Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Zubeneschamali

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If there is a hard border, I hope Irish customs will be very diligent to carefully check every single passport and every single piece of luggage and freight coming in with special attention to UK entrants.

Much better to have a quiet word with Macron and have his officials be as diligent as possible at Calais, much bigger impact on the Brits.

murphaph

If there's a no deal Brexit then the EU won't need to be extra diligent to make things quite bad for the UK, the EU just needs (must, in time at least) simply apply the existing rules wrt third countries. That alone turns the M20 into a lorry park. Being extra vindictive is not something I'd condone. If the UK were to start being really silly and interrupting gas supplies to Ireland or something of that nature then the EU can fairly respond in kind, but it should not be the instigator.

There are millions of Brits who did not want this and think it's a tragedy and I hope that in the medium to long term, a somewhat chastened UK can return to its natural place within the EU. It did contribute enormously to that single market that has benefited Ireland so greatly.

A Dub in Glasgo

Berserker wrote: »

Because the GFA is a complete farce and people are just pretending that it is still relevant. It's not worth going to anyone over it. The sooner London takes back control of affairs in NI the better.

From the moment Brexit happened, I said that a hard border was going to happen and I see nothing to change that. It was the only viable solution for the border between the UK and the EU on this island. The EU support it behind the scenes. I've no doubt about that. I find it hilarious that so many here believe that the EU are their friends and that they are looking out for them. Fool me one, shame on you; fool me twice ...

From day one the stance of the UK has been contradictary

1. No special deal for NI
2. No hard bother in Ireland

They have trotted those two out for years now and one of them has to now give if the backstop is not acceptable. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming and the Tories should have been held accountable by the media for this mess

Peregrinus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

From day one the stance of the UK has been contradictary

1. No special deal for NI
2. No hard bother in Ireland

They have trotted those two out for years now and one of them has to now give if the backstop is not acceptable. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming and the Tories should have been held accountable by the media for this mess

"Hard bother" is a very happy misprint, I think!

But, yeah, you're quite right. The May government adopted an inconsistent set of objectives. It was literally impossible to achieve them all; they were always going to have to sacrifice some of them to have any chance of acheiving others. People have been pointing this out for at least 18 months now.

But they either couldn't see this or, politically, couldn't bear the cost of admitting it, so they continued to pretend that the logically impossible was possible in practice. And that legitimated outrageous fantasy; if the government could speak like that, then so could the government's critics. And so ths surreal conversation has continued in the UK right down to now. And we are where we are, with options rapidly closing off and great pain getting closer and closer.

I wouldn't mind if it was pain just for the UK. But it isn't.

lawred2

Scoondal wrote: »

Yes, Amber Rudd is talking complete and utter balderdash. These hard line remainers are causing as much damage to UK as the hard line brexiteers. She needs to realise that she is part of the problem.

In what ways are remainers causing as much damage to the UK as hard line Brexiteers?

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

Because the GFA is a complete farce and people are just pretending that it is still relevant. It's not worth going to anyone over it. The sooner London takes back control of affairs in NI the better.

From the moment Brexit happened, I said that a hard border was going to happen and I see nothing to change that. It was the only viable solution for the border between the UK and the EU on this island. The EU support it behind the scenes. I've no doubt about that. I find it hilarious that so many here believe that the EU are their friends and that they are looking out for them. Fool me one, shame on you; fool me twice ...

Why should London have sole say over the lives of Irish citizens in the North of Ireland?

Haven't we been there before?

And you want to go back there?

brickster69

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes. It's an international peace treaty lodged with the UN. If one side breaks it that is what happens.

That's just the way it is.

Incorrect !

Ireland in its declaration states that it recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICJ

“with the exception of any legal dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regard to Northern Ireland." This explicitly prevents the Good Friday Agreement being discussed in the International Court of Justice.

road_high

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Much better to have a quiet word with Macron and have his officials be as diligent as possible at Calais, much bigger impact on the Brits.

Won’t be necessary - you know what the French are like! They’ll probably shut the border on odd days to uk trucks just because they can!

Leroy42

But what the UK seems to not get is this is not simply a disagreement between Ireland the UK. Ireland will not be taking the UK to any court of the border.

What Ireland have done is to get the EU fully on its side, much to the annoyance and apparent surprise of the UK. This effectively means that JRM etc can bleat all they like about not putting up a border etc but the elephant in the room is that no matter what the UK want a deal with the EU, either by way of WA or a future FTA. Either way the UK will need to face up to the issue of the border.

There is zero chance that the UK will erect a border in April 2019, and the EU will understand the need to be careful about demanding that Ireland implement one.

But no FTA agreement will be agreed until the conditions are in place for the border to stay open legitimatly. And it has nothing to do with the UK. If they let the UK away with an open border then the Swiss, Norway, Turkey etc will all be demanding the same. And whilst you can argue about the special nature of NI, that will only get you so far since the UK will have refused the deal on offer.

The UK seem to think that once this phase is over then it reverts back to Ireland v the UK, (in which the UK would have the strong hand) but of course that is not the case.

downcow

Anthracite wrote: »

Hard border almost guarantees a United Ireland in the next decade or two.

Now just why would that follow?

downcow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And the Brits are?

It is up to the Irish government with the EU to stand up for the rights and the agreement voted on and supported by the clear majority on this island if the British want to forego their obligations like a rouge state.

And Ireland can bring the UK to the Hague as a defacto rouge state when they break the agreement.

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

Strictly speaking the GFA doesn't have a legal requirement for no border. This is why Ireland couldn't take legal action if one goes up (nor could the UK, for that matter).

However, a lot of people who were involved in the peace process - along with members of both HMG and the Oireachtas in modern times - believe that with a hard border the GFA is seriously jeopardised. While not broken right off the bat, it will become considerably more difficult to maintain the Agreement. Especially if a border leads to a return to violence.

Leroy42

^^Yes, that is my understanding. The UK have no legal obligation in terms of the GFA to avoid a hard border. The obligation comes from the spirit of the GFA.

But without the GFA, a hard border would not even be a discussion. A border is required due to the UK leaving the EU. What the EU, and the UK, have tried to do is to minimise the possible negative effects that such a change would have on both NI and ROI and as such they both realise that an open border is far preferable to the alternative.

It appears that many in the UK do not see this as a problem and are wilyfully misrepresenting the choice that the UK faces. It is not whether the EU (ROI) decide to put up a border, it is if the UK can find a way to avoid one.

They have been given a way to avoid one by the EU, but seem very reluctant to stand behind their previous statements about ensuring no hard border.

It must be made clear, the option of no border is only being discussed because the EU were prepared to make a concession based on the special case of NI. The UK are trying to claim that NI isn't a special case (no need for the GFA etc) but at the same time do not want to abide by their own principles of taking back control of their border.

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

Have a read through strand 2 and then look at all the cross-border bodies that have been set up on foot of it. Most of those just couldn't operate any more with a hard border. And if that doesn't work for you, think of all the cross border activity: workers crossing in either direction, all kinds of casual trade like buses, taxis, shopping etc. I heard on the radio yesterday that the average spend by Irish shoppers north of the border was €235 each this year coming up to Christmas. That's a pretty big boost to the NI economy that's gone straight away.

And then there's cross border trade. Estimated at 49 million crossings a year. Almost a million a week. But the main concern for the PSNI would be cross-border smuggling. With 208 crossing points (officially), the scope is tremendous. And who benefits from this kind of criminality? Yep, the individuals formerly known as paramilitaries. And that's where stuff starts to hit the fan, when the police on both sides of the border try to shut it down. And these guys suddenly have a massive boost to their 'war chests'.

We all know that these guys haven't gone away.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why does Varadkar and Coveney not just come out and say that they are preparing for a hard border, that the failure of the UK to support the backstop in the context of Brexit is a breach of the GFA and that this country is going to bring the UK before the Hague for thrashing an international peace treaty?

I have also heard about self fulfilling prophecy being in play here. Once we start preparations for a border then it will happen. Take that as you will.

I am not sure if this has been posted but a poll yesterday showed that 64% of people want a second referendum. Labour voters want this by 70% and they would overwhelmingly vote remain (72%) and of those that voted for Brexit only 66% would do so again.

Exclusive: YouGov Poll Reveals 64% Want Second Brexit Referendum

Dyr

There was a lucid talk poll with some interesting stats on how people would vote in a border poll should a hard brext coem to pass

First Up

A soft border is not a clause in the GFA but the GFA was designed on the basis that there was a soft border, because both sides were in the Single Market. Brexit changes that.

The UK was asked at an early stage how it proposed to address this and the Brexit process was stalled until they did. Hence the "backstop" was offered to enable the process move on. The UK was taken at its word (on this and everything else) and is now being asked to deliver on it.

The backstop was not a negotiating tactic; it was a fundamental step in the Brexit process. If it had not been offered the talks would have ended right then. If it is withdrawn, we go back to that point.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

I have also heard about self fulfilling prophecy being in play here. Once we start preparations for a border then it will happen. Take that as you will.

I am not sure if this has been posted but a poll yesterday showed that 64% of people want a second referendum. Labour voters want this by 70% and they would overwhelmingly vote remain (72%) and of those that voted for Brexit only 66% would do so again.

Exclusive: YouGov Poll Reveals 64% Want Second Brexit Referendum

Fairly stark figures. This is not good news for the Tories as they may well be hoisted by their own petard. Because they have whipped up emotions around Brexit by dog whistling nationalism, it would become the main focus of a GE. Considering that so many people want a second referendum and the Tories, as a party, have firmly ruled it out, a lot of people would vote contrary to their party affiliations as Brexit would take precedence over the need for their party to be in power. Throw in the fact that they are already deeply divided and the future looks bleak for the Tory party. Hopefully.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

Have a read through strand 2 and then look at all the cross-border bodies that have been set up on foot of it. Most of those just couldn't operate any more with a hard border. And if that doesn't work for you, think of all the cross border activity: workers crossing in either direction, all kinds of casual trade like buses, taxis, shopping etc. I heard on the radio yesterday that the average spend by Irish shoppers north of the border was €235 each this year coming up to Christmas. That's a pretty big boost to the NI economy that's gone straight away.

And then there's cross border trade. Estimated at 49 million crossings a year. Almost a million a week. But the main concern for the PSNI would be cross-border smuggling. With 208 crossing points (officially), the scope is tremendous. And who benefits from this kind of criminality? Yep, the individuals formerly known as paramilitaries. And that's where stuff starts to hit the fan, when the police on both sides of the border try to shut it down. And these guys suddenly have a massive boost to their 'war chests'.

We all know that these guys haven't gone away.

Let's see how things work out after Armagh supporters are stopped at checkpoints on their way to play Donegal.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Let's see how things work out after Armagh supporters are stopped at checkpoints on their way to play Donegal.

Well its either that, or Rangers supporters being checked on their way to Ibrox.

Keatsian

downcow wrote: »

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

It's against the spirit rather than the letter of the GFA (indeed, had the border not opened in the early 90s, there might never have been a GFA.) Aside from being an affront to nationalist sensibilities, it's also bad for business (just ask such hardline Republican organisations as, erm, the Ulster Farmers Union.)


The peace process is all about normalizing relations, between the two traditions in the north, between Ireland and Britain, and between the two parts of Ireland. Placing an actual physical barrier across the divide between North and South, is, well, putting up a barrier to that normalcy.


