What do people think is most likely to happen with the Irish/UK border?

[coffeclub]

What is the most likely solution?

From my position across the Sea -Corbyn is no better though

There is not a single party who has any sort of sensible or coherent ideas or strategies at the moment.

A cross party Brexit cabinet should have been formed immediately after the Ref.
Instead Cameron ran away & left a completely unnecessary vacuum, which just created chaos.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think there is only one sensible outcome. I am very much an all-in or all-out person, as if we are out we need to have the freedom to make trade deals with other countries. My all-out means a comprehensive deal with the EU on goods, services and people that is effectively the same as being in the EU, almost equivalent of being in the EU, except we can have free trade deals with other countries. That way there will be no need for anything on the Irish border.

I would actually go a step further and say there is a moral imperative for all developed countries to have no trade tariffs for any international trade that meets their internal criteria on quality / health and safety etc. That is a different matter though.

There is a lot of misrepresentation of the WTO. The WTO covers trade rules not border rules. It is designed to support trade by preventing countries from putting up massively punitive barriers to trade. Without the WTO international trade would be far more volatile and businesses would be subject to the whims of different political leaders.

Genevieva Your solution would mean that any nation the UK creates a trade deal with would have to adhere to EU regulations on anything they wanted to export to the UK. Presumably if they were happy to do this, these countries would already have trade agreements in place with the EU.

"My all-out means a comprehensive deal with the EU on goods, services and people that is effectively the same as being in the EU, almost equivalent of being in the EU, except we can have free trade deals with other countries. That way there will be no need for anything on the Irish border. "

Have you ever heard of the phrase "have your cake and eat it" - because what you are suggesting is that Britain has all the advantages of EU membership with none of the perceived disadvantages (having to let those pesky Europeans take our jobs, having to obey those pesky H&S rules, having to pay those pesky taxes).

Of course if they want to obey the rules/pay the taxes/allow free travel, that's great. They can stay in the customs union and the free travel area, have no borders.

Now what was Brexit for, can anyone remember?

In face, Genevieva might just be the British government spokesman who is talking to the papers atm - you know the generic "it'll all be just fine as long as Ireland shuts up and Europe lets us do what we want."

[sigh]

No it wouldn't. At the moment UK and EU regs are the same obviously and that won't change over night. As they diverged they would have to meet UK standards for UK imports and EU standards for EU imports, which would be a problem for a smaller market like the UK, so I can imagine the UK would have to do its best to stay pretty similar anyway. Many regulations are actually decided at WTO level anyway, which we would be involved in. There is no perfect solution for leaving, but we are leaving, so I think this is the only workable one.

Love that! Thank you for thinking I sound that convincing Mary. Amazing what can happen on a thread while I am on the phone to my Mum.

Oh, and I am not suggesting all of the advantages, because a lot of people think severe immigration controls are an advantage, but I think that is something we are going to have to give on. Basically, I believe in free trade. Particularly for countries in Africa. Much of Africa will remain impoverished while it has punitive import tariffs on high quality goods and is forced to export cheap raw materials. If that was changed there would be more high quality jobs there and the EU might stop having an immigration crisis.

I apologise, my second post was snarky and unfair - I just seem to be seeing a lot of "it'll be fine, we won't need a border unless those nasty Irish/EU people insist on one, we can have leave the EU and nothing else has to change". While I get you think your suggestion is workable in theory, it's not workable at all in practice, because "the UK standards for UK imports" won't be EU standards. "Most" being the same won't cut it.

Those cheering Brexit on are saying that Britain can cut trade deals for cheaper goods from other countries; the minute they do this the standards will change.

I agree that if Britain gives on free travel and keeps to trade agreements, then it can stay in the customs union and there will be no need for a hard border. But we have come full circle - any Brexiters I've talked to are ranting on about immigration; free travel means no immigration (from the EU) control, so all hell will let loose if the British government suggest this.

I don't think May has the guts to have this as a suggestion. In fact, I'm still waiting to see her come up with any suggestion at all.

The trouble is that everyone on all sides gets all high and might about so called points of principle that actually just get in the way of potentially workable solutions. This rule that they must talk solely about one thing before talking about another is an utter nonsense. It needs to be more like a spiral, where you talk a bit about an exit bill, the Irish border, citizens right, trade... and then you go back and talk about them again, because sometimes a bit more progress in one area will allow for greater progress in another. Its like everyone involved wants to create problems.

I think the EU is clunky, expensive and remote. I think it causes as many problems as it solves, but it is absurd for people to suggest that it doesn't bring advantages and that you can just walk away without consequences. That said, I don't think that Brexit is entirely the fault of the British people. The EU has done itself no favours on the PR front by insisting on unnecessary uniformity, resulting in the Metric Martyrs etc. All of this was avoidable and the outcome of that referendum was so close that it could have been different.

I'm worried about the future, but I am not angry we had a referendum, as I think referenda are a great way of getting people to engage in politics. Ireland and Switzerland have them regularly and they seem to work well. Here they are so rare and only on such massive issues that they are extremely divisive. Part of me wonders, if the EU used referenda more, what would it look like now? Would it be more responsive to the needs of ordinary people? I don't know. It is just a thought experiment.

I think you make some good points, Genieva.

I voted to remain as I said before, but the likes of Juncker did the remain campaign no good. He holds some responsibility for this situation. So do the EU federalists.

A lot of people in the UK have Irish family. This shouldn't be a them verses us thing. We shouldn't allow politicians to divide us or play card games with our lives. Quite how we prevent it is another matter though. There is little we ordinary citizens can do but get stressed or pretend it isn't happening.

Genieva, don't you think that if there was a workable solution someone would have suggested it by now? It's not people getting high and mighty, it's people pointing out legal and practical reasons why the simple solutions cannot work. And the more the British government ignore this issue (the NI border) or try to blame it on other people, the more it seems obvious that they don't have a fecking clue what they are going to do.

Expecting Ireland and the EU to say "ok, you don't know what to do, never mind, we won't make you decide, we'll move on happily to discuss what you do want" is, in my opinion, very entitled behaviour by the British government. When they decided to leave they knew borders would have to be dealt with before trade; they should deal with them, make decisions, piss people off if they have to (Ulster Unionists, the EU, Ireland, whoever) and then pay the price for that pissing off (losing UU support, having to hold another general election, getting a worse trade deal, whatever the consequence may be).

I agree referenda can be great as long as they are used to decide the issues they are about. Sadly, often and in many countries, a lot of voters use them as a sort of "protest vote" along the lines of "the government want me to vote this way on X issue, I hate the government because of Y and Z issues, therefore I will vote against them on this" which gives skewed results. A lot of the time it's not significant, but sometimes it is.

That’s what happened in the EU referendum in some former industrial regions. People were voting as if in a general election, not a referendum. And for that Jeremy Corbin holds some responsibility. He didn’t give the remain argument very convincingly.

Be that as it may, we have to sort this out. It’s not fair to say people over here aren’t interested. The border issue has been heavily covered in TV and radio news. It could be the Schleswig-Holstein of our times.

No I don't, because I think there are those involved on both sides who actively do not want a solution or are so rigid in only wanting one solution that progress has stagnated.

The order for talks was agreed afterwards. There is nothing in article 50 that states it must be that way. Article 50 only mentions 2 years to discuss the future arrangements after leaving and they haven't even started that bit. Creating rigid rules that cut off avenues that might actually help everyone make progress is, quite frankly, completely stupid. It doesn't take much experience of negotiating even the most basic agreements to know that the progress profile looks like a spiral staircase that goes back over the same ground and not like a series of pogo sticks that have to be balanced one on top of the other.

My understanding is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so there is no harm in opening conversations on all aspects of leaving. It helps with the give and take part of reaching an agreement.

At the moment UK and EU regs are the same obviously and that won't change over night. As they diverged they would have to meet UK standards for UK imports and EU standards for EU imports

But the minute they diverge then you have to start checking goods crossing the border to ensure that they comply with regulations on the other side. That is the crux of the problem.

Abra, do you think Corbyn believed in Remain? I don't think he did. He has never categorically said he voted remain. He certainly voted to leave in 1975 and I am not convinced his views have changed, which is why he has struggled to show leadership on this issue.

UK should have scoped out ALL the issues before triggering Article 50. Breathing space would have resulted at least.

The trigger was pulled with indecent haste IMV.

A little over a year to go before it's all over.

My understanding is that there is nothing in article 50 that says the EU must talk about future trade or arrangements, it is about ensuring an orderly exit and tying up all the lose ends. The EU needs to sort out how you are going to leave by 2019. The trade talks are a nice to have, not something article 50 mandates.

The trade add on was something the UK government wanted and the EU agreed to facilitate provided enough discussion had been made on the issues surrounding the dissolution of the partnership. Which hasn't happened because the uk don't want to figure out the boring details that impact on the rest of us, they just want to go straight to the sunny uplands.

May made it a hell of a lot harder by announcing you were leaving the CU/SM, which reduces the scope of the negotiation possible. If you are leaving CU/SM that means a hard border by default and defines the scope of negotiation possible. Then, by allowing the anti GFA DUP hold the balance of power, she backed herself further into the corner. With this the EU has no choice but to make sure the dissolution will be orderly before going on to trade talks. We cannot trust the UK based on the incompetence it has shown to date. It is really shocking just how pathetic the planning on the UK side has been.

And there are set EU ground rules, the main one being you accept all the freedoms, including movement or you are out as a third country and will be treated as such.

Lastly, Switzerland does indeed have a lot of referenda and funnily enough had a referendum on ditching freedom of movement and were set to implement it. When it understood the implications (i.e. ending up as a third country), the will of the people was overridden
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-immigration-referendum-result-reduce-water-down-protect-eu-relationship-migrant-a7476801.html

Sorry not read full thread (it very long and I've only just seen it) one thing that really puzzles me is why so many people in NI voted for Brexit. They should have known better than anybody that this was a massive dice to roll.

The main reasons I can think is that some wanted to impose a hard border to show that they are NOT ROI and others voted Leave in the hope the shit storm that followed would result in a united Ireland.

Is there a brake down of who voted for what in NI anywhere?

The DUP although they say they don't want a hard border, all of their actions seem to me to be saying a hard border is exactly what they do want.

Genevieva he was at best lukewarm.

Usuallydormant, our referendum was advisory and, while ignoring it completely would have been damaging, it could have opened up an avenue of discussion with the EU before rushing headlong into triggering article 50. But there were people on both sides in a rush to see it triggered and we lack the leadership required to come up with a thoughtful and measured response. Instead, government suddenly embroiled in a party leadership election that lumped with PM who had her own unqualified Rasputin whispering in her ear. The result - a general election in which such irrelevancies as reinstating fox hunting put forward and no discussion about different responses to the Brexit referendum.

We have the most incompetent government in my lifetime. We also have the most incompetent opposition and the Lib Dems have all but vanished into obscurity, when they should have had a field day at the general election because they were the only properly pro-EU party. There is no one with gravitas or even common sense in any position of authority in Parliament. Neither our own government nor the EU is looking after the interests of the British people. It is an utter farce and deeply upsetting.

Please excuse the typos. Small old machine that doesn't pick up every word when I type too fast so there are some missing.