Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Robin]

I don’t know. Seems to me like the parliament just decided that they want to eat the cake and keep it too. Is there any new suggestion about what to actually do with the Irish border?

Well there is no new suggestion but the government has always maintained they can create an invisible hard border using modern day technology and methods that simply weren't around back in the day. They wouldn't return to using physical checkpoints but rather goods pre-clearing at ports and things like sensors and ANPR to get the job done. How this will be implemented is not something they have gone into great detail about but seeing as it's 21st century it should be do able.

 

[Liquid]

Well there is no new suggestion but the government has always maintained they can create an invisible hard border using modern day technology and methods that simply weren't around back in the day. They wouldn't return to using physical checkpoints but rather goods pre-clearing at ports and things like sensors and ANPR to get the job done. How this will be implemented is not something they have gone into great detail about but seeing as it's 21st century it should be do able.

I'd also like the Foreign Office to provide me with useful information and be able to renew my passport using the government's website given that it's 2019 but we can't always have nice things. Spoiler: It's awful.

There's no reason why a technologically enforced hard border would work seamlessly given the myriad of systems, hurdles and hoops people already unsuccessfully try to navigate in their daily lives.

 

[eran0004]

That's the point though, UK will not make the border so the EU will be forced to make it part of the Eurozone and both sides will agree to it, who ever makes it will be the one to claim responsibility for the choas it will create and no one wants that.

Ireland the EU and UK don't want a border so how can it possibly be made.

Because both the EU and the UK wants a customs control. What they need to agree on is how to do it. If they can’t agree, then the EU will have a customs control at their external border, which would be the Irish border.

 

[Touring Mars]

If they can’t agree, then the EU will have a customs control at their external border, which would be the Irish border.

Except the Good Friday Agreement prevents that from happening.

However, the Irish government have said today that there is 'no alternative' to the Backstop. If that really was/is the case, then that blows a massive hole in the Political Declaration which states that the EU will use its best endeavours to find alternatives to the backstop.

It is pretty clear that the EU (and to a large extent Ireland as well) do not consider the backstop as merely an insurance policy, but as a permanent arrangement.

 

[eran0004]

Except the Good Friday Agreement prevents that from happening.

Seems like it doesn't.

However, the Irish government have said today that there is 'no alternative' to the Backstop. If that really was/is the case, then that blows a massive hole in the Political Declaration which states that the EU will use its best endeavours to find alternatives to the backstop.

It is pretty clear that the EU (and to a large extent Ireland as well) do not consider the backstop as merely an insurance policy, but as a permanent arrangement.

There are two alternatives to the backstop:

1. A trade agreement between the EU and the UK that makes a hard border unnecessary.
2. A hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Leaving with the negotiated deal gives option 1 or the backstop.
Leaving without a deal gives option 1 or 2.

What other options are there, realistically?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Seems like it doesn't.

A border with vehicle checks defines "security" quite aptly for me... and vehicle checks between NI and ROI is an idea that few British or Irish people will want to revisit. There's been a terrorist bombing in the last week, it would be stupid to ignore that as a possible statement of intent.

1. A trade agreement between the EU and the UK that makes a hard border unnecessary.

There can't be any trade agreement (we're told) while Britain is in the EU. That would, by linguistic definition, be a No-Deal exit.

It is pretty clear that the EU (and to a large extent Ireland as well) do not consider the backstop as merely an insurance policy, but as a permanent arrangement.

It's hard to see how it could be anything else. The only way out is for a trade agreement at identical tariffs, which seems unlikely.

Well there is no new suggestion but the government has always maintained they can create an invisible hard border using modern day technology and methods that simply weren't around back in the day.

The problem is that EU agencies who already use modern border technology point out that it still requires physical intervention unless you work entirely on trust.

goods pre-clearing at ports and things like sensors and ANPR to get the job done.

Pre-clearance works with physical intervention, it isn't a technological solution and never was. The goods still need to be looked at. The idea of a technology-driven border is pie in the sky.

ANPR will tell the computer if the plate matches the vehicle and if the insurance details (roughly) match the driver. It won't tell you how many tax-free ciggies are stuffed in the spare wheel or how many tons of undeclared tech goods are piled behind the lemon crates.

 

[polysmut]

Seems like it doesn't.

Does this part of that article:

The agreement contains a commitment by the British and Irish governments to develop "close cooperation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"

suggest that leaving the EU would be a breach of the good friday agreement?

 

[Touring Mars]

It's hard to see how it could be anything else. The only way out is for a trade agreement at identical tariffs, which seems unlikely.

Well, quite - but the mind boggles as to why not... it has been portrayed as if making trade between the UK and EU easy after Brexit is like us 'having our cake and eat it'.... but in reality it is pure common sense that a) could prevent a civil war from erupting in Ireland, b) save the Irish economy from ruin, c) save the UK economy from severe harm, d) stop the UK from breaking up entirely and e) prevent hastening the collapse of the EU. But apparently it is more important that the UK don't get tariff-free trade because we are being naughty boys and not playing along with the great European project.

@eran0004 While the Good Friday Agreement does not literally guarantee no hard border in Ireland, it is still by far the most significant bilateral agreement in UK-Irish history and as such carries enormous weight. If not for the GFA, Brexit would have been resolved about 2 years ago and a border erected already.

To be fair to all sides in this situation, the only common factor in the entire mess is that no-one wants a hard border in Ireland - that being the case, I cannot see how it is possible for one to re-emerge, especially in light of the GFA which virtually guarantees that a solution that does not involve checks at the border must be pursued at all costs. But, the EU and the UK differ on whose unbreakable red lines must be broken for that to happen - for the EU it is the sanctity of the Single Market, but for the UK it is the continuity of the union which is at stake.

I would suggest that the UK's solution - however unrealistic it may appear at this moment in time - is the only long term solution because it is the only one that is physically possible without starting a war. Whether the EU like it or not, Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and, once we have left the EU, the EU have no legal rights when it comes to how NI is governed. The EU's proposed solution - to keep NI in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves - risks Ireland returning to a state of war, and though it might be 'workable' in their estimation, I would (seriously) beg to differ - it is not only unworkable, but extremely dangerous. At least the UK's solution can become workable, even if it isn't right now.

 

[Robin]

I'd also like the Foreign Office to provide me with useful information and be able to renew my passport using the government's website given that it's 2019 but we can't always have nice things. Spoiler: It's awful.

With the 39 billion we walk away with maybe we will be able to have nice things, for one, build the best damn invisible border the world as ever seen!

Pre-clearance works with physical intervention, it isn't a technological solution and never was. The goods still need to be looked at. The idea of a technology-driven border is pie in the sky.

ANPR will tell the computer if the plate matches the vehicle and if the insurance details (roughly) match the driver. It won't tell you how many tax-free ciggies are stuffed in the spare wheel or how many tons of undeclared tech goods are piled behind the lemon crates.

But pre-clearance keeps the process away from the actual border, out in fields and on rural roads where potentially bad things can happen. Doing it in a secure warehouse or facility at a port along with all the other stuff coming into the country goes a long way to giving the impression of no border which is in reality what its all about. Once the load is locked up on departure its not hard to monitor it till it gets to its destination with technology.

Also given the Irish don't want a physical border as much as the UK doesn't want one whats to say they wouldn't WANT to make it work? I think the idea that people are just chomping at the bit to either cause trouble or smuggle like there's no tomorrow come the 29th is an over exaggeration in my opinion because it's to neither countries benefit. Currently there is just as much casual smuggling going on with no border, just because we are all part of the EU doesn't mean people aren't taking more then they are allowed to back and forth across countries, we can't go exactly go to Calais and have our fill either.

 

[Liquid]

With the 39 billion we walk away with maybe we will be able to have nice things, for one, build the best damn invisible border the world as ever seen!

Call me perpetually cynical but...

 

[eran0004]

Does this part of that article:

suggest that leaving the EU would be a breach of the good friday agreement?

Well, probably so if the border situation can’t be resolved.

 

[DK]

So...who's going to break the news about that £39bn?

 

[polysmut]

Well, probably so if the border situation can’t be resolved.

Even before looking at the border issue, the part that says "and as partners in the European Union" seems a bit like saying that both nations must remain members. It's a bit of a reach, probably.

 

[eran0004]

Even before looking at the border issue, the part that says "and as partners in the European Union" seems a bit like saying that both nations must remain members. It's a bit of a reach, probably.

That part is actually from the introduction, talking about why they have made the agreement:

[quoteish]...as good neighbours and partners of the European Union we have made the following agreement...[/quoteish]

So it’s probably not a requirement to stay in the EU.

 

[TenEightyOne]

With the 39 billion we walk away with maybe we will be able to have nice things, for one, build the best damn invisible border the world as ever seen!

I thought that was the "divorce bill"?

 

[Robin]

I thought that was the "divorce bill"?

Only if we do a deal with them, if we don't we can keep it.

 

[polysmut]

That part is actually from the introduction, talking about why they have made the agreement:

[quoteish]...as good neighbours and partners of the European Union we have made the following agreement...[/quoteish]

So it’s probably not a requirement to stay in the EU.

I've never read the whole of the good friday agreement, your explanation clears up my question. Thanks.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Seems like it doesn't.



There are two alternatives to the backstop:

1. A trade agreement between the EU and the UK that makes a hard border unnecessary.
2. A hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Leaving with the negotiated deal gives option 1 or the backstop.
Leaving without a deal gives option 1 or 2.

What other options are there, realistically?

Hard brexit. No trade deal. No hard border, because there will never be a hard border, deal with it EU. Oh look no trade deal but total access to the EU via the "there is no border place"

Guess what? That will happen under no deal. The EU haven't realised it though. It's so funny that it almost makes me want hard brexit just so I can have a good laugh. No quite enough though.

 

[DK]

Only if we do a deal with them, if we don't we can keep it.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll inspire a lot of trust in prospective trading partners.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hard brexit. No trade deal. No hard border, because there will never be a hard border, deal with it EU. Oh look no trade deal but total access to the EU via the "there is no border place"

Guess what? That will happen under no deal. The EU haven't realised it though. It's so funny that it almost makes me want hard brexit just so I can have a good laugh. No quite enough though.

You speak as if a "no-deal" scenario would mean we carry on exactly as before and trade to Europe. It doesn't, far from it. Businesses would be subject to tariffs that could be agreed ad hoc and certainly wouldn't be as favourable (not even close) to the the shared tariff that EU member states enjoy. Product being sold into the EU would remain subject to EU standards (which we'd no longer have any say in creating) and product being bought from the EU would arrive at an increased cost to the economy (customs checks et al, however they're done) and at an increased cost to the final buyer.

If you look at the increase in the cost of imported food over the last few years that was caused by rising fuel prices you can see how a "small" fluctuation in delivery cost is magnified on the shelf. And this won't be a small fluctuation.

 

[Liquid]

Product being sold into the EU would remain subject to EU standards (which we'd no longer have any say in creating)

I think that's a very good point and one which hasn't been discussed in any significant capacity. To walk away from being able to create unified product standards is really going to give EU manufacturers significant leverage over UK manufacturers.

The irony of that being that leaving the EU is going to see them have more "control" over what the UK is able to do when trading.

 

[Tired Tyres]

You speak as if a "no-deal" scenario would mean we carry on exactly as before and trade to Europe. It doesn't, far from it. Businesses would be subject to tariffs that could be agreed ad hoc and certainly wouldn't be as favourable (not even close) to the the shared tariff that EU member states enjoy. Product being sold into the EU would remain subject to EU standards (which we'd no longer have any say in creating) and product being bought from the EU would arrive at an increased cost to the economy (customs checks et al, however they're done) and at an increased cost to the final buyer.

If you look at the increase in the cost of imported food over the last few years that was caused by rising fuel prices you can see how a "small" fluctuation in delivery cost is magnified on the shelf. And this won't be a small fluctuation.

Is it too early for you to work out I wasn't being serious?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is it too early for you to work out I wasn't being serious?

No! I mean... yes. Or so I see now

 

[eran0004]

Hard brexit. No trade deal. No hard border, because there will never be a hard border, deal with it EU. Oh look no trade deal but total access to the EU via the "there is no border place"

Guess what? That will happen under no deal. The EU haven't realised it though. It's so funny that it almost makes me want hard brexit just so I can have a good laugh. No quite enough though.

Why would there never be a hard border?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Why would there never be a hard border?

Are you aware of the history of Northern Ireland? There is not a snowball in hell's chance that Britain, Ireland or Northern Ireland will ever go back to that.

 

[eran0004]

Are you aware of the history of Northern Ireland? There is not a snowball in hell's chance that Britain, Ireland or Northern Ireland will ever go back to that.

So why did the UK decide to leave the EU without considering the consequences?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So why did the UK decide to leave the EU without considering the consequences?

Two countries (Northern Ireland and Scotland) voted to remain.

Why would there never be a hard border?

Last week's terrorist bomb is a good indicator of why we don't want to go back to that.

 

[UKMikey]

Last week's terrorist bomb is a good indicator of why we don't want to go back to that.

 

[eran0004]

Two countries (Northern Ireland and Scotland) voted to remain.

And the UK voted to leave.

Last week's terrorist bomb is a good indicator of why we don't want to go back to that.

Of course nobody wants to go back to that. The problem is that in order to prevent it, a decision has to be made about how to deal with the border to Ireland. Nobody knows how to solve the problem, and the parliament had a choice:

1. Solve it in some way, and if we can’t find a solution we have the backstop to prevent disaster.

2. Solve it in some way, but without the backstop.

They chose option two and now they’re relying on someone somewhere to find some kind of solution, because otherwise they’re in a very tricky situation.

 

[Touring Mars]

The pro-Brexit MP Liam Fox is right in that the Irish border problem cannot be resolved until a trade deal has been signed. Unfortunately, the Article 50 process as defined by the EU has made that impossible and thus the Irish border problem has become a major barrier to Brexit... little wonder, though, that the EU's preferred solution is for either NI to be split permanently from the UK or for the abandonment of Brexit altogether. Their 'compromise' position - as per the Withdrawal Agreement - is to keep the UK bound to EU law indefinitely but with no say in making those laws. It should come as no surprise why none of those options are acceptable, but esp. when one considers that there are so many other possibilities - but the EU will only consider options that punish the UK.