Brexit and the Border

[Duke of Marmalade]

Dan O'Brien in The Independent this morning sums it up perfectly for me: 'The backstop demand could end up bringing about that which it was designed to prevent'.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/...hich-it-was-designed-to-prevent-37622042.html

I agree with DOB's article I said much the same myself in November.

Lots of pan Nationalist gloating this morning. But this is in great danger of being a Pyrrhic victory. Ireland is an even bigger loser than the UK if there is a No Deal. Also how many diplomatic credits have we left in the EU bank. How long will we be allowed to maintain our idiosyncratic approach to Corporation Tax?

The problem is that we can't back down now. Besides the fact that Simon Varadkar have ensured that such a climbdown would be a domestic electoral disaster, our EU colleagues would say "WTF?". Some on the basis that they thought they truly were helping Ireland in what it was claiming was a desperate desire to preserve peace but others like France who have been using the Irish issue to put the Brits in a negotiating corner.
Anyway. if there is a"no deal" and if a hard border is such a threat to peace I presume Ireland will immediately dump the EU and join the UK Customs Union.

 

[Leo]

if there is a"no deal" and if a hard border is such a threat to peace I presume Ireland will immediately dump the EU and join the UK Customs Union.

Ireland followed into Europe on the UK's coat tails, it would be economic suicide to leave the EU and follow them this time.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Ireland followed into Europe on the UK's coat tails, it would be economic suicide to leave the EU and follow them this time.

Leo, Simon Varadkar have never made the "no hard border" an economic argument. How could they? East West trade and indeed the Landbridge to the Continent completely dwarfs any North South economic aspect.

For them and indeed for everybody else in pan Natonalism the "not an extra lumen of border visibility" has been ostensibly about protecting the "peace process" (though probably mainly for the sake of rubbing Orange noses in it).

A no deal would involve the EU demanding a very hard border indeed. If we are to be consistent and if we really do believe that this would rattle the IRA's cages (those that haven't gone away, you know) then we would have to refuse to meet the EU's demands.

 

[Leo]

For them and indeed for everybody else in pan Natonalism the "not an extra lumen of border visibility" has been ostensibly about protecting the "peace process" (though probably mainly for the sake of rubbing Orange noses in it).

I don't really buy that either, it seems like more a useful tool in bringing others in to back the cause of no hard border on the island.

A no deal would involve the EU demanding a very hard border indeed. If we are to be consistent and if we really do believe that this would rattle the IRA's cages (those that haven't gone away, you know) then we would have to refuse to meet the EU's demands.

Only if the UK backtracks on their commitments. Regardless of the ultimate nature of the border though, it would still be madness for Ireland to follow the UK out of the EU.

 

[john luc]

Ireland followed into Europe on the UK's coat tails, it would be economic suicide to leave the EU and follow them this time.

different times. We were near totally dependent on trade with the UK back then and our currency was pegged to sterling. Our goal was to loosen that stranglehold and open up to European markets and reduce our dependence on UK only trade. We still do a lot of trade with the UK now but we are not as dependent as back then.

 

[john luc]

The pan nationalist argument is a bit of a red herring thing for me. No doubt we have a few Boris and Rees mouths about but like them they are fringe. Most normal people are grounded in seeing how personal impacts this is going to have and so are egging for a commonsence answer. I have friends in the North who come from both sides and they despair at the lack of leadership in politics that is normal for lazy northern politicians.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Only if the UK backtracks on their commitments.

If there is No Deal there is no backstop. It would not be the UK who would be insisting on a hard border, it would be the EU.

 

[Leo]

If there is No Deal there is no backstop.

No, the commitment made on the backstop includes the no deal scenario.

It would not be the UK who would be insisting on a hard border, it would be the EU.

I'd imagine both parties are as likely as each other, and with the DUP's posturing, it might be more in their interest to push that agenda to allay their fears of anything that might increase the chances of any move towards a united Ireland.

