Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris · 18-11-2017 11:48AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Part of the problem (temporary, until there is a change of gov. Then they will not matter to the UK gov. like the rest of Ireland) with it is Unionist though. No point in trying to water that down.

We need to make it matter, like we have been doing.

Great, so all of the above definitely under the current lot and then continuing from decisions made by this lot under another government who may or may not be any better also dealing with an impossible situation. I'm very relieved!

I really don't see the Unionist connection to the points I made, and frankly, I think it is reaching. Can you refute any of the points I actually made, or see any problems at all that cannot be ascribed to mysterious Unionist sympathies? Merely that the DUP doesn't like it does not mean that there are no problems at all. I couldn't give a flying monkey's for what the DUP want, especially after they fecklessly abandoned NI to go play in Westminster. I do, however, care deeply about the practical implications to a decision that will fundamentally impact my country and home though.

FrancieBrady · 18-11-2017 11:59AM

Samaris wrote: »

Great, so all of the above definitely under the current lot and then continuing from decisions made by this lot under another government who may or may not be any better also dealing with an impossible situation. I'm very relieved!

I really don't see the Unionist connection to the points I made, and frankly, I think it is reaching. Can you refute any of the points I actually made, or see any problems at all that cannot be ascribed to mysterious Unionist sympathies? Merely that the DUP doesn't like it does not mean that there are no problems at all. I couldn't give a flying monkey's for what the DUP want, especially after they fecklessly abandoned NI to go play in Westminster. I do, however, care deeply about the practical implications to a decision that will fundamentally impact my country and home though.

I have already said it is the 'best of a bad job'.
I agree it is a mess either way.

ancapailldorcha · 18-11-2017 12:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree with what was reported on RTE last night. The alternative (Labour in government and dodging the bullet of Brexit blame without being seen to sell out the north) may be changing the DUP's mind. As I said they may get snookered on this.

The DUP are ideological zealots, they simply won't accept any disparity between NI and the mainland.

Labour are on the way in, it's happening. This is the first time in British history that any Northern Irish party has been anywhere near being a part of the government. This is the only scenario where NI is relevant in terms of government composition.

The current government will be unable to pass its deal. Everyone knows this. I fully expect another General Election in 2018.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-11-2017 12:13PM

Samaris wrote: »

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

A Canada deal for the UK means phyto sanitary checks at wherever the border is.

If the border is on land the Northern Ireland farmers will no longer be able to claim "I'm British but my cows are Irish"

Yes a sea border would affect trade between NI and the UK. But the UK has been going on about a magic invisible border with pre-certified companies so should be very easy for them to do.

A land border means a return to smuggling. Based on previous fuel smuggling and current carbon tax I'd guesstimate a Billion euro loss in duty between both governments.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Yes they are entitled to EU passports via the ROI.
And yes they are in the CTA.
Also there are checks on Air and Sea links across the Irish Sea. Also in the past the UK government has banned certain people from NI from travelling to GB.

Look at Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to see how these things actually work in practice.

Christy42 · 18-11-2017 12:20PM

A sea border would be best for Ireland.

It is a little late to be worrying about NI which will suffer regardless. The UK voted for economic suicide. Ireland should push for what is best for the Republic and let the UK deal with the mess of its own vote.

Yes I get some want a 32 county country but right now the government needs to do what is best for the citizens in the Republic that are it's constituents.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 12:52PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A Canada deal for the UK means phyto sanitary checks at wherever the border is.

If the border is on land the Northern Ireland farmers will no longer be able to claim "I'm British but my cows are Irish"

Yes a sea border would affect trade between NI and the UK. But the UK has been going on about a magic invisible border with pre-certified companies so should be very easy for them to do.

A land border means a return to smuggling. Based on previous fuel smuggling and current carbon tax I'd guesstimate a Billion euro loss in duty between both governments.

Yes they are entitled to EU passports via the ROI.
And yes they are in the CTA.
Also there are checks on Air and Sea links across the Irish Sea. Also in the past the UK government has banned certain people from NI from travelling to GB.

Look at Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to see how these things actually work in practice.

Specific note on the land border and smuggling - it's going to happen either way. No land border, no checks on goods going between EU and a murky part-EU/part third country zone. I don't see an honour system working there, but that is what it will have to be. NI will recieve UK and EU goods and pinky promises not to move either to where it shouldn't be. (Also, does anyone know where to even start on questions of NI-produced goods for international trade? If it is sort-of EU does it have to follow EU or UK standards? Which take precedence?)

