You talk as though the GTO Rules are all-encompassing. When they are not.
The GTO Rules only provide rules in relation to separate sovereign nations trading. They are not relevant when we are talking about a part-nation.
Northern Ireland is not a separate nation. It is like England, or Wales, or Greenland. Merely part of a larger country in the defined sense for trading.
That is why Greenland genuinely has the best of both Worlds. And NI does not.
Greenland is not in the EU. It is not in the Single Market. It is the only territory to leave the EU before the UK. It did so very deliberately. As it wanted to be able to prevent other nations from fishing in "its" waters.
The EU is the World's largest Protectionist bloc. Yet it chooses to allow Greenland to pretend it is both part of Denmark, and also not part of Denmark, as it chooses. While giving it massive amounts of EU aid. And giving it a free pass for its exports.
It is not alone in doing that. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were both able to choose to be outside/inside the EU when it suited previously.
There is no legal reason why Northern Ireland could not be regarded in a similar way. All it would take is for the EU to treat NI like lots of other places.
You seem to be going off at a tangent. This is what I have been arguing. The DUP want to be in the SM, and have no border between NI, and the rest of the UK. I was merely saying is that if it was possible to remove the border, then the likelihood is that they would no longer be in the SM. I dont think it is possible to have their cake, and eat it. That was my argument end of.
I am not going to argue over the rights and wrongs of Greenland, the EU, or NI. There is not one example in the whole world where two different customs territories that dont have a trade border between them. This would be required to trade on WTO rules. Despite this, you seem to be arguing that there is no need for a trade border. Although if there wasnt, my argument would still stand. It is only because of the border that they are in the SM. So if the border was removed they would be out of it.
As I said earlier, I have not heard one politician argue that there shouldnt be a border between the UK, and the EU. So you seem to be alone in this respect. I am certain that any of the PMs that we have had since the referendum, would have been over the moon if they didnt have to have a border. I recall endless numbers of the ERG coming out to argue about putting in place a technological border on the island of Ireland, despite the fact that the technology does not yet exist. They brought up trusted trader schemes, but never no border. So what you are arguing for, seems to be something that nobody has ever even considered.
My view is that there has to be a border between the UK, and the EU. Some people refer to the border as the Irish Sea border. Although I think it would be more accurate to refer to it as the GB mainland border. It just so happens that NI is stuck on the wrong side of it.
You talk as though the GTO Rules are all-encompassing. When they are not.
The GTO Rules only provide rules in relation to separate sovereign nations trading. They are not relevant when we are talking about a part-nation.
Northern Ireland is not a separate nation. It is like England, or Wales, or Greenland. Merely part of a larger country in the defined sense for trading.
That is why Greenland genuinely has the best of both Worlds. And NI does not.
Greenland is not in the EU. It is not in the Single Market. It is the only territory to leave the EU before the UK. It did so very deliberately. As it wanted to be able to prevent other nations from fishing in "its" waters.
The EU is the World's largest Protectionist bloc. Yet it chooses to allow Greenland to pretend it is both part of Denmark, and also not part of Denmark, as it chooses. While giving it massive amounts of EU aid. And giving it a free pass for its exports.
It is not alone in doing that. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were both able to choose to be outside/inside the EU when it suited previously.
There is no legal reason why Northern Ireland could not be regarded in a similar way. All it would take is for the EU to treat NI like lots of other places.
Not that it is at all relevant, but Greenland is an OCT.
Overseas countries and territories (OCTs)
OCT nationals are European citizens but OCTs are not part of the EU's territory the OCTs are not directly subject to EU law but they benefit from 'associate' status under the Lisbon Treaty 'associate' status helps their economic and social development
The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are a group of countries that depend constitutionally on three EU Member States: Denmark, France, and the Netherlands. OCT nationals are European citizens, but OCTs are not part of the EU’s territory. However, they enjoy a preferential trade status with duty- and quota-free access to the EU market 1. The rules of origin proposed for the OCTs go beyond the rules of the General Scheme of Preference by simplifying origin certification for small consignments under €10,000, granting the possibility of extended cumulation with other EU trade partners, and allowing OCTs to derogate from rules of origin 2. To qualify for preferential duty rates at the EU border, products originating in the OCTs must be accompanied by either a Movement Certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration 2.Yes, Greenland has trade agreements with the European Union. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and is one of the EU members’ overseas countries and territories (OCT) associated with the European Union 1. Greenland receives funding from the EU for sustainable development and has signed agreements increasing cooperation with the EU 12. As a result, Greenland has some integration with the EU’s internal market via association agreements. It is also within the EU’s common external tariff but they may charge customs in a non-discriminatory manner 1. Greenlandic citizens have EU citizenship 1.
Hence why OCTs are 1 of the groups that genuinely have the best of both Worlds. There are others, too. All of which have a better deal than NI
Frankly I think that is a ridiculous argument. The last time I looked NI was still part of the UK. The current position of NI was clearly caused by two things. The first was the UK leaving the EU. The second was the GFA.
If a land border was possible in Ireland, There would be no border in the Irish Sea, the DUP would be happy, but NI would not be in the SM.
If we sold NI off to the Danes, and they became an OCT, they would still be in exactly the same boat.
My second point was that everybody could accept the current situation, get on with it, and appreciate that what we currently have is probably the best we can do. In which case Stormont would be up and running, and the NI economy continues to benefit from the best of both worlds.
Alternatively, due to pressure from the DUP, the UK government could be forced into putting some time and effort into establishing a virtual border on the island of Ireland. Or they just agree with you that no border is needed. The Irish Sea border would be removed. NI would be out of the SM. Their economy would be damaged. And the best of both worlds gone.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
The EU has a border, which used to include the UK. You are the only person in the world that is arguing that there is no need of a border. Not even the ERG have ever argued for no border. So it seems that everyone in the world except you, accepts that a border is required. Had there been no Troubles, and therefore no GFA, then there would have been a land border in Ireland, and no problems. However, as we cant ignore The Troubles, or the GFA, the border has to go somewhere else. Where else could it go? The only option is around the GB mainland. This unfortunately leaves NI on the wrong side of it. Therefore the only option was to leave them in the SM/CU.
As far as I can see, there are a limited number of ways that this could change. This could occur if a UK government, and the EU, agreed with the only person in the world, ie you, that thinks a border is not required. I personally think that I would have more chance of becoming the next Pope, than this happening, and I am not even Catholic. On a serious note, I believe that if this was at all possible, then it would have happened by now. The referendum was more than 7 years ago. Maybe you could find just one article in the press that questions the need of a border?
Another option is that the technology could be produced to implement a virtual border, with no infrastructure, and a trusted trader scheme.
If either of the above became possible, it would mean that NI would no longer be in the SM/CU. In which case the DUP may well have shot themselves in the foot.
I think the UK government may have got around many of the silly rules that were being implemented, in the Windsor Framework. Everyone seems to have forgotten that there were checks between GB, and NI when we were members. As the UK government has sworn to diverge from the EU, and as the number of trade deals elsewhere in the world increases, it is likely that more checks will be required rather than less. And as NI seems likely to remain on the EU side of the border for the foreseeable, they will be affected the most by this.
I cant believe that you think that Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or Rishi Sunak, wouldnt have agreed a Withdrawal deal, with no border if it was at all possible. Why did they spend years agreeing the backstop, the Protocol, and the Windsor Framework, if we didnt need a border. Not one of the hundreds of Cabinet members, PMs, ERG members, prominent Brexiteers, UKIP, Reform UK, or even Nigel Farage has ever suggested that there was no need of a border.
I think that to compare the UK with any of the 13 OTCs is silly. Some of them dont even have any permanent inhabitants. The one you keep mentioning, which is Greenland, has around 57,000 inhabitants, one export which is fish, and is part of Denmark, who are EU members. No comparison. Although if half of Greenland became independent from Denmark, they may experience similar problems to those we face in NI, in the independent half.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
Brexit explained: Why does the Border matter and what is the backstop? The Border is a sticking point in Brexit negotiations, but why?
Why is the Irish Border such a big deal with Brexit? The 499-kilometre border running from Carlingford Lough to Lough Foyle will become the only land border between the UK and the European Union after Brexit.
The 1998 Belfast Agreement brought peace to Northern Ireland and removed the need for border checks.
It also established North-South rules and institutions that helped solidify the Peace Process. The border is currently invisible and neither side wants the return of infrastructure along the border or the creation of a hard border.
Why would there be a need for border checks? Different customs rules, regulations and standards will apply in Northern Ireland and the Republic if the UK is leaving the EU so the different rules could have to be enforced at a border.
What exactly is the backstop? It is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement, or Brexit treaty, guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland.
It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK could not reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
How have the backstop talks developed? Brussels believed a hard border could be avoided and the Belfast Agreement upheld if Northern Ireland remains fully aligned with the EU's customs union and parts of the single market after Brexit.
This would mean matching the rules north and south of the Border for customs, energy, environmental regulations and laws covering agriculture and fisheries,.
Northern Ireland would stick to EU rules covering state aid and would fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in applying those rules. The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier initially insisted that this backstop can only apply to Northern Ireland. But the UK didn't like this? No. British prime minister Theresa May said that no UK leader could agree to different rules applying to different parts of the UK that would separate Northern Ireland constitutionally and economically from the rest of the UK.
London argued that if the backstop only applies to Northern Ireland, it would effectively create a customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea. The Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which keeps May’s minority Conservative government in power, also objected. They oppose any checks between Ireland and Britain and what they see as a border in the Irish Sea. So what finally appeared in the withdrawal agreement on the backstop? The UK government suggested a backstop that would keep the whole of the UK aligned with EU customs union after the post-Brexit transition period. The transition is a standstill period when current EU economic rules continue to apply over the UK. Under the agreement it is due to expire at the end of 2020 but it could be extended to 2022. The backstop would be triggered if the two sides fail to agree a new trade deal by that time that is far-reaching enough to avoid Irish border checks. Under the backstop, the North would also follow EU regulatory rules set down by the single market for goods. This would be enough to avoid a hard Irish Border, but would still involve some regulatory checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
Brexit: Five steps that led to an Irish Sea border
When the Brexit transition ends on 1 January there will be a new trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland will stay in the EU single market for goods and will continue to enforce EU customs rules at its ports.
This will prevent a hardening of the land border with the Republic of Ireland while creating a new "sea border" with the rest of the UK.
But how did this happen?
In the aftermath of the referendum, debate centred on whether the UK should pursue a "soft" or "hard" Brexit.
A soft Brexit meant staying in the EU's single market or customs union or perhaps both.
A hard Brexit meant leaving both the customs union and single market and reaching a trade deal like the one the EU has with Canada.
A soft Brexit would mean soft trade borders; a hard Brexit would mean harder borders.
She said the UK would leave the single market and the customs union.
From that moment it was inevitable that there would have to be a new border somewhere.
Simply look at the EU's other external frontiers with non-single market countries, like the hard border between Hungary and Ukraine.
Even countries which participate in the single market have customs borders with the EU, albeit relatively free-flowing ones.
The guidelines, signed off by EU national leaders, stated: "In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border."
December 2017: The backstop Through the second half of 2017 the negotiating teams laboured to find a way to square a hard Brexit with a soft Irish border.
It was in an interim agreement called the Joint Report that the UK implicitly conceded that an Irish Sea border could be a solution.
The Joint Report laid out three possibilities:
The border issue could be solved in the context of an overall trade deal
There could be technological and administrative solutions
Northern Ireland could continue to align with some rules of the internal market and the customs union
It was that third option, known as the backstop, which brought a sea border firmly onto the agenda.
