Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Dytalus · 11-02-2019 12:27pm

downcow wrote: »

Thats old ground. I thought we had accepted that there were at least four perspectives on GFA - all of which have potential substance
1) No backstop contravenes GFA
2)Backstop in place contravenes GFA
3) both contravene GFA
4)neither contravene GFA

I was trying to move beyond that and asking would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop. I could also accept an NI vote releasing us.

That would still qualify as the UK unilaterally ending the backstop, even if it was via a vote. The whole purpose of the backstop is to avoid a border altogether.

If the UK can end it when they like, even without a trade agreement in place which maintains the open border, then Ireland is again faced with the same issue they have now - how do we deal with a hard border.

There is no middle ground here. If there is a backstop, there's an open border. If there is no backstop, there's a hard border. The backstop cannot be allowed to end unless and until a longer term solution (trade agreement) is figured out to keep an open border. That requires negotiation with the other side of the border - that being Ireland and the EU. The UK ending it without negotiating with the other side isn't a secure promise for an open border at all.

11-02-2019 12:27pm

downcow wrote: »

You are demanding it, but threatening to close it at the same time. I don't get it

Are you now claiming that you don't even understand the approach? I thought you just disagreed with it.

Pa8301 · 11-02-2019 12:27pm

downcow wrote: »

Thats old ground. I thought we had accepted that there were at least four perspectives on GFA - all of which have potential substance
1) No backstop contravenes GFA
2)Backstop in place contravenes GFA
3) both contravene GFA
4)neither contravene GFA

I was trying to move beyond that and asking would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop. I could also accept an NI vote releasing us.

Delving into your suggestion of a plebiscite in relation to the backstop. Why do you want to limit this to citizens of the UK or NI only? Citizens of Ireland and the rest of the EU would be affected by this also. Surely their voice should be heard too?

Leroy42 · 11-02-2019 12:30pm

downcow wrote: »

How would you guys feel about this.

TMs deal but with the option of UK getting out of backstop in the future provided people agreed it in UK referendum. Would that help?

So esentially a 2nd Ref.

What a great idea. But why not start with the deal that is on the table. Let the public vote for the way it is now. Or no deal. Or remain.

downcow · 11-02-2019 12:32pm

Dytalus wrote: »

There is no middle ground here. If there is a backstop, there's an open border. If there is no backstop, there's a hard border. The backstop cannot be allowed to end unless and until a longer term solution (trade agreement) is figured out to keep an open border. That requires negotiation with the other side of the border - that being Ireland and the EU. The UK ending it without negotiating with the other side isn't a secure promise for an open border at all.

Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.

I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?

Leroy42 · 11-02-2019 12:34pm

A non member country, not subject to regulations, wants to import into the EU which has a standardised set of regulations. How else can the EU protect its market.
FOM into the UK.

Why do you think their would not be a need for a hard border?

BTW nice shifting of the goalposts away from having to explain why the backstop is against the will of the people, when they never were asked

CelticRambler · 11-02-2019 12:35pm

downcow wrote: »

would it be enough of a safety measure for you if the whole of the UK could vote to get out of backstop.

Would it satisfy you if that vote for whole of the UK could included the option of moving the border to the Irish Sea?

If not, then no, it wouldn't be enough to give leave the decision only in the hands of UK voters - it'd have to be all of us in the EU too.

lawred2 · 11-02-2019 12:36pm

downcow wrote: »

Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.

I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?

you've skipped past my question

I'll ask again

We know what you don't want - but let's hear your ideas

What is your plan to deliver a frictionless border on this island?

Or would you prefer to forego trade with the EU?

Kermit.de.frog · 11-02-2019 12:37pm

The fundamental problem here is the UK is trying to renege on a deal already done!

The WA is not some opening negotiating position.

It's what has been negotiated.

This is why the EU won't reopen it.

An Ciarraioch · 11-02-2019 12:39pm

NI hauliers are already being refused ECMT permits, which would cover a no-deal Brexit:

http://twitter.com/Freight_NI/status/1094712708136665088

Imreoir2 · 11-02-2019 12:39pm

downcow wrote: »

You are demanding it, but threatening to close it at the same time. I don't get it

Why do you think we need a legally binding guarantee? The border becomes hard if there is no agreement in place to keep it open. In what reality can we keep the border open if there is no agreement that allows that to happen?

