NI / ROI border - again...

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Being fairly thick, and very cynical, I just don't understand why the Irish border was not a problem when the original EU-proposed Canada type deal was on offer, but that it became one subsequently once the EU saw that TM was on their side. Clearly it is not an 'impossible' matter to overcome for the EU, because they 'overcame' it back then.

I'll be grateful to any able to enlighten me as to what - other than TM's selling out the UK - changed to make the matter 'impossible'.

Thanks in advance... :)
 
Last edited:
Being fairly thick, and very cynical, I just don't understand why the Irish border was not a problem when the original EU-proposed Canada type deal was on offer, but that it became one subsequently once the EU saw that TM was on their side. Clearly it is not an 'impossible' matter to overcome for the EU, because they 'overcame' it back then.

I'll be grateful to any able to enlighten me as to what - other than TM's selling out the UK - changed to make the matter 'impossible'.

Thanks in advance... :)
I'm at a loss, what would you do?
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I'm at a loss, what would you do?
Happy to

Is it not because the Canada thing was s FTA and the Mrs May thing is a withdrawal deal?
Yes, and no. Under the EU's first suggested 'Canada' deal a withdrawal agreement was not deemed necessary because there was to be a straight transition to the FTA. And this is my point, they - the EU - did not envisage any problem with the Irish border then, so the obvious questions are then 'what was the EU intending originally in re the border and where did the problem come from?'
 
Happy to



Yes, and no. Under the EU's first suggested 'Canada' deal a withdrawal agreement was not deemed necessary because there was to be a straight transition to the FTA. And this is my point, they - the EU - did not envisage any problem with the Irish border then, so the obvious questions are then 'what was the EU intending originally in re the border and where did the problem come from?'
Presumably with a largely tariff free trade agreement (FTA), there would be no customs costs and hence no need for a customs check, ergo no possibility of tariff fraud/ no need for a hard border. As I understand things, we currently have no expectation of an FTA with the EU, and hence the Irish border would be a boundary between two different customs regimes - which would need a means of monitoring/ collecting customs, etc.
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Location
Limousin
Presumably with a largely tariff free trade agreement (FTA), there would be no customs costs and hence no need for a customs check, ergo no possibility of tariff fraud/ no need for a hard border. As I understand things, we currently have no expectation of an FTA with the EU, and hence the Irish border would be a boundary between two different customs regimes - which would need a means of monitoring/ collecting customs, etc.
The scenario will be grim for NI as WTO rules will mean as it stands, that the RoI farmers for example will be able to import tariff free into NI, but NI farmers will face big tariffs and customs controls going the other way, plus having to compete with Brazilian and US products in their home market. I can't understand why they aren't actually pleading for the backstop.:scratchhead:
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Presumably with a largely tariff free trade agreement (FTA), there would be no customs costs and hence no need for a customs check, ergo no possibility of tariff fraud/ no need for a hard border. As I understand things, we currently have no expectation of an FTA with the EU, and hence the Irish border would be a boundary between two different customs regimes - which would need a means of monitoring/ collecting customs, etc.
Apologies, I posted earlier without finishing, domestic distraction... :mad:

A FTA would not have meant no checks, because 'checks', in this instance, relate as much to what is coming in as to the fact that it is coming at all. This is why I find the EU's sudden discovery of a 'problem' with the border so baffling.

Before they found out what a push-over / accomplice TM was, they were happy for a Canada + deal with no problems on the horizon. But... as soon as TM began her collaboration, the border suddenly became an insurmountable problem... this is patently bullsh!t, it is a constructed problem built upon TM's (and her Federal European loving civil servant Mr Robbins) foundation of giving up as much as possible.

Don't misunderstand me, in one way and as far it could tell, it made sense for the EU to take full advantage of TM's not wanting the UK to leave the EU. But the problems are that they and she went too far and underestimated how much opposition there would be.

I think it highly likely that, assuming we have a PM determined to leave the EU, the EU will re-discover their 'lack' of a border problem. ;)
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Location
Limousin
Apologies, I posted earlier without finishing, domestic distraction... :mad:

A FTA would not have meant no checks, because 'checks', in this instance, relate as much to what is coming in as to the fact that it is coming at all. This is why I find the EU's sudden discovery of a 'problem' with the border so baffling.

Before they found out what a push-over / accomplice TM was, they were happy for a Canada + deal with no problems on the horizon. But... as soon as TM began her collaboration, the border suddenly became an insurmountable problem... this is patently bullsh!t, it is a constructed problem built upon TM's (and her Federal European loving civil servant Mr Robbins) foundation of giving up as much as possible.

Don't misunderstand me, in one way and as far it could tell, it made sense for the EU to take full advantage of TM's not wanting the UK to leave the EU. But the problems are that they and she went too far and underestimated how much opposition there would be.

I think it highly likely that, assuming we have a PM determined to leave the EU, the EU will re-discover their 'lack' of a border problem. ;)
I think if you look back there was a Canada + proposed by the EU and this was interpreted as a Canada +++++ by some Brexiteers. The first was not going to be that attractive as it would very limited and not include service sector and various other things the EU didn't wish to include, with no say on any NTB that could be implemented by them. The UK interpretation was the old cake and eat it scenario or more likely pick and mix.
 
Happy to



Yes, and no. Under the EU's first suggested 'Canada' deal a withdrawal agreement was not deemed necessary because there was to be a straight transition to the FTA. And this is my point, they - the EU - did not envisage any problem with the Irish border then, so the obvious questions are then 'what was the EU intending originally in re the border and where did the problem come from?'
You need to go over there and tell the people of NI and ROI that this is not an issue.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I think if you look back there was a Canada + proposed by the EU and this was interpreted as a Canada +++++ by some Brexiteers. The first was not going to be that attractive as it would very limited and not include service sector and various other things the EU didn't wish to include, with no say on any NTB that could be implemented by them. The UK interpretation was the old cake and eat it scenario or more likely pick and mix.
That's your spin on it, but the fact remains that the NI / ROI border wasn't mentioned at all, let alone as a potential problem... was it? ;)

You need to go over there and tell the people of NI and ROI that this is not an issue.
The ROI will play the issue for it's worth, not least because of orders from Brussels, but also because it wants to pretend greater importance. In NI the issue is being very greatly played up by those who don't want the UK to leave the EU and who do want NI to leave the UK, no surprise there. If the UK will not have a hard border, it will be the EU or the ROI (at the EU's instruction) imposing one.

But wait... if there is a 'no-deal' we know, because the EU have told us, there will be a period during which things will be allowed to remain exactly as now (how very good of them...:rolleyes:), just watch as it rolls and rolls and rolls, until, eventually, it will become the norm and everyone realises there was a great deal of fear about nothing. (y)
 

Boohoo

Member
Location
Newtownabbey
Nothing changed, but those who want to stop Brexit have stirred the pot and told Brussels what it wanted to hear.
Leaders of NI's remain parties trekked to Brussels more than once to moan to anyone who would listen, our terrorist MEP was often heard screeching about no border (she doesn't recognise the one that is there at the moment) and Irish citizens rights (she's very selective about whose rights she recognises) and now we have another delusional MEP who says she's going to Brussels to stop Brexit and serve the full 5 years.
 

Yacker

Member
Not complicated post Brexit -

Option 1 Hard Border and all the misery that goes with it including loss of life.

Option 2 NI stays in EU and a few religious (DUP) nutters get upset including loss of life.

Dammed if you do etc. And at some point someone has to pick an option (better phone Boris)
 

baabaa

Member
Location
co Antrim
Ok I see plenty of commenting.

Anyone going to reveal their plan on what they think should be done about a border and explain how it will work.
mmmmm
i would like to see the eurocrats plans of how they would enforce a border
in a no deal scenario
 

nivilla1982

Member
Livestock Farmer
Nothing changed, but those who want to stop Brexit have stirred the pot and told Brussels what it wanted to hear.
Leaders of NI's remain parties trekked to Brussels more than once to moan to anyone who would listen, our terrorist MEP was often heard screeching about no border (she doesn't recognise the one that is there at the moment) and Irish citizens rights (she's very selective about whose rights she recognises) and now we have another delusional MEP who says she's going to Brussels to stop Brexit and serve the full 5 years.
long.png

Naomi Long with Matt Carthy PSF MEP
 

Yacker

Member
mmmmm
i would like to see the eurocrats plans of how they would enforce a border
in a no deal scenario
Good old fashioned customs posts and yes the border will be easily bypassed by those who wish to profit illegally (and allow migrants through) but cause havoc for legitimate business.

The EU will fund Ireland if it needs resource for a border.
 

baabaa

Member
Location
co Antrim
Good old fashioned customs posts and yes the border will be easily bypassed by those who wish to profit illegally (and allow migrants through) but cause havoc for legitimate business.

The EU will fund Ireland if it needs resource for a border.
you do realise
there are hundreds of crossing points
a hostile local population
and many millions to be made
good luck:D:D:D
 

Forum statistics

Threads
163,062
Messages
3,724,707
Members
41,038
Latest member
Carey wilson

China pig recovery drives Genus growth

  • 301
  • 0


Written by Jamie Day

A trading update from animal genetics business Genus says trading in the first four months of the current year, to October 31st 2019, has seen volumes, revenues and adjusted profit grow across its PIC and ABS pig and cattle divisions. The global pig business is benefitting from rising pigmeat prices in China, following the African […]

The post...
Top