Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    Perhaps, for a certain value of "workable".

    What do we do fx about imports from third party countries (especially if the UK strikes a number of new trade deals while deviating from EU product standards of various kinds) that can just be shipped to Eire if there are no border checks between the UK and Eire? At least it requires the EU to hand over control of its borders to the UK, which so far is a notion the EU has stated it won't entertain. Not least since once these goods are in Eire further access to the rest of the EU is also unlimited.
    .
    Trade from the UK mainland to Eire ports/airports would go through full border checks at the ports in Eire - sorry if that was not clear before. The loophole is shipments from the mainland to Belfast and then south. This would be caught by checks by the EU/Irish at UK ports.

    As to sale of goods within Ireland that do not meet EU standards, that would be for Irish authorities to police and trace back. In reality very few imports are actually physically checked at ports <5%, and of those checked very few are found to be non-compliant. Physical checks are mostly aimed at drug smuggling and are targeted at shipments that have been identified beforehand.

    At the moment there is still a lot of posturing (on both sides) about principles, rather than a focus on practicalities.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aber View Post

      Trade from the UK mainland to Eire ports/airports would go through full border checks at the ports in Eire - sorry if that was not clear before. The loophole is shipments from the mainland to Belfast and then south. This would be caught by checks by the EU/Irish at UK ports.

      As to sale of goods within Ireland that do not meet EU standards, that would be for Irish authorities to police and trace back. In reality very few imports are actually physically checked at ports <5%, and of those checked very few are found to be non-compliant. Physical checks are mostly aimed at drug smuggling and are targeted at shipments that have been identified beforehand.

      At the moment there is still a lot of posturing (on both sides) about principles, rather than a focus on practicalities.
      OK, makes sense... sort of. Except it looks like a massive work-around with a tremendous amount of extra work and red tape. Effectively in order to somehow keep the Eire-NI borders free of checks, these will be implemented all over the rest of Eire, the UK and Calais for good measure. Yees... that could sort of work. Maybe just accept the damn customs union and remain in the EU Common Market, and all (those at least) problems evaporate...?

      But it still means either the EU accepts to have the UK man its border at UK ports etc., alternatively the UK accepts that the EU mans its border in UK ports etc.? At least the second is right out from what the UK government has been saying. And the first is not much better from what Barnier has been signaling so far.

      There's no actual getting out of this marriage for either party then. The terms of interaction just get limited and formalised.

      And the principles matter. We've had twenty years of being "practical" over things like Kosovo, and for those efforts we get Russia getting all "practical" in Crimea etc. So principles will likely matter, if not right now then somewhere down the line, and then in unpredictable and unwanted ways. So it's not as if fudging has some kind of moral high ground compared to standing on principle. If the UK was actually realistic and practical about any of this, it wouldn't be Brexiting in the first place.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Trident program is based on US tech and designs contracted between the USA and UK. It can't be transferred to another state.
        The point he was making was that the Tridents, rather useless for anything except the highly specific nuclear strategic deterrent, would NOT be part of a newly constituted Scottish navy, which would be all about surveillance a control of Scottish sea space. Likely Scotland would declare itself nuclear weapons free too. The galling bit for the RN in a rump-UK is that the main base for their Tridents would have to vacated, and shop set up somewhere south of the border.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

          You cannot commit an atrocity against the Irish.

          Why would Scotland be a US ally? You've harmed our longest and most reliable ally, the UK, and you're a bunch of leftists. In case you haven't been paying attention, we have reduced our military forces in Europe to next to nothing, and place very little value on NATO.

          The UK is a major oil producer. Who says you'll get a drop out of the North Sea? Unless you have rigs within three miles of your coast, the determination of who gets the oil will be decided by others. The US has blocked Venezuelan access to Gulf oil; why would we hesitate to do so to another Socialist state who is the enemy of our Ally?

          Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Trident program is based on US tech and designs contracted between the USA and UK. It can't be transferred to another state.

          But this all is theoretical, because your predicted margin for success in your latest pleas is so small that it can easily go either way.

          If you ever actually vote again. Or has a date been set?
          Trident belongs to the UK - and is a massive bone of contention, since most Scots don't want it - and the UK would have to re-house it in the event of Scottish Independence. Scotland would probably be a NATO partner and - like any other nation - would need armed forces for self-defence (we have a longer coastline than India, remember). While we're not too fond of Trump (and are laughing ourselves silly at the sectors of your population who claim they're not descendants of immigrants, then cite the nationality of their ancestors) relations between us and the US have always been good, once Trump's out on his ear, there's no doubt we could tolerate each other again.

          The vast majority of the oil and gas is ours, by international law - the only way anyone else could get access to it is by starting a war, not a great idea.

          There WILL be a second referendum, but the date has not been set. The last time, support grew from under 30% to 45%, and there's no reason to doubt that the campaign itself would raise support from near parity to a strong majority.

          I'll treat your initial comment with the contempt it deserves.
          Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

            .

            The UK is a major oil producer. Who says you'll get a drop out of the North Sea? Unless you have rigs within three miles of your coast, the determination of who gets the oil will be decided by others.
            How incredibly out of date you are. The 3 mile limit disappeared with smooth bore cannon - it's now 12 miles but the zone of economic sovereignty under international law is 200 miles.
            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              But it still means either the EU accepts to have the UK man its border at UK ports etc., alternatively the UK accepts that the EU mans its border in UK ports etc.? At least the second is right out from what the UK government has been saying. And the first is not much better from what Barnier has been signaling so far.
              Strangely enough, Brexiteers have in the last few days floated the idea of supporting the second "to show Barnier a willingness to compromise".

              It's a mess, but still better than the alternatives on offer.

              I don't know whether it offers a path to a deal, but no agreement on the Irish border means no deal.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Aber View Post

                Strangely enough, Brexiteers have in the last few days floated the idea of supporting the second "to show Barnier a willingness to compromise".

                It's a mess, but still better than the alternatives on offer.

                I don't know whether it offers a path to a deal, but no agreement on the Irish border means no deal.
                No deal is better than a bad deal. TM's Chequer's proposals are horrendous.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aber View Post

                  Strangely enough, Brexiteers have in the last few days floated the idea of supporting the second "to show Barnier a willingness to compromise".

                  It's a mess, but still better than the alternatives on offer.

                  I don't know whether it offers a path to a deal, but no agreement on the Irish border means no deal.
                  Yes, that is the seriously troubling thing about the situation. Whether it's the UK expecting the EU to cave, or the EU expecting the UK to do so, apparently. And both claim to be the reasonable party in this.

                  But the matter of reaching a settlement that can stand on principle is a real one. Since we know that attempts at cordoning off bits of international settlements off as "exceptions" tend to have unwanted repercussions with third parties in the future. They're never as exceptional as all that to those that want to challenge them. Which is why solving this through A Mother Of All Fudges probably is a bad idea.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by the ace View Post

                    Trident belongs to the UK - and is a massive bone of contention, since most Scots don't want it - and the UK would have to re-house it in the event of Scottish Independence. Scotland would probably be a NATO partner and - like any other nation - would need armed forces for self-defence (we have a longer coastline than India, remember). While we're not too fond of Trump (and are laughing ourselves silly at the sectors of your population who claim they're not descendants of immigrants, then cite the nationality of their ancestors) relations between us and the US have always been good, once Trump's out on his ear, there's no doubt we could tolerate each other again.

                    The vast majority of the oil and gas is ours, by international law - the only way anyone else could get access to it is by starting a war, not a great idea.

                    There WILL be a second referendum, but the date has not been set. The last time, support grew from under 30% to 45%, and there's no reason to doubt that the campaign itself would raise support from near parity to a strong majority.

                    I'll treat your initial comment with the contempt it deserves.
                    As you may have noted, the USA is on the cusp of leaving NATO. And we have a history under both parties of shunning leftist states, and likewise ignoring international law regarding oil rights (see SoS Clinton's dealing with Venezuela under Bobo's Administration).

                    Your relationship with the USA has been as part of the UK. All bets are off if you split, and we can be certain the Trump Administration will certainly set the tone. You can also be certain that Britain will come first for us.

                    You predicted victory last time you begged for freedom; perhaps you should wait until the day is won before speaking so confidently. As I recall, not even all Scots could be bothered to vote.
                    Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 09 Sep 18, 08:50.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aber View Post

                      There may be multiple borders in multiple places for multiple reasons:

                      - freedom of movement relates to movement of workers and would be controlled at the workplace, rather than at any Irish border (especially given the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland which predates the EU)
                      - customs border (for tariffs etc) would technically be on the North-South border, but would be controlled away from the border (including possibly at UK ports)
                      - phytosanitary border would be in the Irish Sea, but has effectively been so in the past eg during various UK epidemics beef from Northern Ireland was treated separately, and agriculture is controlled on an All-Ireland basis.
                      - some other sectors eg electricity are controlled on an All-Ireland basis now and this might continue, effectively remaining in the Single Market while other things in Northern Ireland remain outside..

                      It would be a complete fudge, but might be workable.

                      EDIT: Missed one

                      - for goods coming to Ireland by road the Irish border would be at Calais, with no further checks and containers sealed for transit across the UK
                      Seems that there won't be such a thing: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-irish-border - hard border it is then.
                      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                      Comment


                      • That Guardian article is completely confused and wrong on the border/port checks issue. You're correct that May not accepting the fudge means a hard North-South border in Ireland, at least in theory. However neither the UK nor Ireland are planning to build border infrastructure, even in the event of No Deal.

                        Comment


                        • Sounds like a real cluster f in the UK

                          https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-45509...ady-for-brexit

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                            Sounds like a real cluster f in the UK

                            https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-45509...ady-for-brexit
                            The issue is not time or difficulty, it is the incompetence of the current leader who is only held in place by the weakest of opposition.
                            TM is an administrator rather than a leader. She has a civil servant mentality. She even had to take her latest Brexit plan to Merkel to get signed off.
                            All she had to do was get a free trade agreement like Canada’s, which the EU offered over a year ago and it would all be fine. She just had to have the guts to tell Ireland where to go in its attempt to annex the North.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              The issue is not time or difficulty, it is the incompetence of the current leader who is only held in place by the weakest of opposition.
                              TM is an administrator rather than a leader. She has a civil servant mentality. She even had to take her latest Brexit plan to Merkel to get signed off.
                              All she had to do was get a free trade agreement like Canada’s, which the EU offered over a year ago and it would all be fine.
                              Fair bit of that would be fine - but not all. That would still require sorting out the mess the different demands place on the ROI-NI border. Or if there is no willingness to sort it out then just inform everyone which agreement they would be breaking (likely GFA). Though given how much the UK has different special rules for various Crown dependencies it is difficult to see why they couldn't just turn N.I. into something along those lines and allow it to abide by the Irish (i.e. EU) rules. Which would sort out most of the mess. Also why Merkel? She doesn't really have power in the EU - Barnier and Juncker are the ones which can actually do something.
                              She just had to have the guts to tell Ireland where to go in its attempt to annex the North.
                              No one has been trying to annex N.I. - they can however voluntarily join the ROI in accordance to the GFA.
                              It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                              Comment


                              • Merkel is a reference to British fantasies about the continent...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X