Jump to content

The Irish border (Brexit)


Gallus

Recommended Posts

The DUP want the UK out of the EU. The do not want NI to have anything distnguish NI from the rest of the UK and they don't want customs points on the Irish border.

Now the UK government says we are leaving the customs union when we leave the EU.

Can you see a solution that suits everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

Can you see a solution that suits everyone?

A Norway style arrangement with the EU - obviously! 

Hard Brexit just can't be done cos of this border issue. Or it will be done and will be more bother than it's worth - cos of the Irish issue. 

The DUP also dont want a united Ireland - I daresay the Irish government might in the wider scheme of geopolitics and history (setting aside the crippling economic consequences of taking on N.I.). 

You'd expect a cross border poll on the issue if a hard border is erected - as per the good friday agreement.  Hard Breixt's just not worth it, but the tail wont wag the Brexit dog!

Ironic thing is now the EU are coalescing behind the Irish position, Dublin could now be the imperial power!  I think it could be the daftest decision ever pursing an adversarial hard brexit with the EU and Ireland. 

It was UK and Ireland that joined together on same day in 1974. To take it full circle, Norway pulled out at same time and at the very last minute in 74 and got really rich..

Edited by RAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

So NI to effectively stay in the single market:

Northern Ireland will stay in single market after Brexit, EU says

UK negotiators braced for major row over EU’s draft withdrawal agreement

UK negotiators have been warned that the EU draft withdrawal agreement will stipulate that Northern Ireland will, in effect, remain in the customs union and single market after Brexit to avoid a hard border.

The uncompromising legal language of the draft agreement is likely to provoke a major row, something all parties to the negotiations have been trying to avoid.

British officials negotiating in Brussels were told by their counterparts that there could be a “sunset clause” included in the legally binding text, which is due to be published in around two weeks. Such a legal device would make the text null and void at a future date should an unexpectedly generous free trade deal, or a hitherto unimagined technological solution emerge that could be as effective as the status quo in avoiding the need for border infrastructure.

As it stands, however, the UK is expected by Brussels to sign off on the text which will see Northern Ireland remain under EU law at the end of the 21-month transition period, wherever it is relevant to the north-south economy, and the requirements of the Good Friday agreement.

The move is widely expected to cause ructions within both the Conservative party and between the government and the Democratic Unionist party, whose 10 MPs give Theresa May her working majority in the House of Commons.

The UK will be put under even greater pressure to offer up a vision of the future relationship that will deliver for the entire UK economy, but the inability of that model to ensure frictionless trade is likely to be exposed. A meeting of the cabinet to discuss the Irish border on Wednesday failed to come to any significant conclusions.

“There will be no wriggle room for the UK government,” said Philippe Lambert MEP, the leader of the Greens in the European parliament, who was briefed in Strasbourg earlier this week by the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier. “We are going to state exactly what we mean by regulatory alignment in the legal text. It will be very clear. This might cause some problems in the UK – but we didn’t create this mess.”

Barnier has repeatedly warned that Brexit, with the red-lines chosen by Theresa May, means barriers to trade in the form of checks at the border.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brexit will leave nobody happy.  If there's different deals for different parts of the UK it will weaken the UK going forward.  It's practical to keep Ireland as Ireland in this instance.   Equally, partition could have outlived it's time in Ireland.  Going on birth rate of catholic v protestant voters.  From what I've heard it's roughly 50/50 with only Catholic majorities going forward, as per the birth rate.

I'm  beginning to believe BJ or Mogg could easily be PM just as could Jezza, at the drop of a hat if they kicked up enough fuss!  But this paramilitary term is surely a poisoned chalice?  Is no question any possible benefit of Brexit will not be seen for a decade, or at least far beyond the next general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different deal for NI, but not Scotland hmmm.  No doubt when the SNP makes almighty rumpus over this, McLean with scream grievance politics, when even the most blinkered yoon can see the downright unfairness and frankly ludicrous situation.  One nation whose politicians are desperate to remain in the yoon at all costs almost being forced to be united with the Republic by the Backdoor and another nation whose people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU being forced out of it by a stupidly inflexible UK government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

A different deal for NI, but not Scotland hmmm.  No doubt when the SNP makes almighty rumpus over this, McLean with scream grievance politics, when even the most blinkered yoon can see the downright unfairness and frankly ludicrous situation.  One nation whose politicians are desperate to remain in the yoon at all costs almost being forced to be united with the Republic by the Backdoor and another nation whose people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU being forced out of it by a stupidly inflexible UK government.

They stated clearly in 1997 in NI (or at least Blair did) that the UK has no territorial interest in N.I. - that was a break from the past UK position.

The complete opposite is the case with Scotland, although it seems inevitable if remain voting N.I. does get an EU deal, yet Scotland doesn't - the shackles will be off big time for indyref 2 as EU membership was "guaranteed" with a No vote in 2014 - yet now the EU are pro Scotland in the EU.

I dare say the current Tory gov. would fancy Ruth Davidson to kick that fight into the long grass beyond the next Scottish election, where the slim minority SNP/Green independence majority may come under threat - which it will.

Scotland sadly, cos of what's at stake in Ireland, will have to lump it with the mainland Brexit vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brexit is an idealogical thing where any economic benefit will be a long time coming.

There is no ideological support for Brexit in God's own Country.

So Brexit is going to increase the strain on the Union. A special economically beneficial Brexit deal for NI will only multiply up that strain.

Wee Roofie may have got the Nats on the run right now but she could end up fighting a revitalised enemy while she has hee haw to offer. The Union was an economic win when it was introduced, now it will be only ideological like Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gdevoy said:

The Union was an economic win when it was introduced, now it will be only ideological like Brexit.

Eh?  At the time Scotland was not as has been purported bankrupt due to Darien.  England however was f**ked and struggling due to the long Anglo-French war.  Scotland PAID to enter the union and covered England’s debts!

the union wasn’t an economic idea, but rather one of conquest through political intrigue, propaganda, trade blockades (alien act), mass bribery was a massive tactic of the English.

the masses in Scotland were massively against it and riots ensued.  The landed gentry who were bought and sold through the reversal of the Alien Act did very well for themselves.  However the economic benefits or not of the last 300 odd years are moot as we can never know just how successful or not an independent and always financially prudent Scotland would have been, or indeed if a more egalitarian union may have arisen later in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:52 AM, Beaker71 said:

Eh?  At the time Scotland was not as has been purported bankrupt due to Darien.  England however was f**ked and struggling due to the long Anglo-French war.  Scotland PAID to enter the union and covered England’s debts!

the union wasn’t an economic idea, but rather one of conquest through political intrigue, propaganda, trade blockades (alien act), mass bribery was a massive tactic of the English.

the masses in Scotland were massively against it and riots ensued.  The landed gentry who were bought and sold through the reversal of the Alien Act did very well for themselves.  However the economic benefits or not of the last 300 odd years are moot as we can never know just how successful or not an independent and always financially prudent Scotland would have been, or indeed if a more egalitarian union may have arisen later in history.

Fake news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 9:52 AM, Beaker71 said:

 At the time Scotland was not as has been purported bankrupt due to Darien.  

It is my understanding that Scotland were completely, totally and massively deeply flat broke. Every historical reference I can find confirms this.

Has history been totally re-written by the English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not been re-written as such but we are looking at history through modern eyes where nation states have a GDP, surplus, deficits etc.

Back then, in general people were pitifully poor, and the ones who owned land were rich. The landowners (a miniscule percentage) lost money and were broke and agreed to the union.

The rest of the population, more or less, were no poorer. You can't get any poorer at the level they were at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KillieBus said:

It's not been re-written as such but we are looking at history through modern eyes where nation states have a GDP, surplus, deficits etc.

Back then, in general people were pitifully poor, and the ones who owned land were rich. The landowners (a miniscule percentage) lost money and were broke and agreed to the union.

The rest of the population, more or less, were no poorer. You can't get any poorer at the level they were at.

I think I understand a wee bit more clearly where Beaker71 is coming from now.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, diamond_geezer said:

If you understand where Bob is coming from then you need to seek help , quick . 

Where's the alternative version of history then?  There is none.  Hence our complete ignorance as a nation toward Scottish history - but we all know a shed load about William the Conqueror, 1066 at Hastings and all that.

Ironically with the Ulster Scots act that's mooted to be part of the new power sharing agreement in NI, there's a fair chance more "Ulster Scots" will be aware of Scottish history than the "Scots" themselves!

Or at least the "Ulster Scots" living in the bit of Ulster that's in Northern Ireland will be..

 

Edited by RAG
typing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...