EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

I'm glad you agree that putting a hard border across Ireland is a non-starter. But if the border was across the Irish Sea, one practical implication - currently we have a CTA with Ireland (all parts) so flights to and from are - to all purposes - treated as domestic so although you have to go through security to get on your plane - as in security against bombers etc - there's no immigration or custom queue at the arrival point (as opposed to when you come back of holiday etc - can be an hour!!)
So not only will we be faced with immigartion coming back from the Republic, our own citizens will be faced with immigration here too - how could that be prevented? So that means hour-long queues at Manchester Airport for anyone from Belfast going to the match.

Well that might be inconvenient but surely isn’t insurmountable. An obvious solution would be to keep a version of the current CTA system but with additional checks for non U.K./RoI citizens.

Hopefully in time we can negotiate a situation where there is an accelerated check in for EU member states and a “rest of the world” type queue - much as I have experienced when visiting Switzerland. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to make this work.

OK, check everyone going on the plane - fair point; but that means lots with different passports, what happens if there's a query on one - do we hold up the whole plane? And who does the checking, the airline and not immigration I assume - and what powers and rights would a glorified steward have? Will they get an immigration officer's pay for doing their job?
So however you do it there will be problems somewhere.

Again - inconvenient but surely not impossible to work around. The notion of people crossing borders in an efficient manner is common the world over.

And you are a leave voter? How would you feel if you lived in NIand voted out, yet you remain in against your will (and that of the country) and have to put up with extra bureaucracy, queues and no doubt stress just to pop over to GB just to watch the match - non of which happened prior?
And, of course, it means the end of the CTA, which should be a referendum with us and Ireland in it's own right.
And the thing is...this is coming out as the BEST solution.....crikes!!

As a Northern Irish leave voter I’d probably rationalise the post Brexit situation as I might rationalise the current situation. I would currently be accustomed to the unusual situation of being a citizen of the U.K. which is a member of the EU, is not part of the Shengan agreement, yet has an open border with RoI, a completely different member state, and a plane ride or a sea crossing is necessary to reach the mainland U.K.

As we have established the idea of a hard border between NI/RoI is a terrible one, so let’s go with the least worst option of beefing up the de facto border between NI and GB - surely that’s the only sensible way forward?

As I say - not an easy situation by any stretch - but not one that need be insurmountable with a little common sense and pragmatism from all sides.

 

[najaB]

Well, I must say, I consider that statement to be somewhat disingenuous. I note that you aren’t usually so reticent to criticise statements on this forum you believe to be ridiculous.

If I had a penny for every statement that I started to reply to and then thought better of... I did start to point out that the thread had crossed the Godwin threshold but work intervened and by the time I got back to it the discussion had moved on. For the avoidance of doubt, comparing anyone on either side to Nazis is reprehensible.

 

[AlterEgo]

Passports say "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland" implying we are all live in the UK but the Northern Irish people are not British.

It doesn’t imply anything of the sort. British is a national and civic identity and isn’t tied to the big island we live on.

It merely defines the name of the country in full - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well that might be inconvenient but surely isn’t insurmountable. An obvious solution would be to keep a version of the current CTA system but with additional checks for non U.K./RoI citizens.

Hopefully in time we can negotiate a situation where there is an accelerated check in for EU member states and a “rest of the world” type queue - much as I have experienced when visiting Switzerland. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to make this work.



Again - inconvenient but surely not impossible to work around. The notion of people crossing borders in an efficient manner is common the world over.



As a Northern Irish leave voter I’d probably rationalise the post Brexit situation as I might rationalise the current situation. I would currently be accustomed to the unusual situation of being a citizen of the U.K. which is a member of the EU, is not part of the Shengan agreement, yet has an open border with RoI, a completely different member state, and a plane ride or a sea crossing is necessary to reach the mainland U.K.

As we have established the idea of a hard border between NI/RoI is a terrible one, so let’s go with the least worst option of beefing up the de facto border between NI and GB - surely that’s the only sensible way forward?

As I say - not an easy situation by any stretch - but not one that need be insurmountable with a little common sense and pragmatism from all sides.

Thing is, a good portion of NI Leave voters are the sort that get moist at the thought of border posts. They love that sort of stuff.

 

[Howardh]

After Brexit, with the hardening "control of borders" and all that, one thing's for sure - it will take us all longer to filter through immigration than it does today...why would they want to shorten the queues? If they did, they could do that today..but it cost's money. So NI citizens will be put out when they find they have to queue when currently they don't.

