Brexit Discussion Thread VI

downcow wrote: »

It’s a very fair question. I think some unionists could stomach some checks on Irish Sea if they could see some fair play ie some checks at French/ire border and maybe some very light stuff at Irish border. Spread it out so as it doesn’t leave any one side feeling they are taking all the pain.

What???

(a) There are already checks at the France-Ireland border (passport, because we're not in Schengen; and phyto-sanitary because we care about the health of our agricultural economy). The EU suggested that extending this model to cover NI would be a good idea, seeing as it's not physically attached to GB and has loads of different rules anyway. The UK government objected.
(b) "One side" in NI has decided that they want everyone - including the 60% who voted Remain - to take all of the pain that English nationalists wish upon themselves. Why should the Irish (of the Republic or the North) have to suffer for that?

Also, I'm still waiting for you to say whether or not you are happy to give up your cattle-related income in favour of American and Argentinian cowboys, if/when Boris and Jacob decide not to impose border controls on UK imports.

irelandrover

downcow wrote: »

It’s a very fair question. I think some unionists could stomach some checks on Irish Sea if they could see some fair play ie some checks at French/ire border and maybe some very light stuff at Irish border. Spread it out so as it doesn’t leave any one side feeling they are taking all the pain.

Why should there be any change to the Irish/ French border. Neither of those countries voted to change their borders.

am i bovvered

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah ... you might want to revise you history of The Troubles.......

Fantastic post.

I try to remind people of this history. It is amazing how quickly it’s all forgotten or twisted.
Personally, I think John Major was extremely irresponsible and immoral, doing a dodgy deal just to hang onto power for a few more months.

Anyone who thinks that there is no chance of violence emerging in the North again is naive.

Harry Palmr

Some might like to have a look a this, obviously it's only covering large companies plans for Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/brexit-impact-tracker/

J Mysterio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No. The current British Army numbers 77,000.

In the past 27,000 couldn't stop 40% of the vehicle fuel being laundered or smuggled. It would leave just 50,000 for GB and the rest of the world, if you include rotation and training and holidays .

And the UK Govt has already ruled out more CCTV cameras.

Good. London is absolutely plastered with them, its frightening.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the debate your are trying to have is irrelevant. The UK have said that they have no intention of having a hard border. So what is their solution to the problem of not having a hard border.

The EU has proposed that NI be allowed to stay aligned to the EU in order to satisfy the UK line about he border, yet this seems to be not a runner in the UK.

So, the default position, which is what will happen in Dover etc, is a border. What is the solution to avoid that in Ireland. At present, it seems to amount to "we simply won't bother".

It’s a very fair question. I think some unionists could stomach some checks on Irish Sea if they could see some fair play ie some checks at French/ire border and maybe some very light stuff at Irish border. Spread it out so as it doesn’t leave any one side feeling they are taking all the pain.

foxyladyxx

downcow wrote: »

I guess you don’t really believe that. The troubles ended because the ira were so incredibly infiltrated. Stakeknife, Maginnis (your presidential candidate), etc, etc. They were defeated and the the loyalists turned up the volume with their disgraceful sectarian campaign which more than matched the ira sectarian campaign. Support in both communities deminished. I won’t happen again. Not possible.

I have been told that paramilitaries on both sides are well prepared and ready to go into action should a hard border be reintroduced on the border.

downcow wrote: »

It won’t happen again. Not possible.

Seriously? :eek: I passed four burning pyres this afternoon when I went shopping in the middle-of-nowhere France, disgruntled peasants protesting about who-the-feck-knows. Do you really believe that the PSNI warnings about a re-kindling of violence amongst known troublemakers (that you say have been comprehensively infiltrated) is just another part of Project Fear? Well, good luck to you if Brexit turns hard ...

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

I guess you don’t really believe that. The troubles ended because the ira were so incredibly infiltrated. Stakeknife, Maginnis (your presidential candidate), etc, etc. They were defeated and the the loyalists turned up the volume with their disgraceful sectarian campaign which more than matched the ira sectarian campaign. Support in both communities deminished. I won’t happen again. Not possible.

At least get the name right of the people involved.

But you've been trying to deliberately derail this thread, particularly with that baiting post, because you don't have any facts or arguments.

Leroy42

But the debate your are trying to have is irrelevant. The UK have said that they have no intention of having a hard border. So what is their solution to the problem of not having a hard border.

The EU has proposed that NI be allowed to stay aligned to the EU in order to satisfy the UK line about he border, yet this seems to be not a runner in the UK.

So, the default position, which is what will happen in Dover etc, is a border. What is the solution to avoid that in Ireland. At present, it seems to amount to "we simply won't bother".

