FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

The Backstop simplified

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

People have heard about it, but what is it all about? A recent ukgov poll say more people say they know some of it but not all of it

Time to simplify it. Whats it all about? Why the kerfuffle?

Think of Brexit as a divorce, as part of the divorce, its about who has custody of Northern Ireland.

Think of the UK as the one leaving the EU house, think of Ireland as the one who is keeping the house, think of northern ireland as the dependant.

Ireland is in the EU house and Northern Ireland is closely connected (they are on the same island).

The UK (england, wales and scotland) has left the house and is living in a bedsit somewhere, getting their stuff together.

Both have parental rights over northern ireland, so who has custody?

The divorce agreement (backstop) says Northern Ireland remains in the single market, whilst the rest of the UK is out of the single market, but remains part of the custom union.

Think of it like this, northern Ireland stays within the EU house with Ireland, whilst the rest of the UK get supervised visits to northern Ireland, until the EU house deem the rest of the UK are fit enough to share responsibility of Northern Ireland properly.

So what are the problems posed by the backstop?

The current UK government want full custody Northern Ireland, its their dependent.

The Irish government also want full custody, as it feels its their dependent (being on the same island)

The UK government does not like the fact that they have to wait until the EU house say they can have full joint custody of Ireland.

The UK government now does not like the agreement because too one sided in favour of the EU house.

The UK government want to re-examine the the divorce agreement, because they agreed to just to divorce the EU.

The EU house are holding firm saying you wanted to leave us, you accept the consequences of your actions.

The UK government are now making a threat that they will leave completely and move to the middle of nowhere, take the dependant with them and not pay the alimony at all unless the EU house agree better terms.

So key point to take.

The backstop is a divorce settlement. Which the UK government agreed to when d*unk on the joy of leaving the EUHouse, now they are sober they realise they may have made a mistake in a all or nothing approach.

What about Ireland, they are firm that negotiations are over and they got the friends to back them up if the UK say otherwise.

Backstop simplified.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Custody is a term in English law that implies ownership of a child, i.e. the focus is on the interests of the parents.

That kinda sums up the attitude from England.

This ought to be about what is in the best interests of the "child", not the parent.

We asked the people of NI what they wanted. To stay in the EU, they said.

The backstop assured them they would stay in the single market, if not the EU.

They are being denied that opportunity because the "parent" thinks it knows best.

So why the fuck did we ask the people of NI what they wanted in the first place when these in power in England are adamant they cannot have it?

Let the people of NI decide what is best for NI.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Custody is a term in English law that implies ownership of a child, i.e. the focus is on the interests of the parents.

That kinda sums up the attitude from England.

This ought to be about what is in the best interests of the "child", not the parent.

We asked the people of NI what they wanted. To stay in the EU, they said.

The backstop assured them they would stay in the single market, if not the EU.

They are being denied that opportunity because the "parent" thinks it knows best.

So why the fuck did we ask the people of NI what they wanted in the first place when these in power in England are adamant they cannot have it?

Let the people of NI decide what is best for NI."
It is not that simple if only it was

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The backstop, as originally put forward by the UK, affects only people living in Northern Ireland.

They are the ones who should be asked if it is acceptable to them or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"The backstop, as originally put forward by the UK, affects only people living in Northern Ireland.

They are the ones who should be asked if it is acceptable to them or not.

"

Sara, the backstop effects all of Ireland not just NI. Remember the backstop is the UK's alternative to remaining in the CU while not breaking the GFA. In the GFA the ROI gave up territorial claims on the 6 counties in return for an open border and the British government agreeing that the people of NI should have the freedom to choose their future either remaining in the UK or joining the ROI and reuniting Ireland. If the GFA is to be discarded then all of Ireland should make that decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The backstop, as proposed, provides re-assurance of the Belfast Agreement, in light of the UK's decision to leave the EU but in the absence of any alternative arrangement.

The way to remove the backstop is to come up with a credible alternative.

In the absence of a credible alternative - and after three years nothing of substance has been proposed, never mind tested - the backstop is the insurance policy for the Good Friday Agreement.

The UK seems less interested in preserving it than Ireland, the EU and others.

It is a crying shame that the party that lost the Brexit argument in Northern Ireland, the DUP, is the one now pulling the strings on Brexit.

If anything is undemocratic, it is the usurping of Brexit by the party that lost the debate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

What are the negative outcomes to the Eu and to the uk if there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What are the negative outcomes to the Eu and to the uk if there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI?

"

There's no negative outcome to the EU. The Good Friday Agreement is between the UK and Ireland.

If the UK breaks it, there could be some consequences. I've tried to look into this before, but couldn't find anything solid.

It will be interesting from an international law perspective.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The EU and USA are signatories to the Belfast Agreement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"What are the negative outcomes to the Eu and to the uk if there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI?

There's no negative outcome to the EU. The Good Friday Agreement is between the UK and Ireland.

If the UK breaks it, there could be some consequences. I've tried to look into this before, but couldn't find anything solid.

It will be interesting from an international law perspective."

That’s not what I asked ...

Let me try wording it differently ..

What are the concerns of the Eu and the Uk if there is no border.. people sneaking in? Goods smuggling in ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Let me try wording it differently ..

What are the concerns of the Eu and the Uk if there is no border.. people sneaking in? Goods smuggling in ?

"

If the UK leaves without a deal and then reduces standards as they will have to to get trade deals with the likes of China and the USA then the UK becomes an open back door for inferior goods to enter the EU. Also the WTO REQUIRE a hard border if there is not a customs union, again something the UK government have totally ruled out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all? "

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love how the DUP wants to be completely aligned to the rest of the UK except when it comes to things like marriage equality and abortion rights

As someone who grew up near the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border, the backstop is to ensure we don't return to the days of military outposts and sectarian violence. One of my earliest memories is of my parents car being searched by armed gunmen when I was three. If we have to go back to having a closed border, there's going to be a need for border checks again, etc. And it's not going to be pleasant. But if course Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage et al don't have a fucking clue

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

How do you know what tariffs to apply if you do not know what is crossing the border?

And if you do not know what is crossing the border, how do you know if those products comply with the safety standards of your market.

It seems nonsensical for any country to have different rules and tariffs at one border crossing (the Channel Ports) from another (Northern Ireland).

It is also illegal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"How do you know what tariffs to apply if you do not know what is crossing the border?

And if you do not know what is crossing the border, how do you know if those products comply with the safety standards of your market.

It seems nonsensical for any country to have different rules and tariffs at one border crossing (the Channel Ports) from another (Northern Ireland).

It is also illegal."

Does what you say really only become a real problem when ROI or NI are being used as transit locations?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What are the negative outcomes to the Eu and to the uk if there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI?

There's no negative outcome to the EU. The Good Friday Agreement is between the UK and Ireland.

If the UK breaks it, there could be some consequences. I've tried to look into this before, but couldn't find anything solid.

It will be interesting from an international law perspective.

That’s not what I asked ...

Let me try wording it differently ..

What are the concerns of the Eu and the Uk if there is no border.. people sneaking in? Goods smuggling in ?

"

Okay sorry I misunderstood.

The EU are concerned about goods coming in and out. And the UK could be concerned about any person crossing the boarder freely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

"

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

"

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *teveuk77Man
over a year ago

uk


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

"

You might be getting your head around this but you're way ahead of 17.4m people ever will be...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

Supposedly, one of the driving reasons for brexit was "taking back control of our borders". But if there is an open crossing to the EU with no checks at the NI RoI border, then how the hell is that taking back control? We will have no access to any border records of people coming from anywhere in the world to the RoI, from where they can just walk over the border into the UK.

Rather than taking back control, we actually lose all control.

And if we have no border checks at RoI/NI, then it is very possibly illegal to have checks at any other border into the UK. So "taking back control" turns into "removing all passport controls and goods inspections"....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

"

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

"

I think wto is to do with tarrifs more than standards. Regardless of mfn, the Uk wouldn’t buy or allow a certain product in to the country if it didn’t meet the uk standards.

I get the feeling that it really has more to do with the standards and checks. This being the case then I don’t see why managing the flow of product between ROI and NI is being given such a heavy problem weighting.

At the moment i understand the value of export to ROI is about 3bn. This has to be manageable?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

I think wto is to do with tarrifs more than standards. Regardless of mfn, the Uk wouldn’t buy or allow a certain product in to the country if it didn’t meet the uk standards.

I get the feeling that it really has more to do with the standards and checks. This being the case then I don’t see why managing the flow of product between ROI and NI is being given such a heavy problem weighting.

At the moment i understand the value of export to ROI is about 3bn. This has to be manageable? "

Products have to meet our standards. The question is, how do you ensure they are?

You check

And MFN (I think) says checks must be consistent across all third countries. You can't check all of China and none of Ireland. As checks are a non tariff trade barrior.

At least that's my understanding.

Fact is, it's complex. And so that's why I'm cynical when Boris etc suggest a simple tech solution will work...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

I think wto is to do with tarrifs more than standards. Regardless of mfn, the Uk wouldn’t buy or allow a certain product in to the country if it didn’t meet the uk standards.

I get the feeling that it really has more to do with the standards and checks. This being the case then I don’t see why managing the flow of product between ROI and NI is being given such a heavy problem weighting.

At the moment i understand the value of export to ROI is about 3bn. This has to be manageable?

Products have to meet our standards. The question is, how do you ensure they are?

You check

And MFN (I think) says checks must be consistent across all third countries. You can't check all of China and none of Ireland. As checks are a non tariff trade barrior.

At least that's my understanding.

Fact is, it's complex. And so that's why I'm cynical when Boris etc suggest a simple tech solution will work... "

Agree, complex

From my own experience I don’t think the ability to track and check all of this is that far off being achievable . A huge amount is already part of our current systems .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

I think wto is to do with tarrifs more than standards. Regardless of mfn, the Uk wouldn’t buy or allow a certain product in to the country if it didn’t meet the uk standards.

I get the feeling that it really has more to do with the standards and checks. This being the case then I don’t see why managing the flow of product between ROI and NI is being given such a heavy problem weighting.

At the moment i understand the value of export to ROI is about 3bn. This has to be manageable?

Products have to meet our standards. The question is, how do you ensure they are?

You check

And MFN (I think) says checks must be consistent across all third countries. You can't check all of China and none of Ireland. As checks are a non tariff trade barrior.

At least that's my understanding.

Fact is, it's complex. And so that's why I'm cynical when Boris etc suggest a simple tech solution will work...

Agree, complex

From my own experience I don’t think the ability to track and check all of this is that far off being achievable . A huge amount is already part of our current systems .

"

But we'd have to add these current systems to NI. Which stops it being soft/frictionless imo. What tech checks meat for disease?

If we do nothing with the Irish border we stop doing the current checks. Which imo risks allowing more substandard stuff slipping thru.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Isn't it that, in absence of any formal agreement, the same rules have to apply to all borders and all countries.

So if we're willing to accept medicine in from ireland with minimal checks then we have to do the same with medicine from China.

And if you are doing minimal checks there's a greater risk of dodgy stuff coming in

After all, if checks don't add value, why do them at all?

So in terms of goods its about being able to ensure that product that has originated in Uk mainland, shipped to Northern Ireland doesn't then end up in ROI. And similarly goods that have originated in Europe and then shipped to ROI don't end up in NI or mainland Uk?

I think then concern is simpler than that. If NI let goods (say meds) from ROI in unchecked, then Dover has to let meds in from China etc in unchecked.

Unkess a customs union arrangement is agreed that is.

I'm still getting my head around this so happy to be corrected.

Why would Dover have to let in goods unchecked (what checks would be waived?) if NI received goods from ROI (again what checks wouldn’t be made?)

Isn't that entirely the point of MFN under WTO? Unless article 24 is used (which covers the use of FTA and custom unions) you must apply rules (tarriffs, customers etc) consistently across all third countries.

So whatever we do with ireland, we do to all.

And what checks? I assume we check the quality of food (I think we check 50% of all fresh produce atm), check drugs (preuably checking they are on our safe list) etc. I don't know the detail. But I don't think it's controversial to suggest there are checks atm.

I think wto is to do with tarrifs more than standards. Regardless of mfn, the Uk wouldn’t buy or allow a certain product in to the country if it didn’t meet the uk standards.

I get the feeling that it really has more to do with the standards and checks. This being the case then I don’t see why managing the flow of product between ROI and NI is being given such a heavy problem weighting.

At the moment i understand the value of export to ROI is about 3bn. This has to be manageable?

Products have to meet our standards. The question is, how do you ensure they are?

You check

And MFN (I think) says checks must be consistent across all third countries. You can't check all of China and none of Ireland. As checks are a non tariff trade barrior.

At least that's my understanding.

Fact is, it's complex. And so that's why I'm cynical when Boris etc suggest a simple tech solution will work...

Agree, complex

From my own experience I don’t think the ability to track and check all of this is that far off being achievable . A huge amount is already part of our current systems .

But we'd have to add these current systems to NI. Which stops it being soft/frictionless imo. What tech checks meat for disease?

If we do nothing with the Irish border we stop doing the current checks. Which imo risks allowing more substandard stuff slipping thru.

"

I don’t think it is too far a jump to add systems in to the movement of goods from NI to ROI. I think all meat is tracked from field to shelf?

At every point during the process it gets a certificate/stamp to confirm it has been dealt with according to standards. When the meat is then presented for export it must have all the boxes ticked - anything missing - it’s not accepted .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

Ireland has a duty of care towards northern Ireland but no custody.

They all live in the same park, and there is a lake between Ireland and the UK.

After some fighting over Ireland and some troubles it was decided that Ireland would give up all claim to northern Ireland and the UK would never build a wall across the island again. They would also respect the peoples in the norths vote if they voted to leave the UK.

They are both part of the same club, which already allowed free movement, so they never had to build their own system.

So the UK was about to leave the club and Ireland and the EU reminded them, if they did they would have to build a system that allowed movement of people without a wall. Most politicians in the UK took this seriously, but a few dismissed it. Mainly people like boris dismissed it.

So the UK left and wanted to do a trade deal with the EU as this would give them strength doing deals with other countries. The EU again reminded them that they need to build a system to allow free movement of people on Ireland.

The UK said it would take a while and could they do the trade deal first. The EU said thats not normally how international treaties are done, that the US was the one who policed this agreement, and they would not do anything until the UK the ones leaving, the ones acting sorted it.

So the uk said "How about this, we promise to leave all rules in the north aligned with the EU until we can later roll out a solution"

The EU and Ireland looked at each other and decided that this promise, this word of the UK was good enough to proceed with trade deal. This promise was called the backstop.

This UK later went to the EU and said that the whole of the UK would remain aligned to the EU until the issue was sorted, but could a trade deal be done now.

The EU decided that this didn't change anything on their end because they accepted the promise already.

Some people in the UK thought that this was now a ploy to keep the UK in the EU forever. It seems the UK has no faith in their technology solution.

This is no problem to the EU and Ireland, however it puts them back at step one, that the issue needs to be solved before a trade deal can be done. Its raises questions about the UKs ability to implement no border, as they don't seem to trust themselves. However extensions would be available so they can figure out the technology solution to the border first if they want.

The UK has decided itself, that they wont promise "no border" in Ireland, and they wont roll out a solution, they wont take an extension, and if the EU does not accept their trade deal then there will be no deal.

And everyone is now looking on like "but why?"

If you trust boris, then the bakstop is a simple promise to roll out the technology ASAP, if you dont trust boris then its a trap to keep you in the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"if you dont trust boris then its a trap to keep you in the UK.

"

Keep you in the EU. Not UK

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Well, he's got 30 days to pull a rabbit from the hat.

If one existed, I suspect Mrs May might have put it on the table before now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well, he's got 30 days to pull a rabbit from the hat.

If one existed, I suspect Mrs May might have put it on the table before nowadays."

May is running through fields of wheat on holiday without a care in the world .Maybe she can bring back a rabbit from the field for boris .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

I still think the backstop will remain but as an island of Ireland thing only. Boris will take a punt on when he thinks he can hoover up Brexit Party votes and get a majority without the DUP.

Then it all depends if he can swing the ERG behind the WA and an Ireland only backstop

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

What is all this talk of "an ireland only" backstop about? As if the backstop is a physical thing?

All the backstop is, is a legally binding guarantee that the government will do what they say is trivially easy, viz. sort out the border problem.

Uk government - "it's easy to sort out the border problem, we can do it invisibly with technology in no time".

Eu - "ok if it's so easy, you won't mind signing this piece of paper to legally guarantee that you will sort it out, and until it is sorted you'll keep single market, freedom of movement etc".

Uk government - "how dare you ask us to sign a legal guarantee to sort out the border! Look it's easy, we can sort it in no time, why should we sign a guarantee!"

Eu - "ok if it's so easy, do it. And sign this agreement that you'll do it. After all it is so easy to do."

Uk government - "well if you going to have conditions that we have to do what we've said we can do very easily, then that's unfair and we're not going to stand for it!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

In a situation as sensitive as Northern Ireland, it really is a reckless approach to just shrug your shoulders and say: "Well, it won't be our fault."

Borders by definition involve two parties.

It is common sense to agree the arrangements before the two jurisdictions begin to diverge.

The UK had three years to come up with something.

The best it could offer was the backstop as an insurance until it could come up with something.

Now the UK says it does not want the backstop.

Why?

Does it have a better idea than can be tested and implemented before October 31?

After three years, all the Brexiteers can come up with is an offer of "alternative arrangements".

Which is exactly why the backstop was necessary in the first place.

I'm afraid the DUP is the tail wagging the dog here, determined to drive a wedge between the United kingdom and Ireland to further its own extreme ideology.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"In a situation as sensitive as Northern Ireland, it really is a reckless approach to just shrug your shoulders and say: "Well, it won't be our fault."

Borders by definition involve two parties.

It is common sense to agree the arrangements before the two jurisdictions begin to diverge.

The UK had three years to come up with something.

The best it could offer was the backstop as an insurance until it could come up with something.

Now the UK says it does not want the backstop.

Why?

Does it have a better idea than can be tested and implemented before October 31?

After three years, all the Brexiteers can come up with is an offer of "alternative arrangements".

Which is exactly why the backstop was necessary in the first place.

I'm afraid the DUP is the tail wagging the dog here, determined to drive a wedge between the United kingdom and Ireland to further its own extreme ideology.

"
Parliament on all sides rejected the back stop,all parties rejected it so it cannot be got through parliament,Johnson is only doing what May should have done a long time ago,now lack of time means no deal.

Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

Everyone says how badly we will do,well Eira will do worse,bring back the Irish jokes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"In a situation as sensitive as Northern Ireland, it really is a reckless approach to just shrug your shoulders and say: "Well, it won't be our fault."

Borders by definition involve two parties.

It is common sense to agree the arrangements before the two jurisdictions begin to diverge.

The UK had three years to come up with something.

The best it could offer was the backstop as an insurance until it could come up with something.

Now the UK says it does not want the backstop.

Why?

Does it have a better idea than can be tested and implemented before October 31?

After three years, all the Brexiteers can come up with is an offer of "alternative arrangements".

Which is exactly why the backstop was necessary in the first place.

I'm afraid the DUP is the tail wagging the dog here, determined to drive a wedge between the United kingdom and Ireland to further its own extreme ideology.

Parliament on all sides rejected the back stop,all parties rejected it so it cannot be got through parliament,Johnson is only doing what May should have done a long time ago,now lack of time means no deal.

Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

Everyone says how badly we will do,well Eira will do worse,bring back the Irish jokes"

Johnson and other members of the government negotiated and agreed the Backstop as part of the exit agreement and didn't have an alternative option to honour the Good Friday Agreement, keeping an open border. They largely wasted most of the 2 years time after triggering Article 50, so to then demand changes, when it's an integral part of the whole deal, is both dishonest and bordering on immoral. This especially when people in NI did not vote for this. A no deal departure was also excluded as an option during the referendum that all voted on - it must not now be even discussed as anything that has any permissibility for EU departure. If there is insufficient time to conclude an exit, Article 50 should be revoked, with the conservative government admitting their blame.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"

Parliament on all sides rejected the back stop,all parties rejected it so it cannot be got through parliament,Johnson is only doing what May should have done a long time ago,now lack of time means no deal.

Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

"

A majority of Conservative MPs supported the Withdrawal Agreement.

Labour was content with the Withdrawal Agreement - the backstop aligns with the customs union - but did not like the woolliness of the political declaration.

The EU negotiates with Governments, not Parliaments.

The UK Government is so weak, however, that no-one can have confidence in any decision it makes.

Not least since the extremist wing of the Conservative Party says it will vote down ANY agreement with the EU.

Crack on.

The Conservative Party gave us this shambles and I'm looking forward to seeing it destroyed by it, too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"

Parliament on all sides rejected the back stop,all parties rejected it so it cannot be got through parliament,Johnson is only doing what May should have done a long time ago,now lack of time means no deal.

Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

A majority of Conservative MPs supported the Withdrawal Agreement.

Labour was content with the Withdrawal Agreement - the backstop aligns with the customs union - but did not like the woolliness of the political declaration.

The EU negotiates with Governments, not Parliaments.

The UK Government is so weak, however, that no-one can have confidence in any decision it makes.

Not least since the extremist wing of the Conservative Party says it will vote down ANY agreement with the EU.

Crack on.

The Conservative Party gave us this shambles and I'm looking forward to seeing it destroyed by it, too.

"
yes the eu does negotiate with the government but parliament needs to approve it the majority of tories voted for it how many labour,snp,lib/dems did?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Backstop simplified.

Both sides (seem to) agree a wto (hard) border is not good for peace.

There is no ideal solution available today to avoid it (as otherwise we woudl use it)

Both sides seem open to the idea there may be a better solution in the future.

But if this ideal solution can't be found, there needs to be a back up plan.

That plan must be one which exists today.

The UK wouldn't want the back up plan to be the same solution as the transition period as this is too much like being in the EU.

So the customs arrangement is a more brexit friendly solution.

For Boris to solve, he needs to find arrangements which could be put in place today.

As tech doesn't exist today (Fujitsu have gone quiet) and tech doesn't solve for quality checking, that's not the answer.

So what is...?

Boris, you have 30 days to find a solution, noting no one has yet. And let's not think it's just been the negotiation teams thinking about this. If ERG, Farage etc had a real idea, they'd have mooted it. I think there's a reason they are still talking soundbites and haven't produced anything in detail to have forced May's (and now Boris) hand.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of course a technological solution can be found. The trouble is there is not a will to do it because it would blow a hole a mile wide in the customs union and single market. It would effectively Bi pass it and make it meaningless so the EU are protecting it's precious border just as you would expect them to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Of course a technological solution can be found. The trouble is there is not a will to do it because it would blow a hole a mile wide in the customs union and single market. It would effectively Bi pass it and make it meaningless so the EU are protecting it's precious border just as you would expect them to."

Actually it will be a 310 mile wide breech if you will forgive the pun.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"

yes the eu does negotiate with the government but parliament needs to approve it the majority of tories voted for it how many labour,snp,lib/dems did? "

The Conservative Party is in Government but not in power.

Tell me when it sat down with the opposition parties to thrash out a cross-party consensus on this topic?

It didn't.

It's claimed ownership of this from day one and refuses to give it up.

Well, good fuckin' luck with that when you are in a minority government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Britain with it's common market only emphasis of EU membership and not accepting the rule book is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit.

Perhaps we should just leave and make our own space suit and invite a trump in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Of course a technological solution can be found. The trouble is there is not a will to do it because it would blow a hole a mile wide in the customs union and single market. It would effectively Bi pass it and make it meaningless so the EU are protecting it's precious border just as you would expect them to."

Can be found is not the point. Does it exist today is the point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

Everyone says how badly we will do,well Eira will do worse,bring back the Irish jokes"

Well that is a plan at least "Ireland will do worse and we can tell racist jokes about them". It's more of a plan than boris proposed anyway.

It's Eire, not Eira. It's actually a female name. She is a God who gave birth to Ireland, Eire's Land, Eireland, Ireland.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Europe especially Eira has know the back stop could not get through so they are being pig headed and ignorant so no deal it is.

Everyone says how badly we will do,well Eira will do worse,bring back the Irish jokes

Well that is a plan at least "Ireland will do worse and we can tell racist jokes about them". It's more of a plan than boris proposed anyway.

It's Eire, not Eira. It's actually a female name. She is a God who gave birth to Ireland, Eire's Land, Eireland, Ireland."

Also, those who predict RoI will do worse have no real reason for thinking this, not without contradicting all the reasons why the eu will come begging for a deal.

Theyve weened themselves off the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"Also, those who predict RoI will do worse have no real reason for thinking this, not without contradicting all the reasons why the eu will come begging for a deal.

Theyve weened themselves off the UK. "

Ireland wont do worse. Ireland is losing their biggest trade partner, but UK is losing all its trade partners.

16 billion of trade Ireland does with UK (pure profit) can be sourced elsewhere, its stuff like BMW/Merc/VW/Other non uk brands imported through the UK.

France and germany have said shipping to ireland bypassing the UK could be made cheaper to offset import costs rising.

Put it this way, Trade with Ireland gets the UK +16 billion.

Trade with the UK gets Ireland -16 billion.

They dont make money from the UK, they are a cash cow for the UK, the UK no longer wants it, so it will go somewhere else.

But they will be going somwere else to get food and medication. So good luck with that, maybe get medication and food from Africa?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"Also, those who predict RoI will do worse have no real reason for thinking this, not without contradicting all the reasons why the eu will come begging for a deal.

Theyve weened themselves off the UK.

Ireland wont do worse. Ireland is losing their biggest trade partner, but UK is losing all its trade partners.

16 billion of trade Ireland does with UK (pure profit) can be sourced elsewhere, its stuff like BMW/Merc/VW/Other non uk brands imported through the UK.

France and germany have said shipping to ireland bypassing the UK could be made cheaper to offset import costs rising.

Put it this way, Trade with Ireland gets the UK +16 billion.

Trade with the UK gets Ireland -16 billion.

They dont make money from the UK, they are a cash cow for the UK, the UK no longer wants it, so it will go somewhere else.

But they will be going somwere else to get food and medication. So good luck with that, maybe get medication and food from Africa?"
thats great if they do it will take about 160,000 lorries off uk roads and free up the ports at the same time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

"

It is a recognised fact that the Eu are not as prepared as the uk are with the technical stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

"
Where are the eu running these ferries to dublin from? cant seem to find any information on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Months ago, I read it.

Maybe Irish Times.

EU putting up 50 % and the governments of France and Ireland the rest.

It may be the funding is in place, but the contracts on hold until the position of the UK becomes clearer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"Months ago, I read it.

Maybe Irish Times.

EU putting up 50 % and the governments of France and Ireland the rest.

It may be the funding is in place, but the contracts on hold until the position of the UK becomes clearer "
As i said it would be good if they do would take a lot of traffic off uk roads,might be a few delays in winter though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Months ago, I read it.

Maybe Irish Times.

EU putting up 50 % and the governments of France and Ireland the rest.

It may be the funding is in place, but the contracts on hold until the position of the UK becomes clearer "

The EU's plan is to introduce fast freight ferry routes from Ireland to Zeebrugge and Rotterdam. These ports were seen to be more central than the French ports.

Some ferry operators have revamped routes, with a new Cork to Santander route coming on stream, and extra capacity on Dublin to Cherbourg.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

It is a recognised fact that the Eu are not as prepared as the uk are with the technical stuff.

"

I've not seen anything to back up this... Do you have links?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

It is a recognised fact that the Eu are not as prepared as the uk are with the technical stuff.

I've not seen anything to back up this... Do you have links? "

“The analysis shows that neither side is ready for no deal on 31 October. While the UK’s preparations to date are welcome, the unprecedented nature of Brexit means some aspects cannot be mitigated. The report also highlights how – contrary to many claims – the EU lags behind the UK in seeking to prevent the worst effects of a no deal scenario. ”

https://www.cbi.org.uk/media/3093/what-comes-next.pdf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes, the EU will look after Ireland (and perhaps NI, too, who knows).

I read a while ago it is putting up 50% of the cost of a new ferry link between France and Ireland.

I imagine it will have a range of other measures ready.

It is a recognised fact that the Eu are not as prepared as the uk are with the technical stuff.

I've not seen anything to back up this... Do you have links?

“The analysis shows that neither side is ready for no deal on 31 October. While the UK’s preparations to date are welcome, the unprecedented nature of Brexit means some aspects cannot be mitigated. The report also highlights how – contrary to many claims – the EU lags behind the UK in seeking to prevent the worst effects of a no deal scenario. ”

https://www.cbi.org.uk/media/3093/what-comes-next.pdf

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Initial read is by not being prepared, what they mean is eu are not taking as many steps to mitigate the predicted effects of no deal... Could be a ploy to force UK into accepting a deal... Or just the are taking steps they see as proportionate to the impact on their side. It's hard to tell.

The actual pdf isnt a fun read. I wonder how much yellowhammer and cbi compared notes... Or if this is independant, it's confirming each others views.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top