Would You Transgress To Assist An...
Motoring2 mins ago
Why Is This Our Problem?
40 Answers
http://
We are quite happy to leave it as is, if the EUSSR want a border build one, end of.
We are quite happy to leave it as is, if the EUSSR want a border build one, end of.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The problem is, both you and your neighbours border was under the governance of a third party. You’ve now decided to remove this third party but your neighbour hasn’t. //
So if we have decided to remove this "third" party from our consideration, who incidentally has other borders such as Switzerland and Lichtenstein under it's jurisdiction(thumb), we don't need to respond to Coveney's pompous demands. We tell him we will talk to the organ grinde, and tell them we expect the same as Lichtenstein or Switzerland for NI, or else.
So if we have decided to remove this "third" party from our consideration, who incidentally has other borders such as Switzerland and Lichtenstein under it's jurisdiction(thumb), we don't need to respond to Coveney's pompous demands. We tell him we will talk to the organ grinde, and tell them we expect the same as Lichtenstein or Switzerland for NI, or else.
"Tell them we expect the same as Switzerland..."
Since this includes freedom of movement, I'm not sure that this would resolve the issue for "Hard" Brexiters. It's also worth adding that a good deal of EU law is applicable in Switzerland as a result of the various treaties between the two.
A similar relationship applies to Liechtenstein, to which around a quarter of EU law applies (and, of course, Leichtenstein is also a member of Schengen).
So, the question is... should we leave the EU, but join the Schengen area? Presumably that is not what Brexit supporters had in mind...
Since this includes freedom of movement, I'm not sure that this would resolve the issue for "Hard" Brexiters. It's also worth adding that a good deal of EU law is applicable in Switzerland as a result of the various treaties between the two.
A similar relationship applies to Liechtenstein, to which around a quarter of EU law applies (and, of course, Leichtenstein is also a member of Schengen).
So, the question is... should we leave the EU, but join the Schengen area? Presumably that is not what Brexit supporters had in mind...
“…so the neighbour said that maybe you needed to be clearer about how the garden was to be split between you in future,…”
But that clearly is not the issue, Jim. There is no dispute about how the island or Ireland is to be split.
To address your analogy, the UK IS quite happy with the current border arrangements in Ireland. It is not seeking to change them. It is only the EU that seeks a change and that would be easier to understand if they explained what their concerns are (rather than resorting to political dogma). In fact, if the EU was to outline their concerns that arise from leaving the border as it is those wishing to do so may be a little more understanding. But as far as I know they have not.
I went through all this a week or so ago in another question but it is clear to me that perfectly acceptable arrangements could be quickly put in place to allay any fears they may have about “contraband” finding its way into their precious territory among the very small amount of cross-border traffic. They choose not to do so and they have been assisted in that quest by the UK’s stupid government acceding to a “backstop” solution that sees the UK remain effectively shackled to the EU’s Customs Union in the event an agreeable solution cannot be found. Pragmatism would see an agreement reached promptly so that both sides can move on. But the EU does not do pragmatism, it only does dogma. “These are our rules! These are our rules! These are our rules!” is their stock response to anybody who challenges their authority and their wisdom. It is quite beyond me why anybody would wish to remain shackled in any tiny way to a pernicious organisation that treats one of its (allegedly) most valued former members in such a way.
Ireland does not want a hard border with the UK. If it was an independent nation it would be able to make its own arrangements. But it isn’t. It sacrificed its autonomy to an unelected supra-national power. If ever a demonstration was needed to show why the UK is wise in its decision to quit then this is it because a nation that cannot determine its own border arrangements is no nation at all.
But that clearly is not the issue, Jim. There is no dispute about how the island or Ireland is to be split.
To address your analogy, the UK IS quite happy with the current border arrangements in Ireland. It is not seeking to change them. It is only the EU that seeks a change and that would be easier to understand if they explained what their concerns are (rather than resorting to political dogma). In fact, if the EU was to outline their concerns that arise from leaving the border as it is those wishing to do so may be a little more understanding. But as far as I know they have not.
I went through all this a week or so ago in another question but it is clear to me that perfectly acceptable arrangements could be quickly put in place to allay any fears they may have about “contraband” finding its way into their precious territory among the very small amount of cross-border traffic. They choose not to do so and they have been assisted in that quest by the UK’s stupid government acceding to a “backstop” solution that sees the UK remain effectively shackled to the EU’s Customs Union in the event an agreeable solution cannot be found. Pragmatism would see an agreement reached promptly so that both sides can move on. But the EU does not do pragmatism, it only does dogma. “These are our rules! These are our rules! These are our rules!” is their stock response to anybody who challenges their authority and their wisdom. It is quite beyond me why anybody would wish to remain shackled in any tiny way to a pernicious organisation that treats one of its (allegedly) most valued former members in such a way.
Ireland does not want a hard border with the UK. If it was an independent nation it would be able to make its own arrangements. But it isn’t. It sacrificed its autonomy to an unelected supra-national power. If ever a demonstration was needed to show why the UK is wise in its decision to quit then this is it because a nation that cannot determine its own border arrangements is no nation at all.
I'm sure it's just as clear to you, as it is to anyone else, who hasn't really given the issue a second thought.
Also, borders exist between two nations, so it's up to both to determine their nature -- unless one unilaterally decides to close it. But as long as we are insistent on an open border then either, by definition, the rules on both sides ought to match exactly. That is the issue, and you can't say that the EU haven't made it clear while in the very next breath spelling out yourself what their problem is.
Funnily enough, it's been suggested in various media outlets that David Davis came up with a wonderful solution*: namely, that Northern Ireland could be granted joint EU/UK membership. If only we'd thought of this earlier!
*Subsequently somewhat denied, but not flatly ruled out, so it's likely that the claim in the Sun was not wholly unsubstantiated.
Also, borders exist between two nations, so it's up to both to determine their nature -- unless one unilaterally decides to close it. But as long as we are insistent on an open border then either, by definition, the rules on both sides ought to match exactly. That is the issue, and you can't say that the EU haven't made it clear while in the very next breath spelling out yourself what their problem is.
Funnily enough, it's been suggested in various media outlets that David Davis came up with a wonderful solution*: namely, that Northern Ireland could be granted joint EU/UK membership. If only we'd thought of this earlier!
*Subsequently somewhat denied, but not flatly ruled out, so it's likely that the claim in the Sun was not wholly unsubstantiated.
"Also, borders exist between two nations, so it's up to both to determine their nature..."
Not in the case of the Irish border, it isn't. Ireland must comply with whatever its masters in Brussels/Strasbourg determine. They have no say in the matter. The "mayhem"arises because of Ireland's membership of the EU, not because of the UK's departure. If Ireland were not EU members they would be able to do as they wish, but they cannot. Whilst I agree that the UK's decision to leave prompted the situation to arise the fact that there is no solution acceptable to Ireland is their fault for sacrificing their autonomy. They are unable to react in the way that they wish to changing circumstances and no nation should be in that position. The root cause, of course, is that nobody in their wildest dreams envisaged any nation wishing to leave the EU and so there is no mechanism to properly and readily facilitate it. And that's down to the arrogance of the the Euromaniacs.
Not in the case of the Irish border, it isn't. Ireland must comply with whatever its masters in Brussels/Strasbourg determine. They have no say in the matter. The "mayhem"arises because of Ireland's membership of the EU, not because of the UK's departure. If Ireland were not EU members they would be able to do as they wish, but they cannot. Whilst I agree that the UK's decision to leave prompted the situation to arise the fact that there is no solution acceptable to Ireland is their fault for sacrificing their autonomy. They are unable to react in the way that they wish to changing circumstances and no nation should be in that position. The root cause, of course, is that nobody in their wildest dreams envisaged any nation wishing to leave the EU and so there is no mechanism to properly and readily facilitate it. And that's down to the arrogance of the the Euromaniacs.
That post from NJ would have more force, I suspect, if the ROI were in any real sense unhappy with the situation they are in because of EU membership. It seems pretty clear, however, that the ROI are rather more unimpressed about the UK's position than the EU's -- and no, I don't think this is due to kowtowing to their EU masters like a lapdog.
It's a flawed analysis on your part. The reality is that this is the UK's fault, for the manner in which Brexit was brought about at least. It should be obvious even to Brexiteers that launching into the scheme without any coherent plan was a bad move; we are paying for that, independent of whether or not Brexit itself was the correct decision.
It's a flawed analysis on your part. The reality is that this is the UK's fault, for the manner in which Brexit was brought about at least. It should be obvious even to Brexiteers that launching into the scheme without any coherent plan was a bad move; we are paying for that, independent of whether or not Brexit itself was the correct decision.
"..if the ROI were in any real sense unhappy with the situation they are in because of EU membership."
Whether or not they are happy, who knows? But they say the do not want a hard border and the EU is (all but) insisting there must be one. The UK is entitled to leave the EU (as are any of its members). The EU is not an independent sovereign nation and is not entitled to impose border restrictions on its members without their consent (which comes by dint of their membership). Ireland is thus allowing the EU to impose restrictions upon it with which it is not particularly happy. If they are that unhappy with it the answer lies with them - they too could leave the EU. But I guess they are not as unhappy as they'd have us believe.
Whether or not they are happy, who knows? But they say the do not want a hard border and the EU is (all but) insisting there must be one. The UK is entitled to leave the EU (as are any of its members). The EU is not an independent sovereign nation and is not entitled to impose border restrictions on its members without their consent (which comes by dint of their membership). Ireland is thus allowing the EU to impose restrictions upon it with which it is not particularly happy. If they are that unhappy with it the answer lies with them - they too could leave the EU. But I guess they are not as unhappy as they'd have us believe.
It's not our problem to solve. Never hss been. However it's going to be a problem for southern Ireland and the UK if the EU doesn't solve the problem they creating, or accept the sensible solution given to it by the UK. One we both might need to live with, unless southern Ireland finds the gumption to tell the EU to go take a running jump.
"Smuggling into the UK is not the UK's problem to solve?"
Yes. And we treat the Irish border as we think fit (i.e. smuggling is not a particular problem so no hard border is necessary). So, no problem to be solved.
"And/or smuggling out of the UK is not the UK's problem to solve? [i.e. in to another country]"
No.
Yes. And we treat the Irish border as we think fit (i.e. smuggling is not a particular problem so no hard border is necessary). So, no problem to be solved.
"And/or smuggling out of the UK is not the UK's problem to solve? [i.e. in to another country]"
No.
So much for "Take back control of our borders".
Criminals walk out of the UK across the border and then get freedom of movement across Europe. Extradition becomes an issue because we are not EU members.
Criminals, in fact anybody, walks into the UK across the border from anywhere in Europe.
Goods not compliant with UK regulations, which will presumably diverge from EU regulations over time, enter the UK across the border with impunity.
The UK negotiates a steel and aluminium deal with the USA but then has it rescinded because we can't show that our metal is really ours.
And so on ...
Criminals walk out of the UK across the border and then get freedom of movement across Europe. Extradition becomes an issue because we are not EU members.
Criminals, in fact anybody, walks into the UK across the border from anywhere in Europe.
Goods not compliant with UK regulations, which will presumably diverge from EU regulations over time, enter the UK across the border with impunity.
The UK negotiates a steel and aluminium deal with the USA but then has it rescinded because we can't show that our metal is really ours.
And so on ...
"Criminals walk out of the UK across the border and then get freedom of movement across Europe."
Tht's the EU's problem but not one so big as you think. Ireland is not a Schengen signatory. It has a permanent derogation from that particular piece of Euromaniacal nonsense so it is not likely ever to be (but bearing in mind that "permanent" in EU terms is somewaht a moveable feast). So it is no easier to move from Ireland to to EUthan it is from the UK to the EU.
"Criminals, in fact anybody, walks into the UK across the border from anywhere in Europe. "
Q:So why don't they do that at the moment then?
A: Because, as above, Ireland is not part of Schengen and it is no easier to eneter Ireland from mainland Europe than it is to enter the UK. Furthermore, with Ireland being a good bit more remote from Europe than is the UK, stowaways in freezer lorries are less likely.
Tht's the EU's problem but not one so big as you think. Ireland is not a Schengen signatory. It has a permanent derogation from that particular piece of Euromaniacal nonsense so it is not likely ever to be (but bearing in mind that "permanent" in EU terms is somewaht a moveable feast). So it is no easier to move from Ireland to to EUthan it is from the UK to the EU.
"Criminals, in fact anybody, walks into the UK across the border from anywhere in Europe. "
Q:So why don't they do that at the moment then?
A: Because, as above, Ireland is not part of Schengen and it is no easier to eneter Ireland from mainland Europe than it is to enter the UK. Furthermore, with Ireland being a good bit more remote from Europe than is the UK, stowaways in freezer lorries are less likely.
