Irish Border and Brexit

demfad

knipex wrote: »

So an semi independent NI with its own laws, budget, healthcare system, social welfare rates etc but with the Republic and EU picking up the tab and overall responsibility for the inevitable political mess ??

The North has had almost 20 years to sort out its economy and had the good will (and purse) of the US, EU, the UK and the Republic.. (particularly in the early stages) yet its still massively dependent on PS for employment, has a crumbling infrastructure and runs a massive deficit.

I think the point is that the structure now doesn't work. They can't compete with the Republic (on the same Island but different juristiction) and can't compete with GB (same juristiction but different Island). No amount of friendly plasters can fix this.

breatheme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there may be two issues gettting confused here.

For migration purposes, a border in the Irish sea makes a lot of sense (though it would piss off Unionists no end).  

For trade/customs purposes, however, it would be far, far more disruptive to Northern Ireland to have a customs border with Great Britain than to have a customs border with the Republic, NI does vastly more trade with GB than with RoI.  For that reason it's probably not a flier.

I haven't seen what Newton Emerson in saying, but my guess is that his comments refer to a migration/travel border.

No,  he was talking about a trade/customs border and refered to it as a 'light touch border'  whatever that means.

We will probably hear more in Florence today.

Can we have such a model: Free movement of people between Ireland and NI, and free movement of goods between NI and GB?
It would be interesting if it came to a referendum again, in NI: What do you prefer? Open border with Ireland, but sea border with the UK? Open border with the UK, but land border with Ireland? Check one, please.
But you are right, Florence will be interesting.

Peregrinus

breatheme wrote: »

Can we have such a model: Free movement of people between Ireland and NI, and free movement of goods between NI and GB?

Yeah, we can.

On goods, it would be a reversion to the situation before the single market was constructed in the 1990s - a goods border between the RoI and NI, but no restrictions at all on trade between NI and GB.

On people, we had a Common Travel Area which meant free movement between RoI and NI. There were security checks, but no migration checks.

So the only additional element would be migration checks between NI and GB. And while that would, I acknowlege, piss people off, in practical terms it would be feasible; there's a limited number of ports and airports, and experience, policy, technologies etce for applying migration controls at ports and airports already exist, and could be extended to cover NI/GB routes.

Some of us are old enough to remember the old Prevention of Terrorism regulations under which people in NI could be banned from entering GB. That only worked because it was in fact feasible to police and control movements between NI and GB.

Charles Babbage

Peregrinus wrote:

For trade/customs purposes, however, it would be far, far more disruptive to Northern Ireland to have a customs border with Great Britain than to have a customs border with the Republic, NI does vastly more trade with GB than with RoI. For that reason it's probably not a flier.

This is a lazy statement. The effect of a customs border is not primarily the volume of trade but the nature of that trade.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK's priorities here will be (1) the interests of England (3) the interests of Great Britain (3) the interests of Northern Ireland, in that order. The interests of RoI will not feature at all, and a solution which puts the interests of RoI over those of NI will not find favour either in Belfast or in London.
.

The ROI in general will do reasonably OK either way. It is NI that will suffer, most of NI is an hour from the border and trade disruption could be enormous and the political settlement would collapse with all sorts of unforseeable consequences.

Not very nice, but feasible. More feasible than a migration-and-customs border at Stranraer.

A customs border is more feasible at Stranrear than Strabane, if only because any given delay on a 5 hour journey has less effect than a similar delay on a one hour journey.

blanch152

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a lazy statement. The effect of a customs border is not primarily the volume of trade but the nature of that trade.



The ROI in general will do reasonably OK either way. It is NI that will suffer, most of NI is an hour from the border and trade disruption could be enormous and the political settlement would collapse with all sorts of unforseeable consequences.



A customs border is more feasible at Stranrear than Strabane, if only because any given delay on a 5 hour journey has less effect than a similar delay on a one hour journey.

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

Do you have a figure for the actual exports to the rest of the UK from Northern Ireland? The nature of these exports would be useful as well - agricultural products would be more difficult to deal with than exporting machinery or buildings stuffs (Kingspan stuff) for example.

edit: as well as that, food tend to have much higher tariffs than machinery, cars etc.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

Northern Ireland as a part of the UK does most trade there, that is a given.
Therefore there will be an initial 'wrench' affect from leaving a single customs area or market with the UK.
The hoped for destination of such a move would be a situation similar to the rest of Ireland: Less dependence on GB, more trade with Ireland and rest of EU.
With that in mind one needs to look at the medium to long term prospects of such a move and how it would be possible to transition while minimizing this wrenching affect.

Why bother?
Because the GFA must be respected, EU citizens rights in NI must be respected (potentially all citizens even after Brexit).
The EUs position:

It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that its approach to the challenges of the Irish border in the context of its withdrawal from the European Union takes into account and protects the very specific and interwoven political, economic, security, societal and agricultural context and frameworks on the island of Ireland.

As the Tories red-line on CU/SM rules the obvious solution out for now the imaginative solution has the border in the Irish sea.

FrancieBrady

I said earlier that in the interests of stability an imaginative solution needed to be found.

The future of the island cannot be messed with for solely fiscal reasons.
All things considered it is great to see this solution emerging if N Emerson is correct.
The unionists are typically in Never Never Never mode already.

fash

Whatever about Northern Ireland, what will Gibraltar do? Both small AND far away...

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

A typically deaf response to my comment about the character of trade rather than the volume being the more important. It is the degree to which the trade is subject to restriction that defines the problem.

Junkyard Tom

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A typically deaf response to my comment about the character of trade rather than the volume being the more important. It is the degree to which the trade is subject to restriction that defines the problem.

It'd be interesting to know alright and I wonder if the north's over-sized public sector is worked into the figures to help boost their impact.

I just had a look at the north's biggest manufacturers and they're nearly all foreign-owned with Bombardier being the largest engineering employer. Bombardier is a multinational aerospace business that makes wings for the C-series which is assembled in Canada.

Another huge employer is Moy Park which makes meat products - I wonder how much of that meat has an artificially low cost due to EU subsidies and what volume of meat products go to EU destinations.

There should be a comprehensive investigation into how much of the north's productive employment depends on the EU.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said earlier that in the interests of stability an imaginative solution needed to be found.

Surely May gave the answer on this one today which is that there will be an internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The 'immaginative' solutions line of old was the same thing, but they didnt get away with leaving it that vague so as not to antogonise the unionists.

Quite yet. But that 'magical thinking' line was simply too vague for the EU and Ireland, and today she was forced into saying there will be no physical border. So it will be internal.
The EU knows what she means, and in fact, I think she will have satisfied them sufficiently on this point despite some of the reports. It was a speech of coded indications, and they understand the careful line she has to tread.
But it is not time yet to break this one out explicitly given that there will be uproar in the north - but it will be part of the price being paid, and the rest of the UK wont care either way. The EU and Eire will get the solution they want on this one - its just not important enough for the vaste majority of the UK not to be will to trade off.

Jim2007

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

But it is not time yet to break this one out explicitly given that there will be uproar in the north - but it will be part of the price being paid, and the rest of the UK wont care either way. The EU and Eire will get the solution they want on this one - its just not important enough for the vaste majority of the UK not to be will to trade off.

Wishful thinking, the EU has been very clear that it will not negotiate in secret and rightly so as it gives the U.K. politicians the chance to paint it their way. Any movement will be in public, documented and agreed upon.

Jim2007

blanch152 wrote: »

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

From what I've read it seems that that fasted route especially for perishables is via Dublin, so this will be a problem anyway.

Junkyard Tom

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

she was forced into saying there will be no physical border

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

The Rape of Lucretia

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

Thats the fudge that was a blur too far for the EU - there is non such thing as a virtual border. That was the 'magical' thinking.
I do think she gave enough to the EU/Barnier today in this particular topic (it was possibly the only one though - elsewhere she gave little or nothing I think), in order to progress talks on other topics that are more important to the UK overall, that flags an internal border, but that it will be a last minute thing - part of the last minute of the last day desperate price that had to be paid kind of thing to sign off on the Brexit package. And it will be too late for the north to make a fuss that can have any effect.

Junkyard Tom

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And it will be too late for the north to make a fuss that can have any effect.

If there are extra controls between the north/Ireland and Britain nationalists won't give a damn - Unionists might but then they should accept that it is a consequence of the mess they helped create.

If Ireland becomes the roadblock for Brexit (and that's how the British will see it) Unionists will learn, the hard way, that they're way down the pecking-order when it comes to British interests.

If anything Britain has a golden opportunity to rid itself of its oldest and most costly/troublesome colony.

Jim2007

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

That simply is not possible. We cannot have a situation where substandard products, grey imports, GMO foodstuff, chlorinated chicken etc to freely enter the EU via Ireland. It is both a consumer issue and employment issue.

Either the UK remains in the customs union and complies with EU standards or there will have to be a hard border. And that border will have to be regulated on our side regardless of what the UK does.

