- Status
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
Unicorns, rainbows, the usual Brexit stuff.
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
It's been a few years since I was responsible for complying with FOI requests, but it's my recollection that every one passed on to me cited the Act, and there were none that didn't, which may have given a false impression of the fine detail.
This is Chris Johns in the Irish Times today, article headlined May trapped by Brexit ‘headbangers’ and Tory media. Brussels holds all the leverage and the prospects of a ‘no deal’ departure are rising all the time
The EU is a customs union which requires, with no ambiguity or subtlety, an external border. When the UK leaves, it requires, as a matter of law and logic, a border with the EU. That means a border between the Ireland and the UK.
As Pascal Lamy, the former EU commissioner and secretary general of the WTO said this week, the only question is where you put it: either on this island or somewhere in the Irish Sea. The latter option appears to be ruled out by our friends in the North so logic strictly implies a land border.
So it does, but try persuading the Headbangers or the Friends in the North, who seem to have different ideas.As Pascal Lamy, the former EU commissioner and secretary general of the WTO said this week, the only question is where you put it: either on this island or somewhere in the Irish Sea. The latter option appears to be ruled out by our friends in the North so logic strictly implies a land border.
No one doubts there will be a border between the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland: in fact there is already a border.
The question is what, if any, new infrastructure is installed at the border and on which side(s) of the border. No one (except maybe Pascal Lamy and friends?) wants any infrastructure installed at the border, so it would be the height of stupidity to install such.
The question is what, if any, new infrastructure is installed at the border and on which side(s) of the border. No one (except maybe Pascal Lamy and friends?) wants any infrastructure installed at the border, so it would be the height of stupidity to install such.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
What sort of infrastructure exists at other land borders the E.U. maintains with other non-E.U. countries?
It would be the height of stupidity to expect anything much different.
So, as quoted
"The EU is a customs union which requires, with no ambiguity or subtlety, an external border. When the UK leaves, it requires, as a matter of law and logic, a border with the EU. That means a border between the Ireland and the UK.
As Pascal Lamy, the former EU commissioner and secretary general of the WTO said this week, but nobody wants a border, even though law and logic require it; so it would be the height of folly to install such (I just made that last bit up, by the way.)
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Having looked at the E.U.'s position paper with regard to the Irish border I see nothing that suggests they wish to disturb the status quo ante. This leaves the U.K.'s view with respect to an unrestricted border with the E.U.
I have not uncovered a similar position paper from the U.K. offering their concerns or intentions regarding such a border. Since one of the primary concerns asserted by the Brexit camp was the integrity of such borders it would be useful to know what those intentions might be. They are, after all, the ones pursuing a major change in relations between the U.K. and sovereign countries that are also members of the E.U.
I note that the only political entity in Northern Ireland that opposed the Good Friday Agreement was the DUP which, as I understand it, is the party whose support is crucial to the current pro-Brexit coalition government.
If you can offer some citations regarding the U.K.'s intentions concerning the border with the Republic of Ireland that might help facilitate this part of the discussion.
They'd probably better inform Theresa May as well as her plan currently seems to be to keep everything ambiguous, because that way she avoids* open warfare within the Conservative party.
*For certain values of "avoid". I seriously wouldn't be surprised to see her have a breakdown, she seems so utterly out of her depth and panicky, and she seems to see no way through (probably because there isn't one that doesn't cause major problems - although doing nothing is not a good option for her either).
Last edited:
Up to a point:
Which means the EU wants a tariff border if the UK does not remain in the Customs Union.
On the British side:
http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/09/22/news/theresa-may-no-hard-border-after-brexit-1143949/
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Can someone explain then how you can have no border while not allowing the movement of people or goods? That seems like the definition of a border to me.
It seems that the UK position relies on either a border between NI and the rUK or between Ireland and the EU. Both of which seem politically ridiculous.
Theresa could easily come out and spell out exacty what she wants but she doesnt. I think thats because she nor her cabinet have a clue exactly what they want.
It's an absolute nonsense. Anyone pro-Brexit at this point is an imbecile or a bigot.
Nonsense, May has been very clear what she wants: she wants to remain PM. Others such as Johnson have been equally clear, they want to be PM. And all this tedious Brexit malarkey is a distraction from that.
@Archie Gemmill Goal
The highlighted bit: I refer you to your first paragraph. My view is that May realises that she wants two mutually incompatible things from Brexit. I don't think the three stooges realise - Johnson probably does, but thinks he'll be able to wing it (see Darat's post).
He probably wants Brexit to not go through, and then play the "stabbed in the back" card without having to deal with the consequences.
As an outsider looking in this whole thing from start to finish just seems crazy to me.
First near as I can tell this whole thing happened because the UK Independence Party had been gaining in popularity and taking voters away from the Conservative Party for a few election cycles now so the Conservative Party promised a "UK Leaving the EU" referendum as a carrot to bring people against the UK being in the EU back to their party for the election. This worked but the promised "Leave the EU" referendum vote had a turn out way, way beyond what as expected (Almost a 75% turnout. Jesus Christ you couldn't get 75% of Americans to vote if the choice was between "Ice Cream for Dinner and a massage" and "Road Salt and Broken Glass for Dinner with a kick to cranberries" and the polling stations were giving away diamonds and blowjobs and they sent a car and driver around to pick you and drive you the polling station and you got to keep the car afterwards) and the now called "Brexit" referendum squeezed by at 52 to 48 percent.
That whole thing just screams of a political party promising something they never thought the people would actually deliver on and having their bluff called. The Conservative Party promised a "Well let the people decide whether to stay in the EU or not" vote counting on the people to get cold feet and not follow through and when that didn't happen...they had no idea what to do.
Second the Brexit Referndum was not legally binding. It was basically an opinion poll marketed as some official "Press Here to Leave the EU" button.
English History professor CGP Grey has a good breakdown video that basically is the only way I was able to make sense of this whole thing.
He puts the odds of what is going to happen as such:
15% chance of "Maximum Brexit." The UK fully leaves the EU, EEA, and (what little they participate in) the Eurozone and Schegen. He goes on to say if this happens he puts high odds (97%) on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, 45% odds on North Ireland leaving the UK, and even 5% odds of the City of London (not London a distinction he also had to explain to me) leaving and become an independent city-state.
30% on literally nothing happening. The UK plays the waiting game forever and 100 years from now "Did you know that the UK has been in the process of leaving the UK for a century?" is a bit of trivia like when two countries find out they are still technically at war because an official armistice was never signed.
55% on "Partial Brexit." The UK leaves the EU, stays in the EEA, and that's it. This allows politicians to save face by technically leaving the EU. He argues this is the most likely because "It's the best kind of compromise, the one that leaves everyone unhappy and nobody really gets what the want."
But he makes the point any answer right now is really not good. The Full Brexit option seems to go against political and economic self interest and could very well mean the end of the UK while the other two goes against... like the idea of democracy.
First near as I can tell this whole thing happened because the UK Independence Party had been gaining in popularity and taking voters away from the Conservative Party for a few election cycles now so the Conservative Party promised a "UK Leaving the EU" referendum as a carrot to bring people against the UK being in the EU back to their party for the election. This worked but the promised "Leave the EU" referendum vote had a turn out way, way beyond what as expected (Almost a 75% turnout. Jesus Christ you couldn't get 75% of Americans to vote if the choice was between "Ice Cream for Dinner and a massage" and "Road Salt and Broken Glass for Dinner with a kick to cranberries" and the polling stations were giving away diamonds and blowjobs and they sent a car and driver around to pick you and drive you the polling station and you got to keep the car afterwards) and the now called "Brexit" referendum squeezed by at 52 to 48 percent.
That whole thing just screams of a political party promising something they never thought the people would actually deliver on and having their bluff called. The Conservative Party promised a "Well let the people decide whether to stay in the EU or not" vote counting on the people to get cold feet and not follow through and when that didn't happen...they had no idea what to do.
Second the Brexit Referndum was not legally binding. It was basically an opinion poll marketed as some official "Press Here to Leave the EU" button.
English History professor CGP Grey has a good breakdown video that basically is the only way I was able to make sense of this whole thing.
He puts the odds of what is going to happen as such:
15% chance of "Maximum Brexit." The UK fully leaves the EU, EEA, and (what little they participate in) the Eurozone and Schegen. He goes on to say if this happens he puts high odds (97%) on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, 45% odds on North Ireland leaving the UK, and even 5% odds of the City of London (not London a distinction he also had to explain to me) leaving and become an independent city-state.
30% on literally nothing happening. The UK plays the waiting game forever and 100 years from now "Did you know that the UK has been in the process of leaving the UK for a century?" is a bit of trivia like when two countries find out they are still technically at war because an official armistice was never signed.
55% on "Partial Brexit." The UK leaves the EU, stays in the EEA, and that's it. This allows politicians to save face by technically leaving the EU. He argues this is the most likely because "It's the best kind of compromise, the one that leaves everyone unhappy and nobody really gets what the want."
But he makes the point any answer right now is really not good. The Full Brexit option seems to go against political and economic self interest and could very well mean the end of the UK while the other two goes against... like the idea of democracy.
Last edited:
- Status