Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

alloywheel wrote: »

The UK will not spend one penny erecting a hard border in Ireland. They do not want it.

How do you know this?

Because they say so? :rolleyes::D

Enzokk

alloywheel wrote: »

We already and always have had goods moving between 2 different customs zones in these islands, since partition.

There was customs checks between both countries up to 1993. So you are wrong.

Hurrache

Some of us flagged this the night that May had her government vote against the deal she agreed to.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1092718973546844160

Christy42

alloywheel wrote: »

Anthracite wrote: »

Can you, unlike the entire Brexiteer movement, explain how we can have no border in Ireland and stop goods moving between two different customs zones without checking for standards and duties?

We already and always have had goods moving between 2 different customs zones in these islands, since partition.

Yes. And we had a hard border until the custom zones were matched.

alloywheel

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Ya, and we also had a hard border too.

It was not hard compared to the border in Germany, for example. There was security on the border here in Ireland (because of terrorism) during the troubles but if it was not for the terrorists there would have been no need to spend so much effort and money on the border infrastructure during the troubles.

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

We already and always have had goods moving between 2 different customs zones in these islands, since partition.

What has the past got to do with the future?
Was there any trade agreements between the UK and Ireland back then?
Were there any trade barriers e.g. customs checks?

alloywheel wrote: »

The UK will not spend one penny erecting a hard border in Ireland. They do not want it.

They may not want it but the fact is that:
* the UK wanted to take control of it's borders - never was it mentioned that that soundbite excluded NI.
* if they secure a trade deal with another country e.g. China, will the Chinese be happy that the EU are on a zero percent tarrif because according to the WTO rules all countries must get the same treatment - how will the EU be forced into paying the higher taffies when you've left the door wide open?
* I presume that you're playing the unionist card by saying that the UK won't spend one penny in Ireland and are considering that NI is not part of Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

alloywheel wrote: »

The UK will not spend one penny erecting a hard border in Ireland. They do not want it.

If they leave the NI border wide open, what does that mean for their other borders?


Yep, they have to be wide open too, unless the NI border is treated somehow differently in a trade agreement. Any nation whose imports are treated differently at Felixstowe than Irish goods are treated at Newry is going to be complaining to the WTO pronto.


And if all their borders are wide open, that is the end of UK agriculture and manufacturing. Is that part of the plan?


If so, you can be damn sure that Ireland will be manning the border to keep the crap they are eating out of the EU.

Tacitus Kilgore

alloywheel wrote: »

It was not hard compared to the border in Germany, for example. There was security on the border here in Ireland (because of terrorism) during the troubles but if it was not for the terrorists there would have been no need to spend so much effort and money on the border infrastructure during the troubles.

So you're saying there was only a border because of terrorists?


There was terrorists because of the border.

alloywheel

Enzokk wrote: »

There was customs checks between both countries up to 1993. So you are wrong.

Not wrong, I said goods moved between 2 different customs zones. There are still vat and duty differences (Ireland is more expensive of course) but still goods move. About 100,000 secondhand cars alone last year for example were imported. With technology it should be easier.

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

With technology it should be easier.

Please tell me that you're not dragging the thread down to that level of stupidity?
Technology is nowhere near a substitute for a border between two different customs areas.

Zubeneschamali

alloywheel wrote: »

About 100,000 secondhand cars alone last year for example were imported.

Ah, so all we need is some sort of Single Market both sides of the border, and the problem goes away. Excellent.

alloywheel

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

There was terrorists because of the border.

And more than a few times the terrorist committed outrages in N. Ireland and escaped back across the border, hence there was a need for security on the border. Sometimes they even shot from this side of the border in to N. Ireland.

Leroy42

So alloywheel, should all borders simply be open? Because I cannot find any example of an open border between two countries that don't have a trade deal but that is what you are claiming should happen.

Hurrache

I think the tyres have long come off the alloywheel. He spouts nonsense about the EU across boards.ie.

He can safely be ignored.

Enzokk

alloywheel wrote: »

Not wrong, I said goods moved between 2 different customs zones. There are still vat and duty differences (Ireland is more expensive of course) but still goods move. About 100,000 secondhand cars alone last year for example were imported. With technology it should be easier.

And they required custom posts to conduct checks. Those posts were being attacked and then they had to have security, which asked for more security which meant the army was sent in.

As for technology, can you show any border anywhere in the world where the use of technology is used to get rid of customs checks? I am sure Noway and Sweden would like to know about this as they would surely like to get rid of the checks between their border as well.

alloywheel

Leroy42 wrote: »

So alloywheel, should all borders simply be open? Because I cannot find any example of an open border between two countries that don't have a trade deal but that is what you are claiming should happen.

Leo should be working with the UK and trying to hammer out a trade deal and making Brexit work, that would be better for everyone in the long run. He should stand up to the EU masters.

Hurrache

alloywheel wrote: »

Leo should be working with the UK and trying to hammer out a trade deal and making Brexit work, that would be better for everyone in the long run. He should stand up to the EU masters.

You lack a primary school level of understanding of how the EU works.

alloywheel

Enzokk wrote: »

And they required custom posts to conduct checks. Those posts were being attacked.

And it was not the British who attacked the customs posts.

FrancieBrady

alloywheel wrote: »

Leo should be working with the UK and trying to hammer out a trade deal and making Brexit work, that would be better for everyone in the long run. He should stand up to the EU masters.

And bow to his UK ones?

We know what union has been better for Ireland, our union with the 26 other European states that are supporting us here.

alloywheel

Hurrache wrote: »

You lack a primary school level of how the EU works.

You forget who was the 2nd biggest net contributor to the EU.

Tacitus Kilgore

alloywheel wrote: »

You forget who was the 2nd biggest net contributor to the EU.

Soundbyte after soundbyte.


Have you got anything to discuss?

FrancieBrady

alloywheel wrote: »

You forget who was the 2nd biggest net contributor to the EU.

Who has forgotten that and how much has it helped the UK getting the deal they have gotten and welched on?

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

Leo should be working with the UK and trying to hammer out a trade deal and making Brexit work, that would be better for everyone in the long run. He should stand up to the EU masters.

...but the Uk don't know what they want.
There is already a deal on the table as agreed with the PM and negotiated by several ministers (including Dominic Rabb). So what do you suggest Leo does?

As for it being better for everyone, about half of British voters don't believe that Brexit will be better for them so why should we suddenly capitulate on the matter?

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

You forget who was the 2nd biggest net contributor to the EU.

I've already responded to your earlier version of this statement - has the UK received anything from being a member of the EU?

Leroy42

alloywheel wrote: »

Leo should be working with the UK and trying to hammer out a trade deal and making Brexit work, that would be better for everyone in the long run. He should stand up to the EU masters.

Yo have already mentioned that ROI is more expensive than NI. What do you think is going to happen when the UK allow a reduction in standards and regulation? Less costs for the producers which leads to lower prices.

Take a simply example of holidays. EU law states 20 days. The UK get rid of that and reduce to 10 days. Every factory in ROI will therefore be more expensive to run that on in NI.

How do we compete with that? (I know you are gong to say a border won't stop that, but it is a simple example rather than going into regulations).

Borders are there to protect the country. From people, drugs, illegal goods, to collect taxes, to protect industries.

You are claiming that we should ignore all of that simply to accommodate the wishes of the UK.

Yet have provided nothing in the way of a solution of how the UK will protect Ireland.

ilovesmybrick

Chris Grayling already laying the ground for the "It's all the fault of Brussels/Ireland/EU/Germans" for Britains woes

Blame Brussels, not Britain, if we crash out of the EU without a deal

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Alloywheel, please read the charter before posting again. This is a forum for serious discussion and that is not facilitated by short statements and soundbytes.

Hurrache

alloywheel wrote: »

You forget who was the 2nd biggest net contributor to the EU.

Ah, so you can see my posts. I was beginning to wonder when you seemed to have missed each question I previously put to you.

So how about it, do you have the answers now?

alloywheel

Leroy42 wrote: »

Take a simply example of holidays. EU law states 20 days. The UK get rid of that and reduce to 10 days. Every factory in ROI will therefore be more expensive to run that on in NI. How do we compete with that?

To examine your silly example, if the UK reduced holidays by 50%, there would be strikes everywhere. Would not work so will not happen. However taxation of factories is much more relevant to companies to decide where to locate. Suppose a country lowers their corporation taxation rates by a huge amount...oh wait, we already done that, over the years .:D
How did they compete with that?

Akrasia

alloywheel wrote: »

The EU is the second biggest net contributor to the EU after Germany and even still has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the EU. If the EU makes life difficult for the UK, it is not just the UK who will suffer. The EU has lower grrowth than the rest of the world. The UK was always a world trading nation, it does not want to be held back by the EU.

This is totally illogical thinking.

The UK thinks they can replace EU trade with non EU emerging markets and that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

It completely glosses over the fact that if there are emerging markets the EU can also access them and from a dominant market position.

The only markets that the EU can't directly access are those that rely on tax avoidance, counterfeiting, slave labour, reduced environmental or labour standards, and if the UK decide to target these markets, doing so will make it much less attractive for the EU to enter trade agreements with them. They would sacrifice access to the wealthiest markets in the world in order to go after peripheral grey imports and money laundering