Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[ceptimus]

I think ceptimus is saying that the UK announces that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it won't be erecting a hard border between NI and Ireland and neither will there be one between NI and the rest of the UK.

Yes. That is the UK government policy. I've explained it in these threads many times before. The EU is still saying that it will install a hard border, so perhaps there will be one anyway.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can you point out what was promised by the leave campaign in the lead up to the referendum?

What exactly was their unanimous, coherent view on what leaving the EU actually entailed?

Straight from the horse's mouth came reassuring promises like these:

"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
"We will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave."

 

[The Don]

I doubt he would say that. If the leave campaign had one headline issue it was "Take back control of our borders". People did not vote leave to have no control whatsoever over who comes and goes into the the UK.

I think this clears it up.

Yes. That is the UK government policy. I've explained it in these threads many times before. The EU is still saying that it will install a hard border, so perhaps there will be one anyway.

Of course if the EU take a similarly laissez faire approach and don't install a hard border either then I'm not sure how we stop the free movement of people into the UK from the EU (which AFAIK was one of the primary drivers for Brexit).

I guess the UK is relying on the EU being concerned about chlorinated chicken and erecting a barrier.

 

[Lothian]

I think this clears it up.

Well I am shocked, I tell you, totally shocked. Are you sure he is a True^tm Brexiteer. He wants brexit with no control over our borders Has he not seen the queues of brown (and white people retouched to be browner) people queuing to get in here?

Why next he will be supporting remaining in EU institutions like Europol. Folk like that "Enemy of the people".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes. That is the UK government policy.

No it isn't.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

From part-4 of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12327137#post12327137

It's not possible. A no-deal Brexit means we leave the customs union which means there needs to be customs checks at the border - i.e. a hard border.

No deal means that British people lose the right to travel to Ireland freely and vice versa. Which means there has to be checks. A border.

Now the UK government can choose not to enforce this border but it will still exist and would merely make the Irish border a wild west frontier where anything was possible. I don't think the EU would be so laissez faire about it and so a hard border will exist.

blaming the EU for controlling their borders would be rather ironic wouldn't it? And it will still be the same result - that the actions of the UK have created a hard border in Ireland contrary to the GFA.

It's absolutely incoherent to suggest otherwise.

 

[The Don]

Well I am shocked, I tell you, totally shocked. Are you sure he is a True^tm Brexiteer. He wants brexit with no control over our borders Has he not seen the queues of brown (and white people retouched to be browner) people queuing to get in here?

Without putting words into ceptimus' mouth, the UK government has said that there will be no hard border in Ireland and so there will be no hard border from the UK side - any hard border will be entirely the EU's doing and will be entirely their fault for their intransigence.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Without putting words into ceptimus' mouth, the UK government has said that there will be no hard border in Ireland and so there will be no hard border from the UK side - any hard border will be entirely the EU's doing and will be entirely their fault for their intransigence.

Having control of one's borders: good thing or bad thing?

Some consistency would be nice.

ETA: not directed at The Don.

 

[The Don]

It's not possible. A no-deal Brexit means we leave the customs union which means there needs to be customs checks at the border - i.e. a hard border.

That is my understanding but ceptimus seems to think that the UK could choose to waive the need to implement a hard border and put the onus on the EU.

Instead the customs aspects will be dealt with by alignment - although over time UK standards may diverge but the EU would be obliged to let the UK continue to trade on the same basis and any duty collection would be done by private companies assisted by "technology".

No deal means that British people lose the right to travel to Ireland freely and vice versa. Which means there has to be checks. A border.

ceptimus seems to think that the UK could unilaterally choose to keep the border open and hopes that the EU follows suit. It's not clear to me how foreigners could be kept out under this scheme but even if "they" came to the UK, they wouldn't be able to settle and work because they wouldn't have the necessary paperwork.

Now the UK government can choose not to enforce this border but it will still exist and would merely make the Irish border a wild west frontier where anything was possible. I don't think the EU would be so laissez faire about it and so a hard border will exist.

I agree with the above - at that point the UK would blame the EU, and their intransigence, for the hard border

blaming the EU for controlling their borders would be rather ironic wouldn't it? And it will still be the same result - that the actions of the UK have created a hard border in Ireland contrary to the GFA.

Well yes, but you see it would be the EU's fault and so the UK government would be absolved from blame.

It's absolutely incoherent to suggest otherwise.

Of course it is but "absolutely incoherent" IMO describes the Leave campaign's entire approach.

 

[Darat]

Yes. That is the UK government policy. I've explained it in these threads many times before. The EU is still saying that it will install a hard border, so perhaps there will be one anyway.

Let's say the EU doesn't erect a "hard border" and we don't as well. How is that talking back control of our borders? It would mean quite literally that anyone no matter what nationality, no matter what immigration status can walk into the UK unchallenged.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, if neither side will close the NI border, on the upside it'll be a new golden age for cross-border smuggling. Ill winds and all that.

 

[The Don]

Let's say the EU doesn't erect a "hard border" and we don't as well. How is that talking back control of our borders? It would mean quite literally that anyone no matter what nationality, no matter what immigration status can walk into the UK unchallenged.

