Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[quadraginta]

I am relieved to learn that all I need to do is embrace the change to remain unaffected by all the corporations who will shift their manufacturing out of the UK and into the EU27 over the next decade. For a moment there, I was worried.

When I said that most Britons here are worried about the country, I meant the fate of ordinary Britons. The typical Brit does not have a well diversifide stock portfolio, or indeed any investments all.

What ordinary people have instead is skills and job experience. They are employed and receive an ever greater income over the course of their lives because they gain additional skills and experience. That's their wealth.

Brexit will, in all likelihood, make some kinds of economic activity in the UK inefficient. A lot of economic activity takes place for the sake of exporting to the EU. That means that some skills will no longer be in demand following Brexit.
Many people will find that their skills have become worthless over night. They face economic annihilation.

Nissan can just take its machines and move them to eastern Europe; an unfortunate expense but not the end of the world. Nissan's skilled workers can't sell their skills to eastern Europe. The Uk government will not allow europeans to sell their skills in the UK, so the EU will not allow Brits to sell theirs in the EU. Tit for tat...

If these ordinary people are of a certain age, they will not go back on track in a few years or decades when the economy has been restructured. They don't just start back at 0. It's over for them. Letting someone work in a capacity where they can gain valuable job experience means that the company is making an investment in that person. They won't do that if that person will leave the work force soon anyways.

At least there are good prospects post Brexit of positions opening up in the Agriculture industry.

 

[Strawberry]

I think Michel H is from Belgium. Not the UK anyway.

If that's the case, he should know better.

 

[Michel H]

You really don't get it, do you? Unless the UK either signs up to the Irish backstop or comes up with another way to keep the Irish border as it is there won't be any deal.

As for the territorial integrity of the UK, maybe your government should have thought of that before wrapping themselves up in red lines about leaving the single market and customs union. They will now have to choose who to throw under the Brexit bus, the ERG or the DUP. Or Britain will be crashing out with no deal next March.

As for the territorial integrity of the UK, maybe your government should have thought of that before wrapping themselves up in red lines about leaving the single market and customs union. They will now have to choose who to throw under the Brexit bus, the ERG or the DUP. Or Britain will be crashing out with no deal next March.

Hum, I am from Belgium ... (as fagin said, and I am probably more a Remainer than a Leaver or a Brexiteer)

Unless the UK either signs up to the Irish backstop or comes up with another way to keep the Irish border as it is there won't be any deal.

I understand that this is currently the dominant view (and I am not a Brexit expert). But it seems to me that light border checks on the land border of Northern Ireland could be acceptable and should be considered in order to unblock the current stalemate. Would IRA resume armed action? I doubt it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I was about to say TVR were dead but apparently they came back to life last year. Although the components aren't necessarily British.

I might vote to buy one. Not that I can afford it or know where to get one nor is it practical for me but apparently none of that matters anymore if you just wish hard enough.

Fantastic cars. Unless you want to actually start it, turn off the alarm or get anywhere, but if you're really interested in any of those things you shouldn't be buying a TVR. They're for looking good (the inability to turn off the alarm is a feature not a bug - it makes people look) and going really short distances at breakneck, literally, speed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Of course Dyson is going to start building Electric Cars haha!

We'll need a trade agreement with India to import them then.

 

[Strawberry]

Hum, I am from Belgium ... (and I am probably more a Remainer than a Leaver or a Brexiteer)

I understand that this is currently the dominant view (and I am not a Brexit expert). But it seems to me that light border checks on the land border of Northern Ireland could be acceptable and should be considered in order to unblock the current stalemate. Would IRA resume armed action? I doubt it.

No border checks at the Irish land border are acceptable. Period.

If you think the IRA have anything to do with the reason why, you are utterly clueless. Do you seriously imagine that 26 European governments, including your own, set no Irish land border as a red line because they were afraid of the IRA?

It is a) impossible not to severely damage the lives and livelihoods of people on both sides of the border if you bring back a hard border, and b) impossible to protect the integrity of the single market if one of its external frontiers is the Irish border.

I live here, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Michel H]

No border checks at the Irish land border are acceptable. Period.

If you think the IRA have anything to do with the reason why, you are utterly clueless. Do you seriously imagine that 26 European governments, including your own, set no Irish land border as a red line because they were afraid of the IRA?

It is a) impossible not to severely damage the lives and livelihoods of people on both sides of the border if you bring back a hard border, and b) impossible to protect the integrity of the single market if one of its external frontiers is the Irish border.

I live here, I know what I'm talking about.

If you live in Ulster, perhaps you know better than me. However, I don't understand (or I disagree with) your argument b): why should the Irish border treated so differently from any other external border of the EU?

As to a), it is perhaps better to alter in a minimal way the lives of less than two million inhabitants of Northern Ireland than to severely disrupt the lives of the about 70 million people of the UK (and the British economy) because of a lack of a post-Brexit trade deal, and a lack of good cooperation between Britain and the EU.

 

[Strawberry]

If you live in Ulster, perhaps you know better than me. However, I don't understand (or I disagree with) your argument b): why should the Irish border treated so differently from any other external border of the EU?

As to a), it is perhaps better to alter in a minimal way the lives of less than two million inhabitants of Northern Ireland than to severely disrupt the lives of the about 70 million people of the UK (and the British economy) because of a lack of a post-Brexit trade deal, and a lack of good cooperation between Britain and the EU.

The Irish border has to be treated differently from the EU's other external borders because it is different. You cannot protect the integrity of the single market at the Irish land border. How are you going to protect Belgian agriculture, for example, if the UK does a trade deal with the US and starts importing dodgy beef? Or how do you protect Belgian consumers if they start importing substandard electrical goods? Once any of those things gets on to the island of Ireland it can cross into the single market via the unpoliceable land border and end up anywhere.

As to your second paragraph, the damage it would do to my life to have an international border on my doorstep would not be minimal. It would also not be limited to people on the UK side of the border. And in case you have forgotten, Ireland is an EU member state with the power of veto over any trade deal.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Actually Brexit would pretty much force the UK to give up Gibraltar and probably the channel islands too. After all both Spain and France would have no reason to stop refugees from trying to cross to all three and once they are across they'd be on UK soil and thus the UKs problem.
And keeping scary foreigners out was the main brexit point.

 

[jeremyp]

As to a), it is perhaps better to alter in a minimal way the lives of less than two million inhabitants of Northern Ireland than to severely disrupt the lives of the about 70 million people of the UK (and the British economy) because of a lack of a post-Brexit trade deal, and a lack of good cooperation between Britain and the EU.

I think that ship has sailed. I can’t see any deal that wouldn’t severely disrupt the lives of everybody here in the UK.

I also don’t understand why anybody thinks we could have good cooperation after Brexit. We’ve just tried to kick you in the balls (although it looks like we broke our own toes doing it). I don’t understand why the rest of the EU isn’t sticking two fingers up at as and saying **** you Britain. It’s almost as if the EU is not the self serving mafia state we have been told about and is a group of nations genuinely trying to do the best for Europe as a whole.

 

[Michel H]

The Irish border has to be treated differently from the EU's other external borders because it is different. You cannot protect the integrity of the single market at the Irish land border. How are you going to protect Belgian agriculture, for example, if the UK does a trade deal with the US and starts importing dodgy beef? Or how do you protect Belgian consumers if they start importing substandard electrical goods? Once any of those things gets on to the island of Ireland it can cross into the single market via the unpoliceable land border and end up anywhere.

As to your second paragraph, the damage it would do to my life to have an international border on my doorstep would not be minimal. It would also not be limited to people on the UK side of the border. And in case you have forgotten, Ireland is an EU member state with the power of veto over any trade deal.

Once any of those things gets on to the island of Ireland it can cross into the single market via the unpoliceable land border and end up anywhere.

