Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a rogue trader based, say, in Northern Ireland, manufactures or illicitly imports non-EU compliant goods, say from China, then there are currently no border posts that would catch these goods being transported to the Republic of Ireland for sale.

Of course, this kind of thing is happening all the time - and between any number of EU countries, not just Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

My point is that there are already means of detecting, confiscating, and preventing non-compliant goods - and these means don't occur at border posts within the EU for the simple reason that there aren't any.

How does the rogue trader import the non-compliant goods from China in the first place? They'd have to smuggle them through the customs checks, and UK trading standards would also be able to confiscate them.

That is nowhere near a situation where there is no border control between areas with two different sets of standards.
 
That is nowhere near a situation where there is no border control between areas with two different sets of standards.

Okay then. It seems that you think the EU and the Republic are advocating a hard Irish border - and they're just lying when they say they don't want one.

They need to make up their minds - the clock is ticking.
 
Okay then. It seems that you think the EU and the Republic are advocating a hard Irish border - and they're just lying when they say they don't want one.

They need to make up their minds - the clock is ticking.

Theresa May does as well - she wants to control the flow of people from the EU into the UK

Theresa May doesn't as well - she wants to allow free movement of people between the Northern Ireland and the EU
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure, with checks on vehicles crossing the border being carried out by number-plate recognition cameras, and checks on illegal migrants by means of housing, work, and banking records. Not totally blocking illegal trade or migrants of course - just deterring it/them - and accepting that smuggling and illegal migration happens even across hard borders too.

It's the EU that aren't happy with this suggestion - even though (if we accept their stated aim of having no hard border) it seems to be the only feasible solution.
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure, with checks on vehicles crossing the border being carried out by number-plate recognition cameras, and checks on illegal migrants by means of housing, work, and banking records. Not totally blocking illegal trade or migrants of course - just deterring it/them - and accepting that smuggling and illegal migration happens even across hard borders too.

It's the EU that aren't happy with this suggestion - even though (if we accept their stated aim of having no hard border) it seems to be the only feasible solution.
I'm not surprised they aren't happy with it. They will have no way of regulating or policing the conduct of a non member in its interactions with the EU. So maybe the solution is not feasible and the hard border will be required.
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure, with checks on vehicles crossing the border being carried out by number-plate recognition cameras, and checks on illegal migrants by means of housing, work, and banking records. Not totally blocking illegal trade or migrants of course - just deterring it/them - and accepting that smuggling and illegal migration happens even across hard borders too.

It's the EU that aren't happy with this suggestion - even though (if we accept their stated aim of having no hard border) it seems to be the only feasible solution.

Eccentric choice of words there.

How much will it cost?
How much has been budgeted for it?
How long will it take?
What would the interim arrangements be?
Has there been any feasibility study on this proposal?
How well have such IT-heavy projects worked in the UK public sector before?
How does that deal with the fact that we're giving up our ability to control our own goods (we're letting EU goods in with no checks)

Why should the EU compromise the entire purpose of a Customs Union just because Theresa May is in an impossible situation?
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure, with checks on vehicles crossing the border being carried out by number-plate recognition cameras, and checks on illegal migrants by means of housing, work, and banking records. Not totally blocking illegal trade or migrants of course - just deterring it/them - and accepting that smuggling and illegal migration happens even across hard borders too.

It's the EU that aren't happy with this suggestion - even though (if we accept their stated aim of having no hard border) it seems to be the only feasible solution.
Do you have a link where the UK government proposes that vision, especially the part about number-plate recognition cameras etc.? I have only ever come across that in this discussion as a ceptimus proposal, not a May or BoJo or Davis proposal.

This is the BBC on 16 August 2017 on the government proposal:
The government's paper does not envisage CCTV cameras or number plate recognition technology at the border, or set back from it.
I highlighted the operative word here.

Here is the actual policy paper. Can you quote the relevant portions?
 
How much will it cost? I don't know, but probably less than a hard border
How much has been budgeted for it? I don't know - no point in budgeting it if no one wants it.
How long will it take? Probably less time than a hard border.
What would the interim arrangements be? Two year transition period during which no borders are necessary
Has there been any feasibility study on this proposal? Probably.
How well have such IT-heavy projects worked in the UK public sector before?
How does that deal with the fact that we're giving up our ability to control our own goods (we're letting EU goods in with no checks) The UK is already happy with EU goods so why would we suddenly want to stop letting them in?

Why should the EU compromise the entire purpose of a Customs Union just because Theresa May is in an impossible situation? Because they can't think of a better solution?

Also, if the EU wants something that the UK doesn't want, shouldn't it be the EU that pays for it?
 
Sometimes things happen that nobody wants; see the Prisoner's Dilemma. Come March 2019, there has to be some solution. What happens then if there's no significant progress from the current positions?

