adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,020 
Likes: 5,148
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 18, 2021 17:13:29 GMT
Diverted from another thread... Umm, a hard border is a simple necessity when there's not a customs union between two countries. There used to be. One country unilaterally decided it didn't want that any more. It's got to go somewhere, and anybody who pretends otherwise either doesn't understand the most basic concepts around international trade - or is lying. Remember, this isn't about free movement of people - the Common Travel Area hasn't changed. It's about free movement of goods and capital and services, the other three of the four freedoms that came into being in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. A fully open border, single market and customs union between NI and RoI is at the very heart of the Good Friday Agreement, written at a time when both countries were within the SM and CU. But that's for another thread. Umm no it isn't, it is a requirement of the EU. Even the WTO came out back in 2018 and said that if the UK commenced trading on WTO rules then they were required to set up a hard border. Read this and then comment WTO hard border. Are the WTO lying then? What a surprise, we get comments like I don't agree with you so you are lying. The country still doesn't want one but equally Northern Ireland doesn't want one in he Irish sea cutting them off from the rest of the UK. Why not put one between Ireland and France seeing as it is an EU requirement. Perhaps, toffeeboy , if you'd read the whole article? After all, it does explicitly go on to explain... "Edgar Morgenroth, professor of economics at Dublin City University, said the WTO’s position on the Irish Border was “utterly irrelevant” as, in the absence of a deal, the onus would be on the EU and UK to protect their own respective markets against smuggling or divergent rules on the opposite side of a border.
“The WTO rules are neither here nor there. They don’t require you to protect your border,” said Prof Morgenroth.
“What does require you to protect your border is protecting the integrity of your single market; it needs to be preserved. Ireland would be required by EU law to do so and it is in Ireland’s interests to do that. Ultimately, it is about protecting jobs.”"But that's all talking about No Deal. Which was averted by Johnson's oven-ready deal, which was no more than May's deal with the backstop changed for the NI Protocol. Of course both sides need to protect this newly required border. It's not just NI - there's a customs border in the channel, too. Or - at least - there will be once simple incompetence and indolence have been overcome finally. The UK isn't inspecting inbound goods from the continent currently - the infrastructure simply isn't ready, and it keeps getting delayed - some checks won't be introduced until July next year. questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-09-14/hcws285But it is coming. The Dutch and the Belgians and the French all got their ends in place for January. Perhaps they had a bit of forewarning that our government missed? As for why not put one between RoI and France? I don't know if you've noticed, but the RoI doesn't want to leave the SM and CU, so there's nothing to check there. |
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 18, 2021 17:57:17 GMT
The big problem, as usual is Ireland should be one Country, in the EU out of the EU part of the UK or not, but that is the only thing that fixes all of the Ireland problems. How the South and the North get to that point we continue to wait, surely they will figure it out.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 18, 2021 18:55:02 GMT
The big problem, as usual is Ireland should be one Country, in the EU out of the EU part of the UK or not, but that is the only thing that fixes all of the Ireland problems. How the South and the North get to that point we continue to wait, surely they will figure it out. Probably but since we invaded over the centuries and settled there we now have a large group of people living in NI (majority?) who do not want a united Ireland. Something similar in the Falkland Islands. A mess created by us.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 18, 2021 19:15:33 GMT
The big problem, as usual is Ireland should be one Country, in the EU out of the EU part of the UK or not, but that is the only thing that fixes all of the Ireland problems. How the South and the North get to that point we continue to wait, surely they will figure it out. Probably but since we invaded over the centuries and settled there we now have a large group of people living in NI (majority?) who do not want a united Ireland. Something similar in the Falkland Islands. A mess created by us. Not sure what the Falklands have to do with it, a very small population that has been British for a long time. Irish people Catholic or Protestant get on well generally my family roots are both! People stirring up hatred is the problem which hopefully is getting less. These days I really don't see why a United Ireland couldn't happen.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 18, 2021 20:47:53 GMT
Probably but since we invaded over the centuries and settled there we now have a large group of people living in NI (majority?) who do not want a united Ireland. Something similar in the Falkland Islands. A mess created by us. Not sure what the Falklands have to do with it, a very small population that has been British for a long time. Irish people Catholic or Protestant get on well generally my family roots are both! People stirring up hatred is the problem which hopefully is getting less. These days I really don't see why a United Ireland couldn't happen.Ask the Unionists. As for the Falklands look at where it is for God's sake ! What business did we have settling people there? But what's done is done so now we're in this mess and not sure how to get out of it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,020
Likes: 5,148
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2021 7:32:20 GMT
Probably but since we invaded over the centuries and settled there we now have a large group of people living in NI (majority?) who do not want a united Ireland. Something similar in the Falkland Islands. A mess created by us. Not sure what the Falklands have to do with it, a very small population that has been British for a long time. Irish people Catholic or Protestant get on well generally my family roots are both! People stirring up hatred is the problem which hopefully is getting less. These days I really don't see why a United Ireland couldn't happen. The whole island of Ireland was under British rule for about 800 years until 1922, of course. Some might say that it's the Republic which is the historical oddity. Others might see it simply as the first knockings of British colonialism, which got rightly thrown in the bin through the 20th century, with the six counties being no more than a hangover. Odd historical footnote - the "loyalist" Orangemen who fetishise "King Billy" are about the only people who seem to remember the last successful invasion of the UK, the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 - Billy being William of Orange, the Dutch nobleman who overthrew James II and send him into exile. A religious war, of course - James was Catholic, William was Protestant... The irony is that the Dog's Brexit is making reunification more likely, along with Scottish independence. Nobody knows which way a vote would go - but polling consistently shows it's close, sometimes in favour, sometimes against.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2021 7:54:03 GMT
Not sure what the Falklands have to do with it, a very small population that has been British for a long time. Irish people Catholic or Protestant get on well generally my family roots are both! People stirring up hatred is the problem which hopefully is getting less. These days I really don't see why a United Ireland couldn't happen.Ask the Unionists. As for the Falklands look at where it is for God's sake ! What business did we have settling people there? But what's done is done so now we're in this mess and not sure how to get out of it. Multiple different countries settled people all over the place, and not just the various colonial empires. How come the language of Brazil is Portuguese ? Or that the language of Quebec is French ? Or the Spanish in south america (except Brazil) ? I would mention the (pretty awful) territories of the prior Belgium empire, but since they can't even decide on a language to use within their home country I'll leave it out. Even the small collection of islands known as the Falkland Islands have a pretty chequered history. But at least in the case of Britain's last settlement there, it was not entirely but nearly unoccupied, and there was an earlier claim on it through prior settlement. None of which is to say we should be hanging on to it in today's world, but its current populace are somewhat wedded to being under the British umbrella, and not under the rule of a country which is a perennial economic basket case with a semi-detached relationship with functioning democracy. "The English navigator John Davis in the Desire may have been the first person to sight the Falklands, in 1592, but it was the Dutchman Sebald de Weerdt who made the first undisputed sighting of them about 1600. The English captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. The French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founded the islands’ first settlement, on East Falkland, in 1764, and he named the islands the Malovines. The British, in 1765, were the first to settle West Falkland, but they were driven off in 1770 by the Spanish, who had bought out the French settlement about 1767. The British outpost on West Falkland was restored in 1771 after threat of war, but then the British withdrew from the island in 1774 for reasons of economy, without renouncing their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811.
In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot. In 1841 a British civilian lieutenant governor was appointed for the Falklands, and by 1885 a British community of some 1,800 people on the islands was self-supporting. Argentina regularly protested Britain’s occupation of the islands."
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 19, 2021 8:36:43 GMT
How come the language of Brazil is Portuguese ? The Pope, who decreed by Papal Bull that territory to the west of the line would be Spanish, and territory to the East Portuguese - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_TordesillasGotta love religion.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,020
Likes: 5,148
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2021 9:07:37 GMT
How come the language of Brazil is Portuguese ? The Pope, who decreed by Papal Bull that territory to the west of the line would be Spanish, and territory to the East Portuguese - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_TordesillasGotta love religion. TBF, that's the kind of global-diplomacy-by-pencil-on-map that was still in use during the aftermaths of both WW1 and 2, with echoes still going on...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2021 9:24:27 GMT
How come the language of Brazil is Portuguese ? The Pope, who decreed by Papal Bull that territory to the west of the line would be Spanish, and territory to the East Portuguese - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_TordesillasGotta love religion.In this case though, that decision is not really religion ? (not read the link). Its just strategic power geo-politics as played out at that time, which at that point was wrapped in a cloak of religion because surprise surprise that is where the power/control/alliances lay. Plenty of other occasions later in history where arbitrary dissection of territories/people happened without any recourse to religion because the power no longer lay there. The list is probably so long its barely worth even starting, but we might as well mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; Iraq and the Kurds; probably big swathes of Africa (my knowledge there is slight); the (ex) Yugoslavia; god knows what as decided by Stalin/Roosevelt/Churchill at Yalta [feel free to pick holes in these as long as you add your own]. EDIT: And I guess one shouldn't leave out Palestine in 1948 - which is to make no judgement on the rights and wrongs but.....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 19, 2021 9:43:28 GMT
In this case though, that decision is not really religion ? (not read the link). Its just strategic power geo-politics as played out at that time, which at that point was wrapped in a cloak of religion because surprise surprise that is where the power/control/alliances lay. Fair on the one hand, on the other it was a Papal Bull, to divvy up the world between the Spanish and the Portuguese. And it was to have centuries long lasting ramifications with England (as was) and its Protestant Reformation... which include a (Catholic) Ireland and (Catholic) France's designs on it and for it at various points in history. Interesting, I've not thought before of Brexit and the EU as being a replay of England and Catholicism. Does that make Boris Henry VIII  ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2021 10:47:05 GMT
In this case though, that decision is not really religion ? (not read the link). Its just strategic power geo-politics as played out at that time, which at that point was wrapped in a cloak of religion because surprise surprise that is where the power/control/alliances lay. Fair on the one hand, on the other it was a Papal Bull, to divvy up the world between the Spanish and the Portuguese. And it was to have centuries long lasting ramifications with England (as was) and its Protestant Reformation... which include a (Catholic) Ireland and (Catholic) France's designs on it and for it at various points in history. Interesting, I've not thought before of Brexit and the EU as being a replay of England and Catholicism. Does that make Boris Henry VIII ?Well he's had nearly as many bed mates, but probably more children than Henry. Carrie for the chop in the near future ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 19, 2021 10:51:01 GMT
In this case though, that decision is not really religion ? (not read the link). Its just strategic power geo-politics as played out at that time, which at that point was wrapped in a cloak of religion because surprise surprise that is where the power/control/alliances lay. And it was to have centuries long lasting ramifications with England (as was) and its Protestant Reformation... which include a (Catholic) Ireland and (Catholic) France's designs on it and for it at various points in history. Interesting, I've not thought before of Brexit and the EU as being a replay of England and Catholicism. Does that make Boris Henry VIII ? That's fair comment: in effect it was using the additional weight of Catholic religion and presumably risk of excommunication to keep other Catholic parties towing the line. So a strategic geo-politics with an added twisted that 'if the Spanish/Portuguese don't get you, Satan will.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Oct 19, 2021 11:38:34 GMT
Diverted from another thread... Umm no it isn't, it is a requirement of the EU. Even the WTO came out back in 2018 and said that if the UK commenced trading on WTO rules then they were required to set up a hard border. Read this and then comment WTO hard border. Are the WTO lying then? What a surprise, we get comments like I don't agree with you so you are lying. The country still doesn't want one but equally Northern Ireland doesn't want one in he Irish sea cutting them off from the rest of the UK. Why not put one between Ireland and France seeing as it is an EU requirement. Perhaps, toffeeboy , if you'd read the whole article? After all, it does explicitly go on to explain... "Edgar Morgenroth, professor of economics at Dublin City University, said the WTO’s position on the Irish Border was “utterly irrelevant” as, in the absence of a deal, the onus would be on the EU and UK to protect their own respective markets against smuggling or divergent rules on the opposite side of a border.
“The WTO rules are neither here nor there. They don’t require you to protect your border,” said Prof Morgenroth.
“What does require you to protect your border is protecting the integrity of your single market; it needs to be preserved. Ireland would be required by EU law to do so and it is in Ireland’s interests to do that. Ultimately, it is about protecting jobs.”"But that's all talking about No Deal. Which was averted by Johnson's oven-ready deal, which was no more than May's deal with the backstop changed for the NI Protocol. Of course both sides need to protect this newly required border. It's not just NI - there's a customs border in the channel, too. Or - at least - there will be once simple incompetence and indolence have been overcome finally. The UK isn't inspecting inbound goods from the continent currently - the infrastructure simply isn't ready, and it keeps getting delayed - some checks won't be introduced until July next year. questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-09-14/hcws285But it is coming. The Dutch and the Belgians and the French all got their ends in place for January. Perhaps they had a bit of forewarning that our government missed? As for why not put one between RoI and France? I don't know if you've noticed, but the RoI doesn't want to leave the SM and CU, so there's nothing to check there. We are talking about a hard border here, there are many options to prevent smuggling that could be worked on together except for the fact that the EU requires a hard border somewhere. This should be about them working together to come up with a solution that works for everybody but the EU hands are tied by their own rules. So the RoI remaining in the SM and CU is more important than NI remaining part of the UK SM and CU then is it. NI doesn't want to leave the UK but there is a border put there for now which is why they aren't happy. What exactly is the difference please apart from the usual let's bend over backwards to keep everyone else happy to the detriment of our own country.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,020
Likes: 5,148
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 19, 2021 12:17:29 GMT
What do you think this "hard border" is?
|
|
Umm, a hard border is a simple necessity when there's not a customs union between two countries. There used to be. One country unilaterally decided it didn't want that any more. It's got to go somewhere, and anybody who pretends otherwise either doesn't understand the most basic concepts around international trade - or is lying.
?