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah ... you might want to revise you history of The Troubles. The IRA were never "defeated". Sinn Féin negotiated on their behalf with the British (and Irish) government to move their fight into the political arena rather than the (para)military theatre. Things were going quite well, including an IRA ceasefire when the negotiations hit a wall. The Tory Party found itself somewhat dependent on the DUP for support in Westminster. Every other party to the negotiations (Irish Govt, the US, the EU observers, and Sinn Féin/IRA) told the Tory-DUP alliance that they were being thick eejits and should continue continue with the negotiations according to the already agreed terms. (Does any of this sound familiar?) They refused, and the IRA decided to remind them of what not having a ceasefire looked like:

The Docklands bombing quickly brought the Tories to their senses, talks resumed and the GFA was born. At no point in the process was the IRA defeated, and in case you missed it, their Chief of Staff ran as a Presidential candidate in Ireland a few years back, and subsequently had dinner with the Queen in Buckingham Palace at her invitation.

That kind of peaceful co-existence of two previously sworn enemies is one of the many benefits of EU membership; unfortunately, the devil's alliance of the Tories and the DUP has come back to haunt Britain once again.

PS - you may recall that the previous occasion on which the Tories and the DUP got into bed together was to introduce something called the Poll Tax. That worked out splendidly, didn't it?

I guess you don’t really believe that. The troubles ended because the ira were so incredibly infiltrated. Stakeknife, Maginnis (your presidential candidate), etc, etc. They were defeated and the the loyalists turned up the volume with their disgraceful sectarian campaign which more than matched the ira sectarian campaign. Support in both communities deminished. I won’t happen again. Not possible.

downcow wrote: »

Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans &#55357;&#56832;

Passports (and visas) will be checked at the English Channel. It's not a suggestion any more - it's reality: Kent County Council is spending much of the NHS's £350m/wk converting parts of the M20 and M25 into holding zones.

downcow wrote: »

Guys can I reassure you the NI troubles are over. End off. No threat to south and no threat to NI. There is no stomache for it and those that are interested are being tracked in such a way that they can’t move. When was the last troubles killing (I know there is some drugs stuff. Indeed the most recent up here was exported from your little fued in Dublin). Maybe a decade ago

TBH there was always a drugs/smuggling/bank raids component to the paramilitaries or their co travellers.

Today, 16:45

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In the last month the Dissident Republicans and UDA have been active
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46247606
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46362679[/url

Unless you live in the North East you'd be aware of the economics of cross border shopping. And if the economy isn't growing people may vote with their pockets.

cml387

downcow wrote: »

Guys can I reassure you the NI troubles are over. End off. No threat to south and no threat to NI. There is no stomache for it and those that are interested are being tracked in such a way that they can’t move. When was the last troubles killing (I know there is some drugs stuff. Indeed the most recent up here was exported from your little fued in Dublin). Maybe a decade ago

I wish I could have your faith in that.

(Also, please don't fall into the trap of responding to the more incendiary remarks from some posters, most of us don't hanker for a united ireland under other than democratic means).

Although there has been peace since 1997, it's fragile, and the old hatreds linger not too far under the surface.

I again emphasise the point that what we had before 2016, while not perfect, was at least keeping the lid on things. It's the UK decision to leave that puts all this talk of borders and guns back on the agenda.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Frankly, if they thought about it as the USA-lite (which it is in essence, with exception of federal taxation and military issues) they'd probably achieve the same goal.

The UK is far more "USA-lite" than the EU - a collection of states that are supposedly United, but have almost nothing in common with each other (neither culture nor socio-political ambitions) apart from language, currency and head of state. The US doesn't even have mutual recognition of professional qualifications! :rolleyes:

downcow wrote: »

Forget the gfa/peace argument it’s a none starter. The ira were extremely sophisticated and decades of experience and they were defeated. There is no way a few republicans or loyalists are any significant threat.

Yeah ... you might want to revise you history of The Troubles. The IRA were never "defeated". Sinn Féin negotiated on their behalf with the British (and Irish) government to move their fight into the political arena rather than the (para)military theatre. Things were going quite well, including an IRA ceasefire when the negotiations hit a wall. The Tory Party found itself somewhat dependent on the DUP for support in Westminster. Every other party to the negotiations (Irish Govt, the US, the EU observers, and Sinn Féin/IRA) told the Tory-DUP alliance that they were being thick eejits and should continue continue with the negotiations according to the already agreed terms. (Does any of this sound familiar?) They refused, and the IRA decided to remind them of what not having a ceasefire looked like:

The 1996 Docklands bombing quickly brought the Tories to their senses, talks resumed and the GFA was born, without the DUP's support. At no point in the process was the IRA defeated, and in case you missed it, their Chief of Staff ran as a Presidential candidate in Ireland a few years back, and subsequently had dinner with the Queen in Buckingham Palace at her invitation.

That kind of peaceful co-existence of two previously sworn enemies is one of the many benefits of EU membership; unfortunately, the devil's alliance of the Tories and the DUP has come back to haunt Britain once again.