Anyway, that aside, there are logistical and economical problems. Say someone in NI buys goods from Manchester, and a no-deal Brexit means those goods attract duty as they are entering the EU, so they become more expensive than buying from Milan...where will they buy from? That won't be good for our economy.

Think the only realistic solution is for Brexiters to accept staying in the Customs Union, Single Market and the freedom of movement that comes with it. If they had a choice, either that or we remain in the EU completely, surely that's what they would choose? Looks like it's becoming more and more clear that we can't just leave. If Brexiters are asking the Northern Irelanders - especially the Leave voters there, to be more phlegmatic in their approach to make Brexit work (for us, not for them) then perhaps Brexiters here should be more phlegmatic in their approach to leaving and accept remaining in the CU/SM as the least-worst option?

 

[northwichcat]

It is very obvious that the first sentence ties in with the second sentence. I don't necessarily agree with the stance the telegraph has taken but, on the other hand, the referendum has been held and the result determined. As such, MPs should be behind it (I doubt any of them are also rejecting the result of the democratic process that led to their own election as MPs?!)

It's obvious what is referred to in the first sentence is the reason for the request being made in the second sentence. However, unless there have been recent death threats sent to pro-Brexit MPs why stir things up with people who have been behaving themselves? Just because Donald Trump would stir things up in instances like that it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

It sounds like you don't understand why they were branded 'Brexit Mutineers'. It's not because they are opposing the result of the referendum, it's because they are opposing a proposal put forward by David Davies which prevents us going back to the EU and renegotiating a post-Brexit trading deal if they don't like the terms which Mr Davies agrees on our behalf. If there was a 3 way vote in parliament:
1. Accept deal agreed by David Davies
2. Reject deal agreed by David Davies and leave without one
3. Reject deal agreed by David Davies and try to get a better one
and option 3 won then it would almost guarantee David Davies would be sacked and someone else, with different priorities, would take over his job giving us the chance of getting a better deal - it might even prompt a vote of no confidence in the government and a politician from another party taking David Davies' place. However, the Conservatives are trying to prevent option 3 being on the table.

The Conservatives got less than 50% of the public vote at the last General Election, so whatever your view on Brexit it's difficult to justify letting the Conservatives do something so important their way without any opposition.

 

[northwichcat]

There is no reason why the common travel area cannot continue post-Brexit. Indeed, it predates British and Irish membership of the EEC!

We need impose no border controls in Northern Ireland over and above those that presently exist.

It would require us to impose the same border control checks as the EU as a minimum. That wouldn't go down with some Brexiteers.

 

[Cantab26]

It would require us to impose the same border control checks as the EU as a minimum. That wouldn't go down with some Brexiteers.

Why?

[Character minimum]

 

[northwichcat]

Single currency? For the traveller and businessman it would make life easier, but I'm not fussed either way. Certainly not joining the Euro while the Stirling rates are so low, they would have to recover to 1.30/£ minimum before the Euro remotely got my vote.
Much prefer us to be part of the Schengen zone rather than in the Euro which would mean we travel to those countries as domestics. Still have to go through security at airports before getting on the plane though...and that will happen Brexit, Schengen, Euro, EFTA.....nowt we can do about that

Ironically if we'd joined the Euro in 2007 we would all be better off now, despite countries like Greece bringing down the value of the Euro. Although, countries like the Netherlands and Germany would be worse off if we had joined the Euro.

 

[northwichcat]

Why?

[Character minimum]

Why to the first sentence or why to the second sentence?

 

[Cantab26]

Why to the first sentence or why to the second sentence?

Oh gosh, the first sentence.

I wouldn't even attempt to fathom the why of the second!

 

[northwichcat]

Oh gosh, the first sentence.

I wouldn't even attempt to fathom the why of the second!

The EU now requires all passports to be scanned on entering the EU and a check to be made against EU-wide counter-terrorism and law-enforcement databases before entry is permitted. This doesn't apply when travelling between EU countries unless you travel from a non-Schengen Zone country (like the UK or Ireland) to a Schengen Zone country. These extra checks were only added in the past year and are in response to numerous terrorist attacks within the EU.

 

[Cantab26]

The EU now requires all passports to be scanned on entering the EU and a check to be made against EU-wide counter-terrorism and law-enforcement databases before entry is permitted. This doesn't apply when travelling between EU countries unless you travel from a non-Schengen Zone country (like the UK or Ireland) to a Schengen Zone country. These extra checks were only added in the past year and are in response to numerous terrorist attacks within the EU.