Because we have chosen to have a completely open and unprotected border rather than being forced into it by the EU

 

[Spanx]

Let's say the EU doesn't erect a "hard border" and we don't as well. How is that talking back control of our borders? It would mean quite literally that anyone no matter what nationality, no matter what immigration status can walk into the UK unchallenged.

The trouble is that if we don't leave our back passage open we won't get shafted.

We need to blame the EU, remainers and foreigners to keep the Brexit dream alive after we have left.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That is my understanding but ceptimus seems to think that the UK could choose to waive the need to implement a hard border and put the onus on the EU.

Instead the customs aspects will be dealt with by alignment - although over time UK standards may diverge but the EU would be obliged to let the UK continue to trade on the same basis and any duty collection would be done by private companies assisted by "technology".

Formal alignment means a customs union. Which we aren't going to have. Informal alignment (if such a thing would even be countenanced) basically relies on both sides trusting that they are acting the same as they were in a customs union anyway. So might a well stay in the customs union - unless of course the only goal is to SAY you've left it.

The problem of course arises as you say when one diverges from the other. Lets say the UK signs an FTA with the Philippines for bendy bananas - the EU's most dreaded product couldn't be allowed freely into Ireland. So a border is needed.

The thinking also seems to rely on the assumption that the European standards will generally be sensible and not contrary to the UK's interests. Imagine the EU signed up to allow cheap Chinese vacuum cleaners in en masse - how long before everyone's favourite friendly nutter Jimmy Dyson is on the phone to Theresa May telling her to build a wall?

 

[ponderingturtle]

....and as I understand it, a collapse of the Good Friday Agreement

Yep it was a solid vote to unilaterally leave the GFA, but all that is minor compared to sovereignty or something.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The confusion is engendered by remain supporters arguing that 'leave' doesn't really mean leave - it only means 'partly leave'. They apparently have no problem understanding what 'remain' meant, so they might get a clearer picture of what the public voted for by thinking of the two options offered as 'remain' and 'not remain'.

Exactly it isn't a real leave until there is a hard Irish border!

 

[The Don]

Formal alignment means a customs union. Which we aren't going to have. Informal alignment (if such a thing would even be countenanced) basically relies on both sides trusting that they are acting the same as they were in a customs union anyway. So might a well stay in the customs union - unless of course the only goal is to SAY you've left it.

I disagree. I think that Brexiteers want alignment on day 1 (which is what we have in any case now), but that divergence would start on day 2 as local requirements and/or demand from non-EU countries dictates. The EU OTOH would have to allow non-compliant products in as the standards diverge because "they need us more than we need them". The process of divergence will be slow enough that the UK will end up with its own standards but, like the hypothetical boiling frog, the EU won't realise.

IOW - the UK will cheat.

The problem of course arises as you say when one diverges from the other. Lets say the UK signs an FTA with the Philippines for bendy bananas - the EU's most dreaded product couldn't be allowed freely into Ireland. So a border is needed.

Of course they'll allow it in because the "English, the English, the English are best". They'll realise that our standards make far more sense and in any case. We won't cheat and even if we do it doesn't matter because *reasons*

The thinking also seems to rely on the assumption that the European standards will generally be sensible and not contrary to the UK's interests. Imagine the EU signed up to allow cheap Chinese vacuum cleaners in en masse - how long before everyone's favourite friendly nutter Jimmy Dyson is on the phone to Theresa May telling her to build a wall?

I disagree. There will be divergence in standards over time as pressure is put on the UK by non-EU trading partners. There may be some push-back to suit the needs of prominent Conservative donors but I expect a rapid erosion of workers' and environmental protections post-Brexit as the UK attempts to compete with the developing world on price.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Normally when politicians renege on their promises they are hauled over the coals and people get quite annoyed at them. It's only in the Brexit parallel universe where I have ever seen people just insist that all politicians lie and we shouldn't be bothered by it. Or worse still...insist that they didn't really mean what they said in the first place and everyone knew they actually meant something else.

No that is not only in brexit, that was a key point to many Trump supporters. OF course he was lying about X,Y,Z those are just stupid rabble rousing things he is saying,but he really means N,K,V,and D.

So not only in Brexit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You either don't understand this issue or are wilfully lying about it because you know it holes your boat below the waterline.

Leaving the EU requires a hard border between Ireland and the UK unless we reach an agreement with the EU otherwise. Your proposed way forward ensures that a hard border exists and the terms of the GFA are broken. Whether the DUP will come along for that ride remains to be seen and would therefore jeopardise the ability of the Government to enact ANY legislation regarding leaving the EU.

Of course a vote for brexit was a vote to unilaterally leave the GFA didn't everyone know that?

 

[The Don]

Of course a vote for brexit was a vote to unilaterally leave the GFA didn't everyone know that?

A number of people who knew about that kind of thing pointed out that a Brexit in which the UK leaves the Customs Union and/or EEA would result in a hard border and hence break the GFA. They were dismissed by the Leave campaign as being part of Project Fear.

During the referendum, the Leave campaign dismissed all claims that the Good Friday Agreement could be undermined by Brexit as ‘scaremongering’. Now some of them are publicly calling for it to be scrapped.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/hoey-good-friday-agreement_uk_5a8adf6de4b00bc49f46c3ac