Switzerland is not in a customs union with the EU although it does have limited single market access, but if fully complies with EU standards and requires the same in it's other trade deals. That is the only reason it works. If the UK were to enter into a similar agreement it would work too, but TM has already ruled that out.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

That simply is not possible. We cannot have a situation where substandard products, grey imports, GMO foodstuff, chlorinated chicken etc to freely enter the EU via Ireland. It is both a consumer issue and employment issue.

Either the UK remains in the customs union and complies with EU standards or there will have to be a hard border. And that border will have to be regulated on our side regardless of what the UK does.

Switzerland is not in a customs union with the EU although it does have limited single market access, but if fully complies with EU standards and requires the same in it's other trade deals. That is the only reason it works. If the UK were to enter into a similar agreement it would work too, but TM has already ruled that out.

It won't happen. Somone from the IFA was saying over the last few days that all Brazilian beef is tested (no random testing) before it is allowed enter the EU, so I'd imagine the same would have to happen with food coming into the EU from NI/UK. Irish farmers will demand that (well supported by the fairly militant French farmers).

Jim2007

jm08 wrote: »

It won't happen. Somone from the IFA was saying over the last few days that all Brazilian beef is tested (no random testing) before it is allowed enter the EU, so I'd imagine the same would have to happen with food coming into the EU from NI/UK. Irish farmers will demand that (well supported by the fairly militant French farmers).

That is exactly my point in response to the original OP in his proposal to leave supervision of the border to the U.K. It simply is not possible to have no physical border unless the U.K. is in compliance with EU standards.

breatheme

Borders are supervised by both sides. E.g. The US/Canada border.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

That is exactly my point in response to the original OP in his proposal to leave supervision of the border to the U.K. It simply is not possible to have no physical border unless the U.K. is in compliance with EU standards.

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

The only solution is for the UK to remain in the customs union and single market. Or for NI to secede from the UK and join the RoI. Neither seems likely with the present government.

I think the Irish problem is so difficult to solve that it could be the reason the negotiations fail and the government falls.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.

The problem with that approach is that "no deal" necessarily requires a hard border on the island.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with that approach is that "no deal" necessarily requires a hard border on the island.

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

A con job in other words and we should not fall for it.

Lemming

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

It's not a con job; they're just fools. There is nobody in the cabinet saying "what happens to Northern Ireland if x, y, or z happens?". Just like nobody in the cabinet said anything when they collectively threw Gibraltar under the proverbial bus. Neither territory even registers on their radar.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

A con job in other words and we should not fall for it.

That's all very well, but it was you who proposed "no deal" as one of the options on order - which is fine, but understand the consequences of what you're proposing.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

The only solution is for the UK to remain in the customs union and single market. Or for NI to secede from the UK and join the RoI.

Not at all we already have precedence for parts of a country to remain in the customs union while other parts to do not. Admittedly not as big as NI, but examples:
- Büsingen am Hochrhein
- Campione d'Italia

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all we already have precedence for parts of a country to remain in the customs union while other parts to do not. Admittedly not as big as NI, but examples:
- Büsingen am Hochrhein
- Campione d'Italia

Yes. And the solution doesn't have to have a precedent. We have to keep telling them that is the very essence of creativity, innovation and imagination.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

Is that because

(1) We want to allow chlorinated chicken and GM beef into the EU via the back door, or

(2) We want to allow cheap shopping for alcohol in Newry, or

(3) We want to stimulate Slab Murphy's smuggling business to provide funds for good republicans?

All those three things will happen unless we police our side of the border.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

Our position should be that if the UK wants no border, it stays in the custom union and the single market. If they don't we will have to put border infrastructure in place but the UK should pay.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all we already have precedence for parts of a country to remain in the customs union while other parts to do not. Admittedly not as big as NI, but examples:
- Büsingen am Hochrhein
- Campione d'Italia

I honestly don't think these tiny areas can be compared to NI. These areas are economically closer to the "other" side so being in customs union with them makes sense but NI trades much more with GB than the rest of the EU. It makes no sense for NI to be outside the UK customs area.

So either the whole UK stays in the EU customs union or NI leaves with GB.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Is that because

(1) We want to allow chlorinated chicken and GM beef into the EU via the back door, or

(2) We want to allow cheap shopping for alcohol in Newry, or

(3) We want to stimulate Slab Murphy's smuggling business to provide funds for good republicans?

All those three things will happen unless we police our side of the border.

