The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

@blandy The head of HMRC has said categorically no hard border is required under WTO terms.  Not asking you to take his word for it, but I will. 

London, Dublin and Juncker while in Dublin, have all stated no hard border even under a no-deal exit. The head of the WTO has said their rules do not insist on a hard border & it’s down to the relevant authorities to make their own arrangements. 

Thats not supposition, it’s what the people involved have stated, repeatedly. 

Why people are continually denying those facts is beyond comprehension. 

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy The head of HMRC has said categorically no hard border is required under WTO terms.  Not asking you to take his word for it, but I will. 

London, Dublin and Juncker while in Dublin, have all stated no hard border even under a no-deal exit. The head of the WTO has said their rules do not insist on a hard border & it’s down to the relevant authorities to make their own arrangements. 

Thats not supposition, it’s what the people involved have stated, repeatedly. 

Why people are continually denying those facts is beyond comprehension. 

 

What I meant by "pure WTO terms would require a hard border to the UK" is that with Ireland having tariff free goods from the rest of the EU and being next to N.Ireland, with no border, smuggling cheaper goods into the UK would be rife. It would need a hard border, because of the higher cost of goods coming into the UK (and if the reverse were ever true, to stop illegal outflow of goods etc.).

It's true that the WTO doesn't tell nations how to police their borders or what the nature of border security should be, but nevertheless the reality is that border control is necessary to comply with the trade terms, as I understand it. Ergo hard border.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

London, Dublin and Juncker while in Dublin, have all stated no hard border even under a no-deal exit.

And one more thing. How do we take back control of immigration and our borders, with, er , no border? We can't. Whatever May, Juncker or Dublin say during negotiation press talks, it's clearly bollex. It is not possible to control borders while having no borders. 

Like I said, why people are continually denying this is beyond comprehension. It's blatant failure to look truth in the face. Delusional by the tory brexit clowns.

[Awol]

@blandy Pete, your still refusing to engage with the clear statements from Brussels, London & Dublin: under no circumstances will either party allow a hard border, including no-deal. 

Logic dictates that the parties would therefore negotiate a solution, assuming that such arrangements aren’t already sat on the shelf. 

The backstop IS a British creation designed to keep us tied to the EU, that’s why May has consistently dodged all specific questions about alternatives. If she engages it unravels. 

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

And one more thing. How do we take back control of immigration and our borders, with, er , no border? We can't. Whatever May, Juncker or Dublin say during negotiation press talks, it's clearly bollex. It is not possible to control borders while having no borders. 

Like I said, why people are continually denying this is beyond comprehension. It's blatant failure to look truth in the face. Delusional by the tory brexit clowns.

If you believe the commitments to no hard border in the event of no-deal are lies, there’s no point talking past each other. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy Pete, your still refusing to engage with the clear statements from Brussels, London & Dublin: under no circumstances will either party allow a hard border, including no-deal. 

Logic dictates that the parties would therefore negotiate a solution, assuming that such arrangements aren’t already sat on the shelf. 

The backstop IS a British creation designed to keep us tied to the EU, that’s why May has consistently dodged all specific questions about alternatives. If she engages it unravels. 

I accept that the politicians have said they don't want a border. Though Barnier implied there might have to be one, when talking to the Irish parliament. But, as we've seen what politicians say and what is fact is often very far apart. I totally agree no-one wants a border. The problem is May (the UK) wants no border and has a red line on immigration. She cannot have both those things. It is impossible.

Just now, Awol said:

If you believe the commitments to no hard border in the event of no-deal are lies, there’s no point talking past each other. 

Like I say I believe they desire no hard border. But listen to the Likes of JRM and a few other of the nutters and they have been rather less effusive (perhaps in some ways more honest, though not in a good way) in saying "yeah, OK, border it is then" - at least it has the virtue of recognising that there has to be choice, a heads or tails - control or no border.

[StefanAVFC]

Why wouldn't there be a hard Border if we leave the EU without any deal? We'd essentially be the same as any non-EU country. Ireland, in EU. UK, not in EU. Therefore, hard border. The deal would establish whether or not we would have a different arrangement (like ESTA's for the States or totally Visa free/free movement) but until said deal is agreed then we would default to a hard border, regardless of what people say.

Leaving without a deal (or agreement on what happens with the UK and EU nations after we leave) means hard border by definition. I'm not sure how anything otherwise can be debated.

May, Juncker and Dublin can say that there won't be a hard border but it needs some sort of deal or agreement and a hard brexit means no deal.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

If you believe the commitments to no hard border in the event of no-deal are lies

And just to be more light hearted about it, does anyone believe anything May says? "No snap election", "nothing has changed", "there will be a vote" and on and on.

Anyone trusting anything she says wants to have a word with themselves.

[Chindie]

 

[Awol]

@blandy  If Ireland was in Schengen then I’d agree. As it’s not I reckon we can negotiate something with Dublin about monitoring movement into the island of Ireland - in both directions. That could involve ID checks at the ferry ports - happens for aircraft already so not unprecedented. The issue is goods more than people & that’s soluble. 

[Awol]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Why wouldn't there be a hard Border if we leave the EU without any deal? We'd essentially be the same as any non-EU country. Ireland, in EU. UK, not in EU. Therefore, hard border. The deal would establish whether or not we would have a different arrangement (like ESTA's for the States or totally Visa free/free movement) but until said deal is agreed then we would default to a hard border, regardless of what people say.

Leaving without a deal (or agreement on what happens with the UK and EU nations after we leave) means hard border by definition. I'm not sure how anything otherwise can be debated.

May, Juncker and Dublin can say that there won't be a hard border but it needs some sort of deal or agreement and a hard brexit means no deal.

You can project your own logic onto it or accept what the parties actually in charge have said: No hard border. 

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

And just to be more light hearted about it, does anyone believe anything May says? "No snap election", "nothing has changed", "there will be a vote" and on and on.

Anyone trusting anything she says wants to have a word with themselves.

She’s a serial liar, but more importantly the British state will not erect a hard border, short of Dublin declaring war - an unlikely scenario. 

Dublin erecting one is electoral death so they won’t do it. 

There’s a logic to believing the statements that it simply will not be done by anyone, therefore a solution will be agreed. 

[StefanAVFC]

International relations don't work by people stating things and then they just happen.

'Things' need agreements and deals in order to be put into place. You can't just leave the EU, become a third country and just say 'no hard border'. It doesn't work like that.

I'm not disagreeing with you as such, but it needs some sort of agreement in place before 29th March, otherwise, hard border.

[Chindie]

 

[villaglint]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

You can project your own logic onto it

Pot kettle anyone. 

 

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

She’s a serial liar, but more importantly the British state will not erect a hard border, short of Dublin declaring war - an unlikely scenario. 

Dublin erecting one is electoral death so they won’t do it. 

There’s a logic to believing the statements that it simply will not be done by anyone, therefore a solution will be agreed. 

The British state will not erect a hard border because it will not leave the EU under a no deal scenario. There is no where near a majority for this in parliament. 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by villaglint

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy  If Ireland was in Schengen then I’d agree. As it’s not I reckon we can negotiate something with Dublin about monitoring movement into the island of Ireland - in both directions. That could involve ID checks at the ferry ports - happens for aircraft already so not unprecedented. The issue is goods more than people & that’s soluble. 

Common Travel Area predates the EU and worked , presumably it still would

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

International relations don't work by people stating things and then they just happen.

'Things' need agreements and deals in order to be put into place. You can't just leave the EU, become a third country and just say 'no hard border'. It doesn't work like that.

I'm not disagreeing with you as such, but it needs some sort of agreement in place before 29th March, otherwise, hard border.

An agreement does need to be reached, of course. The point is if UK said tomorrow it was leaving on WTO terms then London & Dublin/Brussels  negotiate based on their existing position. Even then there is no automaticity to a hard border, neighbouring states decide the nature of the borders between them. Their is no higher authority in the realm of international relations that can compel states to act a certain way, it’s the nature of the anarchic international system. 

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, villaglint said:

The British state will not erect a hard border because it will not leave the EU under a no deal scenario. There is no where near a majority for this in parliament. 

 

MPs don’t need to vote for no deal, it’s already on the statute book. The government needs to pass legislation to bring about a different solution. That’s how it works. 

[LondonLax]

There is no way to ‘take back control’ of your border if you don’t actually have one. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

An agreement does need to be reached, of course. The point is if UK said tomorrow it was leaving on WTO terms then London & Dublin/Brussels  negotiate based on their existing position. Even then there is no automaticity to a hard border, neighbouring states decide the nature of the borders between them. Their is no higher authority in the realm of international relations that can compel states to act a certain way, it’s the nature of the anarchic international system. 

We're not disagreeing.

I'm being very literal here. Leaving with no agreement or deal means a hard border as nothing else has been agreed. I presume something else would be agreed with Ireland/EU to avoid it, but doesn't that go against the red lines set by TM?