I don't know what's going to happen in March 2019, but I do know that an independent NI is not the solution. As Craig pointed out, it would be a very unstable entity anyway, and would almost certainly split in two within a few years.
 
And those dastardly EUites have now said if we aren't in the club we can't be their city of culture in 2023, who'd have thought?

Turns out the issue already hit the press last year. Why weren't those bids withdrawn by the UK:
Boris Johnson fears Britain’s post-Brexit reputation will be damaged by a cabinet colleague’s proposal to withdraw from a major European competition, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-concerns-as-government-considers-abandoning/
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure,

Theresa May has a vision, is it similar to the vision of a 100+ majority she had before she called the general election?
 
Turns out the issue already hit the press last year. Why weren't those bids withdrawn by the UK:
Boris Johnson fears Britain’s post-Brexit reputation will be damaged by a cabinet colleague’s proposal to withdraw from a major European competition, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-concerns-as-government-considers-abandoning/
The article tells us: it would have required our Government to have made a decision that could have had political ramifications for the PM. Once you start to view the Government in terms of May wanting to be PM and other tories wanting to be PM or have their mate be PM it all makes a lot more sense.
 
Theresa May has already explained her vision of a border with no hard infrastructure, with checks on vehicles crossing the border being carried out by number-plate recognition cameras, and checks on illegal migrants by means of housing, work, and banking records.

Yeah, because it's not like smugglers can whack fake plates on their vehicles, right? Seriously, we're taking about customs controls, not a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ supermarket carpark.
 
I'm confused as to Kipling's intended meaning with those last lines,

[What answer from the North?
One Law, One Land, One Throne!
If England drive us forth
We shall not fall alone.]

in the context of Westminster's "betrayal" in giving Home Rule in 1912 to Ireland.
It struck me as confusing too at first sight; but they must be related to the bizarre and lurid lines which precede them in the poem. These are important to an understanding of the Imperialist Unionist psyche.

We know the war prepared
On every peaceful home,
We know the hells declared
For such as serve not Rome --
The terror, threats, and dread
In market, hearth, and field --
We know, when all is said,
We perish if we yield.

Believe, we dare not boast,
Believe, we do not fear --
We stand to pay the cost
In all that men hold dear ...

After that declaration, the meaning of "we shall not fall alone" is clear. It means: if loyal Protestants are tortured and then slaughtered, as we expect to be in an independent Ireland, by the Holy Inquisition, or by Fenian terrorists, we will take many of our enemies with us when we die. Like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae or the 44th Regiment of Foot at Gandamack.

This interpretation is reinforced by historical record of the behaviour of the Unionists at that time.
In January 1913, the Ulster Unionist Council instituted the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), consisting of men who had signed the Ulster Covenant. They wanted to co-ordinate the paramilitary activities of Ulster’s unionists, as well as to give military backing to the threats of the Ulster Covenant to resist implementation of the Third Home Rule Bill, which had been introduced on 11 April 1912 by Prime Minister H. H. Asquith. These threats had been regarded as a "gigantic game of bluff and blackmail" by Irish nationalist leader John RedmondWP as well as most Liberal MPs, including Winston Churchill.​
KIpling's poem is intended to convince the British establishment and Irish constitutional nationalists that the loyal Ulstermen meant exactly what they said. "We perish if we yield." So leave them alone.

A couple of years later, in fact, the Loyalists smuggled
25,000 rifles and between 3 and 5 million rounds of ammunition from the German Empire, with the shipments landing in Larne, Donaghadee, and Bangor in the early hours between Friday 24 and Saturday 25 April 1914​
That's what "we shall not fall alone" means, I am sure. Others will perish along with us.

I recall these bloodcurdling historical details only to stress that the policies in the Brexit affair affecting the Border, and the political machinations with the DUP in Westminster, are being played for very high stakes. If this goes wrong, the price of error may be exorbitant.
 
Last edited:
Techinically it's "European Capital of Culture." In any case, the UK already has its own version, which Ceptimus is probably unaware of.

Considering Reykjavik was a winner before Iceland was in the EU and that Bergen, Stravanger and Istanbul have had the tile, but have never been in the EU, this decision is a poor one.

The EU runs the competition, but it is the European capital, not the EU capital of culture.
 
A couple of years later, in fact, the Loyalists smuggled
25,000 rifles and between 3 and 5 million rounds of ammunition from the German Empire, with the shipments landing in Larne, Donaghadee, and Bangor in the early hours between Friday 24 and Saturday 25 April 1914​

<gunnut>Only 120-200 rounds per rifle?! Not enough for Freedom™!!! Not enough for fun!!!</gunnut>

It's ironic, though, that Imperial Germany was supplying the Loyalists in 1914, then the Republicans two years later.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom