The Irish border
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
Eric Mc said:
One of the main POINTS of Brexit was a desire for stricter border controls. How can a government charged with Brexit explain to the Brexiteers that of course we want strict border controls, except in the case of the only actual land border we have with the EU?
I don't think this is the whole picture. The element of the vote you describe wasn't border controls it was about control of who comes to the UK to work, to claim benefits and to use our services. Control over that has very little to do with the nature of the border, there are countries all over the world whose borders I can cross today if i choose, but I can't book myself in for a dental appointment or get a job while I'm there.Now we have the spectacle of Leavists trying the next con trick with arguments such as yours, and we are now being told that we should have that "wide open border" with the RoI in order to facilitate their precious brexit. Suddenly, it seems the issue of illegal immigration doesn't exist when the prize is in jeopardy.
Spare us this b
ks, please.StevieBee said:
When you leave the UK at an airport, the only time you are required to present your passport is at the gate and this is only for the airline to check that the holder of the boarding card is the right person - it's not a system that's linked to Border Control (it's normally just a visual check). This applies to whoever wherever they are from and wherever they are going.
I don't know why this is. Plenty off EU airports elsewhere in Europe require you to pass through border control on departure.
The UK knows who's here but has no way of knowing when they leave.
That changed since 8th April 2015.I don't know why this is. Plenty off EU airports elsewhere in Europe require you to pass through border control on departure.
The UK knows who's here but has no way of knowing when they leave.
What is to stop the UK leaving the NI border as it is, allowing free movement of people into UK from ROI (and no doubt some, but probably that many, mainland EU people into the UK via Ireland),
BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
Ayahuasca said:
What is to stop the UK leaving the NI border as it is, allowing free movement of people into UK from ROI (and no doubt some, but probably that many, mainland EU people into the UK via Ireland),
BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
There are "illegal" people in the UK already, earning a crust.BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
There are "illegal" goods in the UK already, being sold and bought by the consumer.
If you boot them out, with an open border, what's to stop them waltzing back in?
So, actually, what you've suggested solves absolutely nothing other than further enforce the need for a hard border because the UK doesn't want to be in a customs union with the free movement of people.
sgtBerbatov said:
As for the repealing of the Ireland act not being in Britain's interest, come on. Brexit isn't in Britain's interest, it's effectively economic suicide for all but the most wealthy of people in the UK. But here we are!
And this is where we disagree. Brexit is in Britain's interests as the EU project's goal is to ultimately remove the concept of nationality and nationhood (ergo by default it is in Britain's interests) . It may be economically difficult for awhile but it is not impossible (see Greenland). Brexit may also be in Ireland's interests (especially if successful) as having a successful trading partner and the only land border for the EU with said successful trading partner may help reverse the deprivation the rural counties of Ireland are suffering at the moment. A successful brexit is not to the EU's advantage but would be for each country in the EU.
Ayahuasca said:
What is to stop the UK leaving the NI border as it is, allowing free movement of people into UK from ROI (and no doubt some, but probably that many, mainland EU people into the UK via Ireland),
BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
This has been answer for you several times. Will you finally read the replies rather than continuing to spout rubbish.BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
With regards to the UK, the UK cannot because of WTO rules have an open border for goods with Eire unless we are prepared to have an open border for goods with every WTO country.
Look at MFN status on the WTO site.
Mrr T said:
This has been answer for you several times. Will you finally read the replies rather than continuing to spout rubbish.
With regards to the UK, the UK cannot because of WTO rules have an open border for goods with Eire unless we are prepared to have an open border for goods with every WTO country.
Look at MFN status on the WTO site.
Happy to have an open land border with every country in the WTO.....With regards to the UK, the UK cannot because of WTO rules have an open border for goods with Eire unless we are prepared to have an open border for goods with every WTO country.
Look at MFN status on the WTO site.
sgtBerbatov said:
Ayahuasca said:
What is to stop the UK leaving the NI border as it is, allowing free movement of people into UK from ROI (and no doubt some, but probably that many, mainland EU people into the UK via Ireland),
BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
There are "illegal" people in the UK already, earning a crust.BUT:
Not allowing any EU immigrants to work, or to receive benefits - so they would be either tourists, or illegally working.
If found to be illegally working, we boot them out.
On goods, again, free movement of goods because they are not checked at the border
BUT:
Not allowed to sell any illegally imported goods in the UK and stiff fines for those caught doing so.
Essentially solves the border issue and retains position on Brexit.
There are "illegal" goods in the UK already, being sold and bought by the consumer.
If you boot them out, with an open border, what's to stop them waltzing back in?
So, actually, what you've suggested solves absolutely nothing other than further enforce the need for a hard border because the UK doesn't want to be in a customs union with the free movement of people.
There is no simple solution, but rather than try to solve it at the border - which is very hard - why not try to solve it through the criminal justice system in the UK - which is much easier?
It is the lesser of two weevils.
Jinx said:
sgtBerbatov said:
As for the repealing of the Ireland act not being in Britain's interest, come on. Brexit isn't in Britain's interest, it's effectively economic suicide for all but the most wealthy of people in the UK. But here we are!
And this is where we disagree. Brexit is in Britain's interests as the EU project's goal is to ultimately remove the concept of nationality and nationhood (ergo by default it is in Britain's interests) . It may be economically difficult for awhile but it is not impossible (see Greenland). Brexit may also be in Ireland's interests (especially if successful) as having a successful trading partner and the only land border for the EU with said successful trading partner may help reverse the deprivation the rural counties of Ireland are suffering at the moment. A successful brexit is not to the EU's advantage but would be for each country in the EU.
So, in reality, the deal the UK has with the EU is down to the fecklessness of the British public electing career politicians who got paid handsomely by an organisation they then pointed to as being useless because they didn't do their jobs properly.
I've heard the story about the unification and a "United States of Europe", one person has said that's the goal, but the member states don't have to go that way. Personally it would never happen, as the identity of a nation is sacred to those who live there. And if it ever were to be proposed, not one EU country would accept it.
Brexit isn't in Ireland's interest. I do love the talk of Brexit allowing the UK to trade with the world, but nothing is ever said about how the EU has stopped the UK from achieving that? Like Boris Johnson said to the Italian MP, if Britain gets a bad deal then they'd lose out on selling Prosecco. The Italian MP retorted he'd lose sales to one country, Britain is losing the sales of Fish and Chips to 26 countries.
Ayahuasca said:
If you want to go to extremes, a hard border on an island does not work completely unless you put a fence all around the UK - if someone wants to enter illegally, all they need is a boat or a light aircraft.
There is no simple solution, but rather than try to solve it at the border - which is very hard - why not try to solve it through the criminal justice system in the UK - which is much easier?
It is the lesser of two weevils.
We know hard borders don't work. But there is a simple solution:There is no simple solution, but rather than try to solve it at the border - which is very hard - why not try to solve it through the criminal justice system in the UK - which is much easier?
It is the lesser of two weevils.
The UK stays in the customs union, accepts free movement of people, trades with 26 other countries happily and move on.
But the way it's going, there will be no customs union, no free movement, a hard border and a flourishing black market in the north. Then we'll see how the UK's justice system works then.
sgtBerbatov said:
You really do underestimate the power the EU have, and how the UK is playing in to that.
The worst thing to happen to the EU is for countries to up and leave. It's never been considered, which you can see from reading Article 50. It's very vauge in the details, and the UK removing itself from it's membership is both a test of this article and a test of the strength of the EU.
The EU doesn't want to make it look like the UK has got a better deal, as it would result in countries like Poland and even Greece following suit. They don't want that, so they have to be steadfast in what they want from the UK. The divorce bill is the most important bit to them really, but the trade and freedom of movement is also important. You can't have one without the other, and when there are 26 countries involved, one country won't get a good deal.
So the continued talk of the UK getting a "good deal" is total bullshine. We won't get a good deal, period. Why? Because if we do it would result in a mass exodus from the EU. The best that can be gained is an alright type of deal which would ultimately be so much better to the country if we remained part of the EU.
Now, Varadkar, I don't like him. I think he's more of a Tony Blair Mk 2. But at the same time, he knows what he's doing. It's only The S*n and The Daily Fail which are deriding him as being feckless and out of his depth. He really isn't, and those two papers don't want to make Brexit look bad to their readers. So they're not going to kiss his arse either.
You may be right in the way Ireland could be a pawn in the Brexit negotiations, but Ireland could easily use the EU against Britain if they so wish. Britain, really, is the gateway to Europe for Ireland. It wouldn't do the Irish economy or the EU's economy any harm if they were to, I dunno, improve ferry connections to Ireland or build a tunnel to Dublin which meant EU traffic bypassing the UK altogether. Yes, it's a bit of a pipe dream but to prove to the EU member countries that it's a good idea to stick together and not run off like the UK, it very well may happen.
As for the repealing of the Ireland act not being in Britain's interest, come on. Brexit isn't in Britain's interest, it's effectively economic suicide for all but the most wealthy of people in the UK. But here we are!
No, I do not underestimate the power the EU has. But you get nowhere giving in to a bully and, worse, this bully is offering something it has no intention of giving. The worst thing to happen to the EU is for countries to up and leave. It's never been considered, which you can see from reading Article 50. It's very vauge in the details, and the UK removing itself from it's membership is both a test of this article and a test of the strength of the EU.
The EU doesn't want to make it look like the UK has got a better deal, as it would result in countries like Poland and even Greece following suit. They don't want that, so they have to be steadfast in what they want from the UK. The divorce bill is the most important bit to them really, but the trade and freedom of movement is also important. You can't have one without the other, and when there are 26 countries involved, one country won't get a good deal.
So the continued talk of the UK getting a "good deal" is total bullshine. We won't get a good deal, period. Why? Because if we do it would result in a mass exodus from the EU. The best that can be gained is an alright type of deal which would ultimately be so much better to the country if we remained part of the EU.
Now, Varadkar, I don't like him. I think he's more of a Tony Blair Mk 2. But at the same time, he knows what he's doing. It's only The S*n and The Daily Fail which are deriding him as being feckless and out of his depth. He really isn't, and those two papers don't want to make Brexit look bad to their readers. So they're not going to kiss his arse either.
You may be right in the way Ireland could be a pawn in the Brexit negotiations, but Ireland could easily use the EU against Britain if they so wish. Britain, really, is the gateway to Europe for Ireland. It wouldn't do the Irish economy or the EU's economy any harm if they were to, I dunno, improve ferry connections to Ireland or build a tunnel to Dublin which meant EU traffic bypassing the UK altogether. Yes, it's a bit of a pipe dream but to prove to the EU member countries that it's a good idea to stick together and not run off like the UK, it very well may happen.
As for the repealing of the Ireland act not being in Britain's interest, come on. Brexit isn't in Britain's interest, it's effectively economic suicide for all but the most wealthy of people in the UK. But here we are!
In that situation, given that most informed commentators are laying more than evens on Britain walking away, how does the Irish government's position make any sense? Unless it, too, really wishes to leave the EU, but hasn't got the courage to say so.
It can't really believe that the EU will be prepared to show that much solidarity to Ireland that they would putting in ferry connections or building a tunnel hundreds of miles long (even if technically feasible). Where would the money come from, given that one of principal milch cows is leaving? The EU budget is already tight and about to get tighter. Tighter still, if the UK simply walks away.
And, if all the EU is doing is trousering concessions with no intention of offering a decent deal, we might as well bugger off now, as that is not a good faith negotiation. We might as well tell Barnier and co that we are wasting time talking. They have our contact details if they want to talk sensibly.
Legally speaking, we owe the EU nothing much and we can spend the money instead habituating those who need it to a life without subsidy. It would be a much better use of our scarce resources and, if a sub-optimal deal is all that is on offer, we can at least offer business certainty quicker.
In the meantime, much of the rest of the world survives quite happily outside the EU. We go to either WTO terms or unilateral free trade. We leave the Ireland Act in place for those who worry about these things.
It might be painful short- (even medium-) term - certainly New Zealand took a decade or so to adjust to a subsidy-free economy but now are exporting wine, lamb and butter half way across the world at a price that highlights how inefficient the CAP is. I don't care where my olive oil or beef comes from.
It would also free us in the UK to consider what kind of future we'd like rather than focusing on the mechanics of leaving an overblown customs union.
sgtBerbatov said:
I do love the talk of Brexit allowing the UK to trade with the world, but nothing is ever said about how the EU has stopped the UK from achieving that?
You seem to have overlooked that the EU stops it quite effectively by not permitting the UK to reach trade deals with trading partner states. Anyway this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but on the practicalities of the Irish border.
sgtBerbatov said:
The GFA is a complicated issue, because the very fact the DUP are proping up the current Conservative government effectively means the UK can no longer be an unbiased middleman between the Unionists and Nationalists. So the GFA is already under threat even before Brexit is considered.
I've read a few of the posts, and part of me is astounded that such wilful ignorance with undertones of "Ingerlund Ingerlund Ingerlund" being displayed on the issue of the Irish border, yet at the same time it's no surprise either.
During the referendum, the six counties voted in favour of staying in the EU. The same way Scotland and Wales voted. It was the votes by England wanting to leave that swung the vote for the whole UK to pull out of the EU. So it's important to remember that for a start.
The other issue is the types of border being considered. Currently, as we know, it's more or less a free border. You can skip across it without a problem. Most properties as well cross the border in serveral places. There are people who will be in Northern Ireland while watching the TV, and cross to the Republic when making a cup of tea.
The UK want an electronic tagging sort of system in place so that no physical border has to be erected. But, as we all know, the UK have enough trouble trying to get people to pay their car tax using the same system, so in reality this idea is pure blue sky thinking and technically impossible to enact properly and in such a short space of time.
The alternative to this is to give the North special status. But the clown from Norm Iron known as Arlene Foster doesn't want this, as it would mean a border between the North and the mainland UK. And as she's underpinning Theresa May, she will get her wish.
The other alternative is to put in a hard border like they used to have during the Troubles. But again, the increase in paperwork and bullst on both sides will mean this is an expensive option and effect those who live on the border most of all. Most of whom didn't vote to leave the EU (remember that bit).
The final alternative is to keep what is already there but to allow free movement of people and goods between the two countries. Obviously this can't happen, as we have a Conservative government who don't want to be part of the customs union for some reason, and they can't accept the free movement of people due to the cabal of UKIP members and closest UKIP Tories who don't want that. The only way it could happen is to give the North special status, but as you see above Arlene is using her support as a knife around May's throat on that subject.
There are your options ladies and gentlemen. No ifs, no buts. That's the situation, and those are the solutions and the issues relating to them. There is no magic bullet to solve this situation.
But the original point that it's an Irish problem and an Irish demand regarding the border, that's not strictly true. Your fond of going back to 1922 and 1949, but if you go a few years previous to 1922, you'll see Ireland didn't really want a border. It's England's perogative to have that border when they annexed the 6 counties, where really 2 should've stayed part of the Republic due to the high number of pro-republican catholics who lived there (the rest were pro-England so made a bit of sense to go to the UK).
It appears you are ignorant of the results of the referendum.I've read a few of the posts, and part of me is astounded that such wilful ignorance with undertones of "Ingerlund Ingerlund Ingerlund" being displayed on the issue of the Irish border, yet at the same time it's no surprise either.
During the referendum, the six counties voted in favour of staying in the EU. The same way Scotland and Wales voted. It was the votes by England wanting to leave that swung the vote for the whole UK to pull out of the EU. So it's important to remember that for a start.
The other issue is the types of border being considered. Currently, as we know, it's more or less a free border. You can skip across it without a problem. Most properties as well cross the border in serveral places. There are people who will be in Northern Ireland while watching the TV, and cross to the Republic when making a cup of tea.
The UK want an electronic tagging sort of system in place so that no physical border has to be erected. But, as we all know, the UK have enough trouble trying to get people to pay their car tax using the same system, so in reality this idea is pure blue sky thinking and technically impossible to enact properly and in such a short space of time.
The alternative to this is to give the North special status. But the clown from Norm Iron known as Arlene Foster doesn't want this, as it would mean a border between the North and the mainland UK. And as she's underpinning Theresa May, she will get her wish.
The other alternative is to put in a hard border like they used to have during the Troubles. But again, the increase in paperwork and bulls
t on both sides will mean this is an expensive option and effect those who live on the border most of all. Most of whom didn't vote to leave the EU (remember that bit).The final alternative is to keep what is already there but to allow free movement of people and goods between the two countries. Obviously this can't happen, as we have a Conservative government who don't want to be part of the customs union for some reason, and they can't accept the free movement of people due to the cabal of UKIP members and closest UKIP Tories who don't want that. The only way it could happen is to give the North special status, but as you see above Arlene is using her support as a knife around May's throat on that subject.
There are your options ladies and gentlemen. No ifs, no buts. That's the situation, and those are the solutions and the issues relating to them. There is no magic bullet to solve this situation.
But the original point that it's an Irish problem and an Irish demand regarding the border, that's not strictly true. Your fond of going back to 1922 and 1949, but if you go a few years previous to 1922, you'll see Ireland didn't really want a border. It's England's perogative to have that border when they annexed the 6 counties, where really 2 should've stayed part of the Republic due to the high number of pro-republican catholics who lived there (the rest were pro-England so made a bit of sense to go to the UK).
Ignoring the fact that the UK voted as a nation and not as its individual constituents, Wales voted to leave the EU, it wasn't just the English. You also need to recognise that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland and Scotland did vote to leave the EU also, yet you appear to want to treat these two areas as though they all voted to remain.
So maybe you can revise your memory and account for the fact you didnt remember the result correctly, that would be a good starting point.
Now moving on to the people of the Island of Ireland. There is no issue whatsoever about the travel status of the people of the Island changing, the terms of the CTA will never be removed, no matter what happens with this negotiation. Even if we leave the EU with no deal, the people of the UK and the Republic will still be travelling without restraint. I hope you can agree that is the political reality. So lets drop that from the conversation because its muddying the waters and playing on emotions.
The only issue is the movement of goods. This is where people like to introduce the notion of hard and soft, just as they have been doing with the whole concept of the UK leaving the EU. This tries to make the issue a binary situation with good and bad scenarios. This is where the reality will break through to the politics of the posible.
People like to paint a picture of WTO as some solid regime of controls, it is anything but that. The WTO treaties, especially the latest one ratified in February this year are written in a way specifically to fix border issues to enable free flow of trade. The whole concept of the new rules is to allow flexibility to enable the two countries that share a border to write bespoke regimes that take into account the political and geographic realities on the ground. Even without a deal with the EU on the border issue, which looks very unlikely, WTO allows very low impact border procedures.
You mention the issues with the DVLA system yet you ignore the reality that at this moment in time, there is huge tax fraud occurring across the border in Ireland as we speak, right now. The politicians have decided it really doesn't matter, they only go after the big schemes and gangsters who are getting too big to ignore. The same will happen once the UK leaves the EU.
I think you will find very quickly that once the payments are agreed with the EU, which looks very likely now, there will be a magic bullet. To think otherwise is to ignore the real politics at play.
Here we are just one hour ago, note the change of tone and message. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-brex...
Ireland PM said:
I think it is fair to say that progress is being made but not that is sufficient at this stage, We are not at a decision point at the moment. Things are changing on a daily basis and are rapidly evolving
I've said all along in this process regarding Ireland, once the money is sorted the Irish border will be fixed by the politicians, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.Ayahuasca said:
You seem to have overlooked that the EU stops it quite effectively by not permitting the UK to reach trade deals with trading partner states.
Anyway this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but on the practicalities of the Irish border.
You're right. But it was related to Irish Government's position.Anyway this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but on the practicalities of the Irish border.
As you were - back on topic.
psi310398 said:
No, I do not underestimate the power the EU has. But you get nowhere giving in to a bully and, worse, this bully is offering something it has no intention of giving.
Are you on about the UK or the EU? Because, let's be honest, the UK have been completely beligerent about the negotiations and what the EU want from them. psi310398 said:
In that situation, given that most informed commentators are laying more than evens on Britain walking away, how does the Irish government's position make any sense? Unless it, too, really wishes to leave the EU, but hasn't got the courage to say so.
Ireland have done very well out of the EU, with companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft setting up their European bases in the country. That will continue to happen especially with the UK's withdrawl from the EU. Some people, a minority, want out of it. But generally speaking, the EU works for Ireland.psi310398 said:
It can't really believe that the EU will be prepared to show that much solidarity to Ireland that they would putting in ferry connections or building a tunnel hundreds of miles long (even if technically feasible). Where would the money come from, given that one of principal milch cows is leaving? The EU budget is already tight and about to get tighter. Tighter still, if the UK simply walks away.
And, if all the EU is doing is trousering concessions with no intention of offering a decent deal, we might as well bugger off now, as that is not a good faith negotiation. We might as well tell Barnier and co that we are wasting time talking. They have our contact details if they want to talk sensibly.
Like I said, it has to show Brexit as being a bad idea and a failure to the rest of the countries involved. So it will show complete solidarity to the Irish in the face of rhetoric from the UK regarding the border. You say now that they won't put in ferries or other transportation links, but if the UK is going to be beligerent and ban goods moving through the UK, what does the EU do for one of it's members? It will help them get around the roadblock the UK will put in its place. And, if all the EU is doing is trousering concessions with no intention of offering a decent deal, we might as well bugger off now, as that is not a good faith negotiation. We might as well tell Barnier and co that we are wasting time talking. They have our contact details if they want to talk sensibly.
And come on, again, the EU have the upper hand in all of these negotiations. It's the biggest member, really, at the table. The UK, as big as it likes to think it is, really is nothing in terms of interest to the other 26. It's the UK that's been shouting their mouth of, saying "get stuffed" with the money they really do owe to the EU. It's not a Waitrose membership card the UK is arguing over although that's how it's being treated.
psi310398 said:
Legally speaking, we owe the EU nothing much and we can spend the money instead habituating those who need it to a life without subsidy. It would be a much better use of our scarce resources and, if a sub-optimal deal is all that is on offer, we can at least offer business certainty quicker.
So how are the farmers going to cope? No cheap EU workers (which is already happening), no subsidies. £50 billion is a horrific waste of money, and there is still no promise to put the £350 million per day promised by the Leave campaign in to the NHS. psi310398 said:
In the meantime, much of the rest of the world survives quite happily outside the EU. We go to either WTO terms or unilateral free trade. We leave the Ireland Act in place for those who worry about these things.
So everything gets levied and taxed to hell, making everything more expensive. I'm sorry, but I like the fact my bread costs £1.20 and that I can buy Michellin tyres for my car at £70 a corner. Why do I want them to cost a whole lot more than that? That's not a good deal for Joe Public.psi310398 said:
It might be painful short- (even medium-) term - certainly New Zealand took a decade or so to adjust to a subsidy-free economy but now are exporting wine, lamb and butter half way across the world at a price that highlights how inefficient the CAP is. I don't care where my olive oil or beef comes from.
It would also free us in the UK to consider what kind of future we'd like rather than focusing on the mechanics of leaving an overblown customs union.
It's going to be painful long term. And when it's realised down the road how stupid the idea is, there will be moves to rejoin the EU. Then what happens? We get an even worse deal! Thatcher had many faults and is such an evil arse of a human, but the deal she came up with was good and won't be bettered or regained once we leave the UK.It would also free us in the UK to consider what kind of future we'd like rather than focusing on the mechanics of leaving an overblown customs union.
jsf said:
I've said all along in this process regarding Ireland, once the money is sorted the Irish border will be fixed by the politicians, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.
This does rather assume good faith on all sides and ratification by a host of Member State (and sub MS) Parliaments, though.sgtBerbatov said:
It's going to be painful long term. And when it's realised down the road how stupid the idea is, there will be moves to rejoin the EU. Then what happens? We get an even worse deal! Thatcher had many faults and is such an evil arse of a human, but the deal she came up with was good and won't be bettered or regained once we leave the UK.
As Ayahuasca has pointed out, this is a thread on a specific topic rather than on Brexit generally, so I don't propose responding here. We are not going to end up agreeing, anyway
.jsf said:
- loads of text that didn't quote well*
Fine. I recind the point about Wales. But you will see the majority of the north voted to stay in the EU. And a lot of those on the border voted to stay in the EU.
Tax evaision has happened for years across the border, both ways. But you haven't pointed out how to stop it.
The idea of the UK recinding the Ireland act isn't playing on emotions or anything else. It's a fact, and there's previous to it as well. Wasn't so long ago the Government wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act (and still wish to do so). So the idea the Government won't do something to help their cause is ridiculous.
Essentially the point of the border and the free movement of Irish people isn't the problem. The point is there will have to be a border because the UK don't want a customs union or free movement of people. Now if you go to the border, the guy behind the desk won't know whether your Irish, English or Slovakian until you produce documents. So everyone around the border, day in day out will have to do this. What happens if Mrs.McGoo forgets her passport on the way to the hospital, or Mr.McGee forgets his papers on the way to work? Come on!
sgtBerbatov said:
Essentially the point of the border and the free movement of Irish people isn't the problem. The point is there will have to be a border because the UK don't want a customs union or free movement of people. Now if you go to the border, the guy behind the desk won't know whether your Irish, English or Slovakian until you produce documents. So everyone around the border, day in day out will have to do this. What happens if Mrs.McGoo forgets her passport on the way to the hospital, or Mr.McGee forgets his papers on the way to work? Come on!
I think the simple point is that HMG has no proposals to do this. What the Irish government decides to do is up to them.psi310398 said:
I think the simple point is that HMG has no proposals to do this. What the Irish government decides to do is up to them.
But it's not up to the Irish government to put a border in place to check who's leaving. It's up to the UK government to put a border in place to check who's entering. That's common sense.How many times have you gone through the UK Border Agency at the airport on your way out of the country?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff