Irish Border and Brexit

FrancieBrady

This topic has crept into another thread on northern Ireland but this really concerns us all.

Is Coveney right to do what he did at this stage and what should Dublin's position be on this?

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

The move would antagonise the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up the Conservative government and is at loggerheads with Sinn Fein over a power-sharing deal in Belfast. The DUP would object to any implication that Northern Ireland was not being treated as part of the UK. Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, told his European counterparts that the republic “cannot and will not” accept the return of a hard border after Brexit and specifically took aim at the idea of solving the problem using technology. A Whitehall source said: “There is a new taoiseach and a new foreign minister and they’re stamping their authority. We’re being as positive as we can but it’s true to say that their attitude has hardened.”

The issue of the 310-mile Irish border has been thrown into sharp relief by Mrs May’s commitment to leave the customs union after Brexit, as it would become a potential smuggling route. Neither government wants a situation that would be reminiscent of the checkpoints that operated during the Troubles. In February The Times reported that Irish officials were working on technical solutions including the use of surveillance cameras.

In a significant departure from that position, Mr Coveney told a meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers: “What we do not want to pretend is that we can solve the problems of the border on the island of Ireland through technical solutions like cameras and pre-registration and so on. That is not going to work.

“Any barrier or border on the island of Ireland in my view risks undermining a very hard-won peace process and all of the parties in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist or nationalist, recognise that we want to keep the free movement of people and goods and services and livelihoods.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq?t=ie

Chips Lovell

In some ways there isn't a lot we can do since they're the ones who want to leave the EU and we're not forcing them to.

The official British position is a bit of a paradox. One of their main reasons for leaving was to control their own borders. Except for the one land border that they have, where they don't really want a border, or not much of a one at least.

Neither the British government, nor the British voter, has really thought this one through.

Red_Wake

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In some ways there isn't a lot we can do since they're the ones who want to leave the EU and we're not forcing them to.

The official British position is a bit of a paradox. One of their main reasons for leaving was to control their own borders. Except for the one land border that they have, where they don't really want a border, or not much of a one at least.

Neither the British government, nor the British voter, has really thought this one through.

True, there's no solution that'll satisfy everyone[or anyone for that matter].

Is there any precedent for a customs border between an EU and non-EU country, which works as a "soft" border?

Thomas__

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In some ways there isn't a lot we can do since they're the ones who want to leave the EU and we're not forcing them to.

The official British position is a bit of a paradox. One of their main reasons for leaving was to control their own borders. Except for the one land border that they have, where they don't really want a border, or not much of a one at least.

Neither the British government, nor the British voter, has really thought this one through.

None of them has thought anything really through. That is the main problem and despite the fact that the real problems are one after another emerge on the surface and call for solutions, they still appear to have no clue at all where to begin with and how to solve it in a way where every side can live with it. This is how they are just making it all worse and time is running out for them.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote:

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

Tail wagging the dog. Ideally an Irish sea border would make life easier, but the DUP are in charge of the show now.

The British will still have to implement some port checks in any case because they'll be none on our northern border.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This topic has crept into another thread on northern Ireland but this really concerns us all.

Is Coveney right to do what he did at this stage and what should Dublin's position be on this?

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

The move would antagonise the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up the Conservative government and is at loggerheads with Sinn Fein over a power-sharing deal in Belfast. The DUP would object to any implication that Northern Ireland was not being treated as part of the UK. Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, told his European counterparts that the republic “cannot and will not” accept the return of a hard border after Brexit and specifically took aim at the idea of solving the problem using technology. A Whitehall source said: “There is a new taoiseach and a new foreign minister and they’re stamping their authority. We’re being as positive as we can but it’s true to say that their attitude has hardened.”

The issue of the 310-mile Irish border has been thrown into sharp relief by Mrs May’s commitment to leave the customs union after Brexit, as it would become a potential smuggling route. Neither government wants a situation that would be reminiscent of the checkpoints that operated during the Troubles. In February The Times reported that Irish officials were working on technical solutions including the use of surveillance cameras.

In a significant departure from that position, Mr Coveney told a meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers: “What we do not want to pretend is that we can solve the problems of the border on the island of Ireland through technical solutions like cameras and pre-registration and so on. That is not going to work.

