Brexit discussion thread III

murphaph

Some say that when Britain lost its empire it happened bit by bit. There wasn't a catastrophic event. Britain itself hasn't been occupied by a foreign power in almost a thousand years.

They never suffered this humiliation like most other countries in Europe, either during the ascendancy of the third Reich or after it had been destroyed.

Most Irish would also say we were occupied by a foreign power.

That's possibly why they don't get that they are not the force they once were. Germany wasn't occupied after losing the first world war so the people didn't believe they'd really lost at all. If Germany had been occupied the second world war probably wouldn't have happened.

I'm genuinely starting to believe the British (predominantly the English) need to suffer this defeat to change the national psyche.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Some say that when Britain lost its empire it happened bit by bit. There wasn't a catastrophic event. Britain itself hasn't been occupied by a foreign power in almost a thousand years.

They never suffered this humiliation like most other countries in Europe, either during the ascendancy of the third Reich or after it had been destroyed.

Most Irish would also say we were occupied by a foreign power.

That's possibly why they don't get that they are not the force they once were. Germany wasn't occupied after losing the first world war so the people didn't believe they'd really lost at all. If Germany had been occupied the second world war probably wouldn't have happened.

I'm genuinely starting to believe the British (predominantly the English) need to suffer this defeat to change the national psyche.

The film 'Darkest Hour' depicts the last time Britain withdrew from Europe. Dunkirk, a terrible defeat for the British Expeditionary Force, was forced to retreat into the sea under heavy fire leaving behind all their weapons and transport. By some great good fortune or miracle, they plucked most of their personnel from the beaches and ferried them in many small boats back to Blighty.

Most nations would look at this as humiliation, but to them it was a magnificent victory - celebrated in the 'Dunkirk Spirit'.

They turn humiliation into celebration. Well let us see if they celebrate 'The Brexit Spirit' in the next few decades in the same way.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK cannot feed its people. Hard Brexit would mean no food. It's impossible so they will cave.

The End.

It would appear they’ll need a demonstration and a period spent trying to get around it before they come to that conclusion.

Jim2007

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The UK could have been a bit more cooperative whiile in the EU it could have made some common cause with the likes of Sweden and Denmark and perhaps a two tier EU could have resulted.

The problem is that they have never learned to be a team player. When they say the EU is undemocratic what they actually mean is that they can’t get the other states to do their will. I don’t think it even enters their head that the other 27 states have the exact same rights and privileges as they do and democracy is a majority decision.

They seem to expect that outside the EU they will be able to do exactly as they want and that all trading partners will negotiate to their disadvantage in order to give the UK the best deals. Of course they are starting to discover that is not the case, hence the claim that the EU is punishing them. The idea that EU politicians would be unwilling to go before their nations and explain why they disadvantage the EU is beyond them.

It is like dealing with kindergarten children - completely self centered and unable to consider the situation of others.

Tropheus

Noemi Gorgeous Sailing wrote: »

The prospect of a hard Brexit is highly exciting to be honest. I think it's suicide for the UK. But when I read the media there I think there is no talking to them. They are hell bent on slamming the door on the way out. I think ironically a few decades of being a small country at the mercy of larger powers will teach them a thing or two. Schadenfreude.

There is a large percentage that feel this way. However, there are also a large percentage who are realistic and fully understand their place in the world. I pity the latter who are being sucked down the plughole by something designed to pander to a fractured Tory party and delusional nationalism.

Water John

Pere, you may be right, that they sort of, fell into a strategy that bought time. But Tusk called a shuddering halt to it, this week. 'Tell us how you intend to solve the Irish border, before we proceed further'.

Leroy42

Tusk also said that it is right that Hammond stands up for the UK, but EU is therefore right to stick up for theirs.

As Jim2007 said, the UK felt hard done by due to not getting their own way and therefore feel that though they couldn't 'win' in a group of equals they will be able to use they power to 'win' against other countries.

That is at the core of all of this. They want to be seen to be in control again.

And in certain cases they are probably right. UK is a significant economic power after all.

The problem is that the potential losses they will suffer in order to get these 'wins'. India, for example, have already said that any deal will need to incorporate immigration.

All the reports are showing this idea to a fallacy, but the dream is too big to let reality deny them.

It seems to me that they are even willing to put the very future of the UK at risk fir this prize

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem is that the potential losses they will suffer in order to get these 'wins'. India, for example, have already said that any deal will need to incorporate immigration.

Not to mention the awkward reality of competing with Europhile politicians like Macron, in India today pointing out that a deal with the EU will be much juicier than anything Blighty can offer.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Most nations would look at this as humiliation, but to them it was a magnificent victory - celebrated in the 'Dunkirk Spirit'.

They turn humiliation into celebration. Well let us see if they celebrate 'The Brexit Spirit' in the next few decades in the same way.

There was the 'Blitz Spirit' too.

Characterised by the belief that if German bombing didn't destroy the morale of the British workers, then the exact opposite would happen if German workers were bombed by the British

Brexit is a bit like that too. At times it's like they don't see things from the other side, or expect the rules to be completely different.

For most nations in the EU occupation by a foreign power or the very real threat of it is within living memory. Some things are more important than making a little more profit or extracting more work from the workers.


BTW
the UK was successfully invaded by the Dutch at the end of the 17th century. But there was no Harrying of the North and History back then especially, is written by the victor.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Pere, you may be right, that they sort of, fell into a strategy that bought time. But Tusk called a shuddering halt to it, this week. 'Tell us how you intend to solve the Irish border, before we proceed further'.

No, you can apply this strategy to the Irish question too. While the UK has objected to the draft treaty text which set out option C (full regulatory alignment in NI) they can, when push comes to shove, cave and accept it with minimal change. At the same time they can point out to the ultra-Brexiters that Option C is a default; it only applies if the EU and the UK fail to agree either option A (a free trade deal that make a border unnecessary) or option B (technological magic). They can insist that they are confident that option A or option B will be agreed by the end of the transition period, 31 December 2020, and therefore the default provided for in the withdrawal agreement, option C, will never actually come into effect.

Sure, the ultra-Brexiters may doubt the ability of May to devise an Option A or Option B to which the EU will agree, but they can't say that without effectively admitting that Option A and Option B are unrealistic. Plus, if they dump May over this, they get a hard Brexit, plus Comrade Corbyn as Prime Minister. So, once again, they may decide that the least bad thing is to believe Teresa May, or at least pretend to.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you can apply this strategy to the Irish question too. While the UK has objected to the draft treaty text which set out option C (full regulatory alignment in NI) they can, when push comes to shove, cave and accept it with minimal change. At the same time they can point out to the ultra-Brexiters that Option C is a default; it only applies if the EU and the UK fail to agree either option A (a free trade deal that make a border unnecessary) or option B (technological magic). They can insist that they are confident that option A or option B will be agreed by the end of the transition period, 31 December 2020, and therefore the default provided for in the withdrawal agreement, option C, will never actually come into effect.

Sure, the ultra-Brexiters may doubt the ability of May to devise an Option A or Option B to which the EU will agree, but they can't say that without effectively admitting that Option A and Option B are unrealistic. Plus, if they dump May over this, they get a hard Brexit, plus Comrade Corbyn as Prime Minister. So, once again, they may decide that the least bad thing is to believe Teresa May, or at least pretend to.

Or the sell will simply be that it's "temporary" while they develop the British IT system to handle it and hence have not really capitulated on the issue. They will point out that in the end while it takes a few years longer then what they really want the money is being invested into UK companies (who'll outsource it to India) and economy so it's really ok. It will help the UK economy through the recession so really it's a good thing.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Or the sell will simply be that it's "temporary" while they develop the British IT system to handle it and hence have not really capitulated on the issue. They will point out that in the end while it takes a few years longer then what they really want the money is being invested into UK companies (who'll outsource it to India) and economy so it's really ok. It will help the UK economy through the recession so really it's a good thing.

And 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed!'

Skedaddle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

In reality it's the EU that's looking for an exemption, which the UK will automatically get until Brexit kicks in.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-expects-exemption-from-us-steel-and-aluminium-tariffs-1.3421045

Technically the UK can't do their own trade deals while they are in the EU so it's just taking credit for what the EU has done for them, again...

More theatre.

The reality is that roaming charges are heading back.

Technically the UK is supposed to be behaving sanely, but it isn't. I wouldn't guarantee that the Tories wouldn't just go off and try to cut some bilateral arrangement with Trump. He has, after all, continuously talked like as if he can do deals with individual EU countries, splitting the union.

Samaris

Skedaddle wrote: »

Technically the UK is supposed to be behaving sanely, but it isn't. I wouldn't guarantee that the Tories wouldn't just go off and try to cut some bilateral arrangement with Trump. He has, after all, continuously talked like as if he can do deals with individual EU countries, splitting the union.

Apparently he already has - didn't Liam Fox skeddadle over there with his tail perked?

Strazdas

Jim2007 wrote: »

The problem is that they have never learned to be a team player. When they say the EU is undemocratic what they actually mean is that they can’t get the other states to do their will. I don’t think it even enters their head that the other 27 states have the exact same rights and privileges as they do and democracy is a majority decision.

They seem to expect that outside the EU they will be able to do exactly as they want and that all trading partners will negotiate to their disadvantage in order to give the UK the best deals. Of course they are starting to discover that is not the case, hence the claim that the EU is punishing them. The idea that EU politicians would be unwilling to go before their nations and explain why they disadvantage the EU is beyond them.

It is like dealing with kindergarten children - completely self centered and unable to consider the situation of others.

Yes, there is a definite sense that they are not team players and even consider themselves superior to the EU27. I don't think any other country would contemplate leaving the EU for the flimsy reasons the UK has given, stuff about 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control' which sounds a bit meaningless in the modern global world. Where they are in for a rude and unpleasant awakening is when they discover they are nowhere near as important as they imagine and that they are not superior to the continent at all.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Apparently he already has - didn't Liam Fox skeddadle over there with his tail perked?

He's going next week. (I think he was scheduled to go anyway.) He has said that he will "be looking to see how we can maximise the UK's case for exemption under these particular circumstances". The particular circumstances, of course, are that the UK is an EU member state, and Downing Street has already said that it's working with its EU partners on the matter. So the obvious way to "maximise the UK's case for exemption" would be for the UK to support the EU's case for exemption and, while it would stick in Fox's craw to acknowledge openly that that is what he will be doing, that is what he will be doing.

Both Downing Street and Fox's Department have declined to say whether they would accept an exemption for the UK alone, if Trump offered it. They are wise to decline; the answer "yes" would land them in the pooh with the EU, and if actually followed through would pretty much put the kibosh on any chance of an exit deal or a transition period, while the answer "no" would infuriate Brexiters, who really, really like to be infuriated and will seize any opportunity offered.

Ever willing to oblige, both the Express and the Telegraph are running stories to the effect that the EU has threatened legal action against the UK, should the UK obtain an exclusive exemption. The stories are strikingly lacking in corroborative detail - there is no reference to an actual statement from Brussels, no EU official is identified as having said anything of the kind. What is likely is that, in private conversation, when asked, an EU source said yes, if the UK did that it would breach their obligations as a member state and there would be a basis for legal action, and the Express and the Telegraph have decided to spin this as a threat of legal action.

murphaph

Hopefully the realdonaltrump will tweet them an offer they have to refuse. It would be car crash stuff to watch.

briany

If you believe that David Cameron was wrong to give a Brexit referendum, or at least one in the way he did, what should he have done differently that would have saved the UK from the pickle they are finding themselves in right now besides simply 'not giving it' or 'campaigning better'?

