Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Thrugelmir

Wenlock wrote: »

Surely it is now time to stop kicking the can down the road and accept we can’t agree a deal. Move to an “orderly no deal”

We haven't reached the cut-off date yet. While there's time there's hope. I'm not a May fan. However she has conducted herself with dignity. Without any doubt a tough cookie and one suspects a hell of a negotiator in her own right. Whose memoirs are going to make fascinating reading. As there's a strategy behind her gameplan.

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What type of border do you envisage?

I would imagine something like between Norway and Sweden, where most people don’t even have to stop, but trucks do custom paperwork etc

Herzlos

andrewf75 wrote: »

I would imagine something like between Norway and Sweden, where most people don’t even have to stop, but trucks do custom paperwork etc

Good Friday Agreement says no. You can't hinder or discriminate against anyone in their business crossing the border. Commercial vehicles would be included in that. You may get away with it if you only stop non-Eire/NI commercial vehicles, but that'd be pretty dodgy ground, and you'd need infrastructure to do so.


You could *maybe* get away with a pure monitoring solution, like CCTV at the border, to apply checks on the NI/UK ferry for vehicles that originated in Eire, but it'd be expensive and so easy to abuse that it'd be pointless. It might keep the Brexiteers happy though?


A no deal brexit means we absolutely need a border for goods and people, because there would be no reciprocal agreement regarding any person/good entering the UK Vs EU. We could maybe get away with it until regulations diverge (such as us dropping food standard for a US/Australia deal).
Of course, it'd be the EU that'd insist on this border so we'd be able to blame them for making us violate the GFA. But that's akin to us blaming our neighbor for putting up a fence because our dog keeps crapping on side of the lawn; we'd get to feel some moral superiority but no-one would believe we were hard done by.

cogito

Let me get this right. The EU want to put the border in the Irish Sea to avoid conflict with the GFA.

If we don't agree to a border in the Irish Sea, the EU will create one along the existing border, thus conflicting with the GFA. Am I missing something?

Incidentally, it is illegal for Northern Ireland to be in a CU without the rest of the UK.

Moby

Herzlos wrote: »

Good Friday Agreement says no. You can't hinder or discriminate against anyone in their business crossing the border. Commercial vehicles would be included in that. You may get away with it if you only stop non-Eire/NI commercial vehicles, but that'd be pretty dodgy ground, and you'd need infrastructure to do so.


You could *maybe* get away with a pure monitoring solution, like CCTV at the border, to apply checks on the NI/UK ferry for vehicles that originated in Eire, but it'd be expensive and so easy to abuse that it'd be pointless. It might keep the Brexiteers happy though?


A no deal brexit means we absolutely need a border for goods and people, because there would be no reciprocal agreement regarding any person/good entering the UK Vs EU. We could maybe get away with it until regulations diverge (such as us dropping food standard for a US/Australia deal).
Of course, it'd be the EU that'd insist on this border so we'd be able to blame them for making us violate the GFA. But that's akin to us blaming our neighbor for putting up a fence because our dog keeps crapping on side of the lawn; we'd get to feel some moral superiority but no-one would believe we were hard done by.

About sums it up and of course the 'brilliant negotiator' :rotfl: May signed up to the backstop last December. Of course like I've said many times those who voted brexit fully considered the implications for the Irish border;)

andrewf75

Herzlos wrote: »

Good Friday Agreement says no.

I’m not arguing the case for it, just saying *if* we don’t reach a deal that’s how I imagine it ending up. Clearly the Good Friday agreement will have to be amended.

Filo25

cogito wrote: »

Let me get this right. The EU want to put the border in the Irish Sea to avoid conflict with the GFA.

If we don't agree to a border in the Irish Sea, the EU will create one along the existing border, thus conflicting with the GFA. Am I missing something?

Incidentally, it is illegal for Northern Ireland to be in a CU without the rest of the UK.

For all the nonsense talked by our politicians I am pretty sure if we leave on no deal terms and try to just trade under WTO rules we are not allowed to just ignore the border with Ireland and put more favourable trade terms there than we have across our other external borders.

Filo25

andrewf75 wrote: »

I’m not arguing the case for it, just saying *if* we don’t reach a deal that’s how I imagine it ending up. Clearly the Good Friday agreement will have to be amended.

What is in it for the nationalist community in NI and the Republic to "amend" the GFA to move Ireland and NI further apart (at a time when power sharing isn't even working)?

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

I would imagine something like between Norway and Sweden, where most people don’t even have to stop, but trucks do custom paperwork etc

The terrain is somewhat different.

There's 80 crossing points on the Norway \ Sweden border.

Over 3,000 in Ireland in comparison. Some roads winds in and out of both countries. Villages are divided by the border. There's even a farm where the border runs through the middle of the farmyard.

As majority of Norweigians live on the coast. The Hurtigruten cruise ships double up as freight carriers. Driving in Norway any distance isn't easy that I can assure you.

Herzlos

The only 3 realistic ways to deal with the Irish border are:
1. Modify the GFA to remove the clauses about border movement. This will likely involve reignite the "troubles" and cause a serious mess over there; we'd need to be very careful about being heavy handed with the army or problems spilling back over onto the mainland.
or
2. Remain in some union which allows there to be no border. This would upset somewhere between 0-17,400,000 leavers.

or
3. Irish reunification. The Unionists would never stand for it, and we happen to have a Unionist party participating in a supply & demand deal with the Tories. May would also go down in history as the PM who started the breakup of the UK.

I don't really care which one we go for, but we need to accept that is the reality and tell someone the bad news. We're getting nowhere pretending that we can somehow get an open border without the appropriate legislative union.


Personally I think the best way forward is to hold a referendum in NI about re-unification. If they want to rejoin Eire and the EU it solves all of the logistical problems. It will involve May telling Foster to sod off, though, and hoping she can scratch some majority elsewhere.

cogito wrote: »

Let me get this right. The EU want to put the border in the Irish Sea to avoid conflict with the GFA.

If we don't agree to a border in the Irish Sea, the EU will create one along the existing border, thus conflicting with the GFA. Am I missing something?

You're correct. Both sides have suggested moving the border to the sea, something that is OK with the GFA but not OK for the unionists (like the DUP).
I'm not sure the EU signed up to the GFA, so I'm not sure if they'd have any direct responsibility for violating it. Not that it'd be them violating it - they'd erect the infrastructure (as required by the WTO I believe), but it'd be the UK that caused the violation.

Incidentally, it is illegal for Northern Ireland to be in a CU without the rest of the UK.

Is it?