“Any barrier or border on the island of Ireland in my view risks undermining a very hard-won peace process and all of the parties in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist or nationalist, recognise that we want to keep the free movement of people and goods and services and livelihoods.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq?t=ie

There are some ways in theory how to deal with that, but neither of those I have in mind seem to be that realistical as that they would be either considered or realised.

1. The UK dismisses NI from her being a constitutional part

2. Only GB leaves the customs union and loses access to the single market (like the diehard Brexiteers like to have it but the DUP doesn´t), setting up some special agreement that allows NI to remain within the customs Union in a semi and co-operative construct together with the Republic of Ireland and allowing NI access to the single market. That of course requires the consent of the EU and her member states.

3. The Suggestion of the Irish govt is taken on and checks are limited to ports and Airports with both, UK and Republic of Ireland facilitating the sources for implementation.

4. The present UK govt collapses, a snap GE is to be Held and the DUP is dismissed from her Need to Support the present UK govt and with a GE result that votes the Tories out of power, making it more likely that a Labour govt takes over, all is about to reset and start again.

5. In the event of a collaps of the present UK govt and a different new govt that allows to give the UK electorate a second chance to vote in a BrexitRef2 and with a different result to last years, making it likely that the UK withdraws from leaving the EU, the matter of a hard border in Ireland would become irrelevant again.

6. The present UK PM is forced to resign and steps down after becoming the victim of a plot by her own Party and another diehard Tory takes over from her, seeking to get rid of the DUP Support or simply ignoring them, with the Instrument of reinstating direct rule over NI, then decide on a hard border in order to secure the demands of a hard Brexit, the border is reistalled and neither DUP nor the Irish govt could do anything against it. That´s because as long as NI remains part of the UK, it is the territory of the UK and on such matter, the UK govt can decide by herself whether or not she reistalls a hard border with everything that is to be facilitated along that border.  

Whatever any of these theoretical considerations might or rather might not become reality, I really can´t say. It´s all theory and it´s hard to predict the near future. However, what is apparent is that Mrs May as a PM is weak, becoming more weak by losing support within her own party and thus within the parliamentary conservative party in the Commons and her chances of staying on as PM beyond this year are melting down. It is just a question of time when the plotters are going to overthrow her, but not whether they will do it. That leaves it all open regarding what will come up next.

Jayop

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In some ways there isn't a lot we can do since they're the ones who want to leave the EU and we're not forcing them to.

The official British position is a bit of a paradox. One of their main reasons for leaving was to control their own borders. Except for the one land border that they have, where they don't really want a border, or not much of a one at least.

Neither the British government, nor the British voter, has really thought this one through.

Jeb it's more that your average brexit voter like your average remainder in England didn't care about Northern Ireland's border. They don't care about norther Ireland full stop and it wouldn't have come into their thinking when at the polls. Even now this is little more than a minor inconvenience for the UK government in the grand scale of the mess that is brexit.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Tail wagging the dog. Ideally an Irish sea border would make life easier, but the DUP are in charge of the show now.

The British will still have to implement some port checks in any case because they'll be none on our northern border.

The arrangement with the DUP will not survive another election. ANd there will be one sooner or later in the Brexit process.
And them being in a UK government should not prevent us working with our EU partners to pressure the UK to implement the simplest solution to this - an Irish sea border.
For once unionism should be made to lie in the bed (and other than a dent in pride, it represents the simplest, least economically damaging solution for them too) it has made for itself.

Chips Lovell

Jayop wrote: »

Jeb it's more that your average brexit voter like your average remainder in England didn't care about Northern Ireland's border. They don't care about norther Ireland full stop and it wouldn't have come into their thinking when at the polls. Even now this is little more than a minor inconvenience for the UK government in the grand scale of the mess that is brexit.

It's more than even caring, there's a lot who don't even know this is an issue. You'd be amazed at how many people over there aren't even aware there is a border and, if they are, which bit of of Ireland is part of the UK and which isn't.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Tail wagging the dog.  Ideally an Irish sea border would make life easier, but the DUP are in charge of the show now.

The British will still have to implement some port checks in any case because they'll be none on our northern border.