Overall, I am more towards a sea border as it screws ROI slightly less. I am worried that it may be regarded as some sort of magic bullet that solves everything (or, well, anything) though. Most of the problems remain, they are just further away from us. And on the flipside, it drastically lessens the control the ROI has over them. We will be relying on the integrity of the sea border with no ROI oversight. The land border option thoroughly sucks, mind you. The looser the sea border controls for Britain, the better they will go down politically internally, and I do not like relying on the gov of another country to do politically unpoplar things that will primarily benefit another country (regulations are likely to be more stringent in ROI ; Ireland more at risk of unregulated goods movement). That is what makes me most nervous of this sea border from a purely Irish pov.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-11-2017 01:51PM

Samaris wrote: »

Specific note on the land border and smuggling - it's going to happen either way. No land border, no checks on goods going between EU and a murky part-EU/part third country zone. I don't see an honour system working there, but that is what it will have to be. NI will recieve UK and EU goods and pinky promises not to move either to where it shouldn't be. (Also, does anyone know where to even start on questions of NI-produced goods for international trade? If it is sort-of EU does it have to follow EU or UK standards? Which take precedence?)

It's much easier to check a few ports than two crossings every three miles.

Also a lot less work to check a ship than thousands of road tankers or coal trucks.

Also it's not just food and mouth out there.
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/bluetongue-risk-low-321966

Last month, a number of cattle imported into Scotland were identified as having bluetongue, however DEFRA has said that the risk level remains low for the disease making landfall through the air.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-11-2017 01:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

No response to the clear point - third countries import services into the EU today? These services are required and therefore are imported.

Which services ?

And how much are they worth relative to what the UK currently have ?

blanch152 · 18-11-2017 02:17PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you a resident of NI? Do you think that a sea border would be more beneficial to the republic?

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

For the Republic, a sea border makes little difference economically. Some border areas will suffer but how we perform post-Brexit will be more about how we maximise the opportunities and minimise the downside. Making sure that we can take financial jobs from London is more important than whether there is a sea or a land border.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 02:19PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's much easier to check a few ports than two crossings every three miles.

Also a lot less work to check a ship than thousands of road tankers or coal trucks.

Also it's not just food and mouth out there.
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/bluetongue-risk-low-321966

Oh aye on the diseases, F&M is just one that everyone knows outside the rather unique BSE.

Regarding the ports, do we get to have any oversight of them? Are we just relying on British inspectors to enforce the rules? What -are- the rules? "Yep, this is definitely for NI only so it's under UK standards and regs and nothing to do with the EU or Republic". Well, that's nice and all but my issue is how is that enforced once they're passed? There are to be no practical checks at the Irish/NI crossing points, so how can anyone know whether it is EU regulated goods/livestock coming south or not?

This can be solved by stringent and deeply unpopular policies to only allow EU-standard goods from Britain to NI, which will mean that NI more or less entirely relies on non-British goods, but is a UK government going to enforce potentially debilitating conditions on NI for the good of an external market populated by non-voters such as ROI. Or will they fudge it for convenience and popularity because the ROI should look out for itself.

Believe me, I know the problems with a land border are immense, I'm just dubious on whether all the implications of a sea border are under consideration in the talks and I hear very little practical examination of whst problems may exist from the negotiations.

Problems won't be seen immediately, but as soon as there is regulatory divergeance (and there will be), it starts to get hairy.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 02:31PM

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

Goodness, that is a dire outlook. Should Ireland look out for its own interests or not? Is there maybe, just possibly, a cohort of people that reckon the sea border is economically soundest for the Republic, which is, regardless of idealism (or the ignorance of David Davis) a separate country and juristiction from NI and by far the larger concern for those advocating the position of the Republic in a set of truly sh*tty negotiations that are going to screw us regardless?

Oh, they're all partitionists out to screw NI? Ok then.

I've made my issues with a sea border clear, but I'm not stooping to ascribe nefarious tactics to everyone that doesn't agree.

blanch152 · 18-11-2017 02:39PM

Samaris wrote: »

Goodness, that is a dire outlook. Should Ireland look out for its own interests or not? Is there maybe, just possibly, a cohort of people that reckon the sea border is economically soundest for the Republic, which is, regardless of idealism (or the ignorance of David Davis) a separate country and juristiction from NI and by far the larger concern for those advocating the position of the Republic in a set of truly sh*tty negotiations that are going to screw us regardless?

Oh, they're all partitionists out to screw NI? Ok then.

I've made my issues with a sea border clear, but I'm not stooping to ascribe nefarious tactics to everyone that doesn't agree.

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

kowtow · 18-11-2017 02:47PM

Let's assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the whole UK leaves customs union and single market.

And that no kind of sea border is tolerable between NI & mainland UK other than the security checks which already exist.

There is already a border between North and South, that much is a matter of fact. The question is not whether or not that border continues to exist but what necessary steps must be taken to make it a more active boundary than it is today.

If the UK leaves the CU, and leaves the single market, and chooses to do nothing but implement token electronic surveillance on goods crossing the border... what happens then? Who needs to have a border there most (hard or otherwise)... the UK or the EU?

Nody · 18-11-2017 02:48PM

Samaris wrote: »

Regarding the ports, do we get to have any oversight of them? Are we just relying on British inspectors to enforce the rules? What -are- the rules? "Yep, this is definitely for NI only so it's under UK standards and regs and nothing to do with the EU or Republic". Well, that's nice and all but my issue is how is that enforced once they're passed? There are to be no practical checks at the Irish/NI crossing points, so how can anyone know whether it is EU regulated goods/livestock coming south or not?

This can be solved by stringent and deeply unpopular policies to only allow EU-standard goods from Britain to NI, which will mean that NI more or less entirely relies on non-British goods, but is a UK government going to enforce potentially debilitating conditions on NI for the good of an external market populated by non-voters such as ROI. Or will they fudge it for convenience and popularity because the ROI should look out for itself.

The only way a sea border works is to implement EU rules from that point forward; any mish mash of "oh this UK goods will stay in NI" is not doable as you point out; in practice NI would (for imports) be considered EU and all goods needs to meet EU regulation accordingly. The bigger challenge there would be on the question of tariff collection etc. However there is a second extension most people miss with that which is all production in NI have to be EU compliant as well and all new rules from EU needs to be written into UK law to apply for NI etc. as well as being followed. Saying we want checks at the port is nice and all but the implications goes way beyond having checks at the ports; for all intent and purpose NI becomes it's own country with unique laws only applying there in the UK.

Samaris · 18-11-2017 02:53PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

blanch152 · 18-11-2017 03:08PM

Samaris wrote: »

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

No issue with your position at all, just a slightly different emphasis from me.

steddyeddy · 18-11-2017 03:27PM

The British Sun had a go at Leo Varadker over his threat to block trade talks. Apparantly he should "shut his gob and grow up". Well if we're annoying the Sun readership we're doing something right.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4935355/irelands-pm-leo-varadkar-threatens-to-veto-brexit-trade-talks-as-he-meets-theresa-may/amp/

Samaris · 18-11-2017 03:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The British Sun had a go at Leo Varadker over his threat to block trade talks. Apparantly he should "shut his gob and grow up". Well if we're annoying the Sun readership we're doing something right.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4935355/irelands-pm-leo-varadkar-threatens-to-veto-brexit-trade-talks-as-he-meets-theresa-may/amp/

The Sun, Mail and Express appear to have taken on the role of cultish propaganda spewers. Unsurprising that they'd turn on an outside country for wanting to protect itself. We all saw the "traitors" and "mutineers" bullsh*t against their own fellow citizens for daring to talk about problems.

Sickening tripe intended to corral its readership into a position of paranoia. That it is successful is deeply saddening but it's two farts in a windstorm for all it matters to Ireland (or reality if it comes to that.)

An Ciarraioch · 18-11-2017 03:49PM

Excellent long-form article by Tony Connolly detailing the timetable of negotiations over the Border to date - unsurprisingly, the Irish paper has covered specifics, while the British document concerned vague aspirations:

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

Christy42 · 18-11-2017 03:54PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

Is there many? I agree that there we should go with the passport in rights but I don't see it coming down to that.

I am want a sea border purely for the economic interests of the south. I take no joy in the North being screwed over but NI suffering was decided in the Brexit vote.

You may well be talking about posters other than me.

NI is currently a UK territory and while I would like it to succeed I do feel if the UK is happy enough to send it further down the drain then the Republic should not suffer just to give NI a minor benefit. It should be the responsibility of the UK to look after its own territory.

flatty · 18-11-2017 05:07PM

I see a hard brexit land border. I do not see a GE, as may has proven she will do absolutely whatever it takes to cling to power. She proved this by bribing the bigots in the DUP with a billion pounds of money earned by, and belonging to, someone else (the taxpayer, at least 48% of who find her actions abhorrent). The tories won't pull the trigger as labour would have a significant chance of winning the next election, largely, Imo, on the back of keir starmer and his ability to pull in the mid road remain voters.
Even if a general election happens though, Corbyn will not alter the course of brexit. The best that may come would be a drawing out of the process, possibly with an easing of Teresa's red lines.
Honestly, I think there will be a full hard brexit, and the tories, may, Davis, and Boris in particular, will carry the blame, and may well become defunct within a decade. They will be a toxic brand if and when hard brexit bites.

flatty · 18-11-2017 05:08PM

I see a hard brexit land border. I do not see a GE, as may has proven she will do absolutely whatever it takes to cling to power. She proved this by bribing the bigots in the DUP with a billion pounds of money earned by, and belonging to, someone else (the taxpayer, at least 48% of who find her actions abhorrent). The tories won't pull the trigger as labour would have a significant chance of winning the next election, largely, Imo, on the back of keir starmer and his ability to pull in the mid road remain voters.
Even if a general election happens though, Corbyn will not alter the course of brexit. The best that may come would be a drawing out of the process, possibly with an easing of Teresa's red lines.
Honestly, I think there will be a full hard brexit, and the tories, may, Davis, and Boris in particular, will carry the blame, and may well become defunct within a decade. They will be a toxic brand if and when hard brexit bites.

steddyeddy · 18-11-2017 05:14PM

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

Blanch please re-read that and realise how nonsensical that is. You're basically saying the two types of people who want a sea border are people who favor a united Ireland and those who favor partition. Leaving that aside how about I introduce a third option? I want a sea border in place of a hard border because it will protect the republic's economy from the massive costs and financial penalties of delays to trade.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

As I suspected you're basing your opinion on the border on an opposition to someone else's opinion rather on economic facts.

For the Republic, a sea border makes little difference economically.

In other words you're saying that a where the border is placed will have no economic impact. Breaking it down further that means you think delays in trade don't equal increases in costs. That's wrong.

Some border areas will suffer but how we perform post-Brexit will be more about how we maximise the opportunities and minimise the downside. Making sure that we can take financial jobs from London is more important than whether there is a sea or a land border.

If our trade is affected then all areas will suffer. A sea border and taking financial sector jobs aren't mutually exclusive.

steddyeddy · 18-11-2017 05:50PM

Samaris wrote: »

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

It also requires a lot of ROI trust in the integrity of the UK. Is the UK going to stop goods that do not match EU standards coming to the island? Ireland isn't going to be able to do customs checks on an 'internal' UK sea border. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the UK would stop non-accredited goods coming to NI. Sooo...how does the Republic stop such goods coming south? Components currently manufactured in NI will still have issues being used in the south, albeit they are likely to be substantially (and temptingly) cheaper for at least a decade. Where will the checks be on those, part of the supply chains of southern businesses? May's own statements indicate she isn't even aware that packaging, country of origin info etc aren't some totes unfair EU rules, but part of the WTO framework, so I hope we're not relying on the cop on of British Ministers for Trade to ensure regulations and standards are kept. If so, we're on a hiding to losing exports and revenue ourselves. I am somewhat biased here in a sincere belief that the current British government could not identify an arse on an anatomical chart and would be utterly lost if it only had a map to find its own, let alone rely on them to understand complex trade standards and rules, but it seems pretty justified based on current performance.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Now, despite the issues and despite that it sucks for NI, it would be the preferred choice for Ireland to have a sea border even so. The Republic is in the EU (and will take a hit either way). NI will soon not be (and will take a hit either way). So there will likely be a push for it from the EU side of the table, particularly Ireland. So it goes.

It is arrogant nonsense to dismiss any problems with it as "Unionist". Not every person who disagrees is an ideological enemy, nor are they neccessarily aligned with unionists, republicans or the damn Tooth Fairy. Both choices are crap for a large number of people and it is an honest part of discussion to acknowledge that.

It is a sh*t sandwich and it won't be a great deal of fun to be on either side of it. All the Republic can do is try to get further away from the sh*t that we had absolutely no say in and the land border gets the sh*t quite up close and personal. Sticking it in the sea doesn't change that it is still smelling pretty unpleasent though.

Listen I agree 100%. A sea border will likely leave NI in a slightly worse position. However a sea border will also mean that NI's in the single market. This could mean that NI could potentially poach financial sector jobs from London. Might not happen, but there you go.

I think people in the republic are getting a bit annoyed by Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit. On one hand people from the republic are lambasted for trying to get involved in any way with Northern Ireland and on the other hand you have people like Blanch insinuating that we must sacrifice our economy for theirs.

In other words we in the Republic (well I'm in England) should stay out of Northern Ireland's business, but insist on policies that damage our economy to preserve theirs.

I'm with you on the unionist comment. I don't mean to label any other opinion as unionist (or partitionist or Shinner if you're blanch). I drank in plenty of places in NI including unionist (opposed to loyalist) bars. They're nice people with a different opinion to my own.