Showing yet again that you are under informed. 2 and 3 already exist. Although 3 would more likely be for the benefit of individuals. Plenty of people, of all persuasions making a healthy living from the existing border.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

I honestly don't think these tiny areas can be compared to NI. These areas are economically closer to the "other" side so being in customs union with them makes sense but NI trades much more with GB than the rest of the EU.

But it is the way the EU is starting to think, you heard Guy Verhofstadt last week. And just as Ireland gradually lost it's heavy dependence on the UK over the past 40 years there is nothing to say that NI trade would not do the same. In deed it could be argued as a very good first step towards unity.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. And the solution doesn't have to have a precedent. We have to keep telling them that is the very essence of creativity, innovation and imagination.

Except that would most likely lead to Spain making the same case for Gibraltar and Scotland make the case of itself...

breatheme

I keep hearing about imaginative solutions but we keep coming back to either land border with the RoI or sea border within the UK.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

Except that would most likely lead to Spain making the same case for Gibraltar and Scotland make the case of itself...

I don't think Spain want Gibraltar to get special status in the EU (or at least they have asked that they have a veto on whatever is happening with Gibraltar). Scotland would be the exact opposite to the situation with NI - creating a landborder.

Sam Russell

jm08 wrote: »

I don't think Spain want Gibraltar to get special status in the EU (or at least they have asked that they have a veto on whatever is happening with Gibraltar). Scotland would be the exact opposite to the situation with NI - creating a landborder.

But the Scottish/English border is much shorter and easier to police. You just have to listen to the local accents to know which side of the border you are on. They also have different legal systems.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

I keep hearing about imaginative solutions but we keep coming back to either land border with the RoI

That first option is bad for Northern Ireland

breatheme wrote: »

or sea border within the UK.

But the second option is even worse for Northern Ireland.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

That first option is bad for Northern Ireland


But the second option is even worse for Northern Ireland.

Its not just all about Northern Ireland though. The way I'm looking at it that the first option of a land border between ROI & NI would be a disaster for ROI and EU, while the sea border between the island of Ireland and UK we could probably manage. To me, the most important thing is to maintain food integrity and that won't be possible if its a landborder between ROI & NI.

FrancieBrady

You have to look beyond the economic effects if you want to responsibly solve the problem posed with the re-imposition of a hard border on the island.
At least the EU are aware and addressing the importance of that.
We need to soon hear how the brexiters are going to address it practically.

jm08

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the Scottish/English border is much shorter and easier to police. You just have to listen to the local accents to know which side of the border you are on. They also have different legal systems.

Scotland has no one to advocate their case and its not known if the people would even support it. Just like ROI & NI's economies are very entwined because of the land border, its a similar situation between Scotland and England who also share a land border.

edit: I see that Simon Coveneny is also pushing for NI or UK to remain in customs union and Irish farmers are asking that remaining in the customs union be extended out to 5 years in the case of NI.

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/ireland-pushing-uk-to-consider-allowing-extension-of-custom-rules-for-two-years-after-brexit-36165118.html

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Its not just all about Northern Ireland though. The way I'm looking at it that the first option of a land border between ROI & NI would be a disaster for ROI and EU, while the sea border between the island of Ireland and UK we could probably manage. To me, the most important thing is to maintain food integrity and that won't be possible if its a landborder between ROI & NI.

How would a border between ROI and NI be a disaster for the EU? I cannot see how that would be so?

It isn't the fact of a border between ROI and NI that threatens food integrity, it is the fact of Brexit meaning leaving the single market and customs union. The ROI needs a secure border with NI to prevent it becoming a back door for chlorinated chicken and GM beef making their way onto the EU market.

breatheme

And the UK needs it to prevent EU citizens from sneaking in through NI.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

How would a border between ROI and NI be a disaster for the EU? I cannot see how that would be so?

It isn't the fact of a border between ROI and NI that threatens food integrity, it is the fact of Brexit meaning leaving the single market and customs union. The ROI needs a secure border with NI to prevent it becoming a back door for chlorinated chicken and GM beef making their way onto the EU market.

It would be a disaster for the EU as they would have to treat a member state like a third country. The dogs in the streets know that there is no way a custom border between NI & ROI could be effective maintained.

Do you not remember the problems in the border areas with BSE and foot and mouth? Part of the problem is that there is a lot of bandit country there and no customs officials will go near the place.

demfad

breatheme wrote: »

And the UK needs it to prevent EU citizens from sneaking in through NI.

blanch152 wrote: »

How would a border between ROI and NI be a disaster for the EU? I cannot see how that would be so?

