If MP's get to vote on the final deal, but there is no deal, do they get to say 'Oi, no deal, deal, we vote against no deal and insist on a deal you don't have, no no deal'? Getting a bit confusing this UK democracy lark.
If MP's get to vote on the final deal, but there is no deal, do they get to say 'Oi, no deal, deal, we vote against no deal and insist on a deal you don't have, no no deal'? Getting a bit confusing this UK democracy lark.
Then the bishops and lords get to have their say... UK democracy, best in the world...
I'm still around and also up for changing sides as soon as I can get a solution on UK population control. At the moment I am mulling over two earlier posts.
People will stop coming to UK when there are no jobs for them here.
AND
UK has a current unemployment at 4% but anything under 5% is considered as effectively full employment.
Will be interested to see the 2017 net migration figures at some point in the future (along with the EU / non EU split).
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
A ‘Logan’s Run’ type cull of old gits could also help :-) Added bonus to this is we wouldn’t have had a yes vote for Brexit!
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
I think the point is in your opening bit. There is a difference between travelling to an EU or a non EU country.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
I think the point is in your opening bit. There is a difference between travelling to an EU or a non EU country.
Don't agree. The process is exactly the same. Identical immigration checks. The only difference is the levels of VAT and duties.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Within the last year i have travelled within the EU with no checks. Those checks I have had were security when flying. Nothing between France and Belgium for example.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
But their terrorists. They should just shut up and ACCEPT IT. Brexit means f** of Ireland too!
I’m still around but too busy to get involved at the moment.
Will post soon in more detail.
I admire your tenacity. I don't have the strength any more to resist being sucked into the mire of mutual disrespect this thread has become, and prefer not to post.
Please remember the difference between Schengen, which NI is not in, and the Single Market which it is. That is why you show your passport at a U.K. airport, but go through the same blue channel at customs if you have arrived from the EU
Within the last year i have travelled within the EU with no checks. Those checks I have had were security when flying. Nothing between France and Belgium for example.
I specifically referred to travel between UK and another EU country. Border checks are in place.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Thanks @Fiiish for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response, some of which I knew and some I didn't. Although I have no expertise and thus my view is speculative, I cant see that having simple border controls, with minimal delay, would reignite hostilities.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Thanks @Fiiish for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response, some of which I knew and some I didn't. Although I have no expertise and thus my view is speculative, I cant see that having simple border controls, with minimal delay, would reignite hostilities.
It will be a hard border (for want of a better expression) - as there are between other EU and non-EU states. If one side sees the other being over-zealous, there is potential for trouble - remember how "sensitive" certain parties are in NI...
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Thanks @Fiiish for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response, some of which I knew and some I didn't. Although I have no expertise and thus my view is speculative, I cant see that having simple border controls, with minimal delay, would reignite hostilities.
The problem is the principle of a united Ireland, as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and incorporated in the legal framework of both nations. Any kind of border, no matter how minimal or painless, that means people, goods, services and capital cannot flow freely between the two nations, specifically between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, would be unacceptable to the Irish people on both sides of the border, and to the Irish government, as well as most likely subject to legal challenge due to the Good Friday Agreement. I'm not suggesting the softest of borders would be cause in of itself to reignite hostilities, I'm suggesting the current legal framework does not allow for it and if no agreement is struck then the Good Friday Agreement could be rendered null and void.
Others have suggested keeping the Irish border free but replacing it with a hard border between Ireland and rest of the British Isles. Which would present a mildly ridiculous but not inconceivable scenario where customs checks are required for goods and people within the same nation state.
I’m still around but too busy to get involved at the moment.
Will post soon in more detail.
I admire your tenacity. I don't have the strength any more to resist being sucked into the mire of mutual disrespect this thread has become, and prefer not to post.
I do get your point but feel I need to make one final (?) post that outlines how I see the future UK/EU relationship panning out.
This thread does appear to have turned a little toxic in places but that is the nature of all political threads.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Thanks @Fiiish for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response, some of which I knew and some I didn't. Although I have no expertise and thus my view is speculative, I cant see that having simple border controls, with minimal delay, would reignite hostilities.
The problem is the principle of a united Ireland, as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and incorporated in the legal framework of both nations. Any kind of border, no matter how minimal or painless, that means people, goods, services and capital cannot flow freely between the two nations, specifically between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, would be unacceptable to the Irish people on both sides of the border, and to the Irish government, as well as most likely subject to legal challenge due to the Good Friday Agreement. I'm not suggesting the softest of borders would be cause in of itself to reignite hostilities, I'm suggesting the current legal framework does not allow for it and if no agreement is struck then the Good Friday Agreement could be rendered null and void.
Others have suggested keeping the Irish border free but replacing it with a hard border between Ireland and rest of the British Isles. Which would present a mildly ridiculous but not inconceivable scenario where customs checks are required for goods and people within the same nation state.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
The Government's information suggests that the current process for parcels from outside the EU (which, without being in the Customs Union/Single Market, would be the regime established for EU parcels) means that all parcels requiring payment of duty must be retained by the courier. From personal experience, it is not a "little delay". https://gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
Without getting too bogged down into the ramifications of Irish disunity (The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement etc.) the concept and indeed rules of a modern nation state have never seemed truly applicable or even appropriate for the British Isles. The idea that the UK is a single nation and not made up of four countries is a relatively modern concept and only really came about from the unification of Kingdoms under one crown who won these territories through a mixture of conquest and supposed divine right, as opposed to separate Republics democratically unifying into one democratic nation state. Hence why the separate nations compete in certain sports as opposed to under one flag, and various other exemptions that do not apply to 95% of other modern nation states.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Thanks @Fiiish for taking the time to provide such a lengthy response, some of which I knew and some I didn't. Although I have no expertise and thus my view is speculative, I cant see that having simple border controls, with minimal delay, would reignite hostilities.
It's not so much that it would reignite hostlities, because hostilities have never been fully extinguished. A minority within the IRA rejected the Good Friday Agreement, and these Dissidents have never given up "the fight". They have been very marginalised, but occasionally capable of successful attacks.
The PSNI has been concerned that the infrastructure (including personnel) required for any customs controls would both provide additional targets for their terrorism and, the disruption that would be caused to the economy in Northern Ireland would increase the numbers willing to (actively or passively) support their attacks.
If the Dissidents were to target any new customs equipment, facilities or personnel, the Police have major worries about how the situation could escalate.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
Excellent post.
On your last point though I would say it's more about do we have the right people rather than the will. Politics (and competence) gets in the way.
Comments
Getting a bit confusing this UK democracy lark.
At the moment I am mulling over two earlier posts.
People will stop coming to UK when there are no jobs for them here.
AND
UK has a current unemployment at 4% but anything under 5% is considered as effectively full employment.
Will be interested to see the 2017 net migration figures at some point in the future (along with the EU / non EU split).
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
If the islands known as the British Isles is a special case when discussing nation states then Ireland as an island is a special case within a special case. The Republic of Ireland is a modern nation state in its own right but exists in parallel with a group of countries operating as a single nation state but they claimed that the whole of Ireland was their territory, not just the Southern part the British ceded to them. After decades of turmoil and bloodshed an agreement was made that would allow both parts of the island to continue to be administered by two nation states but for the people who live there to continue to work, live and travel across the whole island with as little disruption as possible. The Good Friday Agreement was a momentous diplomatic milestone and indeed perhaps one of the greatest bilateral political agreements between two nations who were previously engaged in hostilities in modern history. The success of the agreement is down to in no small part that the constituent countries of the British Isles recognise that the normal rules for nation states are not appropriate for their unique situation and the changes implemented by the agreement were enforced through each nation's constitution.
The fact both nations were also EU members also bypassed several issues that would have been potential stumbling blocks or even red lines to the agreement. I think a lot of people take for granted the current political climate of the British Isles and indeed it was taken for granted at the time that the synergy between the two nations provided by EU membership certainly assisted this agreement.
For 3 years I used to walk past a plaque at the site of the Manchester bombing. It certainly served as a reminder that any step backward from what has been achieved could have terrible consequences and we should not take lightly the RoI/NI situation, nor be convinced that it has no impact on the rest of the British Isles.
Please remember the difference between Schengen, which NI is not in, and the Single Market which it is. That is why you show your passport at a U.K. airport, but go through the same blue channel at customs if you have arrived from the EU
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/hardcore-remainers-become-equally-unbearable-20170727132889
Others have suggested keeping the Irish border free but replacing it with a hard border between Ireland and rest of the British Isles. Which would present a mildly ridiculous but not inconceivable scenario where customs checks are required for goods and people within the same nation state.
This thread does appear to have turned a little toxic in places but that is the nature of all political threads.
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
The PSNI has been concerned that the infrastructure (including personnel) required for any customs controls would both provide additional targets for their terrorism and, the disruption that would be caused to the economy in Northern Ireland would increase the numbers willing to (actively or passively) support their attacks.
If the Dissidents were to target any new customs equipment, facilities or personnel, the Police have major worries about how the situation could escalate.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
On your last point though I would say it's more about do we have the right people rather than the will. Politics (and competence) gets in the way.