Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think they`re alarmed about the prospect of an actual hard border which Ireland are proposing,possibly with armed forces and gardai.

On no occasion was that proposed by Ireland or our Taoiseach.
Stop posting lies!

Imreoir2

Infini wrote: »

In fairness as has been stated in the past on these threads is that while noone wants one the reality is they really dont want to be the FIRST one to have to put it up. There will be faux pas whatabouttery from some but lets also be realistic a hard border will not just spring up overnight because its not just the local politicss opposed to it but also that noone wants to have to sink costs into building one and maintaining one either unless theres a long term definitive need for it.

This is why I expect that on our side, border controlls will be implemented on an emergency, temporary basis. I don't expect our government to nvest on permenant infastructure on the border. Controlls will be implemented in an improvosed way based on impermenant checkpoints.

There has been talk of our government seeking flexibility from the EU should no-deal happen. I think this will be in relation to the ad-hoc and porous nature of the border controlls that we implement. I thnk we can expect to benefit from such flexibility in the months following a no-deal crashout, and with luck such arangements will not last beyond the end of the year, though should the UK prove to be more intransigent than I expect, it is likely that there will be pressure to improve the effectiveness of border arangements over time.

Hurrache

This thread is entertaining
https://twitter.com/Donal_OKeeffe/status/1092779804427018240?s=19

Hurrache

Seth Brundle wrote: »

On no occasion was that proposed by Ireland or our Taoiseach.
Stop posting lies!

Heavily armed with automatic weapons don't you know.

Russman

What do people who say we can’t put up a border suggest we do if there’s a no deal crash out ? We can’t just ignore our obligations, even if we don’t like them. Just telling the civilized world to “feck off we’re not doing it” isn’t an option, how anyone doesn’t get that is beyond me tbh.
It’ll likely be fairly temporary anyway.

Even getting rid of the backstop would only leave us with a border in a few years as I reckon in the trade talks, the UK will be looking for terms that are simply unacceptable to the EU, and we’ll have the same impasse again only then they can use the threat of a border to try leverage things.

RobMc59

Hurrache wrote: »

Heavily armed with automatic weapons don't you.

Laugh if you like but I`ve noticed a subtle change in the tone of posts on here.And a move away from "the GFA must be upheld" to the EU backstop is sacrosanct.

FrancieBrady

If May is left (as she will be) with the original deal to bring back to the HOC next week Leo and Dublin should state that part of the terms of a Deal after they crash out (which they will have to negotiate anyway) will be the requirement of a Border Poll as polls show a majority would exist for it.
That should focus a few minds.

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

Laugh if you like but I`ve noticed a subtle change in the tone of posts on here.And a move away from "the GFA must be upheld" to the EU backstop is sacrosanct.

You claimed Varadkar had said something which he didn't.

People have been saying from the outset that in the case of no deal then border infrastructure will be required, nothing has changed there.

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Laugh if you like but I`ve noticed a subtle change in the tone of posts on here.And a move away from "the GFA must be upheld" to the EU backstop is sacrosanct.

Because the not so subtle noises coming from across the water suggest a massive welch on the backstop coming this way and we now have to deal with that crap too. Like we have any choices here. Brexit is the UK's toy, we're just along for the ride.

J Mysterio

Newton Emerson was on Ivan Yates there earlier saying that the DUP had actually accepted the backstop is the way and will back May on it in HOC, but will protest untill the literal last minute.

Strange.. and I had trouble understanding or catching his reasoning for this, but he is very clued in to Unionism in the North.

RobMc59

Hurrache wrote: »

You claimed Varadkar had said something which he didn't.

People have been saying from the outset that in the case of no deal then border infrastructure will be required, nothing has changed there.

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

RobMc59

prawnsambo wrote: »

Because the not so subtle noises coming from across the water suggest a massive welch on the backstop coming this way and we now have to deal with that crap too. Like we have any choices here. Brexit is the UK's toy, we're just along for the ride.

How can you welch on a deal that was never in force?

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

They also agreed to the WA but then the very people who negotiated it voted against it.

EU directive?

RobMc59 wrote: »

How can you welch on a deal that was never in force?

The UK government and their negotiators agreed it.

Infini

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This is why I expect that on our side, border controlls will be implemented on an emergency, temporary basis. I don't expect our government to nvest on permenant infastructure on the border. Controlls will be implemented in an improvosed way based on impermenant checkpoints.

There has been talk of our government seeking flexibility from the EU should no-deal happen. I think this will be in relation to the ad-hoc and porous nature of the border controlls that we implement. I thnk we can expect to benefit from such flexibility in the months following a no-deal crashout, and with luck such arangements will not last beyond the end of the year, though should the UK prove to be more intransigent than I expect, it is likely that there will be pressure to improve the effectiveness of border arangements over time.

One thing to remember is that while no deal is bad for us its catastrophic for them. They wont last very long outside the EU before being forced back to the table not to mention they're likely to getting the bollocks ate out of them across multiple diplomatic channels for not just being so stupid but causing untold damage to others for doing so. Any need for border checks will only be for a period of months.

They could cancel at the last minute of course the truth is until they crash they've been given an out but if they use it Brexit is dead and they know it because any underhandedness WILL backfire if its just being used to stall for time or be used underhandedly. If they crash out though its likely any deal could be worse for them later than if theyd just had the cop on to accept the first time.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

I am sick of inane posts pretending that the UK won't put up a border when it's out around the world trying to sign new deals.

What do you think is more likely; The UK never signs a trade deal ever again, or they sign trade deals?

They will sign trades and it will either be with the EU guaranteeing no border, or it will be with America guaranteeing a border. But obviously the latter is impossible since they've said they wouldn't do it.


If you want to make an argument that the UK will never sign another trade deal <snip- no back seat moderating please>

brickster69

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

But Ireland and the Eu have both said " under no circumstances will there be a hard border. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ljJhZZo5s

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Laugh if you like but I`ve noticed a subtle change in the tone of posts on here.And a move away from "the GFA must be upheld" to the EU backstop is sacrosanct.

How exactly do you propose to uphold the GFA without the backstop? Cyberpunk Unicorns?

Irishmale0399

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

Stop for a minute....who negotiated a WA with the EU and failed to get her HoC friends behind her??? Who FCUKED UP??



If we have a hard border it will be no one elses fault except that of the UK and its politicians. They have a deal on the table....why not accept it and move on.


The problem is and remains...the UK believe they are something which they are not. They also believe they have something that the EU cannot live without....again wrong. They are using the backstop to try and pressure the EU into giving them what they want, something the EU shouldnt move on. Give them an inch now and they will be back in 6 months looking to fish Irish waters and take our natural resources.......

RobMc59

Hurrache wrote: »

They also agreed to the WA but then the very people who negotiated it voted against it.

EU directive?



The UK government and their negotiators agreed it.

But it was rejected in the HOC-the more ridiculous May and Co. make themselves look is a good thing but you appear to be more interested in what the EU is saying than upholding the GFA even at the risk of a hard border and the inevitable ramifications of that.

Enzokk

blanch152 wrote: »

As a member of the EU, we would be obliged under international law to put a hard border in place in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Similarly, the UK, as a non-member of the EU and a member of GATT would also be obliged to put a hard border in place.

It is absolutely mind-boggling that the posters who are crying and whinging about the UK breaching the Good Friday Agreement (a non-binding international agreement) are often the same ones suggesting that in the event of a hard Brexit that we should ignore our legally binding and enforceable obligations under EU and international law and refuse to impose a hard border.

P.S. not suggesting that you are one of those.

For an agreement that is non-binding there is a lot of trouble about it. Also, for one that doesn't state that there needs to be no borders both sides are really going out of their way to ensure there are no borders.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Laugh if you like but I`ve noticed a subtle change in the tone of posts on here.And a move away from "the GFA must be upheld" to the EU backstop is sacrosanct.

Maybe it is because we didn't really expect that no deal would be a possibility. Maybe we held the UK political class in higher esteem than they deserve when it does look like they are willing to not only drive off the cliff but take us with them. I know I was posting about it but I really didn't think it was possible. Now less than 2 months to go I not only think it is possible but it is what is going to happen. In that case we have to face up as grownups to our responsibilities we have signed up to. Would be great if the UK did the same.

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has said no hard border and the GFA will be respected-if Ireland says unfortunately the EU directive is that a hard border must be applied then that would supersede the GFA?

How can you honestly say that the UK will respect the GFA when it takes back control of its borders? This is getting ridiculous now, if there is no deal then there will be a border on both sides because you don't cause yourself that much damage only to give up the one thing that caused you to go down that route. I know the UK has taken silly positions with Brexit but driving the car off the cliff to take back control only to give it up will be some weird logic.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

How can you welch on a deal that was never in force?

The EU has been negiotiating with the British government, not the ERG. The Prime Minister and her cabinet signed off on the WA, and then May whipped her party to vote against it. Her credibility as an honest partner in these talks is hanging on by a thread.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

But it was rejected in the HOC-the more ridiculous May and Co. make themselves look is a good thing but you appear to be more interested in what the EU is saying than upholding the GFA even at the risk of a hard border and the inevitable ramifications of that.

Both sides announced a Deal had been reached.
That May is not in control of her own government is the UK's internal affair.
Effectively they have cancelled/welched on the deal made.

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

But it was rejected in the HOC-the more ridiculous May and Co. make themselves look is a good thing but you appear to be more interested in what the EU is saying than upholding the GFA even at the risk of a hard border and the inevitable ramifications of that.

I haven't commented whatsoever about what the EU have said in this particular discussion.

zapitastas

Russman wrote: »

What do people who say we can’t put up a border suggest we do if there’s a no deal crash out ? We can’t just ignore our obligations, even if we don’t like them. Just telling the civilized world to “feck off we’re not doing it” isn’t an option, how anyone doesn’t get that is beyond me tbh.
It’ll likely be fairly temporary anyway.

Even getting rid of the backstop would only leave us with a border in a few years as I reckon in the trade talks, the UK will be looking for terms that are simply unacceptable to the EU, and we’ll have the same impasse again only then they can use the threat of a border to try leverage things.

In practical terms there have been increased customs checks in border counties for the last two years. These are not fixed positions but are almost as good as that as are generally in the same locations.

Should clarify, these are south of the border. Be a whole different kettle of fish on the northern side. I wouldn't like to have to go and stand along the border outside crossmaglen or belcoo

demfad

I made this...if anyone fancies a laugh....

https://www.captiongenerator.com/1272822/Brexit-preparation

RobMc59

Hurrache wrote: »

I haven't commented whatsoever about what the EU have said in this particular discussion.

When I said "you" I mean an increasing number of posters who are becoming increasingly belligerent-which is more important in your eyes-the GFA or what the EU say?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I said "you" I mean an increasing number of posters who are becoming increasingly belligerent-which is more important in your eyes-the GFA or what the EU say?

WE are the EU.

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I said "you" I mean an increasing number of posters who are becoming increasingly belligerent-which is more important in your eyes-the GFA or what the EU say?

You keep mentioning "EU directives", what the "EU say". We're the EU, and as you know there's legal obligations that come with this.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I said "you" I mean an increasing number of posters who are becoming increasingly belligerent-which is more important in your eyes-the GFA or what the EU say?

Could you clarify what your point is here? It sounds like you're taking issue with what you perceive as posters here wanting no border, not because of the gfa, but because of the EU?

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

When I said "you" I mean an increasing number of posters who are becoming increasingly belligerent-which is more important in your eyes-the GFA or what the EU say?

What is more important, the GFA or the only avalable credible mechanism to protect the GFA?

How do you suppose the GFA can be protected without the backstop? Please, answer that one if you can.