I don't see why the Irish land border should be harder to monitor than any other external border of the European Union, for example the much longer border with Ukraine. You can imagine for example a special lane and a special checkpoint for trucks at the border on the main road between Ulster and the Republic (with trucks being ordered to use only this main road, and cooperation to maintain law and order on both sides of the border). I remember travelling to Austria in 1980, before that country joined the EU, and I don't recollect any difficulty at the border.
Also, keep in mind that, while Ireland does have a veto power on any future trade deal (this is correct), it has no veto power on Brexit, and it cannot refuse that normal laws and rules apply.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see why the Irish land border should be harder to monitor than any other external border of the European Union, for example the much longer border with Ukraine. You can imagine for example a special lane and a special checkpoint for trucks at the border on the main road between Ulster and the Republic (with trucks being ordered to use only this main road, and cooperation to maintain law and order on both sides of the border). I remember travelling to Austria in 1980, before that country joined the EU, and I don't recollect any difficulty at the border.
Also, keep in mind that, while Ireland does have a veto power on any future trade deal (this is correct), it has no veto power on Brexit, and it cannot refuse that normal laws and rules apply.

It isn't the technical feasibility of it, I mean sure they would have pull down a lot of roads to get a more reasonable number of crossings for an international boarder, it is the politics of it and if it will be acceptable. It is probably the main reason why a no deal exit is inevitable, because no solution to the issue is palatable to enough people to not get it vetoed by the EU or cause the british government to collapse. So the clock it going to run out when Britain still can't come up with a coherent strategy of what they even want let alone something anyone else would sign off on.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

However, I think that May might be right on one thing: there should probably be no border in the Irish Sea, the territorial integrity of the UK should be preserved by any deal, this is something the EU should understand better in my humble opinion. On the other hand, it may make sense to restore some customs checkpoints at borders between the UK and the European Union, including between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (with limited controls), if Brexit does happen (which is likely), and limit checks by using technology and internet, asking people to declare goods beforehand and so on. This is something that Boris Johnson seems to understand better than May and Barnier, in my opinion (if I understood correctly).

Oh please...
In the good friday agreement, the UK gave Northern Ireland the right to hold a referendum and join the Irish Republic. Now the "territorial integrity" of the UK is threatened because some regulatory checks are to take place away from the border?
In truth some agricultural checks already take place at the ports because that is much more sensible: Better to make sure that sick animals or plants don't reach the island than to try to stop an infection at an arbitrary line.

IMHO this is simply the DUP talking. They never wanted the GFA and now they have a chance to kill it.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't see why the Irish land border should be harder to monitor than any other external border of the European Union, for example the much longer border with Ukraine. You can imagine for example a special lane and a special checkpoint for trucks at the border on the main road between Ulster and the Republic (with trucks being ordered to use only this main road, and cooperation to maintain law and order on both sides of the border). I remember travelling to Austria in 1980, before that country joined the EU, and I don't recollect any difficulty at the border.
Also, keep in mind that, while Ireland does have a veto power on any future trade deal (this is correct), it has no veto power on Brexit, and it cannot refuse that normal laws and rules apply.

You don't see why it's unpoliceable because you don't know anything about it. For one thing there is no border between Ulster and Ireland, the Irish border runs between different parts of Ulster. It also cuts across private land, up the middle of village streets, across bodies of water where nobody has ever even agreed where the border actually is, and through houses.

Now add to that the complication that, unlike Ukraine and pre-EU Austria, the Irish on both sides of the border have spent the last few decades in a single market and customs union with each other, and the economy reflects that, as does the volume of cross border traffic.

Then there's the Good Friday Agreement which set up cross border co-operations in all sorts of areas other than the economy. Health care, for example. Altnagelvin hospital in Derry has an agreement with Letterkenny General Hospital in Donegal to treat each other's emergency patients in the event of one hospital being too busy. So if you're in an ambulance trying to cross the border and get stuck in a queue due to customs controls, that's not minimal disruption to yourself​ life.

If Ireland is going to be forced​ to have a return to a hard border that we don't want and all the consequences that come with it then Britain can go whistle for their trade deal. And so can Belgium.

 

[Michel H]

You don't see why it's unpoliceable because you don't know anything about it. For one thing there is no border between Ulster and Ireland, the Irish border runs between different parts of Ulster. It also cuts across private land, up the middle of village streets, across bodies of water where nobody has ever even agreed where the border actually is, and through houses.

Now add to that the complication that, unlike Ukraine and pre-EU Austria, the Irish on both sides of the border have spent the last few decades in a single market and customs union with each other, and the economy reflects that, as does the volume of cross border traffic.

Then there's the Good Friday Agreement which set up cross border co-operations in all sorts of areas other than the economy. Health care, for example. Altnagelvin hospital in Derry has an agreement with Letterkenny General Hospital in Donegal to treat each other's emergency patients in the event of one hospital being too busy. So if you're in an ambulance trying to cross the border and get stuck in a queue due to customs controls, that's not minimal disruption to yourself​ life.

If Ireland is going to be forced​ to have a return to a hard border that we don't want and all the consequences that come with it then Britain can go whistle for their trade deal. And so can Belgium.

Well, obviously a so-called hard border should probably remain soft for such emergency patients ([most] people are not crazy).

 

[Strawberry]

Well, obviously a so-called hard border should probably remain soft for such emergency patients ([most] people are not crazy).

You can't have a border that's hard for some vehicles and soft for others. How would you know if someone is smuggling dodgy beef in the back of an ambulance or transporting a sick person in need of emergency treatment?

And even if you could find a way to do that it wouldn't alter the economic damage that would be caused.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

But was that in a good way or in a bad way?

"Fine people on both sides" no doubt.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And we're right back to "Yeah we were bluffing but we never expected to have our bluff actually called!"

No, THEY were bluffing and THEY were willing to take the risk on getting their bluff called because they are all multi-millionaire privileged white people who will be well insulated from the downsides of the wrong result.

WE never wanted a referendum in the first place.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you live in Ulster, perhaps you know better than me. However, I don't understand (or I disagree with) your argument b): why should the Irish border treated so differently from any other external border of the EU?

As to a), it is perhaps better to alter in a minimal way the lives of less than two million inhabitants of Northern Ireland than to severely disrupt the lives of the about 70 million people of the UK (and the British economy) because of a lack of a post-Brexit trade deal, and a lack of good cooperation between Britain and the EU.

Well I accept that on the face of it and absent other context your last statement makes sense. However there is a hell of a lot of context that you have to abandon for it to make sense.

First there is a hell of a lot of historical baggage on that border

Second the UK government is beholden to the DUP to survive

Third the EU concerns itself with Ireland and its own borders not the desires of those who are leaving.

This is the simple equation that has thwarted progress on anything for 2 years and will continue to do so - the UK PM has to find an agreement which is acceptable to the DUP, her hardline right wing Brexiteers and the EU. And those things are mutually exclusive in some areas.

There's no deal to be done and the only 'proposal' that seems to be on the table regarding the Irish Border is to leave the EU with no deal, but try to pretend that nothing has changed and hope that the EU will play along with that charade.

Other than that there is literally no plan.

 

[Michel H]

Well I accept that on the face of it and absent other context your last statement makes sense. However there is a hell of a lot of context that you have to abandon for it to make sense.

First there is a hell of a lot of historical baggage on that border

Second the UK government is beholden to the DUP to survive

Third the EU concerns itself with Ireland and its own borders not the desires of those who are leaving.

This is the simple equation that has thwarted progress on anything for 2 years and will continue to do so - the UK PM has to find an agreement which is acceptable to the DUP, her hardline right wing Brexiteers and the EU. And those things are mutually exclusive in some areas.

There's no deal to be done and the only 'proposal' that seems to be on the table regarding the Irish Border is to leave the EU with no deal, but try to pretend that nothing has changed and hope that the EU will play along with that charade.

Other than that there is literally no plan.

Actually, this post-Brexit problem is (in my opinion) not so difficult to solve once you renounce an innocent-looking but possibly very toxic idea: the idea that there should be no border for goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I think that people are too scared of this idea of a "light hard border" between Éire and Ulster, between two peoples who speak the same language and have had close and friendly relations for decades. Remember, especially after Brexit, Éire and Ulster, it's two different countries, and, between two different countries there is usually a border. Once you have understood the "normality" of this, the Brexit problem is perhaps mostly solved, all you have to do is to agree a Canada Plus Plus trade deal. Sometimes people unnecessarily complicate simple things.