Brexit - Art 50 on Mar 29th

[Pann]

there's still traffic between NI and RoI anyways, which IS up for customs control.

Neither country wants customs control. Mainland Europe is still able to secure and control its borders even if the ROI and NI keeps theirs open.

[caervek]

I can't wait to see the border pushed back from Calais to England so we can finally send them the thousands of refugees who don't want to stay in France who we still had to care about.

That isn't going to happen lol.

The English take care of the border into the tunnel in Calais, it simply won't work otherwise for the reasons you state. It's likely that France will now be given the option of taking control of the border into the tunnel in Folkestone (if they don't already). The terms will have to be agreed between the UK and France but moving the border into the UK simply isn't an option.

[dribbles]

lol, Slant, calm down a bit.

Honestly, it's as Pann said - you're extreme as some of the pro-Brexiteers. You're incapable of writing a paragraph without frothing at the mouth in anger and insulting people.

Doesn't his ranting remind you of someone? To be expected really when you consider what has come before from Europe.

[Pann]

"Blablabla *makes half assed argument* blabla but leave me out of it." won't get you off the hook mister. If you want to stay out of the discussion, how about you shut up and actually stay out of the discussion in the first place? :P

Nobody forced you to post here. And you keep on posting. I'm afraid if you don't want to discuss this, the only option you have left is to actually not post on this. That's the whole bit of "being out of it" that you're so concerned about. But, I understand... the British have a hard time understanding what "being out of it" actually means.

Ironically, you are quite the metaphor for Britain. Discussing and whinging when people respond to you and not understanding that you can't both have the cake and eat it at the same time. Either in or out, don't expect us to tolerate you posting shit and then not being allowed to correct you on the misperceptions that you have.

What? I know reading what people have written has become very much optional in this thread but... seriously?!? I talk about the practicalities of the NI and ROI borders remaining open, nothing else, and then someone comes along talking about May and how she wants to get rid of the ECHR, these are different points. I will happily continue to discuss the first point but I want no part of the finger pointing and strawmanning of the second.

Why do you assume that this is purely a British issue? The ROI also want open borders have you forgotten that they are a member state?

It doesn't matter if it's practical or not, to be honest. There are 177,000 trucks crossing that border every day. You folks keep ignoring that and try to pretend like it's an insignificant border. It's not. There's major traffic going on. And if Britain can't negotiate that border or anything at all really, and if we fall back to the default Art 50 exit, then that border will be closed and subject to regular customs and border inspections.

You can bitch and moan as much as you like, stamp your foot, draw a pouty face and threaten us with all the little might Britain has. That border would absolutely be closed. Unless Britain managed to negotiate something else. And this isn't the EU being "mean" or something. That's how a default border state between two legal entities looks like. Do you understand that? Do you also understand that the EU doesn't actually give a fuck about the situation of the British Isles when its own outer border is concerned? How the EU with 26 member states supercedes the most stupid conflict of the British Isles since forever? If not generally, then at the very least in the opinion of the EU itself? Which is the body that actually has the last say on that border from the RoI side?

Again... this is like you guys screaming "But we want to limit free movement and the single market, and we'll get it, you'll see!" until Theresa May acknowledged the UK wouldn't get it. Now I've had someone try to explain to me that "access" and "membership" are two different things, and apparently he meant something else entirely and yadda yadda... I swear, that was the ugliest 180° attempt I've seen so far in this forum. And it'll be the same on this one. Do you think the EU will be lax about its outer borders? Seriously? After we just started to see the need to beef up outer border security with Frontext?

Your side LITERALLY used "EU can't even protect its own borders!" as some side argument about how we're flooding Europe with refugees... and then expect us to turn a blind eye to the RoI border? :P

Where do you get those figures from? I highly doubt that amount of traffic could be accommodated on the handful of ferries that leave Ireland for mainland Europe, each week.

I am not bitching and moaning about anything nor have I said that the EU are being mean. Geez, how many strawmen can't you fit in one post???

You are aware that the people of the UK are not universally behind this? So you continued insults about we did this, we did that are extremely ignorant.

- - - Updated - - -

Random checks to find something requires luck.

Well i don´t know how likely companies that export in those volumes want to get involved in criminal activities. Judging by how many companies try to do everything to avoid paying taxes i wouldn´t bet on them not doing it though.

Whether or nor luck is involved doing this would be a massive undertaking but could be discovered at any time.

There is a big difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, one is legal, the other is not, evading duty payments firmly falls into the latter less than legal camp.

[Mayhem]

Neither country wants customs control. Mainland Europe is still able to secure and control its borders even if the ROI and NI keeps theirs open.

That would mean control between ROI and the rest of the EU? Well if ROI wants that sure, it´s a possible solution, i don´t know how likely it is.

[Pann]

That would mean control between ROI and the rest of the EU? Well if ROI wants that sure, it´s a possible solution, i don´t know how likely it is.

Possibly, look I am not saying that there would not be difficulties or cost associated with keeping the Irish border open only that logistics (and the additional costs they bring) of travelling to Ireland from the UK in order evade duty makes it unlikely that companies would consider doing it.

[caervek]

That would mean control between ROI and the rest of the EU?

Doesn't that exist anyway?

You know considering anything going between them has to go via sea or air so will pass through customs (unless it's driven through NI to a ferry, then to the UK and across the tunnel to France, in which case post Brexit it will pass through French customs).

[Mehrunes]

Yes it is, let's break down everything I said in your quote:

• "Prior to foundation of the EU in 1993 the community we were part of was merely a trading/etc partnership and not a political union." - True.
• "The UK never joined a political union" - True, we joined a trading/economic partnership.
• "never wanted to join a political union" - True, the UK would have left the EEC back in the 1975 referendum if the future creation of the EU in 1993 was known then.
• "and prior to 1990 our government didn't want to either." - True, the Europhile politicians actually had to oust our PM and install a new one.

So literally all of it was true /shock.

If "true" is a synonym to "horseshit" in your local dialect, then sure. Other than that, no. As @GoblinP mentioned already, Treaty of Rome already mentioned a political union aspect. And as @Mizix said, there were already political institutions in the EEC prior to 1993, which evolved in the institutions of EU we have now. It was more than a "mere trading/etc partnership" before UK even joined. Even more so after Single European Act that, lo and behold, happened before 1993 (and UK pushed for). Points #2, #3 and #4 are then horseshit by default since they rely on horseshit #1. #3 is also speculation.

[ranzino]

That would mean control between ROI and the rest of the EU? Well if ROI wants that sure, it´s a possible solution, i don´t know how likely it is.

It's up to RoI then. If they want the open border, they probably need to isolate themselves from EU's otherwise custom less trade. With Ireland being a non-Schengen state already it is just about trade regulations.

[Mayhem]

Whether or nor luck is involved doing this would be a massive undertaking but could be discovered at any time.

There is a big difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, one is legal, the other is not, evading duty payments firmly falls into the latter less than legal camp.

Yeah and you´re going to tell me that tax evasion never has happened in big companies, right? Also it depends on the fines to pay as they would need to prove wrong doing for more than this one shipment they just happened to get a hold on.

I´m not saying it is impossible to find out wrong doing, i´m saying it´s a pretty large and costly endeavour.

I mean there are reasons border controls exist, right now you´re trying to convince me that border controls aren´t needed at all.

[Mehrunes]

Right.... so, when the UK government reiterated its commitment to the GFA in its white paper on Brexit, they were in fact shitting on it?

Where is the evidence that the UK is intent on shitting on the GFA?

May's government's desire to leave ECHR, on which parts of the GFA rest? Following the discussion is hard, amirite?

[caervek]

May's government's desire to leave ECHR, on which parts of the GFA rest? Following the discussion is hard, amirite?

The ECHR predates the EU and when Britain first set about drafting it we based it on many of our own laws/values, as such if any parts of the GFA rest on ECHR aspects then they will already be covered by duplicate UK laws and if not those laws will be added before we leave the ECHR.

[Mayhem]

Doesn't that exist anyway?

You know considering anything going between them has to go via sea or air so will pass through customs (unless it's driven through NI to a ferry, then to the UK and across the tunnel to France, in which case post Brexit it will pass through French customs).

How? They are moving goods within EU member states and there are no further customs checks.

[ranzino]

The ECHR predates the EU and when Britain first set about drafting it we based it on many of our own laws/values, as such if any parts of the GFA rest on ECHR aspects then they will already be covered by duplicate UK laws and if not those laws will be added before we leave the ECHR.

Why should RoI submit to UK's courts later ? There's a reason ECHR is present.

[Mehrunes]

The ROI want to keep open borders with the North as much as the UK to paint this as a special privilege for the UK is quite frankly rather dishonest. By the same token denying a member state a beneficial exception in order to punish the UK doesn't paint a picture of that the EU is acting in the interests of its members.

Not giving a non-member state special privileges is not punishing that non-member-state. Countries outside of EU are not entitled to special treatment, not giving them it is the neutral state of things. It wouldn't be a punishment even in regards to a member state. And special privileges are cancerous in general. EU member states are supposed to be equals. Giving some special rights runs contrary to that.

I know you like to play internet lawyer... but.... what? I want no part of the conversation as the points he raised have nothing to do with anything I said. I am not trying to silence anyone nor have I tried to spread anything I simply have no interest in being lead down that avenue of conversation. If you or he want to discuss the points he raised go for it.

But what if I disagreed with that assertion? :O The underlying problem was a threat to peace in Northern Ireland. Focusing on border control, that you have no idea is going to even raise tensions (by your own admission), in regards to this topic seems misguided to me. As misguided as the insistence that UK's border with EU should be treated in special manner in case of hard Brexit. And I'll once again point out that the context was indeed hard Brexit. I have no problem with the Brexit negotiation process resulting in some lenience in that department. But a situation where negotiations die should not end with parting gifts to the UK, especially if those parting gifts are supposed to alleviate a problem UK caused itself.

[ranzino]

How? They are moving goods within EU member states and there are no further customs checks.

Which is the crux and i smell a conflict which can blow Brexit negotiations sky high. Btw: EU IS also prepared for a fail of negotiations, says Tusk.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39453338

[Alexeht]

How? They are moving goods within EU member states and there are no further customs checks.

Bollocks. Everything that comes to UK is checked (or almost). Same with people and animals, UK was never in 'shengen' so you need to have your documents checked, not like in rest of wild Europe. Thanks to that UK if rabies free

[Nigel Tufnel]

If I'm frothing, it's only out of frustration at the blatant lies and untruths spread here. On purpose, I now have to say. Not sure what the BBC said, but Donald Tusk outlined the strategy and he repeated pretty much what Merkel said in her press conference. First the withdrawal negotiations. And once those are done, they will proceed to trade negotiations and future relations. That's what "sufficient progress" means. Those negotiations have to be done to an extent that the major bullet points are decided and agreed upon. This very much means that no, the UK cannot start trade talks tomorrow, as much as it would like to.

That is the opposite of what you're claiming. This is one step after another. Tusk's document repeatedly refers to a two phase negotiation. And once more you lot cling to semantics and weak arguments to justify a reality in your head that simply does not exist in the real world.

This isn't anti-British sentiment. This is me telling shitposters to stop shitposting. This is my trying to show you that you're not just wrong, you're being deceitful. And I'm confirmed in that rarely does anyone actually engage my arguments or, god forbid, proves me wrong. Half of the people posting here don't even understand how the EU works or what this Brexit means. They just go by some populistic bullshit that was spoonfed to them on TV. And of that, half are outright lies spread by Johnsson and Farage. Simple lies that can be debunked with 5 minutes on Google, but the lazy folks just don't care... or perhaps they're afraid their fantasy proves to be a hoax.

God, Slant - you're so black and white. There are no shades of grey with you, is there?

"Calling for a "phased approach giving priority to an orderly withdrawal", it suggests starting with discussions on the separation arrangement. They could then move on to talks about a future trade relationship between the EU and the UK."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39453338

The tone of Tusk's document, thank God, is sensible whereas e.g., Hollande's tone has been completely dismissive.

"The French president used a phone conversation with the prime minister on Thursday to echo remarks by the European council president, Donald Tusk, and German chancellor, Angela Merkel, that trade and divorce talks could not be held in parallel."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ell-talk-trade

So, yes, you can argue semantics e.g., what exactly does the following mean:

"Only once we have achieved sufficient progress on the withdrawal can we discuss the framework for our future relationship,"

What does "sufficient progress" constitute. But it's a damn sight more sensible than Hollande's full blown dismissal.

Oh, and from Tusk's document.

"11. The Union has consistently supported the goal of peace and reconciliation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, and continuing to support and protect the achievements, benefits and commitments of the Peace Process will remain of paramount importance. In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the Union legal order. In this context, the Union should also recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...guidelines.pdf

Yet more commitment to avoiding a hard border from the EU, which extends beyond an "it's Britain's problem" mentality.

[Mehrunes]

And, already, compromise is taking place. The EU, having first said it wouldn't consider negotiating a trade deal until the separation deal had been concluded, is now saying negotiations can start once sufficient progress has been made on the separation deal. Why? Because it's in all our interests.

Yeah the EU doesn't give a shit about the border, even though everyone that matters in the organisation (not random guy #213423 Slant on the internet) has said it will be a crucial point of the negotiations and no one wants/expects to see a hard border there.

What's with people not being able to follow context of the discussion they engage in? The context of RoI/NI border topic was hard Brexit. With negotiations being dead in the water and resulting in no deals. What both sides want to negotiate and what deals they plan to make now is irrelevant to this scenario.

[Mayhem]

Bollocks. Everything that comes to UK is checked (or almost). Same with people and animals, UK was never in 'shengen' so you need to have your documents checked, not like in rest of wild Europe. Thanks to that UK if rabies free

Yeah, the UK is part of the customs union... so no goods are checked that come from within other EU members, kind of the point of the customs union.