Brexit and the Border

Thanks Dub-Nerd,

What an impressive lady! Apart from the logical tour de force, the "uninhibited by any knowledge of what is actually in the withdrawal agreement" bit was le bouquet! Pure class....
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Donal Tusk saying there is a special place in hell for Brexiteers. But much more worrying is our Teashop caught unawares laughing with Tusk and saying he would get a pasting by the British press but that he was dead right.
Click to expand...

How is what the Taoiseach said "much more worrying"?
 
War is the thing that has been forgotten in all these negotiations from an EU perspective as well as the UK perspective.
The EU was set up initially to try and prevent wars in Europe.
A hard brexit may rekindle a war in Northern Ireland.
Also economic stagnation in the UK in the future may also lead to conditions for a war to start.
The EU has a responsibility to try and prevent future wars even if it has to bend a bit from it's tough stance with the UK.
 

I would put it a different way in that the EU makes great play out of being there to foster peaceful relations within Europe. There are other ways of doing that without trying to get everyone to actually be in the EU. EU-Turkey relations were damaged by the negotiations for Turkey to join.
EU-UK relations don't have to be harmed by Brexit. And the UK is important to the EU through NATO even if it isn't in the EU.
Unfortunately as we have seen with the Euro and now with this, the 'project' of EU integration comes first and everything else is secondary.
 
I said it here when this whole thing started (but I can't find where I did, which is really annoying); I don't see any scenario where the UK leaves which does not involve a hard border.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
But much more worrying is our Teashop caught unawares laughing with Tusk and saying he would get a pasting by the British press but that he was dead right.
Click to expand...
Where did he add "but that he was dead right" Duke? From what I saw what he said was "you will get into trouble with the British press over that" - also do you think he was really caught unawares? He was still on the stage in front of the cameras! Finally why is that much more worrying from your point of view? Do you disagree with what he said - was it in any way controversial? Certainly not judging by the coverage today - it is only the words of Tusk that concern anyone.
 
Sophrosyne said:
How is what the Taoiseach said "much more worrying"?
Click to expand...
Leo and ex football hooligan acting like schoolboys
Okay maybe "dead" right was an exaggeration. Also he seems to be getting away with it so far, but if this all goes pear shaped and the blame game begins in earnest, Leo and Simon (goaded by Mary Lou) are putting Ireland right in the cross hairs.
 
The funny bit was when Adleen Foster accused Tusk of being "deliberately provocative". She's some neck that woman.
 
elacsaplau said:
Thanks Dub-Nerd,

What an impressive lady! Apart from the logical tour de force, the "uninhibited by any knowledge of what is actually in the withdrawal agreement" bit was le bouquet! Pure class....
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people on both sides know what is actually in the GFA. Note this conversation on BBC last week.

Andrew Neal: What exactly does the GFA say about the border? (trick question)
Kevin O'Rourke: Nothing, and you know that Andrew.
AN: What's the big deal then?
KO'R: In the GFA we in the south gave up our claim to the six counties of NI. This was a big blow to nationalists. Any increase in the visibility of the border would rub salt in the wound, and would be contrary to the spirit of the GFA.

So there we have it, offending nationalsits with cameras at the border would be in breach of the spirit of the GFA. Shall I suggest that the imposition of a sea border against the wishes of the majority in NI would be contrary to the spirit of the GFA and possibly even contrary to its letter.

As to the outburst of the self confessed football hooligan, DT, he doesn't give a damn about peace in Ireland. Ireland is merely a patsy in his pursuit of EU revenge on Britain.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Shall I suggest that the imposition of a sea border against the wishes of the majority in NI would be contrary to the spirit of the GFA and possibly even contrary to its letter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That's why the backstop prevents the UK from putting up a hard border with the EU. It only applies to Northern Ireland if the UK chooses to apply it that way.
 
I think the idea that the EU is seeking revenge on Britain is too conspiratorial. Donald Tusk doesn't get to make those sorts of decisions anyway, as all of the member states have been kept apprised of the negotiating positions all along and get to ratify the final decision. The problem we have is one of incompatible "red line" issues. My own opinion is that the UK's red lines are by far the most arbitrary, as UK politicians have taken it on themselves to interpret "what the British public voted for", generally to suit their own views.

Apart from the undiplomatic language, Tusk is right in general. How would you feel if you spent two years negotiating a deal only to be told you'd been dealing with the wrong people? That's what Tories told the House of Commons last week. There are a subset of Tories who completely misread the EU position from day one, and trumpeted the fact that they were going to get all the benefits of EU membership without any of the obligations. A week ago when the Commons voted on amendments to the withdrawal agreement, some of the same MPs said that if Britain only threatened to walk away from a deal the EU would have to come to its senses. They are truly delusional.

Whether or not the GFA contains anything specific about the nature of the border in Ireland, it's entirely legitimate for the border to be a included in the negotiations with the UK. It's not like some huge concession is being demanded, it's only the transparent border that the Brits have stated they are committed to anyway. There are just two problems: that statement is incompatible with other British red lines, and the Brits have now proved they are in no position to negotiate anything in good faith with the EU due to their own divisions.

The ball is firmly in the UK court.
 
dub_nerd said:
I think the idea that the EU is seeking revenge on Britain is too conspiratorial.
Click to expand...
Michel Barnier stated from the very outset that the aim of the negotiations was to ensure the UK was worse off as a result of Brexit, for the sake of the integrity of the Union. Maybe not revenge, maybe not a punishment beating (per Sammy Wilson). But I cannot escape the feeling that the Irish "peace process" has become an expedient device in maximising the EU leverage in the negotiations. So I agree that Tusk would not on his own be able to indulge his hooligan thirst for revenge but the mask has slipped and we can see exactly where he is coming from.
dub_nerd said:
The ball is firmly in the UK court.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. It is firmly in Simon Varadkar's or maybe to a lesser extent the DUP's court. Seems to me that the DUP call the shots at Westminster, I have heard comments from Brexiteers to the effect that if a revised deal is good enough for the DUP, it would be good enough for them. On the other hand, Ireland calls the shots with the EU side. This may be resolved at the very last minute by Ireland very "reluctantly" accepting a 5 year time limit to the backstop. Brexiteers and the DUP would be furious but would be seen as just wreckers if they rejected what would have been positioned as a massive concession from Ireland.

So then we would have 2 years transition, 5 years backstop and we would be 15 years on from the 2011 NI census. That census showed a thin majority of Protestants over Catholics of just 2%, with crucially at younger ages the gap being Catholics having a 10% lead over Protestants. Time for a border poll. Cue a United Ireland. No need for a hard border, though who would supply the military intervention to quell the open community warfare in Belfast and other places?
 
Last edited:
A united Ireland; that's the nightmare scenario for me alright. Two large tribal groups, angry, bigoted, god-bothering, welfare reliant and generally incapable of functioning in the modern world lumped in on top of us. Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.
The Brits think Brexit will be expensive? They'd have to pay us about €20 billion a year for the next 40 years to take on that dysfunctional basket of deplorables.
 

Would a vote in Stormont be needed? And if so, under power sharing rules wouldn't it need votes in Stormont from both sides?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Michel Barnier stated from the very outset that the aim of the negotiations was to ensure the UK was worse off as a result of Brexit, for the sake of the integrity of the Union.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, he said the EU was prepared to offer the UK an "unprecedented deal", better than any other non-member. He also said that no country could be better off as a non-member than as a member. That does not mean the purpose of the negotiations was to ensure the UK was worse off, but that such was the simple logic of the situation. Your claim is like saying that someone taking a voluntary severance package is being forced into joblessness.

odyssey06 said:
Would a vote in Stormont be needed? And if so, under power sharing rules wouldn't it need votes in Stormont from both sides?
Click to expand...

No, a future vote for a united Ireland would take place in the North and the Republic according to the GFA. It needs a majority of citizens' votes in both locales, the politicians don't get a say.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I wonder how many people on both sides know what is actually in the GFA.
Click to expand...

Not the Brexit Secretary who replaced the first fool (Brexit Secretary One)
It’s not like a novel, you sit down and say ‘do you know what, over the holidays, this is a cracking read'.

As Jennifer Cassidy put it: I expect my students to read close to 500 pages a week. In order to construct a 2,500 word essay for our weekly tutorial. But Dominic Raab can’t read a 35 page international peace treaty, in order to inform his decisions which affect the future of entire nations.

Have a look at the clip below and do a compare and contrast with the subject mastery of Sabine Weyand in the earlier clip.

https://www.joe.ie/news/former-brex...dmits-never-read-good-friday-agreement-657014
 
Conan said:
So, we just cave in, allow the UK to renege on their promise or allow them to decide unilaterally to cancel the Backstop and then we end up with a hard Border in say two years.
Click to expand...
Why should this happen? Certain commentators in the UK, particularly those from an economics background, have suggested that the UK need only require by legislation that UK entities that export to the EU must comply with the relevant EU standards and tariffs. Add a certification scheme on top of that and there is no need for any border checking. The goods being exported are certified to EU standards and logistics looks after customs tariffs, etc. If the UK really wants to be out of any dealing with the EU they could just make it illegal for UK entities to trade with Ireland unless they comply with EU norms and tariffs. Management in UK companies can then decide, as good management should do, how much capital is allocated to goods destined for EU and how much to allocate to goods destined to other countries. This is the function of management and market forces would determine if it were worthwhile for a company to export to the EU or seek profit elsewhere. There will always be cheaters but if you lose your certification you won't be able to export.

Of course, Ireland will now have an obligation to defend the EU's external border, but being realistic, I don't think the UK is likely to invade the EU via the boreens of Fermanagh.

The only other area where there are calls (mainly from Hungary and Austria) for hard borders are to establish controls on immigration. I don't see this as a major issue at present. Immigrants are more likely to use Ireland as a backdoor to the UK than vice versa.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register