Irish Border and Brexit

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

The only way a border will work without major consequence is to have a sea border.

Having Irish Navy boarding parties conducting stop and search operations of the NI coast would not have major consequences??? because that is what a sea border means - we move an international border that we will have to police to mainland UK.

oscarBravo

For all the people to whom a land border on the island is the end of the world as we know it: if it came down to a binary choice, would you choose a border on the island or to leave the EU?

If you even have to pause to think about that one, you're in an awfully small minority.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless it's a 3 or 4 metre wall as suggested by somebody above a hard land border will have exactly the same issues as the ones you outlined above for a sea border.

We have land borders all over the EU and yes of course they work because unlike the idea of a sea border we police it from our jurisdiction. And yes there are lots of people crossing and recrossing those borders too.

Chester Copperpot

View wrote: »

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

murphaph

The NI border is fairly unique because the people living either side of it are culturally very close. Parishes straddle the border.

This is in marked difference to any other external EU border, of any reasonable length, that I know of. Typically the citizens on either side of such borders are culturally different (usually even speaking different languages) and naturally suspicious of each other, so the border provides some comfort for both sides.

I think a fence across Ireland is a non starter and I'm sure our EU partners know and accept this. But monitoring of the border will be unavoidable.

munsterlegend

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

Couldn't put it better myself. Any type of fortified border on this island will be constantly attacked and anyway impossible to monitor really given the number of passages across. It will become a security nightmare and anyone who says otherwise is living in dreamland.

FrancieBrady

A wall or a fence has not a chance in hell of working.
The 'border' never worked at what it was supposed to do, ever. It's fortification was a sop to unionists but it was lipservice to security nothing more. It only succeeded in enflaming tensions and recruiting for the IRA.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

View wrote: »

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

Inquitus

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

Well we are never going to leave the EU in the short to medium term, if at all. The UK wants control over immigration, I would posit that they own the border, not us, I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

Chester Copperpot

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

You said that a hard physical border is workable. I thoroughly dispute that and say that it is a position borne from ignorance of the geopolitics of the region. A physical border will never work, what would you have the governments do? Commit the bulk of security services to try to secure a fence that will be dismantled at the first opportunity anyway. The people in the region on both sides wouldn't want a physical border so it is not a workable solution. The solution will have to be a lot more discreet to the point of being invisible

FrancieBrady

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

You said that a hard physical border is workable. I thoroughly dispute that and say that it is a position borne from ignorance of the geopolitics of the region. A physical border will never work, what would you have the governments do? Commit the bulk of security services to try to secure a fence that will be dismantled at the first opportunity anyway. The people in the region on both sides wouldn't want a physical border so it is not a workable solution. The solution will have to be a lot more discreet to the point of being invisible

He is clearly too young to remember the campaign called 'filling the roads'. Locals defied the closing of roads by constantly filling the roads themselves.
Was great craic as a young fella doing it and dodging BA rubber bullets.
It worked too, locals got their access.
But one of the serious things it did was massively enflame the situation along the frontier.

Personally, I know (no guesswork here) from judging the mood locally, a physical border and closed roads will not be peacefully accepted.

oscarBravo

Inquitus wrote: »

...I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

I don't care about that either, but do you care about half a million chlorinated chickens finding their way into Ireland via the UK, and the Irish agriculture industry being irreparably damaged as a result?

Aristotle145

shaunr68 wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post. Sure you might see a sign saying welcome to the EU but that's it. It's seamless and you drive from one country to the other. This is something that is not and will not be an issue and all the fuss is agenda driven.

Thats because of agreements between the scandinavian countries and schengen

Jim2007

Inquitus wrote: »

I would posit that they own the border, not us, I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

But we and the rest of the EU do care if contaminated food starts entering our food chain, third country goods enter our market avoiding quotas and tariffs etc.
There is no other way to prevent this happening than policing the border.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A wall or a fence has not a chance in hell of working.
The 'border' never worked at what it was supposed to do, ever. It's fortification was a sop to unionists but it was lipservice to security nothing more. It only succeeded in enflaming tensions and recruiting for the IRA.

Why would you even need a border or a fence??? Most of the borders of the EU are not fenced? But they are patrolled, people must go through customs etc, it will be no different on the NI border. It will be inconvenient and at first there may be some opposition no doubt about, but it will happen.

Jim2007

shaunr68 wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post.

And why would you? You never entered a third country in your entire trip! You traveled in the Schengen area, so no issue with controlling tourists... You travelled within the EEA/EU/CH block so no issue with FMOP and within the EEA/EU customs area so no issues there either.

Your trip illustrates what CANNOT HAPPEN after BREXIT as it now looks, once the U.K. exits the EU, it will become what is referred to as a third country, in the absence of any agreement and none of the above privileges will apply.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why would you even need a border or a fence??? Most of the borders of the EU are not fenced? But they are patrolled, people must go through customs etc, it will be no different on the NI border. It will be inconvenient and at first there may be some opposition no doubt about, but it will happen.

It isn't me suggesting a 'fence or wall'.

The other borders of the EU are not the same though, we have a unique little issue here with borders and partition that you may have noticed. And the last time a border was imposed society boiled into turmoil and nobody was able to put the lid back on for years.

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

There's a political reaaon too. It's not some obscure law or trivial matter, it's an internationally binding agreement called the Good Friday agreement. It stipulates no hard border.

Yourself isit

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

The rest of the EU already has a border between ireland and it.

Yourself isit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is clearly too young to remember the campaign called 'filling the roads'. Locals defied the closing of roads by constantly filling the roads themselves.
Was great craic as a young fella doing it and dodging BA rubber bullets.
It worked too, locals got their access.
But one of the serious things it did was massively enflame the situation along the frontier.

Personally, I know (no guesswork here) from judging the mood locally, a physical border and closed roads will not be peacefully accepted.

They wouldn't blow up the roads - just have a checkpoint. Probably doesn't even have to be manned.

FrancieBrady

Yourself isit wrote: »

They wouldn't blow up the roads - just have a checkpoint. Probably doesn't even have to be manned.

And all it will take is a couple of dissident attacks and they will have to fortify/safeguard.

That is the actual on the ground reality facing us. I don't live or pretend to live in a fantasy world where situations stay static and uncomplicated.

Yourself isit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And all it will take is a couple of dissident attacks and they will have to fortify/safeguard.

That is the actual on the ground reality facing us. I don't live or pretend to live in a fantasy world where situations stay static and uncomplicated.

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

Sam Russell

Yourself isit wrote: »

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

National ID cards would cover the DUPs objections if it applied to all UK citizens and all 'internal' flights and ferries.

It might get objections from some Tories though.

murphaph

Yourself isit wrote: »

The difference these days is that the dissidents are a small minority and the technology will be different. Electronic tags wont stop most people who are local crossing and recrossing the border.

That's said I think that a border between ireland (the island) and the UK will be the solution.

passport checks for all flights etc into Britain. The DUP says that is unconstitutional but the UK has an easily modifiable constitution.

The problem is (IMO) not really passport checks but customs checks on (especially) food products entering the EU from a third country.

We will be held to account by our EU partners should hormone treated beef end up in the EU food chain via NI/RoI.

That doesn't mean it isn't the fault of the UK. It is, they are leaving the union which underpins the GFA and the present situation along the border.

Moving passport checks back (even if that could be made fly in DUPland) does not solve this problem. I don't know of a good solution, but I will be amazed if it doesn't involve a big increase in Irish customs patrols along the border. The UK might even decide that it's far easier for them to fall back to GB ports of entry (once the Westminster government is no longer reliant on the DUP) to police illegal EU migration because it will be far far cheaper than trying to do so along the border itself.

So we could we'll see a soft/invisible border from the UK side and a fairly hard one on our side.

But the UK is the one causing it, knowing its obligations under the GFA and knowing how an EU external border has to be policed wrt imports, especially of livestock and food.

I believe ultimately that Brexit (if it isn't a token Brexit) will so badly damage NI that it will end up opting to join the RoI. Some UK EU funding will fund a transitional phase a la HK. I believe the UK exchequer will simply not be able to subsidise NI as it will have less money after Brexit severely damages the British economy. I am not a united Irelander by any means and would be happy for the border to remain, but Brexit has changed the game (or will do if they really leave the SM and CU).

oscarBravo

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-sea-border-utter-madness-dups-donaldson-rubbishes-dublin-brexit-proposal-35976290.html

Sir Jeffrey described the [Irish Sea border] plan as "economic nonsense".

He told the BBC: "The port of Belfast is our biggest port, 73% of what goes through it either comes or is destined for Great Britain. Why on earth would it be in the interests of the Northern Ireland economy to have a customs border between Northern Ireland and London, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?

"It would be utter madness."

So some of those who are implacably opposed to a land border on the island will wave the vague threat of dissident violence, while the DUP have the rather more concrete card of pulling the plug on Theresa May's government to play.

Meanwhile:

Britain will be hit by huge border delays, require vast lorry parks in the south-east, and suffer more than £1bn a year in economic damage, according to a stark economic analysis of the likely impact of customs checks after Brexit.

Additional costs associated with potential motorway queues, extra customs staff and jobs lost as a result of companies relocating mean even that assessment is “extremely conservative”, a study by a leading economic consultancy warns.

Maybe they should mutter darkly about terrorism in their next meeting with Barnier, see how far that gets them.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-sea-border-utter-madness-dups-donaldson-rubbishes-dublin-brexit-proposal-35976290.html

So some of those who are implacably opposed to a land border on the island will wave the vague threat of dissident violence, while the DUP have the rather more concrete card of pulling the plug on Theresa May's government to play.

Meanwhile: Maybe they should mutter darkly about terrorism in their next meeting with Barnier, see how far that gets them.

Look, if you see people discussing the realities of life along a contested border, as 'dark mutterings', you just have another agenda.

Nobody wants a return to conflict, that is why the GFA was supported.
The GFA was NOT a solution though, the seeds for conflict are still there.

Is this guy 'muttering darkly' do you think?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38722406

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look, if you see people discussing the realities of life along a contested border, as 'dark mutterings', you just have another agenda.

It's not a contested border. The governments of both jurisdictions, and the overwhelming majority of the people of both jurisdictions, accept the validity of the border.

I have no other agenda except to point out that the fact that you don't want a hard border doesn't mean that there won't be a hard border.

Nobody wants a return to conflict...

Well, that's self-evidently untrue. There are some evil nutjobs out there that think the avoidance of a land border is worth murdering people for.

...that is why the GFA was supported.
The GFA was NOT a solution though, the seeds for conflict are still there.

The "seeds of conflict" are still there because it suits a certain agenda to carefully hoard and nurture those seeds. There's something awfully convenient about being able to decry violence, while still being able to wheel it out as a threat if you don't get your way; it's the "they haven't gone away, you know" syndrome.

Is this guy 'muttering darkly' do you think?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38722406

I'm not saying there aren't people out there evil and deranged enough to murder people over a line on a map. I'm pointing out that it's just a tad disingenuous to disavow that violence while still using it as a reason why the purveyors of violence should get their way.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a contested border. The governments of both jurisdictions, and the overwhelming majority of the people of both jurisdictions, accept the validity of the border.
.

In fairness, I can't get past this head in the sand, downright dangerous deluding. Everything will be alright. :rolleyes:

I will leave you at it with the 'dark mutterings'.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The other borders of the EU are not the same though, we have a unique little issue here with borders and partition that you may have noticed. And the last time a border was imposed society boiled into turmoil and nobody was able to put the lid back on for years.

The last time was an entirely different situation and at the end of the day, the minority along the border will not be allowed to dictate the pace. And Yes we have issues with other borders too. Cypress, Macedonia, Greece/Turkey and so on.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

For all the people to whom a land border on the island is the end of the world as we know it: if it came down to a binary choice, would you choose a border on the island or to leave the EU?

If you even have to pause to think about that one, you're in an awfully small minority.

Absolutely to leave the EU - we should have left a decade ago already, and begun rebuilding our relationship with the EU (and our economy, sans-EU-mandated-austerity...) back then - we won't recover all the positives of our current relationship with the EU, but we'll be shed of all the negatives, like the Euro and the economic trap associated with it, and would avoid this coming clusterfúck.

A return to a hard border in this country is going to cause a major turn against the EU, for a lot of people in this country...

Leaving is extremely painful in the medium/short term - but in the long term there's plenty of room for partly renegotiating/rebuilding the positive aspects of the EU, based on being an economic free trade area - it should have stayed that way, without becoming a currency union - and it should go back that to that, even if there's a lot of short/medium term pain...