The arrangement with the DUP will not survive another election. ANd there will be one sooner or later in the Brexit process.
And them being in a UK government should not prevent us working with our EU partners to pressure the UK to implement the simplest solution to this - an Irish sea border.
For once unionism should be made to lie in the bed (and other than a dent in pride, it represents the simplest, least economically damaging solution for them too) it has made for itself.

I haven´t read anything about how the EU looks at that suggestion.

FrancieBrady

Thomas__ wrote: »

I haven´t read anything about how the EU looks at that suggestion.

I don't have any faith in FG's willingness or ability to stand up for us but we should be insisting as the member of the EU that our solution become the official EU one.

At least Coveney has fired a shot across the bows.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I haven´t read anything about how the EU looks at that suggestion.

I don't have any faith in FG's willingness or ability to stand up for us but we should be insisting as the member of the EU that our solution become the official EU one.

At least Coveney has fired a shot across the bows.

I find the idea of the sea border a good solution. The reaction by the DUP on this proposal speaks for themselves and shows again that they´re often against everything but can´t provide an alternative one themselves.

ArmaniJeanss

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

Presumably it would be one of our responsibilities as an EU land border country, much like Poland, Greece, Finland etc. I'd expect its in one of the treaties we signed and we just never thought it would apply to us.

Chips Lovell

The other thing to bear in mind is that while, officially, the status of the border (along with exit bill and citizens rights) is part of the first stage of negotiations, it may not be resolved until later, because a lot depends on what kind of Brexit the British ultimately go for - whether they stay in the EEA or if there's a customs union or if there's no deal at all.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Tail wagging the dog.  Ideally an Irish sea border would make life easier, but the DUP are in charge of the show now.

The British will still have to implement some port checks in any case because they'll be none on our northern border.

The arrangement with the DUP will not survive another election. ANd there will be one sooner or later in the Brexit process.
And them being in a UK government should not prevent us working with our EU partners to pressure the UK to implement the simplest solution to this - an Irish sea border.
For once unionism should be made to lie in the bed (and other than a dent in pride, it represents the simplest, least economically damaging solution for them too) it has made for itself.

I hope that this arrangement won´t survive this year and that until it falls apart, the people in GB get a better understanding what sort of these DUP people really are. I can imagine how embarrassed some Brit might be by looking at them and the way they "perform" themselves by being more British than the British themselves. Up to the day this deal was struck, many Brits in GB didn´t pay much attention to NI for that was always considered to be the backyard of the UK and not as much important to them like Scotland and Wales.

Thomas__

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The other thing to bear in mind is that while, officially, the status of the border (along with exit bill and citizens rights) is part of the first stage of negotiations, it may not be resolved until later, because a lot depends on what kind of Brexit the British ultimately go for - whether they stay in the EEA or if there's a customs union or if there's no deal at all.

With the present UK govt in charge and he diehard Brexiteers in charge of the Tory Party, it´s clear to me where they are heading. They have but only one aim and that is to crash out of the EU even if that means with no deal at all. The moderate Tories have no control over the hard Brexiteers and this is where the real problem is. Otherwise the negotiations had went a bit more swift and with some results during the past two weeks. Nothing has really achieved yet and it´s all on the side of the UK govt as they change their opinions and proposals every nearly every day. That makes it difficult to deal with anything and let alone to say to settle.

Chips Lovell

Thomas__ wrote: »

With the present UK govt in charge and he diehard Brexiteers in charge of the Tory Party, it´s clear to me where they are heading.

Pre-election, yes, I definitely think an exit without any deal was quite possible. Post-election, I think it's less likely. Sooner or later, the government there will have start dealing with the realistic options are as opposed to just hand waving. Given their slim majority, moderate Tories could sabotage any bid for a proper hard Brexit.

Thomas__

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

With the present UK govt in charge and he diehard Brexiteers in charge of the Tory Party, it´s clear to me where they are heading.

Pre-election, yes, I definitely think an exit without any deal was quite possible. Post-election, I think it's less likely. Sooner or later, the government there will have start dealing with the realistic options are as opposed to just hand waving. Given their slim majority, moderate Tories could sabotage any bid for a proper hard Brexit.

