Irish Border and Brexit

FrancieBrady

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

You said that a hard physical border is workable. I thoroughly dispute that and say that it is a position borne from ignorance of the geopolitics of the region. A physical border will never work, what would you have the governments do? Commit the bulk of security services to try to secure a fence that will be dismantled at the first opportunity anyway. The people in the region on both sides wouldn't want a physical border so it is not a workable solution. The solution will have to be a lot more discreet to the point of being invisible

He is clearly too young to remember the campaign called 'filling the roads'. Locals defied the closing of roads by constantly filling the roads themselves.
Was great craic as a young fella doing it and dodging BA rubber bullets.
It worked too, locals got their access.
But one of the serious things it did was massively enflame the situation along the frontier.

Personally, I know (no guesswork here) from judging the mood locally, a physical border and closed roads will not be peacefully accepted.

oscarBravo

Inquitus wrote: »

...I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

I don't care about that either, but do you care about half a million chlorinated chickens finding their way into Ireland via the UK, and the Irish agriculture industry being irreparably damaged as a result?

Aristotle145

shaunr68 wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post. Sure you might see a sign saying welcome to the EU but that's it. It's seamless and you drive from one country to the other. This is something that is not and will not be an issue and all the fuss is agenda driven.

Thats because of agreements between the scandinavian countries and schengen

Jim2007

Inquitus wrote: »

I would posit that they own the border, not us, I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

But we and the rest of the EU do care if contaminated food starts entering our food chain, third country goods enter our market avoiding quotas and tariffs etc.
There is no other way to prevent this happening than policing the border.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A wall or a fence has not a chance in hell of working.
The 'border' never worked at what it was supposed to do, ever. It's fortification was a sop to unionists but it was lipservice to security nothing more. It only succeeded in enflaming tensions and recruiting for the IRA.

Why would you even need a border or a fence??? Most of the borders of the EU are not fenced? But they are patrolled, people must go through customs etc, it will be no different on the NI border. It will be inconvenient and at first there may be some opposition no doubt about, but it will happen.

Jim2007

shaunr68 wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post.

And why would you? You never entered a third country in your entire trip! You traveled in the Schengen area, so no issue with controlling tourists... You travelled within the EEA/EU/CH block so no issue with FMOP and within the EEA/EU customs area so no issues there either.

Your trip illustrates what CANNOT HAPPEN after BREXIT as it now looks, once the U.K. exits the EU, it will become what is referred to as a third country, in the absence of any agreement and none of the above privileges will apply.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why would you even need a border or a fence??? Most of the borders of the EU are not fenced? But they are patrolled, people must go through customs etc, it will be no different on the NI border. It will be inconvenient and at first there may be some opposition no doubt about, but it will happen.

It isn't me suggesting a 'fence or wall'.

The other borders of the EU are not the same though, we have a unique little issue here with borders and partition that you may have noticed. And the last time a border was imposed society boiled into turmoil and nobody was able to put the lid back on for years.

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

There's a political reaaon too. It's not some obscure law or trivial matter, it's an internationally binding agreement called the Good Friday agreement. It stipulates no hard border.

Yourself isit

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

The rest of the EU already has a border between ireland and it.

Yourself isit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is clearly too young to remember the campaign called 'filling the roads'. Locals defied the closing of roads by constantly filling the roads themselves.
Was great craic as a young fella doing it and dodging BA rubber bullets.
It worked too, locals got their access.
But one of the serious things it did was massively enflame the situation along the frontier.

Personally, I know (no guesswork here) from judging the mood locally, a physical border and closed roads will not be peacefully accepted.

They wouldn't blow up the roads - just have a checkpoint. Probably doesn't even have to be manned.

FrancieBrady

Yourself isit wrote: »

They wouldn't blow up the roads - just have a checkpoint. Probably doesn't even have to be manned.

And all it will take is a couple of dissident attacks and they will have to fortify/safeguard.

That is the actual on the ground reality facing us. I don't live or pretend to live in a fantasy world where situations stay static and uncomplicated.

Yourself isit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And all it will take is a couple of dissident attacks and they will have to fortify/safeguard.

That is the actual on the ground reality facing us. I don't live or pretend to live in a fantasy world where situations stay static and uncomplicated.

