That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
If the EU really wanted to make things difficult they could have done a heck of a lot more. All they've done is apply the law, and even been generous with things like letting the "deal" take effect before it has been through the approval process. They could have said "we'll implement the trade deal once it is fully approved, including waiting until it's been through the legislature in Wallonia and it's been signed with a different pen for every member state".
The best solution would have been for the EU to allow the same free movement on the Island and between the rest of the British Isles which existed before the two countries joined the EU
You're saying that the EU ought to throw Ireland out. Does Ireland get to have an opinion on this?
I didn't say that.
The choice for the UK to leave the Customs Union was the UK government's. It should pick up the pieces rather than expect the Irish to do so.
I am saying that the EU should be less precious about their rules and start being flexible if they are genuinely serious about the Good Friday agreement
Just so I’m clear. There will be no passing of the buck from the UK to the Republic. We on the border will not facilitate any new restriction of our hard won liberties. The UK Government chose this mess. It is up to them to solve it. Not us.
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
So, your recommendation is that to solve a problem created by the UK government the EU should tear up the treaties that define the Customs Union and Single Market.
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
No controls either on land or in the sea.
Where would you have the controls instead?
How would you ensure that tariffs are being properly applied, and that goods entering the common market meet common market standards?
The EU doesn't get to rewrite WTO rules on a whim. That's not how massive international treaties work.
Conveniently, the WTO rules do have a mechanism under which the EU and the UK could agree on an exception. It involves the EU and the UK signing a trade treaty - you know, rather like the one we used to be in as part of the EU, and decided not to negotiate for as part of leaving the EU.
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
You implied them. You wrote:
The best solution would have been for the EU to allow the same free movement on the Island and between the rest of the British Isles which existed before the two countries joined the EU
That is effectively impossible without either Ireland leaving the EU or the EU letting Britain dictate the rules to it, or Britain rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union. And now you're saying that the EU should abandon border controls, which is impossible without the UK dictating rules to the EU.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave [/quote]No, it isn't.
First, you claimed that the EU is being precious about its rules.
Then, you claimed that the EU is trying to break up the United Kingdom.
Now you're claiming that the EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK - but the EU is doing nothing that you can actually object to.
This Guardian story may be of interest; it suggests that the paramilitary organizations aren't directly involved in the recent violence.
That's really interesting. I don't know if that's a good sign or a bad sign! Good because the paras are apparently not taking advantage of the situation or bad because it indicates how genuine the unrest over Brexit is, if it's not after all being incited and fuelled by organised Loyalist groups.
This Guardian story may be of interest; it suggests that the paramilitary organizations aren't directly involved in the recent violence.
That's really interesting. I don't know if that's a good sign or a bad sign! Good because the paras are apparently not taking advantage of the situation or bad because it indicates how genuine the unrest over Brexit is, if it's not after all being incited and fuelled by organised Loyalist groups.
Hay ho!
I read that and thought: "OH, YEAH?" as the Private Eye feature has it.
The PSNI statement appears to be carefully worded. "Not organised by a group, in the name of that group", hmmm? "We don't believe it's been sanctioned and organised by prescribed organisations for peaceful protests", eh?
(Actually this is a case in which the fabled Grauniad bad spelling may make a lot of difference. Do they mean 'prescribed' or 'proscribed'?)
I think that the PSNI are (probably wisely) exercising a bit of "selective blindness" in order to give loyalist organisations some wiggle room to back down without loss of face. They're essentially saying: "Well, if the 'Loyalist Command Commitee' say 'Nothing to do with our lot, guv!' I guess that's good enough for us!". It may work; I hope it does.
So, your recommendation is that to solve a problem created by the UK government the EU should tear up the treaties that define the Customs Union and Single Market.
Actually I would like us to be in those two institutions. I alwasy wanted a very soft brexit.
But actually I believe in worldwide free trade without any protectionism
@Telford, you don't seem to acknowledge that the situation is the result of 2 things, neither of which the EU is responsible for.
1. The Good Friday agreement, which prevents placing controls at the Republic of Ireland border with Northern Ireland.
2. The UK's refusal to have the soft Brexit that you yourself seem keen on.
Blaming the EU for these things is just silly. There's no evidence the EU was against a softer Brexit, given the arrangements the EU manages with other non-EU countries in Europe.
@Telford, you don't seem to acknowledge that the situation is the result of 2 things, neither of which the EU is responsible for.
