Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Firstly I respectfully disagree with your thesis. But indeed until it’s actually considered in law, rather than possible scenarios none of CNN try us can be sure on how it would play out. I often here from people who say that a hard border is not a breach of international follow up that with a question ‘where does it refer to a hard border in the Belfast Agreement’. But let’s start from first principles, the Belfast Agreement is predicated on there not being a hard border. Use of words like Cross Border and Freemovement are peppered through out to bolster that.

The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

The agreement contains a commitment by the British and Irish governments to develop "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union" - of course, there was no inkling back in 1998 that the UK would vote to leave the EU 18 years later.

But there are no specific commitments about what that should involve in regard to the border.

The cross-border strand of the agreement lays out 12 areas of cooperation, which are overseen by the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC).

It could be argued that a hard border would make that strand of the agreement more difficult to operate.

Additionally, a section on economic issues states that, pending devolution, the British government should progress a regional development strategy that tackles "the problems of a divided society and social cohesion in urban, rural and border areas".

It could be argued that a hard border would conflict with the spirit of that part of the agreement but again there is no specific prohibition.

Let me present the opinion of an expert:

Saving Good Friday

The Good Friday Agreement is made up of two parts – the Multi-party agreement between most of the political parties (but not the DUP) and the British-Irish Agreement between the two governments.

This second Agreement is the international treaty between sovereign states, registered with the UN. The British-Irish Agreement’s function is to uphold the multi-party agreement. So changing the treaty would logically require a new multi-party agreement.

…

In terms of Brexit impact Strand 2 is most significant. It sets out that the North-South Ministerial Council, which promotes all-island cooperation, will “consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes…”

…

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, states: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” So Britain cannot, under international law, set aside the GFA because it voted for Brexit.

So the “peace dividend” disappears and work on community regeneration and reconciliation loses funding just at the time a hard border becomes a very real possibility.

…

Also at risk the Special EU Programmes Body which was one of the North-South implementation bodies set up under the GFA and delivery agent for the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in the north. No EU, No SEUPB. No money.

…

when a 20 year process which has allowed people to begin to express their identity, culture and tradition is eroded, then you undermine the process of peace.

The workability of the Good Friday Agreement is as much about what it signifies as what it says. It signifies compromise, recognition and acceptance and a pledge to work together for the common good.

Exactly the opposite of what a hard border does, in fact.

I think the issue is that we won’t know if the erection of a hard border will be a breach of international law because it’s dependent on what happens after and due to its erection rather than the erection itself

What would be they point of these consultations?

No one you just listed could change any rules on goods or the shape of the border. For instance we only have 1 single rail crossing with the North so what the F are Iarnrod Eireann going to contribute.

The Gardai I am sure are already being consulted and even before Brexit were active and up to date on the border

Why would they be checking passports. Ending of the common travel area is not on the cards.

If that was such a thing it would happen either on a border stop or more likely at Connolly like every trans national train. It's a 5 minute meeting at best and one I'm sure someone at I.E. has probably been thinking about this already anyway and already has an answer when the government do ask

So is your point that stakeholders should not be consulted in such changes like a hardening of the border?

And that such decisions should be only made by civil servants and simply handed down to the little people?

It's weird point of view to take.

The Brexit Blindfold ,really captures the essence of the Boris era.

We had plans for a hard Brexit in place and there is ongoing discussion on what to do when the UK trigger A16.

No my point is its futile because they or these mythical civil servants (shades of the unelected bureaucrats talk from you there) will get to decide anything.

The government along with the UK and EU decided already what the border or lack of will look like and unless that treaty changes or is broken there is no point whatsoever in consulting anyone because we won't know the new situation. And even then it won't be civil servants or milk farmers deciding anything

Peter Foster of the FT has a good thread on what Johnson and Frost are up to. He says they think they can somehow initially disable or banjax the Protocol, that time will drag on and eventually the EU will have no choice but to accept the new status quo and watered down Protocol.

But he warns that the EU will almost certainly fight fire with fire and retaliate immediately (in whatever way they see fit), making this a huge gamble by the Brexiteers.

I’m from Dundalk. And today I went for lunch in Killeavy Castle. I went by one route and came back by another. ( neither of which was by way of the M1/N1) it was as natural as going ( say) to Carlingford.. Except I crossed an imaginary border( more then once)

Killeavy Castle is lovely btw.

There will be no hard border.

Some NI businesses are harmed by the NIP, particularly those which buy goods in GB and sell them in NI. All NI businesses, however, are harmed by Brexit; the NIP intensifies that harm for some of them but mitigates it for others, and on balance the mitigations vastly outweigh the intensifications. NI businesses as a whole would do much, much worse if they were subject to full-blooded brexit, than to Brexit mitigated by the protocol. In economic terms, NI is much better off with the Protocol than it would be without it. Objections to the protocol are poilitical, not economic, and Brexit supporters who pretend to be concerned about the health of business are obvious hypocrites anyway.

At the risk of going slightly off topic, it's noticeable how the Brexiteers and the right wing Brexit press are now moving onto a new hobby horse of climate change denial and trying to halt the move to zero emissions (even looking for a referendum on the subject).

I'm not trying to start a discussion about climate change - just picking up on how the usual suspects seem to have found their new 'successor to Brexit'. Perhaps even they think A16 and trade wars with the EU only have a limited shelf life.

Well, at least they have the heat from their sovereign tea to keep themselves warm.

Yes, it's very interesting to watch. The 'Brexit media' have a new hobby horse : man made climate change is mostly a hoax, zero emissions strategy will wipe out the UK economy etc : 'Let's have a referendum to halt the whole thing' (zero emissions). There was always going to be major overlap here. Interesting though that they are going into the area of total climate change denial in order to justify it.

"Insofar as the economy isn't great after brexit, it is because of the EU bullying plucky Britain & insofar as it's not that, it's these silly climate change rules".