Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
Does anyone remember Ukip? They were a "populist", single-issue, class-based political party founded as the anti-federalist league around 1991; and destroyed by racism, in-fighting, incompetence, leadership indecision, racism, lies, misogyny and racism around 2018.
Their membership has slumped to 24,000 (at least that's what they claim), which ranks the a long way behind the Greens in sixth-place. This makes them either the smallest national political party in the country; or the largest political party not to have an elected MP, depending on whether you're a glass a quarter full or three-quarters empty sort of person. They may make it down to seventh place if their penultimate leader (as of today's date) is able to drive membership of his ironically-titled OneNation Party sufficiently. ("Ironic" as he's British, his wife is Russian and his former wife is Danish).
But Ukip's long-awaited and much-heralded denouement is about to play out. They are reported to have a £100,000 "funding gap", which they are looking to meet by "begging" their branches for funds. And their debts aren't limited to this "gap". They owe two-thirds of a million in costs and damages after one party member's lies were called out and challenged in court. (This also calls into question political parties' members' liabilities. As a member of a political party are you jointly liable for the party's debts? If so... uh-oh!)
Their support is dwindling, embarrassingly. They are in significant debt. They have no MPs. One of their former leaders is planning to launch a rival party. Another one has denied he's doing so (but is so untrustworthy that one can assume that, because he's said this, he has already put plans in place). They're in almost as big a mess as the Brexit negotiations.
Does anyone think they'll survive? And does anyone think they should?
I am a local district (Green) councillor and UKIP had one more councillor than us but a couple of weeks ago they all defected to form a local party because they saw that the national party was harming them and stopping them from being effective as local representatives of their residents. On occasions I agreed with UKIP at local level because they had many of the concerns that I have, particularly about planning policy and the effects of Conservative austerity with regards to local infrastructure (having moved from London I was horrified to see how bad things are outside of Greater London). I think that we diverged about some of the root causes of the problems.
My non-partisan view is that they probably won't exist as a national party soon. It will be interesting to see where their voters end up. UKIP cannot simply be categorised as either disaffected Labour or Tories. There are probably some BNP types who associated themselves with UKIP but my experience is that the people who voted UKIP are no longer either Tory or Labour, they have broken out of the two party hegemony. A number of people who I have spoken with (including friends) are more left wing and environmentally concerned than I would have imagined.
Apropos of nothing, surround sound. I’m sorry what, you don’t know what apropos means. I mean come on, you ought to have a basic grasp of Latin if you want to be in the EU..... I realise that I have fallen down quite badly in my role of Irish Times articles pusher over the last week or so...
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
Apropos of nothing, surround sound. I’m sorry what, you don’t know what apropos means. I mean come on, you ought to have a basic grasp of Latin if you want to be in the EU..... I realise that I have fallen down quite badly in my role of Irish Times articles pusher over the last week or so...
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
Apropos of nothing, surround sound. I’m sorry what, you don’t know what apropos means. I mean come on, you ought to have a basic grasp of Latin if you want to be in the EU..... I realise that I have fallen down quite badly in my role of Irish Times articles pusher over the last week or so...
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
Apropos of nothing, surround sound. I’m sorry what, you don’t know what apropos means. I mean come on, you ought to have a basic grasp of Latin if you want to be in the EU..... I realise that I have fallen down quite badly in my role of Irish Times articles pusher over the last week or so...
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
May has already admitted that no current technological solution exists. So if we were to decide that we could operate a "soft" border with technological enforcement, we'd need to invent that technology, test and deploy it all before leaving the EU. I can't see that being a problem, the government has a fantastic record of delivering IT project on time and budget...
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
May has already admitted that no current technological solution exists. So if we were to decide that we could operate a "soft" border with technological enforcement, we'd need to invent that technology, test and deploy it all before leaving the EU. I can't see that being a problem, the government has a fantastic record of delivering IT project on time and budget...
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
Tbe chief police honcho trumps a hack on this one I reckon. There is 310 miles of land border, 200 road crossings and many other track crossings. That is the stark reality that has to be addressed. Wishing it away won't change it It is entirely down to brexiters to solve the problem, not the EU they can have an opinion but I am afraid it is brexiters (like your good self) who want to 'take back control' to come up with a practical, workable and sustainable solution, a fairy godmother isn't going to do it. So to start with technology. How will that work with individual people, and how does that work along 310 miles of border?
Unless there is new technology that can see through car boots and the sides of vans and lorries and that accurately ascertains that what is being transported matches the computer stored documention, all whilst the vehicle is moving at 30 - 40 mph, I just don't see how technology can help. If NI and the Republic are not in the same customs union there have to be at least random checks to ensure non EU compliant goods are not allowed to enter the EU via The Republic.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
May has already admitted that no current technological solution exists. So if we were to decide that we could operate a "soft" border with technological enforcement, we'd need to invent that technology, test and deploy it all before leaving the EU. I can't see that being a problem, the government has a fantastic record of delivering IT project on time and budget...
Indeed. And also take on/train up sufficient enforcement staff to carry out the checks on any goods crossing the superdooper, as yet non existent, electronic border to ensure compliance with the new as yet unspecified rules and regulations relating to their importation...and vice versa with the EU checking goods coming out of the UK are compliant with the already existing rules and regs we played a full part in developing.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
May has already admitted that no current technological solution exists. So if we were to decide that we could operate a "soft" border with technological enforcement, we'd need to invent that technology, test and deploy it all before leaving the EU. I can't see that being a problem, the government has a fantastic record of delivering IT project on time and budget...
Indeed. And also take on/train up sufficient enforcement staff to carry out the checks on any goods crossing the superdooper, as yet non existent, electronic border to ensure compliance with the new as yet unspecified rules and regulations relating to their importation...and vice versa with the EU checking goods coming out of the UK are compliant with the already existing rules and regs we played a full part in developing.
If you have to employ enforcement staff to carry out physical checks surely, by definition, that is a hard border.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
The current border is not even a soft border - merely a geographical line similar to the border between England and Wales or England and Scotland. There are absolutely no controls or border crossing check-points - even the military checkpoints were all removed in the mid 2000s.
Every month around 177,000 lorries, 208,000 vans, and 1,850,000 cars cross the border. Around 30,000 people cross the border daily to travel to work. All will have to be checked either at the border or via some internal checks when the commercial vehicles are loaded/unloaded away from the border.
That makes it a hard border by any measure. The solution is one for the UK to come up with - we are the ones who have decided to leave. If the EU had kicked us out then it would be fair for us to say it's an EU problem.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
Why?
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed. Last time I checked Heathrow was miles from the border so was St Pancras yet millions of people and millions of tons of non EU goods have crossed our damn border without the authorities knowing - do you think we have a problem?
We have thousands of miles of sea borders - does every plane circle over the sea until everyone is logged before continuing over the border. Is every vessel entering our territorial waters stopped in mid Channel, Irish Sea or North Sea and checked to see where it is heading before being allowed to continue to a UK port? If that was happening with our sea borders then yes, we might have a problem if we wanted to apply that policy to our one and only land border, minuscule in comparison to our sea borders.
When every consignment from China is opened and every single appliance plugged in and safety checked, like some posters seem to think happens, then I guess we would have an issue. Until then we will continue to conduct sample checks and rely on bits of paper that say they comply with safety regulations, as we always have done.
The degree of harmonisation between the Republic and the UK on a whole range of issues will determine whether or not there is a border issue, hard or soft. If there are no material differences life will go on much as before. If the Republic doesn't want harmonisation in deference to an imaginary undermining of the integrity of the EU, it is the Republic's choice. Brexit forces a choice, it doesn't force a choice which will be a malign influence on Irish and UK citizens unless it is the EU's decision, supported or not by Ireland.
