Can I ask a question about a "hard border"

[StartedEarly]

Forgive me if this has been done before or if it's a stupid question.

If there is no deal we are told there will be a hard border.

Leo Varadkar has said they will not be policing a hard border.
The UK doesn't want a hard border.

So who exactly is going to come along and build checkpoints?

@Weetabixandshreddies

Funnily enough, i agree on having a decent trading relationship post brexit, which is why i am dead against the WA and Mays red lines.

We need to join EFTA + CU or a similar arrangement, that secures NI, we leave the EU and its ever closer union and we can have a brake on FOM.

There are downsides for both leavers and remainers BUT it is a ready made solution.... at least for an interim period.

Yes, clearly people are considering rising prices (I am myself) but anybody that is concerned about the peace in NI is far more concerned about that than ASOS deliveries, like I am myself.

PaddyF0dder
What difficulty do you see between Brexit and the GFA?
How would you suggest leaving the EU without harming the GFA?

Well your question is misleading because the Belfast/GF agreement (and WTO rules) do not prohibit a border, or lack of, between ROI and NI. Not least evidenced every day by the existence of a border which causes divergence on tax, currency, interest rates, excise duties etc.

So there is NO problem between the Belfast agreement and Brexit, that is just a fact remainers keep ignoring.

What might be a problem is the perception between the different groups in NI, either that they are getting 'further away' from Ireland or 'further away' from the UK. Unfortunately this is being driven by remainers trying to overturn the democratic vote and stop Brexit.

Some of the lies being spread are that, "cameras on the border will cause violence". However their are already cameras on the border and they haven't caused violence.
Or that a border causing divergence will cause violence. However there already is a border causing divergence, arrests, detentions and convictions, all without outbreaks of terrorist violence.
Or a 'hard' Brexit will cause border posts and an increase in violence. However all sides involved have promised not to build border posts, they are not needed.
Or no other country in the world uses such a border, so its impossible. However the technology needed for off border customs checks already exists, so we could be the first country to actually utilise it fully.

Lets have a factual debate, but stop spreading lies. No one is denying N.I. might be affected by Brexit because of the sensitivities of its population. But adding an off border custom check to the current divergence will in and of itself make zero difference other than the political football it has become to stop Brexit. aka a self fulfilling prophesy.

The real issue is Brexit, so be honest and stop using made up problems to end it. Just be honest and admit what you are trying to do and your reasons for doing so.

Apileofballyhoo

I am not disagreeing. Another poster linked that article about the economic effects of Brexit on ROI and I responded. I'm not saying that asos deliveries are more important than GFA. I was responding to an article posted by someone else, as a separate issue to GFA.

@Somerville

It's not true that I don't give a stuff about NI.

I don't like that NI is being used as a whip to keep the UK in line. It's giving the EU an excuse to not negotiate. They can offer any old deal and then claim that the if the UK don't accept it that they are destroying an international treaty and ruining peace in NI?

Do you believe that any other country would be beaten into submission in this way? The responsibility for maintaining peace in NI rests with all parties of the GFA. If ROI are not able to negotiate independently of the EU then yes, it is up to the EU also to do It's very best to uphold the GFA by negotiating fairly.

What do you suggest? Cancel Brexit? And if that leads to riots and protests here your solution will be what? The EU bending over backwards to placate the rioters?

Walkingdeadfangirl, the solutions you list relieve me greatly. Can I ask why some people don't accept the backstop when it would be clearly for a very short time while the technology was all being put in place? Surely it could be done by the end of the transition period? I thought that the backstop only applies if it's needed? So if it's not needed it will never apply and it's nothing for people to worry about?

I thought that the backstop only applies if it's needed?

And who decides that it is or isn't needed? It needs the EU to agree. If they choose to never agree?

Why would they not agree? On what basis? Just to be meanies? Is that the level of your analysis?

*Apileofballyhoo

Walkingdeadfangirl, the solutions you list relieve me greatly. Can I ask why some people don't accept the backstop when it would be clearly for a very short time while the technology was all being put in place? Surely it could be done by the end of the transition period? I thought that the backstop only applies if it's needed? So if it's not needed it will never apply and it's nothing for people to worry about?*

Exactly what I was thinking Apileof. Sounds like all will be hunky dory. So let’s just run with the WA and the backstop...it’s never going to be needed anyway obviously.

Great news all round. Problem solved.

Walkingdeadfangirl

Well said. Which just emphasises the disingenuousness of Varadkar and Co and the EU, whose agendas have nothing at all to do with the GFA

Lets have a factual debate, but stop spreading lies.

Couldn't agree more. So could we start with you pointing out the cameras which you claim are already on the border at the crossing points attached?

Why would they not agree? On what basis? Just to be meanies? Is that the level of your analysis?

No. To keep the UK under the control of the EU, to keep the UKs ability to form trade agreements with other countries in check, to serve as a warning to other EU countries that leaving is not easy...

It's like an "I'm not a robot " test

@Weetabixandshreddies , leaving would be relatively easy for pretty much every other country because they don't have NI type issues to consider- Gibraltar/Spain notwithstanding.

During F&M in 2001 RoI put 1000 soldiers & police on their border (!?)

Interesting. Like another poster said, I crossed the border many times during the foot and mouth crisis. I don't remember Irish soldiers there, the Gardai (Irish police) were at the border crossings where I'm from. They'd stop the cars, we'd get out and have a chat put our feet in rugs covered in disinfectant and be on our way.

It would have been the same if Irish soldiers where there. It's not uncommon to see them on the streets in Ireland. They regularly assist in emergencies, snow, storms, Foot and Mouth! etc.

It wasn't an issue then because it's nationalist communities along the border and the Guards and Irish soliders are "their" police and soldiers. It was a temporary situation and I remember no one really having an issue with it as they didn't want foot and mouth to spread and cause damage in Ireland.

Primarily though nationalists are not afraid of Guards/Irish Soldiers - unlike the Police in NI and the British Army who have a bloody history with the Nationalist communities.

BollocksToBrexit

Those photos prove what though? At those points we can't see cameras. That means there are no cameras at any border point does it? Cameras can be placed at those points. Problem solved

Can I ask why some people don't accept the backstop when it would be clearly for a very short time while the technology was all being put in place?

1. The political reason: it is a Trojan horse to stop Brexit.
2. The reality is it can be used to separate N.I. from the rest of the UK and closer to R.O.I. Obviously something a lot of people in the UK are VERY against.
3. There is no guarantee it will only be in place for a short time. It could actually be used indefinitely.
4. Its is likely to be the basis for a permanent position.
5. Because it could be in place indefinitely, the EU could use it to dictate/control the UK, to our detriment and their advantage.

Obviously if you are pro EU you wont mind all those reasons. Also if you are pro Irish unification you also wont mind those reasons. But if you are pro UK and pro Brexit then the backstop is unacceptable unless there is a time limit on it.

I'd have thought the bullet holes in the speed sign would have given you a hint what might happen to cameras in the same spot?

bellinisurge

It wouldn't be easy though because this is an EU warning shot - they will make it as difficult as possible. Maybe not over a shared border but over financial issues or numerous other factors peculiar to individual countries.

this is an EU warning shot - they will make it as difficult as possible.

They're making it as easy as possible! It's the UK Government making a hash of it because they can't afford to upset the DUP.

Cameras on the Irish border

No. To keep the UK under the control of the EU, to keep the UKs ability to form trade agreements with other countries in check, to serve as a warning to other EU countries that leaving is not easy...

Rubbish! It was only at the UKs insistence that the EU backed down on our demand to make it UK wide.

The EU do not like the UK being in a CU with the EU, with neither side being able to unilaterally leave.

UK will still be able to seek deeper FTA's on services, which is 80% of our exports.

The EU wants to maintain its high standards regarding goods and services but hey if the UK wants lead painted child’s toys and rat tainted cinnamon go knock yourself out.

Oh please do show me where the UK have announced that this the plan.

Otherwise it's just hyperbole.

The EU do not like the UK being in a CU with the EU, with neither side being able to unilaterally leave.
Why are they insisting on it then? Bit odd to say they don't like it but then refuse to negotiate on it.

1) The political reason: it is a Trojan horse to stop Brexit.

The political reason: it offers protection to Irish citizens in NI

2) The reality is it can be used to separate N.I. from the rest of the UK and closer to R.O.I. Obviously something a lot of people in the UK are VERY against.

The reality is it can be used to remove the separation between NI and ROI. Obviously something a lot of people in Ireland (and the Uk) are VERY for.

3) There is no guarantee it will only be in place for a short time. It could actually be used indefinitely.

With the confidence you have in a technical solution the guarantee it would be in place for a short time is virtually cast iron.

4) Its is likely to be the basis for a permanent position.

It is unlikely to be the basis for a permanent position.

5) Because it could be in place indefinitely, the EU could use it to dictate/control the UK, to our detriment and their advantage.

Without its inclusion, the UK govt could use Brexit to dictate/control the future position of NI to our detriment and it’s advantage.

We have completely opposite views on this Walkingdead. Unsurprisingly.