Do you think the border will remain open if there is no provision for an open border in an agreement? It will not! That is why we need the backstop. You are suggesting that there should be an agreement without specific provision for an open border, or that the provision for an open border can be nulified should it suit one side. Why should we accept that? Its not good enough.

We need a legally binding agreement that keeps the border open, regardless of what else happens in trade negiotiations. Your government is obliged to do this under the GFA and has committed to doing this several times over the past two years. We will accept nothing less.

CelticRambler · 11-02-2019 12:41pm

downcow wrote: »

I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?

Same as they have at the Eurotunnel terminal, or on any of the motorways that cross the EU-Swiss border. I presume you're familar with them ...

lawred2 · 11-02-2019 12:44pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fundamental problem here is the UK is trying to renege on a deal already done!

The WA is not some opening negotiating position.

It's what has been negotiated.

This is why the EU won't reopen it.

Exactly and the only thing that there's an 'agreed' position on in the UK right now is what they all don't want.

That's just not good enough at this stage.

How anyone in the UK is still holding out for the EU to tear up its own 27 member agreed position to solve the UK's own self imposed deadlock is beyond me..

eagle eye · 11-02-2019 12:45pm

Skelet0n wrote:

Can you please stop framing your bizarre â€œletâ€™s give the U.K. everything they wantâ€ argument as if itâ€™s pro-Irish? How you can see what the EU have done for us and think that must involve an incredible amount of mental gymnastics, be careful you donâ€™t damage your brain.

You and almost everybody else here are looking at this through anti-UK goggles.
I'm looking at it through the eyes of an ordinary hard working Irish man, member or citizen of the EU.
I don't want hardship brought upon me again. I don't want to be in the situation that I don't have a pot to p in. We've went through that, things still aren't that great.
The EU is who I'm looking at to prevent that from happening, not the idiots in government in the UK.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2019 12:46pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Do you think the border will remain open if there is no provision for an open border in an agreement?

If the border will stay open without an agreement, then the backstop is no hardship since it just means an open border stays open.

downcow · 11-02-2019 12:47pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

A non member country, not subject to regulations, wants to import into the EU which has a standardised set of regulations. How else can the EU protect its market.

FOM into the UK.

thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

downcow · 11-02-2019 12:51pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Same as they have at the Eurotunnel terminal, or on any of the motorways that cross the EU-Swiss border. I presume you're familar with them ...

No i haven't been to Switzerland and I have not been through the Eurotunnel. Would you be suggesting something like the current hard border between EU mainland and the British Isles?

Christy42 · 11-02-2019 12:52pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Skelet0n wrote:

Can you please stop framing your bizarre â€œletâ€™s give the U.K. everything they wantâ€ argument as if itâ€™s pro-Irish? How you can see what the EU have done for us and think that must involve an incredible amount of mental gymnastics, be careful you donâ€™t damage your brain.

You and almost everybody else here are looking at this through anti-UK goggles.
I'm looking at it through the eyes of an ordinary hard working Irish man, member or citizen of the EU.
I don't want hardship brought upon me again. I don't want to be in the situation that I don't have a pot to p in. We've went through that, things still aren't that great.
The EU is who I'm looking at to prevent that from happening, not the idiots in government in the UK.

This is what the WA seeks to achieve. They can't force the UK to sign an agreement.

The WA keeps up trade and it keeps the border open. It is in fact one of two suggestions made so far that manages that (the second being the backstop only applies to NI).

It is hard to give ground when you don't know what the other side wants (except for the right to impose a hard border at a whim which causes difficulties for us already gone through and we don't know if it would actually get through Parliament in any case).

If the EU had the ability to force an agreement or mindread what the UK wants I could understand your view but there are limits to their power here (quite rightly but still has issues for us).

Phonehead · 11-02-2019 12:53pm

downcow wrote: »

thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

Riddle me this, how does a UK border allowing free movement of people square the "taking back control of our borders" mantra that's so prominent in Brexit ideology?

First Up · 11-02-2019 12:53pm

downcow wrote:

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

"More challenging" is a nice way to put it. It is the fundamental issue and it would be helpful if you could grasp that. The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.

11-02-2019 12:55pm

downcow wrote: »

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

There isn't a single person on this thread who is going to seriously discuss that with you. We might discuss it and be interrupted by inanity, but that's a different story.

