Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
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.
Click to expand...

There will be no hard border between Ireland and NI unless Britain crashes out with no deal. Once you have understood that you will understand why your posts on the subject are a complete waste of time.
 
Strawberry said:
There will be no hard border between Ireland and NI unless Britain crashes out with no deal. Once you have understood that you will understand why your posts on the subject are a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Possible, I am not an expert on these economic issues, but I don't see May and Brussels making much progress together towards a deal. It is probably better to eliminate expensive border checks whenever this is possible (using for example technology and the internet), but they may become necessary once UK regulations start diverging significantly from European regulations (not if they remain te same).
 
Michel H said:
Possible, I am not an expert on these economic issues, but I don't see May and Brussels making much progress together towards a deal. It is probably better to eliminate expensive border checks whenever this is possible (using for example technology and the internet), but they may become necessary once UK regulations start diverging significantly from European regulations (not if they remain te same).
Click to expand...

That's why the Irish backstop needs to be in the withdrawal agreement, so that border checks will be carried out in places where they're enforceable without wrecking the Irish economy and damaging people's lives.
 
Michel H said:
It is probably better to eliminate expensive border checks whenever this is possible (using for example technology and the internet), but they may become necessary once UK regulations start diverging significantly from European regulations (not if they remain te same).
Click to expand...

It may be useful to consider a hypothetical:

What if the UK unbanned incandescent lightbulbs?

In this case what would be threat to the Single Market, and how would the EU respond to it?

They would be still banned from sale within the EU, but could be smuggled across borders.

Does this need checks on the luggage of every single person crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container declared to contain lightbulbs crossing the border?
Do those checks actually have to be carried out AT the border?

In reality controls would be intelligence lead, and work backwards from where they were appearing in the market to identify the individuals involved in the smuggling.
 
Aber said:
It may be useful to consider a hypothetical:

What if the UK unbanned incandescent lightbulbs?

In this case what would be threat to the Single Market, and how would the EU respond to it?

They would be still banned from sale within the EU, but could be smuggled across borders.

Does this need checks on the luggage of every single person crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container declared to contain lightbulbs crossing the border?
Do those checks actually have to be carried out AT the border?

In reality controls would be intelligence lead, and work backwards from where they were appearing in the market to identify the individuals involved in the smuggling.
Click to expand...

Borders don't mean every single person container or vehicle being checked anyway. But given the size and scale of the challenge for the EU if they let everything in unchecked (we're not talking just lightbulbs but EVERYTHING if there is no deal) they are going to have a hell of a time tracking it down once its in. That's why there are borders in the first place because the most convenient, sensible and pragmatic place to check things is at the point of entry.

Imagine another hypothetical... the Tories go through with their plans to turn the UK into the low tax, low regulation no human rights free for all they want.

Do you think they will really want an open border for people and goods to flow freely back and forth across? Raw materials being shipped across the border from the EU and maybe even people to work in sweatshops churning to goods to be reimported into the EU without paperwork or checks? all without customs checks? taxes? tariffs?

Do they allow it with the Ukraine?

One anecdotal experience of crossing from Ukraiane to Poland which took them 3.5 hours.

https://bornglobals.com/en/2017/04/polish-ukrainian-border/

Manageable if you are a tourist on a weeks holiday... not so much if you have to be at work by 9am.
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
That's why the Irish backstop needs to be in the withdrawal agreement, so that border checks will be carried out in places where they're enforceable without wrecking the Irish economy and damaging people's lives.
Click to expand...
We have already signed up to a backstop. That backstop will have minimal effect on peoples lives in Ireland and will not greatly affect the economy and it totally removed the need for an border between the North and South.

Trouble is the Irish extremists holding up the fragile UK government don't like it and therefore we have since agreeing it, decided that it is a backstop we could never ever agree to.

That backstop however remains the least burdensome option other than the whole of the UK remaining in the Customs union / single market.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of those territories are "UK soil."
 
Michel H said:
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.
Click to expand...
Resuming armed action is the usual remedy when a peace treaty is broken.
Of course, the IRA did disarm in compliance with the agreement. The peace programs funded through the EU hopefully have had an effect on the minds of young people, as well.

So maybe there would be no serious violence. That would mean that the UK got what it wanted from the treaty and can now break it. That's the implication, isn't it?
 
Aber said:
It may be useful to consider a hypothetical:

What if the UK unbanned incandescent lightbulbs?

In this case what would be threat to the Single Market, and how would the EU respond to it?

They would be still banned from sale within the EU, but could be smuggled across borders.

Does this need checks on the luggage of every single person crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container crossing the border?
Does this need checks on every single container declared to contain lightbulbs crossing the border?
Do those checks actually have to be carried out AT the border?

In reality controls would be intelligence lead, and work backwards from where they were appearing in the market to identify the individuals involved in the smuggling.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's a very relevant hypothetical. Maybe instead we should ask how VAT would work. Any ideas?
 
Even after hashing out dozens of workable solutions, there's still the problem of whipping enough votes for it. The biggest hurdle is that too many coalition MPs hail from districts where endorsing a soft border will be the end of their public careers.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Even after hashing out dozens of workable solutions, there's still the problem of whipping enough votes for it. The biggest hurdle is that too many coalition MPs hail from districts where endorsing a soft border will be the end of their public careers.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by coalition MPs? And which MPs would end their careers by endorsing a soft border?
 
Strawberry said:
What do you mean by coalition MPs? And which MPs would end their careers by endorsing a soft border?
Click to expand...

DUP MPs - In the UK we steer away from using the word "coalition" in an informal way and tend to use terms like "confidence and supply agreement" but the rest of the world would recognise it as a coalition.
 
Darat said:
DUP MPs - In the UK we steer away from using the word "coalition" in an informal way and tend to use terms like "confidence and supply agreement" but the rest of the world would recognise it as a coalition.
Click to expand...

I don't think any DUP MPs are at risk of losing their seats over their party's stance on Brexit.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
I'm not sure if that's a very relevant hypothetical. Maybe instead we should ask how VAT would work. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Plenty.

There is currently a 3% difference in the standard rates of VAT in Ireland and Northern Ireland. And yet this doesn't seem to be a major problem.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Borders don't mean every single person container or vehicle being checked anyway.
Click to expand...

Good we've got that one out of the way. Any estimate of the proportion of imports from outside the EU that are physically checked? :)

That's why there are borders in the first place because the most convenient, sensible and pragmatic place to check things is at the point of entry.
Click to expand...

Except that most enforcement of Single Market rules for products is done at point of sale to the public, not by the checks at ports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom