Irish Border and Brexit

demfad · 22-09-2017 09:12AM

knipex wrote: »

So an semi independent NI with its own laws, budget, healthcare system, social welfare rates etc but with the Republic and EU picking up the tab and overall responsibility for the inevitable political mess ??

The North has had almost 20 years to sort out its economy and had the good will (and purse) of the US, EU, the UK and the Republic.. (particularly in the early stages) yet its still massively dependent on PS for employment, has a crumbling infrastructure and runs a massive deficit.

I think the point is that the structure now doesn't work. They can't compete with the Republic (on the same Island but different juristiction) and can't compete with GB (same juristiction but different Island). No amount of friendly plasters can fix this.

breatheme · 22-09-2017 10:14AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there may be two issues gettting confused here.

For migration purposes, a border in the Irish sea makes a lot of sense (though it would piss off Unionists no end).

For trade/customs purposes, however, it would be far, far more disruptive to Northern Ireland to have a customs border with Great Britain than to have a customs border with the Republic, NI does vastly more trade with GB than with RoI. For that reason it's probably not a flier.

I haven't seen what Newton Emerson in saying, but my guess is that his comments refer to a migration/travel border.

No, he was talking about a trade/customs border and refered to it as a 'light touch border' whatever that means.

We will probably hear more in Florence today.

Can we have such a model: Free movement of people between Ireland and NI, and free movement of goods between NI and GB?
It would be interesting if it came to a referendum again, in NI: What do you prefer? Open border with Ireland, but sea border with the UK? Open border with the UK, but land border with Ireland? Check one, please.
But you are right, Florence will be interesting.

Peregrinus · 22-09-2017 10:27AM

breatheme wrote: »

Can we have such a model: Free movement of people between Ireland and NI, and free movement of goods between NI and GB?

Yeah, we can.

On goods, it would be a reversion to the situation before the single market was constructed in the 1990s - a goods border between the RoI and NI, but no restrictions at all on trade between NI and GB.

On people, we had a Common Travel Area which meant free movement between RoI and NI. There were security checks, but no migration checks.

So the only additional element would be migration checks between NI and GB. And while that would, I acknowlege, piss people off, in practical terms it would be feasible; there's a limited number of ports and airports, and experience, policy, technologies etce for applying migration controls at ports and airports already exist, and could be extended to cover NI/GB routes.

Some of us are old enough to remember the old Prevention of Terrorism regulations under which people in NI could be banned from entering GB. That only worked because it was in fact feasible to police and control movements between NI and GB.

Charles Babbage · 22-09-2017 10:39AM

Peregrinus wrote:

For trade/customs purposes, however, it would be far, far more disruptive to Northern Ireland to have a customs border with Great Britain than to have a customs border with the Republic, NI does vastly more trade with GB than with RoI. For that reason it's probably not a flier.

This is a lazy statement. The effect of a customs border is not primarily the volume of trade but the nature of that trade.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK's priorities here will be (1) the interests of England (3) the interests of Great Britain (3) the interests of Northern Ireland, in that order. The interests of RoI will not feature at all, and a solution which puts the interests of RoI over those of NI will not find favour either in Belfast or in London.
.

The ROI in general will do reasonably OK either way. It is NI that will suffer, most of NI is an hour from the border and trade disruption could be enormous and the political settlement would collapse with all sorts of unforseeable consequences.

Not very nice, but feasible. More feasible than a migration-and-customs border at Stranraer.

A customs border is more feasible at Stranrear than Strabane, if only because any given delay on a 5 hour journey has less effect than a similar delay on a one hour journey.

blanch152 · 22-09-2017 11:09AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a lazy statement. The effect of a customs border is not primarily the volume of trade but the nature of that trade.

The ROI in general will do reasonably OK either way. It is NI that will suffer, most of NI is an hour from the border and trade disruption could be enormous and the political settlement would collapse with all sorts of unforseeable consequences.

A customs border is more feasible at Stranrear than Strabane, if only because any given delay on a 5 hour journey has less effect than a similar delay on a one hour journey.

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

jm08 · 22-09-2017 12:11PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

Do you have a figure for the actual exports to the rest of the UK from Northern Ireland? The nature of these exports would be useful as well - agricultural products would be more difficult to deal with than exporting machinery or buildings stuffs (Kingspan stuff) for example.

edit: as well as that, food tend to have much higher tariffs than machinery, cars etc.

demfad · 22-09-2017 12:33PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

Northern Ireland as a part of the UK does most trade there, that is a given.
Therefore there will be an initial 'wrench' affect from leaving a single customs area or market with the UK.
The hoped for destination of such a move would be a situation similar to the rest of Ireland: Less dependence on GB, more trade with Ireland and rest of EU.
With that in mind one needs to look at the medium to long term prospects of such a move and how it would be possible to transition while minimizing this wrenching affect.

Why bother?
Because the GFA must be respected, EU citizens rights in NI must be respected (potentially all citizens even after Brexit).
The EUs position:

It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that its approach to the challenges of the Irish border in the context of its withdrawal from the European Union takes into account and protects the very specific and interwoven political, economic, security, societal and agricultural context and frameworks on the island of Ireland.

As the Tories red-line on CU/SM rules the obvious solution out for now the imaginative solution has the border in the Irish sea.

FrancieBrady · 22-09-2017 12:51PM

I said earlier that in the interests of stability an imaginative solution needed to be found.

The future of the island cannot be messed with for solely fiscal reasons.
All things considered it is great to see this solution emerging if N Emerson is correct.
The unionists are typically in Never Never Never mode already.

fash · 22-09-2017 03:55PM

Whatever about Northern Ireland, what will Gibraltar do? Both small AND far away...

Charles Babbage · 22-09-2017 04:00PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland suffers either way, however a customs border down the Irish Sea would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland as most of its trade is with the rest of the UK.

A typically deaf response to my comment about the character of trade rather than the volume being the more important. It is the degree to which the trade is subject to restriction that defines the problem.

Junkyard Tom · 22-09-2017 04:43PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A typically deaf response to my comment about the character of trade rather than the volume being the more important. It is the degree to which the trade is subject to restriction that defines the problem.

It'd be interesting to know alright and I wonder if the north's over-sized public sector is worked into the figures to help boost their impact.

I just had a look at the north's biggest manufacturers and they're nearly all foreign-owned with Bombardier being the largest engineering employer. Bombardier is a multinational aerospace business that makes wings for the C-series which is assembled in Canada.

Another huge employer is Moy Park which makes meat products - I wonder how much of that meat has an artificially low cost due to EU subsidies and what volume of meat products go to EU destinations.

There should be a comprehensive investigation into how much of the north's productive employment depends on the EU.

The Rape of Lucretia · 22-09-2017 08:58PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said earlier that in the interests of stability an imaginative solution needed to be found.

Surely May gave the answer on this one today which is that there will be an internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The 'immaginative' solutions line of old was the same thing, but they didnt get away with leaving it that vague so as not to antogonise the unionists.

Quite yet. But that 'magical thinking' line was simply too vague for the EU and Ireland, and today she was forced into saying there will be no physical border. So it will be internal.
The EU knows what she means, and in fact, I think she will have satisfied them sufficiently on this point despite some of the reports. It was a speech of coded indications, and they understand the careful line she has to tread.
But it is not time yet to break this one out explicitly given that there will be uproar in the north - but it will be part of the price being paid, and the rest of the UK wont care either way. The EU and Eire will get the solution they want on this one - its just not important enough for the vaste majority of the UK not to be will to trade off.

Jim2007 · 22-09-2017 10:52PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

But it is not time yet to break this one out explicitly given that there will be uproar in the north - but it will be part of the price being paid, and the rest of the UK wont care either way. The EU and Eire will get the solution they want on this one - its just not important enough for the vaste majority of the UK not to be will to trade off.

Wishful thinking, the EU has been very clear that it will not negotiate in secret and rightly so as it gives the U.K. politicians the chance to paint it their way. Any movement will be in public, documented and agreed upon.

Jim2007 · 22-09-2017 10:59PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Choosing a customs border with the UK rather than with the South is like choosing to be shot in the head because you think you have a better chance of surviving than being shot in the leg. Both are serious, but the shot to the head will likely kill you.

From what I've read it seems that that fasted route especially for perishables is via Dublin, so this will be a problem anyway.

Junkyard Tom · 22-09-2017 11:08PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

she was forced into saying there will be no physical border

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

The Rape of Lucretia · 22-09-2017 11:14PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

Thats the fudge that was a blur too far for the EU - there is non such thing as a virtual border. That was the 'magical' thinking.
I do think she gave enough to the EU/Barnier today in this particular topic (it was possibly the only one though - elsewhere she gave little or nothing I think), in order to progress talks on other topics that are more important to the UK overall, that flags an internal border, but that it will be a last minute thing - part of the last minute of the last day desperate price that had to be paid kind of thing to sign off on the Brexit package. And it will be too late for the north to make a fuss that can have any effect.

Junkyard Tom · 22-09-2017 11:35PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And it will be too late for the north to make a fuss that can have any effect.

If there are extra controls between the north/Ireland and Britain nationalists won't give a damn - Unionists might but then they should accept that it is a consequence of the mess they helped create.

If Ireland becomes the roadblock for Brexit (and that's how the British will see it) Unionists will learn, the hard way, that they're way down the pecking-order when it comes to British interests.

If anything Britain has a golden opportunity to rid itself of its oldest and most costly/troublesome colony.

Jim2007 · 23-09-2017 10:09AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That doesn't rule out a 'virtual border' whatever the hell that might be. If there must be a border let it be a British border in Ireland and let the British manage it and its consequences.

That simply is not possible. We cannot have a situation where substandard products, grey imports, GMO foodstuff, chlorinated chicken etc to freely enter the EU via Ireland. It is both a consumer issue and employment issue.

Either the UK remains in the customs union and complies with EU standards or there will have to be a hard border. And that border will have to be regulated on our side regardless of what the UK does.

Switzerland is not in a customs union with the EU although it does have limited single market access, but if fully complies with EU standards and requires the same in it's other trade deals. That is the only reason it works. If the UK were to enter into a similar agreement it would work too, but TM has already ruled that out.

jm08 · 23-09-2017 06:38PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

That simply is not possible. We cannot have a situation where substandard products, grey imports, GMO foodstuff, chlorinated chicken etc to freely enter the EU via Ireland. It is both a consumer issue and employment issue.

Either the UK remains in the customs union and complies with EU standards or there will have to be a hard border. And that border will have to be regulated on our side regardless of what the UK does.

Switzerland is not in a customs union with the EU although it does have limited single market access, but if fully complies with EU standards and requires the same in it's other trade deals. That is the only reason it works. If the UK were to enter into a similar agreement it would work too, but TM has already ruled that out.

It won't happen. Somone from the IFA was saying over the last few days that all Brazilian beef is tested (no random testing) before it is allowed enter the EU, so I'd imagine the same would have to happen with food coming into the EU from NI/UK. Irish farmers will demand that (well supported by the fairly militant French farmers).

Jim2007 · 23-09-2017 11:53PM

jm08 wrote: »

It won't happen. Somone from the IFA was saying over the last few days that all Brazilian beef is tested (no random testing) before it is allowed enter the EU, so I'd imagine the same would have to happen with food coming into the EU from NI/UK. Irish farmers will demand that (well supported by the fairly militant French farmers).

That is exactly my point in response to the original OP in his proposal to leave supervision of the border to the U.K. It simply is not possible to have no physical border unless the U.K. is in compliance with EU standards.

breatheme · 24-09-2017 11:41AM

Borders are supervised by both sides. E.g. The US/Canada border.

FrancieBrady · 24-09-2017 12:08PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

That is exactly my point in response to the original OP in his proposal to leave supervision of the border to the U.K. It simply is not possible to have no physical border unless the U.K. is in compliance with EU standards.

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

murphaph · 24-09-2017 01:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

The only solution is for the UK to remain in the customs union and single market. Or for NI to secede from the UK and join the RoI. Neither seems likely with the present government.

I think the Irish problem is so difficult to solve that it could be the reason the negotiations fail and the government falls.

oscarBravo · 24-09-2017 01:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.

The problem with that approach is that "no deal" necessarily requires a hard border on the island.

FrancieBrady · 24-09-2017 02:22PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with that approach is that "no deal" necessarily requires a hard border on the island.

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

A con job in other words and we should not fall for it.

Lemming · 24-09-2017 03:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

It's not a con job; they're just fools. There is nobody in the cabinet saying "what happens to Northern Ireland if x, y, or z happens?". Just like nobody in the cabinet said anything when they collectively threw Gibraltar under the proverbial bus. Neither territory even registers on their radar.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

oscarBravo · 24-09-2017 06:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think their talk of not fearing a 'no deal" scenario to be bluster and brinkmanship.
It is either that or they are fools.

A con job in other words and we should not fall for it.

That's all very well, but it was you who proposed "no deal" as one of the options on order - which is fine, but understand the consequences of what you're proposing.

Jim2007 · 24-09-2017 06:36PM

murphaph wrote: »

The only solution is for the UK to remain in the customs union and single market. Or for NI to secede from the UK and join the RoI.

Not at all we already have precedence for parts of a country to remain in the customs union while other parts to do not. Admittedly not as big as NI, but examples:
- Büsingen am Hochrhein
- Campione d'Italia

FrancieBrady · 24-09-2017 06:50PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all we already have precedence for parts of a country to remain in the customs union while other parts to do not. Admittedly not as big as NI, but examples:
- Büsingen am Hochrhein
- Campione d'Italia

Yes. And the solution doesn't have to have a precedent. We have to keep telling them that is the very essence of creativity, innovation and imagination.

blanch152 · 24-09-2017 07:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point is that we should strongly resist the imposition of any border infrastructure on the island.

Is that because

(1) We want to allow chlorinated chicken and GM beef into the EU via the back door, or

(2) We want to allow cheap shopping for alcohol in Newry, or

(3) We want to stimulate Slab Murphy's smuggling business to provide funds for good republicans?

All those three things will happen unless we police our side of the border.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

May talked about 'creativity, innovation and imagination' in Florence and we have to hold the UK to that.
Come up with a creative, imaginative, innovative solution that will work or no deal.
Thankfully, so far, that seems to be the position of Ireland and the EU.

Our position should be that if the UK wants no border, it stays in the custom union and the single market. If they don't we will have to put border infrastructure in place but the UK should pay.

Irish Border and Brexit

Comments