It isn't the fact of a border between ROI and NI that threatens food integrity, it is the fact of Brexit meaning leaving the single market and customs union. The ROI needs a secure border with NI to prevent it becoming a back door for chlorinated chicken and GM beef making their way onto the EU market.

jm08 wrote: »

It would be a disaster for the EU as they would have to treat a member state like a third country. The dogs in the streets know that there is no way a custom border between NI & ROI could be effective maintained.

Do you not remember the problems in the border areas with BSE and foot and mouth? Part of the problem is that there is a lot of bandit country there and no customs officials will go near the place.

The UK has decided to Brexit making the Irish border an external border to the EU. The UK has aid that it doesnt want a hard border. To keep the integrity of the single market there must be regulatory conformity between NI and ROI. Otherwise the EU are forced to police the border. If the UK wishes this border NOT to be policed (GFA or no trade deal) then it must come up with a proposal for the EU as to how this might be accomplished.

If there is not regulatory conformity on both sides of the border it must be policed (as any border would be) to keep the integrity of the internal market.

The question is how can the UK keep NI with same regulations as ROI. With no idea forthcoming after all thig time we must assume that they have no idea and are spoofing/fudging.

This is important because despite what the British media are saying they WILL NOT get a transition deal unless the 3 key aspects of Money, Citizens, Ireland is cleared up.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

It would be a disaster for the EU as they would have to treat a member state like a third country. The dogs in the streets know that there is no way a custom border between NI & ROI could be effective maintained.

Do you not remember the problems in the border areas with BSE and foot and mouth? Part of the problem is that there is a lot of bandit country there and no customs officials will go near the place.

There is no way that either the UK, Ireland or the EU will accept an Irish Sea border - it has already been ruled out and the economic consequences for the North are horrendous.

I don't know why people keep bringing it up as a solution.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no way that either the UK, Ireland or the EU will accept an Irish Sea border - it has already been ruled out and the economic consequences for the North are horrendous.

I don't know why people keep bringing it up as a solution.

Because people in the know (like Barnier, Coveney & Guy Verhotstadt keep saying that the best solution seems to be that NI is regarded as a special case and that there can be no hard customs border between NI & ROI.

When you eliminate a customs border being ROI & NI as unworkable, you then look what would be operable - and thats in the Irish Sea.

Quote from Guy Verhotstadt here from last week's visit.

"They are all solutions that are possible. What is not possible is the solution put on the table by the British Government, which is a return to a border, but it is not visible.
"So we are very in favour of any solution, that avoids in any way a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish republic.
"The main proposal I have heard to avoid this, is that Northern Ireland could continue to participate in the single market and the customs union".

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0921/906424-brexit-verhofstadt/

So, No. 1 point he makes - there can't be a hard border between ROI & NI.

No. 2: The best proposal he has heard is for Northern Ireland to remain in single market and customs union.

Just to point out, he doesn't mention NI including UK remaining in single market / customs union, just Northern Ireland which means there will have to be a border between the island of Ireland and GB.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Because people in the know (like Barnier, Coveney & Guy Verhotstadt keep saying that the best solution seems to be that NI is regarded as a special case and that there can be no hard customs border between NI & ROI.

When you eliminate a customs border being ROI & NI as unworkable, you then look what would be operable - and thats in the Irish Sea.

Quote from Guy Verhotstadt here from last week's visit.



https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0921/906424-brexit-verhofstadt/

So, No. 1 point he makes - there can't be a hard border between ROI & NI.

No. 2: The best proposal he has heard is for Northern Ireland to remain in single market and customs union.

Just to point out, he doesn't mention NI including UK remaining in single market / customs union, just Northern Ireland which means there will have to be a border between the island of Ireland and GB.

Exactly what I was getting at. And if you couple it with what Newton Emerson intimated what he was hearing on the grapevine, a sea border with special status for the north of Ireland is one logical solution.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly what I was getting at. And if you couple it with what Newton Emerson intimated what he was hearing on the grapevine, a sea border with special status for the north of Ireland is one logical solution.

Except that the DUP will quit and May will lose her majority, so that isn't an option. A lot of wishful thinking going on here, so might as well throw in my speculative idea...

What if SF took up their seats and supported May.......

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that the DUP will quit and May will lose her majority, so that isn't an option. A lot of wishful thinking going on here, so might as well throw in my speculative idea...

What if SF took up their seats and supported May.......

May might not make Christmas.

The DUP can only walk away once. A solution has to be found for the future, long after May and the DUP are gone.

SF will not govern other nationalities so your speculation is just that.