Dytalus · 11-02-2019 1:00pm

downcow wrote: »

Can you help me again and give me some of the reasons (concrete realistic, grounded reasons) Why a hard border would be required? I would really appropriate it is simple bullet points or short sentences so as we don't get lost in nonsense.

I am also keen to know what posters really mean by a hard border?

Happy to oblige. First off: a 'hard border' generally means a border like most others. There will have to be facilities to check vehicles crossing the border for their contents. Customs checks, essentially. Fortunately it shouldn't effect your average joe, because the Common Travel Area should still apply and so John Doe can still travel South/North to visit family. This will only work for individuals, and they will still be heavily effected. Why will they be effected? Well....

There will likely be considerable traffic delays from the enormous amount of commercial traffic that crosses the border every day. We're talking in the region of almost 7,000 vans and almost 6,000 trucks per day. Figures found here

As to why this would be required:
Contrary to what a lot of people say, there is no specific rule among the World Trade Organisation's laws that say countries must put up borders between each other, HOWEVER the WTO has a rule known as the "Most favoured Nation" (which is a horrible misnomer, in my opinion). This is essentially a non-discrimination rule for members of the WTO. It means that the UK cannot give favourable treatment to one nation over others outside of mutually agreed upon trade agreements (this is why such agreements are very difficult to negotiate and take a long time. The EU's recent trade deal with Singapore took eight years to complete).

This would mean: Outside of any existing trade agreements (which the UK has none of currently), the UK must treat all nations equally per WTO rules. While the WTO cannot force a nation to do anything, it does act as a kind of 'court' for member nations. If one of the other members takes issue with how the UK is handling its borders, then they are liable to face legal repercussions and trade sanctions from other WTO members.

As an example, let's assume a no-deal brexit happens.

We assume the EU and Ireland put up tariff and regulation checks on its side of the border. Since the EU is treating the UK the same way it treats other nations it does not have Free Trade Agreements with, nobody in the WTO has a legal justification to make a complaint. They can try, but they'd not get anywhere.
Let us also assume the UK does not. Their side of the border is 'open'. As such there are no customs checks to goods coming into the UK across the irish border.
The USA takes issue with this. "Hey now," they say, "why are Irish apples allowed into the UK without being checked and tariffed, but our apples are? You don't have any trade deals with the EU, we want to lodge a complaint."
Russia also takes issue. "Irish electronics face no checks, but ours do? We want to lodge a complaint."
The UK is now facing two comlaints at the international level. And they will lose that case because they have broken the Most Favoured Nation rule by allowing Irish/EU goods into the UK without any checks. They have two options.
A hard border goes up in Northern Ireland. Customs checks are in place just like for every other nations. This is what the UK and EU want to avoid using the backstop.
The UK leaves all its borders open. No tariffs, no regulation checks. No customs of any kind. They risk flooding their market with cheaper, lower quality goods from other nations. China has a lower working wage = cheaper products. America has lower food standards = cheaper products.

In the latter case (completely open borders) the UK's internal market cannot compete with free and open trade with the rest of the world. They must either lower the average working wage (to compete with nations where the average wage is incredibly low), or lower their health and safety standards to compete with nations where H&S standards are low/non-existent.

In short, completely open borders would be a disaster for the UK's economy. That's why no nation in the world has completely open borders - they all have agreements with one another, or trade on WTO terms.

Hope that clarified the need for a border or a backstop.

Quin_Dub · 11-02-2019 1:00pm

downcow wrote: »

thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

If there is no border on this island , how then does the UK stop all of the Non-Irish EU Residents from travelling to Ireland as they are fully entitled to do and then simply strolling over the border into NI and the UK ?

The UK does not want FOM - To enforce that , they need a border.

Comes back to the Red lines that HMGOV refuse to consider changing.

downcow wrote: »

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

Again - If there's no border on the Island of Ireland and the UK does lots of shiny new trade deals with the rest of the world that happen to include Products that do not meet EU Quality/Safety standards , or which enter the UK under different tariff terms than those that apply to the EU.

How then does the EU protect the integrity of it's Products and/or it's industries if those illegal or under-tariffed products can simply be driven over the border and into the EU supply chain?

Again - All about those Red lines - If the UK remained in the SM/CU , then the above isn't an issue for the latter and if they agreed to FOM then the former isn't an issue.

But , because of the UK's "Red Lines" , both of the above are problems..

So , to leave the EU , there are 3 pathways from here.

1 - Shift on the red lines and remain in the SM/CU and retain FOM
2 - Negotiate a new deal with the EU that resolves the above issues (with the back-stop addressing those issues until such time as said new deal is completed). That new deal could very well include an "Irish sea border" , but that's for the negotiations.

Or

3 - Crash out HARD and have a border between NI and Ireland with all the potential fall-out that that likely brings.

Those are the choices , there are no others. It's as simple as that.

Leroy42 · 11-02-2019 1:04pm

First Up wrote: »

"More challenging" is a nice way to put it. It is the fundamental issue and it would be helpful if you could grasp that. The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.

I only put it in there as it shows the hypocrisy of the UK position.

FOM was a central tenet of the leave campaign, but now they all seem happy to leave the border completely unmanned and open.

In terms of products, it is THE issue. Not an issue. How can the EU possibly be sure that the products crossing the border meet the required standards. The UK have already stated that they no longer will have the same regulations.

So the default is a hard border. The EU tried, given the unique nature of NI to find a way around this problem, and TM came up with the backstop. The EU then conceded a UK wide backstop to meet TM's demands.

But again, the default is a hard border, just as it is in every other 3rd country. You seem to think that a hard border is being imposed. It isn't. Hard border is the natural consequence of leaving the CU/SM. The EU has worked to try and make up a situation to remove this default, which was agreed by TM and her cabinet before she threw it back at their faces.

So now it is up to the UK to come to an 'alternative solution'.

You have bought into the nonsense that the EU are going to impose a border. Regardless of who actually builds it, it is due to a decision of the UK that has changed the dynamic.

Since you are so tied to the will of the people, would you think it proper that the UK be asked if they agree to a backstop. If not, then they are voting for a hard border, if yes they are accepting the GFA.

downcow · 11-02-2019 1:06pm

Phonehead wrote: »

Riddle me this, how does a UK border allowing free movement of people square the "taking back control of our borders" mantra that's so prominent in Brexit ideology?

That is one circle I have no problem squaring.
Clearly, illegal immigration will continue at a certain level, the super-hard borders on the Mediterranean and indeed between northern France and the British Isles clearly demonstrate that a certain number of legal immigrants (non-EU)will always get through.
Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc. after Brexit they will become illegal immigrants entitled to none of this (of course not the ones already here).
Therefore there will be little attraction to coming into the UK and the hard borders for the movement of people will remain where they are at northern France.
People from Ireland and UK can freely move backwards and forwards across the Irish border and indeed the Irish Sea i.e. Dublin Holyhead..

Is that a reasonable position to take up on the movement of people, and do you have any problem with it?

murphaph · 11-02-2019 1:07pm

downcow wrote: »

thank you, this is very helpful.
So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

I accept the point about products is more challenging, but if we could accept that this is what it's about them I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed. But the question is, are you prepared to accept that this is the key issue?

Maciej the Polish plumber lives in the UK. He's legal and has his own business their. Maciej's younger brothers come of age and go to work illegally in GB for their brother.

At British airports the brother's movements into the UK can be tracked. So they fly to Dublin where they have FoM and can come and go as they please and then simply take a trip over the border and a domestic UK flight from Belfast.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2019 1:07pm

downcow wrote: »

I think there could be serious discussions on how this could be managed.

There have been a couple of years of serious discussion on how it can be managed, and there are several suggestions:

1) The Backstop.
2) A Hard Border.
3) Some sort of technology that has not been invented yet.
4) No Brexit.

There have been articles in the newspapers and bits on TV all about the issue, I'm surprised you didn't catch any of the coverage, it has been quite a big deal.

downcow · 11-02-2019 1:12pm

Dytalus wrote: »

Happy to oblige. First off: a 'hard border' generally means a border like most others. There will have to be facilities to check vehicles crossing the border for their contents. Customs checks, essentially. Fortunately it shouldn't effect your average joe, because the Common Travel Area should still apply and so John Doe can still travel South/North to visit family. This will only work for individuals, and they will still be heavily effected. Why will they be effected? Well....

There will likely be considerable traffic delays from the enormous amount of commercial traffic that crosses the border every day. We're talking in the region of almost 7,000 vans and almost 6,000 trucks per day. Figures found here

As to why this would be required:
Contrary to what a lot of people say, there is no specific rule among the World Trade Organisation's laws that say countries must put up borders between each other, HOWEVER the WTO has a rule known as the "Most favoured Nation" (which is a horrible misnomer, in my opinion). This is essentially a non-discrimination rule for members of the WTO. It means that the UK cannot give favourable treatment to one nation over others outside of mutually agreed upon trade agreements (this is why such agreements are very difficult to negotiate and take a long time. The EU's recent trade deal with Singapore took eight years to complete).

This would mean: Outside of any existing trade agreements (which the UK has none of currently), the UK must treat all nations equally per WTO rules. While the WTO cannot force a nation to do anything, it does act as a kind of 'court' for member nations. If one of the other members takes issue with how the UK is handling its borders, then they are liable to face legal repercussions and trade sanctions from other WTO members.

As an example, let's assume a no-deal brexit happens.
We assume the EU and Ireland put up tariff and regulation checks on its side of the border. Since the EU is treating the UK the same way it treats other nations it does not have Free Trade Agreements with, nobody in the WTO has a legal justification to make a complaint. They can try, but they'd not get anywhere.

Let us also assume the UK does not. Their side of the border is 'open'. As such there are no customs checks to goods coming into the UK across the irish border.

The USA takes issue with this. "Hey now," they say, "why are Irish apples allowed into the UK without being checked and tariffed, but our apples are? You don't have any trade deals with the EU, we want to lodge a complaint."

Russia also takes issue. "Irish electronics face no checks, but ours do? We want to lodge a complaint."

The UK is now facing two comlaints at the international level. And they will lose that case because they have broken the Most Favoured Nation rule by allowing Irish/EU goods into the UK without any checks. They have two options.

A hard border goes up in Northern Ireland. Customs checks are in place just like for every other nations. This is what the UK and EU want to avoid using the backstop.

The UK leaves all its borders open. No tariffs, no regulation checks. No customs of any kind. They risk flooding their market with cheaper, lower quality goods from other nations. China has a lower working wage = cheaper products. America has lower food standards = cheaper products.

In the latter case (completely open borders) the UK's internal market cannot compete with free and open trade with the rest of the world. They must either lower the average working wage (to compete with nations where the average wage is incredibly low), or lower their health and safety standards to compete with nations where H&S standards are low/non-existent.

In short, completely open borders would be a disaster for the UK's economy. That's why no nation in the world has completely open borders - they all have agreements with one another, or trade on WTO terms.

Hope that clarified the need for a border or a backstop.

Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2019 1:13pm

downcow wrote: »

That is one circle I have no problem squaring.

Amazingly enough, the UK government have already thought about this and come up with a proposal.

Their solution is stupid and will annoy the cr@p out of all the Little Englanders, but they have one and don't really need our input.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2019 1:15pm

downcow wrote: »

Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?

That's a very specific question, almost as if you read in the Express that there is such a clause but no longer trust them to be telling the truth.

Phonehead · 11-02-2019 1:15pm

Are you sure that an EU citizen can waltz into the UK and get all these benefits? Isn't there a 3 month prospect of work assessment carried out?

downcow · 11-02-2019 1:17pm

murphaph wrote: »

Maciej the Polish plumber lives in the UK. He's legal and has his own business their. Maciej's younger brothers come of age and go to work illegally in GB for their brother.

At British airports the brother's movements into the UK can be tracked. So they fly to Dublin where they have FoM and can come and go as they please and then simply take a trip over the border and a domestic UK flight from Belfast.

Of course this will happen. It is currently happening with non-eu people working illegally in Dublin, Belfast and London. I do think that sometimes this is another tactic of the remainers to go along with their tactic of using the GFA i.e. they try and set the bar at perfection knowing no arrangement could ever possibly meet it

murphaph · 11-02-2019 1:22pm

downcow wrote: »

That is one circle I have no problem squaring.
Clearly, illegal immigration will continue at a certain level, the super-hard borders on the Mediterranean and indeed between northern France and the British Isles clearly demonstrate that a certain number of legal immigrants (non-EU)will always get through.
Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK.

See my post above. You can't control illegal EU migration post Brexit without a hard border.

How do you tell the settled Pole apart from the one freshly arrived via Dublin and Belfast?

ID cards? For whom? Everyone has to carry one for ID cards to work. Many British citizens speak English with an accent. Can't discriminate based on superficial things like that.

So we're back to policing the border but post Brexit there's a Northern Ireland sized hole in it.

Phonehead · 11-02-2019 1:23pm

DC - just as an FYI - http://benefitsaware.centralenglandlc.org.uk/eu-nationals-and-genuine-prospect-of-work-issues/

It's kind of easy to research if the opinions you hold are fact or fiction.

First Up · 11-02-2019 1:25pm

downcow wrote:

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc. after Brexit they will become illegal immigrants entitled to none of this (of course not the ones already here). Therefore there will be little attraction to coming into the UK and the hard borders for the movement of people will remain where they are at northern France. People from Ireland and UK can freely move backwards and forwards across the Irish border and indeed the Irish Sea i.e. Dublin Holyhead..

EU passport holders (like everyone else) are already subject to immigration checks on arrival in the UK or Ireland - we are outside Schengen. Brexit will not impose any further entry restrictions on them (unless you are advocating a visa regime).

The UK can withdraw employment rights and social benefits to EU citizens but that has nothing to do with a "hard" border.

The UK is already entitled to deny entry to any non-EU citizens it likes, whether they arrive on the back of a truck through the Chunnel or land at Heathrow. That's an enforcement issue and nothing to do with Brexit.

murphaph · 11-02-2019 1:27pm

downcow wrote: »

Of course this will happen. It is currently happening with non-eu people working illegally in Dublin, Belfast and London. I do think that sometimes this is another tactic of the remainers to go along with their tactic of using the GFA i.e. they try and set the bar at perfection knowing no arrangement could ever possibly meet it

Don't you understand? Post Brexit FoM in the UK for 500 million people ends, but these 500 million people can still travel without hindrance to the UK via an open border. How long do you think the Daily Express editors would wait after Brexit before calling for checks on people at the border? The CTA doesn't work with one country in a union of hundreds of millions of people with freedom of movement.

10000maniacs · 11-02-2019 1:31pm

downcow wrote: »

I know there are many of you responding similarly to the above. But we already discovered several pages back that there was not one of you who would accept a similar arrangement for your country i.e. locked into an international agreement that you know sizeable numbers of your citizens seriously dislike and that you could never escape from if any one of 27 nations decided not to let you.
Therefore it is difficult to take your recent comments seriously on the backstop.

Partition is an unnatural creation by the UK and is incompatible with Brexit.
Its the ultimate cake and eat it scenario that needs to be fixed.
It has caused civil war, conflict and death too frequently in it's 100 year history.
Bottom line downcow, basically if you want partition, you can't have Brexit and vice versa. It cannot work. Its a square peg in a round hole.

<snip - cartoons/jokes are not serious debate>

CelticRambler · 11-02-2019 1:34pm

downcow wrote: »

No i haven't been to Switzerland and I have not been through the Eurotunnel. Would you be suggesting something like the current hard border between EU mainland and the British Isles?

What else is the Eurotunnel terminal, other than a hard border between the EU and the UK? So yes. Google for images if you don't know what they look like.

downcow wrote: »

Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc.

Is that a reasonable position to take up on the movement of people, and do you have any problem with it?

Nope, it's not reasonable, because it's wrong. EU citizens have the right to enter the UK and look for work and to buy a house; they have three months in which to do so, otherwise they can - in accordance with EU law - be told to go back to where they came from. For reasons known only to the UK government, the UK government has chosen not to excerise control in this way.

But it doesn't matter, because the English xenophobe voted for Brexit, so tens of thousands of highly qualified, high-earning EU immigrants have decided to pack their bags and go and live in a more tolerant part of the EU.

The natural consequence of this is that there are jobs that desperately need to be filled in the UK, so there is now even more incentive for illegal immigrants to find a way into the country, where they know they'll get work and a tax-free income.

Peregrinus · 11-02-2019 1:34pm

downcow wrote: »

Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?

The question is based on a misunderstanding. WTO rules say very little about borders as such; they deal not with borders, but with trade and commerce across borders. All the obligations imposed relate to the trade. As log as you observed the obligations effectively, the WTO doesn't care whether you do that through measures implemented at the border, or through measures implemented away from the border, or through some combination of measures.

Normally, countries do what needs to be done at the border, because it is either impossible or inconvenient to meet WTO obligations without any] controls at borders. But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem. This is something that some Brexiters assure us can easily be done in the context of the UK border in Ireland, but despite its being very easy they have yet to actually devise a way of doing it which would both meet WTO obligations and satisfy the no-hard-border criteria set out in the Jt Report.

The WA does accommodate the possibility;it provides that if such measures can be devised, they will pre-empt the backstop. However, except among those with a strong ideological motive for believing that such measures can be devised, or for pretending to, thers is widespread scepticism that such a thing is feasible.

To return to your question, would the WTO allow special measures to reduce conflict along a disputed border? Yes, provide the "special measures" were WTO compliant, which among other things means respecting the MFN rule. This means that the "special measures" would have to apply not to trade with Ireland, or to trade with the EU, but to trade with the whole world, provide the point of entry of the goods concerned into the EU was across the border in Ireland. And that would cause considerable practical and political problems for the UK.

My own view, FWIW, is that it's highly unlikely that "special measures" or technological solutions will have much of a role to play in delivering on the no-hard-border guarantee. Most of the heavy lifting is going to be done by including suitable provisions in the future relationship agreement between the EU and the UK. The drawback to this, from a Brexiters point of view, is that such provisions must by definition be agreed between the EU and the UK, and having found that the EU is not the pushover which they so confidently predicted during the referendum campaign they now seem to hold the quasi-Trumpian position that anything to which the EU will agree must, by definition, be unfair to the UK.

Peregrinus · 11-02-2019 1:44pm

murphaph wrote: »

See my post above. You can't control illegal EU migration post Brexit without a hard border.

How do you tell the settled Pole apart from the one freshly arrived via Dublin and Belfast?

ID cards? For whom? Everyone has to carry one for ID cards to work. Many British citizens speak English with an accent. Can't discriminate based on superficial things like that.

So we're back to policing the border but post Brexit there's a Northern Ireland sized hole in it.

Actually, no. The plan, post-Brexit, is that EU citizens will enjoy visa-free access to the UK, just as they do now.

What they won't enjoy is a right of abode or a right to work. But they'll be able to enter the UK quite freely (as tourists or visitors or whatever) without any need to detour via Ireland.

Enforcing the ban on settling and working won't be done at the border, but through "in-country" controls. To take up a job, register for national insurance, register at a GP practice, put your kids in school, rent or buy a home, etc, etc, you'll have to prove your migration status by producing the appropriate residence visa/work permit/whatever.

There's all kinds of objections to this system, many of them starting with the word "Windrush" but nevertheless its what they intend to do. And, however bad it may be in other respects, it's not a system that will be seriously impaired by the ability of Poles to enter the UK via Ireland. The system allows for the fact that Poles can get in easily.

Chips Lovell · 11-02-2019 1:45pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem. This is something that some Brexiters assure us can easily be done in the context of the UK border in Ireland, but despite its being very easy they have yet to actually devise a way of doing it which would both meet WTO obligations and satisfy the no-hard-border criteria set out in the Jt Report.

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

Peregrinus · 11-02-2019 1:49pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

Because they don't think the EU will agree that the measures are effective and sufficient. They think - or claim to think - that the EU is rubbing its hands and cackling insanely at its ability to keep the UK trapped ij the backstop for ever. It has not occurred to them that the EU has its own reasons for disliking the backstop and wanting to see it averted or superseded if at all possible.

Quin_Dub · 11-02-2019 1:51pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

The only quasi-logical thing that I can think of here is that the UK believe that the EU will negotiate in bad faith and that they will never agree to anything not matter how wonderful it might be, simply to keep the UK permanently constrained by the terms of the Backstop.

However , the legitimacy of those possible concerns are most definitely questionable to say they least in my view.

Why would the EU do that ? , not only in terms of the direct implications with the UK but also in terms of the serious damage that would do to their trustworthiness and reputation with all the other countries that they need to do business with.

CelticRambler · 11-02-2019 1:53pm

First Up wrote: »

The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.

murphaph wrote: »

Post Brexit FoM in the UK for 500 million people ends, but these 500 million people can still travel without hindrance to the UK via an open border.

downcow wrote: »

So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

Hang on a second. Freedom of Movement isn't about Paddy, Juan and Kurt wandering across the nearest border, having a beer together and dancing with some of the local girls. FoM is the right of any of us as EU citizens to set up a life for ourselves in any other part of the EU (free houses and healthcare not included.)

FoM does not extend to any goods we might want to move across the border, and by that I'm not referring to a lorry load of Tayto. As Gollum might put it, every time you (Downcow) cross the border from March 30th on, a customs officer somewhere will have to ask "what has he got in his pocketses?" :mad: The CTA gives you the right to walk bollock-naked across the border into Ireland, but without a deal, everything you carry on you or with you becomes a potential illegal import into the EU.

Do you remember, back in the Celtic Tiger days, people coming back from the States with suitcases of new clothes being hammered for customs duties if they forgot to take the tags off? That could be you in two months time, on your way back from a trip to Dublin. Do you remember the bad ol' days of the Troubles, and cars being stopped and their boots being opened? That'll be you in two months time. This is what happens right now at borders like those in Andorra, Switzerland and Eurotunnel.

The backstop means none of that would happen at the NI-RoI frontier, but your mates in England have voted against it. And somehow you keep trying to make out that we're the ones being awkward?

First Up · 11-02-2019 1:58pm

Peregrinus wrote:

Normally, countries do what needs to be done at the border, because it is either impossible or inconvenient to meet WTO obligations without any] controls at borders. But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem.

The WTO is less of a player in this. It sets the trading framework for members but compliance is a matter for each country.

The EU requires its member states to enforce compliance of the Single Market, including the Common External Tariff and technical standards. That is a national competence and responsibility.

Some (ERG) have suggested the UK can avoid jams at ports and shortages by "waving through" trucks at Dover etc. while they sort things out. Under WTO rules, they would have to offer the same unchecked freedom to imports from everywhere and that would be enforced by the WTO, probably following some pretty loud and quick protests from US, Australia, Japan, China etc.

spacecoyote · 11-02-2019 1:59pm

I've been seeing a lot of noise & conflicting info around the whole Article 24 thing. Could anyone clarify please?

I know that JRM & Forage are constantly on about it & how it would allow them to maintain tariff free trade post brexit.

But on the flip side of it, I've seen people stating that Article 24 only exists under GATT, and that the current WTO agreements supersede GATT, so technically it no longer exists, so is pointless to discuss at all as it cannot be used.

So, does anyone have a definitive on it? Is it just more ERG/UKIP codology, or is it a genuine piece of law which could be applied?

Kermit.de.frog · 11-02-2019 2:01pm

Barnier:

https://twitter.com/everything_fx/status/1094954149303726081

Also said May insists on no extension and wants to leave on 29th.

black forest · 11-02-2019 2:04pm

There is a brandnew paper done by real experts and out today.

https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1094919177343688704?s=21

Reading these thirty pages should help everybody to understand the different suggestions made last week like Malthouse plus the back stop.

Direct link to the pdf:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Brexit-and-the-backstop-everything-you-need-to-know.pdf

Have to read it again slowly.;)

downcow · 11-02-2019 2:12pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

Partition is an unnatural creation by the UK and is incompatible with Brexit.
Its the ultimate cake and eat it scenario that needs to be fixed.
It has caused civil war, conflict and death too frequently in it's 100 year history.
Bottom line downcow, basically if you want partition, you can't have Brexit and vice versa. It cannot work. Its a square peg in a round hole.

<snip>

So you have form. You are blaming Brexit it for everything currently. Not surprising as I see you are now claiming partition for being responsible for all the ills of Ireland. Of course the killing just started 100 years ago.

Unfortunately I cannot come back to you on this. I may already be in trouble because it seems remainders on here can distort history however they wish but dare I mention it

VinLieger · 11-02-2019 2:15pm

downcow wrote: »

So you have form. You are blaming Brexit it for everything currently. Not surprising as I see you are now claiming partition for being responsible for all the ills of Ireland. Of course the killing just started 100 years ago.

Why are we discussing any of this? Brexit! Therefore yes brexit is to blame for everything currently.

Also that's a pathetic strawman, that post contained nothing like what you claim.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments