Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Irish Border and Brexit
Comments
-
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.
Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.
All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.0 -
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.
By that present "pay moral" of the UK govt, you might rather forget about that. The Brits are about to leave and they are to facilitate and pay for their border points or even better, abandon NI and set it free for re-unification with the Republic. That would save them lots of money, but will shift the problems of NI to the Republic. For a selfish UK govt, this would be a double win situation. Considering that the DUP would also lose their seats in the Commons and by that reducing the whole number of MPs altogether, it might be a perfect way to get rid of the DUP´s backing of this present UK govt. But that would still leave the hung parliament in the current status and the way out of that would be a snap GE in GB, without NI anymore.0 -
But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?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.
Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.
All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?
Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?
Does Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?
No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.
Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].
That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.0 -
But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?
Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?
Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?
Does Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?
No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.
Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].
That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.
Ask yourself why the people of northern Ireland have not got:
A previously agreed Irish language act.
The full range of LGBT rights
Same Sex Marraige
A range of rights available to women every where else on these islands.
Etc.
It isn't because SF or any party other than the DUP have not been representing them.
A point Mr Donlon singularly failed to make.0 -
But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?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.
Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.
All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?
Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?
Does Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?
No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.
Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].
That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.
There´s certainly a difference between the job of an MP for his constituency and that of a chief of national government. Therefore I don´t get along with your comparision re Mrs Merkel who has a bigger responsibility as head of the national government than say any mere member of the Bundestag. MPs or TDs are not just elected by the electorate of their constituency, they are of course in the first place, but their job extends the way they take up higher responsibility by becoming a member of the government cabinet and in that capacity, they have to follow up the direction given by the government. There are also other aspects that contravene the work of a mere MP or TD for his / her constituency and that is the ruling of the party one belongs to. This may or may not often lead to conflict with the demands from his constituency and that of the party for which he was elected too. Different matter for Independent TDs, who got elected on their own efforts and bear no allegiance to any political party.
For those who vote for SF in UK GEs, it doesn´t matter much that they don´t take their seats in the Commons, but it matters to them that with every vote for SF, there is one vote lost for the Unionists. Besides, I really doubt that many in the Commons would care about what SF MPs would say if they would take their seats, as long as they would be just a few in compare to the whole House. I´ve watched enough debates in the HoC to know that, respectively anticipate such behaviour by the other parties towards SF. Before this deal between the Tories and the DUP, the DUP was present, but what they said didn´t matter much at all. It´s the fact that NI with her MPs is just a minority which can be ignored when there is no hung parliament. Why should that be any different in case of SF MPs? It would only make a difference if SF would be part of a left-wing coalition govt, but as long as Mr Corbyn is living up to his pip-dreams, no chance in the HoC to take over from the present govt without having a new snap GE.
As for the main part of your post, I do understand the point you´re making, it´s just that it doesn´t make a change to the present situation which is indeed a mess created by the Brexiteers, cos they misled the electorate and they lied to them without a blush.0 -
But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?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.
Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.
All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?
Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?
Does Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?
No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.
Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].
That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.
There´s certainly a difference between the job of an MP for his constituency and that of a chief of national government. Therefore I don´t get along with your comparision re Mrs Merkel who has a bigger responsibility as head of the national government than say any mere member of the Bundestag. MPs or TDs are not just elected by the electorate of their constituency, they are of course in the first place, but their job extends the way they take up higher responsibility by becoming a member of the government cabinet and in that capacity, they have to follow up the direction given by the government. There are also other aspects that contravene the work of a mere MP or TD for his / her constituency and that is the ruling of the party one belongs to. This may or may not often lead to conflict with the demands from his constituency and that of the party for which he was elected too. Different matter for Independent TDs, who got elected on their own efforts and bear no allegiance to any political party.