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

Sam Russell

Yourself isit wrote: »

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

National ID cards would cover the DUPs objections if it applied to all UK citizens and all 'internal' flights and ferries.

It might get objections from some Tories though.

murphaph

Yourself isit wrote: »

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

The problem is (IMO) not really passport checks but customs checks on (especially) food products entering the EU from a third country.

We will be held to account by our EU partners should hormone treated beef end up in the EU food chain via NI/RoI.

That doesn't mean it isn't the fault of the UK. It is, they are leaving the union which underpins the GFA and the present situation along the border.

Moving passport checks back (even if that could be made fly in DUPland) does not solve this problem. I don't know of a good solution, but I will be amazed if it doesn't involve a big increase in Irish customs patrols along the border. The UK might even decide that it's far easier for them to fall back to GB ports of entry (once the Westminster government is no longer reliant on the DUP) to police illegal EU migration because it will be far far cheaper than trying to do so along the border itself.

So we could we'll see a soft/invisible border from the UK side and a fairly hard one on our side.

But the UK is the one causing it, knowing its obligations under the GFA and knowing how an EU external border has to be policed wrt imports, especially of livestock and food.

I believe ultimately that Brexit (if it isn't a token Brexit) will so badly damage NI that it will end up opting to join the RoI. Some UK EU funding will fund a transitional phase a la HK. I believe the UK exchequer will simply not be able to subsidise NI as it will have less money after Brexit severely damages the British economy. I am not a united Irelander by any means and would be happy for the border to remain, but Brexit has changed the game (or will do if they really leave the SM and CU).

oscarBravo

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-sea-border-utter-madness-dups-donaldson-rubbishes-dublin-brexit-proposal-35976290.html

Sir Jeffrey described the [Irish Sea border] plan as "economic nonsense".

He told the BBC: "The port of Belfast is our biggest port, 73% of what goes through it either comes or is destined for Great Britain. Why on earth would it be in the interests of the Northern Ireland economy to have a customs border between Northern Ireland and London, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?

"It would be utter madness."

So some of those who are implacably opposed to a land border on the island will wave the vague threat of dissident violence, while the DUP have the rather more concrete card of pulling the plug on Theresa May's government to play.

Meanwhile:

Britain will be hit by huge border delays, require vast lorry parks in the south-east, and suffer more than £1bn a year in economic damage, according to a stark economic analysis of the likely impact of customs checks after Brexit.

Additional costs associated with potential motorway queues, extra customs staff and jobs lost as a result of companies relocating mean even that assessment is “extremely conservative”, a study by a leading economic consultancy warns.

Maybe they should mutter darkly about terrorism in their next meeting with Barnier, see how far that gets them.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-sea-border-utter-madness-dups-donaldson-rubbishes-dublin-brexit-proposal-35976290.html

So some of those who are implacably opposed to a land border on the island will wave the vague threat of dissident violence, while the DUP have the rather more concrete card of pulling the plug on Theresa May's government to play.

Meanwhile: Maybe they should mutter darkly about terrorism in their next meeting with Barnier, see how far that gets them.

Look, if you see people discussing the realities of life along a contested border, as 'dark mutterings', you just have another agenda.

Nobody wants a return to conflict, that is why the GFA was supported.
The GFA was NOT a solution though, the seeds for conflict are still there.

Is this guy 'muttering darkly' do you think?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38722406

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look, if you see people discussing the realities of life along a contested border, as 'dark mutterings', you just have another agenda.

It's not a contested border. The governments of both jurisdictions, and the overwhelming majority of the people of both jurisdictions, accept the validity of the border.

I have no other agenda except to point out that the fact that you don't want a hard border doesn't mean that there won't be a hard border.

Nobody wants a return to conflict...

Well, that's self-evidently untrue. There are some evil nutjobs out there that think the avoidance of a land border is worth murdering people for.

...that is why the GFA was supported.
The GFA was NOT a solution though, the seeds for conflict are still there.

The "seeds of conflict" are still there because it suits a certain agenda to carefully hoard and nurture those seeds. There's something awfully convenient about being able to decry violence, while still being able to wheel it out as a threat if you don't get your way; it's the "they haven't gone away, you know" syndrome.

Is this guy 'muttering darkly' do you think?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38722406

I'm not saying there aren't people out there evil and deranged enough to murder people over a line on a map. I'm pointing out that it's just a tad disingenuous to disavow that violence while still using it as a reason why the purveyors of violence should get their way.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a contested border. The governments of both jurisdictions, and the overwhelming majority of the people of both jurisdictions, accept the validity of the border.
.

