Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regardless of how brexit finally ends I don't think there will ever be a militarised border as that would be a focal point for terrorism..

A hard border is the default situation in law and was only avoided here because the EU and US threatened to turn the UK into an international pariah and properly cripple its economy if it reneged on the good Friday agreement.

Please explain how you would propose to impose a hard border (involving the same and in fact more intrusive checks than will take place in the Irish sea at/next to the border) on a resentful population who will attack any hard border infrastructure and personnel you install - without militarisation.
If you can explain how, you will no doubt be in-line for several Nobel prizes, so I would be most interested in knowing.

Silent Running

fash wrote: »

A hard border is the default situation in law and was only avoided here because the EU and US threatened to turn the UK into an international pariah and properly cripple its economy if it reneged on the good Friday agreement.

Please explain how you would propose to impose a hard border (involving the same and in fact more intrusive checks than will take place in the Irish sea at/next to the border) on a resentful population who will attack any hard border infrastructure and personnel you install - without militarisation.
If you can explain how, you will no doubt be in-line for several Nobel prizes, so I would be most interested in knowing.

In a hard border situation, militarisation just ups the ante in terms of violence levels. And suddenly we're back in the bad old days. Nobody wants that.

A hard border will not be re-established on a whim. Everyone knows the risks, and the punishment for getting it wrong.

fash

Silent Running wrote: »

In a hard border situation, militarisation just ups the ante in terms of violence levels. And suddenly we're back in the bad old days. Nobody wants that.

A hard border will not be re-established on a whim. Everyone knows the risks, and the punishment for getting it wrong.

Of course militarisation ups the ante - however how can you have a "hard" border without infrastructure? And how can you check stuff without people? And what will those people think if they are shot or otherwise attacked by a resentful population? Etc.
I.e. there is no way to introduce any significant border infrastructure without inevitable escalation - and such border infrastructure is the inevitable consequence of having dissimilar regulatory regimes.

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

A hard border is the default situation in law and was only avoided here because the EU and US threatened to turn the UK into an international pariah and properly cripple its economy if it reneged on the good Friday agreement.

Please explain how you would propose to impose a hard border (involving the same and in fact more intrusive checks than will take place in the Irish sea at/next to the border) on a resentful population who will attack any hard border infrastructure and personnel you install - without militarisation.
If you can explain how, you will no doubt be in-line for several Nobel prizes, so I would be most interested in knowing.

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

roosterman71

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

Seeing as one of the cornerstones of the EUs negotiating strategy for the WTA was to protect the GFA, it would be a monumental turnaround from them to then demand a border. And I suspect it would need unanimous support across the EU27, and IE would not agree

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

D'you know, I'm sure we've covered this point at least once before. :rolleyes: Do we really need to go over it again? :mad:

The WA is signed, sealed and delivered; the border-in-Ireland problem has been resolved. Let's move on to talking about whether or not it will serve as a good model for the future border between Scotland and England.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

By leaving the EU, the default position without an agreement would have been a hard border. There was very little made by the UK to ensure that this would not be an eventual outcome. Thankfully the WA proposed by the EU solved it and now the border (wet rather than hard) exists down the Irish sea.
As has been said above, let's see how they manage remaining separate from Scotland when they leave the UK

robinph

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Seems to me that no one in the UK/NI is in the least worried about Brexit at all.

Lots of very worried people.

But sod all can be done to fix things right now until a few more of the fools who bought into the idea realise what they have been sold and then get around to lynching the idiot architects of the whole mess. Can only really say "told you so" at this point and wait for people to recognise that.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

So wait a minute, you are saying that the UK imposed a military border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, murdered hundreds of innocent women and children - for ****s and giggles? They never really had to do it but just felt like it?
What kind of evil sick b*****ds are and were they?

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

D'you know, I'm sure we've covered this point at least once before. :rolleyes: Do we really need to go over it again? :mad:

The WA is signed, sealed and delivered; the border-in-Ireland problem has been resolved. Let's move on to talking about whether or not it will serve as a good model for the future border between Scotland and England.

I replied to fash who seemed under the impression someone would have military along a border between Ireland and NI which I cannot see the UK attempting to to in any situation and as you've pointed out this has been settled.I said I don't know whether Ireland might impose one if ordered to.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I replied to fash who seemed under the impression someone would have military along a border between Ireland and NI which I cannot see the UK attempting to to in any situation and as you've pointed out this has been settled.I said I don't know whether Ireland might impose one if ordered to.

I'll wait for you to respond to my more recent post. This will be fun...

Spanish Eyes

The UK media have totally ignored the Brexit issue for months now.

That's why it has been buried to the general population. Covid has overtaken Brexit and hidden it from public view.

There is no doubt in my mind anyway that Brexit is not high on the agenda anymore. It's done, and people shrug and get on with it now.

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

I'll wait for you to respond to my more recent post. This will be fun...

I thought you were trolling tbh,that`s why I did`nt respond.

RobMc59

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The UK media have totally ignored the Brexit issue for months now.

That's why it has been buried to the general population. Covid has overtaken Brexit and hidden it from public view.

There is no doubt in my mind anyway that Brexit is not high on the agenda anymore. It's done, and people shrug and get on with it now.

Even those of us who are interested have to sift through the garbage papers like the express puts out which seem to be referring to an alternative universe!

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I thought you were trolling tbh,that`s why I did`nt respond.

No - if you believe there is a way that the UK could do it - please explain why it never did it in the past (and instead murdered, raped, intimidated, oppressed etc. Irish people, women and children for several decades for ****s and giggles).

Seth Brundle

fash wrote: »

No - if you believe there is a way that the UK could do it - please explain why it never did it in the past (and instead murdered, raped, intimidated, oppressed etc. Irish people, women and children for several decades for ****s and giggles).

mod: maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

moon2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the UK would impose a hard border,I don't know whether Ireland would under instruction from Brussels.

Are you actually arguing that Ireland should refuse to honor it's international obligations because the UK may decide to abandon theirs? I really hope we do not end up in that situation.

As a direct result of multiple internationally recognised treaties there was no border required between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

EU membership was one cornerstone of this. The UK have pulled out of that agreement which created the potential for divergence, which in turn would create a border. The UK resolved this problem by negotiating the withdrawal treaty and signing it into law.

If the UK reneges on any of the remaining treaties which ensure a hard border isn't required, then there'll be a border.

If the UK turn a blind eye to this and fail to impose a border despite the incompatible divergence they created, then they'll fall afoul of yet more internationally recognised agreements, which in turn they will have to withdraw from or face the penalty associated with their actions.

In this hypothetical future where the UK have taken these actions, a request to "impose a hard border" would merely be a request for Ireland to abide by the treaties it has signed up to.

So, before we get to the inflammatory, and nonsensical, question of "will Ireland put up a border when Brussels tells it to", take into account everything which must go wrong before this request would even be made.

fash

Seth Brundle wrote: »

mod: maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

Of course- apologies. Do I understand correctly that the point and my question limited to the following is within bounds:
' if the brexiter (lie/) trope that "even outside the single market, the UK wouldn't have to put in place a manned/militarised border in Ireland and therefore wouldn't" were true, then the logical corollary is that the UK never really needed to put up a manned/militarised border in the first place. If anyone believes otherwise please explain the inconsistency in detail.

RobMc59

moon2 wrote: »

Are you actually arguing that Ireland should refuse to honor it's international obligations because the UK may decide to abandon theirs? I really hope we do not end up in that situation.

As a direct result of multiple internationally recognised treaties there was no border required between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

EU membership was one cornerstone of this. The UK have pulled out of that agreement which created the potential for divergence, which in turn would create a border. The UK resolved this problem by negotiating the withdrawal treaty and signing it into law.

If the UK reneges on any of the remaining treaties which ensure a hard border isn't required, then there'll be a border.

If the UK turn a blind eye to this and fail to impose a border despite the incompatible divergence they created, then they'll fall afoul of yet more internationally recognised agreements, which in turn they will have to withdraw from or face the penalty associated with their actions.

In this hypothetical future where the UK have taken these actions, a request to "impose a hard border" would merely be a request for Ireland to abide by the treaties it has signed up to.

So, before we get to the inflammatory, and nonsensical, question of "will Ireland put up a border when Brussels tells it to", take into account everything which must go wrong before this request would even be made.

I don't think anyone wants to see a hard border and as pointed out by Seth,there is already agreement for a an Irish sea border.The original post which speculated on a militarised border doesn't bare thinking about as it would be a catalyst for the return of terrorism.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to see a hard border and as pointed out by Seth,there is already agreement for a an Irish sea border.The original post which speculated on a militarised border doesn't bare thinking about as it would be a catalyst for the return of terrorism.

But you are saying that even without the single market, a militarised border is unnecessary - so why was there one?

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

But you are saying that even without the single market, a militarised border is unnecessary - so why was there one?

To normal law abiding citizens of Ireland and the UK there is no need for a militarised border-who knows how terrorist groups might react is another question and not for the brexit thread.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

To normal law abiding citizens of Ireland and the UK there is no need for a militarised border-who knows how terrorist groups might react is another question and not for the brexit thread.

So why did the British impose one in that case - and let's not forget that almost the moment they removed it, there was peace in Northern Ireland?

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

To normal law abiding citizens of Ireland and the UK there is no need for a militarised border-who knows how terrorist groups might react is another question and not for the brexit thread.

Well ... it kinda is, in that peaceful co-existence between the four-and-a-half countries of these islands was achieved in the context of EU membership. The terrorists were tamed on the back of what the Brexiters have referred to as a loss of sovereignty, i.e. we all signed up to something so much bigger than our parish, with common standards and regulations.

But now, the Brexiters have proclaimed that England must be a sovereign, independent nation and feck the rest of the world. As has been pointed out many times already, the DUP's enthusiastic support for a Mad Max Brexit has accelerated the prospect of a United Ireland; but also created the conditions for an increase in anti-English sentiment in Scotland and Wales. And thanks to Covid, we have gone beyond the hypothetical and seen soft borders put in place within the UK - very soft, admitedly, but when you have the Welsh police telling English sunbathers to go back to their own country, you can be sure that there will be citizens ready to take a more violent approach if/when the full effect of an English Brexit is force fed to Wales and Scotland.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well ... it kinda is, in that peaceful co-existence between the four-and-a-half countries of these islands was achieved in the context of EU membership. The terrorists were tamed on the back of what the Brexiters have referred to as a loss of sovereignty, i.e. we all signed up to something so much bigger than our parish, with common standards and regulations.

But now, the Brexiters have proclaimed that England must be a sovereign, independent nation and feck the rest of the world. As has been pointed out many times already, the DUP's enthusiastic support for a Mad Max Brexit has accelerated the prospect of a United Ireland; but also created the conditions for an increase in anti-English sentiment in Scotland and Wales. And thanks to Covid, we have gone beyond the hypothetical and seen soft borders put in place within the UK - very soft, admitedly, but when you have the Welsh police telling English sunbathers to go back to their own country, you can be sure that there will be citizens ready to take a more violent approach if/when the full effect of an English Brexit is force fed to Wales and Scotland.

Firstly,terrorism was tamed by the GFA and Wales voted for brexit.Regarding brexit,there are no advantages to leaving the EU,Britain was in a much stronger position and has lost prestige and influence as a result of leaving imo.
If a deal is worked out I do think the UK will remain united and probably kick on depending on the terms of the deal.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Firstly,terrorism was tamed by the GFA and Wales voted for brexit.Regarding brexit,there are no advantages to leaving the EU,Britain was in a much stronger position and has lost prestige and influence as a result of leaving imo.
If a deal is worked out I do think the UK will remain united and probably kick on depending on the terms of the deal.

I am still waiting for a response: why did the UK impose a military border if you say it was not necessary?

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

I am still waiting for a response: why did the UK impose a military border if you say it was not necessary?

I think if you ask 'Why did the UK go to war with Argentina over the Falklans/Malvinas islands in 1982?' which was a war, many thousands of miles from Portsmouth, that they nearly lost only for a defect in the French built Exocet missile, then you might have the answer.

Prior to the sinking of the Argentine ship "General Belgrano", while steaming away from the combat zone, with the loss of all lives on board, the British had intended to withdraw from the Falklans, but the Prime Minister of the day had an election to win. What is a short war to a politician?

I am sure there are many books on the subject that might give a better slant on the matter - just read more than the British view.

I would imagine if there was a NI border poll in England, then a United Ireland would be a certainty.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

I am still waiting for a response: why did the UK impose a military border if you say it was not necessary?

This is a bit of a red herring.

1. There was a militarised border in Ireland because of the security situation in NI.

2. The UK leaving the EU and the Single Market doesn't, in itself, necessitate a militarised border.

3. What it would require, if the UK failed or refused to enter into arrangements to avoid it, is a tax and regulatory border.

4. The consequences of this might conceivable lead to a deterioration in the political and security situation in NI that might, possibly, lead to a need for a security border. But that's not inevitable. Not, in my view, even likely.

5. Hopefully, we won't find out. The UK has entered to the Withdrawal Agreement, whose terms should avoid the need for a tax and regulatory bordeer in Ireland. People who are either idiots or who are cynics trying to appeal to idiots are calling for the UK to repudiate the Withdrawal Agreement, but I don't expect this to happen.

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a bit of a red herring.

1. There was a militarised border in Ireland because of the security situation in NI.

2. The UK leaving the EU and the Single Market doesn't, in itself, necessitate a militarised border.

3. What it would require, if the UK failed or refused to enter into arrangements to avoid it, is a tax and regulatory border.

4. The consequences of this might conceivable lead to a deterioration in the political and security situation in NI that might, possibly, lead to a need for a security border. But that's not inevitable. Not, in my view, even likely.

5. Hopefully, we won't find out. The UK has entered to the Withdrawal Agreement, whose terms should avoid the need for a tax and regulatory bordeer in Ireland. People who are either idiots or who are cynics trying to appeal to idiots are calling for the UK to repudiate the Withdrawal Agreement, but I don't expect this to happen.

I accept it is not strictly inevitable that a hard border is militarised. I also accept (assuming the UK does not renege on the WA and assuming that NI doesn't vote to align with the UK), that we are dealing with theory only.

What I am addressing however is the brexiter trope/taunt that "we in the UK won't impose a hard border, it is not necessary - it would be the evil EU that would force Ireland to do so".
If that statement were true (and of course it is not), then someone needs to explain why there was a hard and even militarised border prior to the single market (which they - as potentially represented here by RobMc) cannot.
The question then arises as to whether he is willing to admit that the natural consequences of the form of brexit sought would have been to impose a hard border (which in the context of NI almost certainly even if not strictly inevitably would result in a militarised border as a consequence of local actors deliberately targeting the UK state assets located close to the border to bring about that result).

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Firstly,terrorism was tamed by the GFA and Wales voted for brexit.Regarding brexit

Yes, terrorism was indeed tamed by the GFA - which was largely possible because both parties to the agreement were in the same regulatory environment, making notional arguments about flags and sovereignty irrelevant.

And yes, the English in Wales tipped the Welsh vote in favour of Brexit, but the support for Brexit in Wales has been on a downward slope ever since, and support for Welsh independence (WTF? :eek: ) on the rise.

If English sovereignty is worth fighting for, then the Brexiters can't argue that Scottish or English sovereignty isn't also worth the struggle.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, terrorism was indeed tamed by the GFA - which was largely possible because both parties to the agreement were in the same regulatory environment, making notional arguments about flags and sovereignty irrelevant.

And yes, the English in Wales tipped the Welsh vote in favour of Brexit, but the support for Brexit in Wales has been on a downward slope ever since, and support for Welsh independence (WTF? :eek: ) on the rise.

If English sovereignty is worth fighting for, then the Brexiters can't argue that Scottish or English sovereignty isn't also worth the struggle.

Your claim that the English tipped the Welsh vote is pretty bizarre and I`m surprised you would come out with something so strange.I don`t think I`ve ever heard anyone claim the EU was responsible for the GFA either.You have`nt been sampling one or two calvados in the afternoon sun have you?
Edit:don`t dis the sons of Glyndwr.:)