council or Europe. They are two completely separate entities.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

That is your opinion, and you are free to imaging that more are convinced so much that they will vote for a united Ireland.

Let's face it, the EU know that the UK won't give on Northern Ireland, they are using it as an excuse to force a hard Brexit and teach the UK a lesson, they can mollify Ireland with grants, telling us how hard they tried.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is your opinion, and you are free to imaging that more are convinced so much that they will vote for a united Ireland.

Let's face it, the EU know that the UK won't give on Northern Ireland, they are using it as an excuse to force a hard Brexit and teach the UK a lesson, they can mollify Ireland with grants, telling us how hard they tried.

So you have bought into the Laura Kuenssberg angle.

That the EU and Ireland are just throwing shapes. Ok.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you have bought into the Laura Kuenssberg angle.

That the EU and Ireland are just throwing shapes. Ok.

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

there could also be a "OK Leo, we will work with you on this, but you need to make Apple cough up and tighten up your tax rules".

mickoneill31

blanch152 wrote: »

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is that the EU has to get the best possible deal for the EU members.
That means not doing the UK any favours to the detriment of the EU, which to some equals "teaching the UK a lesson".
It's almost funny that the UK is now whinging about the EU protecting itself. That's it's job. The UK had the same benefits before it voted for Brexit and it had a huge role in creating most of the laws that they moaned about.

What should the EU do differently about Northern Ireland? The UK have said they don't want a border but will come up with magical imaginative solutions on how they can have that cake and eat it. So far their solutions haven't been imaginative and we're heading towards a solution which was obvious from day one.

Samaris

blanch152 wrote: »

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

Except it isn't - to any of it. Bar perhaps the amount of a damn the UK has been showing for Northern Ireland so far.

The EU has this as a red line because a) it severely impacts a member state, which is indeed a full member state with all rights and protections of being a member of the EU and b) because the EU as a group was involved in the Good Friday Agreement as a co-guarentor of sorts and it is a duty to uphold that as far as possible. It is in no-one's interest for a return to the Troubles, and the 27 remaining countries are well aware of that.

The EU is not going to be nice on the UK, because to the UK, being nice would be being actively detrimental to the EU for the sake of the UK. There is absolutely no reason to do so. However, nothing so far has been malicious against the UK, bar a very mild snark from Barnier there a few days ago that Brexit does indeed mean Brexit and so the European institutions are leaving.

The bill has been phrased as getting the UK to start paying attention to what they signed up for and to come up with a method of calculating what they owe towards commitments made by the UK.

The citizens rights has been a reciprocal thing, protecting both UK and EU citizens.

The border is intractable, but that is because the border situation is intractable. That the EU don't feel particularly inclined to do all the work for the UK (and have made a very unusual offer as is) is hardly unreasonable.

In fact, all three positions have been reasonable so far. That the UK press has been ranting and raving like a set of toddlers and that the Tory government is deeply divided with a weak prime minister and cannot get anything done is neither here nor there.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Most NI exports go to GB. That's reason enough to believe a vote to exit the UK common market would be a hard sell indeed. But I don't care personally. It would almost certainly be the lesser of 2 evils for the republic.

In the event of a sea border, exports from NI to GB are a question for the UK authorities - they can treat them anyway they like - it has no effect on the 'border'. It is imports into NI from GB and, in particular, those goods originating outside of GB - those are the goods required to be inspected and dealt with as per EU customs rules. This particularly relates to agricultural products.

So NI exports will have no problems, so no impact on NI business, and therefore not a danger to NI and its economy. Tesco, M&S etc. can import their products into Ireland for onward distribution to NI as Aldi and Lidl do now.

I have tried to get proper figures for imports and exports to/from NI but they are all collated in such a way as to be meaningless. It is the detail that matters, and that detail is missing.

The figures for agricultural products appear to be too low in the official figures, probably because internal company accounting does not identify much of the transfers. Many production systems have intermediate products crossing the border, back and forth many times, before final sale, such as Bailey's Irish Cream.

Details - the devil is in the detail.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

Leo (Ireland) is the EU. He is vocalising the EU position. Sort out the border or no deal.

I see no other country in the EU breaking ranks on that.

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo (Ireland) is the EU. He is vocalising the EU position. Sort out the border or no deal.

I see no other country in the EU breaking ranks on that.

Especially not Spain, now that Gibraltar is an issue again:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/22/gibraltar-heading-for-abrupt-exit-from-single-market-says-spain

kowtow

Samaris wrote: »

The border is intractable, but that is because the border situation is intractable. That the EU don't feel particularly inclined to do all the work for the UK (and have made a very unusual offer as is) is hardly unreasonable.

Do you not think a part of the reason for the current angst over the border is the strong risk that - as Theresa May's words in parliament today suggest - it will not in fact be the UK demanding a hard border, or putting one in, but the Republic, at the insistence of the EU?

Assuming the North stays out of the customs union and out of the single market along with the rest of the UK, would the UK position not be that current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements combined with electronic customs would be sufficient to protect their interests vis a ve trade and people crossing from the EU? It strikes me that it would be possible to implement a customs border electronically and via the Northern ports so soft that it would barely impact NI / UK trade any more than the existing setup - and with no involvement from the republic or the EU it would hardly amount to an internal border.

It would - however - leave the EU / UK border wide open for goods to travel from North to South and into the EU, posing something of a problem on the EU & Irish side.

Nate--IRL--

I'm told that other WTO members might have issues with the UK implementing favoritism in trade in such a fashion, and could sue the UK, not sure how true it is though.

Nate

mickoneill31

kowtow wrote: »

Assuming the North stays out of the customs union and out of the single market along with the rest of the UK, would the UK position not be that current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements combined with electronic customs would be sufficient to protect their interests vis a ve trade and people crossing from the EU? It strikes me that it would be possible to implement a customs border electronically and via the Northern ports so soft that it would barely impact NI / UK trade any more than the existing setup - and with no involvement from the republic or the EU it would hardly amount to an internal border.

Have you got any details on this type of border? I really don't see how it would work.

So EU visitors come to Ireland. Can you explain how the "current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements" stop them from going to the North and UK?

And if I bring vanloads of goods into Ireland what does an electronic border do to stop me from bringing those into the UK tarrif free?

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the event of a sea border, exports from NI to GB are a question for the UK authorities - they can treat them anyway they like - it has no effect on the 'border'. It is imports into NI from GB and, in particular, those goods originating outside of GB - those are the goods required to be inspected and dealt with as per EU customs rules. This particularly relates to agricultural products.

So NI exports will have no problems, so no impact on NI business, and therefore not a danger to NI and its economy. Tesco, M&S etc. can import their products into Ireland for onward distribution to NI as Aldi and Lidl do now.

I have tried to get proper figures for imports and exports to/from NI but they are all collated in such a way as to be meaningless. It is the detail that matters, and that detail is missing.

The figures for agricultural products appear to be too low in the official figures, probably because internal company accounting does not identify much of the transfers. Many production systems have intermediate products crossing the border, back and forth many times, before final sale, such as Bailey's Irish Cream.

Details - the devil is in the detail.

If the North is in the Customs Union, then the UK will have to treat all imports from Northern Ireland the same as it treats all imports from the rest of the EU, as all an EU company would have to do is re-route the supply of goods and services through Northern Ireland. The only way to prevent that is to set up a border between the North and the South, which then negates the whole purpose of the sea border.

So, for NI to be able to export to the rest of the UK, just like it does today, the UK will have also have to accept the rules of the Single Market and apply no tariffs or quotas to EU goods.

Samaris

kowtow wrote: »

Do you not think a part of the reason for the current angst over the border is the strong risk that - as Theresa May's words in parliament today suggest - it will not in fact be the UK demanding a hard border, or putting one in, but the Republic, at the insistence of the EU?

...

It would - however - leave the EU / UK border wide open for goods to travel from North to South and into the EU, posing something of a problem on the EU & Irish side.

The UK demanded a hard border the minute they insisted that they wanted complete control of immigration.

There is no way to do that other than a hard border.

Now, it is -likely- that they weren't really thinking about Ireland (there were a fair few suggestions flying around about how Ireland would/should leave with them), but Ireland is the only country with a land border with them. If they did not think the position through, then that is hardly anyone else's fault, tbh.

Hard border is necessary on the other side too, mostly due to regulatory divergence, which is guarenteed to happen. It is annoying that while EU regulation will remain a known quantity, we haven't a clue what the UK will do to their standards, so the hard goods border is needed from our side too. However, as the country causing the chaos, it is in large part up to the UK to stop screwing around and come up with some solutions. One would think that having decided to cause problems for their 27 neighbours, they'd have thought it all through first... >.>

kowtow

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Have you got any details on this type of border? I really don't see how it would work.

So EU visitors come to Ireland. Can you explain how the "current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements" stop them from going to the North and UK?

And if I bring vanloads of goods into Ireland what does an electronic border do to stop me from bringing those into the UK tarrif free?

I don't think the sole emphasis of the UK govt is going to be stopping EU travelers at borders - if they did they would have difficulties with the CTA continuing given that only a driving licence or ID is strictly required to travel between the Republic and the UK. I think whatever the talk of taking control of borders the real emphasis on (EU) immigration will be in the employment / housing & benefits system - so in principle I think the UK is going to be almost as relaxed about people walking across the border into NI, or crossing the Irish sea, as it is today. I have never seen any suggestion that they intend to implement passport control between Republic & North and therefore they must feel that any checks they need to do can safely be left to an Irish sea crossing without upsetting the Unionists.

As for goods - that of course is where the complication lies. I lived in Switzerland for years and although there is a border, and very effective customs tariffs into the EU on many things, there are many border crossings which are unmanned or only occasionally manned and plenty of times one would drive across and see nobody. A lot of work is done in the border regions by customs police in their patrols - and a lot seems to be done by data exchange. For lorries, vans, goods etc. the manifests are presumably electronic and only a small proportion are checked.

Surely the UK - for it's purposes, not Europe's, could check goods by intelligence led patrols near the border (as and when - not a hard border as such, no infrastructure) relying on the sea crossings, where security checks already have to take place, to implement tariffs on EU goods bound beyond NI. For the UK I think that might be enough? Are they really all that bothered about cross border smuggling into Northern Ireland per se from the Republic?

That - to me - is what the UK means by a "soft border".

So the problem for the EU / Irish side is a bit more complex - because they can't put any customs point at all at sea crossings between NI and the UK. They either have to control everything near the land border or let it percolate through the Republic freely before trying to pick it up at Irish ports... It's actually the Republic & the EU who have most need of paraphernalia or obtrusive presence around the border if they are to have any kind of effective customs at all - and I think the UK have realized that all along.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

If the North is in the Customs Union, then the UK will have to treat all imports from Northern Ireland the same as it treats all imports from the rest of the EU, as all an EU company would have to do is re-route the supply of goods and services through Northern Ireland. The only way to prevent that is to set up a border between the North and the South, which then negates the whole purpose of the sea border.

So, for NI to be able to export to the rest of the UK, just like it does today, the UK will have also have to accept the rules of the Single Market and apply no tariffs or quotas to EU goods.

Not so. The UK treats all goods imported from NI as it sees fit. It would require 'origin certification' that the goods were of NI origin or they would be treated as being of EU origin. It is a similar magical technology based solution to the one proposed for the 'frictionless' border they proposed for the NI border.

They can treat it as they see fit as it is an internal border.

carrickbally

Unless the UK is agreeable to leave the border rules as they are now there should be no move to go on to detailed negotiations from the December summit.

If they move on the UK can start negotiating for having their cake and eat it at our expense.

The Veto has to be used in December if the border conditions are not left as they are now.

solodeogloria

kowtow wrote: »

Do you not think a part of the reason for the current angst over the border is the strong risk that - as Theresa May's words in parliament today suggest - it will not in fact be the UK demanding a hard border, or putting one in, but the Republic, at the insistence of the EU?

Assuming the North stays out of the customs union and out of the single market along with the rest of the UK, would the UK position not be that current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements combined with electronic customs would be sufficient to protect their interests vis a ve trade and people crossing from the EU? It strikes me that it would be possible to implement a customs border electronically and via the Northern ports so soft that it would barely impact NI / UK trade any more than the existing setup - and with no involvement from the republic or the EU it would hardly amount to an internal border.

It would - however - leave the EU / UK border wide open for goods to travel from North to South and into the EU, posing something of a problem on the EU & Irish side.

Good evening!

This is precisely what's at play. The UK have always been willing to find a way of ensuring that there won't be hard infrastructure on the border. If the EU were willing to consider a bespoke alternative recognising the particular nature of the Irish border as opposed to a one size fits all solution then we wouldn't be in this place now.

The UK has clearly said time and time again both that the discussions need to consider trade and customs in order to solve this issue.

I agree if a hard border is put there it will be because of the EU and not because of the UK. This is why I feel like Ireland isn't putting pressure in the right direction. Ireland should be asking the EU to consider bespoke options.

A sea border doesn't work for NI and the figures (based on destination) prove it. It won't get through parliament so it is a dead end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

Not so. The UK treats all goods imported from NI as it sees fit. It would require 'origin certification' that the goods were of NI origin or they would be treated as being of EU origin. It is a similar magical technology based solution to the one proposed for the 'frictionless' border they proposed for the NI border.

How would that "origin certification" be managed? Will NI exporters have to get certs of origin from the C of C? Who will check them and where/when?

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I don't think the sole emphasis of the UK govt is going to be stopping EU travelers at borders - if they did they would have difficulties with the CTA continuing given that only a driving licence or ID is strictly required to travel between the Republic and the UK. I think whatever the talk of taking control of borders the real emphasis on (EU) immigration will be in the employment / housing & benefits system - so in principle I think the UK is going to be almost as relaxed about people walking across the border into NI, or crossing the Irish sea, as it is today. I have never seen any suggestion that they intend to implement passport control between Republic & North and therefore they must feel that any checks they need to do can safely be left to an Irish sea crossing without upsetting the Unionists.

They already had the ability to do that, even in the year of the ref Cameron got concessions from the EU that they could avoid paying any funds to EU citizens for 3 years. Belgium has a similar system. You only get back if you start paying in.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is precisely what's at play. The UK have always been willing to find a way of ensuring that there won't be hard infrastructure on the border. If the EU were willing to consider a bespoke alternative recognising the particular nature of the Irish border as opposed to a one size fits all solution then we wouldn't be in this place now.

The UK has clearly said time and time again both that the discussions need to consider trade and customs in order to solve this issue.

I agree if a hard border is put there it will be because of the EU and not because of the UK. This is why I feel like Ireland isn't putting pressure in the right direction. Ireland should be asking the EU to consider bespoke options.

A sea border doesn't work for NI and the figures (based on destination) prove it. It won't get through parliament so it is a dead end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK are the ones that made the decision to leave the EU, and therefore bring the possibility of a border in place. Now you are claiming that it is the EU to blame?

Simple solution is to maintain the freedom of movement, there no issue with any border. Oh whats that, UK have decided they don't want that and want to control it borders but now wants to outsource that to the EU.

You couldn't make it up. What % of the brexit debate was given over to the consequences on NI? IN mainland UK, very little. They simple do not care. To try to pass this lack of a plan off against the EU is nonsense.

BTW how did those economic reports go today. A further 0.4% lopped off the growth rate. You claimed it was worth the pain so what are all these benefits that are going to make up for this years of lost growth.

I'll ask again, can you give any details of this benefit and when you expect them to arrive.

kowtow

I've got a lot of sympathy for our Govt on this one, we are in an invidious position, but like most things in this negotiation you would need to read between the lines. We are only accusing the UK of "wanting all the work doing for them" because - in reality - we need the British to create a hard border precisely so that we can stand on the other side of it with a clean conscience and keep British goods out of the EU.

Unless - of course - we can, along with Barnier et. al, somehow throw enough silly artificial procedural hoops in the way (jeering loudly when the "incompetent" UK refuses to jump through them)... If only we could do enough... the British might come to their senses, throw out the Tories, and either stay in the customs union out of sheer exhaustion or better still (we hope) tear the whole thing up.

A lot of people on all sides being kidded here.

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

kowtow wrote: »

Do you not think a part of the reason for the current angst over the border is the strong risk that - as Theresa May's words in parliament today suggest - it will not in fact be the UK demanding a hard border, or putting one in, but the Republic, at the insistence of the EU?

Assuming the North stays out of the customs union and out of the single market along with the rest of the UK, would the UK position not be that current CTA / NI crossing security arrangements combined with electronic customs would be sufficient to protect their interests vis a ve trade and people crossing from the EU? It strikes me that it would be possible to implement a customs border electronically and via the Northern ports so soft that it would barely impact NI / UK trade any more than the existing setup - and with no involvement from the republic or the EU it would hardly amount to an internal border.

It would - however - leave the EU / UK border wide open for goods to travel from North to South and into the EU, posing something of a problem on the EU & Irish side.

Good evening!

This is precisely what's at play. The UK have always been willing to find a way of ensuring that there won't be hard infrastructure on the border. If the EU were willing to consider a bespoke alternative recognising the particular nature of the Irish border as opposed to a one size fits all solution then we wouldn't be in this place now.

The UK has clearly said time and time again both that the discussions need to consider trade and customs in order to solve this issue.

I agree if a hard border is put there it will be because of the EU and not because of the UK. This is why I feel like Ireland isn't putting pressure in the right direction. Ireland should be asking the EU to consider bespoke options.

A sea border doesn't work for NI and the figures (based on destination) prove it. It won't get through parliament so it is a dead end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You just don't get it, do you? NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself.
BESIDES... The UK have stated they want out of the Customs Union. If the UK is not in the Customs Union, THERE HAS TO BE A BORDER. Even if they got the most progressive FTA in the world, if they're out of the CU, then goods have to be checked before they are let in. Borders are not there just so some nice gentleman can say "this is the tariff for this, please." They're also there because they ALSO have to check all the goods that come in and are tariffless by virtue of an FTA. Or do you think that now Canada can send a bunch of containers and they'll be unchecked at the border?
Let's assume that the EU and UK agree on an FTA with full free movement of goods and services. (We're just assuming.) If the UK is out of the CU, as they've stated over and over they intend to ("Brexit means leaving the EU and the single market and the CU!") even with this FTA, there has to be a border, and goods have to be checked to make sure they comply with health and safety regulations, regardless if there's a tariff or not.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

How would that "origin certification" be managed? Will NI exporters have to get certs of origin from the C of C? Who will check them and where/when?

Because of freedom of movement within the Single Market, that would mean any European company could set up with a letterbox company in Northern Ireland and get tariff-free access to the UK. Transfer pricing on speed.

carrickbally

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This is precisely what's at play. The UK have always been willing to find a way of ensuring that there won't be hard infrastructure on the border. If the EU were willing to consider a bespoke alternative recognising the particular nature of the Irish border as opposed to a one size fits all solution then we wouldn't be in this place now.

The UK has clearly said time and time again both that the discussions need to consider trade and customs in order to solve this issue.

I agree if a hard border is put there it will be because of the EU and not because of the UK. This is why I feel like Ireland isn't putting pressure in the right direction. Ireland should be asking the EU to consider bespoke options.

A sea border doesn't work for NI and the figures (based on destination) prove it. It won't get through parliament so it is a dead end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There was no hard border for the last 2 decades or so.

That was the result of both jurisdictions being in the EU and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

Both of those agreements have been torn up by Brexit.

Brexit has, therefore, determined that there will be a hard border.

Got that?

The only bespoke option that will maintain the border as is to stay in the customs union and allow free movement of people.

But Brexit as determined by the gutter London media will not tolerate that.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have always been willing to find a way of ensuring that there won't be hard infrastructure on the border. If the EU were willing to consider a bespoke alternative recognising the particular nature of the Irish border as opposed to a one size fits all solution then we wouldn't be in this place now.

With respect Sir, but that is utter nonsense.

The EU has explicitly said it will consider such bespoke alternatives - if the UK would only propose one. It has singularly failed to do so.

