Irish Border and Brexit

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. We relinquished our claim on it two decades ago. That doesn't make it a contested region, or a contested border. 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. 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.

Never mind that what I have said is based on local experience. Let's just take what the PSNI chief has said onboard if we can.

Can you outline what you think is going to happen if what he says happens, an attack or attacks on PSNI officers?
If you can not moralise about it and rest assured that no one here wants it to happen, that would be good.

Just outline what you think the outcome would be, based on actual history.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

We relinquished our formal claim but the aspiration remains codified in the Irish constitution. The British have said they have no selfish or strategic interest in the north and have agreed that they're out when a majority vote for it. Nationalists never agreed that the GFA was the end of the story - SF and the SDLP are both UI political parties as are all the political parties in the south. The northeast is most definitely a contested region.

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.

What?

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.

You want me to get serious about your being a clairvoyant? Sorry, that's just funny.

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.

I live about as far away from the border as you can get - whatever happens there will have little impact on me. I do care about my extended family and the border communities who suffered so much during the bad old days. This border issue is probably Ireland's most pressing.

Here's a free clue:

*puts wallet away*

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.

Who is claiming it wouldn't be a problem? It may be the very best solution of a list of bad ones.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Never mind that what I have said is based on local experience. Let's just take what the PSNI chief has said onboard if we can.

Can you outline what you think is going to happen if what he says happens, an attack or attacks on PSNI officers?
If you can not moralise about it and rest assured that no one here wants it to happen, that would be good.

Just outline what you think the outcome would be, based on actual history.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. You seem to have fallen into the same trap as Junkyard Tom, of asking me to defend your interpretation of my posts instead of the actual content of them.

Is a hard border going to cause problems for both Northern Ireland and the Republic? Of course it is. Will a hard border be used as an excuse by terrorist assholes, as if they needed an excuse, to ramp up their campaign? Almost certainly.

So, do us both a favour and stop pretending that I'm arguing that a hard border won't be problematic. Instead, recognise that I'm pointing out that, as bad as the consequences are, we may not have any choice in the matter.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Whose claiming it wouldn't be a problem? It may be the very best solution of a list of bad ones.

It may well be: for Ireland. But there are 27 other countries involved in this negotiation, and as much as we like to think that our problems are the only ones that matter, it's delusional to think that we get to unilaterally dictate the outcome here.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

nobody's been able to find a feasible alternative that all sides could agree to.

We're never going to get a an alternative that all sides agree to. We end up with a negotiated scenario that causes the least opposition.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. You seem to have fallen into the same trap as Junkyard Tom, of asking me to defend your interpretation of my posts instead of the actual content of them.

Is a hard border going to cause problems for both Northern Ireland and the Republic? Of course it is. Will a hard border be used as an excuse by terrorist assholes, as if they needed an excuse, to ramp up their campaign? Almost certainly.

So, do us both a favour and stop pretending that I'm arguing that a hard border won't be problematic. Instead, recognise that I'm pointing out that, as bad as the consequences are, we may not have any choice in the matter.

So what is your problem with us objecting as strongly as we can and doing everything possible to avoid a hard border?

Are we supposed to just roll over and say it is too difficult?
How do you think peace on this island is being maintained?

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may well be: for Ireland. But there are 27 other countries involved in this negotiation, and as much as we like to think that our problems are the only ones that matter, it's delusional to think that we get to unilaterally dictate the outcome here.

No country will get to unilaterally dictate what happens. As far as I'm aware any country can unilaterally refuse to sign-off on an outcome they believe isn't in their interests.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are we supposed to just roll over and say it is too difficult?

I haven't said that. I haven't said anything like that. I haven't said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as meaning that.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that it will be easier to enforce an external EU frontier within a non-member state than to enforce a land border between two states.

I'm also not the one who keeps talking about how important it is to appease the terrorists one one side of a conflict while completely ignoring the possibility that terrorists on the other side might not take the alternative proposal lying down.



I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We're never going to get a an alternative that all sides agree to. We end up with a negotiated scenario that causes the least opposition.

That's not really true in a situation where there's a massive number of players with effective vetoes. Remember how CETA had to be tweaked until a majority in a single regional parliament in Belgium agreed not to block it, regardless of how much support/opposition there was in the rest of the EU.
The problem is that for every alternative proposed so far, there's at least one player with a veto who'd find that alternative so unacceptable that they'd exercise their veto to get a hard border instead.

Britain will veto a border at Belfast, the EU will veto a 'frictionless' border, and Ireland will veto a border at Cherbourg.
What alternative to a hard border wouldn't get vetoed by anybody?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't said that. I haven't said anything like that. I haven't said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as meaning that.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that it will be easier to enforce an external EU frontier within a non-member state than to enforce a land border between two states.

I'm also not the one who keeps talking about how important it is to appease the terrorists one one side of a conflict while completely ignoring the possibility that terrorists on the other side might not take the alternative proposal lying down.



I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

And nobody is talking of appeasing anybody. Once again you seem unaware of how the peace has been achieved and what level of work by some has maintained it.
You seem to think, as I said earlier that the GFA was a solution, it wasn't. And some people are working hard at removing causes of conflict.

I am pointing out potential (very real IMO) for serious conflict and what can be done to avoid it.

eire4

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.

I tend to agree with you about lack of confidence in Fine Gael on this issue. But in fairness credit where it is due the initial stance here of Varadkar and Coveney was positive. We should stick to going for a sea border IMHO.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

Go back to my first post in the thread. I responded to your proposed approach of refusing to operate a border, by pointing out that an EU country that has an external frontier with a third country doesn't get to decide not to operate the border.

Rather than engage with that rather self-evident fact, you've spent the rest of the thread telling me what I meant by that. When you're ready to discuss the flaws in your own proposal, get back to me.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

Go back to my first post in the thread. I responded to your proposed approach of refusing to operate a border, by pointing out that an EU country that has an external frontier with a third country doesn't get to decide not to operate the border.

Rather than engage with that rather self-evident fact, you've spent the rest of the thread telling me what I meant by that. When you're ready to discuss the flaws in your own proposal, get back to me.

So Coveney and Varadkar are wasting their time as well as anyone else who protests.

That's the implication of what you are saying. We have the potential to pressure a sea border as others have pointed out.
This is a negotiation, nothing is written in stone yet.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Coveney and Varadkar are wasting their time as well as anyone else who protests.

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

And nobody is talking of appeasing anybody. Once again you seem unaware of how the peace has been achieved and what level of work by some has maintained it.
You seem to think, as I said earlier that the GFA was a solution, it wasn't. And some people are working hard at removing causes of conflict.

I am pointing out potential (very real IMO) for serious conflict and what can be done to avoid it.

Where do you think the RoI should check food imports from the UK post Brexit?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

We know there has to be a border. That was why the thread was started and called what it was.

You reacted to somebody protesting a version of the border,(a land one) not a border in itself.

Stop being disingenuous about that.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

Britain will veto a border at Belfast

Britain is leaving the EU. Who is it going to be vetoing? The locating of a border will be Westminster's decision, an internal UK matter. I'd be fairly sure the idea of establishing a border in Ireland will have stomachs churning in Westminster and Whitehall.

murphaph wrote: »

post Brexit?

You're presuming that a post-Brexit UK is out of the customs union. You're also discarding the idea that Britain just clones EU laws/regulations to be a de facto member of the customs union.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're presuming that a post-Brexit UK is out of the customs union. You're also discarding the idea that Britain just clones EU laws/regulations to be a de facto member of the customs union.

Yes that is my assumption. So, assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland inspect food imports from the UK?

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU. Who is it going to be vetoing?
...

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.
There's more to vetoes than EU votes.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...The locating of a border will be Westminster's decision, an internal UK matter. ...

Even if the UK unilaterally moved its customs posts to the Irish Sea, which I can't imagine them doing, without a formal agreement on the matter that satisfies the EU, we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

... I'd be fairly sure the idea of establishing a border in Ireland will have stomachs churning in Westminster and Whitehall.

I fully agree, but if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

FrancieBrady

kniggit wrote: »

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.
There's more to vetoes than EU votes.



Even if the UK unilaterally moved its customs posts to the Irish Sea, which I can't imagine them doing, without a formal agreement on the matter that satisfies the EU, we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.



I fully agree, but if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

I'll ask once more. Assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland, on behalf of the EU inspect food imports from the UK? Turning a blind eye will not be an option. We rely on Polish checks on the Belorussian border and they will rely on us to prevent sub-standard food from entering the union.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I'll ask once more. Assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland, on behalf of the EU inspect food imports from the UK? Turning a blind eye will not be an option. We rely on Polish checks on the Belorussian border and they will rely on us to prevent sub-standard food from entering the union.

Wherever the border is? I am not sure why you are asking tbh.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

Yes that is my assumption. So, assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland inspect food imports from the UK?

I guess they could check lorries/vans when they enter the 26 counties - it wouldn't necessarily have to be at the border.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.

So groups within the UK (Westminster?) can veto stuff? Is that what you're saying?

we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.

That is a possible outcome, not an inevitability. The north could be treated as a region with special status.

if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

Let's be honest with ourselves here, the British don't give a damn about the north. There'll probably be people in the corridors of power in London thinking about how they can offload the place.

swampgas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

Absolutely agree that pressure must be maintained. However imaginative solutions can only go so far if the UK go for a hard Brexit.

TBH the only solution I can see to a hard border is accelerated reunification. Maybe where the imagination is needed is selling that idea to everyone involved.

Otherwise I can't see an alternative to an enforced border with checkpoints for people and goods.

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So groups within the UK (Westminster?) can veto stuff? Is that what you're saying?
...

A trade agreement with the UK requires its consent, therefore the UK has a veto.
Democratic states are not monoliths and have different groups, often overlapping, that can cause it to do something. For example, a majority of cabinet ministers, a sufficiently large number of Tory MPs to split the party, a majority of Westminster MPs, etc. could each be sufficient to cause it to veto such a trade agreement.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...
That is a possible outcome, not an inevitability. The north could be treated as a region with special status.
...

There would still have to be a border somewhere, making sure that all goods that came through it met with EU standards and had the appropriate tariffs paid on them.
"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...
Let's be honest with ourselves here, the British don't give a damn about the north. There'll probably be people in the corridors of power in London thinking about how they can offload the place.

Republicans tested that theory to destruction during the 1970s.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

A trade agreement with the UK requires its consent, therefore the UK has a veto.

The EU is under no obligation to give the UK any trade agreement.

For example, a majority of cabinet ministers, a sufficiently large number of Tory MPs to split the party, a majority of Westminster MPs, etc. could each be sufficient to cause it to veto such a trade agreement.

But they can't prevent the EU from doing thier bidding. If Britain wants to jump off the EU ship with no lifeboat or plan then the EU can say 'go right ahead'.

There would still have to be a border somewhere, making sure that all goods that came through it met with EU standards and had the appropriate tariffs paid on them.

No there wouldn't. If the UK says 'we'll reflexively adopt all EU regs/laws' then there is no need for a trade border.

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

That's a prediction you're making and I think it's naive.

Republicans tested that theory to destruction during the 1970s.

In the 1970's it became about Britain's reputation - it had nothing to do with loyalty to Unionists, indeed unionists ended up becoming pawns in the conflict between Britain and the Provos.

Also, the Provos bombed the Peace Process into existence when they started disrupting British commerce in the 1990's.

FrancieBrady

kniggit wrote: »

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

How could anyone possibly be so assertive about what the British won't agree to?
How do you know what they will agree to?
With regard to Ireland the British say one thing and then do the complete opposite. 'We don't talk to terrorists' for eg.
They have a track record for doing what is beneficial, not for the Irish or for Irish Unionists, but for them.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

kniggit wrote: »

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

How could anyone possibly be so assertive about what the British won't agree to?
How do you know what they will agree to?
With regard to Ireland the British say one thing and then do the complete opposite. 'We don't talk to terrorists' for eg.
They have a track record for doing what is beneficial, not for the Irish or for Irish Unionists, but for them.

Everybody knows that, except for the Unionists, they have often ignored that or in other words, were left with it and in some lonely moments admitted to themselves that all the fuss about "loyalty" is very one-sided and that more to their own part than from the Brits towards them. If there is no merit for the Brits in NI themselves, they don´t give much of a damn about it. The whole NI thing has become more an annoyance to them than anything else. An issue they can´t get out that easily because of them Unionists.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

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.

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

I have already stated that my preference would be for a low-key border such as one on the Finland-Russia border where for most of its length it looks like the sort of 2m security fence you'd see in many industrial estates, rising to a more serious 3m with extra security cameras etc at known security black spots. Implemented properly it should be only marginally more inconvenient than the M50 is for many people in Dublin who if they want to get from pt A to pt B on opposite sites of the motorway have to get in their cars and drive to get to a bridge to cross-over the motorway to make a journey that would be a lot simpler were there no motorway in the way and they could drive or walk directly between them.

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so. It would be up to our government to ensure that happens on the border with NI should - as seems increasingly likely - the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. That may not be your or my preference but it is the reality we need to face up to and plan for.

As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM:

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

That's exactly what I have done.

Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.

Thomas__

View wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

That's exactly what I have done.

Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.

Agreed, I see it that way too and by the way, the UK govt has already announced that free movement will end by March 2019. That means, that the Brits will have to work on that Irish border matter one way or another. Without a border, the Brits in GB will see NI as the open backdoor to them via their "backyard" (this is the way they still see NI).

Still the EU is also bound to work on a bearable and sustainable solution regarding the Irish border to settle it in a way that brings as less complications as possible.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

That's exactly what I have done.

Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.

Nobody is talking about allowing gunmen to dictate anything.

What we are talking about is avoiding a situation where the gunman comes into the equation at all.

And that is not going to be done unless we are extremely vocal in pressuring the UK and cajoling our fellow members of the EU (who both don't want a hard border BECAUSE it poses dangers to the peace process) to come up with imaginative solutions to the predicament. And a wall/fence is not one of them.

Chips Lovell

It seems that the British government isn't alone in its paradoxical attitude towards the border issue.

Rather bizarrely, Nigel Dodds of the DUP yesterday got very exercised about Varadkar's statement:

The North Belfast MP said there had been a series of “inconsistent and incoherent statements” from both men and accused Mr Varadkar of having an “intemperate outburst” after the Taoiseach said the State would not “design a border for Brexiteers”.

So let me get this straight. The Taoiseach said that the border is a problem of Britain's own making and it was up to Britain to sort it out. And the DUP are complaining that Ireland doesn't want to meddle in Britain's affairs?

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM:

You have a very limited understanding of the politics and geography of the border. Such a fence would cost billions of GBP to build and secure, it would cut through back-gardens, farms and through communities.



It would most definitely be attacked from both sides. It would essentially be a declaration of war against the border communities - it was only 20 years ago that the British Army had to fly its rubbish out of bases in bandit country - the RUC had no control of the ground. Here's a RUC station in Crossmaglen in the 1990's.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And a wall/fence is not one of them.

The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you. But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.

You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past. It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.

We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

So what is your solution then? We have to ensure that NI does not become a backdoor for uncontrolled immigration and the importation of goods in breach of EU standards and trade agreements?

swampgas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Interesting map - the border would be almost impossible to police easily without building something like the Berlin wall.

I wonder if this case will get anywhere:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-peace-process/

or this one:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-dup-deal/

.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you. But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.

It is not me proposing a wall/fence, that is somebody else.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104238564&postcount=181

You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past. It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.

We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!

Good man.
Now what do you do if the lid does come off again? The politics of condemnation? Excellent.

Jim2007 wrote: »

So what is your solution then? We have to ensure that NI does not become a backdoor for uncontrolled immigration and the importation of goods in breach of EU standards and trade agreements?

I don't know why I have to come up with solutions.
But before I would establish a hard border I would look at controlling immigration at ports and airports and goods with the (much talked about) frictionless electronic border.

FrancieBrady

swampgas wrote: »

Interesting map - the border would be almost impossible to police easily without building something like the Berlin wall.

I wonder if this case will get anywhere:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-peace-process/

or this one:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-dup-deal/

.

I said it before. The border in Ireland never worked. And it never will.

6541

This is going to be a great opportunity for smugglers of all kinds. Anything that has value will be smuggled either North to South or vice versa. If anyone thinks differently then they are plain wrong. No amount of security will stop it.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said it before. The border in Ireland never worked. And it never will.

I guess we are going to see...

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

I guess we are going to see...

We know it won't work even if it is militarised and roads are cratered. Anyone who wants/or is concerned enough only need to listen and look very closely at how there is already tension mounting over it, in communities and politically.

It will work at what it has always done, divide communities and enflame.

Thomas__

Jim2007 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And a wall/fence is not one of them.

The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you.  But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.

You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past.  It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.  

We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!

Normally, that would be the case, but there´s also a Chance that the EU, UK and Republic of Ireland find an Agreement to establish an exception from this rules in the Special case that the Island of Ireland has in regards to the GFA. It´d be up to the Brits to secure their ports and airports in order to have a stronger border control which they´re going to build up anyway for GB. Therefore, I do find the idea with the Irish Sea being the EU border between Ireland and the UK very reasonable and feasible. It has lesser costs and it´ll be as much effective if not even more so than to reestablish border posts along the NI border to the Republic. In other words, the Brits would just have to secure their "door to their backyard" from mainland Britain and that should suffice. 

In order to "keep the promise" the UK govt is going to tighten their border control anyway and this applies not just for ports along the Channel, it also applies for every UK Airport and logically, they´ll do the same in regards to any port along the coast of GB.  It´s just the whining of the DUP that they fear to be "cut off" from their beloved UK govt which wouldn´t be the case anyway, cos one might expect that the Brits will still Keep the regulations set up with Ireland in 1922 which provides extra entrance to the UK for Irish citizens and this can be adopted for NI residents as well.

I hard border mustn´t happen if other Solutions are worked out. But with politicians like those in the present UK govt and the useful idiots of the DUP as the "tiny majority keeper" one has to reckon with failure rather than with rational solutions. Therefore, I understand your point and agree with it in its reasoning, but I also think that FrancieBrady has a point too when talking about putting pressure on the all the govts involved in this to respect the special case of Irelands inner-Island border and to work on and find a solution that prevents such a hard border. The EU has already acknowledged that Ireland is a special case in regards to the EU´s borders and understandably, both the Irish govt and the EU-Commission are right in saying that this is a problem for the Brits in the first place and they have to come up with reasonable solutions that bear this special case in mind and carry that with it. 

This border subject shows just again how useless the DUP really is, not just being unfit for government in NI, but also unfit for acting the "Junior Partner" in a UK govt too. I hope that many more people are beginning to realise that and think twice before giving them their vote in any upcoming election again. One might think that the UUP might be the more rational representative party for the Unionists in NI, but I don´t hold them in high esteem either.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

This article has some reference to your post:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566

No voice
The Irish Government has done a remarkable job in ensuring that the North is among the top priorities for the remaining 27 members of the EU. But there is no voice of the people of the North at a time when uniquely it could be amplified at the top of the European Union as never before.
Sinn Féin supported “remain”. And now it is, for reasons which can only be described as impenetrably obscurantist and unintelligible, placing abstractions above the concerns of the people it purports to represent.
It is losing a once in a lifetime opportunity to set the Agenda.
Seán Donlon is former secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs

Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

FrancieBrady

Thomas__ wrote: »

This article has some reference to your post:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

This article has some reference to your post:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?

By listening to the people of the north you´ve got the problem that there are various and different voices and to choose from them and that means to which one should listen more is an hard ordeal. One thing in dealing with this matter in the Republic is, that politicians from the establishment were most comfortable to rather neglect the NI issue and give lip-service to the aim of a UI when demanded to suit it.

One really has to spend much time and do much reading to understand the complexity and the obstacles that lie in there in NI politics. The UK govt together with the Republic and the USA took efforts to bring about the GFA and by that to stop the killings (which ceased on a greater scale but didn´t end because of the terror attacks by the dissos, retaliation murder among some radical factions on both sides of the divide and other crime acts). Since it became more peaceful in NI and the GFA worked, it wasn´t much of an issue neither to London nor to Dublin and the Americans have withdrawn from it long ago. With this nutter in the WH one can rather expect the USA to be absent in further talks and that leaves the matter to the UK, the Republic and the EU to deal with.

It is an undeniable fact that SF has always been the championing part for a UI among all parties on the Island of Ireland, but what comes more to the fore in recent time, since the DUP is the "majority keeper" in the Commons, that by being exposed to a wider political stage, people can see for themselves what sort of a party the DUP and her leaders really are. SF can surely take advantage out of that for herself. The Argument in this linked article regarding SF taking her seats in the Commons remains rather questionable in regards to what they really could achieve if they would do so. Unless SF would find herself in a coalition with all the non-Tory parties on the centre-left to left in the Commons and by that being part of a government led by Labour, I see Little effect but just the ability to protest in the Commons for SF being there. It doesn´t matter cos Corbyn has refused to go into coalition with any Party in the Commons and it is because of that that Mrs May has this tiny majority with the backing of the DUP. That´s rather silly from the Opposition to not taking that Chance to bring her down because either way, when Mrs May is overthrown by her own party in the Commons within the next couple of months to come, it won´t be the case that a new GE will be held. She will simply be replaced by another Tory and it is just when the Tories will go to get rid of the DUP backing that they might risk a new GE and they go into such an untertaking not earlier as they trust in polls that have a substantial prospect of regaining a majority like that Cameron achieved and securing themselves to rule without coalition partners or the backing of a minority party like the DUP. These are the reasons for why I also see Mr Corbyn as an arrogant and silly politician who doesn´t have the guts and the ability to become PM because a majority for himself to rule without coalition partners was the main aim for himself and the fact that he´s also a Brexiteer doesn´t make much of a difference for the voter who wants to have that Brexit.

The perception of NI politics in the Republic of Ireland and GB is still that of an superficial and reluctant nature. It´s like nobody wants them but every part has - in one way or another - deal with it. It´s quite there where a change has to be made in order to handle this in a way that leads to a better understanding and more progress. I´m afraid that can´t be done while the old faces up there are still running their parties and a new face turns out to be a complete failure. But frankly, there´s nothing better to expect from the DUP at all, as they are the political arm of the most bigotted organisation in the whole of the Island of Ireland which is the Orange Order.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

This article has some reference to your post:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?

Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

Complete doublethink.

swampgas

The border used to be between Ireland and the UK, and nobody else really cared.

That's going to change: it's looking like it's going to be an EU - Third Country land border.

Ireland and the UK are not the only ones involved. If Ireland want to be seen as serious members of the EU, and hold up their side of the EU border policing arrangements, then there is no way that Ireland can throw their hands in the air and say it's the UK's problem.

Theresa May recently repeated that freedom of movement will end. That means controlling the way people cross the border, because they will be crossing in and out of the EU. The UK also look like they won't have any FTA in place when Brexit kicks in. That means controlling goods and food and livestock and everything else that's regulated, because it will be an import/export issue for the EU.

The implications for border communities, for the GFA and for NI itself are almost secondary here. All hell might break loose but that won't change the fundamental fact that the UK is proposing to dramatically change the status of its border with Ireland, from an internal EU border with few controls to an external border which will by its very nature require much stricter levels of control.

There is no way to square the circle, if the border becomes an EU frontier then it must be operated as such.

IMO there are only three likely outcomes:
- UK abandons Brexit, and border issue no longer arises
- NI changes its status, (in some fudge I can barely begin to imagine) so that border controls with Ireland have much less impact
- The border is heavily controlled, with all of the fallout that will bring with it.

The second possibility would require a major shift in thinking in NI and the UK. Given the current political impasse and general paralysis in NI right now, I don't hold much hope for any breakthrough there.

If Ireland wanted to be fully prepared for all eventualities, it would start the ground work for border control points along the border right now. And add the cost to the Brexit bill.