The DUP are the ones I have a problem with. I know they don't represent all unionists, but their the ones who campaigned for Brexit and I don't think the republic should take into consideration their views on what should happen.

steddyeddy · 18-11-2017 05:54PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Is there many? I agree that there we should go with the passport in rights but I don't see it coming down to that.

I am want a sea border purely for the economic interests of the south. I take no joy in the North being screwed over but NI suffering was decided in the Brexit vote.

You may well be talking about posters other than me.

NI is currently a UK territory and while I would like it to succeed I do feel if the UK is happy enough to send it further down the drain then the Republic should not suffer just to give NI a minor benefit. It should be the responsibility of the UK to look after its own territory.

That's exactly where I am. The people in the North have suffered hugely. They certainly don't need any more suffering. However this current dilemma is down to the British and the British alone. We shouldn't fail to protect ourselves because of British actions.

blanch152 · 18-11-2017 08:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch please re-read that and realise how nonsensical that is. You're basically saying the two types of people who want a sea border are people who favor a united Ireland and those who favor partition. Leaving that aside how about I introduce a third option? I want a sea border in place of a hard border because it will protect the republic's economy from the massive costs and financial penalties of delays to trade.

As I suspected you're basing your opinion on the border on an opposition to someone else's opinion rather on economic facts.

In other words you're saying that a where the border is placed will have no economic impact. Breaking it down further that means you think delays in trade don't equal increases in costs. That's wrong.

If our trade is affected then all areas will suffer. A sea border and taking financial sector jobs aren't mutually exclusive.

My post is clear and is not contradictory.

A sea border is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. Those who favour a sea border either don't care about Northern Ireland and are partitionists (I have no issue with these, that is an ROI-first position and a perfectly sane position) or want a sea border to destroy Northern Ireland economically as they believe that brings a united Ireland closer (these people are prepared to see the people of the North suffer for their cause, an insane position).

Your position - wanting a sea border instead of a hard border - doesn't make any sense. A sea border is a hard border.

Dont be at yourself · 18-11-2017 08:24PM

We should absolutely apply leverage in the negotiations to protect our interest, whether that's regarding Northern Ireland or any other issue.

That this has caught the Tory's unaware just speaks to how foresighted this entire Brexit endeavour has been. Every step of the way, across all three key issues, the UK Government has been aghast that the EU are acting in their own collective and national interest, and not just bending the knee to the UK.

FrancieBrady · 18-11-2017 08:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

My post is clear and is not contradictory.

A sea border is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. Those who favour a sea border either don't care about Northern Ireland and are partitionists (I have no issue with these, that is an ROI-first position and a perfectly sane position) or want a sea border to destroy Northern Ireland economically as they believe that brings a united Ireland closer (these people are prepared to see the people of the North suffer for their cause, an insane position).

Your position - wanting a sea border instead of a hard border - doesn't make any sense. A sea border is a hard border.

You still have yet to produce the data that shows the difference in cost between a sea border and a hard one.

I think a sea border(because it will keep them in the EU) will stall a UI actually but is better for everyone.
A hard border is in nobody's interests

blanch152 · 18-11-2017 09:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You still have yet to produce the data that shows the difference in cost between a sea border and a hard one.

I think a sea border(because it will keep them in the EU) will stall a UI actually but is better for everyone.
A hard border is in nobody's interests

There will be a hard border, the only difference is whether it is between the North and the South or between the two islands.

A sea border brings only marginal benefit to the South and is economically disastrous for the North and the price the UK will extract for a concession to have a sea border will most likely be more than enough to eliminate the marginal benefit.

The only solution that will benefit Ireland (and by that I mean the South) is the UK remaining part of the SM and CU.

solodeogloria · 18-11-2017 09:05PM

Samaris wrote: »

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

Good evening!

Admittedly, I don't know why people are extolling the sea border as a great option for the Republic.

Hemorrhaging Northern Ireland's economy by adding friction between it and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't good for the Republic. If your trading partner has less cash by virtue of this, it means that they have less to spend on your goods.

Needless to say - the logical approach for Ireland should be seeking to get the best trading terms possible with the UK by urging the European Commission to discuss trade and customs terms in phase 2 to find a resolution.

Leo Varadkar's approach isn't praiseworthy. If it is heeded it is going to make no deal more likely, not less. David Davis is right to point out that the EU needs to be more flexible. I hope they will be. The border cannot be guaranteed until trade and customs terms are discussed - he knows this - the UK knows this - the EU knows this. I suspect it's a roundabout way of trying to coerce the UK to stay in the single market and customs union.

It won't work, because no control will have been regained and and it is worse than the status quo.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments