To want someone to explain 3 things about Brexit

[Bearbehind]

If I could understand these 3 things I might get my head round why we are persuing it:-

• What countries and products will we suddenly be able to trade that we couldn’t before?

• How will we be better off by losing frictionless access to the worlds largest trading bloc in return for gaining less than 1% of GDP we send to the EU?

• Even though we don’t want a border in NI and the EU don’t, we can’t avoid one under WTO rules so how is that going to be addressed?

And MN, please don’t move this to the Brexit corner

@greenlloon that was almost 20 years ago and as neither the UK or EU kicked a fuss up about it, and I haven't read or heard anything about it during Brexit discussions I'm not sure of its relevance to the discussion. yes we didnt kick up a fuss because a border 20 years ago didnt go againts the gfa just like a border wouldnt go against it today its been claimed by some that it would.

yes we didnt kick up a fuss because a border 20 years ago didnt go againts the gfa just like a border wouldnt go against it today its been claimed by some that it would.
Many politicians have spoken against having a hard border, including politicians in NI. Many have also stated they believe it would contravene the GFA. The current border system was put into place by processes agreed in the GFA. Irrespective of the legalities of a hard border, the UK surely can't aim for Irish reunification to help resolve Brexit?

Yawn.

Really OP? You’re just genuinely curious and not at all certain of your position and keen on a bunfight?

Bearbehind
You've asked very specific questions. You won't get the answers from ,Mumsnet, and I don't think that the British Government are on this site and ready and excitedly waiting to give you your answers. It's .
a democratic process and it's very obvious that you're not a fan of the result of the referendum. So why don't you want this to be put in the. Brexit category. Or is it because you want to stir up more hatred.

Many politicians have spoken against having a hard border, including politicians in NI. Many have also stated they believe it would contravene the GFA. The current border system was put into place by processes agreed in the GFA. Irrespective of the legalities of a hard border, the UK surely can't aim for Irish reunification to help resolve Brexit?
i just proved with precedent a border wouldnt contravene the gfa and it would not cause a united ireland after lf you read The anglo irish agreement it states the two Governments
(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of' the people of' Northern Ireland; (b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

@FiddlesticksAkimbo - My best guess would be reunification

Do piss off. Reunification to facilitate British lack of foresight is not going to happen. Nobody on the british side thought of the implications of brexit on the GFA in advance of the referendum. Nobody on the British side gave a shit about the implications of brexit on the gfa until Ireland and the EU insisted that any brexit should comply with the GFA. So now the solution is to dump the mess on us here in Ireland? No. We are not willing to take that.

Reunification may be inevitable. However, we do not want reunification that is forced on us to facilitate british desires. We had 800 years of that. We are not willing to accept it anymore. We want reunification to happen when a majority, north and south, want it to happen. We do not want reunification where people are begrudgingly accepting of it as a least bad option. We do not want to have unionist terrorists restarting a campaign of violence because they feel betrayed and forced into a unified Ireland.

So basically, come up with a solution that doesn't involve dumping your crap on us. NB I am not referring to NI or its residents as crap, but rather the inability of the british government to come up with an agreement than ensures compliance with the GFA.

You've been asking the same questions for the past three years and any attempt at a civil exchange of view between remainers and Leavers appears to be impossible. Leavers attempting to answer questions have, over that time been insulted, called a variety of unwarranted names, their responses have been constantly derided, mocked, and ridiculed by remainers so we have now chosen not to respond. Entirely your own fault as many of us would have welcomed a civil discussion.

In addition, I still remember your shameful comments about not caring if Nissan workers In Sutherland lost their jobs because they voted leave. I can still find that post if you need reminding.

Do piss off. Reunification to facilitate British lack of foresight is not going to happen. Nobody on the british side thought of the implications of brexit on the GFA in advance of the referendum. Nobody on the British side gave a shit about the implications of brexit on the gfa until Ireland and the EU insisted that any brexit should comply with the GFA. So now the solution is to dump the mess on us here in Ireland? No. We are not willing to take that. please can you point out the paragraph in the good friiday agreement where it says leaving the European union goes against this agreement?

@greenlloon - i just proved with precedent a border wouldnt (sic) contravene the gfa

You have proven nothing of the sort. The reason a hard border contravenes the GFA is not the fact of the border but because it interferes with, and prevents, the implementation of cross border co-operation that has been implemented as part of the GFA. A simple example is ambulances crossing the border multiple times daily. Patients are brought to their nearest hospital, regardless of border. This would not be possible with a hard border.

The example you gave was not a hard border. It was checks on the traffic of livestock. It was similar to a police checkpoint, looking at tax and insurance, or breathalysing. It did not contravene the GFA in the way a full hard border would.

@greenlloon - please can you point out the paragraph in the good friiday agreement where it says leaving the European union goes against this agreement?

Seriously? Of course there is nothing in the GFA that states leaving the EU is contrary to the agreement. In fact, leaving the EU does not contravene the GFA. However, if one party leaves the EU, careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring that the exit from the EU does not result in the GFA being broken. The simplest solution, and if I recall correctly, the one suggested by many proponents of brexit pre-referendum, was for the UK to remain in the SM and the CU.

As the UK has decided to leave the EU, it is up to them to consider what other treaties and agreements they need to comply with. The UK needs to ensure that leaving does not result in breaking an international peace treaty.

page 32 paragraph 4

Hope that helps

The example you gave was not a hard border. It was checks on the traffic of livestock. It was similar to a police checkpoint no not similar to a police checkpoint as army personnel manned it

@greenlloon - no not similar to a police checkpoint as army personnel manned it

Who was manning the checkpoints is irrelevant. They were checkpoints with a single purpose - that of ensuring that foot and mouth was not spread. A police checkpoint is similar. It is a checkpoint with a single purpose - that of checking cars have tax and insurance.

Hi isthisafreename

We want reunification to happen when a majority, north and south, want it to happen.

I'd agree. That's what I meant by my best guess. And clearly under the GFA reunification can only happen subject to that condition.

Who was manning the checkpoints is irrelevant. you cant be serious

@ FiddlesticksAkimbo - And clearly under the GFA reunification can only happen subject to that condition.

Which is quite some time down the road. What do you suggest in the interim?

A police checkpoint is similar. It is a checkpoint with a single purpose - that of checking cars have tax and insurance. a bit like having an anpr camera on the a1 on the border (like their is now)

Hi isthisafreename,

Which is quite some time down the road. What do you suggest in the interim?

I'd say there are two interim solutions. To prevent a border arising the entire island needs to be in within the same regulatory regime, certainly for goods. So either Northern Ireland alone stays within the single market for goods, and within the customs union and the border is in the sea. Or the entire UK does (as set out in the WA backstop). And that state of affairs continues until the British come up with a better idea.

My best guess would be reunification, which in truth looks like an inevitability eventually anyway. It would solve many problems, and might start to look attractive enough to the people of Northern Ireland to tip the balance in favour.

I wish you could bottle the ability of the british to blithely ignore the consequences of their actions as a nation and arrogantly assume that what suits them best is really just jolly wonderful for everyone else too - including the peoples they invaded - and send the entire f-ing thing in a bottle to to Mars.

@FiddlesticksAkimbon - So either Northern Ireland alone stays within the single market for goods, and within the customs union and the border is in the sea. Or the entire UK does (as set out in the WA backstop). And that state of affairs continues until the British come up with a better idea.

And both of those suggestions have gone down so well with the house of commons.......

@greenlloon - a bit like having an anpr camera on the a1 on the border (like their (sic) is now)

No. A camera is not the same as a checkpoint. What is your point?

You've asked very specific questions.

Specific to Bexit maybe, but the answers to each of these questions should be rolling off Leavers tongues by now. The first 2 are the reasons they gave for wanting to leave and the 3rd has to be addressed in order to leave

It's a democratic process

What is democratic about upholding a vote which only had a very slim majority at the time and now there is more information available. Even Andrea Leadsom is now saying it was made very clear no deal Brexit would cause job losses. Is that what people voted for? If a second vote yielded the same result, in light of more information then fine, that would be democratic.

Or is it because you want to stir up more hatred.

Quite the opposite - I want a Remainers to understand what a Leavers still think is possible.

Given one of the few answers there has been on here is to just reunify Ireland because it would make our life easier, it’s clear we are still a very long way from Leavers facing up to the reality of what Brexit means and will achieve.

In addition, I still remember your shameful comments about not caring if Nissan workers In Sutherland lost their jobs because they voted leave. I can still find that post if you need reminding.

I don’t need reminding - I still feel the same. If you voted Leave and it results in you losing your job why should I care?

I care very much for those who voted Remain but still end up losing their jobs.

As I said above, even Leadsom is now saying it was clear this would result in job losses.

tariffs etc of stuff coming in from outside the EU are set by deals made by the EU. So I guess the idea is that the UK will be able to make different deals in future?

Tariffs on imports coming from countries without an EU trade agreement are set at the rates on the EU’s tariff schedules.

The UK has exactly replicated those tariffs in its own proposed schedules, so there would be no change in import tariffs.

Likewise we are currently part of the EU so exports from the UK are subject to tariffs in non EU countries based on deals made by the EU

UK exports to countries under EU trade agreements will give preferential tariff rates, otherwise exports are subject to the importing countries own standard tariffs.

Leaving the EU means we lose all of those preferential deals and either fall back onto the standard tariffs (WTO) or hope that DExEU has pulled its finger out in terms of new arrangements.

Also remembering that tariffs are only part of the issue - non tariff barriers will be the big headache.

1 we an remove the 26 percent tariff on dairy protect helping the poorest in society

The UK’s WTO schedules replicate the EU schedules, so that‘s not going to happen. Nor would the UK unilaterally set its tariffs to zero.

2 the us is the biggest trading partner of the uk

Only if you count each EU country separately, as UK trade with the EU27 is about 5 or 6 times higher than with the US. Which is not surprising given the gravity effect.

3 theres aready a border

And it currently operates seamlessly.

The OP is exactly right to ask these questions. We’re in a mess and should be questioning everything. It seems to be a lack of critical thinking and lack of consideration and solutions to the fundamental issue of the Irish border that has got us into this mess. OP I don’t think you are going to get any answers, because I don’t think there are any. If there were then someone would have come up with a sensible answer in the last 3 years. Instead they prefer to attack people like you for asking questions and repeat meaningless soundbites like ‘leave means leave’. But we have blue passports so yay