One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music0 min ago
Brexit
Can someone explain to me how, without Customs Posts or Passport Controls, you can have a
"soft" border between Ireland(in the EU) and Northern Ireland(outside the EU)? Would this not require both parties to accept free movement of people and membership of the customs union?
Many politicians state a "soft border" as their objective but none explain how.
"soft" border between Ireland(in the EU) and Northern Ireland(outside the EU)? Would this not require both parties to accept free movement of people and membership of the customs union?
Many politicians state a "soft border" as their objective but none explain how.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
well eddie you excel yourself in taking things out of context, this is what I said on that thread: "TWR, yes foriegn trucks will be charged at the border assuming we do no deal with the EUSSR which is looking favourite at the mo. Bag of sand a pop should cover it. " . What I said in response to an earlier post that we would have to endure tarrifs if we do no deal, I was merely pointing out that it is a 2 way street, note the phrase "assuming we do no deal with the EUSSR" - you seem to cherry pick what you like and portray it as the whole truth.
Of course it's a contradiction!
You can't have a customes union (effectively) between the ROI and NI and not a customs union between NI and the rest of the UK and claim there is not a customes union British-Isles wide. That is the status quo now: it is a sensible one and one that we would be insane to change.
You can't have a customes union (effectively) between the ROI and NI and not a customs union between NI and the rest of the UK and claim there is not a customes union British-Isles wide. That is the status quo now: it is a sensible one and one that we would be insane to change.
So far everything NJ has said about how things *should* go has turned out to have no bearing on how they *have* gone. Whether this is because NJ is smarter than everyone in the negotiating teams on both sides put together or because armchair diplomacy is, as usual, completely ill-informed and massively oversimplistic is anyone's guess.
No jim, NJ put's it as the Majority who voted to leave think.
Why it is not coming to fruition is because arch Remainer Thersa the Appeaser is weak, has no spine and is subservient to Jucker and Barnier. in other words she is utterly useless and has been walked over.
And just for the record I too have no issue with the people or countries of Europe (well maybe the French - I am English after all) having worked in Bruxelles, paris and Frankfurt quite a bit. It is simply the EU I hate.
Why it is not coming to fruition is because arch Remainer Thersa the Appeaser is weak, has no spine and is subservient to Jucker and Barnier. in other words she is utterly useless and has been walked over.
And just for the record I too have no issue with the people or countries of Europe (well maybe the French - I am English after all) having worked in Bruxelles, paris and Frankfurt quite a bit. It is simply the EU I hate.
Yes as Jim indicates there is a huge difference between what a lot of Brexiteers would like : and reality. Reality now kicks in. Reality also dictates that the UK could certainly walk away from the talks, but that would cause a recession in all likelihood as businesses are desperate for at least some sort of interim arrangement aaa a ‘gentle landing’ to whatever is finally decided
Is that a reasonable solution? To simply say, “Stick it!” To our trading partners in Europe, and then negotiate trading deals individually with each country?
I’m not criticising that solution - just wondering whether this is viable.
Is the exit bill due to the fact that we have commitments which are part of numerous contracts we have with the EU?
What would it do to our international standing if we just turned our backs on the EU?
Would it affect our international credit rating?
I’m not criticising that solution - just wondering whether this is viable.
Is the exit bill due to the fact that we have commitments which are part of numerous contracts we have with the EU?
What would it do to our international standing if we just turned our backs on the EU?
Would it affect our international credit rating?
SP: "Is that a reasonable solution? To simply say, “Stick it!” To our trading partners in Europe, and then negotiate trading deals individually with each country?" - yes if they are making it difficult, No one has ever demonstrated a benefit of the EU to me, so why not? Even in the referendum campaign the remainers did 100% negative campaigning.
"I’m not criticising that solution - just wondering whether this is viable." - yep, see above
"Is the exit bill due to the fact that we have commitments which are part of numerous contracts we have with the EU?" - I don't see how we pay £1 billion a month to get shafted and the commitments were up to end of 2019 so at best a few months to account for.
"What would it do to our international standing if we just turned our backs on the EU?" - raise it through the roof.
"Would it affect our international credit rating?" - possibly but the big 3 ratings agencies are about as popular as Jimmy Saville at the moment.
"I’m not criticising that solution - just wondering whether this is viable." - yep, see above
"Is the exit bill due to the fact that we have commitments which are part of numerous contracts we have with the EU?" - I don't see how we pay £1 billion a month to get shafted and the commitments were up to end of 2019 so at best a few months to account for.
"What would it do to our international standing if we just turned our backs on the EU?" - raise it through the roof.
"Would it affect our international credit rating?" - possibly but the big 3 ratings agencies are about as popular as Jimmy Saville at the moment.
“Whether this is because NJ is smarter than everyone in the negotiating teams on both sides put together or because armchair diplomacy is, as usual, completely ill-informed and massively oversimplistic…”
It’s neither.
The reason things have not gone as they should have done is because when the electorate was asked whether it wanted to leave or remain in the EU that was the question they answered. They didn’t say (because they were not asked) whether they wanted to remain half in and half out. They were not asked whether they wanted to retain some of the advantages and put up with the disadvantages of membership.
For some reason the UK government has decided that they should have been asked those questions and are attempting to extract the UK from the EU whilst retaining some of its (few) benefits. The downside of that is, of course, that in order to do so they must also endure many of the disadvantages. In doing so there have been no “compromises” whatsoever; the Prime Minister has made herself look foolish and has acquiesced to just about every demand made of her. That’s the reason things have not gone as they should have done. Unlike Mrs May I am under no delusions and for the UK to gain some “concessions” from the EU it will be on terms that suit the EU alone. That is why it is pointless trying to negotiate with them to agree a mutually beneficial outcome. It’s not something they do because the Euromaniacs are driven by ideological dogma and not by pragmatism.
The idea of leaving with "no deal" so frightens UK politicians that they seem prepared to go to almost any lengths to avoid it. This is entirely the wrong approach. Many business leaders accept that whilst it is the most violent in the short term, it is far and away the best option in the long term. But of course most politicians can only see as far as the next election.
“New Judge, can I ask how you will react if the Republic of Ireland decides to join the schengen area.”
There is less than zero percent chance of that happening, Eddie. But since you asked me to speculate on a 0% probability, I wouldn’t react at all. It really doesn’t bother me that much. It means that people would be free to move from the EU to Ireland (and thence to the UK) without any passport checks but since I reckon that the numbers will be extremely small it would be manageable and is no reason to suggest that the UK must remain in the EU. The current situation between Ireland and the UK – in particular the border issue - is based on the premise that the Republic will remain outwith the Schengen area and will control its external border (which is effectively ours). If that changed and the consequences were detrimental to the UK then that situation may have to be re-examined. But as I said, the chances of it happening are as close to zero as can be imagined.
“Is that a reasonable solution? To simply say, “Stick it!” To our trading partners in Europe, and then negotiate trading deals individually with each country?”
No it is neither reasonable nor, most importantly, feasible. Individual EU nations cannot negotiate their own trading deals with anybody. They sacrificed that right when they joined the EC/EU.
It’s neither.
The reason things have not gone as they should have done is because when the electorate was asked whether it wanted to leave or remain in the EU that was the question they answered. They didn’t say (because they were not asked) whether they wanted to remain half in and half out. They were not asked whether they wanted to retain some of the advantages and put up with the disadvantages of membership.
For some reason the UK government has decided that they should have been asked those questions and are attempting to extract the UK from the EU whilst retaining some of its (few) benefits. The downside of that is, of course, that in order to do so they must also endure many of the disadvantages. In doing so there have been no “compromises” whatsoever; the Prime Minister has made herself look foolish and has acquiesced to just about every demand made of her. That’s the reason things have not gone as they should have done. Unlike Mrs May I am under no delusions and for the UK to gain some “concessions” from the EU it will be on terms that suit the EU alone. That is why it is pointless trying to negotiate with them to agree a mutually beneficial outcome. It’s not something they do because the Euromaniacs are driven by ideological dogma and not by pragmatism.
The idea of leaving with "no deal" so frightens UK politicians that they seem prepared to go to almost any lengths to avoid it. This is entirely the wrong approach. Many business leaders accept that whilst it is the most violent in the short term, it is far and away the best option in the long term. But of course most politicians can only see as far as the next election.
“New Judge, can I ask how you will react if the Republic of Ireland decides to join the schengen area.”
There is less than zero percent chance of that happening, Eddie. But since you asked me to speculate on a 0% probability, I wouldn’t react at all. It really doesn’t bother me that much. It means that people would be free to move from the EU to Ireland (and thence to the UK) without any passport checks but since I reckon that the numbers will be extremely small it would be manageable and is no reason to suggest that the UK must remain in the EU. The current situation between Ireland and the UK – in particular the border issue - is based on the premise that the Republic will remain outwith the Schengen area and will control its external border (which is effectively ours). If that changed and the consequences were detrimental to the UK then that situation may have to be re-examined. But as I said, the chances of it happening are as close to zero as can be imagined.
“Is that a reasonable solution? To simply say, “Stick it!” To our trading partners in Europe, and then negotiate trading deals individually with each country?”
No it is neither reasonable nor, most importantly, feasible. Individual EU nations cannot negotiate their own trading deals with anybody. They sacrificed that right when they joined the EC/EU.
// Northern and Southern Ireland totally refuse //
Northern ireland and the republic - - - jesus
even tho the 1922 Treaty of Freedom mentions the House of COmmons of SOuthern Ireland - even at the time it was recognised that the body didnt exist and the state mentioned didnt exist
I really would have thought 100 y later the lesson had soaked in
Northern ireland and the republic - - - jesus
even tho the 1922 Treaty of Freedom mentions the House of COmmons of SOuthern Ireland - even at the time it was recognised that the body didnt exist and the state mentioned didnt exist
I really would have thought 100 y later the lesson had soaked in
"The chances are, just to put it another way, that ‘no deal’ would be more expensive than £40 or £50 billion"
That may, or may not be true, Ikky. Who knows? I certainly don't and if the truth's to tell few other people do either. But Brexit is far, far more than simply what is or is not the cheapest or most expensive option. It's about sovereignty and that should not be for sale.
That may, or may not be true, Ikky. Who knows? I certainly don't and if the truth's to tell few other people do either. But Brexit is far, far more than simply what is or is not the cheapest or most expensive option. It's about sovereignty and that should not be for sale.
You know what? I don’t think anyone on either side could’ve anticipated what as complete and utter shambles this was going to be.
I genuinely thought that it would be perfectly straightforward - that we would agree terms and just leave.
This is going to take years and years and years and in the end neither the Remainers or the Brexiteers will be happy.
This is the suckiest of all outcomes.
I genuinely thought that it would be perfectly straightforward - that we would agree terms and just leave.
This is going to take years and years and years and in the end neither the Remainers or the Brexiteers will be happy.
This is the suckiest of all outcomes.
Regarding DD's clarification, seems like it is a gentleman's agreement with no legal binding after all. And of course it's been an insistence of the EU that either everything is agreed or nothing is.
http://
But since the UK want a soft border it can still be done in the event of no deal. Eire merely have to agree it with the EU, because they've already a gentlemen's agreement with the UK.
Based on the agreements reached so far by the negotiating team, I'd guess many people, NJ included, are smarter than everyone in the negotiating teams on both sides put together. But of course, both sides are not working towards a fair solution, one in particular is trying to punish the other for having the audacity to opt out. Despite the possible loss to themselves of causing poor relations.
As for the scenario whereby the Republic of Ireland decides to join the Schengen area despite having seen what an utter shambles it is, then we'd rely of the tech to monitor those coming down the roads. No one can monitor a whole borderline well regardless, so it's not like anyone has a better solution.
http://
But since the UK want a soft border it can still be done in the event of no deal. Eire merely have to agree it with the EU, because they've already a gentlemen's agreement with the UK.
Based on the agreements reached so far by the negotiating team, I'd guess many people, NJ included, are smarter than everyone in the negotiating teams on both sides put together. But of course, both sides are not working towards a fair solution, one in particular is trying to punish the other for having the audacity to opt out. Despite the possible loss to themselves of causing poor relations.
As for the scenario whereby the Republic of Ireland decides to join the Schengen area despite having seen what an utter shambles it is, then we'd rely of the tech to monitor those coming down the roads. No one can monitor a whole borderline well regardless, so it's not like anyone has a better solution.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News23 mins ago
