Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Enzokk

Bob24 wrote: »

On Brexit day the EC would be on the phone with the Irish government requesting border checks at the edge of the single market. As far as I understand no one would be asking the UK to do anything however. Someone could raise a complaint with the WTO saying their products are discriminated against comparatively to Irish one’s, but the outcome would be uncertain and it would take years before any actual practical impact hits the UK.

Your post reads like we will not know we have to put up a border. If the EU sees there is very little chance of getting a deal in January we will start preparations on a border. We will not be doing nothing on the 28th March next year then all of a sudden we will get a phone call at 9am on the 29th March instructing us to put up a border. We will know beforehand where we stand.

As other have pointed out our decision has been made already to respect the integrity of the EU. If this means a border then so be it. We don't want a border between us and NI and we have stated this intention, but when you deal with a agreement that is up to 2 parties it really isn't up to you if you will get what you want.

So, yes, in case of a hard Brexit we will do what Brexiteers have been telling us all along and we, the EU, will put up a border. This will however be due to the UK and as no credible voice has as yet stated that a border doesn't need to go up in a no deal scenario I would take Brexiteers bleating about not putting up a border with a huge fistful of salt. Otherwise why are there customs borders between any countries? Surely if they are right and a border for customs is not needed if two countries do not have a trade agreement, surely we would have seen this happen all over the world?

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

A bizarre effort at attempting to 'shift the blame' - consider who and who alone is making a change to the status quo.

Ireland have not changed their position about their relationship with the UK. It is the UK who have unilaterally revoked their membership of the EU, to the detriment of their relationship with Ireland. I can't recall Ireland making any effort whatsoever to upset the careful balance that we have had at the border since 1999 (though in reality 1992 with Single Market creation)?

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

Such requirement to automatically bind your membership of a free trade agreement to the will of another country would be an unacceptable obligation for any sovereign state (including for ours).

prawnsambo

Bob24 wrote: »

I could rephrased the exact same thing from the British point of view:

The EU have committed to not changing the border. So they can negotiate Brexit, but they must do so in a way that protects the commitments they have made. Options have been given to them (the Chequers plan). It's up to them to implement it.

While some Brits might see it that way, my statement above is plain ridiculous of course as because a proposal was made by the UK doesn't mean the EU should automatically accept it. And the reverse statement is no more valid.

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA, not a party to it. And although it sounds logical that you can reverse the argument, it is not. The British are the ones changing the status quo. Unilaterally. Not sure why this seems so hard to understamd.

Enzokk

Bob24 wrote: »

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

It is an unacceptable commitment to expect for any sovereign state.

Well its not like the Irish border issue is some trivial fence that needs to be put up, it is a conflict that lasted decades and cost thousands of lives and impacted many more. That is why many is probably not expecting the UK to renege on their part of the bargain of the GFA.

prawnsambo

Bob24 wrote: »

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

It would be an unacceptable obligation for any sovereign state.

That's not the only option though. And it's nothing to do with Ireland. The GFA is the UK's responsibility in this case.

charlie14

[QUOTE=Bob24;108388624]Of course they wouldn't. And they would have to choose between leave the EU and remaining in a borderless agreement with us. The difference bing that of course the UK would have more ways to pressure us that we have to pressure them, but that is just realpolitiks and the respect size of our countries.[/QUOTE]


As you say, of course they would not and there would be no doubt whatsoever that they would enforce a border, so why should we be any different ?


As too your mention of pressuring us, I have no doubt they would.

So again why do you feel we should not be doing the same to them now with realpolitiks using the respective size of the EU compared to theirs ?

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

It is an unacceptable commitment to expect for any sovereign state.

No I'm not?

The UK cannot be outside of the Single Market, and also inside it. It is not a thought experiment concocted by Schrodinger. The UK Government understands that a unilateral action to leave the Single Market will result in a hardening of a border in Ireland. If they did not understand that, then they have zero business being anywhere near the heads of the administration of a country.

If the UK is genuine about it's promise to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland, whilst leaving the Single Market then it has some options. None of them easy.

