Varadkar: If there is a hard Brexit, the border would require police and army presence


death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
17,451
Sigh. There will be a backstop for NI. The DUP and unionists will be sacrificed at the alter of the Tory party. It's unionits and the DUP that's preventing GB getting a trade deal.
The DUP are calling the shots at Westminster.

In case you forget a lot of the Tories are also strong Unionists thats why the backstop was defeated by over 200 votes.

But if you say the Backstop is non negotiable, then Eire will have to take their oil and enforce the border.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
 

jman0war

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
1,761
And not only that, but that new EU control would in itself be a violation of the GFA, because the GFA guarantees the principal of consent before any change in the constitutional position of NI. This would be the EU seizing control without any consent.
This is absurd.
This whole Varadkar-Coveney-Juncker plot shows a disrespect to the residents of NI.
Actually it's the Pro Brexit crowd that do. NI voted clearly to Remain.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
17,451
This is absurd.
Actually it's the Pro Brexit crowd that do. NI voted clearly to Remain.
Thy voted for the whole UK to Remain.
But its a technicality you conveniently ignore.
 

TweetyBird

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
678
Us Unionists first and foremost want to protect the constitutional.identity of Northern Ireland within the UK.
Having a backstop where we can't ever leave the stated position unless agreed by the whole EU is unconstitutional and arrogant.
By the way a fart would leave Oxygen for the Disso's,
There's always an excuse for wetting the bed.
The nutters on both sides, I mean.
 

TweetyBird

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
678
Us Unionists first and foremost want to protect the constitutional.identity of Northern Ireland within the UK.
Having a backstop where we can't ever leave the stated position unless agreed by the whole EU is unconstitutional and arrogant.
By the way a fart would leave Oxygen for the Disso's,
There's always an excuse for wetting the bed.
The GFA secures the constitutional set up and a no deal exit gives rise to a dilemma for moderates re position in the UK. As regards the backstop, if trade negotiations go to plan, the backstop never happens. Whilst SM and CU membership would be my preference, the UK seems another way.
 

cytex

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
3,398
The DUP are calling the shots at Westminster.

In case you forget a lot of the Tories are also strong Unionists thats why the backstop was defeated by over 200 votes.

But if you say the Backstop is non negotiable, then Eire will have to take their oil and enforce the border.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
What you are forgetting is that the UK will also have to enforce their border as they will crash out under WTO rules . Go read the one on favored nations. The troubles will restart and the UK will have to trade under WTO rules with having breached a International Treaty . What country will go into a FTA with a country that breached a International Treaty.
What you and the DUP are cheering on is the worst possible outcome for Ireland and the UK the rest of the EU wont actually care .

We have the EU to fall back on we also have the promise of a United Ireland being able to join the EU and remove the border . What the UK has is the border with zero chance of it being removed and zero FTA's on crashout with trashing their economy (Our economy will be trashed as well I do realise this. ) I Fully believe that Ireland has some wiggle room with the EU in putting our boundry in the ports of Ireland (IE not allowing any meat to be exported without a EU cert) yes this will open Ireland to the worst of UK trade deals think brazillian beef and chlorinated chicken etc but protect the free market and stop us from actually policing the border .

In those kind of scenarios people are going to demand a United Ireland to solve the problem within a year of brexit.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
17,451
What you are forgetting is that the UK will also have to enforce their border as they will crash out under WTO rules . Go read the one on favored nations. The troubles will restart and the UK will have to trade under WTO rules with having breached a International Treaty . What country will go into a FTA with a country that breached a International Treaty.
What you and the DUP are cheering on is the worst possible outcome for Ireland and the UK the rest of the EU wont actually care .

We have the EU to fall back on we also have the promise of a United Ireland being able to join the EU and remove the border . What the UK has is the border with zero chance of it being removed and zero FTA's on crashout with trashing their economy (Our economy will be trashed as well I do realise this. ) I Fully believe that Ireland has some wiggle room with the EU in putting our boundry in the ports of Ireland (IE not allowing any meat to be exported without a EU cert) yes this will open Ireland to the worst of UK trade deals think brazillian beef and chlorinated chicken etc but protect the free market and stop us from actually policing the border .

In those kind of scenarios people are going to demand a United Ireland to solve the problem within a year of brexit.
There is no rule in WTO that states there must be a hard border.
The WTO cannot make the UK do anything and sure as hell can't enforce anything.

Whereas the EU calls the shots on Eire to enforce the border.
Leo admitted it yesterday the Eire army has to enforce the border.
That would be Karma.
 

runwiththewind

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
12,694
The DUP are calling the shots at Westminster.

In case you forget a lot of the Tories are also strong Unionists thats why the backstop was defeated by over 200 votes.

But if you say the Backstop is non negotiable, then Eire will have to take their oil and enforce the border.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Defeated in Westminister means jackshyte to the EU. The WA is all the EU will offer. DUP will be thrown under a bus for the good of GB.

That's the choice before all MPs. They can take it or leave it. Cut of their noses, we Irish don't care.
 

cytex

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
3,398
There is no rule in WTO that states there must be a hard border.
The WTO cannot make the UK do anything and sure as hell can't enforce anything.

Whereas the EU calls the shots on Eire to enforce the border.
Leo admitted it yesterday the Eire army has to enforce the border.
That would be Karma.
I suggest you read up on WTO :
Most Favored Nation Status: Definition, Pros, Cons

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

The Geneva organisation insisted that it would not impose checks along the Irish border.

“The WTO will not intervene unless one of its members brought a case,” said Mr Rockwell. “If they [the UK] do not apply any duties or customs procedures against other trading partners and they do not have a trade agreement, some people might not be happy about that and they can bring a dispute settlement case.”
WTO says its rules would not force EU or UK to erect hard Irish border

What you are suggesting is UK trades at the worst possible condition WTO is not going to force a hard border UNLESS another country complains and you are delusional if you think other countries are going to not bring a complaint if the uk reduces the EU tarifs to zero thus avoiding a hard border without a FTA the backstop is what needs to be ratified by the uk parliment to get this. There is no possiblity of a non hard border if the UK crashes out . The only question is who is going to break the GFA uk or Ireland if this happens.

With your stance that the WTO wont enforce its rules is again delusional they can and will via a board made up of all the WTO countries. check here to see how exactlly they enforce the rules .
WTO | Understanding the WTO - A unique contribution
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,393
This is absurd.
Actually it's the Pro Brexit crowd that do. NI voted clearly to Remain.
NI did not vote to remain while the rest of the UK left. They may have wanted the whole UK to remain, but they never voted to get left behind.
Think about it; there is a very important difference.

Neither did NI vote to give Brussels a permanent veto over their border and customs controls, in perpetuity. That aspect of it is a clear violation of the GFA. No consent.
 

JamieD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,308
Oh fück off. Any consequences of Brexit will be the fault of the UK and the UK alone.
Ireland's commitments to the EU are the fault of the UK? And here I thought we were an independent country.

This is just false because the negotiations were two sided. Where everything went wrong was in December 2017 with the Phase 2 talks and agreement. During that phase, the UK and EU agreed to some things on citizens rights, on how an exit bill would be calculated later and crucially, that the next talks would be trade and security related. The issue of the borders (Irish sea border, Irish land border, and UK/EU border) was to be settled at a later point and for a crucial and simple reason; how do you plan for the softest possible border when you don't even know the trade relationship that will happen after March 29, 2019? Would it be WTO? Would it be an FTA, and what are the specifics of the FTA, as well as plenty of other things that would need to be worked out in due course.

The EU backtracked on this and demanded instead that the UK come up with a solution for the borders before talking trade (cart before horse), and that it be codified in a withdrawal agreement and that's where it all went to ************************. I do blame the UK government to a degree since May should have said No at this point.

In any case, it was this change of course that turned Brexit from talks of trade to hypotheticals over a border. The whole thing derailed at that point and that's how May ended up with a withdrawal agreement that delivered nothing she promised.

All that said, no, there's no reason for any military presence at the border on either side after Brexit. Total nonsense.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,393
Ireland's commitments to the EU are the fault of the UK? And here I thought we were an independent country.

This is just false because the negotiations were two sided. Where everything went wrong was in December 2017 with the Phase 2 talks and agreement. During that phase, the UK and EU agreed to some things on citizens rights, on how an exit bill would be calculated later and crucially, that the next talks would be trade and security related. The issue of the borders (Irish sea border, Irish land border, and UK/EU border) was to be settled at a later point and for a crucial and simple reason; how do you plan for the softest possible border when you don't even know the trade relationship that will happen after March 29, 2019? Would it be WTO? Would it be an FTA, and what are the specifics of the FTA, as well as plenty of other things that would need to be worked out in due course.

The EU backtracked on this and demanded instead that the UK come up with a solution for the borders before talking trade (cart before horse), and that it be codified in a withdrawal agreement and that's where it all went to ************************. I do blame the UK government to a degree since May should have said No at this point.

In any case, it was this change of course that turned Brexit from talks of trade to hypotheticals over a border. The whole thing derailed at that point and that's how May ended up with a withdrawal agreement that delivered nothing she promised.

All that said, no, there's no reason for any military presence at the border on either side after Brexit. Total nonsense.
Good analysis. But May was obliged to say Yes to vague wishy washy backstop proposals at that point, otherwise the talks could not have progressed to the next phase (thanks to the Varadkar/Coveney veto)
However, in more recent times, since the WA took form, she is guilty of not being forthright enough. She should have simply demanded the same agreement minus the backstop. Spelled it out plain and simple.
Over in Germany, they are only just starting to get the message now.

As for troops at the border, well you can't say now whether they will, or will not, be needed.
That depends on events.
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
8,982
Leo is right. It would have to happen if their is hard Brexit.

Something which no Irish government can control.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,393
Leo is right. It would have to happen if their is hard Brexit.
Its not the fact that he told the truth that has caused such consternation among his followers.
Its the fact that he lied about the issue for so long, and telling the truth now is effectively an admission of that.
 
Top