International Brexit Discussion v9: The Last Extension

[deise69]

There's a difference between people wanting something and outsiders telling them how to go about achieving it.

Hurray, Brexit thread!

Exactly, the people of Ireland do not want a border on the island , why should people in Britain tell them how to go about achieving it.

 

[Arkain2K]

Exactly, the people of Ireland do not want a border on the island , why should people in Britain tell them how to go about achieving it.

What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?

@JDragon : It seems that neither the British nor the Irish people actually want anything to do with the border wall and inspections posts that the E.U insists that must go up between Ireland and Northern Ireland in case of No Deal, so do you happen to know which company will actually be in charge of building such a "hard border" and who will administer them in the future? Is it gonna be a 310-miles long steel and concrete wall or a chain-link fence? Which peace-keeping force are tasked with protecting the E.U inspection posts from being blowned up on the job by terrorists?

There are a lot of chatters about this E.U/U.K border and how it must be built per E.U laws, but I can't seem to find much concrete info at all about its implementation from the same E.U officials.

Since No Deal Brexit is two months away and a hard border supposedly must go up immediately after that, would be nice if anyone have some hard info on that project.

---

What's the problem?

If Brexit happens, the 310-mile Irish border will represent the only land border between the UK and the EU.

As well as no longer being in the EU, Northern Ireland is likely to end up with different rules and standards to its neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.

That's because the UK intends to leave the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier between EU countries.

Lorries travelling to the EU from Northern Ireland would be required to stop at the border for document checks and some product inspections. This would be to ensure their goods meet EU standards.

In theory, such checks would mean things like cameras and security posts, creating a so-called "hard border".

Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end.

Who would build the border posts?

One proposal, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, is to allow physical checks on animals and other goods to take place in "mobile units away from the border".

However, existing EU law states that animal checks must take place at designated Border Inspections Posts (BIPs) "in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry" - which would include the Irish border.

The EU says "geographic constraints" are the only exception (eg mountains, cliffs, valleys, rivers). In these cases, "a certain distance from the point of introduction may be tolerated."

So getting the EU to allow checks to take place away from the border, for non-geographic reasons, would require a change in the rules.

But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments say they don't want a hard border.

So there is a very real question, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, about who would actually install the border posts if the EU insist they're necessary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48826360

 

[JDragon]

What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?

You are acting surprised? Of course the external border must be secured and the customs union must be preserved.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0458

(4)

Member States are obliged to check systematically third-country nationals against all relevant databases on entry. It should be ensured that such checks are also carried out systematically on exit.

(5)

Border guards should also systematically check persons enjoying the right of free movement under Union law against the Schengen Information System (SIS) and other relevant Union databases. This should be without prejudice to the consultation of national and Interpol databases.

9)

The obligation to carry out systematic checks on entry and on exit applies to the external borders of the Member States.

 

[deise69]

What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?

If the UK "No Deals" out Ireland will build checkpoints. That's the reality of the situation but not one created by the EU.

 

[Gl0kta]

What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?

If you read the leaked report the UK technical assessment is that a soft border can only be maintained for a short time then a hard border would be required on the UK side.

WTO regs mean it would have to go up in a few years.

In reality Borris and Chums will likely get a large majority in the next GE then immediately chuck the DUP under a bus and stick a hard border in the Irish Sea. No chance of an EU / US trade deal otherwise.

 

[Arkain2K]

You are acting surprised? Of course the external border must be secured and the customs union must be preserved.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0458

(4)

Member States are obliged to check systematically third-country nationals against all relevant databases on entry. It should be ensured that such checks are also carried out systematically on exit.

(5)

Border guards should also systematically check persons enjoying the right of free movement under Union law against the Schengen Information System (SIS) and other relevant Union databases. This should be without prejudice to the consultation of national and Interpol databases.

9)

The obligation to carry out systematic checks on entry and on exit applies to the external borders of the Member States.

Come on man, I'm not asking if the E.U have laws on their borders, that's a given.

I'm enquiring if you or anyone else know about any actual details at all about the construction plan (if there is one) for the E.U hard border that must go up in 2 months time in the case of No Deal.

 

[aitkenmike]

See what I mean when I said no one involved actually gives a shit about the smaller European countries, who would undoubtedly suffer the most from No Deal?

Everyone who have a horse in race this will read that long post and immediately focus on finger-pointing, while completely ignore the most important point about this "suffering" business that perhaps only people from the outside looking in can see.

Come on man, I'm not asking if the E.U have laws on their borders, that's a given.

I'm enquiring if you or anyone else know about any actual details at all about the construction plan (if there is one) for the E.U hard border that must go up in 2 months time in the case of No Deal.

They probably won't be up on day 1. But if you have an easily crossable border between two countries with very different regulation regimes, (as seems the whole point of Brexit for the Tories - deregulation), and different ideas on immigration (the pretend reason for the Tories) at some point, illegal materials or people crossing one way or the other will force border controls.

I'm sorry no-one can show you signed contracts and installation dates, because they probably don't exist, but people are arguing the inevitability of the whole situation. To deny that this is the probable (certain?) outcome at some point, is just sticking your head in the sand.

 

[JDragon]

The core problem is that the backstop would solve the issue by keeping NI in the customs union until a better solution is agreed. How not applying single market rules in NI while maintaining an open border should go together is BJ's big secret.

 

[Arkain2K]

If the UK "No Deals" out Ireland will build checkpoints.

The Irish Prime Minister expressively said Ireland "will never build it" though, much less do the inspections, that's what got me really confused.

Since you guys are directly involved, I thought you could clear that confusion up. Is he telling the truth or not?

If he is telling the truth, and neither the U.K nor Ireland intends to put up a hard border between them, does that means the E.U will send construction workers over from the mainland to build and administer the inspection points themselves in the case of No Deal?

What would happen if the Irish PM intends to follow through with his seemingly-illegal pledge? Will the Irish government be punished (and how?) for their refusal to comply with the E.U directive?

Here's Bloomberg's take, but I want to see what each of you think is going to happen in those scenarios.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-really-refuse-to-build-a-border-after-brexit

WTO regs mean it would have to go up in a few years.

This is actually not true.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) spokesman Keith Rockwell said: “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts."

To deny that this is the probable (certain?) outcome at some point, is just sticking your head in the sand.

How exactly do you quote an honest inquiry for more details about the hard border & inspection points that all in likelihood will go up in the foreseeable future and interpret it as "sticking your head in the sand"?

Is this bizarre reading-comprehension considered to be normal where you're from?

 

[Arkain2K]

The Washington Post's take on what they think about inspections at the Irish border.

Their conclusion can be boils down to "No one knows".​

What a No-Deal Brexit Would Mean for the Irish Border
By Peter Flanagan | Bloomberg | August 22, 2019

It was the boundary between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that sank former U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s efforts to engineer an orderly exit from the European Union. Now her successor, Boris Johnson, is bumping up against the same challenge -- how to manage a historically fraught border when it becomes the dividing line between the U.K. and the EU. Johnson has made clear his willingness to do what May balked at: crash out of the EU without any divorce deal at all. What that would mean for the Irish border is far from clear.

1. Why is the Irish border such a problem?

When the U.K. leaves the European Union, the border between Ireland’s north (which is part of the U.K.) and the Irish Republic to the south (which will stay in the EU) will be the only land crossing between the two jurisdictions. The EU has insisted that there be some way to make sure that no goods enter the EU that don’t meet its rigorous customs and regulatory standards once the U.K. is no longer adhering to them. But at the same time, both sides agree that the frontier should remain open, so that people and goods are free to cross back and forth.

2. Why is it important to keep the border open?

A reintroduction of customs controls would impose delays and costs on cross-border trade that’s worth more than 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) a year. Moreover, a return to checkpoints and watchtowers would bring back bad memories, more than 20 years after a peace agreement ended decades of violence, and could endanger the region’s hard-won peace.

3. How have they tried to solve this?

The Brexit deal negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May included a controversial measure known as the Irish border backstop. It was designed to guarantee that the frontier remained free and invisible no matter what future trade deal the two sides eventually struck. The U.K. dealt with the problem of protecting the EU’s ability to enforce its customs rules by promising to abide by them until another arrangement was reached. That enraged pro-Brexit members of May’s Conservative Party, including members of Parliament who voted to block her deal.

4. What is Johnson’s view?

He rejected May’s plan. Now that he’s in power, he’s said the backstop must be ripped up and that if the EU refuses he’ll take Britain out of the bloc without a deal. The EU and Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar are adamant that any arrangement must include the backstop. That impasse increases the chances of a no-deal Brexit.

5. What’s Johnson proposing instead?

In his first step toward renegotiating a divorce with the EU, the prime minister wrote on Aug. 20 to European Council President Donald Tusk that he wants to replace the backstop with a “legally binding commitment” not to build infrastructure or carry out checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as long as the bloc promises the same. Johnson didn’t set out what customs arrangements there should be, and acknowledged there “will need to be a degree of confidence” about what would happen if they were not “fully in place” at the end of a transition period.

6. What would happen in a no-deal Brexit?

Johnson has said that the U.K. won’t erect border posts, effectively daring Ireland and the EU to set up customs infrastructure on the frontier if they insist on checks. But no deal wouldn’t mean no tariffs -- trade between the U.K. and the EU would be covered by basic World Trade Organization rules, including a raft of duties.

7. How would that work?

No one knows. Ireland is in talks with the EU on how tariffs would be collected and what form checks on goods would take, but maintains they won’t occur on or near the border itself. While conceding there will be have to be inspections to combat smuggling, Varadkar has raised the prospect of examining goods at businesses before they are transported, as well as random checks. No agreement with the EU on this question has yet been reached.

8. Why is this such a headache for Ireland?

The Irish face a dilemma in the event of a no-deal Brexit: Either they agree to reinstate the border or run the risk of being booted out of the European single market. That’s because without border checks, Northern Ireland could be used as a so-called back door into the EU. Brazilian beef, for example, could be shipped to Belfast, moved across the open border and sent seamlessly on to the rest of the EU. Varadkar has described some form of checks as the “price we have to pay” to protect continued Irish membership in the single market.

9. Could there be a better solution?

Pro-Brexit voices in the U.K. have raised the idea of a high-tech border, using cameras, drones and a system for pre-clearing goods instead of intrusive checkpoints. Few on the EU side think such technology currently exists.

10. What is the border like now?

It meanders through countryside for some 310 miles (500 kilometers), dividing rivers, fields and even some houses; a change in road signs and accepted currency is pretty much the only indication that a person has moved from one country to another. The island was partitioned in 1921, a division cemented by a peace agreement between the British government and Irish rebels seeking independence. As part of the deal, Northern Ireland, where the population is majority Protestant, remained part of the U.K. with England, Scotland and Wales. The mostly Catholic southern part of the island became the Irish Free State and gained full independence in 1948.

11. Could a no-deal Brexit hasten a united Ireland?

It’s unlikely anytime soon. Nearly a century after partition, a majority in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the U.K. Still, the fact the possibility is being openly discussed again is testament to the forces unleashed by Brexit. Under a provision of the 1998 peace agreement, a so-called border poll on Irish unification could only take place if the U.K. government considers such a referendum would likely be passed. Varadkar has warned that a no-deal Brexit could eventually spur sentiment toward a united Ireland, an analysis rejected by unionist parties in the region.

12. What about a possible return of violence?

Customs and security checks would likely hurt the economy on both sides of the border, and perhaps offer a daily reminder of British rule of Northern Ireland. While the province has been at peace for almost two decades, Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland’s former deputy leader, warned a year before his death in 2017 that the reintroduction of a border following Brexit could aid those who oppose the region’s peace process. Tension has increased after the explosion of a car bomb in January and the killing of a journalist during riots in Derry, also known as Londonderry, in April. Other politicians argue that peace is now so deeply rooted that it would take more than a few border posts to disrupt the island.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[Gl0kta]

This is actually not true.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) spokesman Keith Rockwell said: “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border

No NI border means Irish beef can get straight into the UK without a customs tariff. Anyone from out side the EU exporting beef to the UK take it to the WTO.

 

[aitkenmike]

How exactly do you quote an honest inquiry for more details about the hard border & inspection points that all in likelihood will go up in the foreseeable future and interpret it as "sticking your head in the sand"?

Is this bizarre reading-comprehension considered to be normal where you're from?

"What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?"

The above doesn't read like an simple honest inquiry to me, especially in the context of previous posts, but my apologies if it was.

 

[Arkain2K]

"What in the seven hells does this rant have anything to do with the customs border and checkpoints that the E.U - not Britain - insists that must be build on the Republic of Ireland side?

Do you actually have ANY real knowledge regarding that at all or just here to fart in the wind about the evil British?"

The above doesn't read like an simple honest inquiry to me, especially in the context of previous posts, but my apologies if it was.

Look, I know you guys are angry at the Brits, I really do. But this "Are you with us or with them??" mentality that you bring is not very constructive to the conversation at all, especially when you're actually talking to people from the outside world, not your "enemies".

My inquiry is base on face value of what each side is insisting that they would (or wouldn't) do on Oct 31st, which seems to be conflicting. I'm going to repeat these three points for those who previously just hit Reply without bothering to read what it said at all:

1) The Irish Prime Minister went on record and insists that Ireland would never build a hard border and check-points on the Irish side, even in the event of No Deal. Personally, I don't see any evidence that his administration is lying about that.

2) The U.K Prime Minister insists that the U.K wouldn't build a hard border and check-points on the Northern Ireland side either.

3) The E.U said there MUST be a hard border and check-points between the two countries, according to E.U laws. But they aren't saying a word about who will actually build and administer it, if neither the Irish nor British government would.

If people directly involved in this quagmire are just as confused as those of us from the outside looking in and don't really know what's going to happen yourselves, it's perfectly okay to say "I don't know either", or attempt a guess and say what they think is going to happen. Just please don't waste my time and yours by replying to my serious question with non-answers totally devoid of any useful substance, which is colloquially known as farting in the wind while being not even remotely close to addressing the actual subject matter.

 

[Fanu]

There's a difference between people wanting something and outsiders telling them how to go about achieving it.

unfortunately UK doesnt exist in a vacuum, so yeah, UK has to deal with countries its bordering.

boris johnson is a seriously impressive con man - dude has no clue what hes doing yet he is holding the highest office in country
this is trump level cluelessness - just winging it

fuck modern politics, fuck it in the ass - no respect towards general public, private interests are what counts

 

[Mcountry]

Johnson is just another globalist who has far more in common with most of the liberal lefty types crying about him than with the average working class Brit. They are ultimately on the same side and what we are seeing is more in house bickedring than serious political and ideological opposition. The main thing he's got going for him is that leader of the opposition is a rabid lunatic who supports using Muslim rape gangs as a weapon against working class communities. So there is that.

But he looks like trump

 

[jonharrison]

Look, I know you guys are angry at the Brits, I really do. But this "Are you with us or with them??" mentality that you bring is not very constructive to the conversation at all, especially when you're actually talking to people from the outside world, not your "enemies".

My inquiry is base on face value of what each side is insisting that they would (or wouldn't) do on Oct 31st, which seems to be conflicting. I'm going to repeat these three points for those who previously just hit Reply without bothering to read what it said at all:

1) The Irish Prime Minister went on record and insists that Ireland would never build a hard border and check-points on the Irish side, even in the event of No Deal. Personally, I don't see any evidence that his administration is lying about that.

2) The U.K Prime Minister insists that the U.K wouldn't build a hard border and check-points on the Northern Ireland side either.

3) The E.U said there MUST be a hard border and check-points between the two countries, according to E.U laws. But they aren't saying a word about who will actually build and administer it, if neither the Irish nor British government would.

If people directly involved in this quagmire are just as confused as those of us from the outside looking in and don't really know what's going to happen yourselves, it's perfectly okay to say "I don't know either", or attempt a guess and say what they think is going to happen. Just please don't waste my time and yours by replying to my serious question with non-answers totally devoid of any useful substance, which is colloquially known as as farting in the wind while being not even remotely close to addressing the actual subject matter.

That article that you posted addressed what would happen. With no hard border, Ireland would be removed from the EUs single market. This could be catastrophic for Ireland’s economy. The Irish are pissed because the British are forcing the Republic to choose between their economic future or the Good Friday Agreement.

 

[deise69]

Look, I know you guys are angry at the Brits, I really do. But this "Are you with us or with them??" mentality that you bring is not very constructive to the conversation at all, especially when you're actually talking to people from the outside world, not your "enemies".

My inquiry is base on face value of what each side is insisting that they would (or wouldn't) do on Oct 31st, which seems to be conflicting. I'm going to repeat these three points for those who previously just hit Reply without bothering to read what it said at all:

1) The Irish Prime Minister went on record and insists that Ireland would never build a hard border and check-points on the Irish side, even in the event of No Deal. Personally, I don't see any evidence that his administration is lying about that.

2) The U.K Prime Minister insists that the U.K wouldn't build a hard border and check-points on the Northern Ireland side either.

3) The E.U said there MUST be a hard border and check-points between the two countries, according to E.U laws. But they aren't saying a word about who will actually build and administer it, if neither the Irish nor British government would.

If people directly involved in this quagmire are just as confused as those of us from the outside looking in and don't really know what's going to happen yourselves, it's perfectly okay to say "I don't know either", or attempt a guess and say what they think is going to happen. Just please don't waste my time and yours by replying to my serious question with non-answers totally devoid of any useful substance, which is colloquially known as as farting in the wind while being not even remotely close to addressing the actual subject matter.

1. Ireland does not want a return to a border with NI, we have been clear about that from the start and have not changed our position in 3 years. That's why the border situation was included in the WA.

2. The UK completely ignored the situation (watch the vid for reference) , until it came to a head last year and negotiations stalled. They then gave us assurances that if they could not find alternative arrangements in time , the Backstop would come into effect. Now they're reneging on that.


3. Neither the EU or Ireland are responsible for Brexit, that was purely a UK decision. The UK knew what would happen and are now trying to deflect blame by saying the EU is forcing Ireland to put up a border.

Maybe you could start by acknowledging that I was right, when I said Ireland would take the biggest hit . Instead you ignored the fact that your own source said you were wrong. My point still stands, Brexiteers wanted control of their borders in 2016 and in 2019 they are blaming everyone but themselves for this shambles. Only one side has been upfront and consistent about what would happen and they other can't even agree with itself.

The solution is simple, a NI only backstop but the DUP ( the only party that campaigned against the GFA ) have the Tories by the balls. The DUP do not represent the majority in NI, only their own backward sectarian views and everyone knows this.

 

[whougonnacall]

Cool bbc today has boris admitting new deal with eu wont be easy ....as the clock ticks down finaly a shred of honesty

 

[Arkain2K]

If people directly involved in this quagmire are just as confused as those of us from the outside looking in and don't really know what's going to happen yourselves, it's perfectly okay to say "I don't know either", or attempt a guess and say what they think is going to happen. Just please don't waste my time and yours by replying to my serious question with non-answers totally devoid of any useful substance, which is colloquially known as farting in the wind while being not even remotely close to addressing the actual subject matter.

1. Ireland does not want a return to a border with NI, we have been clear about that from the start and have not changed our position in 3 years. That's why the border situation was included in the WA.

2. The UK completely ignored the situation (watch the vid for reference) , until it came to a head last year and negotiations stalled. They then gave us assurances that if they could not find alternative arrangements in time , the Backstop would come into effect. Now they're reneging on that.


3. Neither the EU or Ireland are responsible for Brexit, that was purely a UK decision. The UK knew what would happen and are now trying to deflect blame by saying the EU is forcing Ireland to put up a border.

Maybe you could start by acknowledging that I was right, when I said Ireland would take the biggest hit . Instead you ignored the fact that your own source said you were wrong. My point still stands, Brexiteers wanted control of their borders in 2016 and in 2019 they are blaming everyone but themselves for this shambles. Only one side has been upfront and consistent about what would happen and they other can't even agree with itself.

The solution is simple, a NI only backstop but the DUP ( the only party that campaigned against the GFA ) have the Tories by the balls. The DUP do not represent the majority in NI, only their own backward sectarian views and everyone knows this.

It's actually incredible how you could type out so much, yet actually said so little about what I asked.

This rant would actually means something had I asked you "who do you think is responsible for Brexit?". But I did not.

My question was simple: "Who would actually build the hard E.U border, if both the Irish and British governments refuse to do it?"

Private company, public agency, E.U government, any real answer or guess would do.

But no, it went right back to rehashed variations of "The British wanted Brexit!" that have been repeated for at least 8 threads.

So once again, you basically wasted my time and yours, rehashing things that everyone already know that actually had nothing to do with the question you quoted.

You will definitely get a few Likes for your effort though, there seems to be a handful of folks here who rather enjoy this Groundhogs Day kind of discussion, where a bunch of angry guys venting their frustration by keep repeating the same thing, over and over and over again, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the post they reply to.

But that's not really a discussion now, is it?

 

[jonharrison]

It's actually incredible how you could type out so much, yet actually said so little.

This rant would actually means something had I asked you "who do you think is responsible for Brexit?". But I did not. I asked "who would build the hard border if both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom refuses to, like they say they would?"

Private company, public agency, E.U government, anything would do.

But no, it went right back to rehashed variations of "The British wanted Brexit!" that have been repeated for at least 8 threads.

So once again, you basically wasted my time and yours, rehashing things that everyone already know that actually had nothing to do with the question you quoted.

You will definitely get a few Likes for your effort though, there seems to be a handful of folks here who rather enjoy this Groundhogs Day kind of discussion, where a bunch of angry guys just sit around repeating the same thing over and over again, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the post they reply to.

I’ll give it a whack. There’s basically three ways this plays out. The most likely is that neither the Republic, nor England build a hard border. This will lead to Ireland being removed from the EU single market, causing them to rely on the mercy of Brussels for their economic future and ruining any potential relationship between the Irish and English for the foreseeable future. You’ll also most likely see a rearming of paramilitaries, although it’ll be to a lesser extent. The next most likely scenario is that, as Brexit nears and the no deal exit becomes more likely, dissident Republican groups will start to rearm en masse when it becomes apparent they’ll be considered UK citizens again. As they smuggle arms across the border, the British will have to instill their own hard border for national security, leading to a return of the Troubles. The final option is that the Republic caves, and builds the hard border themselves. Not only will this be disastrous for the Good Friday Agreement, but by closing one of the primary ways agriculture is exported out of the country, the Republic would be economically shooting itself in the foot. Which of these outcomes is the “good” one that the Irish should be happy about?