In the days after the Joint Report there was a lack of agreement on what it would mean in practice.
But in February 2018, the European Commission attempted to sweep away any ambiguity about what the backstop meant.
It published a legal interpretation of the Joint Report explaining it would mean Northern Ireland effectively staying in the EU customs union and following many of the rules of the single market.
Mrs May was clear about what was being proposed.
"The draft legal text the commission have published would, if implemented, undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea, and no UK prime minster could ever agree to it," she said.
For the rest of her time in office she attempted to change and finesse the backstop in ways which would satisfy the DUP, her own party and the EU.
Her failure to do so ultimately cost her her job.
October 2019: Boris meets Leo
But, by October, he was proposing an "all-island regulatory zone" which would effectively keep Northern Ireland in the EU's single market for agriculture, food and all manufactured goods.
This would prove to be the engagement which unlocked a deal that ultimately saw an Irish Sea border approved by the UK Parliament.
December 2019: General election The deal which Mr Johnson agreed unambiguously created an Irish Sea border.
The DUP, which at that stage was still propping up the Conservative government, was aghast.
There was no way it would support Mr Johnson's deal in Parliament.
But the election swept away the party's influence, giving Mr Johnson a comfortable majority.
Without the DUP obstacle he was free to get his deal through Parliament.
Before the end of January the Irish Sea border would be law.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
Brexit: Five steps that led to an Irish Sea border
When the Brexit transition ends on 1 January there will be a new trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland will stay in the EU single market for goods and will continue to enforce EU customs rules at its ports.
This will prevent a hardening of the land border with the Republic of Ireland while creating a new "sea border" with the rest of the UK.
But how did this happen?
In the aftermath of the referendum, debate centred on whether the UK should pursue a "soft" or "hard" Brexit.
A soft Brexit meant staying in the EU's single market or customs union or perhaps both.
A hard Brexit meant leaving both the customs union and single market and reaching a trade deal like the one the EU has with Canada.
A soft Brexit would mean soft trade borders; a hard Brexit would mean harder borders.
She said the UK would leave the single market and the customs union.
From that moment it was inevitable that there would have to be a new border somewhere.
Simply look at the EU's other external frontiers with non-single market countries, like the hard border between Hungary and Ukraine.
Even countries which participate in the single market have customs borders with the EU, albeit relatively free-flowing ones.
The guidelines, signed off by EU national leaders, stated: "In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border."
December 2017: The backstop Through the second half of 2017 the negotiating teams laboured to find a way to square a hard Brexit with a soft Irish border.
It was in an interim agreement called the Joint Report that the UK implicitly conceded that an Irish Sea border could be a solution.
The Joint Report laid out three possibilities:
The border issue could be solved in the context of an overall trade deal
There could be technological and administrative solutions
Northern Ireland could continue to align with some rules of the internal market and the customs union
It was that third option, known as the backstop, which brought a sea border firmly onto the agenda.
In the days after the Joint Report there was a lack of agreement on what it would mean in practice.
But in February 2018, the European Commission attempted to sweep away any ambiguity about what the backstop meant.
It published a legal interpretation of the Joint Report explaining it would mean Northern Ireland effectively staying in the EU customs union and following many of the rules of the single market.
Mrs May was clear about what was being proposed.
"The draft legal text the commission have published would, if implemented, undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea, and no UK prime minster could ever agree to it," she said.
For the rest of her time in office she attempted to change and finesse the backstop in ways which would satisfy the DUP, her own party and the EU.
Her failure to do so ultimately cost her her job.
October 2019: Boris meets Leo
But, by October, he was proposing an "all-island regulatory zone" which would effectively keep Northern Ireland in the EU's single market for agriculture, food and all manufactured goods.
This would prove to be the engagement which unlocked a deal that ultimately saw an Irish Sea border approved by the UK Parliament.
December 2019: General election The deal which Mr Johnson agreed unambiguously created an Irish Sea border.
The DUP, which at that stage was still propping up the Conservative government, was aghast.
There was no way it would support Mr Johnson's deal in Parliament.
But the election swept away the party's influence, giving Mr Johnson a comfortable majority.
Without the DUP obstacle he was free to get his deal through Parliament.
Before the end of January the Irish Sea border would be law.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
Only because you insist on maintaining an untenable position. The border in question, is the border between the UK, and EU. Just referring to the bit in the Irish sea is misleading. As are the comparisons that you quote. The UK is apparently the world fifth largest exporter, and importer. Not some backwater with no permanent inhabitants. The EU is the largest economy in the world. So it is a UK/EU border. The bit that is causing problems, is the Irish Sea bit. Although you wouldnt have to be a genius to have foreseen the problems that exist.
Theresa Mays solution to this problem was the backstop. The purpose of the backstop was to avoid a border full stop. The intention was to avoid the need for a border later in the trade agreement. The backstop was to be included in the Withdrawal Agreement. The trade agreement was to follow. The whole point of the backstop was to avoid a border. There idea that no border was required was never discussed. Theresa May lost her job over the backstop.
Along came Boris Johnson who wouldnt wear the backstop. He agreed the protocol. The protocol put the border in place. He lied about the protocol to the DUP. After the 2019 general election he didnt need them. Parliament approved the protocol. So Parliament voted for the border. No border was never an option. Boris argued that this gave NI the best of both worlds.
Rishi Sunak solved some of the border problems with the Windsor framework. He has not argued that there is no need for a border.
Various politicians in NI are putting forward some silly arguments.
