Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
Thats old ground. I thought we had accepted that there were at least four perspectives on GFA - all of which have potential substance
1) No backstop contravenes GFA
2)Backstop in place contravenes GFA
3) both contravene GFA
4)neither contravene GFA
I was trying to move beyond that and asking would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop. I could also accept an NI vote releasing us.
That would still qualify as the UK unilaterally ending the backstop, even if it was via a vote. The whole purpose of the backstop is to avoid a border altogether.
If the UK can end it when they like, even without a trade agreement in place which maintains the open border, then Ireland is again faced with the same issue they have now - how do we deal with a hard border.
There is no middle ground here. If there is a backstop, there's an open border. If there is no backstop, there's a hard border. The backstop cannot be allowed to end unless and until a longer term solution (trade agreement) is figured out to keep an open border. That requires negotiation with the other side of the border - that being Ireland and the EU. The UK ending it without negotiating with the other side isn't a secure promise for an open border at all.0 -
-
Thats old ground. I thought we had accepted that there were at least four perspectives on GFA - all of which have potential substance
1) No backstop contravenes GFA
2)Backstop in place contravenes GFA
3) both contravene GFA
4)neither contravene GFA
I was trying to move beyond that and asking would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop. I could also accept an NI vote releasing us.
Delving into your suggestion of a plebiscite in relation to the backstop. Why do you want to limit this to citizens of the UK or NI only? Citizens of Ireland and the rest of the EU would be affected by this also. Surely their voice should be heard too?0 -
How would you guys feel about this.
TMs deal but with the option of UK getting out of backstop in the future provided people agreed it in UK referendum. Would that help?
So esentially a 2nd Ref.
What a great idea. But why not start with the deal that is on the table. Let the public vote for the way it is now. Or no deal. Or remain.0 -
There is no middle ground here. If there is a backstop, there's an open border. If there is no backstop, there's a hard border. The backstop cannot be allowed to end unless and until a longer term solution (trade agreement) is figured out to keep an open border. That requires negotiation with the other side of the border - that being Ireland and the EU. The UK ending it without negotiating with the other side isn't a secure promise for an open border at all.
Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.
I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?0 -
Advertisement
-
- A non member country, not subject to regulations, wants to import into the EU which has a standardised set of regulations. How else can the EU protect its market.
- FOM into the UK.
Why do you think their would not be a need for a hard border?
BTW nice shifting of the goalposts away from having to explain why the backstop is against the will of the people, when they never were asked0 -
would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop.
Would it satisfy you if that vote for whole of the UK could included the option of moving the border to the Irish Sea?
If not, then no, it wouldn't be enough to give leave the decision only in the hands of UK voters - it'd have to be all of us in the EU too.0 -
Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.
I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?
you've skipped past my question
I'll ask again
We know what you don't want - but let's hear your ideasWhat is your plan to deliver a frictionless border on this island?
Or would you prefer to forego trade with the EU?0 -
The fundamental problem here is the UK is trying to renege on a deal already done!
The WA is not some opening negotiating position.
It's what has been negotiated.
This is why the EU won't reopen it.0 -
NI hauliers are already being refused ECMT permits, which would cover a no-deal Brexit:
http://twitter.com/Freight_NI/status/10947127081366650880 -
Advertisement
-
You are demanding it, but threatening to close it at the same time. I don't get it
Why do you think we need a legally binding guarantee? The border becomes hard if there is no agreement in place to keep it open. In what reality can we keep the border open if there is no agreement that allows that to happen?
Do you think the border will remain open if there is no provision for an open border in an agreement? It will not! That is why we need the backstop. You are suggesting that there should be an agreement without specific provision for an open border, or that the provision for an open border can be nulified should it suit one side. Why should we accept that? Its not good enough.
We need a legally binding agreement that keeps the border open, regardless of what else happens in trade negiotiations. Your government is obliged to do this under the GFA and has committed to doing this several times over the past two years. We will accept nothing less.0 -
-
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »The fundamental problem here is the UK is trying to renege on a deal already done!
The WA is not some opening negotiating position.
It's what has been negotiated.
This is why the EU won't reopen it.
Exactly and the only thing that there's an 'agreed' position on in the UK right now is what they all don't want.
That's just not good enough at this stage.
How anyone in the UK is still holding out for the EU to tear up its own 27 member agreed position to solve the UK's own self imposed deadlock is beyond me..0 -
You and almost everybody else here are looking at this through anti-UK goggles.Skelet0n wrote:Can you please stop framing your bizarre “let’s give the U.K. everything they want†argument as if it’s pro-Irish? How you can see what the EU have done for us and think that must involve an incredible amount of mental gymnastics, be careful you don’t damage your brain.
I'm looking at it through the eyes of an ordinary hard working Irish man, member or citizen of the EU.
I don't want hardship brought upon me again. I don't want to be in the situation that I don't have a pot to p in. We've went through that, things still aren't that great.
The EU is who I'm looking at to prevent that from happening, not the idiots in government in the UK.0 -
-
thank you, this is very helpful.- A non member country, not subject to regulations, wants to import into the EU which has a standardised set of regulations. How else can the EU protect its market.
- FOM into the UK.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.
Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?
I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?0 -
No i haven't been to Switzerland and I have not been through the Eurotunnel. Would you be suggesting something like the current hard border between EU mainland and the British Isles?CelticRambler wrote: »Same as they have at the Eurotunnel terminal, or on any of the motorways that cross the EU-Swiss border. I presume you're familar with them ...0 -
You and almost everybody else here are looking at this through anti-UK goggles.Skelet0n wrote:Can you please stop framing your bizarre “let’s give the U.K. everything they want†argument as if it’s pro-Irish? How you can see what the EU have done for us and think that must involve an incredible amount of mental gymnastics, be careful you don’t damage your brain.
I'm looking at it through the eyes of an ordinary hard working Irish man, member or citizen of the EU.
I don't want hardship brought upon me again. I don't want to be in the situation that I don't have a pot to p in. We've went through that, things still aren't that great.
The EU is who I'm looking at to prevent that from happening, not the idiots in government in the UK.
This is what the WA seeks to achieve. They can't force the UK to sign an agreement.
The WA keeps up trade and it keeps the border open. It is in fact one of two suggestions made so far that manages that (the second being the backstop only applies to NI).
It is hard to give ground when you don't know what the other side wants (except for the right to impose a hard border at a whim which causes difficulties for us already gone through and we don't know if it would actually get through Parliament in any case).
If the EU had the ability to force an agreement or mindread what the UK wants I could understand your view but there are limits to their power here (quite rightly but still has issues for us).0 -
thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.
Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?
I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?
Riddle me this, how does a UK border allowing free movement of people square the "taking back control of our borders" mantra that's so prominent in Brexit ideology?0 -
downcow wrote:I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?
"More challenging" is a nice way to put it. It is the fundamental issue and it would be helpful if you could grasp that. The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.0 -
Advertisement
-
I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?
There isn't a single person on this thread who is going to seriously discuss that with you. We might discuss it and be interrupted by inanity, but that's a different story.0 -
Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.
I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?
Happy to oblige. First off: a 'hard border' generally means a border like most others. There will have to be facilities to check vehicles crossing the border for their contents. Customs checks, essentially. Fortunately it shouldn't effect your average joe, because the Common Travel Area should still apply and so John Doe can still travel South/North to visit family. This will only work for individuals, and they will still be heavily effected. Why will they be effected? Well....
There will likely be considerable traffic delays from the enormous amount of commercial traffic that crosses the border every day. We're talking in the region of almost 7,000 vans and almost 6,000 trucks per day. Figures found here
As to why this would be required:
Contrary to what a lot of people say, there is no specific rule among the World Trade Organisation's laws that say countries must put up borders between each other, HOWEVER the WTO has a rule known as the "Most favoured Nation" (which is a horrible misnomer, in my opinion). This is essentially a non-discrimination rule for members of the WTO. It means that the UK cannot give favourable treatment to one nation over others outside of mutually agreed upon trade agreements (this is why such agreements are very difficult to negotiate and take a long time. The EU's recent trade deal with Singapore took eight years to complete).
This would mean: Outside of any existing trade agreements (which the UK has none of currently), the UK must treat all nations equally per WTO rules. While the WTO cannot force a nation to do anything, it does act as a kind of 'court' for member nations. If one of the other members takes issue with how the UK is handling its borders, then they are liable to face legal repercussions and trade sanctions from other WTO members.
As an example, let's assume a no-deal brexit happens.- We assume the EU and Ireland put up tariff and regulation checks on its side of the border. Since the EU is treating the UK the same way it treats other nations it does not have Free Trade Agreements with, nobody in the WTO has a legal justification to make a complaint. They can try, but they'd not get anywhere.
- Let us also assume the UK does not. Their side of the border is 'open'. As such there are no customs checks to goods coming into the UK across the irish border.
- The USA takes issue with this. "Hey now," they say, "why are Irish apples allowed into the UK without being checked and tariffed, but our apples are? You don't have any trade deals with the EU, we want to lodge a complaint."
- Russia also takes issue. "Irish electronics face no checks, but ours do? We want to lodge a complaint."
- The UK is now facing two comlaints at the international level. And they will lose that case because they have broken the Most Favoured Nation rule by allowing Irish/EU goods into the UK without any checks. They have two options.
- A hard border goes up in Northern Ireland. Customs checks are in place just like for every other nations. This is what the UK and EU want to avoid using the backstop.
- The UK leaves all its borders open. No tariffs, no regulation checks. No customs of any kind. They risk flooding their market with cheaper, lower quality goods from other nations. China has a lower working wage = cheaper products. America has lower food standards = cheaper products.
In the latter case (completely open borders) the UK's internal market cannot compete with free and open trade with the rest of the world. They must either lower the average working wage (to compete with nations where the average wage is incredibly low), or lower their health and safety standards to compete with nations where H&S standards are low/non-existent.
In short, completely open borders would be a disaster for the UK's economy. That's why no nation in the world has completely open borders - they all have agreements with one another, or trade on WTO terms.
Hope that clarified the need for a border or a backstop.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14435
thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.
Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?
If there is no border on this island , how then does the UK stop all of the Non-Irish EU Residents from travelling to Ireland as they are fully entitled to do and then simply strolling over the border into NI and the UK ?
The UK does not want FOM - To enforce that , they need a border.
Comes back to the Red lines that HMGOV refuse to consider changing.I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?
Again - If there's no border on the Island of Ireland and the UK does lots of shiny new trade deals with the rest of the world that happen to include Products that do not meet EU Quality/Safety standards , or which enter the UK under different tariff terms than those that apply to the EU.
How then does the EU protect the integrity of it's Products and/or it's industries if those illegal or under-tariffed products can simply be driven over the border and into the EU supply chain?
Again - All about those Red lines - If the UK remained in the SM/CU , then the above isn't an issue for the latter and if they agreed to FOM then the former isn't an issue.
But , because of the UK's "Red Lines" , both of the above are problems..
So , to leave the EU , there are 3 pathways from here.
1 - Shift on the red lines and remain in the SM/CU and retain FOM
2 - Negotiate a new deal with the EU that resolves the above issues (with the back-stop addressing those issues until such time as said new deal is completed). That new deal could very well include an "Irish sea border" , but that's for the negotiations.
Or
3 - Crash out HARD and have a border between NI and Ireland with all the potential fall-out that that likely brings.
Those are the choices , there are no others. It's as simple as that.0 -
"More challenging" is a nice way to put it. It is the fundamental issue and it would be helpful if you could grasp that. The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.
I only put it in there as it shows the hypocrisy of the UK position.
FOM was a central tenet of the leave campaign, but now they all seem happy to leave the border completely unmanned and open.
In terms of products, it is THE issue. Not an issue. How can the EU possibly be sure that the products crossing the border meet the required standards. The UK have already stated that they no longer will have the same regulations.
So the default is a hard border. The EU tried, given the unique nature of NI to find a way around this problem, and TM came up with the backstop. The EU then conceded a UK wide backstop to meet TM's demands.
But again, the default is a hard border, just as it is in every other 3rd country. You seem to think that a hard border is being imposed. It isn't. Hard border is the natural consequence of leaving the CU/SM. The EU has worked to try and make up a situation to remove this default, which was agreed by TM and her cabinet before she threw it back at their faces.
So now it is up to the UK to come to an 'alternative solution'.
You have bought into the nonsense that the EU are going to impose a border. Regardless of who actually builds it, it is due to a decision of the UK that has changed the dynamic.
Since you are so tied to the will of the people, would you think it proper that the UK be asked if they agree to a backstop. If not, then they are voting for a hard border, if yes they are accepting the GFA.0 -
Riddle me this, how does a UK border allowing free movement of people square the "taking back control of our borders" mantra that's so prominent in Brexit ideology?
That is one circle I have no problem squaring.
Clearly, illegal immigration will continue at a certain level, the super-hard borders on the Mediterranean and indeed between northern France and the British Isles clearly demonstrate that a certain number of legal immigrants (non-EU)will always get through.
Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?
Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc. after Brexit they will become illegal immigrants entitled to none of this (of course not the ones already here).
Therefore there will be little attraction to coming into the UK and the hard borders for the movement of people will remain where they are at northern France.
People from Ireland and UK can freely move backwards and forwards across the Irish border and indeed the Irish Sea i.e. Dublin Holyhead..
Is that a reasonable position to take up on the movement of people, and do you have any problem with it?0 -
Maciej the Polish plumber lives in the UK. He's legal and has his own business their. Maciej's younger brothers come of age and go to work illegally in GB for their brother.thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.
Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?
I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?
At British airports the brother's movements into the UK can be tracked. So they fly to Dublin where they have FoM and can come and go as they please and then simply take a trip over the border and a domestic UK flight from Belfast.0 -
I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed.
There have been a couple of years of serious discussion on how it can be managed, and there are several suggestions:
1) The Backstop.
2) A Hard Border.
3) Some sort of technology that has not been invented yet.
4) No Brexit.
There have been articles in the newspapers and bits on TV all about the issue, I'm surprised you didn't catch any of the coverage, it has been quite a big deal.0 -
Happy to oblige. First off: a 'hard border' generally means a border like most others. There will have to be facilities to check vehicles crossing the border for their contents. Customs checks, essentially. Fortunately it shouldn't effect your average joe, because the Common Travel Area should still apply and so John Doe can still travel South/North to visit family. This will only work for individuals, and they will still be heavily effected. Why will they be effected? Well....
There will likely be considerable traffic delays from the enormous amount of commercial traffic that crosses the border every day. We're talking in the region of almost 7,000 vans and almost 6,000 trucks per day. Figures found here
As to why this would be required:
Contrary to what a lot of people say, there is no specific rule among the World Trade Organisation's laws that say countries must put up borders between each other, HOWEVER the WTO has a rule known as the "Most favoured Nation" (which is a horrible misnomer, in my opinion). This is essentially a non-discrimination rule for members of the WTO. It means that the UK cannot give favourable treatment to one nation over others outside of mutually agreed upon trade agreements (this is why such agreements are very difficult to negotiate and take a long time. The EU's recent trade deal with Singapore took eight years to complete).
This would mean: Outside of any existing trade agreements (which the UK has none of currently), the UK must treat all nations equally per WTO rules. While the WTO cannot force a nation to do anything, it does act as a kind of 'court' for member nations. If one of the other members takes issue with how the UK is handling its borders, then they are liable to face legal repercussions and trade sanctions from other WTO members.
As an example, let's assume a no-deal brexit happens.- We assume the EU and Ireland put up tariff and regulation checks on its side of the border. Since the EU is treating the UK the same way it treats other nations it does not have Free Trade Agreements with, nobody in the WTO has a legal justification to make a complaint. They can try, but they'd not get anywhere.
- Let us also assume the UK does not. Their side of the border is 'open'. As such there are no customs checks to goods coming into the UK across the irish border.
- The USA takes issue with this. "Hey now," they say, "why are Irish apples allowed into the UK without being checked and tariffed, but our apples are? You don't have any trade deals with the EU, we want to lodge a complaint."
- Russia also takes issue. "Irish electronics face no checks, but ours do? We want to lodge a complaint."
- The UK is now facing two comlaints at the international level. And they will lose that case because they have broken the Most Favoured Nation rule by allowing Irish/EU goods into the UK without any checks. They have two options.
- A hard border goes up in Northern Ireland. Customs checks are in place just like for every other nations. This is what the UK and EU want to avoid using the backstop.
- The UK leaves all its borders open. No tariffs, no regulation checks. No customs of any kind. They risk flooding their market with cheaper, lower quality goods from other nations. China has a lower working wage = cheaper products. America has lower food standards = cheaper products.
In the latter case (completely open borders) the UK's internal market cannot compete with free and open trade with the rest of the world. They must either lower the average working wage (to compete with nations where the average wage is incredibly low), or lower their health and safety standards to compete with nations where H&S standards are low/non-existent.
In short, completely open borders would be a disaster for the UK's economy. That's why no nation in the world has completely open borders - they all have agreements with one another, or trade on WTO terms.
Hope that clarified the need for a border or a backstop.
Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?
That's a very specific question, almost as if you read in the Express that there is such a clause but no longer trust them to be telling the truth.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement