The Brexit aftermath thread

[Lochton]

Just wish the closing date would get here already.

The wife and I are anxious like hell, luckily my country vouches for her to stay safe here and not having to return..

[dribbles]

So the ERG still won't accept it. Because getting out of the backstop requires them to actually have a workable solution that avoids a hard-border. And they don't have one, never did, never will. Like everything else since minute one of this process, they just spout made up nonsense and expect people to buy it.

So May's deal will fail, and badly. Then no-deal will be ruled out with a vote. Then the next step is one or more of requesting an extension, triggering a second referendum or cancelling Article 50 completely. Not long now until Dribbles dream dies. Tick, tock.

[Edit] And the ERG have just said it isn't good enough. Quicker than even I expected.

Not at all, my dream is alive.

Parliament already voted for and sanctioned no deal with the Withdrawal Act.

Leaving without a deal is the will of the people and the parliament. How many times do you need to be told "No deal is better than a bad deal"? And no deal already has a mandate, no votes needed for or against it and will happen by legal default unless parliament and the EU coalesces around something else.

The only way no deal can't happen is if an alternative is found, what alternative is that then clever clogs?

You have 17 days, tick tock...

[Dhrizzle]

Anyway going by what is said here:https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKBN1QS0LN

A separate legal text, that by its description still does not let the UK unilaterally drop the backstop or add a time limit. Probably some form of redress if the UK thinks the EU is acting in bad faith and not accepting that after a solution is presented the terms are met for the backstop to be dissolved? So if the UK comes up with a solution and the EU claims it is not adequate, they'd be some form of mediation? Will have to see under what jurisdiction that will work.

With every fibre of my being I hope it is to be adjudicated by the ECJ just to see Mogg have a sputtering breakdown.

[Slant]

Presumably the EU has a word to say on who's on that panel as well. It's a pretty safe bet that neither Farage nor Reese-Mogg will be allowed anywhere near that panel.

[Shalcker]

No, the provisions are in the Withdrawal Agreement from last month. An arbitration panel of independent members proposed by the UK and EU would be reviewing any concern related to this withdrawal. For a unilateral exit to be triggered the arbitration panel must be convened, it must find either side to be acting in bad faith and offer a form of redress and only after the other party makes no effort to address the issue after adequate time can anyone act unilaterally.
So the UK would have to convince an independent panel that its alternative solutions actually satisfy the objectives of both the GFA and international trade law and the EU is just being petulant. So unless they staff the independent panel with bronies that have a hardon for unicorns, they are shafted.

But some technical solutions do look relatively feasible on timeline of several years to make things close enough to "no hard border".

No checks for NI/RoI goods/people as per GFA but checks for everything else through better surveillance technologies and reporting at ports of entry should be possible.

The point of arbitration is that as long as implementation satisfies those requirements to sufficient degree (it doesn't have to be water-tight), EU would have to accept it as the point at which backstop ends.

...as long as i understand right what you're talking about.

[Slant]

Article 171 covers that.
Establishment of the arbitration panel
1. The Joint Committee shall, no later than by the end of the transition period, establish a list of 25 persons who are willing and able to serve as members of an arbitration panel. To that end, the Union and the United Kingdom shall each propose ten persons. The Union and the United Kingdom shall also jointly propose five persons to act as chairperson of the arbitration panel. The Joint Committee shall ensure that the list complies with these requirements at any moment in time.
2. The list established pursuant to paragraph 1 shall only comprise persons whose independence is beyond doubt, who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial office in their respective countries or who are jurisconsults of recognised competence, and who possess specialised knowledge or experience of Union law and public international law. That list shall not comprise persons who are members, officials or other servants of the Union institutions, of the government of a Member State, or of the government of the United Kingdom.
3. An arbitration panel shall be composed of five members.

Okay, sounds reasonable. Thanks, that relieves me a bit. But it also means the WA will be shot down once more tonight. :P

- - - Updated - - -

No checks for NI/RoI goods/people as per GFA but checks for everything else through better surveillance technologies and reporting at ports of entry should be possible.

Such technologies don't exist or are insufficient to effectively exercise what nations consider "border control". If they did, the whole planet would be reworking their borders right now. There's a reason why borders are the way they are.

[Shalcker]

what technical solutions that also do not seperate NI from the rest of Britian exist?

Surveliance?

Pass anything NI/RoI, check everything else? As far as i see that seems to be the point of GFA, the problem is discerning those from broad EU stuff that shouldn't be allowed after Brexit.

They are already running face recognition trials for police in UK, those technologies are at pretty decent stage right now, so separating people shouldn't be a problem with big enough database of RoI/NI citizens.

And for goods - well, RoI/EU "just" has to declare what enters it from EU and then it has to be tracked so that it doesn't go through border without appropriate checks/duties? That only looks hard, not technically impossible - as far as i understand EU already does a lot of reporting on that front.

- - - Updated - - -

Such technologies don't exist or are insufficient to effectively exercise what nations consider "border control". If they did, the whole planet would be reworking their borders right now. There's a reason why borders are the way they are.

They are insufficient right now. Extending them with proper funding and incentives is not impossible, just hard - and incentives of maintaining GFA are quite high, so parliamentary support for such programs is guaranteed.

As far as i see the point is once they will be extended that way it has to be accepted by EU as sufficient to drop backstop (through independent arbitration) - not just claim "this implementation is insufficient", but have panel show where it comes short and then have UK either try to fix that iteratively, or perhaps drop/relax some parts of requirements that actually do prove to be fully impossible for some reason - like "it's fine as long as it catches 90/95/99% of possible violations and the rest is dealt through usual legal channels".

[Dhrizzle]

In distinctly less hilarious news -
IRA Claims To Be Behind Explosive Devices In London And Glasgow, Police Say

Makes Dribbles' "tick-tock" rather more chiling, though I daresay he'll spin it as a positive for the British people he couldn't give a fuck about.

[Slant]

They are insufficient right now. Extending them with proper funding and incentives is not impossible, just hard - and incentives of maintaining GFA are quite high, so parliamentary support for such programs is guaranteed.

As far as i see the point is once they will be extended that way it has to be accepted by EU as sufficient to drop backstop (through independent arbitration) - not just claim "this implementation is insufficient", but have panel show where it comes short and then have UK either try to fix that iteratively, or perhaps drop/relax some parts of requirements that actually do prove to be fully impossible for some reason - like "it's fine as long as it catches 90/95/99% of possible violations and the rest is dealt through usual legal channels".

"What" isn't sufficient right now? Because you don't seem to have a clue what those technologies are, either. This is the main point the EU is making and you're really just demonstrating why. Which technologies? And nobody cares if they'll someday become feasible, we don't live in science fiction novels, we have to deal with what is the now.

Again, feel free to point out what those technologies are. And no, surveillance cameras don't cut it. They already exist on pretty much every border checkpoint of the planet, they are really, really shit at looking behind crates and panels.

[Slant]

to be fair those devices are more symbolic than effective, i could do more damage with a boiled egg.
@Shackler you are describing fantasy nonsense.

here is the important thing you should look at pre vote lads
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/...28178355531776
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/...24808689496065

Bollocks.

[kalworth]

to be fair those devices are more symbolic than effective, i could do more damage with a boiled egg.

I don't think you understand the issue. The devices themselves are not that important.

What is important is that the IRA has re-emerged after decades of peace. Previous attacks were carried out by small dissident groups with little support. The IRA have a huge network North and South, TD's in the dail and the support for Sinn Fein generally. Any prolonged campaign will destroy Northern Ireland's economy. This is by far the worst development yet related to Brexit.

[Shalcker]

"What" isn't sufficient right now? Because you don't seem to have a clue what those technologies are, either. This is the main point the EU is making and you're really just demonstrating why. Which technologies? And nobody cares if they'll someday become feasible, we don't live in science fiction novels, we have to deal with what is the now.

Again, feel free to point out what those technologies are. And no, surveillance cameras don't cut it. They already exist on pretty much every border checkpoint of the planet, they are really, really shit at looking behind crates and panels.

Lets imagine perfect system with existing technologies, sure, why not?

Crates don't appear out of thin air with modern logistics, they have to be loaded somewhere and usually got manifests for their content (which can be stored online). Trucks also have GPS trackers nowdays and there are test platforms to check unobtrusively that weight matches reported load.

As long as truck doesn't go into "EU areas", passes weight check, and declares RoI/NI contents it should be fully able to avoid checks at NI/RoI border; further checks can still happen at outgoing ports if needed.

Those that do go into "EU areas" for duration consistent with loading but declare RoI/NI content might be subject to occasional (rare) random checks.

That should be sufficient to stop any kind of large-scale EU/UK trade through RoI/NI border that avoids customs.

[kalworth]

Lets imagine perfect system with existing technologies, sure, why not?

Crates don't appear out of thin air with modern logistics, they have to be loaded somewhere and usually got manifests for their content (which can be stored online). Trucks also have GPS trackers nowdays and there are test platforms to check unobtrusively that weight matches reported load.

As long as truck doesn't go into "EU areas", passes weight check, and declares RoI/NI contents it should be fully able to avoid checks at NI/RoI border; further checks can still happen at outgoing ports if needed.

Those that do go into "EU areas" for duration consistent with loading but declare RoI/NI content might be subject to occasional (rare) random checks.

That should be sufficient to stop any kind of large-scale EU/UK trade through RoI/NI border that avoids customs.

Sounds like a paradise for people trying to game the system.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what the point of this is or how it helps anybody but smugglers. It seems like an unnecessary amount of torturous bureaucracy.

[Twdft]

How do you prevent smuggling when the smuggler says "I'm Irish, lads"?

[Shalcker]

Sounds like a paradise for people trying to game the system.

Any system can be gamed. Even classic border control has to deal with contraband.

Expecting anything watertight given restrictions is unreasonable - as does requiring such system.

But slowing flow of unchecked goods to the trickle is perfectly achievable.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what the point of this is or how it helps anybody but smugglers. It seems like an unnecessary amount of torturous bureaucracy.

A lot of this work is already being done; streamlining it to the level of unobtrusiveness should be net positive.

[Slant]

Lets imagine perfect system with existing technologies, sure, why not?

Crates don't appear out of thin air with modern logistics, they have to be loaded somewhere and usually got manifests for their content (which can be stored online). Trucks also have GPS trackers nowdays and there are test platforms to check unobtrusively that weight matches reported load.

As long as truck doesn't go into "EU areas", passes weight check, and declares RoI/NI contents it should be fully able to avoid checks at NI/RoI border; further checks can still happen at outgoing ports if needed.

Those that do go into "EU areas" for duration consistent with loading but declare RoI/NI content might be subject to occasional (rare) random checks.

That should be sufficient to stop any kind of large-scale EU/UK trade through RoI/NI border that avoids customs.

Ok, so you make a few assumptions here...

1. The manifest is filled out truthfully.
2. The truck doesn't stop on the way to the border to exchange the trailer for another trailer (or just a few crates). Amazingly, weighing stuff isn't only done at borders. You can match weights, it's funny how physics works.
3. GPS trackers would not only constitute a serious data privacy breach, they are also able to be duped.
4. Your system doesn't check people at all. See, part of border checks isn't just cargo, it's also checking who's crossing the border. This is, presumably, the main reason why the UK wants border checks to the EU to begin with.
5. At no point in this process have you verified that the content of the truck is what it is. You're just trusting the original logistics company to get its data correct. Borders don't work on trust. Let me be brutally honest on this: We do not trust the UK anymore. Not necessarily because they're evil, but because they're incompetent and are prone to exploit anything we allow them. They outright said so themselves often enough. Cakeism is one sample of it.

So, go ahead. Discuss those points, explain how you want to solve them with... existing technologies. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Any system can be gamed. Even classic border control has to deal with contraband.

It's infinitely harder to trick a border patrol guard with a drug hound that you don't carry heroine than having an open border and a manifest that you filled out yourself.

[Shalcker]

How do you prevent smuggling when the smuggler says "I'm Irish, lads"?

Run face recognition check? If he ever crossed border before trust him?

If he never did, trust him at the moment but queue him for bigger search through RoI/NI databases and if he lied pass him to authorities?

[Slant]

Run face recognition check? If he ever crossed border before trust him?

If he never did, trust him at the moment but queue him for bigger search through RoI/NI databases and if he lied pass him to authorities?

Bzzzzz, wrong answer. Data privacy. Here in the free world, you're not allowed to have unlimited face recognition, heck even limited face recognition where you delete the data after X amount of time is forbidden if you indiscriminantly scan just everyone without a judge giving you explicit permission for a specific purpose (like hunting a criminal).

[Slant]

lol shackler whats to stop me buying these goods at the shop then driving them across the border, any physical infrustructure on the border would have to be defended by a battalion to stop it being firebombed out of existance. dont think you quite get the problem here.

as for those bombs probably from some Na Fianna Éireann wannabe. There has been a rise in six packing lately, seen a couple of Pistol Mitralieră model 1963's in the propaganda videos.

Oh yeah I forgot that bit... how about not filling out a manifest and just... driving over the border. I mean, what's the technical solution to prevent that?

[Shalcker]

Ok, so you make a few assumptions here...
1. The manifest is filled out truthfully.

I presume there are already regulations in place against manifests being forged for various reasons, yes.

EU can get those tighter if it wants too.

2. The truck doesn't stop on the way to the border to exchange the trailer for another trailer (or just a few crates). Amazingly, weighing stuff isn't only done at borders. You can match weights, it's funny how physics works.

Yes, you can. And you can get caught doing it too.

3. GPS trackers would not only constitute a serious data privacy breach, they are also able to be duped.

Privacy for cross-border trucking? Don't think that'll work as good defense.

GPS tracking is generally joined with on-street number recognition by speed cameras; you would need to both dupe GPS and avoid them while doing so.

Breach of privacy, sure; perfectly possible as it stands.

4. Your system doesn't check people at all. See, part of border checks isn't just cargo, it's also checking who's crossing the border. This is, presumably, the main reason why the UK wants border checks to the EU to begin with.

That is supposedly done by face recognition that is already being trialed in UK.

And given current advances, there are no technical reasons why it shouldn't work.

5. At no point in this process have you verified that the content of the truck is what it is. You're just trusting the original logistics company to get its data correct. Borders don't work on trust. Let me be brutally honest on this: We do not trust the UK anymore. Not necessarily because they're evil, but because they're incompetent and are prone to exploit anything we allow them. They outright said so themselves often enough. Cakeism is one sample of it.

Run EU checks then if you don't trust the UK as long as you can agree to reasonable level of them for as long as needed to ensure that system works? (not indefinite period, obviously)