1. The Good Friday agreement, which prevents placing controls at the Republic of Ireland border with Northern Ireland.
2. The UK's refusal to have the soft Brexit that you yourself seem keen on.
Blaming the EU for these things is just silly. There's no evidence the EU was against a softer Brexit, given the arrangements the EU manages with other non-EU countries in Europe.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
Travel is people. We're not actually talking about the movement of people.
@Telford, you don't seem to acknowledge that the situation is the result of 2 things, neither of which the EU is responsible for.
1. The Good Friday agreement, which prevents placing controls at the Republic of Ireland border with Northern Ireland.
2. The UK's refusal to have the soft Brexit that you yourself seem keen on.
Blaming the EU for these things is just silly. There's no evidence the EU was against a softer Brexit, given the arrangements the EU manages with other non-EU countries in Europe.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
No, the position of the EU is that the GFA is an international treaty binding on the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as are the various EU treaties between their member states, and that whatever new treaty the UK wants must respect those existing agreements. The UK was offered a solution that didn't involve customs checks but refused it. The UK government made the bed, they can't blame others that they now have to lie in it.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
That should, of course, be within its borders, but that's not the only mistake you've made.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
No, there were always customs checks after Irish independence and even after EEC membership. See this article.
Highlights:
“Drivers were required to have a pass book stamped on crossing the border either way and to either do so during daytime hours or pay to cross and be officially stamped back across the border at a specified requested time.” Drivers who did not have their car pass stamped while going back across the border risked having their vehicle confiscated.
...
Higher export tariffs and import quotas had its impact on cross-border trade. Livestock could only cross the border between certain hours.
...
At the time of partition, cross border train journeys got interrupted for the investigation of goods, but the railway network as such remained intact. However, the conditions involving the customs system put difficulties to keep running all services. During the late 1950s, the UK government decided to close all but one railway services crossing the border (see video). Only the train line connecting Dublin and Belfast survived.
...
EEC membership brought back a return to free trade in manufactured goods for the whole island of Ireland. However, this was not the case for agricultural products, meaning that customs stations needed to remain in place.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
The situation before the UK joined the EEC/EU was also before Ireland joined the EEC/EU - the only way to return to those arrangements would be for Ireland to also leave the EU.
And, as noted by @orfeo there was free movement of people, but that didn't extend to goods. Even while both nations were in the EU there were border posts and checks until the GFA was negotiated. One of the key points of the GFA was that the border checks would be removed, so now that the UK has left the EU (with Ireland still a member of the EU) those border checks should have been re-instated - just as they are on goods travelling between the UK and the rest of the EU through Channel and North Sea ports. To maintain the status of the GFA the EU fudged the question of whether NI is a third nation, effectively treating NI as a nation within the CU and SM even though it's part of a nation that's outwith both those. For that to work, goods from outwith NI would need to undergo the necessary checks that apply to all goods entering the EU from a nation outwith the SM and CU.
Brexit only left three options for the UK government (with some minor variations on these):
1. for the whole of the UK to remain within the CU and SM
2. for the whole of the UK to leave the CU and SM, creating a border in Ireland and scrapping the GFA
3. for a fudge with NI within the CU and SM, the rest of the UK outside that, with a border in the Irish Sea
The UK government decided against option 1 (despite that being what many in the Leave campaign claimed would be the outcome of leaving the EU) as a result of an ideological lunacy that was almost as daft as leaving the EU in the first place. Option 2 was never realistic, it would make negotiating a trade deal with the EU and other nations around the world almost impossible. So, we're left with option 3 ... entirely because of the UK government decision and a vote in March 2017 by MPs almost entirely elected on a manifesto of maintaining EU membership (it's possible to read the Conservative manifesto as cool on that, but retaining SM and CU membership would still be a significant part of the manifesto).
An accurate translation of Telford's position is: We don't give a flying fuck about Ireland, north or south. If they want to get it the way of what I want Britain to do, they can go and get fucked. It's not my problem.
There is very little difference between Telford's position and that of a lager lout rioting in the Netherlands.
This Guardian story may be of interest; it suggests that the paramilitary organizations aren't directly involved in the recent violence.
To what extent are the Northern Ireland police a reliable source of information? Are they seen as neutral? Are they themselves more likely to be members of a particular sectarian community?