Once again, decisions which must be made by the UK. Decisions which must be made due to the interpretation of the referendum result as an interpretation to remove the UK from the EEA and Customs' Union, not only the EU (referenced solely on the ballot paper).

sink

Bob24 wrote: »

So on top of the EU we want to be in a borderless area with part of the UK. As I said part of 2 borderless areas at the same time.

No that is illogical, you can not be in two borderless areas at the same time, if two areas are not divided by a border they are by definition in one borderless area.

What does 'borderless area' mean to you?

You're trying to frame the argument in a way that is more favourable to the UK, but you're breaking fundamental logic to do it.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

Such requirement to automatically bind your membership of a free trade agreement to the will of another country would be an unacceptable obligation for any sovereign state (including for ours).

re: your edit.

Please detail how you think Ireland the UK ever managed to have a CTA pre-dating the EU? The careful amongst us might note that a drastic change in either nations' immigration/visa policies could have made it an exceptionally difficult task to balance, yet we never got there. Did we bind our membership of the CTA to the will of the other country?

Bob24

charlie14 wrote: »

So again why do you feel we should not be doing the same to them now with realpolitiks using the respective size of the EU compared to theirs ?

Where was it asked before and where did I said we shouldn't?

All I'm saying is that we are a bit too confident in the situation fixing itself and the EU fighting to the bitter end to get the outcome we want (forcing the UK to make concessions allowing us to be part of to borderless areas).

I think the issue as we see it today could evolve a lot by the time Brexit happens and we need to be prepared.

bilston

What do people think will happen if a hard border is put in place (by whoever).

Will we see protests?

Its not that hard to imagine some kind of sit down protest at the border by those most strongly opposed to it. Who will remove those protestors?

Some have even suggested that Dissident republicans would target any hard border apparatus.

I don't know how likely or unlikely all that is, but I wouldn't rule any of it out.

It is high stakes at play, I think people in Ireland realise that, I'm not convinced Tory Brexiteer politicians have the faintest idea of the actual realities of a hard border.

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The movement of people should not be affected.

Just like old times really. :mad:

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Where was it asked before and where did I said we shouldn't?

All I'm saying is that we are a bit too confident in the situation fixing itself and the EU fighting to the bitter end to get the outcome we want (forcing the UK to make concessions allowing us to be part of to borderless areas).

I think the issue as we see it today could evolve a lot by the time Brexit happens and we need to be prepared.

Strange reading of the obvious self interest of the Irish Govt.

It is in our interest to suggest to the UK that the 'Red Line' that they should care most about is the border (or lack thereof) with our country. It is in our interest to get the UK to agree that if that is indeed the most important of the Red Lines that they should care about, that the reality means that they must stay within the Single Market in order to prevent fundamental change to that.

The politics has not been about forcing concessions, it has been about attempting to shed light on the mutual exclusivity that is the UK's 'Red Lines', and pressurising them to
A - Make a call as to which of them is the 'Reddest'
and
B - Own that decision, and be honest about it.

We're still nowhere near A, and so have a while to go to get to B yet.

A cynic might suggest that if the UK Gov was 'happy' to drop the NI Red Line at the behest of an Independent Trade Policy and a step away from Freedom of Movement, that they might do their level best to make it appear that they tried hard to mitigate the obvious repercussions of such a policy, as to be honest with their electorate might provoke backlash from certain quarters.

Colour me cynical tbh.

charlie14

Bob24 wrote: »

Where was it asked before and where did I said we shouldn't?

All I'm saying is that we are a bit too confident in the situation fixing itself and the EU fighting to the bitter end to get the outcome we want (forcing the UK to make concessions allowing us to be part of to borderless areas).

I think the issue as we see it today could evolve a lot by the time Brexit happens and we need to be prepared.

Perhaps it is just me, but I was getting the impression from your posts you somehow thought we should.


It has nothing to do with being confident or unconfident of a border on the island or not.
It is simply a matter of will the UK honour agreements and commitments they made or not. Magical thinking on borders excluded.

Junkyard Tom

bilston wrote: »

Will we see protests?

Yes.

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA, not a party to it. And although it sounds logical that you can reverse the argument, it is not. The British are the ones changing the status quo. Unilaterally. Not sure why this seems so hard to understamd.

It's not hard to understand. Brexit brings out a type of willful selective comprehension in certain types. JRM is a prime example

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA

The EU is not a co-guarantor of the GFA.

The Irish and British governments are the co-guarantors of the agreement.

Junkyard Tom

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

breatheme

kingbhome wrote: »

If theres a hard border, if one is from the but has been living in the south for a decade will they be able to cross the border back and forth. What will happen if they had children n teh south, will they be able to cross the border with them.

The CTA will probably continue even in the event of a hard border.

Imreoir2

bilston wrote: »

What do people think will happen if a hard border is put in place (by whoever).

Will we see protests?

Its not that hard to imagine some kind of sit down protest at the border by those most strongly opposed to it. Who will remove those protestors?

Some have even suggested that Dissident republicans would target any hard border apparatus.

I don't know how likely or unlikely all that is, but I wouldn't rule any of it out.

It is high stakes at play, I think people in Ireland realise that, I'm not convinced Tory Brexiteer politicians have the faintest idea of the actual realities of a hard border.

People I know in NI are talking about a mass campaign of peaceful civil disobedience.

Imreoir2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

An Irish commentator speaking like that about the UK would be written off as a raving Brit-bashing nationalist.

Water John

The editorial in the Guradian gives a clear view of how its playing and sort of removes the dross that is happening as the edges. How the TM play is to narrow the choice to a binary one, late in the day, for Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-failing-on-two-fronts

joe40

breatheme wrote: »

kingbhome wrote: »

If theres a hard border, if one is from the but has been living in the south for a decade will they be able to cross the border back and forth. What will happen if they had children n teh south, will they be able to cross the border with them.

The CTA will probably continue even in the event of a hard border.

There are plenty of cross border workers in both direction, it would be inconceivable for that to be hindered.

Charles Babbage

Bob24 wrote: »

The is correct, it is our choice and we are not expected to be forced to do or not do anything. But similarly if the UK wants to leave the EU I cannot see why they should be expected to no do it because we want to be part of both borderless areas.

is this case of only peeing in your own part of the pool?

I am trying to see both sides of the story here. The consequence of what you are saying is that in your opinion the Good Friday agreement committed the UK to never leaving the common market. I don't think it is a reasonable inference to make.

It is reasonable inference that the GFA means that the UK cannot unilaterlally make material changes to the operation of the border, the staying in the Single Market follows from that, unless they want Irish sea checks.

Thargor

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes.

Never heard of that before.

Folkstonian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

MrMusician18

Water John wrote: »

The editorial in the Guradian gives a clear view of how its playing and sort of removes the dross that is happening as the edges. How the TM play is to narrow the choice to a binary one, late in the day, for Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-failing-on-two-fronts

Yes, it looks as if the intention is to present a deal to parliament where the option is accept or chaos.

The question is, can she survive until then, since the strategy is so obvious.

briany

All this talk going on about extending the transition period. I was under the impression that any sort of transition period would only happen if a deal was agreed. If not, it's crash-out time come 29/3/19. Is that still the case?

Gerry T

Bob24 wrote:

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

No, because the UK agreed to let the people of NI have a frictionless border with ROI and decide their own faith, then the UK by all rights should ask the people of NI can they (the UK) leave the SM and CU. because they can't leave without first breaking their international treaty regarding the people of NI.
But they will, because their the UK and their history is breaking agreements, doing what they want....their special you know.
As for the UK saying they won't put up a border, childish nonsense, they need to be called out on. No border and no checks, so imports will be tariff free. In that case why would any country bother to agree a free trade agreement with the UK. Under WTO, most favoured nation clause, they then can't have any borders with any country globally. Me thinks the UK is talking bo11ocks...again.

mickoneill31

Folkstonian wrote: »

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

Have you a link to those stats?