In fairness, I can't get past this head in the sand, downright dangerous deluding. Everything will be alright. :rolleyes:

I will leave you at it with the 'dark mutterings'.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The other borders of the EU are not the same though, we have a unique little issue here with borders and partition that you may have noticed. And the last time a border was imposed society boiled into turmoil and nobody was able to put the lid back on for years.

The last time was an entirely different situation and at the end of the day, the minority along the border will not be allowed to dictate the pace. And Yes we have issues with other borders too. Cypress, Macedonia, Greece/Turkey and so on.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

For all the people to whom a land border on the island is the end of the world as we know it: if it came down to a binary choice, would you choose a border on the island or to leave the EU?

If you even have to pause to think about that one, you're in an awfully small minority.

Absolutely to leave the EU - we should have left a decade ago already, and begun rebuilding our relationship with the EU (and our economy, sans-EU-mandated-austerity...) back then - we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU, but we'll be shed of all the negatives, like the Euro and the economic trap associated with it, and would avoid this coming clusterfúck.

A return to a hard border in this country is going to cause a major turn against the EU, for a lot of people in this country...

Leaving is extremely painful in the medium/short term - but in the long term there's plenty of room for partly renegotiating/rebuilding the positive aspects of the EU, based on being an economic free trade area - it should have stayed that way, without becoming a currency union - and it should go back that to that, even if there's a lot of short/medium term pain...

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, I can't get past this head in the sand, downright dangerous deluding. Everything will be alright. :rolleyes:

The border is a fact and it will be enforced simply because their is no alternative. If one is under a delusion it is you!

Irishweather

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.

There were some constituencies that voted to leave, and others (including mine) which voted to stay, by 1 percentage point.

Irishweather

steddyeddy wrote: »

The simple fact is that a hard border contravenes the Good Friday Agreement. It's perfectly acceptable to say a border would be unacceptable. The EU seem to agree. The fact is that this will need to be slrted before any trade agreements are in place.

How so? We didn't vote "yes" for a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

The border is a fact and it will be enforced simply because their is no alternative. If one is under a delusion it is you!

I know there will have to be a border. No delusions about that.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, I can't get past this head in the sand, downright dangerous deluding. Everything will be alright. :rolleyes:

When you decide to respond to something I've written instead of the caricature of my posts that you're inventing in your head, get back to me.

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Absolutely to leave the EU - we should have left a decade ago already, and begun rebuilding our relationship with the EU (and our economy, sans-EU-mandated-austerity...) back then - we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU, but we'll be shed of all the negatives, like the Euro and the economic trap associated with it, and would avoid this coming clusterfúck.

Ah, the old "if we left the EU we'd be able to get all the benefits of membership with none of the costs" canard. You are Theresa May and I claim my five punts.

At least the truly hardcore Brexiteers are honest about the fact that they'd rather return to a hunter-gather subsistence economy than be in the EU. They're certifiably insane, but they're at least honest.

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Absolutely to leave the EU - we should have left a decade ago already, and begun rebuilding our relationship with the EU (and our economy, sans-EU-mandated-austerity...) back then - we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU, but we'll be shed of all the negatives, like the Euro and the economic trap associated with it, and would avoid this coming clusterfúck.

Such nonsense does not even warrant an answerer - Just look at how well it is going for the UK and note they we are far more committed to the EU.

Irishweather

Yourself isit wrote: »

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

How would that work though, if Northern Ireland leaves the EU? Surely, then there would be goods from the United States going into the Irish market and we in Northern Ireland would be subjected to EU Custom Regulations while out of the EU?

We're either out of the EU or we're not.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you decide to respond to something I've written instead of the caricature of my posts that you're inventing in your head, get back to me.



Ah, the old "if we left the EU we'd be able to get all the benefits of membership with none of the costs" canard. You are Theresa May and I claim my five punts.

At least the truly hardcore Brexiteers are honest about the fact that they'd rather return to a hunter-gather subsistence economy than be in the EU. They're certifiably insane, but they're at least honest.

It suits your posting style to accuse someone of making a caricature of your posts, and then to hypocritically make a caricature of mine there - except one which is directly contradicted by what you quote, when I say "we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU".

It's tiring the way Europhiles try to drag discussions into black/white caricatures - pretending Britain is going to be so economically damaged it will "return to a hunter-gather subsistence economy".

When you promise the sky will fall if the EU is left, you just damage your own credibility through excessive hyperbole - people aren't going to keep accepting every harmful thing that the EU does, like mandating a hard border after Brexit, just because Europhiles threaten the sky will fall if we left...that type of hyperbole is going to wear very thin the more you use it.

KyussBeeshop

Jim2007 wrote: »

Such nonsense does not even warrant an answerer - Just look at how well it is going for the UK and note they we are far more committed to the EU.

If it doesn't warrant a response, then why did you respond to it then? You obviously value trying to discredit what I wrote - i.e. judge it worth responding to - but are trying to weasel out of making an actual argument against what I wrote.

What makes Brexit so nonsensical, is the very fact that the UK is not as committed to the EU as we are - i.e. the UK does not share all of the negative aspects of the EU, that we are exposed to, so they stand to benefit far more than we do, by staying in the EU - that's why it makes even less sense for the UK to leave, than it does for us or any other Euro country to leave.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's a political reaaon too. It's not some obscure law or trivial matter, it's an internationally binding agreement called the Good Friday agreement. It stipulates no hard border.

It makes no stipulation regarding a hard border, which clause of the agreement are you referring to? The agreement refers to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland" that is all.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you decide to respond to something I've written instead of the caricature of my posts that you're inventing in your head, get back to me.

I will engage with you when you come into the real world.
Some people have worked very hard to end very real conflict and those same people see a very real prospect of that conflict being kick started again by the usual moral high grounders ignoring very real implications.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

It suits your posting style to accuse someone of making a caricature of your posts, and then to hypocritically make a caricature of mine there - except one which is directly contradicted by what you quote, when I say "we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU".

Your post is a caricature all by itself. The idea that a tiny open economy on an island on the edge of Europe would be better off outside an economic union than inside it is pure fantasy economics, even by your standards.

It's tiring the way Europhiles try to drag discussions into black/white caricatures - pretending Britain is going to be so economically damaged it will "return to a hunter-gather subsistence economy".

I didn't say it would be that badly damaged; I pointed out that there are some to whom that would be an acceptable price to pay for leaving the EU. You, on the other hand, subscribe to the Theresa May school of claiming that it's better to be outside a free market of half a billion consumers than inside it.

...people aren't going to keep accepting every harmful thing that the EU does, like mandating a hard border after Brexit...

The EU isn't mandating a hard border after Brexit. If you're going to complain about Europhile hyperbole, stow the Daily Mail nonsense.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your post is a caricature all by itself. The idea that a tiny open economy on an island on the edge of Europe would be better off outside an economic union than inside it is pure fantasy economics, even by your standards. I didn't say it would be that badly damaged; I pointed out that there are some to whom that would be an acceptable price to pay for leaving the EU. You, on the other hand, subscribe to the Theresa May school of claiming that it's better to be outside a free market of half a billion consumers than inside it.

The EU isn't mandating a hard border after Brexit. If you're going to complain about Europhile hyperbole, stow the Daily Mail nonsense.

You don't even acknowledge that your claim about my post, was directly contradicted by what you quoted from my post - you just make up flimsy straw-men to bat down in rhetorical fashion, rather than actually engaging in a dialogue.

To further display your own tendency for making a caricature of posts and for rhetoric, you deliberately choose to selectively ignore what people say, when it contradicts the straw-men you want to build up - such as me directly stating that we would be better off being in an economic free trade area with the EU, not a currency union - which again directly contradicts your caricature/straw-man above.

If you can't be arsed reading what people actually wrote, and instead want to try and paint people into having black/white viewpoints - then it's usually preferred by those posters, that you not bother responding to them, because you just require them to spend the next page or so of the thread, pointing out all of the ways you are deliberately misrepresenting their posts - rather than actually discussing anything...

This is the type of nonsense that you end up running into on this forum, whenever anything going against pro-EU views is discussed...


If Brexit goes ahead and a border is required - and with this border most likely being between the North and South - then yes the EU will almost certainly be mandating a hard border - I doubt many in the thread will doubt that (except some doing so selectively to suit their argument...).

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

You don't even acknowledge that your claim about my post, was directly contradicted by what you quoted from my post - you just make up flimsy straw-men to bat down in rhetorical fashion, rather than actually engaging in a dialogue.

Fine. I'll acknowledge that you said we wouldn't gain all the positives of membership, and I misread that.

It's still quite frankly bat**** insane to suggest that we'd be better off outside the EU. It's the sort of idea that can only be informed by a toxic combination of Europhobia and fantasy economics.

KyussBeeshop

The EU isn't all sunshine and roses - it itself is built on a system of fantasy economics, that ignores and compounds the damaging effects of the Euro - the glaring economic faults in the EU are well known and studied among all varieties of economists, and are not in significant contest academically.

Absolutely, every EU country (bar one) affected by that would be better off long-term (and worse off short/medium term) outside of that system - and renegotiating a better system that retains economic integration across the EU.

It's the EU's fault that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - i.e. exit completely - before you can renegotiate a new economic union without the faults - renegotiating from within has failed.

Ignoring these details, and just saying that advocates of this renegotiation want to be 'outside the EU' permanently, is painting people into having black/white views, that are directly contradicted by what they have said.

I'd like to get off this string of discussion, to focus on the main topic.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The EU isn't all sunshine and roses - it itself is built on a system of fantasy economics, that ignores and compounds the damaging effects of the Euro - the glaring economic faults in the EU are well known and studied among all varieties of economists, and are not in significant contest academically.

You're conflating "isn't perfect" with "must be destroyed and replaced".

There are glaring faults with democracy. Does that mean we should immediately stop holding elections?

Absolutely, every EU country (bar one) affected by that would be better off long-term (and worse off short/medium term) outside of that system - and renegotiating a better system that retains economic integration across the EU.

If only the governments of 27 sovereign states would take advice from some randomer on the Internet, we'd all be better off, right?

It's the EU's fault that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - i.e. exit completely - before you can renegotiate a new economic union without the faults - renegotiating from within has failed.

"Renegotiating from within" is Tory code for "Cameron demanding that the EU be re-designed to suit one political party in one member state". The EU is the result of treaties ratified by all its member states. The idea that it is a separate entity that's actively working against its members' interests is a tired trope of the British conservative press.

Ignoring these details, and just saying that advocates of this renegotiation want to be 'outside the EU' permanently, is painting people into having black/white views, that are directly contradicted by what they have said.

Honestly, all you're doing is parroting the Tory Brexiteer line that Brexit is the EU's fault because the other 27 member states wouldn't dismantle a union that had been incrementally built up over six decades in order to put together something that suited the UK (or, more accurately, the Tory paleoskeptic wing) better.

swampgas

The Irish border issue, and the GFA issue, are symptoms of a larger problem. The root cause of which was David Cameron's insane referendum.

What he wanted was a vote of confidence in continued EU membership. But by offering an alternative - leave the EU - with the nature of leaving deliberately left undefined, he walked the UK into a situation where a democratic mandate (albeit by a narrow margin) has been given to a Brexit that could mean just about anything depending on who you asked. Unfortunately it looks like May, with her pathological hatred of the ECJ, is steering the UK towards a very hard, chaotic, form of Brexit.

Bringing this back to to the border issue: unfortunately there are so many other issues emerging with Brexit now, like Euratom, Open Skies, Financial Service Passporting, citizen rights, and many others, affecting many tens of millions of people, that the GFA and the border are not going to get much priority. That's the bleak reality of it, IMO.

The only way I can see to avoid a border in Ireland is to stop Brexit happening in the first place.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

...

If there was a way to discard the Euro without discarding EU membership at the same time, it would already be gone. It's only still around because you have to leave the entire EU to get rid of it.
You're conflating countries wanting to avoid the damage of leaving the EU, with meaning that the Euro merely "isn't perfect" - when it's been a catastrophe.

Europhiles love to straw man you, by pretending that if you criticize one aspect of the EU - that you want to be rid of it all...

It gets bloody tiring to have to point out every post, that what you present me as arguing, is not what I've argued - you knowingly do this in every post, and it wastes a ton of time/space in the thread - that I don't want to be drawn into (because usually it leads to me - rather than you - getting mod attention, even though you're consciously pretending I argued something completely different to what I did...).


You even take up the dishonest tack of equating me with Brexiteers, or talking to me as if I'm arguing in favour of Brexit - even when I explicitly said Brexit policies were an enormous mistake for the UK, since they didn't suffer the major disadvantages of EU membership, that we and other Euro countries do...

Your posting style shows you're a rhetorician - you don't actually give a toss what the person says if they say something critical of the EU, to the point that they advocate leaving - if they do that you will deliberately misrepresent everything they say, to try and discredit their views, using rhetorical tactics you know are tantamount to lying about what the poster said.


We're not talking about the Irish Border anymore, so can you stop bloody misrepresenting my posts - it's dragging the thread off track (and this is a complaint about my posts being misrepresented, not trying to backseat mod the thread).

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

You even take up the dishonest tack of equating me with Brexiteers...

Oh, climb down off the bloody high horse. I pointed out that you're using the same dishonest rhetorical device as the Tories: the claim that the EU is being unreasonable by refusing to dismantle itself and reorganise itself around your personal view of how it should work.

The EU is the way it is because that's how its members have agreed they want it to be. David Cameron demanded that it be restructured to suit his party's domestic agenda, and the other 27 members told him to sling his hook. And you're not even David Cameron.

So yes, let's get this back on topic. If Brexit continues on its current catastrophic course, there will have to be a hard border somewhere between the UK and the Republic. If the UK don't agree to an Irish Sea border - and I can't see any reason why they would - then that border will have to be on the island. Nobody wants that, but not wanting something is a very, very different thing from not having it.

Yes, we could avoid that border by leaving the EU, in the same way I could have avoided eye surgery last week by poking my eye out.

And yes, a hard border will bring a lot of problems, including giving terrorist assholes another excuse to substitute violence for political persuasion, but those problems are just a few of the many, many problems that the UK and the remainder of the EU will have to face as a result of the Tories' self-destructive impulses. We don't have to like them, but we also don't have to jump off a cliff just because they did.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, climb down off the bloody high horse. I pointed out that you're using the same dishonest rhetorical device as the Tories: the claim that the EU is being unreasonable by refusing to dismantle itself and reorganise itself around your personal view of how it should work.

The EU is the way it is because that's how its members have agreed they want it to be. David Cameron demanded that it be restructured to suit his party's domestic agenda, and the other 27 members told him to sling his hook. And you're not even David Cameron.

So yes, let's get this back on topic. If Brexit continues on its current catastrophic course, there will have to be a hard border somewhere between the UK and the Republic. If the UK don't agree to an Irish Sea border - and I can't see any reason why they would - then that border will have to be on the island. Nobody wants that, but not wanting something is a very, very different thing from not having it.

Yes, we could avoid that border by leaving the EU, in the same way I could have avoided eye surgery last week by poking my eye out.

And yes, a hard border will bring a lot of problems, including giving terrorist assholes another excuse to substitute violence for political persuasion, but those problems are just a few of the many, many problems that the UK and the remainder of the EU will have to face as a result of the Tories' self-destructive impulses. We don't have to like them, but we also don't have to jump off a cliff just because they did.

Two reasons the UK might agree to a sea border, 1. The danger of igniting another round of conflict in a failed state that they don't want anymore.
2. The implacable opposition of Dublin to a land border, if Dublin keeps it up. (Britain will need to keep other EU states on board to OK any agreements after Brexit negotiations)

A sea border is no more complicated than a land one to enforce.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, climb down off the bloody high horse. I pointed out that you're using the same dishonest rhetorical device as the Tories: the claim that the EU is being unreasonable by refusing to dismantle itself and reorganise itself around your personal view of how it should work.

You're directly lying by pretending I said this. When called out on your shít behaviour here, instead of changing it, you just accuse me of the same thing and then double down on it...

By accusing me of being hypocritical there, you just implicitly admit you're engaging in that exact tactic.

I've had enough of batting down misrepresentations of my posts - of having to bat down things I didn't say.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Two reasons the UK might agree to a sea border, 1. The danger of igniting another round of conflict in a failed state that they don't want anymore.
2. The implacable opposition of Dublin to a land border, if Dublin keeps it up. (Britain will need to keep other EU states on board to OK any agreements after Brexit negotiations)

A sea border is no more complicated than a land one to enforce.

Sure, lots of people are implacably opposed to a land border, but it's facile to simply ignore the people who are implacably opposed to a sea border, including oh I don't know, the political party on which the Tories are currently depending to remain in power.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

I've had enough of batting down misrepresentations of my posts - of having to bat down things I didn't say.

I'll reply by focusing on something you can't deny that you said: that we'd be better off leaving the EU than having a border on this island. I'll reiterate that I think that that's a position that's nothing short of swivel-eyed loony insane, and leave it at that.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, lots of people are implacably opposed to a land border, but it's facile to simply ignore the people who are implacably opposed to a sea border, including oh I don't know, the political party on which the Tories are currently depending to remain in power.

That could be over next week. The DUP are just getting used in an interim.
The other two problems are there regardless. It is up to us to use whatever pressure we can.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll reply by focusing on something you can't deny that you said: that we'd be better off leaving the EU than having a border on this island. I'll reiterate that I think that that's a position that's nothing short of swivel-eyed loony insane, and leave it at that.

Except what I said wasn't merely leaving the EU and then that's-that - neither was it based merely on the possibility of a hard border.

The same tendency from you, to push the views you want to discredit, to extremes that make it easier for you to caricature and try to discredit - leads to a bloody long string of wasted posts/space in threads...

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a contested border. The governments of both jurisdictions, and the overwhelming majority of the people of both jurisdictions, accept the validity of the border.

It's a contested region. The dismantling of the physical border was an aspect of the negotiated settlement being in the EU/customs union made possible. Now the British are looking at leaving the EU/CU.

There's something awfully convenient about being able to decry violence, while still being able to wheel it out as a threat if you don't get your way

I find it really odd that you seem very irked that a border nobody wants, a border that essentially disappeared as a consequence of the Peace Process, might open a pandora's box of problems that nobody wants.

It's as if you'd expect to be able to walk a busy city-centre street with €50 notes taped to your jacket and expect to come home none the poorer. There's a difference between how we'd like the world to be and how it really is.

steddyeddy

Irishweather wrote: »

How so? We didn't vote "yes" for a United Ireland.

I think you misunderstand the Good Friday agreement.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's a contested region.

No, it's not. We relinquished our claim on it two decades ago.

The dismantling of the physical border was an aspect of the negotiated settlement being in the EU/customs union made possible. Now the British are looking at leaving the EU/CU.

That doesn't make it a contested region, or a contested border.

I find it really odd that you seem very irked that a border nobody wants, a border that essentially disappeared as a consequence of the Peace Process, might open a pandora's box of problems that nobody wants.

Of course the border will cause all sorts of problems. You and Francie seem to subscribe to the Theresa May world view that talking about what you don't want will magically make all your problems go away.

Here's a radical thought for you: just because a land border will cause problems doesn't mean that the absence of a land border will avoid any problems.

Seriously, you need to get realistic here. The Brexit suicide bomb is going to have all sorts of horrible consequences for both the UK and the other member states. The damage is going to be widespread and long-lasting. The border question in Ireland is just one of many, many situations that will leave everyone involved worse off than before.

All I'm asking is that some people remove their heads from their border bubble and realise that there are many, many competing interests involved. The border on this island may be the single most important thing in their lives, but that doesn't make it the single most important consideration of Brexit.

It's as if you'd expect to be able to walk a busy city-centre street with €50 notes taped to your jacket and expect to come home none the poorer. There's a difference between how we'd like the world to be and how it really is.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You're not reading my posts; you're reading Francie's misrepresentations of them.

Here's a free clue: I didn't say everything was going to be alright, and I'm not the one pretending that there's no problem with having an external EU frontier within a non-EU member state.

Chips Lovell

There's a fair few posts over the past 24 hours that have been overly personal.

Be nice. Address the argument the poster has made rather than attacking the poster themselves.

If we see any more of this "that's just typical of someone like you" type of post, we'll be issuing cards.

Thanks

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

... There's a difference between how we'd like the world to be and how it really is.

An odd thing to say to the guy who's pointing out that although we'd like a world without a hard border, in reality, nobody's been able to find a feasible alternative that all sides could agree to.

The British aren't going to partition what they regard as their own country, the EU aren't going to create a backdoor for the importation of foods and goods that don't meet their standards, and we're not going to leave the EU.
If the British don't back away from a hard Brexit, we'll be stuck with a hard border, no matter how much we'd like that not to be the case.