I don't disagree with what you're saying but don't all of Ireland have a say on whether there is an actual border? Our Irish friends from North and South would know more. If NI voted to have a border wouldn't we be back where we were pre-1998.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I don't disagree with what you're saying but don't all of Ireland have a say on whether there is an actual border? Our Irish friends from North and South would know more. If NI voted to have a border wouldn't we be back where we were pre-1998.
The only solution I can see is this with NI staying in the SM and CU. Won't go down well with the Unionists.
Ooh. I bet they do. In fact I'm sure that's been made a priority.
Controlling borders is why they opted out of Schengen and Irish had to follow suit (again because of the GFA & CTA). The right to work is nothing to do with borders. To work legally you have to prove certain things that you are entitled to do so. If one is talking about illegal labour then there are 36+ million visitors to the UK, anyone of whom could overstay their visa and get an illegal job.
Trying to put oneself in the mind of a Brexiteer is difficult because nothing makes sense.
I have yet to hear one single Brexiteer talk sensibly about trade . They are a danger not only to the EU but to the UK too. It is clear they don't understand the dangers especially when they have idiots like Truss, Fox and Gove in charge. Customs (and excise) in the UK is massively understaffed and inefficient - imagine what it's going to be like when Brexit takes hold.
Not only the physical inspection but the paperwork either paper or electronic.
I suggest the people of Eire need to know what the people of Northern Ireland think just as much as everyone else. Rather than trying to impose their own wishes they would be better explaining to the Northern Irish what the advantages of an Irish Sea border would be, and considering what they could do to reassure doubters and take their worries into account. And let the people of Northern Ireland decide.
The issue with letting NI vote on the backstop (in official eyes at least) is that it would turn into a proxy border poll. Politics in NI are such that a vote on the backstop wouldn't just be a vote on the backstop and could end up destabilising NI further, the prevention of which is the whole point of the backstop.
Of course it was a possibility, irellevent if its the best version or not
But as you say, with opting out of Schengen, we already have control of our borders in the literal sense... so what can they possibly mean? I've always taken the 'borders!' cry of Brexiteers to basically mean they want to end the Freedom of Movement of Labour from the EU, and cut down the number of economic migrants choosing to enter Britain. I might be missing something though.
The slightly more sophisticated Brexiteers basically believe in the economic advantages of Unilateral Free Trade, as outlined here: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Unilateral-Free-Trade.pdf (if you can be bothered to read through a laissez faire policy paper by a UK think tank)
I don't agree with most of their arguments, but I do at least understand the case they're making.
Last edited:
Yes indeed, I can see you haven't read previous posts, if you go back I proposed exactly that, a vote for customs union and an irish sea border, or no union and a land border. The two go together.
I can see the objections but at least this way it would be the choice of the northern irish, whereas if there is no poll something is going to be imposed upon them. Everyone is claiming to know what they want, I'm suggesting find out formally, and let the British, the Southern Irish, and the EU, respect that.
Doesn't sound very detailed or constructive.
Well that’s a significantly more positive statement than I was expecting. More positioning to avoid blame, or some kind of fudge/compromise in the offing?
It could be neither. Compromise definitely somewhere obviously but maybe, just maybe, not a fudge. Let's see.
More or less says …"well we didn't come to blows"
"The PM didn't call me a bog-trotter so at least there's that."
Yes. It seems to be the only workable option.
- Corbyn said that he would want EU reform to be part of any proposal for the UK to remain in the EU. Labour’s plan is to negotiate a deal for a soft Brexit with the EU, and to then offer voters a choice between that option and remain. But, speaking in the Q&A, he said:
So if Labour win a GE the referendum will be between Remain but the EU must reform (is that before or after the referendum?) and the Unicorn proposal - sounds appealing to everyone. Vote winning assured.
This is definitely the logic. For a country with little manufacturing the idea would have to be to eliminate the vast majority (if not all) external tariffs (ideally reciprocally)
I'm yet to understand however how an open border would cause the mass smuggling of goods that don't meet EU standards. The goods in question would be illegal in ROI and irrespective of a border only a fraction of goods are physically checked, therefore surely it would simply be a matter of policing. Likewise even with a land border if the UK were desperate to smuggle these goods into EU territory it would be simple to do so across a few hundred metres of water.
What is the difference between a 5 metre wide river whereby (presumably) no border would be required... Or no 5 metre river?
How about this for a compromise...
- NI stays in the single market for goods and associated regulations, the rest of the UK leaves the single market entirely. (This is part of Boris's proposal and accepted by the EU)
- The whole of the UK (including NI) leaves the EU customs union to form a new UK customs area (also as proposed by Boris, but not accepted by the EU)
- However, the UK agrees that its customs area will mirror the EU customs tariffs for certain categories of goods with high volumes of cross-border NI-ROI trade. This would definitely include food and agriculture (bonus: British farmers will be happy tariffs are maintained on non-EU countries), and a few select other products that have high volumes of cross-border trade.
- This means customs checks are only required on a much more limited number of goods, and makes it more feasible to carry out any inspections at source. (Ireland currently physically checks fewer than 2% of goods coming from outside the EU anyway, and the UK only 4%)
- The UK cannot vary its tariffs on these select goods in point 3 unless and until the technology is fully in place to replace customs checks (much in the same way the original backstop was constructed)
- The UK can strike its own trade deals, so long as it maintains the tariffs on the goods mentioned in point 3 in line with the EU. (Probably would make a trade deal with the US impossible though, given how important agriculture is to them... so I guess this would mean a hard pass from Brexiteers)
Last edited:
Claiming to be able to do this is just plain dishonest.
The man's a joke.
Only a fraction of goods are checked because the UK customs are so badly understaffed and inefficient - they are hopeless - don't forget the paperwork.
Ireland checks even less...
I've never had the pleasure of dealing with Irish customs.
Of course. My point is that thorough checks aren't either a necessity or a reality.
I don't understand why the "border" between ROI and NI couldn't be like California and Arizona who have different legal standards. For the latter these standards are simply managed by policing. In this context surely legislating for greater punishments for smuggling across the Irish border and/or bunging Ireland a few hundred million per year to pay for several thousand police officers would do the job (if they didn't trust NI to police these illegal exports at source).
Likewise if a border is required for something that is illegal in one country and legal in another (e.g. chlorinated chicken), why wouldn't a border be required for goods that are illegal in both countries (e.g. cocaine). Surely if the countries involved don't respect the ability of each other to police goods that are illegal on one side of the border... They wouldn't trust their ability to police goods illegal on both. Did the potential for cocaine to be smuggled across the open border jeopardise the GFA?
That's before even considering how simple it would be to a) smuggle across a "hard" border due to the lack of physical checks; and/or b) how easy it would be to smuggle across a small body of water.
Last edited:
What's the legal status of Irish people in the UK?
But whilst the UK is still in the EU one of the external borders of the EU28 is the UK and Ireland together working under the same regulations and jursidictions. Theoretically all the 28 countries are working for each other. If the whole of the UK leave the EU then the EU27 external border is between NI and ROI. Which without the GFA would become like any border between different nations.
Two of the preferred destinations after Brexit, even though they are already significant destinations are the USA and Australia. The USA and Australia will certainly not have open borders to British goods and have even tougher regulations than the EU.
If the UK leave then they become a third country and should be expected to be treated like any other third country. Why did the UK opt out of Schengen if they are so calm about open borders?
Last edited:
We tolerate them.
I don't know whey you're all dismissing that so flippantly. It's been conceded by all sides of the argument that the reason there is so much contempt for the EU is because people disagree with the shape it currently sits in and the direction it has been heading. Personally I don't share that concern but I don't dismiss it as invalid or without argument either and accept that people have discrepancies over what the EU currently is and what it should or should not be.
If by some miracle we do get to a point where a peoples vote results in the revocation of article 50, that won't be the end of the argument by any stretch and the government will need to address the core issues people have with the EU to ensure that our vote, message and agenda for the future of the EU is representative of the UK people.
So many British people and politicians constantly moan about the agendas that Merkel and Macron have for the EU and direction they are taking them without ever considering the fact that we're an equal member to France and Germany and enjoy rights and privileges that the vast majority of countries do not. Instead of crying about it and running off to play alone like a bunch of betas, they should grow some fecking balls, show some actual leadership and use our influence to guide the EU in the direction they believe to be correct using all the democratic functions we have available to us.
We might have lost every single bit of good will we ever built up but the idea that deciding to Remain means we go back to the EU with our tail between our legs and do what we are told in future is just a Leave narrative to make us sound weak. We will have every right and privilege restored and we should open a conversation about why Brexit started and why there has been growing support in other countries for their own EU exits. It is after all in the EU's interest as a whole to do what is in the interest of the Union and pressing on with the agendas of a few, even if their intentions are good, might not be for the best if it's alienating others and risking a breakdown of the Union.
Again I don't understand the reason why an open border would be an issue between any two states with even slightly similar ideologies and/or wealth (note: this wouldn't include the right to work). Why wouldn't people want others entering the country and spending money?
If there were a Scotland-Norway border or a NI-Canada border... Why couldn't it be open and the differences in regulation be a matter for state policing?
If Luxembourg legalise cannabis will they need a hard border with Belgium? Or course not... It would be a matter for the police of both nations.
In terms of Schengen there is no legitimate reason for the UK to have opted out except to compensate for our own inept policing... The belief must have been that citizens with no right to work in the UK would enter and illegally work (or take advantage of NHS care)... Again that should have been resolved by better UK checks for workers and refusing healthcare, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Last edited:
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make - what is on this supposed referendum
1. a) Remain if the EU promise to reform and in the way Corbyn wants or b) Remain when the EU has reformed in the way Corbyn wants
2. Leave with Labour's Brexit Deal which would be impossible to get.
But the UK have the ability now to influence the EU, they are in the top 3 and are not pushed around anymore than France or Germany are pushed around, it's just the ridiculous narrative promoted by the British press. Just because the Uk have decided to vote in a bunch of losers in Farage and co who have no interest in dealing with the Uk's affairs, their only interest has been getting their salary and disrupt as much as possible but in no way helping the UK at all.
Surprisingly positive noises there.
I wouldn't put it past them to come back to parliament with a new deal that is carefully designed to be a reasonable deal on the surface but riddled with enough different aspects that piss off enough different people for it to be voted down again so they can apply for an extension and take it to a general election on the promise of the hardest possible Brexit and the mandate for no deal if that can't be agreed.
Boris is bunging them some of the £39billion.
Robert Peston saying on twitter that a minister told him they hope they aren't briefed on what was discussed in the meeting. Ffs. 
Ivan Rogers wrote the following by way of explanation:
“Nor can you just wish away issues at borders, whether on land or cross-Channel, when the entire purpose of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union must be to run deliberately different regulatory regimes – chosen by your own Parliament – where you believe it suits you.
“Such choices by definition entail a hard border. Borders across the whole world demarcate different regulatory regimes.
“Even the border between Sweden and Norway, one in the EU, the other out of it but wanting to remain much closer ‘in’ to EU institutional and legal frameworks (Single Market, Schengen) than our government, is a hard border. If alternative arrangements currently existed which obviated the need for any such border, they would already be operating right there. They are not.”
That's a bit of a fallacious statement don't you think? Hard borders have to exist because hard borders do exist. If hard borders didn't have to exist hard borders wouldn't exist.
Can you imagine if you applied that to everything? Cancer is unsolvable because if it were solvable we'd have already solved it. The fact that it hasn't already been solved proves it's unsolvable.
I'm asking what is the difference between chlorinated chicken being ok in NI and illegal in ROI and cannabis being legal in California and illegal in Arizona?
Yep.