And has been asked more forcefully now to provide details of a such clear proposal for December and end the nonsense about woolly 'bespoke', 'imaginative', 'creative' fantasy solutions. The EU has called their bluff on it now, tired of the procrastinating and can kicking on this topic, and the UK will be forced to admit that in fact, it has no answer to this fundamentally intractable problem.

kowtow

breatheme wrote:

You just don't get it, do you? NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself. BESIDES... The UK have stated they want out of the Customs Union. If the UK is not in the Customs Union, THERE HAS TO BE A BORDER. Even if they got the most progressive FTA in the world, if they're out of the CU, then goods have to be checked before they are let in. Borders are not there just so some nice gentleman can say "this is the tariff for this, please." They're also there because they ALSO have to check all the goods that come in and are tariffless by virtue of an FTA. Or do you think that now Canada can send a bunch of containers and they'll be unchecked at the border? Let's assume that the EU and UK agree on an FTA with full free movement of goods and services. (We're just assuming.) If the UK is out of the CU, as they've stated over and over they intend to ("Brexit means leaving the EU and the single market and the CU!") even with this FTA, there has to be a border, and goods have to be checked to make sure they comply with health and safety regulations, regardless if there's a tariff or not.

What are we doing now if not using NI as a bargaining chip?

You have listed all the reasons why the EU needs a new border between here and the North.. more than the UK does in any event.

kowtow

carrickbally wrote:

That was the result of both jurisdictions being in the EU and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

I would suggest it was the result of the good Friday agreement and the CTA rather than the EU.

Was there ever a hard border between the UK and Ireland if you discard the checkpoints of the 70s and 80s?

Anthracite

carrickbally wrote: »

There was no hard border for the last 2 decades or so.

That was the result of both jurisdictions being in the EU and the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

Both of those agreements have been torn up by Brexit.

Brexit has, therefore, determined that there will be a hard border.

Got that?

Strangely, it falls to Ireland and the EU to square this impossible circle. I wonder why?

Nate--IRL--

kowtow wrote: »

I would suggest it was the result of the good Friday agreement and the CTA rather than the EU.

Was there ever a hard border between the UK and Ireland if you discard the checkpoints of the 70s and 80s?

There was always a customs border, even with the CTA, pre-EU.

Nate

Leonard Hofstadter

Schorpio wrote: »

As someone who lived in the UK for years (up until about 2 months ago - move not Brexit related!) I wholeheartedly concur with this.

When the DUP propped up the Tories, most in my office were stopping by my desk to ask me about who the DUP were, etc.

+1, they know precious little about Ireland really.

Absolutely no understanding about the North whatsoever and hence no appreciation as to why it might be such an issue for us.

In saying that, as I've said in this thread many times before they've been nothing but nice to me, nothing has changed since before the referendum in that regard.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

Because of freedom of movement within the Single Market, that would mean any European company could set up with a letterbox company in Northern Ireland and get tariff-free access to the UK. Transfer pricing on speed.

But NI would not be 'in' the single market - only the CU, so no freedom of movement of goods. The UK would require the honest NI business to pre-register the goods before shipping goods to the UK and they would be waved through. Other goods would be inspected. This is their proposal for the UK-Ireland border, but applied to the sea border. It would only apply to NI origin goods.

In this way, NI exports to the UK would not be affected, but EU origin goods would be inspected. Of course, NI would have to comply with SM rules to continue to have free movement of goods to Ireland and so the EU. So they are sort of in the SM - a fudge.

kowtow

Sam Russell wrote:

But NI would not be 'in' the single market - only the CU, so no freedom of movement of goods. The UK would require the honest NI business to pre-register the goods before shipping goods to the UK and they would be waved through. Other goods would be inspected. This is their proposal for the UK-Ireland border, but applied to the sea border. It would only apply to NI origin goods.

In practice the UK can do this more or less perfectly with NI outside the CU and virtually all checks taking place at the sea ports.

So the demand to put NI in the CU is to spare the blushes of the EU who can't implement their own border without either hardware on the land border or the assistance of the UK.

The UK said again today that it won't be putting hardware at the land border. Isn't that all we are asking for?

Water John

Kowtow, you may understand something the UK have yet to consider. Its for the UK to suggest options. Have a word with Davis.

sameoldname

kowtow wrote: »

The UK said again today that it won't be putting hardware at the land border. Isn't that all we are asking for?

The UK government decided to put hardware on the border the moment they ruled out staying in the single market, no matter how much they act like they didn't.

Gerry T

blanch152 wrote:

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

Totally wrong, the EU is 27 members, each with a say. In some areas each members say is not equal, in others it is. In regards to moving to trade talks and agreeing a deal all 27 members have equal voices. The UK don't understand this. England makes the decision and Wales, Scotland and NI just toddle along.

flaneur

I think the simplest solution for the Northern border in the short to medium term is probably to sue the UK for economic damage caused to Donegal and the border counties.

It’s not unreasonable that they would pay some considerable contribution towards cleaning up the mess they’re creating, by ensuring Donegal in particular is not left isolated.

A major contribution towards perhaps a road upgrade from Donegal and also the other border regions impacted would be a fairly reasonable thing to include in the divorce bill.

Also I would assume some kind of Brexit compensation package would need to be put in place for companies that have their businesses profoundly impacted.

Maybe €2-3 billion Euro.

Also, a major investment package for Northern Ireland.

I think the notion they can just cause absolute complete mayhem for these regions and then walk away is insanity.

They’re walking away from commitments, undermining people's businesses, regional economics and all sorts of risks are being created for a fragile and very recent peace process. I think the very least they could do is ensure that the resources are put in place to deal with the fallout of that political decision.

I have no doubts they'll storm off claiming they don't owe anyone anything and they're free to so whatever they like, but it makes the UK look like a bunch of untrustworthy, backstabbers that will rip up any agreement they sign. They also look completely incompetent. I think they've done huge damage to their own reputation.

The notion that Ireland might be better off following them is crazy too. What would we end up with?
Outside the EU and utterly dependent on a country that is currently run by a bunch of tabloid newspapers and has demonstrated absolutely no interest being a reasonable trading partner.

If we did leave, how long would it be before they are moaning about Irish FDI or something else and throwing us to the wolves?

As we are clearly going to stand out ground on Irish interests in the coming months, I think you can brace yourself for an avalanche or tabloid paddywhacky, the likes or which haven't seen in decades.

MPFGLB

Wouldnt it be nice if there was no hard border and NI was like some free trade outpost of the UK and with out controls, the EU

Like Hong KOng or the way Casablanca was during the war

Might do wonders for NI's economy if nonetheless hard to control

Surely some FDA (are they still around) body could swing it that Ireland get the best they can out of this situation by ensuring a soft border and lots of customs jobs at Irish ports and airports ....

Ireland open to UK markets (through NI) and Ireland open to EU markets (through the Republic) but everyone else who tries to avail of this perk scruntenised by Irish Officals ....I like the look of that

Junkyard Tom

There will be civil disobedience if they try to bring back a hard border. If the PSNI start cracking skulls, like the RUC did, we'd be entering very dangerous territory.

bbc.com/news

MPFGLB

flaneur wrote: »

I think the simplest solution for the Northern border in the short to medium term is probably to sue the UK for economic damage caused to Donegal and the border counties.

It’s not unreasonable that they would pay some considerable contribution towards cleaning up the mess they’re creating, by ensuring Donegal in particular is not left isolated.

A major contribution towards perhaps a road upgrade from Donegal and also the other border regions impacted would be a fairly reasonable thing to include in the divorce bill.

Also I would assume some kind of Brexit compensation package would need to be put in place for companies that have their businesses profoundly impacted.

Maybe €2-3 billion Euro.

Also, a major investment package for Northern Ireland.

I think the notion they can just cause absolute complete mayhem for these regions and then walk away is insanity.

They’re walking away from commitments, undermining people's businesses, regional economics and all sorts of risks are being created for a fragile and very recent peace process. I think the very least they could do is ensure that the resources are put in place to deal with the fallout of that political decision.

I have no doubts they'll storm off claiming they don't owe anyone anything and they're free to so whatever they like, but it makes the UK look like a bunch of untrustworthy, backstabbers that will rip up any agreement they sign. They also look completely incompetent. I think they've done huge damage to their own reputation.

Is that not the EU divorce bill ?

Plus UK governments have caused economical havoc before in Wales and North of England and no one got any compenssation

Also UK does not have the money ...the coffers are bare or wil be when Brexit is over ...chancellor today gave more to manage Brexit than to the NHS

flaneur

It has plenty of money. It could sell some assets, raise tax etc.

Why should we care about UK internal financial matters? They clearly don't currently give a hoot about ours.

What it did internally with Scotland and Wales or the North of England is a matter for UK domestic politics.

This is effectively ripping up international trade and other agreements.

If they left the political aspects of the EU and stayed in the customs union, fair enough. But no, they're also ripping up the trade agreements and causing economic chaos both for themselves and their neighbours.

Brexit isn't cost free, particularly if you're going to just burn all your trade agreements and links with neighbouring countries.

Cake & eat it seems to be the aim here.
It'll be one of those cheap and nasty cakes by the looks of it.

I've very little sympathy for what us just a jingoistic, illogical move where all pragmatism, sense and neighbourly good will is being very deliberately thrown away.

solodeogloria

breatheme wrote: »

You just don't get it, do you? NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself.
BESIDES... The UK have stated they want out of the
Customs Union. If the UK is not in the Customs Union, THERE HAS TO BE A BORDER. Even if they got the most progressive FTA in the world, if they're out of the CU, then goods have to be checked before they are let in. Borders are not there just so some nice gentleman can say "this is the tariff for this, please." They're also there because they ALSO have to check all the goods that come in and are tariffless by virtue of an FTA. Or do you think that now Canada can send a bunch of containers and they'll be unchecked at the border?
Let's assume that the EU and UK agree on an FTA with full free movement of goods and services. (We're just assuming.) If the UK is out of the CU, as they've stated over and over they intend to ("Brexit means leaving the EU and the single market and the CU!") even with this FTA, there has to be a border, and goods have to be checked to make sure they comply with health and safety regulations, regardless if there's a tariff or not.

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that if there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that I'd there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So what solution are they proposing.
There will be no trade talks until the UK tell us what they propose. Why can't you accept this.
Trade talks are in our gift to give. You knew that when you voted.

Leroy42

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

UsedToWait

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

Perhaps these two characters form Hamlet could cover border duties.

Enter BARNARDO and FRANCISCO, two sentinels
BARNARDO
Who’s there?
FRANCISCO
Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.
BARNARDO
Long live the king!
FRANCISCO
  Barnardo?
BARNARDO
    He.
FRANCISCO
You come most carefully upon your hour.
BARNARDO
'Tis now struck twelve. Get thee to bed, Francisco.
FRANCISCO
For this relief much thanks. 'Tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.

It's about as concrete a proposal as any we've heard from the UK.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

Good morning!

I don't know why people ask this question. The Government have been clear about what they want. They are looking to continue free travel from the EU even at British airports. Not free movement of labour. That's the distinction.

Employment checks can happen on seeking NI and employment. I've answered that already on this thread several times. This already happens for countries with visa waivers into the UK.

The UK have no desire for a hard border if one is erected it will be at the EU's insistence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

The plan is actually not to control immigration directly, but indirectly through controlling employment, education, social security, etc. The British say they want to end free movement but actually to a large extent what they want to end is free movement of skilled labour.

From an immigration point of view the UK border will be (relatively) easy to cross, but any time you want to sign on for benefits, enter employment, pay or reclaim tax, enroll in college, etc, you'll need to demonstrate your citizenship/immigration status by producing the appropriate documentation. And of course you can expand this requirement as needed - opening bank accounts, enrolling your children in school, registering with a GP practice.

This means that much of the grunt work of policing the system is done not by the state but by, e.g., private employers, schools and colleges, etc.

British citizens will be annoyed at having to produce identity papers before they can enter into common transactions and commercial/employment relationships, but the thinking is that they'll put up with it because that's what they do. Mustn't grumble, you know. People who have real problems with this - the homeless, the disadvantaged - don't vote in large numbers, so that's all right.

It also creates the mechanisms and incentives for a thriving black economy relying on exploited undocumented workers, but that won't be a problem because oh look at that shiny thing over there.