- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
There are also the "peace lines" or "peace walls".
Ireland is the EU, just as we are/were. The EU isn't a separate state.
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,863 comments
- 264,446 views
There are also the "peace lines" or "peace walls".
Ireland is the EU, just as we are/were. The EU isn't a separate state.
Art.50 didn't need to be instantly enacted. I've already said that sorting it out could take years. But instead we've bungled the whole thing into one massive stupid cluster-****.
Remember when this was about getting a better deal than we already had?
Remember when we were told we'd walk a deal?
Remember how this was all supposed to be done and dusted about a year ago?
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, we are specifically discussing why the Irish border situation could not have been 'resolved' prior to Brexit, as the suggestion seems to be that Ireland and the UK could have come to some agreement before we triggered Article 50. I'm pointing out the reasons why this could not have happened, even though it would have made Brexit a lot easier if it had been possible.
I've also addressed this point before too, but the point remains that the EU refused to negotiate prior to Article 50 being triggered - so yes, it did need to be triggered. Couple this with the fact that Ireland does not have the legal right to negotiate its own international trade policy or customs arrangements, and you can hopefully see how you have it completely wrong. The UK was required to trigger Article 50 in order for discussions pertaining to future trade and customs arrangements in Northern Ireland to begin.baldgye
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yes, politicians and campaigners lie. But what would this solution have been? Bearing in mind:
The Republic of Ireland trades as part of the EU's Customs Union.
The United Kingdom trades as part of the EU's Customs Union.
Nations that trade as part of the EU's Customs Union are forbidden by the rules of the Customs Union from conducting any negotiations on trade or customs with any other nation.
I'm not sure how the UK and ROI would ever have been able at any point - now, next month, three years ago, ever - to determine what happens at their common land border with regards to trade and customs until one or other became a third party... and then it would be the EU and the third party, not the two nations.
That or the EU makes an exemption to recognise the unique nature of that border and the treaty governing it. Other than that I can't come up with a process for how this would have been decided...
... and yes, politicians and campaigners lied that Northern Ireland wouldn't be an issue.
I'm aware, and I've tired to look into the laws and rules about this but have struggled, I'm no EU law expert. But looking at how the GFA was conducted it was conducted by two EU nations, I don't see why those two EU nations couldn't then work out a proper border situation, similar to other EU nations like France/Germany etc... given the unique and recent troubled past it could have been used under exemption laws etc... I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But it happened in the past and given that we need there to be a proper border there to actually do what 'we' want, it would seem the sensible path to take.
Again I don't know either, but that isn't my issue.
My point (and the reason I replied to @Touring Mars ) is that this whole situation, is of our own making. We can't now, after we've already ****ed it all down the drain, place the blame on anyone other than ourselves.
Personally, looking at the history I'm kind of amazed that the GFA was ever able to come to pass in the first place yet alone have been so successful. So the idea that we could then (within a short space of time) leave the EU, one of the binding aspects of the GFA, seems insane to me.
And again, because you seem to use this to gloss over the crimes committed by the Leave campaigners;
Not all of them, actually break the law in order to win a referendum though.
Ireland has to honour both agreements. The fact is that the UK know the EU will have to implement some kind of border. The UK only has to honour one agreement, and they are not. If they were doing their utmost to prevent border infrastructure they would recognise that the EU rules exist and saying they won't have a border doesn't circumnavigate them.
It's still asking Ireland to sign up to an agreement that could result in a border. The original backstop proposed that NI would stay in the CU until an alternative to a hard border is agreed upon. That satisfies Ireland and the UK government can start figuring out those alternatives. The idea that the EU is trying to trap NI seems a little far fetched. Keeping NI in the CU serves no purpose except honouring the GFA.
Ireland will not sign up to any agreement that results in a hard border. It doesn't matter if that border is established by the UK or the EU. The UK know this. In a no deal situation Ireland will have to honour the EU's laws, which they have already agreed to. Any proposal that the UK make that doesn't guarantee that there won't be a border is made fully in the knowledge that Ireland cannot agree to it.
I'm still confident a deal will be done though. It's looking less likely to happen by the end of the month, but who knows what the will happen during the next extension.
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The Good Friday Agreement predates the current form, role and guise of the European Union - and by some margin.
As of 2007 the rules changed, and it's simply not possible (or legal) for any nation in the EU to enter any kind of negotiation with any other nation (whether EU or not) over trade, borders and customs.
This is essentially a situation no-one even conceived of thinking could happen. Two nations that are part of a trading bloc that they founded, with a treaty governing free movement between a specific territory of one of them to the rest of the island owned by the other, suddenly being on different sides of a border neither of them wishes to acknowledge and legally forced not to discuss it until that actually happens rather than preparing for it.
Brexit is, the Northern Ireland border is not. We have chosen to leave the European Union, and that includes Northern Ireland. There will now be an intangible customs border between the two parts of Ireland as a result of that departure.
The UK cannot talk to Ireland about it until after it happens. Ireland cannot talk to the UK about it until after it happens. All we can do is send proposals for what we think should happen to the EU (not to Ireland). That's caused by EU rules on trade and customs, prohibiting Ireland from participating other than as part of the bloc.
EU membership isn't mention in the agreement. Indeed the EU only gets a mention on a handful of occasions, all in the aspect of the cooperation between North and south implementing EU policies.
The EU prior to the Lisbon Treaty was a very, very different thing.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
@baldgye One reason that the GFA was possible was because it didn't/doesn't contravene any EU rules. The fact that both the UK and Ireland were in the EU made the GFA infinitely easier, and there is little doubt that the EU membership of both countries has helped to secure the peace in Ireland. But EU membership alone is not the sole reason for peace in Ireland, and alas it is soon no longer going to be the case that the UK and Ireland have that common bond. But the peace in Ireland must be maintained in spite of this legal parting of ways.
That is why I said earlier that the EU are also risking the GFA by making a deal with the UK (and thus between Ireland and Northern Ireland) virtually impossible - the UK's stated position is that the best way to maintain this peaceful relationship despite NI's inevitable divergence on customs is for the UK and the EU to agree a trade deal that minimizes or even eliminates the need for customs checks and tariffs. But - the EU's position is that there will be no trade deal unless the UK agrees to leave NI inside the Customs Union permanently, even in the case that no trade deal is ever reached!. Not only is that pretty unfair, it is also a very clear danger to the peace process in Ireland in and of itself.
@Woodybobs And yet, the UK has never proposed anything that even resembles a hard border. Ireland have already said that they are willing to put up with a 'soft' border (at the EU's behest) but have rejected the UK's proposals for the exact same because... well, why?
As I explained in my post above, a deal now is likely to result in NI staying in the CU for a very long time, and possibly forever - but, crucially, this would only happen with the consent of the UK/NI, as opposed to the backstop which would achieve the same outcome but without the consent of the UK/NI.
On the contrary, a No Deal guarantees NI comes out of the CU straight away, and all but guarantees an EU-imposed 'soft border'... but a soft border that lasts forever is not what I would call soft. At least with a deal with the UK, not only would any customs checks be minimal, there would also be a strong chance of no customs checks at all.
That is why I said earlier that the EU are also risking the GFA by making a deal with the UK (and thus between Ireland and Northern Ireland) virtually impossible - the UK's stated position is that the best way to maintain this peaceful relationship despite NI's inevitable divergence on customs is for the UK and the EU to agree a trade deal that minimizes or even eliminates the need for customs checks and tariffs. But - the EU's position is that there will be no trade deal unless the UK agrees to leave NI inside the Customs Union permanently, even in the case that no trade deal is ever reached!. Not only is that pretty unfair, it is also a very clear danger to the peace process in Ireland in and of itself.
@Woodybobs And yet, the UK has never proposed anything that even resembles a hard border. Ireland have already said that they are willing to put up with a 'soft' border (at the EU's behest) but have rejected the UK's proposals for the exact same because... well, why?
As I explained in my post above, a deal now is likely to result in NI staying in the CU for a very long time, and possibly forever - but, crucially, this would only happen with the consent of the UK/NI, as opposed to the backstop which would achieve the same outcome but without the consent of the UK/NI.
On the contrary, a No Deal guarantees NI comes out of the CU straight away, and all but guarantees an EU-imposed 'soft border'... but a soft border that lasts forever is not what I would call soft. At least with a deal with the UK, not only would any customs checks be minimal, there would also be a strong chance of no customs checks at all.
- 16,432
- United Kingdom
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Again, I'm not really understanding what you're getting at here.
The fact is, the EU has not considered any proposal that does not involve keeping either the whole of the UK or part of it (NI) permanently inside the Customs Union, and thus under EU rules - Angela Merkel has apparently let the cat out of the bag on this front today, but most analysts have known this for some time anyway.
The only options acceptable to the EU amount to Soft Brexit - i.e. leaving the EU but remaining inside the Single Market and Customs Union - and that would objectively make the UK weaker than before - whether or not this is what the EU want (I strongly suspect that this is exactly what the EU want, but my point is that the EU's motives don't change the fact that staying in the Customs Union but 'leaving' the EU would enormously disadvantage the UK compared to staying in). The backstop is essentially Soft Brexit by default, and could only be escaped by... you guessed it, agreeing to a Soft Brexit.
As for your contention that the goal of Brexit is to split the EU, that's an opinion that I don't see any credible evidence for.
Russia is seeking to break up the only entity that has any impact in its running, the EU. The same way it seeks to weaken the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
My point is that we could have and should have worked to change the board, so to speak to which this game is being played on.
We all knew going into this that the EU has the FAR better hand when it comes to the negotiating table. so we should have played it smart and before we put ourselves on the clock and essentially playing a game of chicken with the EU (by enacting Art.50 before we'd even worked out the cost of Brexit). But, we didn't do this, we instead rushed into this whole process in some foolish plan to pressure the EU. It's not worked. They've not budged and why should they? They can use NI/RI to make us weaker and to make an example of our nations stupidity.
This however, is not stopping a nation from leaving the EU. This is the EU basically being a ******** to a nation that's been given all the special treatment it wanted and has had that thrown in its face. We can still leave, with no-deal or have a dog**** deal. They're not stopping Brexit, they are focing reality upon our nation of idiots.
Last edited:
@Touring Mars Ireland cannot (if they are respecting the GFA) sign up to any agreement that results in a border on the island. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the border. Under the latest proposals the EU would have to put border infrastructure in place. It doesn't matter that the UK say they won't establish a border if the EU say they will. The latest proposals were not going to be acceptable to the Irish government. The UK government are deflecting the issue of the border by saying they won't establish one. They know that their proposals mean that the EU will have to have a border which the Irish, as part of a deal, will not agree to. In a no deal scenario Ireland will accept they have to have a border because they agreed to that in the 70's? The UK are bound by one agreement: the GFA. Ireland have to honour two. It's not a stretch to say NI would enter the backstop willingly. It does have support. Admittedly NI would be less willing to be in the CU permanently if the UK weren't also in the CU, but Ireland and especially the EU have no wish to keep NI in the CU, except to prevent a border.
Edit
"Can you please explain to me how the border issue could be resolved without the agreement of the EU or Ireland?"
The UK could agree to NI remaining part of the CU. Obviously the UK will say that that outcome is not acceptable, but there's no reason to think that the UK's red lines are somehow more important than Ireland's red lines. As it stands, without some leeway, we're at an impasse. The views of both sides are completely understandable. Unfortunately, if there's no resolution we're looking at no deal. We're likely to all lose in that scenario. Deals are often done as we get to the last minutes so hopefully we get to a position where all sides feel like they've won.
Edit
"Can you please explain to me how the border issue could be resolved without the agreement of the EU or Ireland?"
The UK could agree to NI remaining part of the CU. Obviously the UK will say that that outcome is not acceptable, but there's no reason to think that the UK's red lines are somehow more important than Ireland's red lines. As it stands, without some leeway, we're at an impasse. The views of both sides are completely understandable. Unfortunately, if there's no resolution we're looking at no deal. We're likely to all lose in that scenario. Deals are often done as we get to the last minutes so hopefully we get to a position where all sides feel like they've won.
Last edited:
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
A double standard is when you apply different principles to similar situations, like preaching about the importance of reducing our carbon footprint and then go and buy a new Tesla every other year (provided that you are aware of the carbon footprint from the production of these cars).
Seeking legal guarantees to avoid a hard border and then implementing a hard border in the absence of such guarantees is not a double standard, it’s actually consistent with their position.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
All the more reason to agree a deal (which would be a legal guarantee of no hard border) that sets out in advance what customs checks are needed and where they will be, rather than leaving it up to the EU to demand the Irish comply lest they be expelled from the Single Market.
As I've said, a 'deal' (a new Withdrawal Agreement) would, at the very least, come with a transition period in which NI would stay in the CU anyway, and would also give the people of NI the opportunity to formally consent to staying in the CU permanently - which, at the time of writing, seems quite likely. If the people of NI consent to it, then the UK Government would acquiesce and let NI stay in the CU permanently - thus no border at all in Ireland, legally guaranteed. If NI voted to come out of the CU, however, that would be a vote that needed to be respected by the EU and the Irish Government, and customs checks would be required - but that is currently the No Deal default anyway. If the EU and Irish governments continued to insist on no checks at all, in spite of a clear vote in NI to come out, then both parties could be held in contempt of that vote.
The final outcome for Ireland is that there will have to be customs checks somewhere. If they don't agree to allow them in Ireland itself, they will have to move to the continent. If they agree to allow the EU to impose necessary checks in the event of No Deal, then it still begs the question why they will not agree to allow the necessary checks to occur after a deal.
As I've said above, a deal is a legal guarantee of no hard border. And what you've said is not consistent with the Irish position - the Irish rightly will not accept a hard border under any circumstances. What the UK are proposing, ánd what the Irish government and the EU have seemingly already agreed on between themselves, is not a hard border but customs checks away from the border in order to keep the border completely open.
It is a double standard to refuse to agree to any customs checks at all (under the UK proposal) but accept the very same customs checks (under EU rules) in the event of a No Deal, which is where Ireland are right now.
Ireland don't need to agree to allow the EU to impose a border because they agreed to that long before brexit. It's one of the agreements to which they are already bound. In order to avoid a situation where, by law, they have to have a border, NI needs to be in the CU until there is an acceptable alternative. Ireland will not agree to any deal that would result in a border, or one that might result in a border in the future. Ireland would prefer to have a border than to agree to have a border. Ireland are doing all they can to uphold the GFA. They can't agree to any of the UK's proposals regarding the border because every one of them would mean the EU would require us to have a customs border. That would not be honouring the GFA. Refusing to put border checks in place means breaking EU laws. In order for the UK to do what they can to uphold the GFA they have to make sure they don't put Ireland in a position where they must break one of the agreements. Saying Ireland should agree to the deal is asking Ireland to break the law. As things stand, Ireland says they will only do that if they are put in a position where they must break an agreement ie. No deal. On the other hand if the UK agrees to the backstop, holds another referendum, revokes article 50, or comes up with something else, they would not have to break any law.
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
Provided that such a deal contains a legal guarantee.
They will not accept a deal that might result in a hard border. That doesn’t mean that they won’t impose a hard border if that’s what it comes to.
The last I heard was that they rejected the idea. Where did you get information that they actually agree with it?
It’s not, because in the first case they have a choice (to accept or reject a deal resulting in a hard border) and in the second case they have no choice (but to impose a hard border, since there is no deal).
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, quite...
And therein lies a problem as Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland's sovereign territory and hence not under its jurisdiction. While the UK has plenty of reasons to co-operate with Ireland when it comes to how Northern Ireland is governed and how it operates, the fact is that Ireland does not have any right in international law to determine how Northern Ireland is governed. So it is a bit of a problem (to say the least) if Ireland's border policy depends on how NI is governed, because Ireland legally has no say in that.
But, as you have pointed out yourself, Ireland has already agreed to the requirement for a border (or at least customs checks) with the EU by virtue of signing up to the Single Market.
The UK has and always has had a right to leave the EU - and as such Ireland should now be acting accordingly. The biggest problem is that both the EU and Ireland seem adamant that part of the UK can never leave the EU because, if it does, Ireland would have to impose customs checks which it has already agreed to with the EU, while at the same time saying that they are totally unacceptable to the UK... you can't have it both ways.
Ireland can still honour both agreements by instating customs checks away from the border. If Ireland (or the EU) impose a hard border, they will be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. If Ireland refuse a 'soft' border (customs checks away from the border) then they will be in breach of EU law. All other options you mention require the UK to act in a way that is conducive to Ireland's interests, but the UK is not compelled by any law to do so. The only consideration that the UK is bound by is the Good Friday Agreement, and that doesn't say anything about customs checks in Ireland.
The Withdrawal Agreement itself is a legally-binding international treaty.
Sorry, but you're way off the mark with this comment. Ireland will never impose a hard border, nor will the UK. What the Irish government are objecting to, however, is the return of customs checks in any form.
As my discussion with @Woodybobs illustrates, if there is No Deal, then Ireland are bound by their agreement with the EU to impose customs checks - or they will be kicked out of the Single Market. The EU will likely never do that, hence why the EU and Ireland have come up with a plan to implement customs checks away from the border that would safeguard the integrity of the EU Single Market while avoiding a 'hard border' i.e. physical infrastructure at the Irish border (that caused so much trouble in previous decades).
My bone of contention is, however, that the UK's current proposals are virtually identical to what the EU and Ireland seem to have already planned in the event of No Deal - which is minimal customs checks away from the border. If it is going to be done after No Deal anyway, then why is it so unacceptable?
Ireland have rejected the idea of signing a deal that creates new customs checks, but Ireland would have to agree to new customs checks in the event of No Deal otherwise they will be in breach of EU law.
Ireland are gambling that, by refusing to sign up to a deal that creates new customs checks, the UK will essentially give in and either cancel Brexit altogether or agree to leave Northern Ireland permanently inside the EU (and thus effectively out of the UK internal single market) such that no new customs checks will ever be needed in Ireland. The gamble is, however, that if the UK doesn't give in and ends up exiting the EU without a deal, then Ireland will be left with a simple choice between staying in the Single Market and imposing new customs checks, or crashing out of the Single Market by refusing to impose new customs checks. It is almost certain that they will opt for the former.
We're not talking about a hard border, but customs checks. My point is that Ireland have already accepted that they will have to impose new customs checks in the event of a No Deal Brexit, and yet are rejecting the UK's proposals because they involve new customs checks.
Timing is also a key issue here - with a deal, no new customs checks would be necessary until at least the end of the transition period, which in all likelihood would be extended until the EU and the UK agree a new trade deal, which could itself eliminate the need for any customs checks - indeed, this has been the UK's position from Day 1.
A No Deal Brexit, on the other hand, means no transition period and customs checks required on both sides of the Irish border immediately. Furthermore, the EU have made it clear that no trade deal will even be negotiated in the event of the UK leaving without a Withdrawal Agreement, meaning those customs checks (that Ireland are so opposed to) would not only be immediate, but permanent.
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
So is the treaty that prevents exploitation of the Antarctique. Neither contains a guarantee of an open border between Ireland and NI.
Customs checks at the border is the definition of a hard border.
What plan?
Without a hard border the road is open for smugglers, unless you expect them to voluntarily drive to some off-border customs control to declare that they have nothing to declare.
I’m sure they want to find a solution for custom controls away from the border, but it they already have one we would have heard about it.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
You seem to have missed the bit about customs checks not being at the border.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...physical-border-checks-after-brexit-1.3569485
Except that making their plans public would undermine their whole strategy...
In any case, the fact is that Ireland and the EU must have a plan of some sort because customs checks will be required on Day 1 after a No Deal Brexit... and if those customs checks don't happen in Ireland, they will happen on the continent - and all goods going to or from Ireland will be considered equivalent to UK goods.
I strongly suspect that the major element of the EU/Ireland's 'No deal' plan is to offer the UK a transition period as per that already proposed in the existing Withdrawal Agreement, whereby the UK stays inside the CU temporarily until 'alternative arrangements' are put in place. The UK and EU will continue to trade under GATT 24 (the WTO clause that would allow for existing arrangements on trade to be kept in place for up to 10 years while a trade deal is completed) in return for UK compliance on customs alignment.
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not really, no. A customs border is somewhat different from a hard border - a customs border only stops freight, not individuals.
Here's a road crossing the Ireland/Northern Ireland border:
And here's another one, 300m to the south-west:
Here's two roads that split just before the border, one of which crosses the border (the bridge) from Ireland into the UK and the other of which does not:
And here's where those two roads meet again, two borders later and still in Ireland:
The road over the bridge in the first shot crosses from Ireland to the UK and then back to Ireland in the space of 900m. The other road never leaves Ireland, but they meet again in the second shot - and there are no other roads that meet the border-crossing road within the UK.
A "hard border" would prevent all crossings from all individuals at these points without a passport check - you'd need to show your passport twice in 900m, to get into the UK and then back out. There'd need to be new infrastructure built there for the task. If you want a customs border in the same place, you'd need to build the infrastructure to check freight, right there on the border. And these are big roads by comparison to some of the hundreds of crossing points.
What the planned customs border would do is check only freight and commercial traffic, and at points away from the border but close enough that it would prevent commercial vehicles from crossing these legal border points without first having been checked. Rather than having to police every one of these tiny border crossings, the customs border checks would be on major roads within a few miles of them. It would still be possible for traffic to pass across the border from one farm to the next carrying goods within this zone, but not from the wider Ireland to or from the wider Northern Ireland. Short of a company setting up its entire supply chain from raw material extraction and all of its customers within this zone, it'd be an effective customs border several miles wide.
Rather than having five border checks on this one piece of road, you'd have two that make it impossible to access any part of the road without passing through one.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The checkpoints between Poland (EU/Single Market) and Russia (the EU-hating anti-Christ) are pretty severe too..
The only thing preventing the UK from leaving is the Benn act. The EU has simply stated it's terms for opening trade negotiations. The UK have different terms. In order to move forward both sides need to come closer together. The trump card that the EU have is that the UK are going nowhere without a deal, for now. They'll wait for a UK election and go from there. This whole conversation may be moot because we won't know what Ireland and the EU will accept until they decide that there's nothing more to be gained by waiting. No doubt they already have a plan if no deal is going to happen on the 31st. That plan is either they really are prepared to accept the UK leaving without a deal or they have terms for a deal that will be acceptable to all. No doubt the UK also have a plan for such a scenario.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I think you missed my point, which is that if the EU can tolerate Poland having an open border with Russia, then how come it's not possible to have an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?
The EU's external borders are porous - granted, they are working on that, but the fact remains that a customs border does not necessarily require physical infrastructure at the border itself.
it's just that simple! but how come we couldn't sort our **** out before we declared art.50?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That "open border with Russia" isn't really that, it's the 1992 Kaliningrad/Poland border. You also need a Kaliningrad visa before you travel and will have your papers and goods examined by border guards. Hardly an "open border".
Whether or not the checks take place at the geographically-exact border is irrelevant, customs posts in the vague area of the border (even 20, 30 miles away) constitute a hard border and a target. This isn't a paper exercise, this is flesh-and-blood people with families being sent into the heart of the biggest affront to the Peace Process in recent memory.
- 28,417
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
