Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the backstop not be changed to "Any border in Ireland immediate ends all deals between the UK and the EU?"

No, it can't.

You're falling into the Brexiter error of treating a decision about a hard border like, say, a decision about whether to draw the curtains - as in, you can make that decision without regard to how light or dark it is outside.

A border is the place where one legal regime gives way to another; one set of tax obligations stops and another starts. Border controls are inherent in the nature of borders; if the rules on the other side of the border are different, then when you cross the border the different rules will be enforced on you - the taxes you are now liable to will be collected from you, the goods regulations you now have to comply with will be enforced against you, etc, etc. The controls are simply the impact of the enforcement of these rules. If you have no controls, you're not enforcing your rules, in which case, are they rules at all?

So, border controls are the norm, the default, for borders. The only way you can avoid border controls is by entering into arrangements for common rules on both sides of the border, for mutual recognition of rules and mutual acceptance of rules, etc, etc. By definition, this can only be done by agreement between the people on both sides of the border. It's impossible to do it unilaterally. You can unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that avoid border controls - and by brexiting the UK is doing precisely that - but you can't unilaterally take measures that will avoid border controls. Even if, hypothetically, the UK decided to Brexit on terms that it would not enforce UK tax or regulatory rules on anyone entering the UK across the Irish border (and they would have to be astonishingly stupid to make such a decision) that would not avoid border controls, because Brexit means withdrawing from the arrangements which avoid border controls operated by either side, and the EU is not going to make the same astonishingly stupid decision.

So, if the UK's no-hard-border guarantee means anything at all, it means a commitment to enter into the agreed arrangements that are needed if a hard border is to be avoided. If, by the time Brexit happens, the UK hasn't reached agreement with the EU on these arrangements then there will be a hard border. We can't pretend, at that point, that a hard border is something that might or might not happen in the future depending on how the UK decides to behave; it is something that will happen, and soon, unless the UK makes an agreement with the EU as to how it is to be avoided.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it can't.

You're falling into the Brexiter error of treating a decision about a hard border like, say, a decision about whether to draw the curtains - as in, you can make that decision without regard to how light or dark it is outside.

A border is the place where one legal regime gives way to another; one set of tax obligations stops and another starts. Border controls are inherent in the nature of borders; if the rules on the other side of the border are different, then when you cross the border the different rules will be enforced on you - the taxes you are now liable to will be collected from you, the goods regulations you now have to comply with will be enforced against you, etc, etc. The controls are simply the impact of the enforcement of these rules. If you have no controls, you're not enforcing your rules, in which case, are they rules at all?

So, border controls are the norm, the default, for borders. The only way you can avoid border controls is by entering into arrangements for common rules on both sides of the border, for mutual recognition of rules and mutual acceptance of rules, etc, etc. By definition, this can only be done by agreement between the people on both sides of the border. It's impossible to do it unilaterally. You can unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that avoid border controls - and by brexiting the UK is doing precisely that - but you can't unilaterally take measures that will avoid border controls. Even if, hypothetically, the UK decided to Brexit on terms that it would not enforce UK tax or regulatory rules on anyone entering the UK across the Irish border (and they would have to be astonishingly stupid to make such a decision) that would not avoid border controls, because Brexit means withdrawing from the arrangements which avoid border controls operated by either side, and the EU is not going to make the same astonishingly stupid decision.

So, if the UK's no-hard-border guarantee means anything at all, it means a commitment to enter into the agreed arrangements that are needed if a hard border is to be avoided. If, by the time Brexit happens, the UK hasn't reached agreement with the EU on these arrangements then there will be a hard border. We can't pretend, at that point, that a hard border is something that might or might not happen in the future depending on how the UK decides to behave; it is something that will happen, and soon, unless the UK makes an agreement with the EU as to how it is to be avoided.

But you can, presumably, just refuse to implement border controls on your side of the border - isn't that how the UK/Irish CTA came about, when the newly-independent Irish state simply refused to participate in the type of border controls the British government wanted to enforce?

volchitsa wrote: »

But you can, presumably, just refuse to implement border controls on your side of the border - isn't that how the UK/Irish CTA came about, when the newly-independent Irish state simply refused to participate in the type of border controls the British government wanted to enforce?

Well, Country A can decide not to bother with any border controls on its side of the A\./B border. But:

1. This doesn't avoid a hard border, since it doesn't stop country B implementing controls. If I'm subject to controls when travelling from country A to country B, that's not an open border.

2. This has undesirable side effects for country A, and represents a substantial diminution of its sovereignty. On migration, say, if country A operates no controls at the A/B border, then country A is open to (a) all citizens of country B, plus (b) citizens of any country who are admitted to country B. Which effectively leaves country B deciding who will, and who will not, be admitted to country A. And on the same reasoning country A is effectively conceding control of its its tariff policy, its regulations of goods, etc to country B.

Is this how the CTA got started? No, I don't think it is. The UK didn't want to operate migration controls at the Free State/NI border because they recognised that, given the nature of the border, it would be next to impossible to do so effectively. And the Irish authorities weren't fussed because they didn't have a problem of people trying to immigrate to the Free State; then and for decades later their problem was the opposite: too much emigration. They also didn't want border controls for obvious political reasons.

In short, it suited both sides not to operate migration controls at the Free State/NI border. This left the UK with a problem which could be resolved if the Irish would agree to enforce UK rules on landing rights - i.e. if the Irish would turn away from the Free State anyone who wouldn't be admitted to the UK. The Irish were happy to do this provided it was reciprocal - the UK agreed to turn away anyone who wouldn't be admitted to Ireland. The UK were happy with that, and that's the basis on which the CTA has operated since then (if we overlook the wee gap between 1939 and 1952 when there were movement controls between Ireland (the island) and Great Britain).

Sure enough, British media (Today programme on Radio 4) already seizing upon Timmy Dooley’s tweet from yesterday as a sign that Irish unity is disintegrating.

I hope he was severely chastised by Micheal Martin in private, and we don’t see that kind of nonsense again.

volchitsa wrote: »

I was posting from (rather vague) memory. A quick check on Wiki tells me I was actually thinking of the suspension of the CTA during the war years which the Irish then unilaterally abandoned post-war, against British wishes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area

This unilateral application of border controls continued until an agreement in 1952. So it can be done although not without problems as you say. I'm not sure what the conclusion wrt a no deal Brexit is, though.

(Just exploring the issues here, I genuine don't know.)

Bewteen '45 and '52 there were movement controls on people coming from Ireland to Britain, but not the other way around. I wouldn't say that, during that period, there was a "Common Travel Area" in operation, if only because there was nothing "common" about the Irish decision not to apply movement controls; it was a unilateral decision.

In the Brexit context, of course, neither side intends to operate movement controls on people crossing the RoI/NI border, in either direction. We are talking about collecting taxes and tariffs on goods crossing the border, and inspecting goods crossing the border for compliance with local regulatory requirements.

UK could,hypothetically, unilaterally decide to collect no taxes and tariffs, and operate no regulatory controls, on goods entering the UK from RoI. But, even if they did, that would not honour the no-hard-border guarantee, since goods crossing the other way would be taxed and controlled, because of the UK's unilateral decision to end the mutual arrangements which currently make that unnecessary.

Great piece in Sky Views about the push towards comparing Brexit with WWII


https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-boris-johnson-is-not-churchill-and-brexit-is-not-the-second-world-war-11773843


Boris is absolutely loving being compared with his idol

VinLieger wrote: »

Boris is absolutely loving being compared with his idol

He shouldn't be. The comparison is hardly likely to be favourable to Boris.

VinLieger wrote: »

He adores Churchill, his childlike wish is to be seen as the second coming of the man

He should be able to see that his childlike wish is very, very unlikely to be granted.

KildareP wrote: »

Even the US must be getting sick of repeating themselves at this stage - some strong (repeated) words from Richard Neal on a UK-US trade deal:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/this-is-not-about-a-return-to-empire-us-congressman-warns-johnson-on-belfast-agreement-1.3972382

Meanwhile there could be a few uncomfortable chats happening around No 10 this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/30/dominic-cummings-tories-do-not-care-about-poor-people-or-the-nhs

If the UK offers the US a trade deal in which it effectively prostrates itself, I expect U.S. Congress to pretty much say, "Ah, but let us define jeopardise...". Money talks.

And I'm wondering if these Democratic politicians are opposing a no-backstop trade deal because they care so very much about the N.I. Peace Process, or if
they're using that as a banner to oppose Trump under. The key question is whether the Democrats would refuse to do a trade deal with the UK if it were the Democrats in government. I think their game is to oppose it now, and oppose Trump in the process, and by the time the Dems get back into the President's office, the UK-EU and backstop issues will have resolved themselves, and they won't look like hypocrites if they then pivot to a deal.

Peregrinus wrote:

So, if the UK's no-hard-border guarantee means anything at all, it means a commitment to enter into the agreed arrangements that are needed if a hard border is to be avoided. If, by the time Brexit happens, the UK hasn't reached agreement with the EU on these arrangements then there will be a hard border. We can't pretend, at that point, that a hard border is something that might or might not happen in the future depending on how the UK decides to behave; it is something that will happen, and soon, unless the UK makes an agreement with the EU as to how it is to be avoided.

Correct. Those demanding the backstop be dropped are conveniently forgetting how it arose.

The agenda for the withdrawal talks (agreed between the UK and EU) required the UK to say how arrangements in Ireland would be maintained post Brexit before the talks could move on to other topics.

As they were unable to answer this, the UK offered the backstop as a way to park the issue while other matters were dealt with. They undertook that nothing would be done that changed the Irish situation unless and until new terms were agreed between the parties. The EU accepted this promise in good faith and allowed the rest of the WA to progress.

The UK has now gone back on its promise. The logical and legal response from the EU is that in that case, we move back to where we were before the backstop was offered.

The UK has until October 31st to make up the lost time on Ireland and everything else. They better hurry.

Arlene Foster still blaming everybody else for the predicament the DUP find themselves in as regards Brexit and powersharing.
No change there then.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

From memory, the DUP spent less than 30 minutes choosing a policy stance on Brexit prior to the referendum.
Based on this, they don't do long games!

As for their "plans", they are succeeding I guess. It looks like they are going to get Home Rule which suits them fine.

Direct* Rule.

They're giving up Home Rule given their unwillingness to go back to Stormont.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Does she think we’re all stupid?

Arlene who resigned from the Ulster unionists in protest of the GFA, now trying to make out she’s defending it and it’s Dublin tearing up the GFA.

It would be Orwellian if it weren’t so obvious and hypocritical

She's not talking to us. She's telling her supporters what they want to hear to keep them on side. We're not her target audience.