Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

I would acknowledge them if I knew what they were. Please share.

They've been covered many times and ignored.


Off the top of my head: the ability for EU nations to kick out people who aren't self sufficient.
There are also rules being formed (or recently in place) to prevent companies working across a border whilst not paying the minimum wage for the country - for instance haulage companies having drivers from a cheap Eastern country doing all of the driving in a more expensive company.

The other sentence sums up everything you know about the GFA.

I can at least admit that I don't know everything. Since you're presumably the expert, you can correct me where I'm wrong with some concrete examples?

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Herzlos wrote: »

can you prove that the GFA would allow a hard border?

Errr... you are the one that claimed a border would trash the GFA

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm really not interested in the individual instance of abuse. Take the minicab example.

But you should be, because you can only act on the individual example.

But it is possible to track the growth in number of minicabs/number of passengers using technology.

But that won't show you that (a) there's any abuse or (b) which ones are doing the abuse.

In one of our shopping malls, we track the numbers of bags people carry between stores; the labels on the bags; how full the bags are; all using cameras. That technology exists right now.

I don't dispute the technology exists - we also have pretty good facial recognition software that can track a person about a shopping/population centre. But we don't have a legal framework that prevents it unlike the Eire/NI border.


We could easily detect and prevent all of the smuggling, but I don't see a way to do so that doesn't violate the GFA. Which is why I think the only options are to ditch the GFA or to re-unify Ireland.

Herzlos

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Errr... you are the one that claimed a border would trash the GFA

I did, and I can point you to literally hundreds of sources confirming that (but without an obvious link back to the GFA itself), including our own government and the EU. I can't find any that prove it wouldn't be either. So I need to take the balance of the evidence I have time to digest and stand behind the claim that a border would trash the GFA, even if I can't point to the sentence in the GFA that confirms it. Dodgy, sure, but people voted Leave on dodgier grounds than that :beer:

kabayiri

A frictionless border is not necessarily a border with zero controls.

Remember that both NI and Eire want the border to continue working as it does today, else both economies will suffer.

There should be a desire to self-police, to some extent, and prevent any overt abuse.

Sadly, the UK government could have been proactive in this area, and have instead been reacting to the EU.

I watched the meeting between JRM and Verhofstadt where JRM tried to probe on how the hard border would arise, but our EU friend got prickly and defensive very quickly. It's clearly political.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Herzlos wrote: »

I did, and I can point you to literally hundreds of sources confirming that (but without an obvious link back to the GFA itself), including our own government and the EU.

"but without an obvious link back to the GFA itself" - it's almost as if they are making it up to suit their agenda

Moby

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

"but without an obvious link back to the GFA itself" - it's almost as if they are making it up to suit their agenda

There is no explicit statement re. 'no hard border' in the GFA but strand two of the agreement says:-


'the North-South Ministerial Council, which promotes all-island cooperation, will “consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes…”


Then last December 8th May agreed to no hard border:-


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/08/main-points-of-agreement-uk-eu-brexit-deal


The problem we have is that May signed up to an agreement that she cannot get her party to agree to:-
Irish border

• The agreement promises to ensure there will be no hard border and to uphold the Belfast agreement.
• It makes clear the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, will be leaving the customs union.
• It leaves unclear how an open border will be achieved but says in the absence of a later agreement, the UK will ensure “full alignment” with the rules of the customs union and single market that uphold the Good Friday agreement.
• However, the concession secured by the DUP is that no new regulatory barriers will be allowed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK without the permission of Stormont in the interest of upholding the Good Friday agreement

The Labour Party realised the above and changed its policy to say the UK would stay in a Customs Union in February this year, (Corbyn's speech in Coventry):-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/the-guardian-view-on-labours-custom-union-plan-realistic-and-smart


The position is May has agreed there will be no hard border and she agreed to 'full alignment' with the rules of the Customs Union in the absence of a trade treaty while also saying we will leave the CU. Unsuprisingly the EU and Eire want an insurance policy to guarantee this because as yet no trade deal is agreed! That insurance policy is therefore the backstop and is permanent in the absence of a new trade deal as far as the EU and Ireland are concerned. The British Govmt in order to appease their loons https://standup4brexit.com/ want a time limit on it or place in a clause that we can withdraw from this insurance policy as and when we choose to. Neither the EU or Eire will agree to that.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-updates-latest-theresa-may-dominic-raab-irish-backstop-border-a8618036.html

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I did, and I can point you to literally hundreds of sources confirming that (but without an obvious link back to the GFA itself), including our own government and the EU. I can't find any that prove it wouldn't be either. So I need to take the balance of the evidence I have time to digest and stand behind the claim that a border would trash the GFA, even if I can't point to the sentence in the GFA that confirms it. Dodgy, sure, but people voted Leave on dodgier grounds than that :beer:

Well, here's a copy of the GFA:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

When you've read it, come back and show us where it supports your claims. Remember the maxim that if it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

Lungboy

Afaik, there's nothing in the GFA that says a border would violate the GFA. Unfortunately, May thinks there is and has said as much. Indeed, our Parliament signed into law with the European Withdrawal Bill that there will not be a hard border which made it illegal for any “physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls”.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Lungboy wrote: »

Indeed, our Parliament signed into law with the European Withdrawal Bill that there will not be a hard border which made it illegal for any “physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls”.

Where does the Act state that such infrastructure would be illegal?