Of course, the majority of Northern voters recognised Brexit would be a bad thing for Northern Ireland and duly rejected the proposal, so if there is to be a Brexit, then it ought to be one that takes on board their concerns and strives to minimize the discontinuity and disruption caused to Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

Serious project for you: Weigh up the consequences of a land border, economically and socially with the consequences of a Sea border.

Serious threat to peace and stability and harsh implications for commerce and business against 'a feeling of being a little less British, repeat: ' a feeling!'.

I.E. There is no comparison here.

Enzokk

So it seems that there will be more advice to the UK after Brexit on what to do if there are delays with food.

https://twitter.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1076073769893007360

The reply is just a comical evolution of Brexit so far.

As for something that still makes my head hurt on how nobody seems to want to investigate what happened that night.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1076071653908643841

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1076072380630515713

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1076073002108735488

mrbrianj

The Tories & DUP like to think the GFA can be dropped to suit their purposes.

Apart from power sharing, cross border bodies and normalisation of security, some things the GFA did include were decommissioning of weapons and our constitutional claim on the Island of Ireland.

Professor Moriarty

It occurs to me that Brexit, as it is playing out, is very good for the EU project. In fact, it is adding cement between the bricks. Any government watching the meltdown in British politics and democracy will think twice before waving an Exit flag.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It occurs to me that Brexit, as it is playing out, is very good for the EU project. In fact, it is adding cement between the bricks. Any government watching the meltdown in British politics and democracy will think twice before waving an Exit flag.

More importantly, it makes life much more difficult for dodgy money men on the continent who want to do the same there.

bob mcbob

road_high wrote: »

Won’t be necessary - you know what the French are like! They’ll probably shut the border on odd days to uk trucks just because they can!

There won't be ANY UK trucks to block.

From attached article

British lorries would be barred from entering Europe under a no-deal Brexit, according to an industry chief, who warned that British firms would be "crucified" by tariffs if Theresa May fails to secure a deal with the European Union.

James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-trucks-barred-from-europe-under-no-deal-brexit-industry-leader-warns-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

lapua20grain

bob mcbob wrote: »

There won't be ANY UK trucks to block.

From attached article

British lorries would be barred from entering Europe under a no-deal Brexit, according to an industry chief, who warned that British firms would be "crucified" by tariffs if Theresa May fails to secure a deal with the European Union.

James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-trucks-barred-from-europe-under-no-deal-brexit-industry-leader-warns-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

They will have to revert to the carnet system which is very restrictive.

Leroy42

bob mcbob wrote: »

There won't be ANY UK trucks to block.

From attached article

British lorries would be barred from entering Europe under a no-deal Brexit, according to an industry chief, who warned that British firms would be "crucified" by tariffs if Theresa May fails to secure a deal with the European Union.

James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-trucks-barred-from-europe-under-no-deal-brexit-industry-leader-warns-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

Well, except for the initial period when the EU are going to allow them point to point access.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Irish government's position is that they are not making any plans for a hard border because, even in a no-deal situation, they expect HMG to honour the "no hard border" guarantee that it has given. That guarantee was not expressed to be conditional on there being a withdrawal agreement, so should be delivered on even if there is no withdrawal agreement. Therefore, what need have we to plan for a hard border?

Of course, the more cynical among us might think that there's just the teeniest possibility that, in a crash-out situation, HMG will be unwilling or unable to deliver on its "no hard border" guarantee.

I am concerned about Ireland's position here.

Customs Union: In a hard border the UK would be outside the Customs Union so customs checks would be necessary in this scenario. Tarriffs, Quotas and COI would have to be recorded. It cannot continue to align here.

Single Market: The UK will be legally a third country (if no-deal) after March 29th. While the UK might claim they are still regulatorily aligned there is no legal guarantee for this. Thus every shipment between GB and the EU (ports) will need paperwork.
If the Irish are turning a blind eye to this on through the British border in Ireland then what is the legal status of these goods and who is legally responsible if the goods are not up to scratch?