This does not answer my question.

You said:

It would require us to impose the same border control checks as the EU as a minimum. That wouldn't go down with some Brexiteers.

Why would we be required to introduce any additional checks?

 

[northwichcat]

This does not answer my question.

Maybe you should have written a proper structured question then. :roll: See the minimum character count has a purpose!

We'd have to continue to impose the EU's checks post-Brexit even if they changed and we didn't agree with the change. If we had a hard border around the UK we could do whatever checks we did or didn't want. I said the EU checks would be a minimum because there would be no reason why we couldn't do additional checks on top of the EU ones.

 

[Cantab26]

Once again, why would we have to continue to impose the EU's checks post-Brexit?

 

[northwichcat]

Once again, why would we have to continue to impose the EU's checks post-Brexit?

It's not my fault if you ask ambiguous questions. The previous responses I have given are suitable responses to "Why?" and "Why would we be required to introduce any additional checks?"

I would have thought it's stating the obvious that if an American arrived in the UK post-Brexit and then went directly to Ireland that they've entered the EU, so where are the checks for the entering the EU going to take place? Between the UK and Ireland? We want to avoid that don't we? So what about when entering the UK, then they've complied with the EU checks without having to go through them when travelling between the UK and Ireland.

 

[Cantab26]

I would have thought it's stating the obvious that if an American arrived in the UK post-Brexit and then went directly to Ireland that they've entered the EU, so where are the checks for the entering the EU going to take place? Between the UK and Ireland? We want to avoid that don't we? So what about when entering the UK, then they've complied with the EU checks without having to go through them when travelling between the UK and Ireland.

So the answer is that we are not required to do anything at all, contrary to your initial assertion. If anything, it would be the EU requiring Ireland to impose border controls. We need do nothing.

An alternative strategy would be to have such checks when leaving the common travel area en route to an EU member state, which means that there would be no change to current arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I wonder which of these approaches Ireland would prefer?

 

[fowler9]

I guess we can just let anyone or anything cross from the Republic of Ireland in to Northern Ireland. I wouldn't expect the same to apply the other way.

 

[Howardh]

Once again, why would we have to continue to impose the EU's checks post-Brexit?

Ill try. Technically, if the UK (GB + NI) was wholly outside the EU and had no deal in place, we could abandon our borders for people and let anyone and everyone in. The reverse would be true for us going the other way - into the EU where they would at very least scan our passports - to the nuclear option of us requiring Visas.

However, if the UK border was the Irish Sea, and NI remained in the EU partly/wholly, then the EU would impose border checks on GB citizens entering NI (the EU) otherwise there would be a gaping hole in the EU border. So, for example, someone from a country outside of Europe could (fly to and) enter GB easily, then cross to NI and enter the EU there without checks.

In reality, for "Control Of Our Borders" to work, then GB will have to have stringent checks on us, EU's and ROW's; so if it does there may not be need for checks on individuals between GB and NI as everyone should be in GB (and therefore the EU) legitimately. However that wouldn't apply to goods should duty be involved. Also means - probably - more hold-ups at our airports for everyone as I can't see the situation being any better than it is today.

This problem would disappear overnight if the UK retained freedom of movement with EU citizens.

 

[northwichcat]

So the answer is that we are not required to do anything at all, contrary to your initial assertion. If anything, it would be the EU requiring Ireland to impose border controls. We need do nothing.

An alternative strategy would be to have such checks when leaving the common travel area en route to an EU member state, which means that there would be no change to current arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I wonder which of these approaches Ireland would prefer?

There is no reason why the common travel area cannot continue post-Brexit. Indeed, it predates British and Irish membership of the EEC!

We need impose no border controls in Northern Ireland over and above those that presently exist.

The Republic of Ireland ideally wants a unified Ireland within the EU but they know that's not on the table. It was on the Sunday Politics just now that politicians both side of the Irish border want a soft border between North and Republic and passport control between Ireland (North or Republic) and the rest of the UK. So that's what they want - if we don't want that we need to come up with an alternative. You say we don't need to have passport checks between Britain and Ireland but also say we can do nothing and leave it to Ireland to sort out - you can't have it both ways!

Your latest idea overlooks the fact that EU has a duty to protect the Irish border, it won't be acceptable to them for someone on the EU-wide counter-terrorism and law-enforcement database to get in to Republic of Ireland from the UK, even if they then get stopped trying to go between Ireland and France.

 

[northwichcat]

I guess we can just let anyone or anything cross from the Republic of Ireland in to Northern Ireland. I wouldn't expect the same to apply the other way.

Indeed we could. However, I can imagine some Brexiteers would go mad if we let that happen with freedom of movement applying to the Republic of Ireland.

 

[fowler9]

Indeed we could. However, I can imagine some Brexiteers would go mad if we let that happen with freedom of movement applying to the Republic of Ireland.

Exactly. I wasn't proposing we have a soft border one way and not the other. The whole situation is a mess. The way I see it it has to be a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland or we stay in the customs union etc. which Brexiteers wouldn't like. If there was special dispensation allowed then what next? Bosnia and Serbia wanting soft borders with Croatia and Slovenia because, let's face it, they were the same country more recently than Northern Ireland and the Republic.

 

[Cantab26]

And I think this touches on the crucial point: 'no deal' means that it is Ireland's problem, not ours.

The Irish position at the moment is that they want to 'play tough'. I say let them and see how far it gets them.

I do not consider the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to be an insuperable difficulty and the EU and Ireland have more to lose from 'no deal'. It is therefore in their interests to reach an accommodation, which could well be to impose bilateral border checks on entry to the common travel area and 'EU checks' when passing from the common travel area to an EU member state.

My opinion is that this is the most likely outcome if a deal is reached.

 

[northwichcat]

Exactly. I wasn't proposing we have a soft border one way and not the other. The whole situation is a mess. The way I see it it has to be a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland or we stay in the customs union etc. which Brexiteers wouldn't like. If there was special dispensation allowed then what next? Bosnia and Serbia wanting soft borders with Croatia and Slovenia because, let's face it, they were the same country more recently than Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Croatia is a good country to compare to Ireland with it being part of the EU but not part of the Schengen Area. Also a good comparison because many Croatians have to cross in to Bosnia & Herzegovina and back to get to and from work.

 

[fowler9]

And I think this touches on the crucial point: 'no deal' means that it is Ireland's problem, not ours.

The Irish position at the moment is that they want to 'play tough'. I say let them and see how far it gets them.

I do not consider the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to be an insuperable difficulty and the EU and Ireland have more to lose from 'no deal'. It is therefore in their interests to reach an accommodation, which could well be to impose bilateral border checks on entry to the common travel area and 'EU checks' when passing from the common travel area to an EU member state.

My opinion is that this is the most likely outcome if a deal is reached.

So your simple solution is a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU and a hard border between the UK and Northern Ireland. There has to be a hard border somewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

And I think this touches on the crucial point: 'no deal' means that it is Ireland's problem, not ours.

The Irish position at the moment is that they want to 'play tough'. I say let them and see how far it gets them.

I do not consider the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to be an insuperable difficulty and the EU and Ireland have more to lose from 'no deal'. It is therefore in their interests to reach an accommodation, which could well be to impose bilateral border checks on entry to the common travel area and 'EU checks' when passing from the common travel area to an EU member state.

My opinion is that this is the most likely outcome if a deal is reached.

Like I said already ideally Ireland wants a unified Ireland. Impose a border control and strip Northern Irish residents of their EU benefits (when the majority voted to remain) and maybe even those some of those in NI who see themselves as British not Irish might not think the idea of a unified Ireland is that bad.

 

[radamfi]

And I think this touches on the crucial point: 'no deal' means that it is Ireland's problem, not ours.

"Ireland's problem" means it becomes our problem as well if it results in the Good Friday Agreement being torn up and the resumption of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and England.

 

[Cantab26]

So your simple solution is a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU and a hard border between the UK and Northern Ireland. There has to be a hard border somewhere.

My point is that the existence of the common travel area means that this does not apply.

And who said anything about simple?

 

[Cantab26]

Like I said already ideally Ireland wants a unified Ireland. Impose a border control and strip Northern Irish residents of their EU benefits (when the majority voted to remain) and maybe even those some of those in NI who see themselves as British not Irish might not think the idea of a unified Ireland is that bad.

Which EU benefits do you have in mind?

 

[northwichcat]

Which EU benefits do you have in mind?

There's too many to list and as I haven't surveyed NI residents I don't which ones attracted the majority of NI residents to vote to remain in the EU.