They could, yes, whether they´ll do is another thing and I am waiting to see the downfall of Mrs May as PM being due and happening in autumn this year. I don´t expect anything else from this present UK govt than worsening the mess they already are in. It might be all be done on purpose to bring her down, that they can´t make anything progressing in this going negotiation process.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

Bar a sudden outbreak of clarity & flexibility in London, it is becoming increasingly likely that we will have to both tolerate & operate a soft border (at the very minimum) or more probably a hard border.

We can be "clear" that we dislike it but that won't help anyone magic up a solution and would likely just paint us into a corner where we suddenly end up facing an EU exit because we aren't prepared to face up to this being an either/or issue as seems increasingly probable.

Sam Russell

The UK border will be the water around GB, inc the North Sea, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea - whatever is decided about NI.

The NI Irish border will be impossible to police as strictly as it should.
It was impossible when there was smuggling.
It was impossible when there large scale fraud in agriculture product. (Daisy the Cow became Dizzy the Cow, she crossed over so often)
It was impossible when there were guns and bombs involved, and lots of soldiers.
It was impossible when there was diesel washing.

A solution needs to be akin to NI staying within the EU for agriculture - paid for by the UK Gov by contributing the equivalent of the tariffs involved. Otherwise, the UK does the customs work at the ports. It is not as if the NI economy is huge.

munsterlegend

The post brexit situation will be decided in London, Dublin and Brussels. There will be lip service to unionists but no one really cares what they think as it's only a regional assembly. Good to see Irish govt getting tough with a frankly incompetent British regime.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

The post brexit situation will be decided in London, Dublin and Brussels. There will be lip service to unionists but no one really cares what they think as it's only a regional assembly. Good to see Irish govt getting tough with a frankly incompetent British regime.

As somebody who lives and works on the border and who lived through the troubles and saw the damage a pointless frontier wrought, I am relieved the Irish government have finally voiced a strong opinion on this. hopefully they will keep it up and it isn't just lip-service.
They cannot 'stand idly' by again and allow vacuums to form.

Irishweather

Red_Wake wrote: »

True, there's no solution that'll satisfy everyone[or anyone for that matter].

Is there any precedent for a customs border between an EU and non-EU country, which works as a "soft" border?

Is there considerations being made for the fact that our island, is an island and thus not part of Mainland Europe?

Irishweather

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The arrangement with the DUP will not survive another election. ANd there will be one sooner or later in the Brexit process.
And them being in a UK government should not prevent us working with our EU partners to pressure the UK to implement the simplest solution to this - an Irish sea border.
For once unionism should be made to lie in the bed (and other than a dent in pride, it represents the simplest, least economically damaging solution for them too) it has made for itself.

So Undemocratically force a United Ireland on the people of Northern Ireland? No thanks!

We'll decide that for ourselves.

Irishweather

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have any faith in FG's willingness or ability to stand up for us but we should be insisting as the member of the EU that our solution become the official EU one.

At least Coveney has fired a shot across the bows.

So stuff the Unionist people then?

You can see why Unionists would be hostile to a United Ireland, with this horrific approach.

FrancieBrady

Irishweather wrote: »

So Undemocratically force a United Ireland on the people of Northern Ireland? No thanks!

We'll decide that for ourselves.

I didn't say anything about a UI, either undemocratically or any other way for that matter.

A Little Pony

munsterlegend wrote: »

The post brexit situation will be decided in London, Dublin and Brussels. There will be lip service to unionists but no one really cares what they think as it's only a regional assembly. Good to see Irish govt getting tough with a frankly incompetent British regime.

The DUP could collapse the Tory government tomorrow. So that is a non starter. Also DUP ruled out this idea from the Souths leader.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

The DUP could collapse the Tory government tomorrow.

They can do that once. Life and government will go on though and the problem will still be there.

munsterlegend

A Little Pony wrote: »

The DUP could collapse the Tory government tomorrow. So that is a non starter. Also DUP ruled out this idea from the Souths leader.

The DUP doesn't have a veto over brexit talks. Trade with the republic and other European countries will supersede any unionist concerns up north in any decision made by London. The north also voted to stay in the Eu so it's democratic will is quite irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

The DUP doesn't have a veto over brexit talks. Trade with the republic and other European countries will supersede any unionist concerns up north in any decision made by London. The north also voted to stay in the Eu so it's democratic will is quite irrelevant.

