The Brexit aftermath thread

[Slant]

In simple terms the UK and The Republic of Ireland (thus by proxy the EU) have a problem that needs to be resolved; they can either work together in order to solve the problem or they can throw around blame and hope that someone else comes with a solution for them. You seem to be a fan of the latter.

There. Is. No. Solution. We've told you that for 2 years now. Accept it. A hard Brexit automatically reverts the RoI/NI border to its default state: A regulated border as the outer border of the EU.

You still don't get it, do you. If the UK lets this crash, and they are, the UK is out. You're in the same position as Russia or China or Brazil. You are no longer part of the EU. You are an external. A third party. You're no longer part of the family. You do not get preferential treatment. You are an outsider.

Not sure what the whole notion of entitlement to an open border is. If Russia came along and said "Hey, let's have an open border!" we'd laugh them back to Moscow.

[Slant]

Both governments signed up to the Belfast Accord, both are equally responsible for upholding it.

Brexit does not break the GFA.

It actually does break parts of the GFA. No idea what makes you think that having a hard border wouldn't. It's right there: No border between NI and RoI. And Brexit says "We want to be outside EU borders".

I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics some of you lot do. It's like you bend over backwards to accept reality. This isn't a joke, it's not a matter of opinion. This is a hard fact. You have a gordic knot, and the UK has not only not attempted to solve it, they keep tightening it so anyone else trying to solve it has a harder time.

Today's headlines, Britain now cancelled the backstop agreement they agreed to earlier in the negotiations. Do they intend to keep backpeddling and renouncing everything they agree to everytime the Brexit minister changes? How is the EU supposed to handle this if basically nothing the UK says makes sense and of the little that does make sense, nothing is reliable?

[Mayhem]

Eh Mayhem we are talking about May's White paper. The one that wants no hard border because customs will be facilitated by amazing technology from the future, goods will travel the same and any country in the EU will act as a point of entry for the UK, forced to collect UK tariffs and ascertain those goods are indeed meant for the UK, but we can have no freedom of movement with the UK. I mean yes, that "agreement" does not create a hard border. Just a legal disaster waiting to happen. And of course violates the four pillars.

Ah so we're entertaining an idea that isn't based on workable solutions. Sorry, i should've kept up with unicorn world instead of arguing from reality.

[Pann]

If we're not talking about a hard Brexit right now then all this talk is useless because there will be no border.

You can't be serious? Please tell me you're not being serious?

At present the UK has stated that it cannot remain in the SM/CU, the EU has stated that not being a member of the SM/CU means that the UK would be a third country which would require a border.

The EU has suggested that NI remain in the SM/CU whilst this is a workable solution it is unacceptable to part of the population of NI (as a result it is not acceptable to the UK government for this and other reasons) nor is this suggestion compatible with the GFA.

The UK has put forward suggestions regarding regulatory alignment, AEO schemes, pre-clearance, exemptions for small businesses and technological solutions (which are not yet implemented). The EU deems that these measures do not go far enough to protect their core principles.

It may be possible that the EU and UK reach an agreement where a physical border can be avoided, keeping the GFA largely intact, but there is going to be a border.

[Gibblewink]

A hard Brexit is one where the UK leaves the CU and the single market not to be confused with a no deal scenario.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The Brexit we're talking about now is subject to negotiation between the EU and the UK both parties have it within their power to reach an agreement where the GFA remains intact. If the GFA is broken then it will as a result of the failure of these negotiations.

The red lines the the EU have would protect the GFA. The red lines the Tories have means it must be broken. Yet it's the fault of the EU? Brexit logic constantly amazes me.

[Kiri]

The red lines the the EU have would protect the GFA. The red lines the Tories have means it must be broken. Yet it's the fault of the EU? Brexit logic constantly amazes me.

You imply that Brexiteers accept the EU red lines as red lines. Logic necessitates that both sides accept a shared sense of reality; this does not appear to be the case here.

[Pann]

The red lines the the EU have would protect the GFA. The red lines the Tories have means it must be broken. Yet it's the fault of the EU? Brexit logic constantly amazes me.

I'm really struggling to see how this fits in with what I wrote. Regardless of how the red lines of either party would or would not have affected the GFA they have been rejected. There is now an ongoing negotiation which has the potential to save the GFA. Is this not the case? And if the GFA ends up being broken would it not be due the failure of these negotiations?

Oh and where did I say "it's the fault of the EU"?

[Deleted]

The EU deems that these measures do not go far enough to protect their core principles.

This is commentators.
Not the EU.

Barnier: May's white paper is "useful" for negotiations on a future relationship.

[Gibblewink]

No, the GFA fails due to the Tories triggering a hard Brexit. Analogy time: If country A attacks country B then the two countries are at war due to country A attacking, not due to the subsequent peace negotiations failing.

[Dhrizzle]

It appears that your issue is that the UK followed the EU's rules.

And in answer to your question: no it was not possible and still to this day is not possible. The EU is going to have compromise on the Irish border if the Irish government is to honour its commitments to the GFA. It is simply not possible to honour the GFA and maintain the required border at the same time. Perhaps in a few years there will be technology that can maintain the border whilst making it for all intents and purposes invisible but it does not exist at present.

Again you're back to they started it.

There are 4 solutions to the NI border.

1. The UK stays in the EU.
2. The UK stays in the EEA.
3. The UK stays in the CU.
4. The border moves to the Irish sea, NI has freedom to remain in the EU, EEA or CU.

1 goes against the referendum, 2 and 3 go against the self-interests of Tory MPs and Theresa May can't do 4 because she sold out to the DUP. More than anynother body it is the Tory party that are willing to throw NI under the bus for personal or party gain.

[Deleted]

So 2 years of UK brexit proposals have been killed off in 8 minutes by Barnier.

How do these people justify a wage?

[Slant]

You imply that Brexiteers accept the EU red lines as red lines. Logic necessitates that both sides accept a shared sense of reality; this does not appear to be the case here.

The actual fact is that Brexiteers actually want the EU to dissolve without using those words. That's their entire goal. Some here have even expressed it explicitely. That won't happen.

[Pann]

Sure it does, Ireland are obliged to protect their outer border.

There is NO way around this.

What does? Brexit breaking the GFA? Because this is not the case at all, there is no requirement for either nation to be members of the EU. The issue arises from the fact that, as you quite rightly say, Ireland must protect their border. As it stands it is within the power of the UK and EU to find a solution to this problem or the UK and ROI governments may be able to find a solution that works with the border requirements if no acceptable solution can be reached.

[Slant]

So 2 years of UK brexit proposals have been killed off in 8 minutes by Barnier.

How do these people justify a wage?

Which people?

[Pann]

There are 4 solutions to the NI border.

1. The UK stays in the EU.
2. The UK stays in the EEA.
3. The UK stays in the CU.
4. The border moves to the Irish sea, NI has freedom to remain in the EU, EEA or CU.

1 goes against the referendum, 2 and 3 go against the self-interests of Tory MPs and Theresa May can't do 4 because she sold out to the DUP. More than anynother body it is the Tory party that are willing to throw NI under the bus for personal or party gain.

I agree with your solutions. There is also 5. The EU grants various exceptions to the Irish border. Before I get jumped on I am not saying that the EU should do this.

All four go against the referendum it is not a Tory issue. You complain that the Tories are willing to throw NI under the bus whilst at the same time criticising them for not doing so when it suits the DUP?

- - - Updated - - -

This is commentators.
Not the EU.

Barnier: May's white paper is "useful" for negotiations on a future relationship.

My comment was based on the rejection of the UK's earlier proposal.

[Mayhem]

What does? Brexit breaking the GFA? Because this is not the case at all, there is no requirement for either nation to be members of the EU. The issue arises from the fact that, as you quite rightly say, Ireland must protect their border. As it stands it is within the power of the UK and EU to find a solution to this problem or the UK and ROI governments may be able to find a solution that works with the border requirements if no acceptable solution can be reached.

This is a not too old one but a good read on the issues with the GFA and WTO rules and requirements.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...r-after-brexit

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with your solutions. There is also 5. The EU grants various exceptions to the Irish border.

For example? Because I think exceptions would go against WTO rules.

[Deleted]

Which people?

Everyone involved in crafting Mays white paper. What a fucking joke.

[Pann]

This is a not too old one but a good read on the issues with the GFA and WTO rules and requirements.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...r-after-brexit

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting read.

For example? Because I think exceptions would go against WTO rules.

As I understand it exceptions would go against the most favoured nation rules unless they were part of a bilateral agreement. As I said I am not suggesting that this should or would happen.

[Slant]

Everyone involved in crafting Mays white paper. What a fucking joke.

Well, they work under the presumption that EU regulation and treaties are optional and thus not legally binding. They think everything is negotiable, even the existance of the EU. That 27 member states have a vested interest in solidifying the EU as a stable institution to support everyone alike is inconsequential to them.