Irish Border and Brexit

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. We relinquished our claim on it two decades ago. That doesn't make it a contested region, or a contested border. Of course the border will cause all sorts of problems. You and Francie seem to subscribe to the Theresa May world view that talking about what you don't want will magically make all your problems go away.

Here's a radical thought for you: just because a land border will cause problems doesn't mean that the absence of a land border will avoid any problems.

Seriously, you need to get realistic here. The Brexit suicide bomb is going to have all sorts of horrible consequences for both the UK and the other member states. The damage is going to be widespread and long-lasting. The border question in Ireland is just one of many, many situations that will leave everyone involved worse off than before.

All I'm asking is that some people remove their heads from their border bubble and realise that there are many, many competing interests involved. The border on this island may be the single most important thing in their lives, but that doesn't make it the single most important consideration of Brexit. Ah, I see what the problem is. You're not reading my posts; you're reading Francie's misrepresentations of them.

Here's a free clue: I didn't say everything was going to be alright, and I'm not the one pretending that there's no problem with having an external EU frontier within a non-EU member state.

Never mind that what I have said is based on local experience. Let's just take what the PSNI chief has said onboard if we can.

Can you outline what you think is going to happen if what he says happens, an attack or attacks on PSNI officers?
If you can not moralise about it and rest assured that no one here wants it to happen, that would be good.

Just outline what you think the outcome would be, based on actual history.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. We relinquished our claim on it two decades ago.

We relinquished our formal claim but the aspiration remains codified in the Irish constitution. The British have said they have no selfish or strategic interest in the north and have agreed that they're out when a majority vote for it. Nationalists never agreed that the GFA was the end of the story - SF and the SDLP are both UI political parties as are all the political parties in the south. The northeast is most definitely a contested region.

Here's a radical thought for you: just because a land border will cause problems doesn't mean that the absence of a land border will avoid any problems.

What?

Seriously, you need to get realistic here. The Brexit suicide bomb is going to have all sorts of horrible consequences for both the UK and the other member states. The damage is going to be widespread and long-lasting. The border question in Ireland is just one of many, many situations that will leave everyone involved worse off than before.

You want me to get serious about your being a clairvoyant? Sorry, that's just funny.

The border on this island may be the single most important thing in their lives, but that doesn't make it the single most important consideration of Brexit.

I live about as far away from the border as you can get - whatever happens there will have little impact on me. I do care about my extended family and the border communities who suffered so much during the bad old days. This border issue is probably Ireland's most pressing.

Here's a free clue:

*puts wallet away*

I didn't say everything was going to be alright, and I'm not the one pretending that there's no problem with having an external EU frontier within a non-EU member state.

Who is claiming it wouldn't be a problem? It may be the very best solution of a list of bad ones.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Never mind that what I have said is based on local experience. Let's just take what the PSNI chief has said onboard if we can.

Can you outline what you think is going to happen if what he says happens, an attack or attacks on PSNI officers?
If you can not moralise about it and rest assured that no one here wants it to happen, that would be good.

Just outline what you think the outcome would be, based on actual history.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. You seem to have fallen into the same trap as Junkyard Tom, of asking me to defend your interpretation of my posts instead of the actual content of them.

Is a hard border going to cause problems for both Northern Ireland and the Republic? Of course it is. Will a hard border be used as an excuse by terrorist assholes, as if they needed an excuse, to ramp up their campaign? Almost certainly.

So, do us both a favour and stop pretending that I'm arguing that a hard border won't be problematic. Instead, recognise that I'm pointing out that, as bad as the consequences are, we may not have any choice in the matter.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Whose claiming it wouldn't be a problem? It may be the very best solution of a list of bad ones.

It may well be: for Ireland. But there are 27 other countries involved in this negotiation, and as much as we like to think that our problems are the only ones that matter, it's delusional to think that we get to unilaterally dictate the outcome here.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

nobody's been able to find a feasible alternative that all sides could agree to.

We're never going to get a an alternative that all sides agree to. We end up with a negotiated scenario that causes the least opposition.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. You seem to have fallen into the same trap as Junkyard Tom, of asking me to defend your interpretation of my posts instead of the actual content of them.

Is a hard border going to cause problems for both Northern Ireland and the Republic? Of course it is. Will a hard border be used as an excuse by terrorist assholes, as if they needed an excuse, to ramp up their campaign? Almost certainly.

So, do us both a favour and stop pretending that I'm arguing that a hard border won't be problematic. Instead, recognise that I'm pointing out that, as bad as the consequences are, we may not have any choice in the matter.

So what is your problem with us objecting as strongly as we can and doing everything possible to avoid a hard border?

Are we supposed to just roll over and say it is too difficult?
How do you think peace on this island is being maintained?

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may well be: for Ireland. But there are 27 other countries involved in this negotiation, and as much as we like to think that our problems are the only ones that matter, it's delusional to think that we get to unilaterally dictate the outcome here.

No country will get to unilaterally dictate what happens. As far as I'm aware any country can unilaterally refuse to sign-off on an outcome they believe isn't in their interests.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are we supposed to just roll over and say it is too difficult?

I haven't said that. I haven't said anything like that. I haven't said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as meaning that.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that it will be easier to enforce an external EU frontier within a non-member state than to enforce a land border between two states.

I'm also not the one who keeps talking about how important it is to appease the terrorists one one side of a conflict while completely ignoring the possibility that terrorists on the other side might not take the alternative proposal lying down.



I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We're never going to get a an alternative that all sides agree to. We end up with a negotiated scenario that causes the least opposition.

That's not really true in a situation where there's a massive number of players with effective vetoes. Remember how CETA had to be tweaked until a majority in a single regional parliament in Belgium agreed not to block it, regardless of how much support/opposition there was in the rest of the EU.
The problem is that for every alternative proposed so far, there's at least one player with a veto who'd find that alternative so unacceptable that they'd exercise their veto to get a hard border instead.

Britain will veto a border at Belfast, the EU will veto a 'frictionless' border, and Ireland will veto a border at Cherbourg.
What alternative to a hard border wouldn't get vetoed by anybody?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't said that. I haven't said anything like that. I haven't said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as meaning that.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that it will be easier to enforce an external EU frontier within a non-member state than to enforce a land border between two states.

I'm also not the one who keeps talking about how important it is to appease the terrorists one one side of a conflict while completely ignoring the possibility that terrorists on the other side might not take the alternative proposal lying down.



I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

And nobody is talking of appeasing anybody. Once again you seem unaware of how the peace has been achieved and what level of work by some has maintained it.
You seem to think, as I said earlier that the GFA was a solution, it wasn't. And some people are working hard at removing causes of conflict.

I am pointing out potential (very real IMO) for serious conflict and what can be done to avoid it.

eire4

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have any faith in FG's willingness or ability to stand up for us but we should be insisting as the member of the EU that our solution become the official EU one.

At least Coveney has fired a shot across the bows.

I tend to agree with you about lack of confidence in Fine Gael on this issue. But in fairness credit where it is due the initial stance here of Varadkar and Coveney was positive. We should stick to going for a sea border IMHO.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

Go back to my first post in the thread. I responded to your proposed approach of refusing to operate a border, by pointing out that an EU country that has an external frontier with a third country doesn't get to decide not to operate the border.

Rather than engage with that rather self-evident fact, you've spent the rest of the thread telling me what I meant by that. When you're ready to discuss the flaws in your own proposal, get back to me.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

Go back to my first post in the thread. I responded to your proposed approach of refusing to operate a border, by pointing out that an EU country that has an external frontier with a third country doesn't get to decide not to operate the border.

Rather than engage with that rather self-evident fact, you've spent the rest of the thread telling me what I meant by that. When you're ready to discuss the flaws in your own proposal, get back to me.

So Coveney and Varadkar are wasting their time as well as anyone else who protests.