This is very true. Only May and Arlene know what deal was done. For all we know Arlene could have sold anything for the cheque to wave. She needed to save her own political career.

munsterlegend

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is very true. Only May and Arlene know what deal was done. For all we know Arlene could have sold anything for the cheque to wave. She needed to save her own political career.

I love the way Unionists think they have some kind of big say in the whole thing! It has a population the size of a suburb in Birmingham. The game has changed lads - this isn't remotely in your control.

The British govt are completely overwhelmed it seems at the size of this project with the EU shaking its head at its total incompetence. When they eventually get to grip with things the last thing they will care about is people who don't even vote for the governing party.

jimmycrackcorm

munsterlegend wrote:

I love the way Unionists think they have some kind of big say in the whole thing! It has a population the size of a suburb in Birmingham. The game has changed lads - this isn't remotely in your control.

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

They only have the walk out option though. And they can only do that once.
The problem won't go away though

munsterlegend

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

The British population will not let Ulster unionists decide what's in the mainland of britians best interests. The north will be given scant regard in any real decisions. The Irish govt together with the EU will ultimately set the agenda re the north.

People who vote SF know what they are getting when voting. No Irish republican should ever take their place in a U.K. Parliament. It's far exaggerated what sf could actually achieve there anyway. The dup will vote Tory no matter what anyway to keep labour out.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

That's not a proposal, though, or even much of a position. When the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becomes an external EU frontier, then we'll be responsible for policing that frontier in the same way that every other EU member state with a land frontier is.

"Being clear that we won't tolerate" something is meaningless rhetoric. It's like the vapid nonsense that some people were coming out with about how "nobody wants a return to the borders of the past" - well, no. Nobody wants that. But we all sometimes have to live with things we don't want.

It seems to me that we'll either have a border, or we leave the EU. The latter would be an act of indescribably stupid self-harm on a scale that would make Brexit look like a stroke of genius, so - as unpleasant as a border is - a border it will be.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a proposal, though, or even much of a position. When the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becomes an external EU frontier, then we'll be responsible for policing that frontier in the same way that every other EU member state with a land frontier is.

"Being clear that we won't tolerate" something is meaningless rhetoric. It's like the vapid nonsense that some people were coming out with about how "nobody wants a return to the borders of the past" - well, no. Nobody wants that. But we all sometimes have to live with things we don't want.

It seems to me that we'll either have a border, or we leave the EU. The latter would be an act of indescribably stupid self-harm on a scale that would make Brexit look like a stroke of genius, so - as unpleasant as a border is - a border it will be.

I don't think that it is a simple choice between a border and leaving the EU. Nor should our government let it come down to that.
What we need is to have a proper debate on the future culminating in a referendum on the way forward. Everything on the table.

Leaving the EU, special status in the EU, a united Ireland etc etc. All options put before the people and properly and transparently debated. Not the mess that led up to the Brexit vote when a lot seemed to sleepwalk into uninformed and reactionary votes.

murphaph

I'll take the hardest of hard borders before I vote for us to leave the EU.

It's crap for border communities I'm sure but for the greater good of the country it has to be so if it has to be so.

I think the biggest problem is regulation, especially around agri food products. The EU is (quite rightly) extremely strict about imports of food products, especially animal derived. It's very hard to see how NI agri food products will be allowed cross the border without inspection unless NI itself is given special status within the EU, something that seems politically extremely unlikely, even if it is obviously in their best economic interests.

The best hope is that Brexit collapses due to other reasons. NI won't be enough.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What we need is to have a proper debate on the future culminating in a referendum on the way forward.

Oh good sweet jebus no. We have enough of a mess caused by one referendum; let's not compound it with another.

We could do with realising that, as special as we are, we're not that special. Lots of member states have external frontiers. Sure, it would be better not to have one, but it wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it if we did.

We've achieved a lot already by making a discussion on the Irish border one of the key issues to be figured out before a future UK/EU relationship can be discussed. That has moved it from "we don't care" to "oh crap I suppose we'd better think of something" on the list of Brexit priorities.

Leaving the EU, special status in the EU, a united Ireland etc etc. All options put before the people and properly and transparently debated.

The idea of leaving the EU just to avoid a hard border is insane. It's the sort of idea that could only be seriously proposed by someone for whom the border is the only thing in life they care about. It's hard to describe what a colossally bad idea it would be.

Special status in the EU is one of those hand-wavy phrases that doesn't actually mean anything. The EU is governed by its treaties. The treaties don't include "special status" for member states who want all the privileges of membership, but couldn't be bothered enforcing a land frontier. There's literally no reason any other member state would agree to the required treaty changes.

A united Ireland might solve the border problem, but come on: you think the entire history of Northern Ireland is going to be tidily resolved before Brexit day? That's wishful thinking on cloud cuckoo scale.

I don't know what the border is going to look like post-Brexit, but Varadkar got one thing right: it's not our job to come up with a satisfactory solution to a problem created by the Tory party. We're almost certainly going to have to live with a less satisfactory border situation than we currently have, but stamping your little feet and shouting "do not want" isn't going to change that. Sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh good sweet jebus no. We have enough of a mess caused by one referendum; let's not compound it with another.

We could do with realising that, as special as we are, we're not that special. Lots of member states have external frontiers. Sure, it would be better not to have one, but it wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it if we did.

We've achieved a lot already by making a discussion on the Irish border one of the key issues to be figured out before a future UK/EU relationship can be discussed. That has moved it from "we don't care" to "oh crap I suppose we'd better think of something" on the list of Brexit priorities.



The idea of leaving the EU just to avoid a hard border is insane. It's the sort of idea that could only be seriously proposed by someone for whom the border is the only thing in life they care about. It's hard to describe what a colossally bad idea it would be.

Special status in the EU is one of those hand-wavy phrases that doesn't actually mean anything. The EU is governed by its treaties. The treaties don't include "special status" for member states who want all the privileges of membership, but couldn't be bothered enforcing a land frontier. There's literally no reason any other member state would agree to the required treaty changes.

A united Ireland might solve the border problem, but come on: you think the entire history of Northern Ireland is going to be tidily resolved before Brexit day? That's wishful thinking on cloud cuckoo scale.

I don't know what the border is going to look like post-Brexit, but Varadkar got one thing right: it's not our job to come up with a satisfactory solution to a problem created by the Tory party. We're almost certainly going to have to live with a less satisfactory border situation than we currently have, but stamping your little feet and shouting "do not want" isn't going to change that. Sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.

So form that your advice is to just sit back and let what happens happen?

We did that before and the north imploded. It seriously has that potential again if you allow a hard border to be established and tell the people living along it and affected by it to 'suck it up'.

I am not suggesting any of the options above, leaving the EU etc. What I am saying is that this must be discussed as a priority in a transparent way and it has to be the majority decision going forward.
Because if it is imposed I would fear for the stability of the island all over again.

Northern Ireland has 'special status' already by dint of the fact that there is a joint international agreement in place to run it.
So some kind of imaginative version of that is not impossible imo. with the border in the Irish sea.
A few people may have to accept that our futures are totally intertwined though.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So form that your advice is to just sit back and let what happens happen?

I'm not giving advice. I'm pointing out that many of the consequences of Brexit are beyond our control, and that sometimes we face difficult choices.

We did that before and the north imploded. It seriously has that potential again if you allow a hard border to be established and tell the people living along it and affected by it to 'suck it up'.

I'm not telling anyone to suck anything up. I'm pointing out that the fact that some people will be negatively affected in a particular way is an inevitable consequence of the stupid decision made by our neighbours to the east in their infinite democratic wisdom. Lots of people will be affected by Brexit in lots of terrible ways. At the end of the day, we'll make the best of the ****ty situation we've been presented with, and some people will suffer worse than others.

As an aside, I'm unimpressed with the constant threat that if certain people don't get their way, they'll resort to violence. Every citizen of the EU will be negatively affected in some way by Brexit; some more seriously than others. It's only on this island that the darkly muttered threat of terrorism is put forward as a reason why everyone else should bend over backwards to minimise the impact on us.

I am not suggesting any of the options above, leaving the EU etc. What I am saying is that this must be discussed as a priority in a transparent way and it has to be the majority decision going forward.

It would be more helpful to start a serious conversation about how we can minimise the impact of the border, rather than petulantly demanding that we be treated as if we're extra special.

Because if it is imposed I would fear for the stability of the island all over again.

That'll be the darkly-muttered threat of violence again. Can you imagine the outrage if Remainers were demanding that the Brexit negotiations be approached in a particular way if the British government and/or the EU wanted to avoid the threat of terrorism?

Northern Ireland has 'special status' already by dint of the fact that there is a joint international agreement in place to run it.

There was a joint international agreement in place between the UK and 27 other member states. Things change.

So some kind of imaginative version of that is not impossible imo. with the border in the Irish sea.

Maybe. We won't get to dictate it, though.

A few people may have to accept that our futures are totally intertwined though.

...or else?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not giving advice. I'm pointing out that many of the consequences of Brexit are beyond our control, and that sometimes we face difficult choices.

And choosing to be proactive in our own future is also possible.

I'm not telling anyone to suck anything up.

Well, imo yes you are. Your whole point centres around, dismissing any action we take with - sure everyone is affected we just have to get on with how it affects us. As this next bit illustrates.

I'm pointing out that the fact that some people will be negatively affected in a particular way is an inevitable consequence of the stupid decision made by our neighbours to the east in their infinite democratic wisdom. Lots of people will be affected by Brexit in lots of terrible ways. At the end of the day, we'll make the best of the ****ty situation we've been presented with, and some people will suffer worse than others.

As an aside, I'm unimpressed with the constant threat that if certain people don't get their way, they'll resort to violence. Every citizen of the EU will be negatively affected in some way by Brexit; some more seriously than others. It's only on this island that the darkly muttered threat of terrorism is put forward as a reason why everyone else should bend over backwards to minimise the impact on us.

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

It would be more helpful to start a serious conversation about how we can minimise the impact of the border, rather than petulantly demanding that we be treated as if we're extra special. That'll be the darkly-muttered threat of violence again. Can you imagine the outrage if Remainers were demanding that the Brexit negotiations be approached in a particular way if the British government and/or the EU wanted to avoid the threat of terrorism? There was a joint international agreement in place between the UK and 27 other member states. Things change. Maybe. We won't get to dictate it, though. ...or else?

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And choosing to be proactive in our own future is also possible.

Being proactive is all very well, but it helps to be realistic about what's possible.

Well, imo yes you are. Your whole point centres around, dismissing any action we take with - sure everyone is affected we just have to get on with how it affects us.

Then you're wilfully misreading my point.

Businesses exporting to the UK - from anywhere in the EU - will be badly impacted by Brexit. EU nationals living in the UK are likely to find themselves in a worse situation. British expats in other EU countries will probably face some nasty consequences. Remain voters in the UK will be removed against their will from a Union they wanted to stay in.

All of these parties have valid grievances. All of them will make their case, or have their case made on their behalf, as part of the exit negotiations. The outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for all of them, and all of them are going to have to live with the ultimate consequences.

Now, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't state their case - but none of them has a god-given right to have their situation prioritised over and above everyone else's, and there's no possible way to make everyone happy.

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

Oh, I fully realise that there are people who believe that murder is a valid way to express political dissatisfaction, just as there are people who out of one side of their mouth will decry such violence, while out of the other they'll loudly proclaim that we'd better give the terrorists what they want or else.

I doubt you'd be arguing that we should give Loyalist terrorists what they want just in case they get violent, so it's disingenuous - to put it kindly - to argue that our political choices should be informed by the threat of Republican terrorism.

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

One party to that agreement has decided that internal Tory politics take priority over international agreements. That's ****ty for border communities, but not necessarily ****tier than for everyone else affected.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Being proactive is all very well, but it helps to be realistic about what's possible. Then you're wilfully misreading my point.

Businesses exporting to the UK - from anywhere in the EU - will be badly impacted by Brexit. EU nationals living in the UK are likely to find themselves in a worse situation. British expats in other EU countries will probably face some nasty consequences. Remain voters in the UK will be removed against their will from a Union they wanted to stay in.

All of these parties have valid grievances. All of them will make their case, or have their case made on their behalf, as part of the exit negotiations. The outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for all of them, and all of them are going to have to live with the ultimate consequences.

