Loved a question on the politcs show which never got answered, even though the presenter asked it many times.
who would actually build the hard border.......the one no-one wants ?? The EU ?? The ROI ?? The UK ??
seeing as everyone, and I mean everyone (except me because I'm bloody pedantic) says that there can't be a border & there wont be a border......so just dont have one. No-one seemingly wants one so no-one will actually needs to build one. Who's going to go round after 6 months & tell the other off for not putting one up.
leave with no deal & just carry on as before.
Easy Peasy. Now onto Saudi Arabia.....
It’s not getting answered because like everything else it’s all about posturing. To open the debate about who builds the border would signify that one might be needed which politically at this point is not being admitted. As NI states above, should we crash out with no agreement in place then it’s absolutely certain that a border will be constructed. That is a fact regardless of what Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the other loons might say.
As for Julian Lewis, the conservative MP that brought up the subject at PMQ’s yesterday. How on earth are idiots like him voted into a position of responsibility. We have a shit shower of politicians in the HoC at present.
but who builds it ????
no-one wants one & so each side will leave it for the other to build...... yes ??
In circumstances where one is needed then I’m sure both sides will cooperate. We won’t be at war.
Why would it be needed?
Below is something @NornIrishAddick wrote above. Apologies to him for nicking it.
If there is no agreement at all, all parties will implement the regulatory and customs requirements that no-one wants.
Because they have to.
And they will, and mutual goodwill, so important for future relations will be in very short supply.
Failing to do so is not an option, because the absence of a legally binding agreement that would allow continuation of the current frictionless trade, in real terms requires these controls on cross border trade.
In the absence of both agreement and controls, the countries involved would have to allow the same access for all other states, at least those in the WTO.
It is an interesting question. If there is no deal, the UK Government is committed to not building a hard border by Treaty. The EU would then have to decide whether to build a hard border. When the Irish Deputy prime Minister Coveney was asked this question directly yesterday he refused to answer. Either the EU would build a hard border or there would not be one. If the EU did build one then surely it would be the Irish Government who would build it and they who were in breach of the Treaty?
Loved a question on the politcs show which never got answered, even though the presenter asked it many times.
who would actually build the hard border.......the one no-one wants ?? The EU ?? The ROI ?? The UK ??
seeing as everyone, and I mean everyone (except me because I'm bloody pedantic) says that there can't be a border & there wont be a border......so just dont have one. No-one seemingly wants one so no-one will actually needs to build one. Who's going to go round after 6 months & tell the other off for not putting one up.
leave with no deal & just carry on as before.
Easy Peasy. Now onto Saudi Arabia.....
It’s not getting answered because like everything else it’s all about posturing. To open the debate about who builds the border would signify that one might be needed which politically at this point is not being admitted. As NI states above, should we crash out with no agreement in place then it’s absolutely certain that a border will be constructed. That is a fact regardless of what Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the other loons might say.
As for Julian Lewis, the conservative MP that brought up the subject at PMQ’s yesterday. How on earth are idiots like him voted into a position of responsibility. We have a shit shower of politicians in the HoC at present.
but who builds it ????
no-one wants one & so each side will leave it for the other to build...... yes ??
In circumstances where one is needed then I’m sure both sides will cooperate. We won’t be at war.
Why would it be needed?
Below is something @NornIrishAddick wrote above. Apologies to him for nicking it.
If there is no agreement at all, all parties will implement the regulatory and customs requirements that no-one wants.
Because they have to.
And they will, and mutual goodwill, so important for future relations will be in very short supply.
Failing to do so is not an option, because the absence of a legally binding agreement that would allow continuation of the current frictionless trade, in real terms requires these controls on cross border trade.
In the absence of both agreement and controls, the countries involved would have to allow the same access for all other states, at least those in the WTO.
It is an interesting question. If there is no deal, the UK Government is committed to not building a hard border by Treaty. The EU would then have to decide whether to build a hard border. When the Irish Deputy prime Minister Coveney was asked this question directly yesterday he refused to answer. Either the EU would build a hard border or there would not be one. If the EU did build one then surely it would be the Irish Government who would build it and they who were in breach of the Treaty?
No way would any UK government build a border and try to sell this to the electorate.
Loved a question on the politcs show which never got answered, even though the presenter asked it many times.
who would actually build the hard border.......the one no-one wants ?? The EU ?? The ROI ?? The UK ??
seeing as everyone, and I mean everyone (except me because I'm bloody pedantic) says that there can't be a border & there wont be a border......so just dont have one. No-one seemingly wants one so no-one will actually needs to build one. Who's going to go round after 6 months & tell the other off for not putting one up.
leave with no deal & just carry on as before.
Easy Peasy. Now onto Saudi Arabia.....
It’s not getting answered because like everything else it’s all about posturing. To open the debate about who builds the border would signify that one might be needed which politically at this point is not being admitted. As NI states above, should we crash out with no agreement in place then it’s absolutely certain that a border will be constructed. That is a fact regardless of what Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the other loons might say.
As for Julian Lewis, the conservative MP that brought up the subject at PMQ’s yesterday. How on earth are idiots like him voted into a position of responsibility. We have a shit shower of politicians in the HoC at present.
but who builds it ????
no-one wants one & so each side will leave it for the other to build...... yes ??
Given that taking back control of OUR borders is one of the greatest examples of Vote Leave's ill-thought-out bullshit, it would only be right and proper if Boris and co footed the bill personally.
In reality though borders don't operate in one direction. There are two sides that will each have their own needs and concerns. We're not living in some Trumpian fantasy land where we build a wall and make the Mexicans pay. This is real life there will be very heavy costs on both sides.
Of course the question, 'but who builds it ????' has another meaning in addition to who commissions/pays for it. Who is actually going to construct the thing? 310 miles of fence/wall/radar surveillance or whatever is agreed looks like being one hell of a construction project. I hope they've got their contracts and project plans in place for immediate sign-off. Like everything else to do with Brexit it's looking like a very tall order.
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
Border crossings, or specific check points rather than a full border crossing the entire length of the border.
Loved a question on the politcs show which never got answered, even though the presenter asked it many times.
who would actually build the hard border.......the one no-one wants ?? The EU ?? The ROI ?? The UK ??
seeing as everyone, and I mean everyone (except me because I'm bloody pedantic) says that there can't be a border & there wont be a border......so just dont have one. No-one seemingly wants one so no-one will actually needs to build one. Who's going to go round after 6 months & tell the other off for not putting one up.
leave with no deal & just carry on as before.
Easy Peasy. Now onto Saudi Arabia.....
It’s not getting answered because like everything else it’s all about posturing. To open the debate about who builds the border would signify that one might be needed which politically at this point is not being admitted. As NI states above, should we crash out with no agreement in place then it’s absolutely certain that a border will be constructed. That is a fact regardless of what Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the other loons might say.
As for Julian Lewis, the conservative MP that brought up the subject at PMQ’s yesterday. How on earth are idiots like him voted into a position of responsibility. We have a shit shower of politicians in the HoC at present.
but who builds it ????
no-one wants one & so each side will leave it for the other to build...... yes ??
So you think nobody will? Right! That is the level of Brexiter debate - like there is a solution, but I'll mumble it, but that solution has been investigated and the technology isn't there, yes it is....... Ok, maybe they will forget to build it or not build it because they don't want it! Sorry but it is totally pathetic. I'm going on that bloody march on Saturday.
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
Border crossings, or specific check points rather than a full border crossing the entire length of the border.
It would still be a total shit show though.
But I think that’s what is meant by a “hard border” - that there will be infrastructure at the border with Ireland that doesn’t exist today. I don’t think anyone is envisaging building the Berlin Wall around Northern Ireland, but main crossing points would need some infrastructure.
If we are no longer in a Customs Union with the country on the other side of the border that’s what would have to be implemented, regardless of how much the Brexiteers (in a really weird 180) say “well we wouldn’t build one”.
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
Border crossings, or specific check points rather than a full border crossing the entire length of the border.
It would still be a total shit show though.
But I think that’s what us meant by a “hard border” - that there will be infrastructure at the border with Ireland that doesn’t exist today. I don’t think anyone is envisaging building the Berlin Wall around Northern Ireland, but main crossing points would need some infrastructure.
If we are no longer in a Customs Union with the country on the other side of the border that’s what would have to be implemented, regardless of how much the Brexiteers (in a really weird 180) say “well we wouldn’t build one”.
People on this thread have been discussing a boder across the entire island.
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
Border crossings, or specific check points rather than a full border crossing the entire length of the border.
It would still be a total shit show though.
I think that the issue is not what specific infrastructure would be required in the event of no deal or a common or garden FTA, every Customs official will know, within a fraction of the number of staff, what would be required. No-one expects a barrier along the length of the border.
The fact of the matter is, however, that in contrast to what exists now, any border infrastructure (and it will effectively have to be on the border) will constitute a hard border.
Attacks on Customs infrastructure, as the Chief Constable of the PSNI has made clear, will then require the creation of additional security infrastructure (just as happened in the 1970s).
It is also the stated commitment of the Prime Minister and any number of leading lights in the UK that the border would be kept frictionless.
The only way to achieve that, other than deciding against respecting the referendum result, IMHO, is to accept the EU27 backstop, and an exit deal, with a commitment to seeking membership of both the Single Market and Customs Union, which could be negotiated almost immediately, again IMHO (because that is the only way to avoid barriers between GB and NI).
That still doesn't explain why a border would be needed, customs checks, absolutely, but an actual physical border, I don't think so, many, many countries that are WTO members do not have hard borders with their neighbours.
I feel I have to point out, again, I in no way support a hard Brexit, but the idea that it would lead to a complete physical border, is, imo, incorrect.
Wouldn’t customs checks take place at the border?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
Border crossings, or specific check points rather than a full border crossing the entire length of the border.
It would still be a total shit show though.
But I think that’s what us meant by a “hard border” - that there will be infrastructure at the border with Ireland that doesn’t exist today. I don’t think anyone is envisaging building the Berlin Wall around Northern Ireland, but main crossing points would need some infrastructure.
If we are no longer in a Customs Union with the country on the other side of the border that’s what would have to be implemented, regardless of how much the Brexiteers (in a really weird 180) say “well we wouldn’t build one”.
People on this thread have been discussing a boder across the entire island.
Well, there will be a border across the island.
It is the number of crossing points, or other locations, like farmyards (see Thomas "Slab" Murphy), that sit on the border, relative to its length that is the issue.
From a UK perspective, HMRC will want to have some form of supervision, to prevent them being used for smuggling or something worse.
As an aside, the border in both Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough is disputed, never having been agreed between Ireland and the UK (the UK, for example, claims Lough Foyle to the shoreline on the Republic side, much to Duiblin's delight, Carlingford is less certain).
@NornIrishAddick - It seems on this point, we are in agreement, any form of 'border' would be an absolute shitshow, which I stated earlier, my point was that a full hard border would not be necessary.
To anyone on here in favour of Brexit I'd love to know who you would like to be in charge of our Brexit negotiations. A lot of pro-Brexit politicians seem unwilling to get involved for some reason - Bojo, David Davis etc don't seem to do responsibility.
Regardless of what type of Brexit you want who should be heading the process?
So he is telling us what a Prime Minister who didn't manage to solve the problem would do! My understanding of history and the GFA was that from the UK perspective, John Major started it and Tony Blair finished it!
I see it's being reported that, despite HMG having agreed the principle a Northern Ireland-specific backstop last December, UK officials are now saying that such a backstop is unacceptable.
I'm really not sure that going backwards will lead to a successful outcome.
Comments
In reality though borders don't operate in one direction. There are two sides that will each have their own needs and concerns. We're not living in some Trumpian fantasy land where we build a wall and make the Mexicans pay. This is real life there will be very heavy costs on both sides.
Of course the question, 'but who builds it ????' has another meaning in addition to who commissions/pays for it. Who is actually going to construct the thing? 310 miles of fence/wall/radar surveillance or whatever is agreed looks like being one hell of a construction project. I hope they've got their contracts and project plans in place for immediate sign-off. Like everything else to do with Brexit it's looking like a very tall order.
Remind me again, what are the benefits of this?
If we sign these free trade deals that are touted by Brexiteers, wouldn’t they likely have stipulations that we control what and who comes into our country?
It would still be a total shit show though.
But I think that’s what is meant by a “hard border” - that there will be infrastructure at the border with Ireland that doesn’t exist today. I don’t think anyone is envisaging building the Berlin Wall around Northern Ireland, but main crossing points would need some infrastructure.
If we are no longer in a Customs Union with the country on the other side of the border that’s what would have to be implemented, regardless of how much the Brexiteers (in a really weird 180) say “well we wouldn’t build one”.
The fact of the matter is, however, that in contrast to what exists now, any border infrastructure (and it will effectively have to be on the border) will constitute a hard border.
Changes to the current border situation are considered (by just about everyone except the DUP and ERG) to be damaging to the GFA. And, even the simple creation of customs posts in Northern Ireland are seen, by quite a few to be a danger to the Peace Process: https://irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/what-if-brexit-brings-the-violence-back-1.3665559.
Attacks on Customs infrastructure, as the Chief Constable of the PSNI has made clear, will then require the creation of additional security infrastructure (just as happened in the 1970s).
The Irish Government has a hardline position in support of the status quo for the border (a policy that is much more popular than the Government itself, and which would have been exactly the same, had Enda Kenny remained as Taoiseach, notwithstanding Ian Duncan Smith's expert assessment of Irish politics): https://irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/taoiseach-should-refuse-to-compromise-on-brexit-voters-say-1.3666980.
It is also the stated commitment of the Prime Minister and any number of leading lights in the UK that the border would be kept frictionless.
The only way to achieve that, other than deciding against respecting the referendum result, IMHO, is to accept the EU27 backstop, and an exit deal, with a commitment to seeking membership of both the Single Market and Customs Union, which could be negotiated almost immediately, again IMHO (because that is the only way to avoid barriers between GB and NI).
For those saying that Brexit has not had a damaging effect on jobs, I know an Irish company like Portwest is not Apple or Nissan, but they too have made plans that they are now implementing: https://irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/irish-company-to-lay-off-workers-in-britain-because-of-brexit-1.3666973.
It is the number of crossing points, or other locations, like farmyards (see Thomas "Slab" Murphy), that sit on the border, relative to its length that is the issue.
From a UK perspective, HMRC will want to have some form of supervision, to prevent them being used for smuggling or something worse.
As an aside, the border in both Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough is disputed, never having been agreed between Ireland and the UK (the UK, for example, claims Lough Foyle to the shoreline on the Republic side, much to Duiblin's delight, Carlingford is less certain).
Regardless of what type of Brexit you want who should be heading the process?
Oh dear!
I'm really not sure that going backwards will lead to a successful outcome.