That's the implication of what you are saying. We have the potential to pressure a sea border as others have pointed out.
This is a negotiation, nothing is written in stone yet.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Coveney and Varadkar are wasting their time as well as anyone else who protests.

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, it's getting kind of old watching you have an argument with your interpretation of what I'm posting.

.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you have been saying that. You have said it is pointless to object as we are an insignifcant issue in the scheme of things.

And nobody is talking of appeasing anybody. Once again you seem unaware of how the peace has been achieved and what level of work by some has maintained it.
You seem to think, as I said earlier that the GFA was a solution, it wasn't. And some people are working hard at removing causes of conflict.

I am pointing out potential (very real IMO) for serious conflict and what can be done to avoid it.

Where do you think the RoI should check food imports from the UK post Brexit?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

We know there has to be a border. That was why the thread was started and called what it was.

You reacted to somebody protesting a version of the border,(a land one) not a border in itself.

Stop being disingenuous about that.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

Britain will veto a border at Belfast

Britain is leaving the EU. Who is it going to be vetoing? The locating of a border will be Westminster's decision, an internal UK matter. I'd be fairly sure the idea of establishing a border in Ireland will have stomachs churning in Westminster and Whitehall.

murphaph wrote: »

post Brexit?

You're presuming that a post-Brexit UK is out of the customs union. You're also discarding the idea that Britain just clones EU laws/regulations to be a de facto member of the customs union.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're presuming that a post-Brexit UK is out of the customs union. You're also discarding the idea that Britain just clones EU laws/regulations to be a de facto member of the customs union.

Yes that is my assumption. So, assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland inspect food imports from the UK?

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU. Who is it going to be vetoing?
...

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.
There's more to vetoes than EU votes.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...The locating of a border will be Westminster's decision, an internal UK matter. ...

Even if the UK unilaterally moved its customs posts to the Irish Sea, which I can't imagine them doing, without a formal agreement on the matter that satisfies the EU, we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

... I'd be fairly sure the idea of establishing a border in Ireland will have stomachs churning in Westminster and Whitehall.

I fully agree, but if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

FrancieBrady

kniggit wrote: »

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.
There's more to vetoes than EU votes.



Even if the UK unilaterally moved its customs posts to the Irish Sea, which I can't imagine them doing, without a formal agreement on the matter that satisfies the EU, we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.



I fully agree, but if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

I'll ask once more. Assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland, on behalf of the EU inspect food imports from the UK? Turning a blind eye will not be an option. We rely on Polish checks on the Belorussian border and they will rely on us to prevent sub-standard food from entering the union.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I'll ask once more. Assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland, on behalf of the EU inspect food imports from the UK? Turning a blind eye will not be an option. We rely on Polish checks on the Belorussian border and they will rely on us to prevent sub-standard food from entering the union.

Wherever the border is? I am not sure why you are asking tbh.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

Yes that is my assumption. So, assuming a hard Brexit, where should Ireland inspect food imports from the UK?

I guess they could check lorries/vans when they enter the 26 counties - it wouldn't necessarily have to be at the border.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

As the other required party to any agreement, the UK and groups within it have veto power.

So groups within the UK (Westminster?) can veto stuff? Is that what you're saying?

we'd still be obliged under EU law to maintain a hard border on our side.

That is a possible outcome, not an inevitability. The north could be treated as a region with special status.

if the alternative is effectively partitioning their own state, they'll decide to do it anyway.

Let's be honest with ourselves here, the British don't give a damn about the north. There'll probably be people in the corridors of power in London thinking about how they can offload the place.

swampgas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU(which includes us BTW) and the UK do not want a hard border. They have said this, because they, like most informed people can see the threat it poses.

Pressure has to be kept on the find solutions to the problem. Imaginative solutions along the lines of the GFA.

Absolutely agree that pressure must be maintained. However imaginative solutions can only go so far if the UK go for a hard Brexit.

TBH the only solution I can see to a hard border is accelerated reunification. Maybe where the imagination is needed is selling that idea to everyone involved.

Otherwise I can't see an alternative to an enforced border with checkpoints for people and goods.

kniggit

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So groups within the UK (Westminster?) can veto stuff? Is that what you're saying?
...

A trade agreement with the UK requires its consent, therefore the UK has a veto.
Democratic states are not monoliths and have different groups, often overlapping, that can cause it to do something. For example, a majority of cabinet ministers, a sufficiently large number of Tory MPs to split the party, a majority of Westminster MPs, etc. could each be sufficient to cause it to veto such a trade agreement.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...
That is a possible outcome, not an inevitability. The north could be treated as a region with special status.
...

There would still have to be a border somewhere, making sure that all goods that came through it met with EU standards and had the appropriate tariffs paid on them.
"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

...
Let's be honest with ourselves here, the British don't give a damn about the north. There'll probably be people in the corridors of power in London thinking about how they can offload the place.

Republicans tested that theory to destruction during the 1970s.

Junkyard Tom

kniggit wrote: »

A trade agreement with the UK requires its consent, therefore the UK has a veto.

The EU is under no obligation to give the UK any trade agreement.

For example, a majority of cabinet ministers, a sufficiently large number of Tory MPs to split the party, a majority of Westminster MPs, etc. could each be sufficient to cause it to veto such a trade agreement.

But they can't prevent the EU from doing thier bidding. If Britain wants to jump off the EU ship with no lifeboat or plan then the EU can say 'go right ahead'.

There would still have to be a border somewhere, making sure that all goods that came through it met with EU standards and had the appropriate tariffs paid on them.

No there wouldn't. If the UK says 'we'll reflexively adopt all EU regs/laws' then there is no need for a trade border.

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

That's a prediction you're making and I think it's naive.

Republicans tested that theory to destruction during the 1970s.

In the 1970's it became about Britain's reputation - it had nothing to do with loyalty to Unionists, indeed unionists ended up becoming pawns in the conflict between Britain and the Provos.

Also, the Provos bombed the Peace Process into existence when they started disrupting British commerce in the 1990's.

FrancieBrady

kniggit wrote: »

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

How could anyone possibly be so assertive about what the British won't agree to?
How do you know what they will agree to?
With regard to Ireland the British say one thing and then do the complete opposite. 'We don't talk to terrorists' for eg.
They have a track record for doing what is beneficial, not for the Irish or for Irish Unionists, but for them.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

kniggit wrote: »

"Special status" only makes sense if the point is to economically partition the UK and move the border to Belfast, which the British won't agree to.

How could anyone possibly be so assertive about what the British won't agree to?
How do you know what they will agree to?
With regard to Ireland the British say one thing and then do the complete opposite. 'We don't talk to terrorists' for eg.
They have a track record for doing what is beneficial, not for the Irish or for Irish Unionists, but for them.

Everybody knows that, except for the Unionists, they have often ignored that or in other words, were left with it and in some lonely moments admitted to themselves that all the fuss about "loyalty" is very one-sided and that more to their own part than from the Brits towards them. If there is no merit for the Brits in NI themselves, they don´t give much of a damn about it. The whole NI thing has become more an annoyance to them than anything else. An issue they can´t get out that easily because of them Unionists.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

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

I have already stated that my preference would be for a low-key border such as one on the Finland-Russia border where for most of its length it looks like the sort of 2m security fence you'd see in many industrial estates, rising to a more serious 3m with extra security cameras etc at known security black spots. Implemented properly it should be only marginally more inconvenient than the M50 is for many people in Dublin who if they want to get from pt A to pt B on opposite sites of the motorway have to get in their cars and drive to get to a bridge to cross-over the motorway to make a journey that would be a lot simpler were there no motorway in the way and they could drive or walk directly between them.

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so. It would be up to our government to ensure that happens on the border with NI should - as seems increasingly likely - the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. That may not be your or my preference but it is the reality we need to face up to and plan for.

As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM: