Bit cynical wrote: » Could you quote the bit of the GFA text the UK would be in breach of if they adopted the Norway model? I don't think it is in Ireland's interest to hold them in breach in any case.
EdgeCase wrote: » That's something that will also bite rather hard as they've an assumption that they've some kind of political influence in the US due to a special relationship that most Americans are entirely unaware of. However, I wouldn't say there's a deliberate ignorance, but there is a rather surprising lack of any knowledge of what is *their* history. Irish history until 1921 was fully part of British history and the Northern Ireland troubles occurred almost exclusively in the UK - Northern Ireland being part of the UK and the majority of major attacks occurring in Northern Ireland or in Britain itself. I just find it somewhat odd that they can just sort of package it up as "over there" and nothing to do with them. Also to be honest, on an interpersonal level there isn't huge antipathy towards the English in Ireland. I have English relatives and lots of connections to England and Scotland at various levels of my family. Any antipathy tends to be because of what happened during the war of independence era, particularly the use of the Black and Tans and so on. That was in widespread living memory until relatively recently and those kinds of memories tend to become cultural. Also I would say that most Irish people tend to get on very well with most English people. It's just that there is a rather obnoxious layer in an aspect of the Tory party and English nationalism that genuinely tends to rub pretty much everyone up the wrong way. They're somewhat hard to like. But, whatever about all of the above, it's mind-boggling that a high-level current affairs presenter would be so poorly briefed. I don't expect your average person in a pub to know much about Irish politics, anymore than your average Irish person's going to know the ins and outs of how the House of Lords works, but I would expect a leading current affairs presenter on RTE or BBC to and I would hold them to a totally different standard. My expectation of BBC current affairs is that it should be up here at the level of a political science department in a university. It's supposed to be a world-leading, public broadcaster at the top of its game. They've VAST resources and expertise to pull from and they're increasingly behaving like they're some cheapo tabloid. I think it's utterly reasonable to hold the BBC to a far higher standard.
downcow wrote: » No probs “(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;“ And hence if you want to put a referendum to the people of NI as to whether we accept an agreement that contains the backstop then I’m ok with that. But I think I know the answer.
Christy42 wrote: » On a hard Brexit will the UK follow WTO rules? If yes and it does not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland it will in effect be giving the EU 0% tariffs on all goods. Thus by WTO rules it must give everyone 0% tariffs on everything. If not then no one will bother reciprocating WTO rules and will charge whatever tariffs they like. I really, really don't give a **** about the UK talking about not putting up a hard border when they refuse to put forward what they are doing in that case. Like the nonsense about the backstop while refusing to ever put forward another option that doesn't result in a hard border. The UK is lying when it says it won't impose a hard border (as is Leo by the way). It has to put one up. There seems to be a weird game of not admitting it going on. The UK is making decisions that will make both sides put up a hard border. (And yes the WTO will object because every country will want 0% tariffs into the UK without needing a trade deal).
ThePanjandrum wrote: » There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one. Tariffs can be dealt with separately. If Ireland and the UK are able to control VAT between the two countries then they can control tariffs. Goods can be inspected on loading, unloading or before either of these happen.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Norn Iron ✗ -- Blocked by Unionists
Christy42 wrote: » The UK is lying when it says it won't impose a hard border (as is Leo by the way). It has to put one up. There seems to be a weird game of not admitting it going on. The UK is making decisions that will make both sides put up a hard border.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » I find it difficult to understand why, when Britain says it is leaving the EU but will not impose a hard border, it is breaching the GFA and endangering peace. When Leo says that if Britain leaves he will enforce the border (or not, depending on which day it is) this is a principled move and nothing is said about the GFA and endangering peace.
Enzokk wrote: » This is the James O'Brien test to Brexiters when there is talk about sovereignty. What laws from the EU would you change that has been "forced" onto the UK?
Enzokk wrote: » You have to wonder why we have had almost 18 months of negotiations over trying to keep the border open when in actual fact it is actually not mentioned in the GFA.
I also wonder why May has been so vocal that she will not see regulation differences between the UK and NI, yet that is exactly what she agreed to in the WA and the backstop to ensure the border stays open. If it wasn't implied or needed surely the UK government would not have signed up to the backstop?
Enzokk wrote: » You honestly don't see a problem with Theresa May saying she will take the UK out of the single market and customs union so they can negotiate their own trade deals and then saying it still won't need a border? Maybe you can give examples of any other two countries where there are no borders without a trade deal or customs union?
Nody wrote: » Which point of loading/unloading exactly are you talking about for a truck driving over the Ireland/NI border? Once again you have a very strong tendency to ignore the details of your proposals exactly like the Brexiteers in the UK. What would stop me for example buying a truck load of cigarettes (reclaiming VAT in EU due to export to UK), drive over the border in NI and distribute it on the black market? Or load it in another truck and take it to UK mainland if there is no control at the border? Keeping in mind that if you remove any controls at the NI border you're also forced to remove them from any other border due to most favorable nation requirements.
EdgeCase wrote: » Have you ever crossed the US-Canada border? They charged me tax on my shopping going back into Canada! That's how strict it is. Crossing by car a the Peace Arch near Vancouver can take up to 2 hours in a car.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » That's when you go through manned posts.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Let's ask you, name ten items of EU legislation that have altered Irish law to the benefit of your country.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » All countries have borders and most have trade agreements through the WTO if nothing else. But if you think that Canada and the USA, for example, check every shipment on their near 9000 km border to see if it complies with the NAFTA agreement then you're deluded.
But any lorries arriving from a non-EU country, such as Switzerland, are subject to longer delays. "If customs don't want to check anything, that would [still] delay the vehicle by about an hour or an hour and a half [while the driver waits for a decision]," Andrew Baxter, the managing director of the freight logistics company Europa Worldwide, told a House of Commons Committee last year. "If customs wanted to do a documentary check, that could delay it by up to three hours, and if there was an inspection of the goods, that could delay it by up to five hours," he added.
downcow wrote: » if you want to put a referendum to the people of NI as to whether we accept an agreement that contains the backstop then I’m ok with that.
downcow wrote: » I don’t believe in referendums
downcow wrote: » I don't think referendums are a good idea ... A dictatorship with a good dictator would be my preferred method
downcow wrote: » Not that i want to defend the dupers. I think you’ll find that it’s because of Sinn Fein and their abstentionist policy
WicklowTiger wrote: » I could literally move my family to France, Germany, Italy tomorrow permanently. Why would anyone walk away from that???
EdgeCase wrote: » Have you ever crossed the US-Canada border? They charged me tax on my shopping going back into Canada! That's how strict it is. Crossing by car a the Peace Arch near Vancouver can take up to 2 hours in a car - typically takes 45mins - 1 hour.
murphaph wrote: » Same. Had to surrender beer at a crossing between Vermont and Quebec. They always opened the boot there. I did cross once from Quebec into Maine without them looking in the car but there were a lot of questions that time instead. People don't realise how strict they are along that border.
EdgeCase wrote: » Unfortunately, in the UK media bubble and online there's a lot of confident statements based on very little real world experience of actual customs borders. Anyone who actually gives genuine accounts of what they're really like e.g. truckers who cross other EU external frontiers, people who regularly cross the US/Canadian border and so on are just dismissed as scaremongering because someone who's no experience of any of this but will make strident statements must be taken far more seriously. Nothing worse than informed opinions getting in the way. I've largely given up arguing at this stage. If they're going to walk off a cliff, what can any of us do?I'd say just prepare for a hard Brexit, reduce your exposure to GBP, UK supply chains and UK investments, batten down the hatches and hope for the best. It seems to me that it's a lost cause.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Throwaway Sunday Times sidebar - "Britain is preparing for a state of emergency and to declare martial law in the event of disorder in a no-deal Brexit" :http://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1089282356475760640
WicklowTiger wrote: » Challenge accepted! Well I think any gob****e, in Ireland at least, could do that…. Starting from the most obvious 1. Adoption of the Euro 2. Driving: conversion to KMs (makes sense even if the Imperial world thinks not) 3. Driving: NCT requirement (much safer cars) 4. Driving: penalty points system ( massive road deaths reduction) 5. Volumetric conversions (petrol, milk in litres, solid fuel in kgs, etc) 6. Food labelling standards 7. Customs & excise (blue lane at airports,ports) 8. Free movement, no visa requirement to go on holidays or business trips to the continent 9. Automatic free healthcare throughout the EU (EHIC card) 10. Single market for trade of goods and services I had to go to the US for work last year. It really felt like a really foreign land, with the ESTA requirements (and paying for it!), immigration clearance, requirement to leave within a time frame, even not having a “valid zip code” checking into the hotel (used their own, never even noticed!) I could literally move my family to France, Germany, Italy tomorrow permanently. Why would anyone walk away from that???