ArmaniJeanss

briany wrote: »

If you believe that David Cameron was wrong to give a Brexit referendum, or at least one in the way he did, what should he have done differently that would have saved the UK from the pickle they are finding themselves in right now besides simply 'not giving it' or 'campaigning better'?

"Anything positive that happens is because of Cameron/Tory/UK brilliance."
"Anything bad that happens is the fault of the EU."

He would have needed to have changed the above attitude in the 5 years he was in power before the referendum.

******
More specifically he should have promised Boris a major cabinet role in return for supporting remain, he badly underestimated just how important Boris would be in the campaign.

flutered

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not to mention the awkward reality of competing with Europhile politicians like Macron, in India today pointing out that a deal with the EU will be much juicier than anything Blighty can offer.

perhaps i am wrong, but did not the uk scubber a deal between the eu and india, afterwards india said it would take 30 years for india to agree a trade deal with the uk

Nody

flutered wrote: »

perhaps i am wrong, but did not the uk scubber a deal between the eu and india, afterwards india said it would take 30 years for india to agree a trade deal with the uk

Well UK's insistence on Scottish whisky inclusions and no more visas for Indians did not help; that's for sure but that is part of a larger issue with whisky import in general to India (i.e. Ireland might raise similar concerns).

Capt'n Midnight

Make no mistake any UK - India deal will mean a lot more visas.

Which is completely at odds with May's harping on about reducing immigrants.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/07/its-time-recognise-truth-trade-deal-india-means-concessions-immigration

The UK's immigration policies are restrictive enough when it comes to Indians - restrictions on the availability of Tier 2 visas have led to a more than 50 per cent decline in Indian international students studying in the UK since 2010.

Econ_

briany wrote: »

If you believe that David Cameron was wrong to give a Brexit referendum, or at least one in the way he did, what should he have done differently that would have saved the UK from the pickle they are finding themselves in right now besides simply 'not giving it' or 'campaigning better'?

He could have done a few things to safeguard the outcome while still giving the referendum.

- 60% majority needed to leave; this would have been easily arguable given the sheer constitutional ramifications at play.

- All member of UK (NI, Scotland, Wales and England) must vote to leave



Delivering a simple above 50% in/out referendum was probably the most arrogant, brainless and reckless decision ever taken by a politician in a western democratic country.

Charles Babbage

Meanwhile Mrs May has rather unrealistic plans for this country
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-ireland-border-latest-people-register-advance-plan-theresa-may-a8248621.html

J Mysterio

Econ_ wrote: »

He could have done a few things to safeguard the outcome while still giving the referendum.

- 60% majority needed to leave; this would have been easily arguable given the sheer constitutional ramifications at play.

- All member of UK (NI, Scotland, Wales and England) must vote to leave



Delivering a simple above 50% in/out referendum was probably the most arrogant, brainless and reckless decision ever taken by a politician in a western democratic country.

Nevermind that they didn't even bother to set up a referendum commision to deliver fair, impartial facts.

Instead they allowed the media to fill the public sphere with misinformation while politicians with an agenda outrageously and blatantly lied to their constituents.

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

If you believe that David Cameron was wrong to give a Brexit referendum, or at least one in the way he did, what should he have done differently that would have saved the UK from the pickle they are finding themselves in right now besides simply 'not giving it' or 'campaigning better'?

He should absolutely not have held the referendum. It is a serious, serious mistake, which must by now be clear to all, for any government to seek a mandate for a policy that it does not favour, does not believe to be in the public interest, and does not wish to implement.

If he had to hold a referendum, it should not have been one offering a purely negative policy (let's withdraw from the EU!). It should not have asked the voters what relationship they don't want with Europe, but what relationship they do want. There should have been concrete and detailed proposal put forward as to what relationship with Europe the government would pursue if the referendum were to be passed, and the referendum should have been treated as conferring (or not conferring) a mandate to pursue that relationship.

As others have suggested, he could have stipulated that any referendum would require a qualified majority to pass. For example, not just a majority across the UK as a whole, but also a majority in at least three of the four parts of the UK. Or, a majority of more than 50% across the country as a whole.

(There's precedent for this. In the Scottish Devolution Referendum of 1979, the rules were that the proposal had to secure the support of at least 50% of those who voted, and at least 40% of those eligible to vote. In the event, the devolution proposal was approved by 51.6% of those who voted, but the turnout was low so this only represented 32.9% of the electorate. The devolution proposal did not proceed, and it was to be another 20 years before Scotland got a devolved parliament.)

Angry bird

A disastrous political gamble for the sake of dealing with the eurosceptic wing of the Tories. He made one shrewd move by resigning and not triggering A50, leaving the mess to Boris et al.

Nody

Angry bird wrote: »

A disastrous political gamble for the sake of dealing with the eurosceptic wing of the Tories. He made one shrewd move by resigning and not triggering A50, leaving the mess to Boris et al.

The problem is the "gamble" was not even a gamble; because that implies there was a way to "win". Let's for sake of argument say Remain won by a 60/40 margin so no dispute of who won or lost. With the propaganda (I refuse to call it news) continuing in the same tone as the last decade it would only be a question of when a new referendum would be demanded (see Farage demanding it even before results were in!) anyway. The referendum vote would at best buy him some time but short of changing the propaganda it was in reality a lose/lose proposition.

Capt'n Midnight

Angry bird wrote: »

A disastrous political gamble for the sake of dealing with the eurosceptic wing of the Tories. He made one shrewd move by resigning and not triggering A50, leaving the mess to Boris et al.

Or he could have stayed on, claimed quite rightly that it was just advisory and blamed the whole thing on an anti-governmental protest, and "we need to listen" and generally fudge the thing.

He could have even had a second multi-choice referendum on "What kind of Brexit do we want ?"

It could still be done. And the results would be so contradictory it could not be delivered.

Capt'n Midnight

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Meanwhile Mrs May has rather unrealistic plans for this country
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-ireland-border-latest-people-register-advance-plan-theresa-may-a8248621.html

And why do I get the feeling the plan will be to ask a million questions and charge a registration fee ?

Anyone without “fast-track movement” clearance would have to use approved crossing points or would be “considered to have entered the state irregularly”, the study suggests.

There's people with houses straddling the border, so how exactly will this work when they need to go to the kitchen , or if they leave the house by the back door ?

Slab Murphy had an oil business with entrances and buildings on both sides.

FrancieBrady

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And why do I get the feeling the plan will be to ask a million questions and charge a registration fee ?


There's people with houses straddling the border, so how exactly will this work when they need to go to the kitchen , or if they leave the house by the back door ?

Slab Murphy had an oil business with entrances and buildings on both sides.

She's flying a completely unworkable, not to mention, completely objectionable, kite here.

Infini

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She's flying a completely unworkable, not to mention, completely objectionable, kite here.

Aint gonna work. The former NI secretary is right to say its only stop is the bin. The sheer ignorance of the whole NI situation is that Brexit wasnt wanted by the NI majority and on top of that its risking opening up old wounds.

Truth is England and Wales voted to leave not Scotland and NI and if they continue with this theres a greater chance of the UK disintegrating entirely as the job is completely beyond those fools in London.

FrancieBrady

Infini wrote: »

Aint gonna work. The former NI secretary is right to say its only stop is the bin. The sheer ignorance of the whole NI situation is that Brexit wasnt wanted by the NI majority and on top of that its risking opening up old wounds.

Truth is England and Wales voted to leave not Scotland and NI and if they continue with this theres a greater chance of the UK disintegrating entirely as the job is completely beyond those fools in London.

I said it before and I will say it again, here is what will happen if there is a border of any sort.
It will play right into the hands of dissidents who will only have to attack once or twice.

What then? Who is going to work at customs without protection, who is going to send someone out to work a border post without protection.

You will very quickly get to where the dissidents want to go, a fortified border.

It is anybody's guess what happens after that, but we are right back in the cauldron.

Alan_P

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She's flying a completely unworkable, not to mention, completely objectionable, kite here.

Do the British (specifically May) not get it ? They desperately need a transition deal :- they need it approved by the Council meeting in 2 weeks time. Donald Tusk has said, pretty explicitly, it's not going to happen unless the UK comes up with a solution to the NI border issue.

Their comfort zone for these masturbatory fantasies is over. It doesn't matter how much adulation a particular approach is getting in the UK press:- they hold no sway in the EU27. May has to alienate the DUP, her party's Brexit hardliners, or the EU. She hsa 2 weeks to decide.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Meanwhile Mrs May has rather unrealistic plans for this country
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-ireland-border-latest-people-register-advance-plan-theresa-may-a8248621.html

The solution to the movement of people is a National ID Card. It answers all problems wrt people and their right to reside, to work, and to vote. It would make checking borders irrelevant as any person suspected as being illegal in any regard is just asked for their ID card. [A touch of 'Papers please! might be distasteful to aficionados of Gestapo war movies].

Of course we would also have to introduce one here but we have already started with the PSC.

Trade can be dealt with at the Irish sea, where goods originating in NI are simply waved through - so no impact on NI business. Goods originating within the UK are certified as far as COO and CE compliance and tariff due. The rest depends on the FTA that is agreed.

There is already an all-Ireland regime for agriculture.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

The solution to the movement of people is a National ID Card. It answers all problems wrt people and their right to reside, to work, and to vote. It would make checking borders irrelevant as any person suspected as being illegal in any regard is just asked for their ID card. [A touch of 'Papers please! might be distasteful to aficionados of Gestapo war movies].

Of course we would also have to introduce one here . . .

Why would we have to introduce one here?

catrionanic

As a Nordie living in Dublin, and with myself and my family crossing the border several times per week, this makes my heart ache

Leroy42

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Meanwhile Mrs May has rather unrealistic plans for this country
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-ireland-border-latest-people-register-advance-plan-theresa-may-a8248621.html

Was this not a report prepared by the EU? So whilst TM may be in favour it is incorrect to say that she is proposing it.

And don't we need to start working on solution to the border issue. It seems we are still living in the land where a border won't exist, but that would require the UK to cancel Brexit, or for the EU to give up on some of its key principles.

Neither is likely.

A border is coming, borders exist in other countries and claiming that it can't operate because a few terrorists won't like it? So we need to find a way to deal with the terrorists, not ignore the border.

Will it be a pain to lose what we have now? Of course, but that is the decision that the UK made. Anybody travelling to outside the EU is used to passport checks, its not unusual.

So those living on the border particularly, but all of us living on the island, simply need to accept the new situation and live our lives based on it. Wishing it away won't change it.

Havockk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And why do I get the feeling the plan will be to ask a million questions and charge a registration fee ?

That plan will swim like an anchor with locals along the border. It's completely un-poliecable.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

The solution to the movement of people is a National ID Card. It answers all problems wrt people and their right to reside, to work, and to vote. It would make checking borders irrelevant as any person suspected as being illegal in any regard is just asked for their ID card. [A touch of 'Papers please! might be distasteful to aficionados of Gestapo war movies].

Of course we would also have to introduce one here but we have already started with the PSC.

Trade can be dealt with at the Irish sea, where goods originating in NI are simply waved through - so no impact on NI business. Goods originating within the UK are certified as far as COO and CE compliance and tariff due. The rest depends on the FTA that is agreed.

There is already an all-Ireland regime for agriculture.

I would expect, massive resistance to that among nationalist/republicans.
Again, completely unworkable imo.

Leroy42

Havockk wrote: »

That plan will swim like an anchor with locals along the border. It's completely un-poliecable.

So you are claiming that those living on the border will actively go out to break national laws?

Yes it a long and difficult border to police, but that we what we need to do to uphold any laws. We cannot simply throw up our hands and say "its too hard".

I would have hoped that given the last 20+ years to try to normalise NI that we would have moved away from terrorism, but if they insist on going back to the old ways then I hope they are dealt with in the same way that ISIS or any such terrorists are dealt with.

This constant cry from those in NI that anytime anything happens will lead to a return to violence is so tiring. Get over it. You have a working solution (far from perfect).

Enzokk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She's flying a completely unworkable, not to mention, completely objectionable, kite here.

So no surprise then that the DUP is all in favour of the proposals then as a base to build on. For them this is manna from heaven, they will have their UK Northern Ireland with a border between their biggest opposition, that pesky country on the southern border. They don't care that there may be just as many people in Northern Ireland that identify as Irish as British, they only care about one thing.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The solution to the movement of people is a National ID Card. It answers all problems wrt people and their right to reside, to work, and to vote. It would make checking borders irrelevant as any person suspected as being illegal in any regard is just asked for their ID card. [A touch of 'Papers please! might be distasteful to aficionados of Gestapo war movies].

Of course we would also have to introduce one here but we have already started with the PSC.

Trade can be dealt with at the Irish sea, where goods originating in NI are simply waved through - so no impact on NI business. Goods originating within the UK are certified as far as COO and CE compliance and tariff due. The rest depends on the FTA that is agreed.

There is already an all-Ireland regime for agriculture.

I wanted to question why we would need an ID card as well, but the positives of an ID makes it seem like a no-brainer for me in any case. The government can spin it as a consequence of Brexit and a necessity that has come about that is out of their control, to get some control ourselves.

Skedaddle

To be honest, I think those living on the border need to start lodging claims for compensation at this stage. Lives, businesses and everything else will be turned upside down by this.

The very least the Brexiteers could do is pay for the financial consequences and put adequate infrastructure in place. They're destroying a whole community and seem to think that it's fine to just walk away from that.

Once again, a decision being made by politicians somewhere else, for an electorate somewhere else, is screwing up this island.

It's not good enough.

MrPudding

Vronsky wrote: »

Now you'll say that such a move would destroy UK industry, but what if such a measure caused the pound to collapse. Instantly the UK becomes more competitive, but its population far poorer. You would see a resurgence in primary industry as imports become far more expensive for industry and consumers alike.

I am not an expert in economics, but I believe there are a couple of problems here... First, as Celticrambler points out, a resurgence of primary industry requires there to be some primary industry to resurge, and there really isn't much left.

The other problem, as I see it, if the UK does not have any raw materials to feed such a resurgent primary industry. This will mean imports, as it does now. This is the bit that is often ignored. Plenty of people (including the like of Fox, who really should know better) have argued that the post-referendum drop in Stirling was great for exports, but they ignore the fact that whilst those exports are, relatively, cheaper for buyers outside the UK, much of the profit for the UK exports is eaten up by the increase in costs for the raw materials for the products.

So yeah, if they crash out and pound tanks, exporters will probably have no problem selling their stock, but after that is gone, and they need to import raw materials, well... that might not be so rosy.

MrP

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes it a long and difficult border to police, but that we what we need to do to uphold any laws. We cannot simply throw up our hands and say "its too hard".

If you plan to drive from Cavan to Monaghan on the N54 you will need to pass through 4 border checks. That is 4 places you have to cross a international border crossing on this one road to go from one area in Ireland to another. Its not impossible, but as close to as you can find.

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are claiming that those living on the border will actively go out to break national laws?

I would say it's probably closer to a guarantee than a claim in fairness. At the height of the troubles the army would by day block some of the smaller crossings with concrete bollards and by night the locals would remove them. And communities along the border are now so integrated it's going to have an immediate and terrible impact. Look at Derry/Donegal, how will they protect a camera on the Buncrana road? The idea is actually so preposterous i'm laughing about it as I type this....

VonZan

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are claiming that those living on the border will actively go out to break national laws?

Yes it a long and difficult border to police, but that we what we need to do to uphold any laws. We cannot simply throw up our hands and say "its too hard".

I would have hoped that given the last 20+ years to try to normalise NI that we would have moved away from terrorism, but if they insist on going back to the old ways then I hope they are dealt with in the same way that ISIS or any such terrorists are dealt with.

This constant cry from those in NI that anytime anything happens will lead to a return to violence is so tiring. Get over it. You have a working solution (far from perfect).

Obviously, they will. They couldn’t police the border during the troubles and they won’t be able to do it now. This isn’t a solution to the problem. The problem has been created by Brexit. It’s becoming clearer that if the UK want to leave the EU they’re going to have to leave NI as is otherwise no deal will be reached.

Just becuase you think people should put up with this ‘solution’ doesn’t mean that they should or will. Get off your high horse.

Skedaddle

What worries me is that when problems start to happen in Northern Ireland, which is almost inevitable, the Tories will just respond with draconian and heavy handed security.

The result of that may well be the destruction of decades of hard work that's built a more sane and normal relationship between the population and the security services in Northern Ireland.

it's a very stupid and dangerous scenario being constructed.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was this not a report prepared by the EU? So whilst TM may be in favour it is incorrect to say that she is proposing it.

No, it was a proposal prepared for the EU - or, more specifically, for the European Parliament by Lars Karlsson, a former director of the World Customs Organisation, as a contribution to a brainstorming session.

While it has been hailed by some on the Brexity side as showing that magic technology can solve the border problem, Karlsson himself says that those who say such things don't appear to have read his report. What his report says can (with luck, and in time, if the technology can be developed and rolled out) is not a frictionless border; it's a best a low friction border for some goods/ some travellers. And it falls far short of the border to which the UK has committed itself in the Phase 1 Report (no border infrastructure, and no associated checks and controls).

Leroy42 wrote: »

And don't we need to start working on solution to the border issue. It seems we are still living in the land where a border won't exist, but that would require the UK to cancel Brexit, or for the EU to give up on some of its key principles.

On the contrary, to accept that there will be a border is to accept that the UK is not going to fulfil the commitment it made last December. However much we may suspect that, in fact, the UK will welch on the deal, it would be inflammatory of the EU to say at this point that they expect the UK to do so, since the UK's position is still that it will honour its commitments.

If at some point it does become clear that the UK does not intend to honour its commitments, that's a very serious development. Obviously, once we get to that point there will be no Withdrawal Agreement, no Brexit deal, no transition period. Both self-interest and self-respect would prevent the EU from accepting that the UK can step back from points which have already been agreed, and still expect negotiations to continue and a deal to eventuate. What would be the point of making a deal with the UK, if the UK does not feel bound to honour its commitments?

So, if we do get to that point we are looking at a very hard Brexit, including a very hard border. That would be extremely damaging to Ireland, but of course it would also be extremely damaging to the UK, so it's not a situation that's likely to prevail for very long. If not under May, then under the next government, the UK will have to approach the EU and look for some kind of deal. And the starting point for any such deal will be the elements that were already agreed the last time around, which of course include no hard border, no physical infrastructure, no border-related checks and controls.

This does not require the UK to "cancel Brexit"; it just requires them to abandon some of their red lines. But they are going to have to do that anyway, since their red lines are mutually contradictory; they can only ever deliver on some of them. And it is plainly in their interests to abandon the redl lines which prevent them from getting a Brexit deal, rather than the ones which don't.

FrancieBrady

Skedaddle wrote: »

What worries me is that when problems start to happen in Northern Ireland, which is almost inevitable, the Tories will just respond with draconian and heavy handed security.

The result of that may well be the destruction of decades of hard work that's built a more sane and normal relationship between the population and the security services in Northern Ireland.

it's a very stupid and dangerous scenario being constructed.

The problem is, to protect border workers and infrastructure they will have to have 'draconian and heavy handed security' and it will most certainly be seen as such.