For those who vote for SF in UK GEs, it doesn´t matter much that they don´t take their seats in the Commons, but it matters to them that with every vote for SF, there is one vote lost for the Unionists. Besides, I really doubt that many in the Commons would care about what SF MPs would say if they would take their seats, as long as they would be just a few in compare to the whole House. I´ve watched enough debates in the HoC to know that, respectively anticipate such behaviour by the other parties towards SF. Before this deal between the Tories and the DUP, the DUP was present, but what they said didn´t matter much at all. It´s the fact that NI with her MPs is just a minority which can be ignored when there is no hung parliament. Why should that be any different in case of SF MPs? It would only make a difference if SF would be part of a left-wing coalition govt, but as long as Mr Corbyn is living up to his pip-dreams, no chance in the HoC to take over from the present govt without having a new snap GE.
As for the main part of your post, I do understand the point you´re making, it´s just that it doesn´t make a change to the present situation which is indeed a mess created by the Brexiteers, cos they misled the electorate and they lied to them without a blush.
That's fair, for all my criticism of SF, they in no way contributed or instigated Brexit.
But that in no way excuses them from participating them from the debate. As a party on both sides of the border, they are in a unique position to the needs of all, and find common ground on which agreement can be built. Instead they'll lambast both sides for not finding a perfect solution, while contributing nothing themselves.
Were they not to abstain, the slight majority the Tories command [with DUP confidence and supply] would be even more tenuous within the HoC. I fully expect some Tories to refuse to back a Brexit deal[the number would vary on how good/bad the deal is], and SF taking their seats would make a collapse of Brexit all the more likely, whether or not they are listened to in the day to day voting which occurs in the HoC.
In a hung parliament, a small party can make a lot of headway for their own goals - the DUP have proven that, regardless of any of our opinions on their views.0 -
That's fair, for all my criticism of SF, they in no way contributed or instigated Brexit.
But that in no way excuses them from participating them from the debate. As a party on both sides of the border, they are in a unique position to the needs of all, and find common ground on which agreement can be built. Instead they'll lambast both sides for not finding a perfect solution, while contributing nothing themselves.
Were they not to abstain, the slight majority the Tories command [with DUP confidence and supply] would be even more tenuous within the HoC. I fully expect some Tories to refuse to back a Brexit deal[the number would vary on how good/bad the deal is], and SF taking their seats would make a collapse of Brexit all the more likely, whether or not they are listened to in the day to day voting which occurs in the HoC.
In a hung parliament, a small party can make a lot of headway for their own goals - the DUP have proven that, regardless of any of our opinions on their views.
Whatever you think of it 'abstensionism' is not going to be cast aside over a single issue.
If you look at the status of those who identify as Irish in northern Ireland 40 years ago and look at them now, you cannot say that their status has not dramatically improved.
When you accept that, then look at who, those who identify as Irish, consistently reward (with their votes) for that.
I don't in all honestly think you have a case based on that.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote:Whatever you think of it 'abstensionism' is not going to be cast aside over a single issue.
I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.
I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.0 -
I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.
I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.
They could probably do plenty of talking but other than that I don't see any great advantage. They have done pretty well in elections so their electorate are clearly happy with the policy.
Absentionism as an ideal/policy is pretty clear and isn't just about giving two fingers to the UK. So it is not going to be dropped easily.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.
I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.
They could probably do plenty of talking but other than that I don't see any great advantage. They have done pretty well in elections so their electorate are clearly happy with the policy.
Absentionism as an ideal/policy is pretty clear and isn't just about giving two fingers to the UK. So it is not going to be dropped easily.
In fact it´ll never be dropped cos SF will never take the oath of allegiance to the British Monarch which is the main and core reason for the Abesentionism from Westminster. The late Martin McGuinness and SF P Gerry Adams have come to terms with the British State and the Queen, but they won´t go any step further that would touch the oath of allegiance. No way. There is a real chance that in due course of a hard Brexit, the UK will fall apart in a short time afterwards and this would open the door towards a UI, whether the Unionists and Loyalists in NI like it or not, they´ll be left with this only chance to come into the Republic of Ireland, cos I really have doubts that an Independent Scotland would like to incorporate NI and NI can´t stay on her own feet which is a fact, proved by the annual subsidies it receives from Westminster.0 -
It's part of the reason. As I said earlier it isn't just a two finger reactionary policy.In fact it´ll never be dropped cos SF will never take the oath of allegiance to the British Monarch which is the main and core reason for the Abesentionism from Westminster.
http://www.judecollins.com/2017/06/defence-abstentionism-conscience-republican-donal-lavery/Now, Colum Eastwood can’t even persuade too many Nationalist people to follow his political direction, yet he thinks he’s going to be able to twist the arm of any sovereign British government? The people in Derry no longer take him seriously, never mind the Establishment in London.
For to sit on the green benches is to align with the occupants of the green benches; becoming an integral part of their system and structures via fraternisation. It means accepting that a parliament in London has legitimacy over Irish affairs; it means a British government is given authority over the inalienable destiny of the Irish people; and it reinforces the mutilation of this island by caucusing in the House which colonised and divided it. Imagine a party, calling itself ‘’Irish’’ and ‘’Nationalist’’ – but standing candidates only to a British and European parliament.
If you go back for a moment to the 1918 General Election, when the Irish people voted overwhelmingly for abstentionist, Sinn Fein candidates put Ireland on the British government’s agenda and forced them to sit down and negotiate with people like Michael Collins – for they knew that there was no longer a legitimate basis for Britain governing Ireland.
Think for a moment to the time when the Japanese colonised China – would the Chinese people have recognised the renaming of cities along the lines of ‘Tokyo-Shanghai’? Would self-respecting Chinese people, assuming they were even permitted, have denied their right to be a separate nation by sending politicians to a parliament in Tokyo, which had slaughtered, raped and starved their population and where they held no influence? The Chinese would have said No!
The role of any leaders in those circumstances is to involve themselves in the internal constituent affairs of the communities they represent; emancipating the citizens they represent – making problems brought to them by their people into their own problems.0 -
It´s a strong Nationalist angle for argumentation and it shows time and again that the long historical record of the mistreatment of Ireland by the English / British is still alive.FrancieBrady wrote: »
It's part of the reason. As I said earlier it isn't just a two finger reactionary policy.In fact it´ll never be dropped cos SF will never take the oath of allegiance to the British Monarch which is the main and core reason for the Abesentionism from Westminster.
http://www.judecollins.com/2017/06/defence-abstentionism-conscience-republican-donal-lavery/Now, Colum Eastwood can’t even persuade too many Nationalist people to follow his political direction, yet he thinks he’s going to be able to twist the arm of any sovereign British government? The people in Derry no longer take him seriously, never mind the Establishment in London.
For to sit on the green benches is to align with the occupants of the green benches; becoming an integral part of their system and structures via fraternisation. It means accepting that a parliament in London has legitimacy over Irish affairs; it means a British government is given authority over the inalienable destiny of the Irish people; and it reinforces the mutilation of this island by caucusing in the House which colonised and divided it. Imagine a party, calling itself ‘’Irish’’ and ‘’Nationalist’’ – but standing candidates only to a British and European parliament.
If you go back for a moment to the 1918 General Election, when the Irish people voted overwhelmingly for abstentionist, Sinn Fein candidates put Ireland on the British government’s agenda and forced them to sit down and negotiate with people like Michael Collins – for they knew that there was no longer a legitimate basis for Britain governing Ireland.
Think for a moment to the time when the Japanese colonised China – would the Chinese people have recognised the renaming of cities along the lines of ‘Tokyo-Shanghai’? Would self-respecting Chinese people, assuming they were even permitted, have denied their right to be a separate nation by sending politicians to a parliament in Tokyo, which had slaughtered, raped and starved their population and where they held no influence? The Chinese would have said No!
The role of any leaders in those circumstances is to involve themselves in the internal constituent affairs of the communities they represent; emancipating the citizens they represent – making problems brought to them by their people into their own problems.0 -
I think we'll have to agree to differ.FrancieBrady wrote: »That's fair, for all my criticism of SF, they in no way contributed or instigated Brexit.
But that in no way excuses them from participating them from the debate. As a party on both sides of the border, they are in a unique position to the needs of all, and find common ground on which agreement can be built. Instead they'll lambast both sides for not finding a perfect solution, while contributing nothing themselves.
Were they not to abstain, the slight majority the Tories command [with DUP confidence and supply] would be even more tenuous within the HoC. I fully expect some Tories to refuse to back a Brexit deal[the number would vary on how good/bad the deal is], and SF taking their seats would make a collapse of Brexit all the more likely, whether or not they are listened to in the day to day voting which occurs in the HoC.
In a hung parliament, a small party can make a lot of headway for their own goals - the DUP have proven that, regardless of any of our opinions on their views.
Whatever you think of it 'abstensionism' is not going to be cast aside over a single issue.
If you look at the status of those who identify as Irish in northern Ireland 40 years ago and look at them now, you cannot say that their status has not dramatically improved.
When you accept that, then look at who, those who identify as Irish, consistently reward (with their votes) for that.
I don't in all honestly think you have a case based on that.
I don't want my elected politicians wasting their time canvassing and arguing on behalf of a country which expects so little of its own elected politicians, and I'll make that clear in any forthcoming election.0 -
I think we'll have to agree to differ.
I don't want my elected politicians wasting their time canvassing and arguing on behalf of a country which expects so little of its own elected politicians, and I'll make that clear in any forthcoming election.
But their politicians do represent them. Another false equivalence from one of the sites most disingenuous posters. The southern governments supposed aspiration for unity has nothing to do with how nationalists vote in the UK election.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13694
-
Advertisement
-
joeysoap wrote:Aren't we subject to the same regulations? There's a seperate thread on boards about the delays at immigration at Dublin airport. Perhaps we should join Shengen?
If there is a border on the island of Ireland (and there might), we will join Schengen. The FTA with the UK is the only reason we haven't already.0 -
I don't see us joining Schengen without NI (somehow). The levels of border control on an external Schengen border go far beyond what I believe we'll end up with (mostly customs) after Brexit.If there is a border on the island of Ireland (and there might), we will join Schengen. The FTA with the UK is the only reason we haven't already.
It's a real pity. I'd love to see us joining but don't expect it'll happen.0 -
I don't see us joining Schengen without NI (somehow). The levels of border control on an external Schengen border go far beyond what I believe we'll end up with (mostly customs) after Brexit.
It's a real pity. I'd love to see us joining but don't expect it'll happen.
You're assuming the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK will survive Brexit.
If it doesn't (and if there's a customs border anyway, as there was between 1923 and 1993) there wouldn't really be much point in Ireland remaining outside of Schengen.0 -
murphaph wrote:I don't see us joining Schengen without NI (somehow). The levels of border control on an external Schengen border go far beyond what I believe we'll end up with (mostly customs) after Brexit.
Well we'll see. The Brexiteers insistence on controlling the UK's border is incompatible with free movement within the island of Ireland. Can you see the DUP continuing to support May's government if there is an attempt to put the border at the Irish Sea?
Something has to give.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,337 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16365
But on the flip side how is DUP suppose to sell a hard Irish border when they got people who're farming on both sides of the border currently? No matter how you try to set the border DUP ends up in an impossible position that will alienate part of their base.Well we'll see. The Brexiteers insistence on controlling the UK's border is incompatible with free movement within the island of Ireland. Can you see the DUP continuing to support May's government if there is an attempt to put the border at the Irish Sea?
Something has to give.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nody wrote:But on the flip side how is DUP suppose to sell a hard Irish border when they got people who're farming on both sides of the border currently? No matter how you try to set the border DUP ends up in an impossible position that will alienate part of their base.
Agreed; something has to give. It will be interesting to watch.0 -
Aren't we subject to the same regulations? There's a seperate thread on boards about the delays at immigration at Dublin airport. Perhaps we should join Shengen?
No thanks. I prefer to spend few more minutes at immigration, than to open our borders to the whole world. EU/Shengen external border is almost non-existent now. Any one from Asia or Africa who are willing to take some risk can get there.0 -
But on the flip side how is DUP suppose to sell a hard Irish border when they got people who're farming on both sides of the border currently? No matter how you try to set the border DUP ends up in an impossible position that will alienate part of their base.
But the DUP have no MPs with constituencies on the border. It will be the nationalists who suffer more then the unionists.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13694
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Mod note:
Indeed, particularly since the topic is the Irish border not abstentionism. If anyone wishes to discuss the latter, please do so in a separate thread.
Mod note:
Several posts deleted. Dont make me tap the sign!0 -
-
All the discussion about the border seems to put it in the hands of the UK but doesnt the EU have some say in it?
If there's no controls between the north and south then wont there have to be controls between ROI and the rest of the EU?0 -
InTheTrees wrote: »If there's no controls between the north and south then wont there have to be controls between ROI and the rest of the EU?
Anything coming from or via the north gets queued at the airports, Rosslare or wherever and must be inspected? That could also have the consequence of shifting an awful lot of business from the north to the south to avoid the hassle.
'Oh dear, oh dear, the sound of pennies beginning to drop'.0 -
InTheTrees wrote: »All the discussion about the border seems to put it in the hands of the UK but doesnt the EU have some say in it?
If there's no controls between the north and south then wont there have to be controls between ROI and the rest of the EU?
Its the UK that have the problem with open borders not the EU.
Also Ireland along with the 26 other eu countries have to individually ratify the brexit agreement, do you see it getting a thumbsup from us if we have to do the UK's border work for them and have one between us and thw rest of the EU?0 -
InTheTrees wrote: »All the discussion about the border seems to put it in the hands of the UK but doesnt the EU have some say in it?
If there's no controls between the north and south then wont there have to be controls between ROI and the rest of the EU?
Good evening!
I would argue the other way around. The UK Government are clear that they want to keep the border with the Republic open. To claim the UK want a hard border isn't true.
It depends on what trade and customs terms Brussels are willing to offer the UK. If there is a hard border it will be because of the EU insisting on it and not the other way around.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
I would argue the other way around. The UK Government are clear that they want to keep the border with the Republic open.
It depends on what trade and customs terms Brussels are willing to offer the UK.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
Which simply means they are clear that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Or that they are delusional. Or maybe both.
They want an open border with the EU but somehow still have limits on freedom of movement? How's that going to work?
They don't want to be in the customs union but want an open border with the EU in Ireland? How's that supposed to work?
To be frank it's the worst form of lip service to the GFA and NI, they "want" to keep an open border, sure, while at the same time everything they are doing is working to close it down.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »You're missing the point. The UK want a third country free trade agreement with the European Union. They have been very clear about what they want despite all the claims they haven't been. Position papers have been published, the Great Repeal Bill is available online and priorities were set in the Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter.
It is up to the European Commission to decide what they can get in the negotiations given what they've asked for.
The border can't be resolved until trade and customs terms are made clear.
The UK wants the CTA to continue between Ireland. They want to restrict immigration. They want frictionless trade with the EU but they want to leave the customs union to negotiate their own trade deals. The things the UK wants are not compatible with what they can get.
You cannot have a border between the EU and the UK to limit immigration and have an open border between Ireland and the UK. How do you not see this?
The UK cannot have frictionless trade with the EU and leave the single market/customs union (those two are sort of tied together) and negotiate trade agreements that will hurt EU members trade with other countries.
So please stop telling us its the EU that has to decide what they want for the border. Its the UK that has to decide if it wants an open border between Ireland or not. That will decide what type of border there will be, not the fantasy land idea that the UK will have the CTA, GFA and SM/CU all preserved as is but being able to limit immigration and do their own trade deals.0 -
So please stop telling us its the EU that has to decide what they want for the border. Its the UK that has to decide if it wants an open border between Ireland or not. That will decide what type of border there will be, not the fantasy land idea that the UK will have the CTA, GFA and SM/CU all preserved as is but being able to limit immigration and do their own trade deals.
Good evening!
If it wasn't claimed that the UK wants a hard border in Ireland then I wouldn't have to clarify this.
It isn't true to say that the UK wants a border and it is true to say that the border depends on what customs and trade arrangement that the European Commission will offer the UK.
I need to be honest and set the truth straight when people are being dishonest about the UK's position on the matter. You cannot conclude this matter until the trade terms are clear. The UK has put forward what it wants. It's up to the European Commission to out forward what it wants to offer.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
You will at least accept that the UK government had not one iota of the ultimate impact on the border and the GFA in general, before calling the referendum?solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
If it wasn't claimed that the UK wants a hard border in Ireland then I wouldn't have to clarify this.
It isn't true to say that the UK wants a border and it is true to say that the border depends on what customs and trade arrangement that the European Commission will offer the UK.
I need to be honest and set the truth straight when people are being dishonest about the UK's position on the matter. You cannot conclude this matter until the trade terms are clear. The UK has put forward what it wants. It's up to the European Commission to out forward what it wants to offer.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90863
452 pages.
some discussion already over on https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/08/02/report-examining-brexit-and-a-united-ireland-launched/
page 22 has this interesting titbitThe economic analyses of a unified Ireland as an option are few on the ground. There
was economic analysis of a united Ireland based on the economic modelling of German
unification carried out in 2015 entitled ‘Modelling Irish Unification’. This report is available
in full in the online appendix to this section. However, it could now be considered to be out
of date due to Brexit. In the analysis, one of the modelling scenarios in the report
estimates a boost in the all island GDP of €35.6 billion over eight years with the North
benefitting significantly.
page 42 shows how NI gets a goodly chunk of the UK's EU funding
page 59 Women workers to be disproportionately affected by Brexit0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90863
Some energy news.
We will be getting LNG shipments from the US of up to 30% of our needs, reducing our dependence on imports via the UK.
In the US they are abandoning construction of two nuclear plants, economics and bankruptcy. This isn't good news for those in the UK counting on the new Moorside nuclear plant. Toshiba itself may go wollop over this. This may increase the UK's reliance on energy imports from the EU.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sc-utilities-halt-work-on-new-nuclear-reactors-dimming-the-prospects-for-a-nuclear-energy-revival/2017/07/31/5c8ec4a0-7614-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.5b5e2f120592Santee Cooper, the junior partner in the reactor project with a 45 percent share, said shelving the project would save its customers nearly $7 billion in additional costs to complete it, which would have pushed the price to $11.4 billion on what was supposed to cost $5.1 billion to begin with. The project is also at least five years behind its original schedule.0 -
A nicely timed article for this thread.
https://www.irishcentral.com/homepage/brexit-border-battle-about-to-change-irish-british-relationship-forever
The article sets out four options:
a. Trump-style wall
b. special status for Northern Ireland, keeping it in the EU
c. the Irish Sea as the border
d. reunification of Ireland
The article's author:Kevin Meagher is a former special adviser at the Northern Ireland Office and author of ‘A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about’ published by Biteback.0 -
The UK has already said that it would prefer a relatively open border between the North and the 26 Counties.So please stop telling us its the EU that has to decide what they want for the border. Its the UK that has to decide if it wants an open border between Ireland or not. That will decide what type of border there will be, not the fantasy land idea that the UK will have the CTA, GFA and SM/CU all preserved as is but being able to limit immigration and do their own trade deals.
The problem is that although the UK is free to decide what sort of border it wants, Ireland remains a member of the EU and therefore must abide by decisions made at the EU level concerning what sort of border the EU deems appropriate.
When the UK leaves the EU, the Republic's border with the North becomes and EU frontier. It is Ireland's hope that the EU will allow Ireland to maintain a relatively open border but this is by no means certain. Ireland had hoped (like the UK) that trade negotiations run in parallel with other talks, however the EU has opted to only discuss trade after other issues have been settled. There is therefore no chance (as opposed to a slim chance) that when the UK leaves, there will be an FTA, which would be one of the minimum requirements for any sort of open border.
Therefore, on the day of brexit, Ireland will already have been ordered by the EU to build customs posts at the border regardless of whatever the UK and Ireland want. This may put Ireland in breach of the GFA.
It is true that the UK will have initiated things by leaving the EU, but not being in the EU does not in itself mean that they themselves are in breach of the GFA but rather Ireland's continuing membership of the EU means that Ireland will no longer be able to uphold its side of the agreement.
The Taoiseach was correct in saying that he would not build a border designed by brexiters; he'll design one designed by Brussels.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »The UK has already said that it would prefer a relatively open border between the North and the 26 Counties.
The problem is that although the UK is free to decide what sort of border it wants, Ireland remains a member of the EU and therefore must abide by decisions made at the EU level concerning what sort of border the EU deems appropriate.
When the UK leaves the EU, the Republic's border with the North becomes and EU frontier. It is Ireland's hope that the EU will allow Ireland to maintain a relatively open border but this is by no means certain. Ireland had hoped (like the UK) that trade negotiations run in parallel with other talks, however the EU has opted to only discuss trade after other issues have been settled. There is therefore no chance (as opposed to a slim chance) that when the UK leaves, there will be an FTA, which would be one of the minimum requirements for any sort of open border.
Therefore, on the day of brexit, Ireland will already have been ordered by the EU to build customs posts at the border regardless of whatever the UK and Ireland want. This may put Ireland in breach of the GFA.
It is true that the UK will have initiated things by leaving the EU, but not being in the EU does not in itself mean that they themselves are in breach of the GFA but rather Ireland's continuing membership of the EU means that Ireland will no longer be able to uphold its side of the agreement.
The Taoiseach was correct in saying that he would not build a border designed by brexiters; he'll design one designed by Brussels.
Which part of the GFA says there can't be customs controls along the border?0 -
Advertisement
-
Bit cynical wrote: »The UK has already said that it would prefer a relatively open border between the North and the 26 Counties.
The problem is that although the UK is free to decide what sort of border it wants, Ireland remains a member of the EU and therefore must abide by decisions made at the EU level concerning what sort of border the EU deems appropriate.
When the UK leaves the EU, the Republic's border with the North becomes and EU frontier. It is Ireland's hope that the EU will allow Ireland to maintain a relatively open border but this is by no means certain. Ireland had hoped (like the UK) that trade negotiations run in parallel with other talks, however the EU has opted to only discuss trade after other issues have been settled. There is therefore no chance (as opposed to a slim chance) that when the UK leaves, there will be an FTA, which would be one of the minimum requirements for any sort of open border.
Therefore, on the day of brexit, Ireland will already have been ordered by the EU to build customs posts at the border regardless of whatever the UK and Ireland want. This may put Ireland in breach of the GFA.
It is true that the UK will have initiated things by leaving the EU, but not being in the EU does not in itself mean that they themselves are in breach of the GFA but rather Ireland's continuing membership of the EU means that Ireland will no longer be able to uphold its side of the agreement.
The point to remember is that the UK need to solve the border issue before trade talks can occur. This makes it their problem.0 -
That's pretty nonsensical to be frank.steddyeddy wrote: »The point to remember is that the UK need to solve the border issue before trade talks can occur. This makes it their problem.
Just because our hands are tied doesn't mean we won't suffer the consequences if an agreement isn't reached between London and Brussels.
Yes the EU have decided that agreement has to be reached on many issues before trade talks have occurred but we in Ireland will suffer the consequences of that decision. That, unfortunately, makes it our problem.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »That's pretty nonsensical to be frank.
Just because our hands are tied doesn't mean we won't suffer the consequences if an agreement isn't reached between London and Brussels.
Yes the EU have decided that agreement has to be reached on many issues before trade talks have occurred but we in Ireland will suffer the consequences of that decision. That, unfortunately, makes it our problem.
Yes it is our problem. The border has been our problem for long enough. We shouldn't sit back, but we should veto any deal that's unaceptable.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »The point to remember is that the UK need to solve the border issue before trade talks can occur. This makes it their problem.
The border is our problem, and in particular for anyone who remembers travel between Donegal and Dublin and the queues at Strabane and Aughnacloy.
All the British worry about is people crossing the sea via airports and Ferries which have established security.0 -
We are sitting back at the moment and waiting for the EU to negotiate on our behalf the sort of border we will have with the North.steddyeddy wrote: »Yes it is our problem. The border has been our problem for long enough. We shouldn't sit back, but we should veto any deal that's unaceptable.
The statement by Coveney in the opening post merely deflects attention away from this fact. All we know so far is that the EU will require us to have some sort of control at our border but that is all we know so far.
The problem is that Coveney and Varadkar are the least important players in any of this and they know it. Therefore they issue strong statements in the press. That is all they can do. The leader of the DUP has far more influence over the shape of the eventual border than anyone in the Irish Government.
At one point we wanted trade talks to run in parallel with other talks. We failed in this and instead we will have to wait. Where is the strong statement here? Are we still hoping that brexit won't happen?0 -
Bit cynical wrote:We are sitting back at the moment and waiting for the EU to negotiate on our behalf the sort of border we will have with the North.
Nothing could be further from the truth.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bit cynical wrote: »At one point we wanted trade talks to run in parallel with other talks. We failed in this and instead we will have to wait. Where is the strong statement here? Are we still hoping that brexit won't happen?
No we didn't, the EU countries have always been aligned 100% that freedom of movement along with their debts were to be agreed before anything else.
Also whats the point in discussing trade before a decision on a border which will affect trade has been decided?0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »We are sitting back at the moment and waiting for the EU to negotiate on our behalf the sort of border we will have with the North.
The statement by Coveney in the opening post merely deflects attention away from this fact. All we know so far is that the EU will require us to have some sort of control at our border but that is all we know so far.
The problem is that Coveney and Varadkar are the least important players in any of this and they know it. Therefore they issue strong statements in the press. That is all they can do. The leader of the DUP has far more influence over the shape of the eventual border than anyone in the Irish Government.
At one point we wanted trade talks to run in parallel with other talks. We failed in this and instead we will have to wait. Where is the strong statement here? Are we still hoping that brexit won't happen?
We might be, maybe even the British are hoping it won't happen?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/03/second-brexit-referendum-case-getting-stronger-political-deadlock-life-raft0 -
sondagefaux wrote: »A nicely timed article for this thread.
https://www.irishcentral.com/homepage/brexit-border-battle-about-to-change-irish-british-relationship-forever
The article sets out four options:
a. Trump-style wall
b. special status for Northern Ireland, keeping it in the EU
c. the Irish Sea as the border
d. reunification of Ireland
The article's author:
Forgive my ignorance but isn't special status just the Irish sea border plus? And wouldn't the Irish sea boarder require all Irish and Northern Irish goods to be checked entering the EU? Otherwise what's to stop something being transported south and onwards as Irish.
The Irish sea border doesn't seem workable without special status.0 -
Also further to special status. NI companies will end up in a situation where they'll have no option but to abide by EU law and their competitors in Britain will be able to ignore them if they decide not to export. For example Moy Park would be unable to produce chlorinated chicken (assuming its been aloud again) so aren't competitive in Britain but also aren't competitive in the EU due to border crossing expense.0
-
This link is worth a look at even though its 3 months old.
'How will Brexit affect the Irish Border? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEY1WlsAR1I
For those who don't know Prof. Dougan, he is a legal expert on EU law working in Liverspool University.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement