Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

I am fairly much in agreement with you. I heard to put up the situation for a few years also, but I cannot tolerate an indefinite situation

OK, fine. So what is the way out of it.

What is going to happen after a 'few years' that cannot happen now?

Is there something in the pipeline that you can guarantee will be feasible in a 'few years'?

And what if it isn't ready? Are you prepared to prolong the time until it is, or should we simply say feck it and pretend its ready?

VinLieger

Strazdas wrote: »

Something that is getting completely overlooked is that nobody on the island of Ireland wants a border of any description and the only reason one would be erected would be to keep the English nationalist Brexiteers happy. Even a 'technological' border would be a nuisance and very unpopular.

Brexiteers are talking as if a working technological border would be fine but it wouldn't be : it would be deeply resented by communities on both sides of the border.

Theres actually another very good reason a border would be erected and thats if the English(lets be honest they are the ones steering the ship, drunk as they are) decided to go no deal and then they signed the garbage US trade deal that will destroy their food and product safety standards meaning to protect our own markets and economic integrity we would need to check everything coming in.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

I am fairly much in agreement with you. I heard to put up the situation for a few years also, but I cannot tolerate an indefinite situation

But it won't be indefinite if the proposals being suggested via technology eventually come to pass. The only reason you would be worried is if you know these proposals were complete garbage (hint: they are) and in that case a no limit backstop is absolutely warranted.

breatheme

The UK are essentially saying they can solve the border issue but refusing to promise they can solve the border issue.

VinLieger

breatheme wrote: »

The UK are essentially saying they can solve the border issue but refusing to promise they can solve the border issue.

Exactly they are promising a solution but don't want to be held to their promise of a solution

Infini

downcow wrote: »

I am fairly much in agreement with you. I heard to put up the situation for a few years also, but I cannot tolerate an indefinite situation

Which means it's ultimately up to the UK to move its own behind and negotiate something to supercede it. The backstop is only indefinate as to stop the UK from unilaterally making things worse on this island without agreement. Remember the reason for it to begin with: They agree to something only to reject it the next. Diplomatically the UK has no trust and no diplomatic credibility which will get worse if they crash with no deal. The backstop will ultimately be replaced anyways once the UK agrees a replacement it's simply to stop the UK goverment screwing everyone on this island including yourself over for petty pride and ignorance.

Seth Brundle

So seemingly more half-truths from Westminster yesterday?

Arklow Shipping had numerous talks about ferry service but had ‘no formal agreement’...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wicklow-shipping-company-had-no-contract-with-uk-no-deal-brexit-firm-1.3789647

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

I am fairly much in agreement with you. I heard to put up the situation for a few years also, but I cannot tolerate an indefinite situation

I think you misunderstood me. If by "indefinite" you mean "no fixed timeline" then we're in disagreement. I would absolutely support an indefinite backstop were Ireland leaving the EU. If you set a time limit (say...5 years), and fail to reach an agreement by then?

Well now you've got a hard border anyway. The backstop only delayed it, it didn't prevent it.

There is a way for the backstop to only last "a few years", and that's for the UK and EU to negotiate a trade agreement after Brexit. But that has to be the cut off point, not some arbitrary date in the future, because if the backstop ends and there's no agreement in place then it will have failed and a hard border will exist.

Given that all parties have said a hard border is unacceptable, the backstop without a set "end date" is the only alternative.

10000maniacs

downcow wrote: »

So you have form. You are blaming Brexit it for everything currently. Not surprising as I see you are now claiming partition for being responsible for all the ills of Ireland. Of course the killing just started 100 years ago.

Unfortunately I cannot come back to you on this. I may already be in trouble because it seems remainders on here can distort history however they wish but dare I mention it

I am saying nothing of the sort. All I am saying is Brexit and partition are diametrically opposed. Both UK creations.

LeinsterDub

spacecoyote wrote: »

I've been seeing a lot of noise & conflicting info around the whole Article 24 thing. Could anyone clarify please?

I know that JRM & Forage are constantly on about it & how it would allow them to maintain tariff free trade post brexit.

But on the flip side of it, I've seen people stating that Article 24 only exists under GATT, and that the current WTO agreements supersede GATT, so technically it no longer exists, so is pointless to discuss at all as it cannot be used.

So, does anyone have a definitive on it? Is it just more ERG/UKIP codology, or is it a genuine piece of law which could be applied?

It's pure nonsense . It requires both sides to agree to it . Which the EU will not.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

locked into an international agreement that you know sizeable numbers of your citizens seriously dislike

NI is in favour of the backstop as far as we can tell. The Westminster rejection of T-May's deal is not conclusive on the backstop. The UK-wide backstop was a concession. The NI 'special status' offer was a total gift many regions could only dream of being granted.

downcow wrote: »

if we could accept that [goods] is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed.

Special status, as per above, was set to solve that issue but was rejected by the DUP.

johnnyskeleton

downcow wrote: »

Unfortunately I cannot come back to you on this. I may already be in trouble because it seems remainders on here can distort history however they wish but dare I mention it

Mod note:

You can debate history as long as it is relevant to the topic of Brexit, and it is based on real facts rather than deliberately untrue arguments that are designed to provoke anger in others rather than further the debate.

If you feel that another poster has distorted the facts in order to provoke anger rather than further the debate, please use the report post function, and do not comment on moderation on thread again.

Quin_Dub

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

NI is in favour of the backstop as far as we can tell. The Westminster rejection of T-May's deal is not conclusive on the backstop. The UK-wide backstop was a concession. The NI 'special status' offer was a total gift many regions could only dream of being granted.



Special status, as per above, was set to solve that issue but was rejected by the DUP.

This really is the crux of it..

The "Irish Sea Border" and giving NI Special status resolves all these issues.

Given that a majority of NI sales/shipments to Great Britain actually transit via Dublin they'd all have to get customs checked anyway.

In a hard border scenario they are now going to get checked twice - Once in Newry and again in Hollyhead.

Given that the CTA will still apply and nothing will change for the average person going back and forth from the island of Ireland and Great Britain the impact is on goods only.

A hard border in Ireland makes the transit of goods for NI shipments much worse in the majority on cases.

Are the DUP (and it is really ONLY the DUP right now) going to blow up their economy and risk a potential return to violence over having to make a concession to achieve something that they voted and campaigned for (despite their constituents not wanting it) ?

Igotadose

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

NI is in favour of the backstop as far as we can tell. The Westminster rejection of T-May's deal is not conclusive on the backstop. The UK-wide backstop was a concession. The NI 'special status' offer was a total gift many regions could only dream of being granted.

This is a good point. Say the WA is signed and the backstop goes into place. Then the UK can begin the lengthy task of negotiating its trade agreement with the EU.

During that time, due to the special relationship, NI thrives. What happens if near the end of the trade agreement discussion, NI decides it wants to stay in the backstop. Will Westminster impose the trade agreement no matter what? Could this force a border poll? I wonder if a lot of the anti-backstoppery coming out of Westminster is because the ERG types recognize the threat of NI realizing that being in the EU is, actually, a great thing.

breatheme

And the backstop explicitly stated that goods from NI would be labeled as UK(NI) and would be able to transit to the UK frictionlessly, and would also be able to be sold all over the EU.

So they keep their biggest market and second biggest market.

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This really is the crux of it..

The "Irish Sea Border" and giving NI Special status resolves all these issues.

Given that a majority of NI sales/shipments to Great Britain actually transit via Dublin they'd all have to get customs checked anyway.

In a hard border scenario they are now going to get checked twice - Once in Newry and again in Hollyhead.

Given that the CTA will still apply and nothing will change for the average person going back and forth from the island of Ireland and Great Britain the impact is on goods only.

A hard border in Ireland makes the transit of goods for NI shipments much worse in the majority on cases.

Are the DUP (and it is really ONLY the DUP right now) going to blow up their economy and risk a potential return to violence over having to make a concession to achieve something that they voted and campaigned for (despite their constituents not wanting it) ?

I cannot see that the CTA will continue into the ling term if UK crashes out. It was an agreement at a time of limited travel, and certainly never envisaged the ability of 500m to come freely into Ireland. And what if the UK signs a trade deal with India giving free access to the UK. Will we be able to cope if they make their way over here? And would the EU welcome such an influx, and wouldn't take take away from any future trade deals?

Immigration was a massive, maybe the largest, component of the Brexit vote. It is inconceivable that after the whole Brexit carry-on, a possible crash out and the economic impact that will have, that GB will just continue to accept the CTA and effectively allow FOM into NI.

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

Yes I remember being surprised at this when I drove from Andorra into Spain and having to open the boot so Spanish customs could check for cigarette smuggling. This added approx 5 mins to my journey in my rented Ford Focus. One can only imagine the chaos at Newry and Dover

5 minutes? :eek: I was stuck there for three hours! Thought my clutch was going to melt with the inching forwards every 15 seconds ... :mad:

Inquitus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I cannot see that the CTA will continue into the ling term if UK crashes out. It was an agreement at a time of limited travel, and certainly never envisaged the ability of 500m to come freely into Ireland. And what if the UK signs a trade deal with India giving free access to the UK. Will we be able to cope if they make their way over here? And would the EU welcome such an influx, and wouldn't take take away from any future trade deals?

Immigration was a massive, maybe the largest, component of the Brexit vote. It is inconceivable that after the whole Brexit carry-on, a possible crash out and the economic impact that will have, that GB will just continue to accept the CTA and effectively allow FOM into NI.

In practical terms whether the CTA is in place or not, if the UK insist on no checks between NI and the mainland, Ireland will be an easy backdoor for EU nationals to gain entry. As well all know it will never be possible to police the border sufficiently to stop people crossing, regardless of the CTA.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I cannot see that the CTA will continue into the ling term if UK crashes out. It was an agreement at a time of limited travel, and certainly never envisaged the ability of 500m to come freely into Ireland. And what if the UK signs a trade deal with India giving free access to the UK. Will we be able to cope if they make their way over here? And would the EU welcome such an influx, and wouldn't take take away from any future trade deals?

Immigration was a massive, maybe the largest, component of the Brexit vote. It is inconceivable that after the whole Brexit carry-on, a possible crash out and the economic impact that will have, that GB will just continue to accept the CTA and effectively allow FOM into NI.

The CTA only applies to Irish/UK passport holders right?

So Free movement to Ireland from the rest of the EU , or from a 3rd country that the UK does a deal with shouldn't really apply.

I do agree with your broader point though.. I think there is no doubt that the UK will look to make changes there in the future and possibly even the near future.

nemefuria

A lot is hinged on this backstop issue and I just can't envision any technology solutions, even future ones, that would bring about a frictionless border between two different trading blocs with a land border, i.e. while you can do away with a lot of infrastructure for law-abiding entities such as electronic declarations and checks away from border, physical border checks are unavoidable to address dishonest activities.

But what I'm wondering, and haven't heard a lot about, are the EU's argument that it doesn't want an indefinite backstop. Does the backstop have some negative ramifications for the EU that they'd like to see it gone as much as the UK? Are there any economic incentives for the EU to keep the backstop? I think the answers would go a long way to highlight how the backstop is a "concession" by the EU.

johnnyskeleton

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The CTA only applies to Irish/UK passport holders right?

It applies to the areas in terms of minimal checks, and immediately before Brexit there was mutual recognition of visas. The right to reside and work freely in the UK was a separate right. So a Chinese holder of an Irish visa can travel over to the UK and would be entitled to visit there, so long as it was in accordance with the terms of the visa.

So Free movement to Ireland from the rest of the EU , or from a 3rd country that the UK does a deal with shouldn't really apply.

It is unclear if the mutual recognition of each others' visas will continue. Likewise, they might impose stricter border controls and check passports. Currently, if you fly to Heathrow you can walk almost straight onto the tube without passing any officials. If you get the ferry over, they will typically waive you on without question. These might change.

I don't think they will change the right to freely work and reside in the UK for Irish nationals, or vice versa. If they did so it would mean that Republicans in the North who refuse to take UK passports would be unlawfully in the UK.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

5 minutes? :eek: I was stuck there for three hours! Thought my clutch was going to melt with the inching forwards every 15 seconds ... :mad:

That`s because you have a shifty look of "Bill Sykes" perhaps?;)

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. The plan, post-Brexit, is that EU citizens will enjoy visa-free access to the UK, just as they do now.



What they won't enjoy is a right of abode or a right to work. But they'll be able to enter the UK quite freely (as tourists or visitors or whatever) without any need to detour via Ireland.


Enforcing the ban on settling and working won't be done at the border, but through "in-country" controls. To take up a job, register for national insurance, register at a GP practice, put your kids in school, rent or buy a home, etc, etc, you'll have to prove your migration status by producing the appropriate residence visa/work permit/whatever.



There's all kinds of objections to this system, many of them starting with the word "Windrush" but nevertheless its what they intend to do. And, however bad it may be in other respects, it's not a system that will be seriously impaired by the ability of Poles to enter the UK via Ireland. The system allows for the fact that Poles can get in easily.

That's the "plan" but when they realise it's easy to bypass it there will be calls on the right to police the frontier with the EU. Right now they say they have no problem with an open border but that won't last.

The example I cited was not the Pole coming over looking for legitimate work. It was the guy coming over getting set up with a cash in hand job by one of his countrymen, as countless Irish did in the US.

The plan isn't for an open border at Heathrow. It's a controlled border where the details of EU visitors will be logged. They will know if you've been staying so long that it makes it suspicious. They will stop and question a Pole who according to records spends 50 weeks in the UK and 2 at home. But these controls can simply be bypassed via Belfast and Dublin. No records of any travel.

BonnieSituation

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It applies to the areas in terms of minimal checks, and immediately before Brexit there was mutual recognition of visas. The right to reside and work freely in the UK was a separate right. So a Chinese holder of an Irish visa can travel over to the UK and would be entitled to visit there, so long as it was in accordance with the terms of the visa.



It is unclear if the mutual recognition of each others' visas will continue. Likewise, they might impose stricter border controls and check passports. Currently, if you fly to Heathrow you can walk almost straight onto the tube without passing any officials. If you get the ferry over, they will typically waive you on without question. These might change.

I don't think they will change the right to freely work and reside in the UK for Irish nationals, or vice versa. If they did so it would mean that Republicans in the North who refuse to take UK passports would be unlawfully in the UK.

Having a passport is not a legal requirement to reside in the UK for its citizens. I mean, how could it be?

Irish citizenship is granted in addition to the automatic right to British citizenship. Passport holder or not.

downcow

I have never crossed between ROI and France but I have crossed many times between England and France. When I get the ferry Dover Calais, is this what you guys are referring to as a hard border? I am guessing that it is the same between Ireland and France and this is where my confusion is. It seems you are happy to have checks as you head into France but not as you head into the UK. Is this correct or am I misreading the situation?

Frank Bullitt

With all the acronyms flying about the place, I found this video a big help.

Also shows the complexities of the trade agreements that the UK will have to wrestle with, and also just how far behind they are on even starting that!

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

I have never crossed between ROI and France but I have crossed many times between England and France. When I get the ferry Dover Calais, is this what you guys are referring to as a hard border? I am guessing that it is the same between Ireland and France and this is where my confusion is. It seems you are happy to have checks as you head into France but not as you head into the UK. Is this correct or am I misreading the situation?

No that's not a hard border as you think it. That's a Schengen border.

So do not expect a post no deal Brexit border to look or function anything like a Schengen border.

Podge_irl

downcow wrote: »

I have never crossed between ROI and France but I have crossed many times between England and France. When I get the ferry Dover Calais, is this what you guys are referring to as a hard border? I am guessing that it is the same between Ireland and France and this is where my confusion is. It seems you are happy to have checks as you head into France but not as you head into the UK. Is this correct or am I misreading the situation?

Did they go through all your belongings to make sure you weren't bringing through certain items? Did you charge you duties or taxes for bringing through certain items? Did you see them opening up and inspecting the contents of every single truck that went through? Are there 300 ferry crossing points that range from Dover to a boreen with a rowboat at the end of it?

tuxy

downcow wrote: »

I have never crossed between ROI and France but I have crossed many times between England and France. When I get the ferry Dover Calais, is this what you guys are referring to as a hard border? I am guessing that it is the same between Ireland and France and this is where my confusion is. It seems you are happy to have checks as you head into France but not as you head into the UK. Is this correct or am I misreading the situation?

Is that a serious question?
France is in the EU you must know this right?
There is no hard border when crossing between EU countries, that's the main point of being in the EU.
A hard border would be like travelling from the U.S to Canada or from Greece to Turkey.
Any countries that do not have an agreement on the free movement of all goods and people.

France to Switzerland would be an example of a border that is harder than an EU border but softer than a full on hard border because of EFTA.

downcow

Everyone keep your hair on. Yes it was a serious question and I appreciate the answers. I interpret them to mean NO.