Brexit: Now What? Part III

[ceptimus]

It will be the UK's problem. Its the British government which has the job of running NI, so who else is going to deal with the problems there?

And it's the Irish governments job of running (the republic of) Ireland, so who else is going to deal with the problems there?

In "The Troubles" there was plenty of violence and killing on both sides of the border - it wasn't all contained in the north.

 

[Strawberry]

And it's the Irish governments job of running (the republic of) Ireland, so who else is going to deal with the problems there?

In "The Troubles" there was plenty of violence and killing on both sides of the border - it wasn't all contained in the north.

There was very little violence and killing in the Republic in comparison to either the North or the bombing campaign carried out in England. However, I will correct my previous statement then and say it will be 90% Britain's problem if the peace process breaks down.

And even that is an unfair burden on the Irish because it will be 100% Britain's fault.

 

[Craig B]

I didn't say that. We (the UK) are NOT going to install any border infrastructure. Remember that the UK wants free trade to continue after Brexit and if we get our way, then just the same as it's been for the last few decades, no border checks for goods will be necessary.

If the EU insist on non-free trade, we intend to use softer means of deterring smuggling and such - paperwork trails, number plate recognition - that sort of thing.

If the EU wants to install border infrastructure on their side of the border that's up to them (and the Irish) and they'll have to pay for it.

Maybe they can get advice from Mexico on how to pay for it. But whoever pays for it, it will be there in one form or another.

We want to leave the EU, but we want free trade to continue, so it will continue. That's the line, isn't it?

 

[ceptimus]

Maybe they can get advice from Mexico on how to pay for it. But whoever pays for it, it will be there in one form or another.

We want to leave the EU, but we want free trade to continue, so it will continue. That's the line, isn't it?

No. The line is that if the EU want to stop free trade then it's up to them to pay for and build the physical infrastructure that will prevent free trade.

 

[ceptimus]

There was very little violence and killing in the Republic in comparison to either the North or the bombing campaign carried out in England. However, I will correct my previous statement then and say it will be 90% Britain's problem if the peace process breaks down.

And even that is an unfair burden on the Irish because it will be 100% Britain's fault.

Why is it Britain's fault when you say it's the other side that will build and man the border posts?

 

[Craig B]

No. The line is that if the EU want to stop free trade then it's up to them to pay for and build the physical infrastructure that will prevent free trade.

We on the other hand want free trade, but we sure as hell don't want foreigners wandering about freely in the U.K. Or foreign judges telling us what to do.

So we leave the free trade area. But that's all right, because we want free trade to continue anyway. We just don't want to shoulder any of the responsibility that goes with it. Let Johnnie Foreigner pay for all that stuff.

 

[ceptimus]

It's not just the cost - it's also the risk that it will precipitate the end of the peace process.

In any case, Ireland and the EU have also stated publicly that they don't want any hard border infrastructure either. It's incredible to me that there is so much debate over one of the few areas of the whole Brexit process where all sides are in complete agreement.

 

[Strawberry]

Why is it Britain's fault when you say it's the other side that will build and man the border posts?

Because Britain knows full well they are forcing them to do it. You seriously think Britain can leave the customs union, import meat full of crap from gawd knows where and sit back and blame someone else when Ireland closes the border?

You would be threatening Ireland's entire agriculture sector, not to mention using Ireland to pollute the agricultural sectors across every country inside the single european market in the process. I know you people have a racist stereotype that the Irish are stupid, but you need to stop believing it because the Irish are not stupid enough to blame anyone other than Britain if they have to bring back a hard border to protect themselves and their own livelihoods.

 

[The Don]

It's not just the cost - it's also the risk that it will precipitate the end of the peace process.

In any case, Ireland and the EU have also stated publicly that they don't want any hard border infrastructure either. It's incredible to me that there is so much debate over one of the few areas of the whole Brexit process where all sides are in complete agreement.

There may be agreement over the objective, but the UK government appears to be imposing conditions which makes achieving the objective impossible.

It's like a couple where both parties want one member to maintain their weight (a shared and agreed objective). Party A says that in order to maintain weight, Party B will need to continue to exercise and eat sensibly whereas Party B says they aren't going to do that and they're going to hit the pies hard and stay glued to the couch.

Both the UK and Ireland say they want an open border, but the UK's preconditions regarding restricting the movement of people, leaving the EEA and customs union and unwillingness to but a hard border on the interface between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK makes that impossible.

 

[jimbob]

ceptimus, are you actually David Davis?

It would explain a lot.

 

[ceptimus]

There may be agreement over the objective, but the UK government appears to be imposing conditions which makes achieving the objective impossible.

It's the EU that are imposing conditions: they have dictated the format of the negotiations; they have insisted that we must agree to pay them huge amounts of money after we leave; they demand that the EU court of justice must remain supreme over British courts after we leave; they won't even discuss trade until we agree to their absurd preconditions.

It's obvious that the EU don't want to negotiate a good deal. They're afraid that other EU countries will also leave after Britain is seen to have benefited by leaving.

 

[The Don]

It's the EU that are imposing conditions: they have dictated the format of the negotiations; they have insisted that we must agree to pay them huge amounts of money after we leave; they demand that the EU court of justice must remain supreme over British courts after we leave; they won't even discuss trade until we agree to their absurd preconditions.

If you cannot see how freedom of movement and a customs union (or equivalent thereof) are crucial to having an open border between two states then I'm not sure whether it's even worth having any kind of conversation.

As to absurd preconditions, again it's difficult to have a sensible conversation with someone who doesn't seem to appreciate that before you can have meaningful conversations about what happens after a break-up, you have to have a good understanding of the terms of that break-up.

It's obvious that the EU don't want to negotiate a good deal. They're afraid that other EU countries will also leave after Britain is seen to have benefited by leaving.

Ah, the "Britain as victim" meme

The EU want a good deal, it's just that their idea of a good deal is a good deal for them and/or a mutually good deal, not a good deal where the only party who benefits is the UK.

 

[Craig B]

It's the EU that are imposing conditions: they have dictated the format of the negotiations; they have insisted that we must agree to pay them huge amounts of money after we leave; they demand that the EU court of justice must remain supreme over British courts after we leave; they won't even discuss trade until we agree to their absurd preconditions.

It's obvious that the EU don't want to negotiate a good deal. They're afraid that other EU countries will also leave after Britain is seen to have benefited by leaving.

Simple solution. Walk away, scoop up these benefits and watch the EU disintegrate as other countries follow suit. Remember, no deal is better than a bad deal; isn't that so?

Any problems in Ireland, well we'll let the Irish handle and pay for them on their own, without our cooperation. What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[Pixel42]

Of course the EU need to ensure that the deal we have with them after we leave is worse than the deal we had when we were members. That's the point of any club: the members always get a better deal than the non-members. Otherwise there would be no point in having the club.

 

[jimbob]

Now add in that the DUP want no hard border between north and south,

https://www.itv.com/news/update/2017-10-11/brexit-dup-fear-disaster-no-deal-border-implications/


and no sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ejects-prospect-post-brexit-irish-sea-border/

 

[The Don]

Now add in that the DUP want no hard border between north and south,

https://www.itv.com/news/update/2017-10-11/brexit-dup-fear-disaster-no-deal-border-implications/


and no sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ejects-prospect-post-brexit-irish-sea-border/

Well that should be an easy circle to square

Meanwhile Michel Barnier unsurprisingly says that there hasn't been enough progress in negotiations.

The EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier says there has not been enough progress to move to the next stage of Brexit talks as the UK wants.

He said there was "new momentum" in the process but there was still "deadlock" over the so-called divorce bill, which he said was "disturbing".

But "decisive progress is in our grasp within the next two months", he added.

I'm inclined to believe his version over whatever propaganda David Davis comes up with.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41585430

 

[Information Analyst]

Don't you think we already have customs and immigration measures for people or goods coming from outside the EU?

We have the measures for the situation as it is now. In the event of a hard Brexit, suddenly everyone and everything will be subject to the non-EU checks and procedures. That going to cause serious bottlenecks at ports of entry.

Of course, if Hammond and remainers like him insist on not building up extra capacity prior to Brexit then there will be very long queues, chaos leading to cancelled flights and so on.

This is why Hammond should be sacked immediately. Put a leaver in the job of Chancellor and get on with the task of preparing for the increasingly likely hard Brexit.

Hammond is a great danger to this country. His strategy is to fail to prepare for Brexit, thus allowing the EU to demand whatever they like. He hopes that we will roll over, pay the EU even more than we do at present and agree to everything they want.

How can capacity be built up when we don't yet know what will be needed? If we fund, build, and recruit for a hard Brexit that turns out not to be the case, who will be on the hook for that?

Let's take one little example. Currently personal deliveries of goods by mail from outside the EU valued at more than £15 attract VAT. Higher value items attract additional charges. The Royal Mail charges £8 for the dubious privilege of diverting such packages, paying the VAT (which can be as little as £3) to HMRC in advance, and then delivering them to the recipient. Other carriers charge an even higher "handling fee." Currently packages coming from the EU are exempt, but that would cease immediately on your Hard Brexit Day. More to the point, packages of EU origin do not currently have to display a customs declaration, so any that arrive on or after HB-Day are liable to be opened and checked to see what's inside them for a valuation. That's a hell of a lot more work that will need to be done, and no doubt there will be a lot of pissed off recipients, as most of the population will be blissfully unaware of this outcome before it actually happens to them. The same applies to the holidaymakers bringing a suitcase full of booze and fags back from the Costa del Sol.

 

[Information Analyst]

We (the UK) don't want to control the movement of goods between Ireland and the UK, so that's not a concern to us.

We do want to control the movement of people, but we also don't want to cause tension - and perhaps eventually fighting/war by scrapping the Good Friday Agreement - so we have to consider the pros and cons.

We've determined that the installation of hard physical infrastructure at the border is likely to provoke violence so we think it better not to do that, and instead attempt to police the movement of people across the border by softer means. We can hope to find most people illegally living or working on the UK side of the border by means of employment records, tax returns, housing records, bank accounts and similar. Of course that won't catch 100% of illegal immigrants, but neither does a hard border. Admittedly the soft border will be more porous to illegal migration than a hard border but we consider that a price worth paying to hopefully preserve peace.

If the EU insist in installing hard border infrastructure on their side, then they need to raise the money to build it and convince the Irish that it's necessary. If it does get built and, regrettably, result in conflict and violence, then unfortunately both sides will have to deal with that. This would be a terrible tragedy so I hope the EU won't be so stupid as to go down that road; I don't have much confidence in the EU behaving sensibly though so I pin my hopes more on the Irish people and government refusing to install such a dangerous folly - regardless of the EU's demands.

That all boils down to a tacit admission that ultimately this is all about keeping the filthy foreigners out.

 

[Giz]

That all boils down to a tacit admission that ultimately this is all about keeping the filthy foreigners out.

Anyone who doesn't support unlimited immigration is a racist!

 

[Strawberry]

Anyone who doesn't support unlimited immigration is a racist!

Presumably you have some intelligent, constructive suggestion to make about the Irish border. You not being a racist an all will have a proper understanding that its about movement of goods, not people.