The Brexit aftermath thread

[Slant]

Do the existing rules allow for an outer border to be an open border?

Indeed, to be honest I don't even see the real issue for the EU's side. It's not like none-EU citizens are going to sneak into the UK then hop on a boat to NI and walk into RoI and off into the EU as the UK is harder to sneak into that mainland EU.

The only real danger of the open boarder post Brexit is the issue of eastern-EU citizens sneaking across into the UK, and that's unlikely to case an issue for the EU.

The EU rules specifically call for the EU to implement policy to guarantee an external border. I'm inclined to say, without researching those policies right now, that an open border may very well be allowed. The real question here is, what's the point of this discussion? The UK needs to resolve its contradiction before we can discuss policy, really.

As for your second part... I wouldn't feel comfortable with the border security relying on "assuming it's hard to get into the UK." Sorry, but that would mean the external border of the EU relies on the integrity of a third party. That's bollocks. Sure, I know the UK can maintain their border properly, but I don't want to have to rely on a third party to control the integrity of my own political entity. Aside from fringe cases like the Vatican, that's quite outrageous to suggest.

[Rockyreg]

Article 61 of the Treaty:



The EU isn't cherry picking anything. The default state of the external borders of the EU is to have a regular border as is common between nations all over the world. This is the default state. That's what the EU will fall back on unless there is another solution. The other solutions include the options to cooperate with the EU. Either as a full member, or part of EEA. They are not limited to those options, but so far the UK hasn't offered anything that includes them justifying a hard border between England and France while at the same time having an open border between the RoI and NI (with yet another open border between NI and England).

The EU seems to be willing to allow an open border between the RoI and NI (a concession to the UK's problem), but they require a border to England, at the very least. Something the UK is not willing to do (because NI would not want that). So explain to me how the UK can justify a hard border between England and France but not England and France (via NI, RoI, France) at the same time?

- - - Updated - - -



The UK wouldn't be in the EEA if it left the customs union and the single market. As those are equally core principles of the EEA. Heck, those principles are the whole point of the EEA. Without those, it wouldn't be the EEA. It's like saying Hey, let's play football, but I don't want to play with a ball. Or goalposts. And I don't want to actually use my foot, I want to use my hand.

Other people call that basketball, but you seem to keep on insisting it's football. That makes a discussion rather cumbersome.

Because there is a huge difference in the relationship between the UK and Ire and the UK and France as recognised by the EU itself. Its also disingenuous to say it is a 'concession to the UK's problem' when it is both sides' problem which they both realise is important to be solved.

[Noradin]

Just rewind to how this discussion started. It was in reference to making the joint agreement a legal document. How can you make it a legal document when it states things like 'there will be no border in Ireland' and 'the UK including NI will leave the single market and customs union'

Easy: They leave the single market and the customs union and join another single market and another customs union with the rest of the EU and EEA. Said newly set up customs union and single markets will have all the same necessary institutions that are basically clones of the ones the EU already has.
Obviously the UK will have to pay for those, because the other states would be perfectly fine with just using the existing institutions and have the UK pay just their part of the upkeep.

Is all this a huge waste of money without any benefit to the UK when compared to what they had in the EU?
Of course, but that's no longer the EU's problem, because the UK won't be a member state any longer.
As long as the UK assumes all the extra costs they can get their clones of EU institutions that are only there so UK politicians do not lose face.
You are a sovereign country, you can waste money on the whims of your politicians as much as you want as long as it does not impinge on our sovereignty and does not unilaterally break treaties.

[Slant]

Well technically the fact it also contradicted the value of the EU and all it's member states should have been an issue, if the bureaucrats actually care for such things of course...

No you would have had the EU praised by the public/media and any hope the Brexiteers had disappeared in smoke (mostly because it would have averted the referendum in the first place).

It's not technically undemocratic. You chose how your system works. So if it's an outgoing prime minister, surely you, as a civilised country, have provisions for authority to pass over in a controlled manner.

Look at Germany, right now we technically are between Governments. But we have actual rules defining quite clearly that the old Chancellor handles affairs of the state until a new Chancellor is sworn in. We do not have an authoritative gap in our rulership. You seem to suggest that there is a time period in the UK in which such a headless state exists. That makes me wonder, what are the definitions of a headless state? Is it put down in writing somewhere? Or is it just public perception? What framework did the EU have to recognize that the UK is in fact not governed by a legal body and technically not able to ratify anything?

Furthermore, I am sure that in that time period, other legislation was passed and signed by your Government, should we retroactively invalidate all of those for the sake of this discussion? Would you like me to look up what other rules may not be in existance following your logic?

I maintain that this is a purely internal matter of the UK and technicalities don't change the fact that the EU has to respect the decision made. However ill-made that decision was.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we are talking about different things here. It stems from a statement made by Noradin:

''No.
This only works because EEA means there is free movement of people, goods, and services accross the border in question.

As soon as you don't have free movement of people a manned fence is needed.''

This was in the discussion regarding how could the UK be offered an off the shelf CETA type trade deal and not have a border in Ireland.

Yes, and I agree with everything he said. I don't get your point. What is it that you're asking for?

[Deleted]

That's not a hard brexit...

Oh yes it would have been.
Here is a collection of sources that describe the impact of brexit - The guy is a leaver if it matters.
In any case, large parts of the UK economy will literally grind to a halt absent the single market and its Acquis.
No REACH, then no chemical, medical, - Anyone using large amounts of chemicals - will be severely impacted. Even Domestic only companies would be wrecked, because all the relevant law refers to EU institutions, who manage the system - This couldn't even be solved by a copy paste and replace job, as it would require creation of new UK agencies as well as a wholly new system to manage it.
It would be a clusterfuck.
Coincidentally: Korea REACH - The Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals

[Noradin]

Well technically the fact it also contradicted the value of the EU and all it's member states should have been an issue, if the bureaucrats actually care for such things of course...

But it didn't.
You are a sovereign nation, and your official representatives signed this breaking no rules of the EU.
Why would following the rules of the EU contradict the value of the EU? The rules technically are the value.

- - - Updated - - -

If France is unhappy that it's open border with RoI may cause it troubles then the solution for them (albeit not convenient/desirable) is obvious.

Demand the RoI keep their commitments?
Yes, it's obvious.
There is even an international treaty that says so. (Guess which one?)

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is a huge difference in the relationship between the UK and Ire and the UK and France as recognised by the EU itself. Its also disingenuous to say it is a 'concession to the UK's problem' when it is both sides' problem which they both realise is important to be solved.

How is it both sides problem?
The RoI and the UK had a working solution, the UK freely decided to break it, thus it is on them to resolve the resulting problems to the satisfaction of the other party. That is how it is with treaties and contracts in general.

[Slant]

The simple explanation (not saying I like it) is that all countries control their borders. England chooses closed with France and open with NI, NI chooses open with England and open with RoI, RoI chooses open with NI and open with France, France chooses open with RoI and closed with England.

If France is unhappy that it's open border with RoI may cause it troubles then the solution for them (albeit not convenient/desirable) is obvious.

The nations pledged themselves to the border rules of the EU. They do not get to choose which border they handle preferentially. When the UK leaves the EU, the RoI will have to enforce the border to NI based simply on the legal text of the treaties and to protect every country behind the RoI from outside traffic as defined in the policies. The reason for this is simple, Schengen removes border control. The whole point is to abolish it and have a no-border zone within the EU.

What you're suggesting is undermining the entire concept of the Schengen area, the whole idea of Schengen would fall like dominoes, requiring each country in the up to Greece to start observing internal borders again. The entire idea was to not having to do that. The external border of the EU is a hard line. Much, much harder than any national border, because of the pressure the EU gets from the outside (as we can witness in the Meds) and the responsibility Ireland has towards each and every country behind it.

So, while I see the theoretical idea behind your suggestion, I would reject it outright based on pure principle. Not because of actual concern that the UK may abuse it.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is a huge difference in the relationship between the UK and Ire and the UK and France as recognised by the EU itself. Its also disingenuous to say it is a 'concession to the UK's problem' when it is both sides' problem which they both realise is important to be solved.

The EU doesn't care how special the UK thinks it is. The interests of the EU supercede national interests of a third party country like the UK (soon to be third party at least) as far as the EU is concerned. Thus whatever relationship you may have with the RoI is your problem, not ours. Out means out. These are considerations the UK should've made a long time ago. It's too late to complain now.

[Rockyreg]

Easy: They leave the single market and the customs union and join another single market and another customs union with the rest of the EU and EEA. Said newly set up customs union and single markets will have all the same necessary institutions that are basically clones of the ones the EU already has.
Obviously the UK will have to pay for those, because the other states would be perfectly fine with just using the existing institutions and have the UK pay just their part of the upkeep.

Is all this a huge waste of money without any benefit to the UK when compared to what they had in the EU?
Of course, but that's no longer the EU's problem, because the UK won't be a member state any longer.
As long as the UK assumes all the extra costs they can get their clones of EU institutions that are only there so UK politicians do not lose face.
You are a sovereign country, you can waste money on the whims of your politicians as much as you want as long as it does not impinge on our sovereignty and does not unilaterally break treaties.

Doubt that would happen.

- - - Updated - - -

The nations pledged themselves to the border rules of the EU. They do not get to choose which border they handle preferentially. When the UK leaves the EU, the RoI will have to enforce the border to NI based simply on the legal text of the treaties and to protect every country behind the RoI from outside traffic as defined in the policies. The reason for this is simple, Schengen removes border control. The whole point is to abolish it and have a no-border zone within the EU.

What you're suggesting is undermining the entire concept of the Schengen area, the whole idea of Schengen would fall like dominoes, requiring each country in the up to Greece to start observing internal borders again. The entire idea was to not having to do that. The external border of the EU is a hard line. Much, much harder than any national border, because of the pressure the EU gets from the outside (as we can witness in the Meds) and the responsibility Ireland has towards each and every country behind it.

So, while I see the theoretical idea behind your suggestion, I would reject it outright based on pure principle. Not because of actual concern that the UK may abuse it.

- - - Updated - - -



The EU doesn't care how special the UK thinks it is. The interests of the EU supercede national interests of a third party country like the UK (soon to be third party at least) as far as the EU is concerned. Thus whatever relationship you may have with the RoI is your problem, not ours. Out means out. These are considerations the UK should've made a long time ago. It's too late to complain now.

The mask has slipped, the faux solidarity between member states has again been shown up, thanks. You make out the UK/IRE relationship is a one-way thing, do you no longer care how it will affect Ireland?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not technically undemocratic. You chose how your system works. So if it's an outgoing prime minister, surely you, as a civilised country, have provisions for authority to pass over in a controlled manner.

Look at Germany, right now we technically are between Governments. But we have actual rules defining quite clearly that the old Chancellor handles affairs of the state until a new Chancellor is sworn in. We do not have an authoritative gap in our rulership. You seem to suggest that there is a time period in the UK in which such a headless state exists. That makes me wonder, what are the definitions of a headless state? Is it put down in writing somewhere? Or is it just public perception? What framework did the EU have to recognize that the UK is in fact not governed by a legal body and technically not able to ratify anything?

Furthermore, I am sure that in that time period, other legislation was passed and signed by your Government, should we retroactively invalidate all of those for the sake of this discussion? Would you like me to look up what other rules may not be in existance following your logic?

I maintain that this is a purely internal matter of the UK and technicalities don't change the fact that the EU has to respect the decision made. However ill-made that decision was.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, and I agree with everything he said. I don't get your point. What is it that you're asking for?

What I asked about 5 pages back and nobody can seem to answer. How can the EU offer a CETA type deal based upon the joint agreement that they now want to make a legal document? Not a hard question is it?

[Noradin]

Doubt that would happen.

Why not?
That is technically exactly what the UK asks for.
It is how trade agreements work: You lay down rules and then create a joint authority to police them, an authority that you delegate powers to, because otherwise it wouldn't have any.

There is absolutely no reason why the EU member states would agree to anything less than a clone of the relevant EU institutions, certainly nothing that would give the UK dis-appropriate control, after all: They are alone, we are much, much larger as a group.
And since these institutions are superfluous copies the UK wants for some reason--why would anyone but the UK be billed for them?

[Rockyreg]

How is it both sides problem?
The RoI and the UK had a working solution, the UK freely decided to break it, thus it is on them to resolve the resulting problems to the satisfaction of the other party. That is how it is with treaties and contracts in general.

Because it is in the interests of the EU to put a border in place to 'protect the integrity of the single market' which they can't do under the joint agreement. Your solution seems to be 'well you started it', how juvenile.

[Noradin]

The mask has slipped, the faux solidarity between member states has again been shown up, thanks. You make out the UK/IRE relationship is a one-way thing, do you no longer care how it will affect Ireland?

How so?
All 26 other EU member states lent all their weight in these negotiations to RoI so they can use it to get the best possible deal out of the UK.
We even lent them all out negotiators and everything. How can you call that anything but solidarity?

- - - Updated - - -

What I asked about 5 pages back and nobody can seem to answer. How can the EU offer a CETA type deal based upon the joint agreement that they now want to make a legal document? Not a hard question is it?

Sure we can: If that offer does not meet your requirements don't take it, pick from one of the alternatives.

[Rockyreg]

Why not?
That is technically exactly what the UK asks for.
It is how trade agreements work: You lay down rules and then create a joint authority to police them, an authority that you delegate powers to, because otherwise it wouldn't have any.

There is absolutely no reason why the EU member states would agree to anything less than a clone of the relevant EU institutions, certainly nothing that would give the UK dis-appropriate control, after all: They are alone, we are much, much larger as a group.
And since these institutions are superfluous copies the UK wants for some reason--why would anyone but the UK be billed for them?

Hahaa, yeah, we'll see.

[Noradin]

Because it is in the interests of the EU to put a border in place to 'protect the integrity of the single market' which they can't do under the joint agreement. Your solution seems to be 'well you started it', how juvenile.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is juvenile, you heard it here first!

[Rockyreg]

How so?
All 26 other EU member states lent all their weight in these negotiations to RoI so they can use it to get the best possible deal out of the UK.
We even lent them all out negotiators and everything. How can you call that anything but solidarity?

From Slant:

''Thus whatever relationship you may have with the RoI is your problem, not ours. Out means out''

Great solidarity, amazing! Basically ROI can go fuck themselves is what you are saying.

Sure we can: If that offer does not meet your requirements don't take it, pick from one of the alternatives.

The issue that you repeatedly keep forgetting is, it does not meet your requirements either, the onus is on both the UK and EU to not install a border in Ireland remember.

[Noradin]

The issue that you repeatedly keep forgetting is, it does not meet your requirements either, the onus is on both the UK and EU to not install a border in Ireland remember.

Well I guess then it's not really an option anyone can take.

And just to remind you, the EU has offered several options how to avoid a border in Ireland, has offered them for years.
One of them was to simply stay a member state, but you blew that one.

Another is to simply stay a member state in all but name but you do not seem to like that one.

Then there is simply ceding your authority over regulations to the rest of the EU like Norway, but you do not seem to want that either, and you have made Norway suspicious of your behaviour so we aren't sure we can offer you that anyway. You see: Norway got there first and that means we feel we own them some loyalty in that. Also, they got a veto.

There are lots of other options, and some of them you cannot take without breaking treaties, but you are a sovereign country remember?
Even if you decide to break the GFA for example we are still willing to talk to you and even offer you something.

[Rockyreg]

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is juvenile, you heard it here first!

The UK can not unilaterally decide what is going to happen with regards to the border.

[Noradin]

Great solidarity, amazing! Basically ROI can go fuck themselves is what you are saying.

No, what he is saying is that you do not get to abuse the situation in NI to extort something from the EU like you did with Scotland.

[Rockyreg]

Well I guess then it's not really an option anyone can take.

And just to remind you, the EU has offered several options how to avoid a border in Ireland, has offered them for years.
One of them was to simply stay a member state, but you blew that one.

Another is to simply stay a member state in all but name but you do not seem to like that one.

Then there is simply ceding your authority over regulations to the rest of the EU like Norway, but you do not seem to want that either, and you have made Norway suspicious of your behaviour so we aren't sure we can offer you that anyway. You see: Norway got there first and that means we feel we own them some loyalty in that. Also, they got a veto.

There are lots of other options, and some of them you cannot take without breaking treaties, but you are a sovereign country remember?
Even if you decide to break the GFA for example we are still willing to talk to you and even offer you something.

So basically you are saying you can leave the EU (but really you can't)

[Noradin]

The UK can not unilaterally decide what is going to happen with regards to the border.

It can unilaterally decide for their side of the border.
It can also unilaterally decide to take one of the EU's offers (that's why they are called "offers", because the other side can unilaterally decide to take them or not to take them) that allow for an open border.

[AeneasBK]

Just want to chip in to say, talkative as he may be, Slant does not, in fact, represent anything other than Slant.