The NI problem was caused by the UK leaving the EU. Every politician with half a brain was aware that a border would be inevitable. Every one of them was aware that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland. So where else could it go? Everyone really knew that it would have to be around the GB mainland. Therefore they all knew that NI would be on the EU side of the border. This meant that NI would have to remain in the SM/CU. The UK/EU border is around mainland GB, as there was no option. This undoubtedly, on the one hand, gave NI the best of both worlds in respect of trade, but also caused some difficulties. The Unionists were unlikely to see a border that separated them from the rest of the UK, as a plus. Nor were they likely to welcome following SM rules. Didnt everyone realise that having to follow the rules of two different customs territories would be a problem, and a bigger problem as the UK diverges from the EU?
The DUP are insisting on the removal of the border, and maintaining their SM access. When it seems that one is dependant on the other. So if the border could be removed, then they would be out of the SM. They are also saying that the people of NI should have a say in the laws that govern them. This is despite them being on the EU side of the border, and members of the SM/CU.
Always amuses me when you believe all politicians are lying when they say things you don't like. And are telling the truth when you do. Here are some facts in relation to this topic. Not opinion. Facts. Although I have every confidence you will ignore any facts that do not accord with your vision of the EU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet 2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border 3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein 4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise 5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland 6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK 7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade 8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU 9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark. 10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU? 11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
Always amuses me when you believe all politicians are lying when they say things you don't like. And are telling the truth when you do. Here are some facts in relation to this topic. Not opinion. Facts. Although I have every confidence you will ignore any facts that do not accord with your vision of the EU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet 2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border 3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein 4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise 5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland 6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK 7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade 8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU 9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark. 10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU? 11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
You are clearly grasping at straws. There is a border between mainland GB, and the EU. You are suggesting that we just disregard the bit in the Irish Sea. The GFA doesnt allow a hard border, or any border infrastructure between Ireland and NI. This therefore makes any customs checks impossible. I dont really know why I am spending any time justifying the border, when Parliament voted for it. Nobody except you has suggested that no border is required.
Always amuses me when you believe all politicians are lying when they say things you don't like. And are telling the truth when you do. Here are some facts in relation to this topic. Not opinion. Facts. Although I have every confidence you will ignore any facts that do not accord with your vision of the EU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet 2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border 3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein 4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise 5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland 6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK 7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade 8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU 9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark. 10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU? 11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
You are clearly grasping at straws. There is a border between mainland GB, and the EU. You are suggesting that we just disregard the bit in the Irish Sea. The GFA doesnt allow a hard border, or any border infrastructure between Ireland and NI. This therefore makes any customs checks impossible. I dont really know why I am spending any time justifying the border, when Parliament voted for it. Nobody except you has suggested that no border is required.
I'm not saying that at all.
There are, of course, 2 options in relation to that.
It could be that I am insufficiently able to explain myself. Or that you are either icapable or unwilling to understand it.
There is a sea border between the UK and Ireland. And a land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The key is what tariffs and restrictions will or will not apply. Read 10 above. In a field of 2, would you feel a component part of Denmark has a better deal than a component part of the UK on leaving the EU?
There have been efforts to reduce a "hard" border. But there will be infrastructure, however much the UK and EU pretend otherwise.
And the UK Parliament does not get to decide where International Borders lie. Any more than whether Rwanda is a safe country.
The key word in International Trade is "International"
I'm never going to convince you otherwise. You genuinely think you are right.
Always amuses me when you believe all politicians are lying when they say things you don't like. And are telling the truth when you do. Here are some facts in relation to this topic. Not opinion. Facts. Although I have every confidence you will ignore any facts that do not accord with your vision of the EU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet 2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border 3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein 4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise 5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland 6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK 7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade 8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU 9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark. 10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU? 11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
You are clearly grasping at straws. There is a border between mainland GB, and the EU. You are suggesting that we just disregard the bit in the Irish Sea. The GFA doesnt allow a hard border, or any border infrastructure between Ireland and NI. This therefore makes any customs checks impossible. I dont really know why I am spending any time justifying the border, when Parliament voted for it. Nobody except you has suggested that no border is required.
I'm not saying that at all.
There are, of course, 2 options in relation to that.
It could be that I am insufficiently able to explain myself. Or that you are either icapable or unwilling to understand it.
There is a sea border between the UK and Ireland. And a land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The key is what tariffs and restrictions will or will not apply. Read 10 above. In a field of 2, would you feel a component part of Denmark has a better deal than a component part of the UK on leaving the EU?
There have been efforts to reduce a "hard" border. But there will be infrastructure, however much the UK and EU pretend otherwise.
And the UK Parliament does not get to decide where International Borders lie. Any more than whether Rwanda is a safe country.
The key word in International Trade is "International"
I'm never going to convince you otherwise. You genuinely think you are right.
And I genuinely know I am
From that moment it was inevitable that there would have to be a new border somewhere.
Why would there be a need for border checks? Different customs rules, regulations and standards will apply in Northern Ireland and the Republic if the UK is leaving the EU so the different rules could have to be enforced at a border.
December 2019: General election The deal which Mr Johnson agreed unambiguously created an Irish Sea border.
Even countries which participate in the single market have customs borders with the EU, albeit relatively free-flowing ones.
"In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border."
This would prove to be the engagement which unlocked a deal that ultimately saw an Irish Sea border approved by the UK Parliament.
Before the end of January the Irish Sea border would be law.
With the greatest of respect, the Internet has no filter. It's full of masses of information. A lot of which is rubbish. And a lot is written by people with their own political agenda.
That's just as true for politicians as it is for Conspiracy Theorists.
So-to take your last rampant bollo from the Internet:-
1. There is no new Border 2. Fish is 1 of the products that most needs stringent safety standards. I return to Greenland. Which do you think is the riskier products-Greenland or NI? Which is easier to monitor, the 1 with a land border, or the 1 two thousand miles from anywhere? 3. In shock news, Boris lied. He didn't "create" a sea border. Who do you think he is-Canute? It has been there since 1921. With considerably fewer problems before we joined than after we left 4. "Relatively free flowing ones". True. But "relative" is a moveable feast. NI industry lacks legal certainty in the medium-term. If you are a Far East Company looking to set up a European base, Ireland will be a consideration. NI will not 5. Greenland was given a special deal because of its "geographical importance". In what sense? Which 1 is next door? Which 1 has 2 competing countries arguing over it? Which 1 has a long and sad history of war and persecution? 6. The UK, NI and the EU all have their own political agendas. And all spend a lot of time pretending the World is somehow different than it really is.