Speaking as someone who is British, but has never been to NI or Ireland, and whose childhood took place during the troubles (I think I went to uni in the year of the good Friday agreement); I get the history to a certain extent. But I don’t really get what is at stake for unionists & nationalists now, as opposed to 50 years ago.
There used to be legal discrimination against Catholics built into the U.K. constitution - but there is not now and Britain is a much more secular state and heading ever further in that direction. Likewise, Ireland used to be heavily Catholic and socially conservative with a lot of church involvement in a lot of public life - but that doesn’t really seem to be the case to anything like the same extent now. Again, the country is more secular than it was and getting more so.
I don’t get (other than Brexit related bobbins of recent implementation) what it is unionists fear would happen to them if re-unification happened, what they fear to lose. I can see the nationalist argument more strongly because of historical colonisation but also because NI would be a much bigger proportion of a United Ireland than it is of the U.K. so I’d anticipate that national government would more closely reflect its interests.
I don’t get (other than Brexit related bobbins of recent implementation) what it is unionists fear would happen to them if re-unification happened, what they fear to lose. I can see the nationalist argument more strongly because of historical colonisation but also because NI would be a much bigger proportion of a United Ireland than it is of the U.K. so I’d anticipate that national government would more closely reflect its interests.
Well, I'm just kinda speculating here, but the mere fact that there IS sectarian-violence in N. Ireland might give unionists reason(at least within their own worldview) to believe that unification would tip the balance in favour of their republican nemeses.
Right now, if republicans attack unionists, the unionists know that the British government will take at least cursory measures to protect them. But they might imagine that, under Dublin's rule, the government won't care about protecting unionists, maybe allow the IRA to run rampant, or even give them support.
Of course, you could argue that the reason unionists are sometimes attacked by republicans is because they insist on behaving like such shitheads to the Catholics in Ulster. Though the unionists would probably reply that the reason they wail on the Catholics is because the Catholics are trying to force republicanism on them, and the whole thing argument basically ends up as as one big chicken-and-egg.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
No, there were always customs checks after Irish independence and even after EEC membership. See this article.
Used to listen to some very interesting anecdotes of cross-border smuggling from the older folks of the family. The favourite story - maybe from the 50's? - was the purchase of an expensive ring in the South and concealed in a large pat of butter, in case border guards discovered it, and in order to avoid paying duty on it.
Turned out the butter itself was in excess of permitted limits and guess which half of the pat was removed by the guards before allowing the traveller to make his onward journey into the North!
Cross border travel was always under heavily armed supervision so far as I can remember it, until the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps by then, things weren't quite so stringent. I wasn't living in Ireland, then. I had left in 1988 when security was still very tight. But during the 2000s I've never gotten over the novelty of being able to cross from the Republic into the North without having to slow down or look out for security checks. It always felt like I was doing something naughty!
I think Dublin would bend over backwards to protect unionists in a united Ireland; and for it to happen, there would be built in safeguards for them. However, it's too soon right now, and Brexit has probably made unionists more wary. Of course, there has always been the narrative that Dublin is very happy not to have a united Ireland. The security implications alone would be mind-boggling. But then the GFA was working, until Brexit. You could feel Irish or British, within N. Ireland. I have a bad feeling now.
I think Dublin would bend over backwards to protect unionists in a united Ireland; and for it to happen, there would be built in safeguards for them.
I'm sure that's all true. But it's also kinda sorta maybe understandable that unionists wouldn't see it playing out that way.
I suppose someone might point out to them that prots in the Republic are not currently being hung from lampposts. Though the unionists might imagine their situation to be a little more precarious than their co-religionists in the south.
The best solution would have been for the EU to allow the same free movement on the Island and between the rest of the British Isles which existed before the two countries joined the EU
You're saying that the EU ought to throw Ireland out. Does Ireland get to have an opinion on this?
I didn't say that.
The choice for the UK to leave the Customs Union was the UK government's. It should pick up the pieces rather than expect the Irish to do so.
I am saying that the EU should be less precious about their rules and start being flexible if they are genuinely serious about the Good Friday agreement
Ah, so you're actually saying the EU should allow itself to be blackmailed into breaking up its founding principles rather than the UK take some responsibility for one of its own constituent nations.
Not at all. They should stop trying to break up toe UK
Please explain exactly how the EU is trying to break up the UK.
Ttying to create conditions which result in a united Ireland.
@Telford said (I spare you all the previous stuff): I answered you at 6.15pm.
You made an answer, but you still have not enumerated the ways in which the EU is trying to create a united Ireland.
However, the thread has moved on (I think), so perhaps it's best forgotten. From other posts, you seem to have no real idea of what's happening, anyway.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
Which of the following do you disagree with?
1) The Good Friday Agreement requires the UK and Ireland to keep borders open without custom checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
2) UK has left the Customs Union and forced the EU to impose custom checks between everywhere in the EU (including the Republic of Ireland) and the mainland UK. That's what leaving the Customs Union means.
3) If the customs checks cannot happen between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland the only place left is between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
You need to either complain at Johnson and May for leaving the Customs Union, or else stop being precious about the UK's right to be an independent country freely moving goods around within its borders.
The Rejoin the EU crowd all opt to complain about leaving the Customs Union. That's the thing that's gone wrong here. There isn't anything the EU can do about it. Everything else is just the logical consequence of that. You can either stop being precious or agree with us.
I think the DUP are feeling bitter with Boris, who reassured them there would be no border between NI and GB, when of course there is in commercial terms. Imagine trusting Boris! The Tories remind me of the slogan, move fast and break things.
I remember Fintan O'Toole saying that while Boris was obviously lying about Brexit and N. Ireland, he is safe, because many English people don't care. But this is part of the sense of abandonment in the unionist community, some thing which is dangerous for Ireland as a whole, and probably the UK.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
The Common Travel Area is the reason the Ireland isn't in Schengen, because the two treaties aren't compatible. The CTA says "free travel between UK and Ireland, both countries will maintain exterior border". Schengen says "free travel within the Schengen area, countries will maintain exterior border". Ireland couldn't join Schengen without the UK, without withdrawing from the CTA.
You might consider the parallels with the movement of goods, and the terms of the Good Friday agreement and the EU treaties, and consider that the UK government rather screwed this one up.
The Guardian's take on loyalist motivations can be found here. Fairly close to the mark I think though of course the newspaper is generally out of sympathy with unionism.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
That should, of course, be within its borders, but that's not the only mistake you've made.
I typed it as within the borders of it. it being the UK
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
The situation before the UK joined the EEC/EU was also before Ireland joined the EEC/EU - the only way to return to those arrangements would be for Ireland to also leave the EU.
And, as noted by @orfeo there was free movement of people, but that didn't extend to goods. Even while both nations were in the EU there were border posts and checks until the GFA was negotiated. One of the key points of the GFA was that the border checks would be removed, so now that the UK has left the EU (with Ireland still a member of the EU) those border checks should have been re-instated - just as they are on goods travelling between the UK and the rest of the EU through Channel and North Sea ports. To maintain the status of the GFA the EU fudged the question of whether NI is a third nation, effectively treating NI as a nation within the CU and SM even though it's part of a nation that's outwith both those. For that to work, goods from outwith NI would need to undergo the necessary checks that apply to all goods entering the EU from a nation outwith the SM and CU.
Brexit only left three options for the UK government (with some minor variations on these):
1. for the whole of the UK to remain within the CU and SM
2. for the whole of the UK to leave the CU and SM, creating a border in Ireland and scrapping the GFA
3. for a fudge with NI within the CU and SM, the rest of the UK outside that, with a border in the Irish Sea
The UK government decided against option 1 (despite that being what many in the Leave campaign claimed would be the outcome of leaving the EU) as a result of an ideological lunacy that was almost as daft as leaving the EU in the first place. Option 2 was never realistic, it would make negotiating a trade deal with the EU and other nations around the world almost impossible. So, we're left with option 3 ... entirely because of the UK government decision and a vote in March 2017 by MPs almost entirely elected on a manifesto of maintaining EU membership (it's possible to read the Conservative manifesto as cool on that, but retaining SM and CU membership would still be a significant part of the manifesto).
An accurate translation of Telford's position is: We don't give a flying fuck about Ireland, north or south. If they want to get it the way of what I want Britain to do, they can go and get fucked. It's not my problem.
There is very little difference between Telford's position and that of a lager lout rioting in the Netherlands.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
The Common Travel Area is the reason the Ireland isn't in Schengen, because the two treaties aren't compatible. The CTA says "free travel between UK and Ireland, both countries will maintain exterior border". Schengen says "free travel within the Schengen area, countries will maintain exterior border". Ireland couldn't join Schengen without the UK, without withdrawing from the CTA.
You might consider the parallels with the movement of goods, and the terms of the Good Friday agreement and the EU treaties, and consider that the UK government rather screwed this one up.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
Which of the following do you disagree with?
1) The Good Friday Agreement requires the UK and Ireland to keep borders open without custom checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
2) UK has left the Customs Union and forced the EU to impose custom checks between everywhere in the EU (including the Republic of Ireland) and the mainland UK. That's what leaving the Customs Union means.
3) If the customs checks cannot happen between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland the only place left is between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
You need to either complain at Johnson and May for leaving the Customs Union, or else stop being precious about the UK's right to be an independent country freely moving goods around within its borders.
The Rejoin the EU crowd all opt to complain about leaving the Customs Union. That's the thing that's gone wrong here. There isn't anything the EU can do about it. Everything else is just the logical consequence of that. You can either stop being precious or agree with us.
The situation that we have and the situation that I would like us to have are two different things
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
That should, of course, be within its borders, but that's not the only mistake you've made.
I typed it as within the borders of it. it being the UK
I think the point of pedantry here may be that the possessive "its" does not take an apostrophe. Illogical it is but that is the rule.
FWIW I think it's possible, in principle, that you could have two different customs regimes which are policed somewhere other than the border, making border controls unnecessary.
The problem is that the system is not currently set up to work that way, and you can't just magic a new way of doing things in a few months.
Like @orfeo I think May's deal would have avoided the problem, by in effect delaying the separation until such time as a technical solution is found (or until everyone decides they don't care). But May's deal was sabotaged by idiot backbenchers who avoid any responsibility for government but nevertheless feel absolutely entitled to tell the prime minister what she can do. I imagine they had nannies to make their beds for them too.
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
No controls either on land or in the sea.
Should they do that for every other non-member country?
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
No controls either on land or in the sea.
Should they do that for every other non-member country?
That's a bit rich. You've just said that either Ireland should leave the EU or the EU should let the UK dictate to it how to amend its rules. You're trying to break up the EU or tell it what to do.
I said none of those things.
The EU is not trying to break up the UK. Boris Johnson is doing that all by himself.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
No controls either on land or in the sea.
Illegal under WTO rules.
I have already said "The situation that we have and the situation that I would like us to have are two different things
Comments
If the EU really wanted to make things difficult they could have done a heck of a lot more. All they've done is apply the law, and even been generous with things like letting the "deal" take effect before it has been through the approval process. They could have said "we'll implement the trade deal once it is fully approved, including waiting until it's been through the legislature in Wallonia and it's been signed with a different pen for every member state".
Just so I’m clear. There will be no passing of the buck from the UK to the Republic. We on the border will not facilitate any new restriction of our hard won liberties. The UK Government chose this mess. It is up to them to solve it. Not us.
What specific rules do you think the EU could bend, waive, or amend to avoid the current situation?
No controls either on land or in the sea.
Where would you have the controls instead?
How would you ensure that tariffs are being properly applied, and that goods entering the common market meet common market standards?
The EU doesn't get to rewrite WTO rules on a whim. That's not how massive international treaties work.
Conveniently, the WTO rules do have a mechanism under which the EU and the UK could agree on an exception. It involves the EU and the UK signing a trade treaty - you know, rather like the one we used to be in as part of the EU, and decided not to negotiate for as part of leaving the EU.
The EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK who dared to leave [/quote]No, it isn't.
First, you claimed that the EU is being precious about its rules.
Then, you claimed that the EU is trying to break up the United Kingdom.
Now you're claiming that the EU is trying to make things as difficult as possible for the UK - but the EU is doing nothing that you can actually object to.
By the time he gets around to answering, Boris and his chums will have completed the breaking-up job all by themselves, without the help of the EU...
That's really interesting. I don't know if that's a good sign or a bad sign! Good because the paras are apparently not taking advantage of the situation or bad because it indicates how genuine the unrest over Brexit is, if it's not after all being incited and fuelled by organised Loyalist groups.
Hay ho!
I read that and thought: "OH, YEAH?" as the Private Eye feature has it.
The PSNI statement appears to be carefully worded. "Not organised by a group, in the name of that group", hmmm? "We don't believe it's been sanctioned and organised by prescribed organisations for peaceful protests", eh?
(Actually this is a case in which the fabled Grauniad bad spelling may make a lot of difference. Do they mean 'prescribed' or 'proscribed'?)
I think that the PSNI are (probably wisely) exercising a bit of "selective blindness" in order to give loyalist organisations some wiggle room to back down without loss of face. They're essentially saying: "Well, if the 'Loyalist Command Commitee' say 'Nothing to do with our lot, guv!' I guess that's good enough for us!". It may work; I hope it does.
Actually I would like us to be in those two institutions. I alwasy wanted a very soft brexit.
But actually I believe in worldwide free trade without any protectionism
I answered you at 6.15pm.
1. The Good Friday agreement, which prevents placing controls at the Republic of Ireland border with Northern Ireland.
2. The UK's refusal to have the soft Brexit that you yourself seem keen on.
Blaming the EU for these things is just silly. There's no evidence the EU was against a softer Brexit, given the arrangements the EU manages with other non-EU countries in Europe.
We have had agreements with Ireland since it gained it's independence about 100 years ago. The Good Friday agreement supports the same agreements which we had since the 1920s.
The position of the EU appears to be that the Good Friday agreement overides the right of the UK to be an independent country able to freely move goods about within it's borders.
The EU are more or less saying that they have the right to decide how independent we are.
No. You're basically trying to suggest that nothing changed when the Good Friday agreement came into force. Which is rubbish.
You've had agreements with Ireland? Not over Northern Ireland you didn't. The Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland until Good Friday.
Before we joined the EU. There was always free travel between Ireland and the UK. That's the agreement that I'm on about.
I assume that you think there was never this free travel and that's why you have said that I am talking rubbish
Travel is people. We're not actually talking about the movement of people.
No, the position of the EU is that the GFA is an international treaty binding on the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as are the various EU treaties between their member states, and that whatever new treaty the UK wants must respect those existing agreements. The UK was offered a solution that didn't involve customs checks but refused it. The UK government made the bed, they can't blame others that they now have to lie in it.
That should, of course, be within its borders, but that's not the only mistake you've made.
No, there were always customs checks after Irish independence and even after EEC membership. See this article.
Highlights:
And, as noted by @orfeo there was free movement of people, but that didn't extend to goods. Even while both nations were in the EU there were border posts and checks until the GFA was negotiated. One of the key points of the GFA was that the border checks would be removed, so now that the UK has left the EU (with Ireland still a member of the EU) those border checks should have been re-instated - just as they are on goods travelling between the UK and the rest of the EU through Channel and North Sea ports. To maintain the status of the GFA the EU fudged the question of whether NI is a third nation, effectively treating NI as a nation within the CU and SM even though it's part of a nation that's outwith both those. For that to work, goods from outwith NI would need to undergo the necessary checks that apply to all goods entering the EU from a nation outwith the SM and CU.
Brexit only left three options for the UK government (with some minor variations on these):
1. for the whole of the UK to remain within the CU and SM
2. for the whole of the UK to leave the CU and SM, creating a border in Ireland and scrapping the GFA
3. for a fudge with NI within the CU and SM, the rest of the UK outside that, with a border in the Irish Sea
The UK government decided against option 1 (despite that being what many in the Leave campaign claimed would be the outcome of leaving the EU) as a result of an ideological lunacy that was almost as daft as leaving the EU in the first place. Option 2 was never realistic, it would make negotiating a trade deal with the EU and other nations around the world almost impossible. So, we're left with option 3 ... entirely because of the UK government decision and a vote in March 2017 by MPs almost entirely elected on a manifesto of maintaining EU membership (it's possible to read the Conservative manifesto as cool on that, but retaining SM and CU membership would still be a significant part of the manifesto).
There is very little difference between Telford's position and that of a lager lout rioting in the Netherlands.
To what extent are the Northern Ireland police a reliable source of information? Are they seen as neutral? Are they themselves more likely to be members of a particular sectarian community?
There used to be legal discrimination against Catholics built into the U.K. constitution - but there is not now and Britain is a much more secular state and heading ever further in that direction. Likewise, Ireland used to be heavily Catholic and socially conservative with a lot of church involvement in a lot of public life - but that doesn’t really seem to be the case to anything like the same extent now. Again, the country is more secular than it was and getting more so.
I don’t get (other than Brexit related bobbins of recent implementation) what it is unionists fear would happen to them if re-unification happened, what they fear to lose. I can see the nationalist argument more strongly because of historical colonisation but also because NI would be a much bigger proportion of a United Ireland than it is of the U.K. so I’d anticipate that national government would more closely reflect its interests.
Well, I'm just kinda speculating here, but the mere fact that there IS sectarian-violence in N. Ireland might give unionists reason(at least within their own worldview) to believe that unification would tip the balance in favour of their republican nemeses.
Right now, if republicans attack unionists, the unionists know that the British government will take at least cursory measures to protect them. But they might imagine that, under Dublin's rule, the government won't care about protecting unionists, maybe allow the IRA to run rampant, or even give them support.
Of course, you could argue that the reason unionists are sometimes attacked by republicans is because they insist on behaving like such shitheads to the Catholics in Ulster. Though the unionists would probably reply that the reason they wail on the Catholics is because the Catholics are trying to force republicanism on them, and the whole thing argument basically ends up as as one big chicken-and-egg.
Used to listen to some very interesting anecdotes of cross-border smuggling from the older folks of the family. The favourite story - maybe from the 50's? - was the purchase of an expensive ring in the South and concealed in a large pat of butter, in case border guards discovered it, and in order to avoid paying duty on it.
Turned out the butter itself was in excess of permitted limits and guess which half of the pat was removed by the guards before allowing the traveller to make his onward journey into the North!
Cross border travel was always under heavily armed supervision so far as I can remember it, until the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps by then, things weren't quite so stringent. I wasn't living in Ireland, then. I had left in 1988 when security was still very tight. But during the 2000s I've never gotten over the novelty of being able to cross from the Republic into the North without having to slow down or look out for security checks. It always felt like I was doing something naughty!
I'm sure that's all true. But it's also kinda sorta maybe understandable that unionists wouldn't see it playing out that way.
I suppose someone might point out to them that prots in the Republic are not currently being hung from lampposts. Though the unionists might imagine their situation to be a little more precarious than their co-religionists in the south.
@Telford said (I spare you all the previous stuff):
I answered you at 6.15pm.
You made an answer, but you still have not enumerated the ways in which the EU is trying to create a united Ireland.
However, the thread has moved on (I think), so perhaps it's best forgotten. From other posts, you seem to have no real idea of what's happening, anyway.
1) The Good Friday Agreement requires the UK and Ireland to keep borders open without custom checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
2) UK has left the Customs Union and forced the EU to impose custom checks between everywhere in the EU (including the Republic of Ireland) and the mainland UK. That's what leaving the Customs Union means.
3) If the customs checks cannot happen between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland the only place left is between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
You need to either complain at Johnson and May for leaving the Customs Union, or else stop being precious about the UK's right to be an independent country freely moving goods around within its borders.
The Rejoin the EU crowd all opt to complain about leaving the Customs Union. That's the thing that's gone wrong here. There isn't anything the EU can do about it. Everything else is just the logical consequence of that. You can either stop being precious or agree with us.
Which was a key factor in MPs who wanted a harder Brexit voting against her deal.
Or, as someone else* put it, if you lie down with Dogs, you arise with Fleas.
*Seneca, John Webster, or Benjamin Franklin - take your pick!
I wouldn't class either the DUP or the Tories as *good Doggies*...
The Common Travel Area is the reason the Ireland isn't in Schengen, because the two treaties aren't compatible. The CTA says "free travel between UK and Ireland, both countries will maintain exterior border". Schengen says "free travel within the Schengen area, countries will maintain exterior border". Ireland couldn't join Schengen without the UK, without withdrawing from the CTA.
You might consider the parallels with the movement of goods, and the terms of the Good Friday agreement and the EU treaties, and consider that the UK government rather screwed this one up.
I typed it as within the borders of it. it being the UK
I stand corrected
Thanks for that.
I think the point of pedantry here may be that the possessive "its" does not take an apostrophe. Illogical it is but that is the rule.
The problem is that the system is not currently set up to work that way, and you can't just magic a new way of doing things in a few months.
Like @orfeo I think May's deal would have avoided the problem, by in effect delaying the separation until such time as a technical solution is found (or until everyone decides they don't care). But May's deal was sabotaged by idiot backbenchers who avoid any responsibility for government but nevertheless feel absolutely entitled to tell the prime minister what she can do. I imagine they had nannies to make their beds for them too.
Should they do that for every other non-member country?
Illegal under WTO rules.
I have already said "The situation that we have and the situation that I would like us to have are two different things
No, that can't be true. Remember - we were told that Britain was a big country, the EU wouldn't be able to bully it, and we held all the cards.
Unless, of course, we were told a load of total bullshit. Which some people here seem determined to regurgitate.