Another new Brexit thread

[BobKowalski]

But bob the uk and Ireland have publicly stated they won’t build a border .

Both countries will put up a border. The EU require all external borders to be protected. The U.K. will also fulfill its international obligations. The only question is where the border is put. On land or down the Irish Sea. Dublin and EU will push for down the Irish Sea with NI given special status as being part of the SM and CU. You think the U.K. will say no and insist on a land border instead? Unlikely. Equally a sea border is also a problem but mainly because the Govt is currently dependent on DUP votes.

At some point the U.K. has to make a choice or defer the issue which in effect is what the WA did. By rejecting the WA we are back to being forced to make a choice.

 

[Ban-jani]

Not really.

Not really what?

 

[blueinsa]

Of course we’ve got zero intention of falling foul of MFN.

That’s why we’ll have to have infrastructure to ensure we don’t to check goods coming in and will apply tariffs.

Unless we adopt the backstop or stay in the CU.

There we go, argument closed.

So thats the WTO dont have any rules nor will they insist on a hard border question sorted.

We have now also sorted out that we have zero intention of falling foul of MFN.

We agree goods will be checked and tariffs applied where necessary as well.

We wont adopt the WA nor will we stay in the CU so the infrastructure for the checks is up for debate?

Im going for at source and at the ports as they are now for non EU trade and i think its what Dublin and Brussels will opt for as well.

 

[BobKowalski]

In theory yes but Dublin, Brussels and London have all said that a return to a hard border will not happen and that work is now underway to ensure that whilst checks will be needed, they will be kept to a minimum and be done away from the border.

Its come to something when a leaver can take what they say at face value whilst remainers still argue the toss over it ;-)

They have said they don’t want it to happen and that the peace process is the priority. But the EU have a legal obligation to control their external frontiers and they will also protect the integrity of the Single Market. It’s not about choice. It’s about a legal obligation. So unless a way is found to negate the need for a hard land border in Ireland there will be a hard land border in Ireland. My opinion is there will be a solution but it has to be a solution that satisfies London, Dublin and Brussels. The solution was the WA and the backstop. Now we need a new solution.

 

[George Hannah]

If us staying in the SM and CU is to protect their own trading issues, surely it’s the same for us?
In that us staying would be be protecting our trading interests. You’ve just accidentally made the case for Remain :-)

I just think there is no good case for you or us to remain in this cartel with its current direction of travel but it looks like we're staying together
for now.

 

[west didsblue]

So thats the WTO dont have any rules nor will they insist on a hard border question sorted.

We have now also sorted out that we have zero intention of falling foul of MFN.

We agree goods will be checked and tariffs applied where necessary as well.

We wont adopt the WA nor will we stay in the CU so the infrastructure for the checks is up for debate?

Im going for at source and at the ports as they are now for non EU trade and i think its what Dublin and Brussels will opt for as well.

What about EU trade crossing the RoI/NI land border?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

And it was an entirely terrible point.

The technology to send someone into space is completely different to that needed to check vehicles at a border and no matter how good the technology is, it still only covers the issues partly.

It’s like saying “well we can send someone to the moon, surely we can sort out climate change”.

My point is it's perhaps rather more to do with the will to make it happen. I'll concede that the leave view of the Irish border question is perhaps optimistic and simplistic, but this is more than equaled by the quite desperate attempt to seize upon this issue by those who if they are honest simply wish to see brexit fail for many other reasons.

 

[Ban-jani]

So thats the WTO dont have any rules nor will they insist on a hard border question sorted.

We have now also sorted out that we have zero intention of falling foul of MFN.

We agree goods will be checked and tariffs applied where necessary as well.

We wont adopt the WA nor will we stay in the CU so the infrastructure for the checks is up for debate?

Im going for at source and at the ports as they are now for non EU trade and i think its what Dublin and Brussels will opt for as well.

Round and round in circles we go but I’m happy to continue setting this straight if it’s needed.

WTO don’t enforce borders, you are legally challenged if you fall foul of MFN.

You can do what you want but you have to do the same for everyone or everyone can legally challenge.

Goods will be checked yes, at the EU and UK’s external borders... which is... the Irish border.

All parties will do what they can to get around it but the big fat reality is infrastructure will need to go up, in the event of the above and its a huge problem to get around it.

If we do go with No Deal, apart from the devastation it’ll cause to our population, my guessing is that NI will part company with the UK, resulting in violence.

 

[Ban-jani]

My point is it's perhaps rather more to do with the will to make it happen. I'll concede that the leave view of the Irish border question is perhaps optimistic and simplistic, but this is more than equaled by the quite desperate attempt to seize upon this issue by those who if they are honest simply wish to see brexit fail for many other reasons.

You can say that part again.

Whether or not people have seized upon it to frustrate Brexit, the issue still exists and there aren’t yet alternatives.

Just saying “we won’t put a border up” is ridiculously naive.

If it was so easy to sort out, it’d have been done and the way around it would be obvious.

 

[Ban-jani]

I just think there is no good case for you or us to remain in this cartel with its current direction of travel but it looks like we're staying together
for now.

“You or us”?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Round and round in circles we go but I’m happy to continue setting this straight if it’s needed.

WTO don’t enforce borders, you are legally challenged if you fall foul of MFN.

You can do what you want but you have to do the same for everyone or everyone can legally challenge.

Goods will be checked yes, at the EU and UK’s external borders... which is... the Irish border.

All parties will do what they can to get around it but the big fat reality is infrastructure will need to go up, in the event of the above and its a huge problem to get around it.

If we do go with No Deal, apart from the devastation it’ll cause to our population, my guessing is that NI will part company with the UK, resulting in violence.

Who will construct and pay for the infrastructure that apparently has to go up?

 

[RabidCity]

They have said they don’t want it to happen and that the peace process is the priority. But the EU have a legal obligation to control their external frontiers and they will also protect the integrity of the Single Market. It’s not about choice. It’s about a legal obligation. So unless a way is found to negate the need for a hard land border in Ireland there will be a hard land border in Ireland. My opinion is there will be a solution but it has to be a solution that satisfies London, Dublin and Brussels. The solution was the WA and the backstop. Now we need a new solution.

It's not a solution since it never satisfied London? Or Belfast.

 

[blueinsa]

Round and round in circles we go but I’m happy to continue setting this straight if it’s needed.

WTO don’t enforce borders, you are legally challenged if you fall foul of MFN.

You can do what you want but you have to do the same for everyone or everyone can legally challenge.

Goods will be checked yes, at the EU and UK’s external borders... which is... the Irish border.

All parties will do what they can to get around it but the big fat reality is infrastructure will need to go up, in the event of the above and its a huge problem to get around it.

If we do go with No Deal, apart from the devastation it’ll cause to our population, my guessing is that NI will part company with the UK, resulting in violence.

Go around as many times as you like but the answers given remain the exact same in that i have told you that your original argument re the WTO enforcing a hard border was false which miraculously you now accept as seen by this post.

We agree that MFN can be legally challenged but we also agree that we have no intention of falling foul so dont get the argument?

We agree that checks will be done, just differ on their location.

We also wont go no deal as one will be done, eventually.

 

[Ban-jani]

Who will construct and pay for the infrastructure that apparently has to go up?

I’ve already said. The UK and EU/Dublin.

Whether the border is on land or sea, we will have to have them.

 

[blueinsa]

If it was so easy to sort out, it’d have been done and the way around it would be obvious.

Is not been done because it doesnt suit either Dublin nor Brussels or those in the UK that want to remain.

Its a political football.

Well played all those that dont want brexit for playing it as well, id have probably done the same ;-)

 

[Len Rum]

They have said they don’t want it to happen and that the peace process is the priority. But the EU have a legal obligation to control their external frontiers and they will also protect the integrity of the Single Market. It’s not about choice. It’s about a legal obligation. So unless a way is found to negate the need for a hard land border in Ireland there will be a hard land border in Ireland. My opinion is there will be a solution but it has to be a solution that satisfies London, Dublin and Brussels. The solution was the WA and the backstop. Now we need a new solution.

Comprende @blueinsa ?
Read what the man says - "they have said they don't want it to happen" , that is entirely different from your " they have said it will not happen".
Capiche?

 

[BobKowalski]

It's not a solution since it never satisfied London? Or Belfast.

The U.K. Govt negotiated and signed off on the WA so Govt itself was satisfied. NI polling shows that the WA and backstop had majority support. It also had support from NI Business and Agricultural lobbies.

The failure to get Parliamentary ratification for the WA was an internal political failure for which May paid the price.

 

[Ban-jani]

Go around as many times as you like butt he answers given remain the exact same in that i have told you that your original argument re the WTO enforcing a hard border was false which miraculously you now accept as seen by this post.

We agree that MFN can be legally challenged but we also agree that we have no intention of falling foul so dont get the argument?

We agree that checks will be done, just differ on their location.

We also wont go no deal as one will be done, eventually.

I have never said WTO enforce borders.

Either quote where I’ve said that or please retract your claim.

Why would we have intention of falling foul? We won’t fall foul because in the event of no backstop, infrastructure will go up.

Where do you think these checks will be then?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I’ve already said. The UK and EU/Dublin.

Whether the border is on land or sea, we will have to have them.

So, the three bodies that have already publicly stated they will do no such thing then?

 

[Ban-jani]

So, the three bodies that have already publicly stated they will do no such thing then?

They said they didn’t wish to, not that they will do no such thing.

The government, the EU and Dublin have all said the WA is the only solution to us leaving the Customs Union.

When it comes to a No Deal scenario they will have no choice.