Always amuses me when you believe all politicians are lying when they say things you don't like. And are telling the truth when you do. Here are some facts in relation to this topic. Not opinion. Facts. Although I have every confidence you will ignore any facts that do not accord with your vision of the EU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet 2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border 3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein 4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise 5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland 6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK 7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade 8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU 9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark. 10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU? 11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
You are clearly grasping at straws. There is a border between mainland GB, and the EU. You are suggesting that we just disregard the bit in the Irish Sea. The GFA doesnt allow a hard border, or any border infrastructure between Ireland and NI. This therefore makes any customs checks impossible. I dont really know why I am spending any time justifying the border, when Parliament voted for it. Nobody except you has suggested that no border is required.
I'm not saying that at all.
Ok what are you saying? Are you saying that there is no need for a trade border between the UK and EU. Or do you accept that, but just no need of the bit in the Irish Sea? Or a hard border on the island of Ireland?
There are, of course, 2 options in relation to that.
It could be that I am insufficiently able to explain myself. Or that you are either icapable or unwilling to understand it.
Not sure which.
There is a sea border between the UK and Ireland.
There is, but you could describe it as a border around mainland GB.
And a land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
There are no customs checks or controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the island. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable, and no passport controls are enforced when driving or travelling by train or bus from one into the other.
The key is what tariffs and restrictions will or will not apply. Read 10 above. In a field of 2, would you feel a component part of Denmark has a better deal than a component part of the UK on leaving the EU?
It is surely irrelevant what I think. You cant blame the EU for the deal that the UK negotiated, can you?
There have been efforts to reduce a "hard" border. But there will be infrastructure, however much the UK and EU pretend otherwise.
Not on the land border.
And the UK Parliament does not get to decide where International Borders lie. Any more than whether Rwanda is a safe country.
They voted for the legislation that put the border in place.
The key word in International Trade is "International"
I'm never going to convince you otherwise. You genuinely think you are right.
And I genuinely know I am
I am at a loss to understand what you are "right" about.
I appreciate and accept that you are "at a loss to understand".
That's part of the way the World has changed. 1 of us has 35 years of experience of the Laws pertaining to International Trade. And 1 of us has looked some stuff up on the Internet.
You clearly do not understand what a "Border" is. There has been a Border between NI and Ireland for 103 years. There is not a sea border around the island of GB-just between GB and places that are not in the UK. Again, for 103 years.
Freedom of Movement between the component parts of the British Isles (not just the UK) have nothing to do with the EU. The CTA has existed since 1923. The 1 thing that the Govts of the UK/Ireland dare not tamper with
I'm not blaming the EU or the UK for NI. I am just saying that, for whatever reason, the EU/Denmark/Greenland negotiated a way better deal for Greenland than the EU/UK/NI managed for NI.
You persist in believing that any "hard border" will not be on the real border. Good luck with that.
Comments
This is what I have been arguing.
The DUP want to be in the SM, and have no border between NI, and the rest of the UK.
I was merely saying is that if it was possible to remove the border, then the likelihood is that they would no longer be in the SM.
I dont think it is possible to have their cake, and eat it.
That was my argument end of.
I am not going to argue over the rights and wrongs of Greenland, the EU, or NI.
There is not one example in the whole world where two different customs territories that dont have a trade border between them.
This would be required to trade on WTO rules.
Despite this, you seem to be arguing that there is no need for a trade border.
Although if there wasnt, my argument would still stand.
It is only because of the border that they are in the SM.
So if the border was removed they would be out of it.
As I said earlier, I have not heard one politician argue that there shouldnt be a border between the UK, and the EU.
So you seem to be alone in this respect.
I am certain that any of the PMs that we have had since the referendum, would have been over the moon if they didnt have to have a border.
I recall endless numbers of the ERG coming out to argue about putting in place a technological border on the island of Ireland, despite the fact that the technology does not yet exist.
They brought up trusted trader schemes, but never no border.
So what you are arguing for, seems to be something that nobody has ever even considered.
My view is that there has to be a border between the UK, and the EU.
Some people refer to the border as the Irish Sea border.
Although I think it would be more accurate to refer to it as the GB mainland border.
It just so happens that NI is stuck on the wrong side of it.
Overseas countries and territories (OCTs)
OCT nationals are European citizens but OCTs are not part of the EU's territory
the OCTs are not directly subject to EU law but they benefit from 'associate' status under the Lisbon Treaty
'associate' status helps their economic and social development
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/overseas-countries-and-territories-0
The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are a group of countries that depend constitutionally on three EU Member States: Denmark, France, and the Netherlands. OCT nationals are European citizens, but OCTs are not part of the EU’s territory. However, they enjoy a preferential trade status with duty- and quota-free access to the EU market 1. The rules of origin proposed for the OCTs go beyond the rules of the General Scheme of Preference by simplifying origin certification for small consignments under €10,000, granting the possibility of extended cumulation with other EU trade partners, and allowing OCTs to derogate from rules of origin 2. To qualify for preferential duty rates at the EU border, products originating in the OCTs must be accompanied by either a Movement Certificate EUR.1 or an invoice declaration 2.Yes, Greenland has trade agreements with the European Union. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and is one of the EU members’ overseas countries and territories (OCT) associated with the European Union 1. Greenland receives funding from the EU for sustainable development and has signed agreements increasing cooperation with the EU 12. As a result, Greenland has some integration with the EU’s internal market via association agreements. It is also within the EU’s common external tariff but they may charge customs in a non-discriminatory manner 1. Greenlandic citizens have EU citizenship 1.
The last time I looked NI was still part of the UK.
The current position of NI was clearly caused by two things.
The first was the UK leaving the EU.
The second was the GFA.
If a land border was possible in Ireland,
There would be no border in the Irish Sea, the DUP would be happy, but NI would not be in the SM.
If we sold NI off to the Danes, and they became an OCT, they would still be in exactly the same boat.
My second point was that everybody could accept the current situation, get on with it, and appreciate that what we currently have is probably the best we can do.
In which case Stormont would be up and running, and the NI economy continues to benefit from the best of both worlds.
Alternatively, due to pressure from the DUP, the UK government could be forced into putting some time and effort into establishing a virtual border on the island of Ireland.
Or they just agree with you that no border is needed.
The Irish Sea border would be removed.
NI would be out of the SM.
Their economy would be damaged.
And the best of both worlds gone.
There are lots of parts of countries that are both out of the EU and yet regarded as though they were in.
Not just OCTs-parts of lots of nations, including France and Germany in relation to tax havens and other overseas territories. Much like Jersey and the Isle of Man while we were in (and they were not).
None of these exemptions have any (legal) trade land border with the EU. They are free to pretend none exists. In ways that both parts of the Island of Ireland can only dream.
You talk in the doom-laden terms that suit politicians on both sides of the Divide. Whereas other Countries find inventive ways round what you believe to be absolute Rules.
You are the only person in the world that is arguing that there is no need of a border.
Not even the ERG have ever argued for no border.
So it seems that everyone in the world except you, accepts that a border is required.
Had there been no Troubles, and therefore no GFA, then there would have been a land border in Ireland, and no problems.
However, as we cant ignore The Troubles, or the GFA, the border has to go somewhere else.
Where else could it go?
The only option is around the GB mainland.
This unfortunately leaves NI on the wrong side of it.
Therefore the only option was to leave them in the SM/CU.
As far as I can see, there are a limited number of ways that this could change.
This could occur if a UK government, and the EU, agreed with the only person in the world, ie you, that thinks a border is not required.
I personally think that I would have more chance of becoming the next Pope, than this happening, and I am not even Catholic.
On a serious note, I believe that if this was at all possible, then it would have happened by now.
The referendum was more than 7 years ago.
Maybe you could find just one article in the press that questions the need of a border?
Another option is that the technology could be produced to implement a virtual border, with no infrastructure, and a trusted trader scheme.
If either of the above became possible, it would mean that NI would no longer be in the SM/CU.
In which case the DUP may well have shot themselves in the foot.
I think the UK government may have got around many of the silly rules that were being implemented, in the Windsor Framework.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that there were checks between GB, and NI when we were members.
As the UK government has sworn to diverge from the EU, and as the number of trade deals elsewhere in the world increases, it is likely that more checks will be required rather than less.
And as NI seems likely to remain on the EU side of the border for the foreseeable, they will be affected the most by this.
I cant believe that you think that Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or Rishi Sunak, wouldnt have agreed a Withdrawal deal, with no border if it was at all possible.
Why did they spend years agreeing the backstop, the Protocol, and the Windsor Framework, if we didnt need a border.
Not one of the hundreds of Cabinet members, PMs, ERG members, prominent Brexiteers, UKIP, Reform UK, or even Nigel Farage has ever suggested that there was no need of a border.
I think that to compare the UK with any of the 13 OTCs is silly.
Some of them dont even have any permanent inhabitants.
The one you keep mentioning, which is Greenland, has around 57,000 inhabitants, one export which is fish, and is part of Denmark, who are EU members.
No comparison.
Although if half of Greenland became independent from Denmark, they may experience similar problems to those we face in NI, in the independent half.
The Border is a sticking point in Brexit negotiations, but why?
Why is the Irish Border such a big deal with Brexit?
The 499-kilometre border running from Carlingford Lough to Lough Foyle will become the only land border between the UK and the European Union after Brexit.
The 1998 Belfast Agreement brought peace to Northern Ireland and removed the need for border checks.
It also established North-South rules and institutions that helped solidify the Peace Process. The border is currently invisible and neither side wants the return of infrastructure along the border or the creation of a hard border.
Why would there be a need for border checks?
Different customs rules, regulations and standards will apply in Northern Ireland and the Republic if the UK is leaving the EU so the different rules could have to be enforced at a border.
What exactly is the backstop?
It is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement, or Brexit treaty, guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland.
It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK could not reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
How have the backstop talks developed?
Brussels believed a hard border could be avoided and the Belfast Agreement upheld if Northern Ireland remains fully aligned with the EU's customs union and parts of the single market after Brexit.
This would mean matching the rules north and south of the Border for customs, energy, environmental regulations and laws covering agriculture and fisheries,.
Northern Ireland would stick to EU rules covering state aid and would fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in applying those rules. The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier initially insisted that this backstop can only apply to Northern Ireland.
But the UK didn't like this?
No. British prime minister Theresa May said that no UK leader could agree to different rules applying to different parts of the UK that would separate Northern Ireland constitutionally and economically from the rest of the UK.
London argued that if the backstop only applies to Northern Ireland, it would effectively create a customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea. The Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which keeps May’s minority Conservative government in power, also objected. They oppose any checks between Ireland and Britain and what they see as a border in the Irish Sea.
So what finally appeared in the withdrawal agreement on the backstop?
The UK government suggested a backstop that would keep the whole of the UK aligned with EU customs union after the post-Brexit transition period. The transition is a standstill period when current EU economic rules continue to apply over the UK. Under the agreement it is due to expire at the end of 2020 but it could be extended to 2022. The backstop would be triggered if the two sides fail to agree a new trade deal by that time that is far-reaching enough to avoid Irish border checks. Under the backstop, the North would also follow EU regulatory rules set down by the single market for goods. This would be enough to avoid a hard Irish Border, but would still involve some regulatory checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-explained-why-does-the-border-matter-and-what-is-the-backstop-1.3661518
When the Brexit transition ends on 1 January there will be a new trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland will stay in the EU single market for goods and will continue to enforce EU customs rules at its ports.
This will prevent a hardening of the land border with the Republic of Ireland while creating a new "sea border" with the rest of the UK.
But how did this happen?
In the aftermath of the referendum, debate centred on whether the UK should pursue a "soft" or "hard" Brexit.
A soft Brexit meant staying in the EU's single market or customs union or perhaps both.
A hard Brexit meant leaving both the customs union and single market and reaching a trade deal like the one the EU has with Canada.
A soft Brexit would mean soft trade borders; a hard Brexit would mean harder borders.
She said the UK would leave the single market and the customs union.
From that moment it was inevitable that there would have to be a new border somewhere.
Simply look at the EU's other external frontiers with non-single market countries, like the hard border between Hungary and Ukraine.
Even countries which participate in the single market have customs borders with the EU, albeit relatively free-flowing ones.
The guidelines, signed off by EU national leaders, stated: "In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border."
December 2017: The backstop
Through the second half of 2017 the negotiating teams laboured to find a way to square a hard Brexit with a soft Irish border.
It was in an interim agreement called the Joint Report that the UK implicitly conceded that an Irish Sea border could be a solution.
The Joint Report laid out three possibilities:
The border issue could be solved in the context of an overall trade deal
There could be technological and administrative solutions
Northern Ireland could continue to align with some rules of the internal market and the customs union
It was that third option, known as the backstop, which brought a sea border firmly onto the agenda.
In the days after the Joint Report there was a lack of agreement on what it would mean in practice.
But in February 2018, the European Commission attempted to sweep away any ambiguity about what the backstop meant.
It published a legal interpretation of the Joint Report explaining it would mean Northern Ireland effectively staying in the EU customs union and following many of the rules of the single market.
Mrs May was clear about what was being proposed.
"The draft legal text the commission have published would, if implemented, undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea, and no UK prime minster could ever agree to it," she said.
For the rest of her time in office she attempted to change and finesse the backstop in ways which would satisfy the DUP, her own party and the EU.
Her failure to do so ultimately cost her her job.
October 2019: Boris meets Leo
But, by October, he was proposing an "all-island regulatory zone" which would effectively keep Northern Ireland in the EU's single market for agriculture, food and all manufactured goods.
This would prove to be the engagement which unlocked a deal that ultimately saw an Irish Sea border approved by the UK Parliament.
December 2019: General election
The deal which Mr Johnson agreed unambiguously created an Irish Sea border.
The DUP, which at that stage was still propping up the Conservative government, was aghast.
There was no way it would support Mr Johnson's deal in Parliament.
But the election swept away the party's influence, giving Mr Johnson a comfortable majority.
Without the DUP obstacle he was free to get his deal through Parliament.
Before the end of January the Irish Sea border would be law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55411621
Not having a border, was not one of them.
Gibraltar is set to face "crunch" talks with Spain and the EU as it issues its final ultimatum to Spain amid a row over its British sovereignty.
The British overseas territory’s deputy Chief Minister has said Gibraltar is gearing up to challenge a post-Brexit treaty.
Spain and Gibraltar's relationship has changed since the UK left the EU in 2020.
But since it is no longer in the Schengen Travel Area, Gibraltar is blocked from free movement to and from EU countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/gibraltar-issues-final-ultimatum-to-hostile-spain-as-brexit-row-reaches-fever-pitch/ar-AA1mtEMn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b3eacccf149f427597fdc6003ca4404a&ei=31
The border in question, is the border between the UK, and EU.
Just referring to the bit in the Irish sea is misleading.
As are the comparisons that you quote.
The UK is apparently the world fifth largest exporter, and importer.
Not some backwater with no permanent inhabitants.
The EU is the largest economy in the world.
So it is a UK/EU border.
The bit that is causing problems, is the Irish Sea bit.
Although you wouldnt have to be a genius to have foreseen the problems that exist.
Theresa Mays solution to this problem was the backstop.
The purpose of the backstop was to avoid a border full stop.
The intention was to avoid the need for a border later in the trade agreement.
The backstop was to be included in the Withdrawal Agreement.
The trade agreement was to follow.
The whole point of the backstop was to avoid a border.
There idea that no border was required was never discussed.
Theresa May lost her job over the backstop.
Along came Boris Johnson who wouldnt wear the backstop.
He agreed the protocol.
The protocol put the border in place.
He lied about the protocol to the DUP.
After the 2019 general election he didnt need them.
Parliament approved the protocol.
So Parliament voted for the border.
No border was never an option.
Boris argued that this gave NI the best of both worlds.
Rishi Sunak solved some of the border problems with the Windsor framework.
He has not argued that there is no need for a border.
Various politicians in NI are putting forward some silly arguments.
The NI problem was caused by the UK leaving the EU.
Every politician with half a brain was aware that a border would be inevitable.
Every one of them was aware that it couldnt be on the island of Ireland.
So where else could it go?
Everyone really knew that it would have to be around the GB mainland.
Therefore they all knew that NI would be on the EU side of the border.
This meant that NI would have to remain in the SM/CU.
The UK/EU border is around mainland GB, as there was no option.
This undoubtedly, on the one hand, gave NI the best of both worlds in respect of trade, but also caused some difficulties.
The Unionists were unlikely to see a border that separated them from the rest of the UK, as a plus.
Nor were they likely to welcome following SM rules.
Didnt everyone realise that having to follow the rules of two different customs territories would be a problem, and a bigger problem as the UK diverges from the EU?
The DUP are insisting on the removal of the border, and maintaining their SM access.