Now, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't state their case - but none of them has a god-given right to have their situation prioritised over and above everyone else's, and there's no possible way to make everyone happy. Oh, I fully realise that there are people who believe that murder is a valid way to express political dissatisfaction, just as there are people who out of one side of their mouth will decry such violence, while out of the other they'll loudly proclaim that we'd better give the terrorists what they want or else.

I doubt you'd be arguing that we should give Loyalist terrorists what they want just in case they get violent, so it's disingenuous - to put it kindly - to argue that our political choices should be informed by the threat of Republican terrorism. One party to that agreement has decided that internal Tory politics take priority over international agreements. That's ****ty for border communities, but not necessarily ****tier than for everyone else affected.

glad you got that all off your chest.
Have you any practical ideas other than suck it up we are not as important as we think we are?

Are Coveney and Varadkar wrong? Is the No Border campaign wrong?
What do you suggest be done?

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

We are hardly a 'special case'. Virtually every land border in the EU is governed by international agreements drawn up either in the aftermath WWII or the early 90s - in reality our border is actually one of the older ones.

Jayop

Irishweather wrote: »

So Undemocratically force a United Ireland on the people of Northern Ireland? No thanks!

We'll decide that for ourselves.

How the hell is that a united Ireland? And tbh it was the Unionists that forced this potential scenario by biting off their nose to spite their face. Not for the first time either.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

We are hardly a 'special case'. Virtually every land border in the EU is governed by international agreements drawn up either in the aftermath WWII or the early 90s - in reality our border is actually one of the older ones.

Our agreement is twenty or so years old and ended almost 40 years of conflict and it got rid of the hard militarised border as one of it's clauses.
Now we are faced with a potential return of that hard border and somehow it is 'darkly sinister' and a 'threat' to be concerned that the violence might return too.

Sometimes you couldn't write this wee country.

Junkyard Tom

A simple fact is that hard border installations will inevitably attract the attention of dissidents. A couple of CCTV pylons get felled via blowtorch. There are calls for increased security, perhaps PSNI cars get stationed near CCTV installations. Pot-shots are taken by someone with a grudge and a long-range rifle. Unionists call for military back-up. SF say British troops on the ground unacceptable. Relations sour.

Now we can wring our hands and moan about the threat of terrorism all we want but if anyone is naive enough to think that a hard border doesn't at the very least risk trouble, they're fooling themselves - this shit has been going on for hundreds of years.

The British/Westminster/Whitehall know this and the Irish government know this. Perhaps that's why Leo said 'let's see your proposals' because he's been advised that no responsibility for future trouble should fall on the Irish government.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

Do you mean that the IRA haven't gone away, despite everything we have been told?

Because starting up a new terrorist organisation from scratch would be very very difficult.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you mean that the IRA haven't gone away, despite everything we have been told?

Because starting up a new terrorist organisation from scratch would be very very difficult.

As I said, sometimes you couldn't write it.

Not interested blanch.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Our agreement is twenty or so years old and ended almost 40 years of conflict and it got rid of the hard militarised border as one of it's clauses.

It did but so what? That's SUPPOSED to be ancient history at this stage. It was supposed to bring about a peaceful democratic process, not one which is subject to ongoing approval from any shadowy group of gunmen.

Also, and it wasn't 40 years of conflict.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now we are faced with a potential return of that hard border and somehow it is 'darkly sinister' and a 'threat' to be concerned that the violence might return too.

Sometimes you couldn't write this wee country.

First we never had a hard border. It would have been a lot harder to have had cross border smuggling and "the troubles" if we had a normal international 2-3m high border police style security fence along the border.

Second, all that is irrelevant now. Rather the situation we now have is one that concerns the future - a future in which, unless there is a sudden change in London, will probably see the UK and Ireland/the EU heading on increasingly divergent paths. As such, it seems we will face an "either/or" situation with there being no option for a "both/and" one. We can like that or dislike it all we want but that doesn't alter that it seems it will happen, and we need to face up to it and plan for a worst-case scenario even if We can like that or dislike it all we want but that doesn't alter that it seems it will happen and that we need to plan for a worst-case scenario even if we hope for a change in attitude in London and a resulting better-case scenario.

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

First we never had a hard border.

Because in practical terms it's impossible.