 

[cremeegg]

If there is No Deal there is no backstop.

Theresa May has said that Britain is committed to no hard border. Those who want a hard border, the DUP and the ERG believe her. Those who don't want a hard border don't believe her and that is why we have the backstop.

It would not be the UK who would be insisting on a hard border, it would be the EU.

This is baloney and you know it. If the UK leaves the (a) customs union, it is the UK who is creating the need for a hard border. Passing off the consequences of their decisions onto others is just childish word games. This fools no one, including you.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This is baloney and you know it. If the UK leaves the (a) customs union, it is the UK who is creating the need for a hard border. Passing off the consequences of their decisions onto others is just childish word games. This fools no one, including you.

No, the commitment made on the backstop includes the no deal scenario.
I'd imagine both parties are as likely as each other, and with the DUP's posturing, it might be more in their interest to push that agenda to allay their fears of anything that might increase the chances of any move towards a united Ireland.

I am obviously a very bad communicator as my point is being missed completely. For avoidance of all doubt of course I accept that the Brits are to blame for Brexit and if there is a hard border then again the Brits are to blame for starting this whole thing.

Now I will try and make my point again. If there is No Deal by B-day then there is very likely to be tariffs imposed if not immediately then very soon. For the sake of my point I don't care who starts that (most likely the EU but yeah the Brits started it all in the first place, so what?)

Now my point. Given that we have made such a play that the slightest increase in visibility of the border is a serious threat to peace then the government should avoid what would be the hardest of borders by joining the UK customs area. This is the logic of their position if peace is at such risk. It is unclear whether such a course might also be in our economic interest.

They say they are planning for No Deal. I think that means more customs officers. So they are preparing for a hard border. Its not customs officers they should be recruiting but security forces if the peace is under such threat.

 

[Purple]

The Backstop and all the stuff about the North-South border was only ever a cover to protect the East-West trade and access to the Mainland through Enger-land and her hinterlands of Wales and Scotland.
Teresa made the mistake of accepting that the UK should honour aan existing international agreement, brokered with the help of the USA, EU and Ireland, which ended the 30 year UK civil war. Maybe the same parties could help the Tories end their civil war but I doubt it. Integrity and Tories are like oil and water; you can stir them up all like but try as you might they just don't mix.

The reason the UK is having such difficulty with the Backstop is that they fundamentally don't trust anyone else in a negotiation. There is a very good reason for this; they don't behave with integrity so they don't expect anyone else to either. If they did then the Backstop wouldn't be an issue. What sort of people call a commitment to honour an existing international agreement a trap?

The other factor driving Brexit is that they used to have an Empire. An Empire is when you invade another country, murder and pillage your way through it, kill or subjugate the leaders and seek to rule it for the sole purpose of your economic enrichment, almost always to the detriment of the people who live there. If that is your preferred method of interaction with other countries is it not surprising that you may have trouble being comfortable in a Union of equals.

 

[Leo]

It is unclear whether such a course might also be in our economic interest.

I think it's as close you get to a certainty that any such move would be economic suicide.

 

[odyssey06]

The reason the UK is having such difficulty with the Backstop is that they fundamentally don't trust anyone else in a negotiation. There is a very good reason for this; they don't behave with integrity so they don't expect anyone else to either. If they did then the Backstop wouldn't be an issue. What sort of people call a commitment to honour an existing international agreement a trap?

Nothing Varadkar, Coveney, Merkel & Barnier say or do can be trusted so if the UK are acting that way they have good reason to.
After all the fobbing off of Ireland on bail out deal anyone who trusts a promise from Merkel would be a fool.
All the guff about a hard border and jeopardising the peace from Varadkar-Coveney is nonsense as @Duke of Marmalade has shown.
Barnier was deposed as Luxembourg PM for corruption.
Why can't an international agreement ever be changed as circumstances change?

France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Italy ALL had empires. So I guess we shouldn't be in an association with a bunch of imperialists?
There was many an Irishman, north and south, in the vanguard of the British empire. Maybe we should not be in an association with anyone either?
Can you cut out the anti-British racist nonsense?

The Backstop should be overseen by an independent body, not the EU courts. If you want a deal to happen, in any negotiation, you have to a deal the other side can sell to their side (whether that side is a board, or a cabinet or a parliament). If we want a deal, we need to come up with one the UK can sell.

 

[Leo]

If you want a deal to happen, in any negotiation, you have to a deal the other side can sell to their side (whether that side is a board, or a cabinet or a parliament). If we want a deal, we need to come up with one the UK can sell.

That only works where there is still mutual benefit in such a deal, and both sides enter negotiations with realistic expectations. Media reporting suggests that the UK are holding out for the kind of deal the EU simply cannot offer.

 

[odyssey06]

That only works where there is still mutual benefit in such a deal, and both sides enter negotiations with realistic expectations. Media reporting suggests that the UK are holding out for the kind of deal the EU simply cannot offer.

I don't think any of the things May is looking for right now are things the EU cannot offer.
And I'm not sure if it is Ireland or EU insisting on clauses such as Backstop overseen by EU courts, but it is not realistic for anyone to think that could be sold in UK and it is very much to our mutual benefit to have a deal.

I could be wrong on this, but I think if she got something along the lines of Backstop overseen by neutral body OR time limit on new relationship, she could sell that to a majority of her party & DUP and get it through a vote in parliament.

 

[elacsaplau]

Barnier was deposed as Luxembourg PM for corruption.

News to me. Will probably come as a surprise to him also.

 

[odyssey06]

News to me. Will probably come as a surprise to him also.

Oops that was Juncker..

 

[Purple]

The Backstop is an agreement that there will be no change to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland until there is a final withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK and that when that agreement is in place there is no hard border. It was agreed between the UK and the EU last month based on a commitment which the British Prime Minister gave last year. It is not something which is being imposed unilaterally by the EU and it is not something which is adjudicated upon by EU courts.

The Good Friday Agreement stipulated that all legislation passed in Northern Ireland will conform to the requirements of the European Declaration of Human Rights, as adjudicated upon by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ is not an EU body. It is this agreement that is being honoured with the Backstop.

 

[Purple]

Nothing Varadkar, Coveney, Merkel & Barnier say or do can be trusted so if the UK are acting that way they have good reason to.
After all the fobbing off of Ireland on bail out deal anyone who trusts a promise from Merkel would be a fool.
All the guff about a hard border and jeopardising the peace from Varadkar-Coveney is nonsense as @Duke of Marmalade has shown.
Barnier was deposed as Luxembourg PM for corruption.
Why can't an international agreement ever be changed as circumstances change?

France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Italy ALL had empires. So I guess we shouldn't be in an association with a bunch of imperialists?
There was many an Irishman, north and south, in the vanguard of the British empire. Maybe we should not be in an association with anyone either?
Can you cut out the anti-British racist nonsense?

The Backstop should be overseen by an independent body, not the EU courts. If you want a deal to happen, in any negotiation, you have to a deal the other side can sell to their side (whether that side is a board, or a cabinet or a parliament). If we want a deal, we need to come up with one the UK can sell.

The bailout was a massive success for us (well for our pension funds and depositors anyway) so can you cut out all the anti-German and anti-EU racist nonsense?
That said I should have been clearer; it is the Tory establishment that can't be trusted. Thankfully many British people are ashamed of their imperialist past. There were indeed many Irishmen who were part of the British forces and committed imperialists and they weren't shy about spilling blood for the crown, a point I have made on these forums many times. That doesn't negate the long history of dishonesty, duplicity and crass ignorance by the Tory establishment, especially in their dealings with this country.

 

[Leo]

I don't think any of the things May is looking for right now are things the EU cannot offer.

I said the UK. There appears to be quite a gap between what May agreed to in the recent negotiations and what the wider UK are demanding from Brexit.