When it seems that one is dependant on the other.
So if the border could be removed, then they would be out of the SM.
They are also saying that the people of NI should have a say in the laws that govern them.
This is despite them being on the EU side of the border, and members of the SM/CU.
1. Let's start with what a "border" is. It is where 2 separate economic entities meet
2. It is not a "land border". It is a border. Just as relevant for a sea border
3. There is a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Has been since 1921. Existed before we joined the EU. Exists after we left. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand International Trade and the rules therein
4. If a Company in Northern Ireland sells £1,000 of goods to an Irish Company, and £1,000 of goods to an English Company. The first of those is an Export. The 2nd is not. True since 1921. True now. Don't believe any politician who tells you otherwise. The Border is on the island of Ireland. Has been for 103 years. The rest is just politicians pretending otherwise
5. People do not understand what a Single Market is. It is not a Unified Market. Members are free to impose conditions and/or tariffs in various instances. Like, for example, restrictions on imports from GB Mainland
6. I used Greenland for a very obvious reason-it is the only other territory (it is not a Country in its own right, and is far more akin to NI (or Wales) than the UK
7. There is a land border of 310 miles between NI and Ireland. Where there are lots of complex agreements to seek to ensure frictionless trade
8. Greenland has created a 200-mile exclusion zone around its Island. A lot depends on how you draw that border-either as a simple line, or follow the contours of the coastline. By far the smaller 1 of those involves a 5,000 mile Border, where there is no freedom for all non-Greenland citizens. That was the sole reason for "leaving" the EU
9. Greenland has a population of 57,000. It exports $1.5 billion of fish to Denmark. Please note that is an export, as Greenland is, for trade purposes, a different trading entity to Denmark.
10. That amounts to just under $30,000 per person. Which might explain why per capita GDP in Greenland is double that of Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales has more than 50 times the population of Greenland. Imagine how Wales (or Northern Ireland) would be transformed if it had a $75 Billion Export? That it could sell tariff-free. And get to choose that its people are EU citizens, its trade is treated as though it was in the EU, receive aid as though it is, yet pursue a trade policy outside of that trading bloc and refuse to be in the EU?
11. Do you believe NI has the best of both worlds? Or Greenland?
There is a border between mainland GB, and the EU.
You are suggesting that we just disregard the bit in the Irish Sea.
The GFA doesnt allow a hard border, or any border infrastructure between Ireland and NI.
This therefore makes any customs checks impossible.
I dont really know why I am spending any time justifying the border, when Parliament voted for it.
Nobody except you has suggested that no border is required.
There are, of course, 2 options in relation to that.
It could be that I am insufficiently able to explain myself. Or that you are either icapable or unwilling to understand it.
There is a sea border between the UK and Ireland. And a land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The key is what tariffs and restrictions will or will not apply. Read 10 above. In a field of 2, would you feel a component part of Denmark has a better deal than a component part of the UK on leaving the EU?
There have been efforts to reduce a "hard" border. But there will be infrastructure, however much the UK and EU pretend otherwise.
And the UK Parliament does not get to decide where International Borders lie. Any more than whether Rwanda is a safe country.
The key word in International Trade is "International"
I'm never going to convince you otherwise. You genuinely think you are right.
And I genuinely know I am
Why would there be a need for border checks?
Different customs rules, regulations and standards will apply in Northern Ireland and the Republic if the UK is leaving the EU so the different rules could have to be enforced at a border.
December 2019: General election
The deal which Mr Johnson agreed unambiguously created an Irish Sea border.
Even countries which participate in the single market have customs borders with the EU, albeit relatively free-flowing ones.
"In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border."
This would prove to be the engagement which unlocked a deal that ultimately saw an Irish Sea border approved by the UK Parliament.
Before the end of January the Irish Sea border would be law.
That's just as true for politicians as it is for Conspiracy Theorists.
So-to take your last rampant bollo from the Internet:-
1. There is no new Border
2. Fish is 1 of the products that most needs stringent safety standards. I return to Greenland. Which do you think is the riskier products-Greenland or NI? Which is easier to monitor, the 1 with a land border, or the 1 two thousand miles from anywhere?
3. In shock news, Boris lied. He didn't "create" a sea border. Who do you think he is-Canute? It has been there since 1921. With considerably fewer problems before we joined than after we left
4. "Relatively free flowing ones". True. But "relative" is a moveable feast. NI industry lacks legal certainty in the medium-term. If you are a Far East Company looking to set up a European base, Ireland will be a consideration. NI will not
5. Greenland was given a special deal because of its "geographical importance". In what sense? Which 1 is next door? Which 1 has 2 competing countries arguing over it? Which 1 has a long and sad history of war and persecution?
6. The UK, NI and the EU all have their own political agendas. And all spend a lot of time pretending the World is somehow different than it really is.
Just wanted to say I'm thoroughly enjoying this back & forth between @HAYSIE & @Essexphil. It's good to see robust debate.
That's part of the way the World has changed. 1 of us has 35 years of experience of the Laws pertaining to International Trade. And 1 of us has looked some stuff up on the Internet.
You clearly do not understand what a "Border" is. There has been a Border between NI and Ireland for 103 years. There is not a sea border around the island of GB-just between GB and places that are not in the UK. Again, for 103 years.
Freedom of Movement between the component parts of the British Isles (not just the UK) have nothing to do with the EU. The CTA has existed since 1923. The 1 thing that the Govts of the UK/Ireland dare not tamper with
I'm not blaming the EU or the UK for NI. I am just saying that, for whatever reason, the EU/Denmark/Greenland negotiated a way better deal for Greenland than the EU/UK/NI managed for NI.
You persist in believing that any "hard border" will not be on the real border. Good luck with that.
Didn't have you down for a Boris Believer.
The 1 that said you were 1 of the major forces behind Dr Beeching's destruction of the Railways