Err not really. I'm not denying what he said, just what it proves. You really should learn to read before spouting sanctimonious twaddle.
Someone posted quotes about Juncker not liking an attitude that leads to German politicians having their head photoshopped onto Nazi uniforms and how he said that sometimes it is OK to lie, as proof that he is some kind of arch-federalist.
That is the very definition of out-of-context. You might as well post any quote by any politician that can be wilfully misinterpeted and use it as proof that they are an evil shit if you accept that logic.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
If he's admitted it's sometimes OK to lie, how exactly can you be 100% certain he's not, lying when, he says he is not a Federalist?
Doesn't seem like the oddest logic in the world.
Because he said it in the context of talks that could have destabilised the Euro had he been 100% open. In the same way more or less every government and big business do not broadcast anything that could cause a crisis until they have got a solution.
It's very spurious logic to try to link the two. He clearly isn't saying "I lie all the time" which is how some people are trying to frame it. Especially when the same posters have defended the government lying about the existence of the Brexit impact reports but still seem to trust every word they say.
If he's admitted it's sometimes OK to lie, how exactly can you be 100% certain he's not, lying when, he says he is not a Federalist?
Doesn't seem like the oddest logic in the world.
Because he said it in the context of talks that could have destabilised the Euro had he been 100% open. In the same way more or less every government and big business do not broadcast anything that could cause a crisis until they have got a solution.
It's very spurious logic to try to link the two. He clearly isn't saying "I lie all the time" which is how some people are trying to frame it.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Seth, you are flogging a dead horse with this one. They can't explain how it can be an open border outside the single market/customs union/free movement of people because it is an impossibility.
If he's admitted it's sometimes OK to lie, how exactly can you be 100% certain he's not, lying when, he says he is not a Federalist?
Doesn't seem like the oddest logic in the world.
Because he said it in the context of talks that could have destabilised the Euro had he been 100% open. In the same way more or less every government and big business do not broadcast anything that could cause a crisis until they have got a solution.
It's very spurious logic to try to link the two. He clearly isn't saying "I lie all the time" which is how some people are trying to frame it.
Whooosh
Oh come on I expect this wilful idiocy from Dippy but I know you know it is hardly a smoking gun.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Legitimate businesses will make sure they have done the necessary paperwork before they send their lorries off. They will be breaking the law otherwise and most will not do that.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
If he's admitted it's sometimes OK to lie, how exactly can you be 100% certain he's not, lying when, he says he is not a Federalist?
Doesn't seem like the oddest logic in the world.
Because he said it in the context of talks that could have destabilised the Euro had he been 100% open. In the same way more or less every government and big business do not broadcast anything that could cause a crisis until they have got a solution.
It's very spurious logic to try to link the two. He clearly isn't saying "I lie all the time" which is how some people are trying to frame it.
Whooosh
Oh come on I expect this wilful idiocy from Dippy but I know you know it is hardly a smoking gun.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Legitimate businesses will make sure they have done the necessary paperwork before they send their lorries off. They will be breaking the law otherwise and most will not do that.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
There will still need to be a border for spot checks of goods, especially in the case of a hard Brexit with no single market/customs union or trade deal - unless of course there is complete blind trust between the consignment as described on paper and the actuality.
Currently all borders into the UK are hard borders in terms of people, except the border between the Republic and the UK. Yes of course illegal immigrants can enter the UK by any number of nefarious means (and post Brexit that will include French, German, Romanian etc...) but for now they don't have a 310 mile wide open door. Post Brexit citizens from the EU will be able to enter the Republic freely and then just walk across an open border into the UK - how's that going to work?
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Legitimate businesses will make sure they have done the necessary paperwork before they send their lorries off. They will be breaking the law otherwise and most will not do that.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
How are we going to enforce the border then? Our current border force is currently made up of 5 cutters and 120 sailors. Are we going to need to expand homeland security to counter the predicted increase in illegal activity? Who is going to pay for it? Bear in mind Brexit is going to cost us more than it will to Remain.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Legitimate businesses will make sure they have done the necessary paperwork before they send their lorries off. They will be breaking the law otherwise and most will not do that.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
You do realise that you are making @seth plum's point for him? He is simply pointing out that the cake and eat it approach cannot work for the border in Ireland.
The expressed wish of the UK Government regarding the Customs Union and the Single Market, even in the context of a very wide-ranging Free Trade Agreement will require the sort of controls that you outline (if for no other reason than WTO rules).
However, these controls are diametrically opposed to the expressed wish of the UK Government regarding retaining the current border arrangements (to say nothing of the UK Government's commitments in Phase 1 of the Article 50 negotiations - including the "no deal" scenario).
Admittedly, the UK could seek to unilaterally avoid any controls on cross border trade, but this is likely to have a significant impact on the UK economy, which even Patrick Minford accepts would have a massively negative impact on UK agriculture and manufacturing (one of these two is very important in Northern Ireland, and the other, as recent US actions have shown, is vuilnerable).
There is not much time to get some clarity on the precise kind of border the UK wants, if the UK wants any deal (and, for all the fact that there has been consensus about the Common Travel Area to date, I would not take as read the idea that it can survive all eventualities).
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
I am completely willing to be pinned down on this.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of: The Good Friday Agreement The length of the land border. The number of crossing points. The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border. The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
Legitimate businesses will make sure they have done the necessary paperwork before they send their lorries off. They will be breaking the law otherwise and most will not do that.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
An answer at last.
All of your suggestions imply extra resources to implement. For example in order to ascertain the breaking of the law, there will need to be law enforcement.
The same goes for catching smugglers. The same goes for apprehending and deporting people without the right credentials. The same goes for ascertaining whether those crossing are Irish citizens or not.
Now all of that stuff adds up to a hard border in my eyes. The challenge will also be to put this stuff in place along a 400 mile stretch of land. (perhaps we ought to not mention property that straddles the border at this point). There are layers of nuance in the Good Friday Agreement (an international treaty) that will complicate things further.
A further practicality would be the notion that a single container lorry, with 60,000 iphones and a tariff differential of £25 or 25 euros would be a requirement for somebody to pay somebody 1.5million. One 747 Airfreighter can carry 200,000 iphones I believe so one aeroplane load of iphones commands about 5million to be paid in something, to someone, somewhere. These kinds of practicalities, both with physical objects, or services or energy would demand control and therefore a border, hard or not.
Individual people would be able to simply walk across the border, unless there are extensive checks in place.
What you and I have both described is a hard border, an expensive border, and a politically charged one that brexiters want to take back control of, and yet it is not what politicians say they want, but is what politicians say is the will of the British people, and they say they want the will of the British people to prevail. How does that conundrum play out?
Incidentally, where you separate the 'rules' for Irish Citizens from other EU citizens, which court of law holds sway in matters of dispute?
What you have described is a hard and closed border simply by dint of describing the practicalities. This is understandable, because it seems to be the inevitable consequence of brexit, but it is at the expense of an international treaty, and at the risk of a violent response (which I for one would not want to see at all).
On the subject of the Irish border, is there not also the question of the border between Spain and Gibraltar which never seems to get much coverage but could be even more fractious in terms of finding a solution given that Spain have shown that they are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face previously?
@stonemuse Well there you go, well done for digging it (as opposed to digging me) out. This might sound like revisionism but allow me to put some context to what will seem like a surprising admission.
First of all, I didn't give it much thought, but the question, would I vote No to the U.K. joining now, needs to make some assumptions about what kind of UK would be joining. In so far as I thought about it I was thinking about a U.K. whose economic size and social cohesion was as it is now ( or rather before the referendum was called). However it is impossible to imagine that Britain would be like that now, if it had never joined the EU.
My remark was meant to concede that Europe needs to sort a lot of shit out before another strong economy country - a net contributor- would, happily join. So right now, I don't think either Norway or Switzerland would join. However I could well imagine that by 2030 both may join. I found check the results of the last Norwegian referendum on the subject, you will see a familiar story. Greater Oslo region voted strongly to Join. But Odd ( a real Norwegian first name) in Tromso and his fellow fisherman were strongly against.
Similarly with the Euro, I am struggling with how the project can work without at least a lot more fiscal harmonization. I think The UK was right to stay out, although at least partly because the house price based "economy" requires a specific control of the BoE. On the other hand the Czech Republic should just join, their little brothers in Slovakia have made a success of it, and love to remind the Czechs of that.
@Stu_of_Kunming is right to to recall a difference between @MuttleyCAFC and I. I have always been a committed European and believe in the overall project, always have done. And where I live, the evidence of the success of the project is all around me. Do you remember The European newspaper? I was the only person I knew who had it delivered daily. But their star writer, Peter Millar was and is an Addick. I only found out recently.
To be fair, in your later posts on that thread, you did contextualise your response.
On my comment regarding federalism, you responsed: “I think it is not possible now, but It will eventually. However it will be a gradual process, and it could indeed be in a smaller zone than the current euro one. That's why I said I would not vote yes in a euro referendum today. I would vote differently were it for a "Northern euro" including Germany, the Scandis, Benelux and a Macron- reformed France, and certain others.“
On my comment regarding a two-speed EU, you responded: “As for two speed Europe, well it makes sense to me, but again making it happen is another matter entirely. My stance overall is that these things evolve over time but what is important for Europe is solidarity, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. With that, anything is possible, but it can take a long time.“
On the subject of the Irish border, is there not also the question of the border between Spain and Gibraltar which never seems to get much coverage but could be even more fractious in terms of finding a solution given that Spain have shown that they are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face previously?
Spain seem to be being quite tactical about this, knowing that 99% of Gibraltarians voted to Remain and the UK have done absolutely nothing to reassure the people of Gibraltar about their status. This plays well into Spain's hands of eventually getting the territory back, hoping that the people have no other choice but to embrace Spanish control.
On the subject of the Irish border, is there not also the question of the border between Spain and Gibraltar which never seems to get much coverage but could be even more fractious in terms of finding a solution given that Spain have shown that they are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face previously?
Spain seem to be being quite tactical about this, knowing that 99% of Gibraltarians voted to Remain and the UK have done absolutely nothing to reassure the people of Gibraltar about their status. This plays well into Spain's hands of eventually getting the territory back, hoping that the people have no other choice but to embrace Spanish control.
So we could lose Gibraltar, Scotland, peace in Northern Ireland (possibly the whole country) and worsen relationships with both Eire and Spain as a result, who have both been supportive allies in recent years. The extra costs will cost more than we will save and we are likely to suffer a substantial hit to our economy over the next 15 years at least.
We won't be able to stop anybody from fishing in most of our waters and and most 'border controls' are powers we already have or can replicate using existing laws.
We will however be free to trade with Trump (probably on his terms), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China of which only the US is a democracy.
On the subject of the Irish border, is there not also the question of the border between Spain and Gibraltar which never seems to get much coverage but could be even more fractious in terms of finding a solution given that Spain have shown that they are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face previously?
Spain seem to be being quite tactical about this, knowing that 99% of Gibraltarians voted to Remain and the UK have done absolutely nothing to reassure the people of Gibraltar about their status. This plays well into Spain's hands of eventually getting the territory back, hoping that the people have no other choice but to embrace Spanish control.
So we could lose Gibraltar, Scotland, peace in Northern Ireland (possibly the whole country) and worsen relationships with both Eire and Spain as a result, who have both been supportive allies in recent years. The extra costs will cost more than we will save and we are likely to suffer a substantial hit to our economy over the next 15 years at least.
We won't be able to stop anybody from fishing in most of our waters and and most 'border controls' are powers we already have or can replicate using existing laws.
We will however be free to trade with Trump (probably on his terms), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China of which only the US is a democracy.
Exactly why are we leaving?
Taking back control - which means we will be solely responsible for our own cock-ups.
On the subject of the Irish border, is there not also the question of the border between Spain and Gibraltar which never seems to get much coverage but could be even more fractious in terms of finding a solution given that Spain have shown that they are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face previously?
Yes. Cunningly, however, having said nothing about that border, HMG have yet to contradict itself - there's a better than evens chance that they just can't be arsed worrying about it.
@StonemuseTry this from the Centre for European Reform. In the podcast Charles Grant develops the multi-speed Europe idea further, where it becomes Europe a la carte. Countries could opt into or out of different policies according to their individual needs. If it had not been for the swivel eyed nutters, a sensible UK coalition government would have been arguing the case for this in Brussels, and receiving a lot of support, especially once Macron appeared. But we opted for collective nervous breakdown instead.
@StonemuseTry this from the Centre for European Reform. In the podcast Charles Grant develops the multi-speed Europe idea further, where it becomes Europe a la carte. Countries could opt into or out of different policies according to their individual needs. If it had not been for the swivel eyed nutters, a sensible UK coalition government would have been arguing the case for this in Brussels, and receiving a lot of support, especially once Macron appeared. But we opted for collective nervous breakdown instead.
@PragueAddick Only had time for a quick look, but looks interesting.
Some time back, I stated: "The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides."
The report states: "Emmanuel Macron has suggested several tiers of membership. Given the differing preferences and objectives of the 27, Macron’s more flexible model is more viable in the long term. It would also enable the EU to revive the stalled enlargement process, by offering ‘membership minus’ to suitable countries. As for the neighbourhood policy, which has so far failed to create a ‘ring of friends’ around the EU, Brussels needs to increase its offer – for example by asking some neighbours to join particular policies. Britain could one day envisage rejoining the outer tiers of a more differentiated EU."
And: "The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. It is time for EU leaders to state openly that the 27 do not and will not share all the same ambitions and objectives."
I have also previously stated that I agree with one of the five models for the future of the EU in the March 2017 Commission white paper, i.e.: “In a scenario where the EU-27 proceeds as today but where certain member-states want to do more in common, one or several ‘coalitions of the willing’ emerge to work together in specific policy areas.”
Not so far away from my views - I will have a look at the report in more depth when I get an opportunity.
My guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
Thanks for the support, it was fun watching him make a bigger fool of himself at my expense yesterday and also his cohorts who liked it.
Was it almost as fun as studying for a fictional doctorate whilst spending several hours obsessively clicking a little smiley face under posts just because they prove you wrong?
Fictional hey now that is funny...Jolly green giant springs to mind. Your not capable
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
Nothing to do with listening to the concerns of one of its 27 members then?
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
You know there's more to borders than making sure the tariff's been paid right?
Who's going to check those goods crossing your "border" in and out of the UK/EU are safe or compliant with the domestic/EU legislation for one? How much is this going to cost?
The whole point of the single market is to ensure that wherever possible goods conform to agreed standards across it, so that once inside the EU there is no further need for such checks. We're going to be outside so will need to reintroduce and resource a far more robust system of border inspection. Or we might just not bother and just let the US or China import any old shite into the UK.
Comments
Someone posted quotes about Juncker not liking an attitude that leads to German politicians having their head photoshopped onto Nazi uniforms and how he said that sometimes it is OK to lie, as proof that he is some kind of arch-federalist.
That is the very definition of out-of-context. You might as well post any quote by any politician that can be wilfully misinterpeted and use it as proof that they are an evil shit if you accept that logic.
Doesn't seem like the oddest logic in the world.
Whenever anybody has said they don't want a hard border I have challenged, not because I don't believe their aspiration, my reaction has been 'OK, tell us the actual practicalities'.
I have also consistently said that I believe there is either a border, or there isn't.
I have also consistently said that my understanding is that brexit means taking back control of the borders.
I really don't have anything to retract.
I know the politicians don't 'want' a controlled border because of:
The Good Friday Agreement
The length of the land border.
The number of crossing points.
The stunning cost of policing/controlling/monitoring/resourcing the land border.
The immense political risk.
I don't wan't a controlled border either.
However when those same politicians who don't want a controlled border say they are leaving the single market, the customs union and taking back control of the border, you have to ask how sincere they are in saying they don't want a controlled border.
And the best answer to that is to explain how it will be a 'controlled' yet 'open' border, outside a single market and customs union, with no more free movement of people. All they have to do is explain how that happens.
It's very spurious logic to try to link the two. He clearly isn't saying "I lie all the time" which is how some people are trying to frame it. Especially when the same posters have defended the government lying about the existence of the Brexit impact reports but still seem to trust every word they say.
Smugglers will do what they do now to take advantage of differential prices and cross the border to make money, until they get caught selling their products without the necessary paperwork and prosecuted.
People who cross the border and wish to stay here will have to abide by whatever immigration rules are in place at the time. Irish citizens will have free movement whatever the rules will be for other EU citizens. Non Irish EU citizens will probably have to register in the UK in order to get legal work, or they will join the ranks of illegal immigrants already here until they get caught and deported. Most people come in,being law abiding citizens, will make sure they have the paperwork beforehand.
Currently all borders into the UK are hard borders in terms of people, except the border between the Republic and the UK. Yes of course illegal immigrants can enter the UK by any number of nefarious means (and post Brexit that will include French, German, Romanian etc...) but for now they don't have a 310 mile wide open door. Post Brexit citizens from the EU will be able to enter the Republic freely and then just walk across an open border into the UK - how's that going to work?
The expressed wish of the UK Government regarding the Customs Union and the Single Market, even in the context of a very wide-ranging Free Trade Agreement will require the sort of controls that you outline (if for no other reason than WTO rules).
However, these controls are diametrically opposed to the expressed wish of the UK Government regarding retaining the current border arrangements (to say nothing of the UK Government's commitments in Phase 1 of the Article 50 negotiations - including the "no deal" scenario).
Admittedly, the UK could seek to unilaterally avoid any controls on cross border trade, but this is likely to have a significant impact on the UK economy, which even Patrick Minford accepts would have a massively negative impact on UK agriculture and manufacturing (one of these two is very important in Northern Ireland, and the other, as recent US actions have shown, is vuilnerable).
There is not much time to get some clarity on the precise kind of border the UK wants, if the UK wants any deal (and, for all the fact that there has been consensus about the Common Travel Area to date, I would not take as read the idea that it can survive all eventualities).
All of your suggestions imply extra resources to implement. For example in order to ascertain the breaking of the law, there will need to be law enforcement.
The same goes for catching smugglers.
The same goes for apprehending and deporting people without the right credentials.
The same goes for ascertaining whether those crossing are Irish citizens or not.
Now all of that stuff adds up to a hard border in my eyes. The challenge will also be to put this stuff in place along a 400 mile stretch of land.
(perhaps we ought to not mention property that straddles the border at this point). There are layers of nuance in the Good Friday Agreement (an international treaty) that will complicate things further.
A further practicality would be the notion that a single container lorry, with 60,000 iphones and a tariff differential of £25 or 25 euros would be a requirement for somebody to pay somebody 1.5million. One 747 Airfreighter can carry 200,000 iphones I believe so one aeroplane load of iphones commands about 5million to be paid in something, to someone, somewhere. These kinds of practicalities, both with physical objects, or services or energy would demand control and therefore a border, hard or not.
Individual people would be able to simply walk across the border, unless there are extensive checks in place.
What you and I have both described is a hard border, an expensive border, and a politically charged one that brexiters want to take back control of, and yet it is not what politicians say they want, but is what politicians say is the will of the British people, and they say they want the will of the British people to prevail. How does that conundrum play out?
Incidentally, where you separate the 'rules' for Irish Citizens from other EU citizens, which court of law holds sway in matters of dispute?
What you have described is a hard and closed border simply by dint of describing the practicalities. This is understandable, because it seems to be the inevitable consequence of brexit, but it is at the expense of an international treaty, and at the risk of a violent response (which I for one would not want to see at all).
On my comment regarding federalism, you responsed: “I think it is not possible now, but It will eventually. However it will be a gradual process, and it could indeed be in a smaller zone than the current euro one. That's why I said I would not vote yes in a euro referendum today. I would vote differently were it for a "Northern euro" including Germany, the Scandis, Benelux and a Macron- reformed France, and certain others.“
On my comment regarding a two-speed EU, you responded: “As for two speed Europe, well it makes sense to me, but again making it happen is another matter entirely. My stance overall is that these things evolve over time but what is important for Europe is solidarity, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. With that, anything is possible, but it can take a long time.“
We won't be able to stop anybody from fishing in most of our waters and and most 'border controls' are powers we already have or can replicate using existing laws.
We will however be free to trade with Trump (probably on his terms), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China of which only the US is a democracy.
Exactly why are we leaving?
Oh - and Blue Passports.
Some time back, I stated: "The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides."
The report states: "Emmanuel Macron has suggested several tiers of membership. Given the differing preferences and objectives of the 27, Macron’s more flexible model is more viable in the long term. It would also enable the EU to revive the stalled enlargement process, by offering ‘membership minus’ to suitable countries. As for the neighbourhood policy, which has so far failed to create a ‘ring of friends’ around the EU, Brussels needs to increase its offer – for example by asking some neighbours to join particular policies. Britain could one day envisage rejoining the outer tiers of a more differentiated EU."
And: "The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. It is time for EU leaders to state openly that the 27 do not and will not share all the same ambitions and objectives."
I have also previously stated that I agree with one of the five models for the future of the EU in the March 2017 Commission white paper, i.e.: “In a scenario where the EU-27 proceeds as today but where certain member-states want to do more in common, one or several ‘coalitions of the willing’ emerge to work together in specific policy areas.”
Not so far away from my views - I will have a look at the report in more depth when I get an opportunity.
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the
rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law.
No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
Who's going to check those goods crossing your "border" in and out of the UK/EU are safe or compliant with the domestic/EU legislation for one? How much is this going to cost?
The whole point of the single market is to ensure that wherever possible goods conform to agreed standards across it, so that once inside the EU there is no further need for such checks. We're going to be outside so will need to reintroduce and resource a far more robust system of border inspection. Or we might just not bother and just let the US or China import any old shite into the UK.