But hey- the problems need to be ramped up and stupid solutions mooted as the only option so the smug sniggering can be sustained.
It won't surprise you to hear me repeat that I fundamentally disagree with you. If there is a border it will have been caused by the brexit vote. It is not the decision of the Irish or the wider EU? Do you think the EU and the Irish were even contemplating a border before brexit?
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
Why?
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed. Last time I checked Heathrow was miles from the border so was St Pancras yet millions of people and millions of tons of non EU goods have crossed our damn border without the authorities knowing - do you think we have a problem?
We have thousands of miles of sea borders - does every plane circle over the sea until everyone is logged before continuing over the border. Is every vessel entering our territorial waters stopped in mid Channel, Irish Sea or North Sea and checked to see where it is heading before being allowed to continue to a UK port? If that was happening with our sea borders then yes, we might have a problem if we wanted to apply that policy to our one and only land border, minuscule in comparison to our sea borders.
When every consignment from China is opened and every single appliance plugged in and safety checked, like some posters seem to think happens, then I guess we would have an issue. Until then we will continue to conduct sample checks and rely on bits of paper that say they comply with safety regulations, as we always have done.
The degree of harmonisation between the Republic and the UK on a whole range of issues will determine whether or not there is a border issue, hard or soft. If there are no material differences life will go on much as before. If the Republic doesn't want harmonisation in deference to an imaginary undermining of the integrity of the EU, it is the Republic's choice. Brexit forces a choice, it doesn't force a choice which will be a malign influence on Irish and UK citizens unless it is the EU's decision, supported or not by Ireland.
But hey- the problems need to be ramped up and stupid solutions mooted as the only option so the smug sniggering can be sustained.
Heathrow and St Pancras are international borders, they have passports controls and customs. Every single item arriving goes through customs at those points and if it's from outside the EU then it will definitely be known about by the authorities.
Try ordering something from a US online store and then watch the tracking. It'll arrive at Heathrow (or some other point of entry) and then it'll be with customs for days or even weeks before being delivered. Sometimes you'll get a customs charge before the courier will deliver, sometimes after, depends on the policies of the courier and whether or not the item attracts taxes/charges or not.
How can you talk about the NI border when you don't even realise that every international airport/station is itself a border?
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
The current border is not so much soft as invisible/effectively non-existent, because joint membership of the EU (Single Market & Customs Union) allows it to be so. Any infrastructure or controls placed on that border makes the border "hard", in comparison, fixed in both economic and political terms.
In trade terms (even if no tariffs are applied on goods) every border between differing Customs regimes requires restrictions on passage. Each regime seeks to maintain its own standards and regulations, and has to be able to ensure that its rules of origin, if any, are applied. Free Trade Agreements do not remove this kind of obligation, they formalise it.
The border in Ireland can be no different, unless the UK Government is seeking not only to allow tariff free access for all WTO states but also allow in all goods without reference to such regulations (giving up any pretence of concern for the health and wellbeing, to say nothing of safety, of UK citizens). Almost by definition, livestock and food products crossing such a border require controls and infrastructure on that border.
Just as with the suggestion that, as yet unproven (if even developed) technology will allow the Government achieve its contradictory aims; the idea of allowing 80% of cross border trade to continue, as now, without any form of oversight, is ludicrous. It is an invitation to the unscrupulous (and, hard though it may be to believe it, there are some in business, or willing to be in business, even in Northern Ireland, who may not quite meet the highest standards of probity).
It is the UK Government's stated aim to both diverge from current rules and practices and to negotiate FTAs with countries lacking the product standards that the EU requires that mean that controls must be imposed, unless the UK can suggest a workable outcome. The stated UK position does not allow for an adaptation of existing rules and practices that would not undermine the integrity of the EU's Single Market and Customs Union.
As @seth plum mentioned, it is the PSNI which most loudly warns of the likelihood of infrastructure being a target for what they fear will be a resurgent nationalist terrorist threat - encouraged by the, often petty, restrictions and irritations that such a border will bring.
I linked to the article, simply because it was of interest, highlighting issues being reported in Ireland, I never indicated that I agreed with all or any of the views expressed.
Indeed, I should make clear that I believe that Brexit is, in many regards, the perfect storm for Northern Irish politics. It highlights and magnifies divisions, helps make terrorist violence and gangsterism more likely and will cause damage to the economic well-being of the people.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
Why?
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed. Last time I checked Heathrow was miles from the border so was St Pancras yet millions of people and millions of tons of non EU goods have crossed our damn border without the authorities knowing - do you think we have a problem?
We have thousands of miles of sea borders - does every plane circle over the sea until everyone is logged before continuing over the border. Is every vessel entering our territorial waters stopped in mid Channel, Irish Sea or North Sea and checked to see where it is heading before being allowed to continue to a UK port? If that was happening with our sea borders then yes, we might have a problem if we wanted to apply that policy to our one and only land border, minuscule in comparison to our sea borders.
When every consignment from China is opened and every single appliance plugged in and safety checked, like some posters seem to think happens, then I guess we would have an issue. Until then we will continue to conduct sample checks and rely on bits of paper that say they comply with safety regulations, as we always have done.
The degree of harmonisation between the Republic and the UK on a whole range of issues will determine whether or not there is a border issue, hard or soft. If there are no material differences life will go on much as before. If the Republic doesn't want harmonisation in deference to an imaginary undermining of the integrity of the EU, it is the Republic's choice. Brexit forces a choice, it doesn't force a choice which will be a malign influence on Irish and UK citizens unless it is the EU's decision, supported or not by Ireland.
But hey- the problems need to be ramped up and stupid solutions mooted as the only option so the smug sniggering can be sustained.
I asked a question, that was all. We have a system on the A22 motorway here in Algarve that electronically registers you as you pass through toll gates. I was merely asking whether that was the kind of system you had in mind. So get off your high horse, you rude, condescending man.
As such a massive emphasis was put on "taking back control of our borders" by so many quitters, having a border where "illegals" and asylum seekers can casually wander into the UK from an EU country should be a major concern for them. I agree entirely with your points about the ease of getting into the UK other ways, and said as much to the many quitters who claimed "taking back control of our borders" as a reason for leaving, and they put their fingers in their ears and closed their eyes.
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed...
Have I read this right? Are you really suggesting that it's stupid for Algarve to ask a question confirming what you mean?
Which is why the assertion that the US could become a major trading partner is a very flimsy one. They do what's good for them. A market of 323m vs one of 65m. Who do they think will be calling the shots?
Which is why the assertion that the US could become a major trading partner is a very flimsy one. They do what's good for them. A market of 323m vs one of 65m. Who do they think will be calling the shots?
Yes but they have no idea of the intellectual and negotiating power of our chief deal maker Dr Liam F...
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
You will be unsurprised to hear @Dippenhall, that I do not believe that a fudge is possible, for the very simple reason that WTO rules would make such a fudge the default position for the external borders of both the EU and UK in trade terms, post Brexit.
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
A border between two sovereign nations is a border, is a border, is a border. The current border is described as "soft" to characterise the fact that it requires no enforcement of restrictions of passage. Just because it might also mark the boundary of a customs union does not make it a "hard" border unless it also applies new restrictions of passage which need to be enforced at the border.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
By "use of technology and registration procedures". Do you mean an electronic registration gate on every road between Ni and ROI?
Why?
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed. Last time I checked Heathrow was miles from the border so was St Pancras yet millions of people and millions of tons of non EU goods have crossed our damn border without the authorities knowing - do you think we have a problem?
We have thousands of miles of sea borders - does every plane circle over the sea until everyone is logged before continuing over the border. Is every vessel entering our territorial waters stopped in mid Channel, Irish Sea or North Sea and checked to see where it is heading before being allowed to continue to a UK port? If that was happening with our sea borders then yes, we might have a problem if we wanted to apply that policy to our one and only land border, minuscule in comparison to our sea borders.
When every consignment from China is opened and every single appliance plugged in and safety checked, like some posters seem to think happens, then I guess we would have an issue. Until then we will continue to conduct sample checks and rely on bits of paper that say they comply with safety regulations, as we always have done.
Obviously aimed at me and surprising you want to make that point with me of all people tbh but whatever...
What you are demonstrating is a complete lack of understanding of the principles and effectiveness of the single market and the way in which compliance works. Currently that is.
We'll see how long this remains when the US and China gets itself involved and demands that we shift the burden of proof from the manufacturers building in safety and formally declaring a product to meet the current requirements (and being in a position to justify that when required) to their approach where you can manufacturer any old shite and it is for the authorities to catch you out and prove it's dangerous, non-compliant rubbish. Something else to pay for out of the £350m/week.
The reason that we can currently target consignments direct from third countries, like China, for an enhanced inspection regime is at least in part because there are inspectors throughout the EU who are also carrying out those first point of entry inspections and EU manufacturers/distributors that are already able to prove compliance. Many countries btw are carrying out far more effective checks on products entering the EU than we do, yet we still benefit from their work and the resources they are prepared to throw at this role.
Outside the EU we will not have access to either the intelligence behind these inspections nor necessarily benefit from checks carried out elsewhere as, and you will be aware as you voted for it, we will have taken back control of our own laws and will therefore, by definition, have to make sure products and services are now compliant with domestic laws rather than community legislation.
As you can see there are alerts raised from all over Europe, that the UK currently has access to. Two points really relation to this.
We will not have access automatically to this info outside the EU as it's only available to those in the single market. At best it will require us to make a financial contribution to the system and of course something that complies with UK domestic law may not EU in the future (and vice versa) so the system will by definition become cumbersome and/or unworkable.
Secondly, look at the range of countries that are working together to keep EU citizens safe. This is the sort of cooperation that exists nowhere else and shows the lie from some quarters that it's only the UK and Germany that bother with EU rules and regulations anyway.
As you can see there are alerts raised from all over Europe, that the UK currently has accessed to. Two points really relation to this.
We will not have access automatically to this info outside the EU as it's only available to those in the single market. At best it will require us to make a financial contribution to the system and of course something that complies with UK domestic law may not EU in the future (and vice versa) so the system will by definition become cumbersome and/or unworkable.
Secondly, look at the range of countries that are working together to keep EU citizens safe. This is the sort of cooperation that exists nowhere else and shows the lie from some quarters that it's only the UK and Germany that bother with EU rules and regulations anyway.
Brexit will make my life worser in a million small ways, as so many posts on this thread have shown. I'm yet to see even one tiny way it makes my life better that stands-up to any sort of scrutiny. There must be some for so many people to so passionately want it, right?
Comments
There has to be a detailed agreement to define the relationship between the the two parties, in both of their interests.
As for the potential for violence, I have posted (several times) that the PSNI are convinced that the presence of any customs infrastructure on (or near) the border in Northern Ireland would be a target for dissidents. It's precisely what has happened before on the border, and could reasonably be expected to happen again (the post on the border at Aughnacloy was destroyed by a car bomb in the 1970s and the gutted remanats remained until about 10-15 years ago).
The key point about the GFA is that joint membership of the EU was assumed in terms of the relationship between the UK and Ireland - just like breathing is assumed for any of us on this forum...
My non-partisan view is that they probably won't exist as a national party soon. It will be interesting to see where their voters end up. UKIP cannot simply be categorised as either disaffected Labour or Tories. There are probably some BNP types who associated themselves with UKIP but my experience is that the people who voted UKIP are no longer either Tory or Labour, they have broken out of the two party hegemony. A number of people who I have spoken with (including friends) are more left wing and environmentally concerned than I would have imagined.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/apropos_of_nothing
Mind you, I am certain that there's a "whoosh!!!!!" out there with my name on it.
Can’t help myself. Been doing it since the early 2000s.
God I need more of a life
If I were you, I would just have left it hanging, and me all bewildered.
I probably would have recognised it if it had been Julian and Sandy from Round the Horne.
Those wanting to gain maximum political traction to scupper a bespoke arrangement around a customs border choose to define "hard" as being the imposition of controls as opposed to the imposition of restrictions of passage of people, goods and services. Such fanciful ideas as use of technology and registration procedures are dismissed as nonsense, in line with the pro EU stance of denying any responsibility for agreeing a new solution to a new situation or that existing rules and practices can be adapted without undermining the integrity of the EU.
Re violence, don't disagree with me take it up with the Irish Times journalist whose views I am quoting .
There is 310 miles of land border, 200 road crossings and many other track crossings.
That is the stark reality that has to be addressed. Wishing it away won't change it
It is entirely down to brexiters to solve the problem, not the EU they can have an opinion but I am afraid it is brexiters (like your good self) who want to 'take back control' to come up with a practical, workable and sustainable solution, a fairy godmother isn't going to do it.
So to start with technology. How will that work with individual people, and how does that work along 310 miles of border?
Every month around 177,000 lorries, 208,000 vans, and 1,850,000 cars cross the border. Around 30,000 people cross the border daily to travel to work. All will have to be checked either at the border or via some internal checks when the commercial vehicles are loaded/unloaded away from the border.
That makes it a hard border by any measure. The solution is one for the UK to come up with - we are the ones who have decided to leave. If the EU had kicked us out then it would be fair for us to say it's an EU problem.
That's as stupid as saying every vessel, every train and every person that crosses the UK international border must be tracked at the moment the border is crossed. Last time I checked Heathrow was miles from the border so was St Pancras yet millions of people and millions of tons of non EU goods have crossed our damn border without the authorities knowing - do you think we have a problem?
We have thousands of miles of sea borders - does every plane circle over the sea until everyone is logged before continuing over the border. Is every vessel entering our territorial waters stopped in mid Channel, Irish Sea or North Sea and checked to see where it is heading before being allowed to continue to a UK port? If that was happening with our sea borders then yes, we might have a problem if we wanted to apply that policy to our one and only land border, minuscule in comparison to our sea borders.
When every consignment from China is opened and every single appliance plugged in and safety checked, like some posters seem to think happens, then I guess we would have an issue. Until then we will continue to conduct sample checks and rely on bits of paper that say they comply with safety regulations, as we always have done.
The degree of harmonisation between the Republic and the UK on a whole range of issues will determine whether or not there is a border issue, hard or soft. If there are no material differences life will go on much as before. If the Republic doesn't want harmonisation in deference to an imaginary undermining of the integrity of the EU, it is the Republic's choice. Brexit forces a choice, it doesn't force a choice which will be a malign influence on Irish and UK citizens unless it is the EU's decision, supported or not by Ireland.
But hey- the problems need to be ramped up and stupid solutions mooted as the only option so the smug sniggering can be sustained.
Do you think the EU and the Irish were even contemplating a border before brexit?
Try ordering something from a US online store and then watch the tracking. It'll arrive at Heathrow (or some other point of entry) and then it'll be with customs for days or even weeks before being delivered. Sometimes you'll get a customs charge before the courier will deliver, sometimes after, depends on the policies of the courier and whether or not the item attracts taxes/charges or not.
How can you talk about the NI border when you don't even realise that every international airport/station is itself a border?
In trade terms (even if no tariffs are applied on goods) every border between differing Customs regimes requires restrictions on passage. Each regime seeks to maintain its own standards and regulations, and has to be able to ensure that its rules of origin, if any, are applied. Free Trade Agreements do not remove this kind of obligation, they formalise it.
The border in Ireland can be no different, unless the UK Government is seeking not only to allow tariff free access for all WTO states but also allow in all goods without reference to such regulations (giving up any pretence of concern for the health and wellbeing, to say nothing of safety, of UK citizens). Almost by definition, livestock and food products crossing such a border require controls and infrastructure on that border.
Just as with the suggestion that, as yet unproven (if even developed) technology will allow the Government achieve its contradictory aims; the idea of allowing 80% of cross border trade to continue, as now, without any form of oversight, is ludicrous. It is an invitation to the unscrupulous (and, hard though it may be to believe it, there are some in business, or willing to be in business, even in Northern Ireland, who may not quite meet the highest standards of probity).
It is the UK Government's stated aim to both diverge from current rules and practices and to negotiate FTAs with countries lacking the product standards that the EU requires that mean that controls must be imposed, unless the UK can suggest a workable outcome. The stated UK position does not allow for an adaptation of existing rules and practices that would not undermine the integrity of the EU's Single Market and Customs Union.
As @seth plum mentioned, it is the PSNI which most loudly warns of the likelihood of infrastructure being a target for what they fear will be a resurgent nationalist terrorist threat - encouraged by the, often petty, restrictions and irritations that such a border will bring.
I linked to the article, simply because it was of interest, highlighting issues being reported in Ireland, I never indicated that I agreed with all or any of the views expressed.
Indeed, I should make clear that I believe that Brexit is, in many regards, the perfect storm for Northern Irish politics. It highlights and magnifies divisions, helps make terrorist violence and gangsterism more likely and will cause damage to the economic well-being of the people.
What's not to like???? :-(
As such a massive emphasis was put on "taking back control of our borders" by so many quitters, having a border where "illegals" and asylum seekers can casually wander into the UK from an EU country should be a major concern for them. I agree entirely with your points about the ease of getting into the UK other ways, and said as much to the many quitters who claimed "taking back control of our borders" as a reason for leaving, and they put their fingers in their ears and closed their eyes.
Did you tell them the same?
As an aside though, I was shocked to read that our Airlines could face serious disruption of services to the US in 12 months time.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/give-voters-three-clears-choices-over-brexit-9tjfhxkgm?shareToken=f8997c66fc24c0069c638aaf551b4598
As you were.
What you are demonstrating is a complete lack of understanding of the principles and effectiveness of the single market and the way in which compliance works. Currently that is.
We'll see how long this remains when the US and China gets itself involved and demands that we shift the burden of proof from the manufacturers building in safety and formally declaring a product to meet the current requirements (and being in a position to justify that when required) to their approach where you can manufacturer any old shite and it is for the authorities to catch you out and prove it's dangerous, non-compliant rubbish. Something else to pay for out of the £350m/week.
The reason that we can currently target consignments direct from third countries, like China, for an enhanced inspection regime is at least in part because there are inspectors throughout the EU who are also carrying out those first point of entry inspections and EU manufacturers/distributors that are already able to prove compliance. Many countries btw are carrying out far more effective checks on products entering the EU than we do, yet we still benefit from their work and the resources they are prepared to throw at this role.
Outside the EU we will not have access to either the intelligence behind these inspections nor necessarily benefit from checks carried out elsewhere as, and you will be aware as you voted for it, we will have taken back control of our own laws and will therefore, by definition, have to make sure products and services are now compliant with domestic laws rather than community legislation.
https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_products/rapex/alerts/?event=main.immediatlyPublishedNotifications
As you can see there are alerts raised from all over Europe, that the UK currently has access to. Two points really relation to this.
We will not have access automatically to this info outside the EU as it's only available to those in the single market. At best it will require us to make a financial contribution to the system and of course something that complies with UK domestic law may not EU in the future (and vice versa) so the system will by definition become cumbersome and/or unworkable.
Secondly, look at the range of countries that are working together to keep EU citizens safe. This is the sort of cooperation that exists nowhere else and shows the lie from some quarters that it's only the UK and Germany that bother with EU rules and regulations anyway.