PS - you may recall that the previous occasion on which the Tories and the DUP got into bed together was to introduce something called the Poll Tax. That worked out splendidly, didn't it?

downcow wrote: »

So what are you saying? Which side should we wind up? Where should the passports be checked? Irish Sea or Irish border? Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans &#55357;&#56832;

You don't need passports to cross the Irish Sea, unless you use Ryanair, but that's Ryanair.

For every one else, Drivers licence or similar + boarding card is fine.

Everyone gets ID checked in Dublin Airport arrivals regardless.
And when you get on the ferries.

So in practice no major changes to what's happening already.

BTW up to 60% of goods consignments moving from the UK to Northern Ireland, and vice versa, go through Dublin.

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

Guys can I reassure you the NI troubles are over. End off. No threat to south and no threat to NI. There is no stomache for it and those that are interested are being tracked in such a way that they can’t move. When was the last troubles killing (I know there is some drugs stuff. Indeed the most recent up here was exported from your little fued in Dublin). Maybe a decade ago

But even if you believe that, (I honestly can't think that you do and that you would be prepared to risk your life on it) it still does nothing to resolve the underlying problem of the border.

How can the UK be out of the EU, the regulations, the rules eetc and yet still think that it can continue to have an open border?

What can it possibly offer any other country in terms of Trade agreements when that country already can gain unrestricted access to the UK market?

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

So what are you saying? Which side should we wind up? Where should the passports be checked? Irish Sea or Irish border? Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans &#55357;&#56832;

Surely you have the answers, as you have been putting down the EU proposals.

What is yours, or indeed the UK governments, proposals to solve this problem?

The EU have put forward a way in which no border needs to exist, but of course that requires NI to stay aligned. Of course the easiest solution is for the UK to stay aligned but that is not what the UK want so the EU have tried to find an alternative.

This backstop alternative appears to be a non runner in the UK. So, its a border then unless they can find an alternative.

Apparently, technology is the answer. It doesn't exist and nobody has actually been tasked with creating it but it will definitely solve the problem, probably, in time.

Just over 100 days and still nothing from the people who created the problem of how they intend to resolve it.

Guys can I reassure you the NI troubles are over. End off. No threat to south and no threat to NI. There is no stomache for it and those that are interested are being tracked in such a way that they can’t move. When was the last troubles killing (I know there is some drugs stuff. Indeed the most recent up here was exported from your little fued in Dublin). Maybe a decade ago

catrionanic wrote: »

What? I am from Belfast and couldn't disagree more. The threat is very real indeed.

So what are you saying? Which side should we wind up? Where should the passports be checked? Irish Sea or Irish border? Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans ðŸ˜€

EdgeCase wrote: »

Undoubtedly, but is sending the British army back into Northern Ireland to secure the border really a viable option?! It didn't ever work well in the 20th century. I don't really see how it will work in the 21st.

No. The current British Army numbers 77,000.

In the past 27,000 couldn't stop 40% of the vehicle fuel being laundered or smuggled. It would leave just 50,000 for GB and the rest of the world, if you include rotation and training and holidays .

And the UK Govt has already ruled out more CCTV cameras.

catrionanic

downcow wrote: »

I have got away behind on posts but anyway this one confuses me. I don’t think there’ll be any issue in Belfast lough. If republicans get pissed off they will be attacking northern targets from south and if loyalists get pissed off they will be attacking southern targets from north. So there is only one border would be affected by conflict. Personally I don’t think there will be any conflict worth mentioning no matter who gets pissed off the world has moved on and we can see up north the dissidents can’t scratch themselves but the authorities know given the level of technology. Forget the gfa/peace argument it’s a none starter. The ira were extremely sophisticated and decades of experience and they were defeated. There is no way a few republicans or loyalists are any significant threat.

What? I am from Belfast and couldn't disagree more. The threat is very real indeed.

Hurrache

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Army on standby .. for what exactly?

Well somebody needs to stock and clean all those fridges they've bought.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

Undoubtedly, but is sending the British army back into Northern Ireland to secure the border really a viable option?! It didn't ever work well in the 20th century. I don't really see how it will work in the 21st.

The alternative, if the situation were to revert to pre GFA levels, might be civil war.

EdgeCase

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No Deal may have major implications for security along the border and in NI.

Undoubtedly, but is sending the British army back into Northern Ireland to secure the border really a viable option?! It didn't ever work well in the 20th century. I don't really see how it will work in the 21st.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well many of the problems they will have aren't going to be able to be solved by the army unless they're planning to just invade Europe and sieze other people's drugs and food.

At this stage, nothing would surprise me.

No Deal may have major implications for security along the border and in NI.

EdgeCase

Well many of the problems they will have aren't going to be able to be solved by the army unless they're planning to just invade Europe and sieze other people's drugs and food.

At this stage, nothing would surprise me.

All of the problems they face are due to entirely disruption of their own logistics systems