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
You had better let the DUP know.
3. 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?
You seem unable to grasp that this is about the border between the UK, and EU. The bit that is causing problems, is the bit in the Irish Sea. If you accept that there needs to be a border between the UK and EU, you cant disregard this bit. Therefore your comparisons are irrelevant. The border in the Irish Sea is merely a small part of the UK/EU border.
5. 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
Prior to the legislation NI enjoyed unfettered trade with the rest of the UK.
7. "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
Whose fault is that? Rishi Sunak is saying the Windsor Framework is here to stay. What is the alternative to the current arrangements? Where could you move the border to? How do you move NI to the right side of the border? If either of the last two were possible, then NI would suffer as they would lose access to the SM.
9. 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?
The situation in NI has been caused by the UK/EU border. I dont think that a border with a gap in it is feasible. Cleverer people than you have had years to come up with a solution. Why do you think they havent been able to? The easiest possible solution from day one would have been to have no border. Yet here we are more than 7 years later, and we have a border.
11. 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.
Well we really have a border, and I cant remember anyone from either side suggesting otherwise. In fact I think that everyone assumed from day one that there would be a border.
There has been a border between the separate parts of Ireland for more than 100 years. Regardless of the EU. Regardless of what UK politicians think.
It's just that the Tory Party felt unable to accept the truth. So voted for Johnson's lies. And it suits various politicians on all sides to pretend they have "created" borders that were already there. Together with 1 that has never existed.
You may believe that a border between 1 part of a country that has left the EU is in no way relevant to the only other part of a country that has left the EU.
The key question for me is whether Greenland refusing to be part of the EU or the SM should entitle it to a far better deal than the 1 given to NI. and whether you (or anyone) can seriously believe that, in a field of 2, NI has "the best of both worlds".
I appreciate and accept that you are "at a loss to understand".
So what exactly are you suggesting?
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.
However the world has changed, there was never any doubt that after we left the EU there would be a trade border between us and them.
You clearly do not understand what a "Border" is. There has been a Border between NI and Ireland for 103 years.
I understand that, but the GFA legislated for no hard border amongst other things. Had this not been the case then the UK/EU border would be on the island of Ireland, and we wouldnt have a problem.
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.
I also understand that. I was referring to the UK/EU border.
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 have not disputed this.
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.
I am not disputing this either. Although I will dispute that the comparison is relevant. It could only be relevant if there was a way of removing the Irish Sea bit of the UK/EU border.
You persist in believing that any "hard border" will not be on the real border. Good luck with that.
I dont believe that there will be a hard border between NI, and Ireland anytime soon.
Didn't have you down for a Boris Believer.
I dont believe a word he says. Contrary to what you said earlier, I do believe that some politicians are honest.
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border. Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
There has been a border between the separate parts of Ireland for more than 100 years. Regardless of the EU. Regardless of what UK politicians think.
I am aware of that. Are you just being obtuse? There has not been a hard border, or any border infrastructure between NI, and Ireland since the GFA. Therefore an alternative had to be found for customs checks etc. The cause of the current problems.
It's just that the Tory Party felt unable to accept the truth.
Which truth?
So voted for Johnson's lies. And it suits various politicians on all sides to pretend they have "created" borders that were already there. Together with 1 that has never existed.
If the borders were already there, then what on earth are the DUP complaining about, and why is Stormont not up and running?
You may believe that a border between 1 part of a country that has left the EU is in no way relevant to the only other part of a country that has left the EU.
I am not sure what this bit means.
Although I do question what the plan was. When the powers that be decided on a referendum, they were surely aware that if we decided to leave, a border between us and the EU would have to be established. Unless of course the whole of the UK remained in the SM/CU, which was never on the cards. Where could the border go? There could only be two options. One on the island on Ireland. The other around mainland GB. The GFA made the island of Ireland impossible. Here we are, over 7 years later with the border in the only other place it could go. Therefore hardly unexpected. The fact that this would cause problems shouldnt have come as a surprise. NI is on the wrong side, has to comply with the two different sets of rules of the two customs territories that they are in, and was bound to alienate the Unionists.
The key question for me is whether Greenland refusing to be part of the EU or the SM should entitle it to a far better deal than the 1 given to NI. and whether you (or anyone) can seriously believe that, in a field of 2, NI has "the best of both worlds".
I am not sure how you judge a deal as being better. When NI was referred to as having the best of both worlds, this specifically referred to them having unfettered access to both the GB, and EU markets. I dont think anyone has argued that their access to the SM, has not been an advantage. I think your argument about Greenland is full of holes. They have one export. First off you claimed they export to the EU, subsequently to Denmark. Assuming your later post was correct, then surely that is equivalent to NI exporting to the UK. Not being that clever I did try to look up on the internet what access they had to the SM, but could find it quickly, and gave up. When I look stuff up on the internet I try to stick to reliable sources. Either way I dont think that any Greenland comparison is relevant. The situation in NI has been caused by circumstances, not from choice. There had to be a border. Its in the only place it could go. The border separated NI from the rest of the UK. Through this they were left on the EU side, and therefore had to remain in the SM/CU, and I looked this bit up on the internet. As of the end of the transition period, Northern Ireland is subject to a limited set of EU rules related to the Single Market for goods and the Customs Union1. These rules include: The Union's Customs Code applies to all goods entering or exiting Northern Ireland1. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK customs territory but is subject to the EU customs code. Northern Ireland is subject to EU VAT rules. Northern Ireland is subject to EU Single Market regulations for goods. Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. Northern Ireland is subject to EU regulations relating to electricity supply and energy markets.
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border.
I am aware of that. I didnt even need to look it up on the internet.
How many times? Even though there is a border, it is an open border with no infrastructure.
Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European Union. As the two states share a Common Travel Area and (as of 2021) Northern Ireland (the only exception within the UK and only in some respects) and the Republic of Ireland are participants in the European Single Market, the border is essentially an open one, allowing free passage of people since 1923 and of goods since 1993. There are circa 270 public roads that cross the border.[3][4] Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, this border is also the frontier between the EU and a non-member country. The Brexit withdrawal agreement commits all involved parties to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea between the two islands.
Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
Yet they are also in the SM/CU, and therefore a problem.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
Yes, she said that no British PM would ever put a border in the Irish Sea.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
I dont believe they do.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
Therefore no real alternative anytime soon.
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
There has been a border between the separate parts of Ireland for more than 100 years. Regardless of the EU. Regardless of what UK politicians think.
I am aware of that. Are you just being obtuse? There has not been a hard border, or any border infrastructure between NI, and Ireland since the GFA. Therefore an alternative had to be found for customs checks etc. The cause of the current problems.
It's just that the Tory Party felt unable to accept the truth.
Which truth?
So voted for Johnson's lies. And it suits various politicians on all sides to pretend they have "created" borders that were already there. Together with 1 that has never existed.
If the borders were already there, then what on earth are the DUP complaining about, and why is Stormont not up and running?
You may believe that a border between 1 part of a country that has left the EU is in no way relevant to the only other part of a country that has left the EU.
I am not sure what this bit means.
Although I do question what the plan was. When the powers that be decided on a referendum, they were surely aware that if we decided to leave, a border between us and the EU would have to be established. Unless of course the whole of the UK remained in the SM/CU, which was never on the cards. Where could the border go? There could only be two options. One on the island on Ireland. The other around mainland GB. The GFA made the island of Ireland impossible. Here we are, over 7 years later with the border in the only other place it could go. Therefore hardly unexpected. The fact that this would cause problems shouldnt have come as a surprise. NI is on the wrong side, has to comply with the two different sets of rules of the two customs territories that they are in, and was bound to alienate the Unionists.
The key question for me is whether Greenland refusing to be part of the EU or the SM should entitle it to a far better deal than the 1 given to NI. and whether you (or anyone) can seriously believe that, in a field of 2, NI has "the best of both worlds".
I am not sure how you judge a deal as being better. When NI was referred to as having the best of both worlds, this specifically referred to them having unfettered access to both the GB, and EU markets. I dont think anyone has argued that their access to the SM, has not been an advantage. I think your argument about Greenland is full of holes. They have one export. First off you claimed they export to the EU, subsequently to Denmark. Assuming your later post was correct, then surely that is equivalent to NI exporting to the UK. Not being that clever I did try to look up on the internet what access they had to the SM, but could find it quickly, and gave up. When I look stuff up on the internet I try to stick to reliable sources. Either way I dont think that any Greenland comparison is relevant. The situation in NI has been caused by circumstances, not from choice. There had to be a border. Its in the only place it could go. The border separated NI from the rest of the UK. Through this they were left on the EU side, and therefore had to remain in the SM/CU, and I looked this bit up on the internet. As of the end of the transition period, Northern Ireland is subject to a limited set of EU rules related to the Single Market for goods and the Customs Union1. These rules include: The Union's Customs Code applies to all goods entering or exiting Northern Ireland1. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK customs territory but is subject to the EU customs code. Northern Ireland is subject to EU VAT rules. Northern Ireland is subject to EU Single Market regulations for goods. Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. Northern Ireland is subject to EU regulations relating to electricity supply and energy markets.
What you say is entirely logical And also entirely wrong. Because International trade does not follow logic.
Some countries, like France, choose to have most of their overseas Departments as part of France, for both Nation status and for Trade Purposes. So, for example, French Guiana is part of France. It is in the EU, and its trade with France is not an "export" as it is trade within 1 nation and 1 trading system.
Greenland does not follow this. For the purposes of Nation status within the UN, it is part of Denmark. But it lies in a different trading entity, with different trading rules. Consequently, anything it sells to the EU, including Denmark, is classed as an export. I appreciate that is a difficult concept. But that is the way it works.
It is not like NI trading with the UK. It is closer to NI trading with Ireland. Except in this instance Greenland have been allowed to put the equivalent of road blocks to stop the SM or freedom of movement in the Sea. While its people are designated as EU citizens. To use your phrase, they get the penny and the bun.
For international trade purposes, NI exports to Ireland. And trades via a purely internal market with the UK. 1 is reliant on external factors via both Ireland and the EU. And the other is not.
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border.
I am aware of that. I didnt even need to look it up on the internet.
How many times? Even though there is a border, it is an open border with no infrastructure.
Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European Union. As the two states share a Common Travel Area and (as of 2021) Northern Ireland (the only exception within the UK and only in some respects) and the Republic of Ireland are participants in the European Single Market, the border is essentially an open one, allowing free passage of people since 1923 and of goods since 1993. There are circa 270 public roads that cross the border.[3][4] Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, this border is also the frontier between the EU and a non-member country. The Brexit withdrawal agreement commits all involved parties to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea between the two islands.
Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
Yet they are also in the SM/CU, and therefore a problem.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
Yes, she said that no British PM would ever put a border in the Irish Sea.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
I dont believe they do.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
Therefore no real alternative anytime soon.
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
I dont dispute that. What is the alternative?
There are lots of alternatives. Many of which, objectively, would be a considerable net gain for the people of Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to have NI as part of the EU purely for limited trading purposes. And part of the UK for Governmental purposes. Its just that the various opposing factions will never be able to contemplate such a thing, never mind agree.
The simple problem is that every one of those solutions would benefit either the North or the Republic more. The UK or Ireland more. Or Protestants or Catholics more. So in the Short-Term everyone lies. While various interested parties seek to move towards their preferred position.
And that hasn't just been a problem since 2016. Or even 1921. That goes back way further than that.
The laws pertaining to International Trade are complex. But an absolute doddle compared to Northern Ireland and its future.
Been very interesting to read about the latest from the EU and how they feel regarding Turing over Erasmus and that odious toad Guy Verhofstadt and Ursula the sea witch calling on the young of the UK to help change things. Yeah like giving the young real decisions (big on ideology, lacking in real world experience) ever worked out well.
It will be even more interesting to watch the internal rows as a potential Nexit and Swexit loom, France's Le Penn and his Eurosceptic policies gain popularity, Belgium is in a state of political flux moving to the right and Germany sinks deeper into financial trouble.
Brussels it would appear want Member states to be pretty much self financing whilst obviously the poorer Northern and Eastern Nations want the status quo. Why would that be.
It wont take much for the whole edifice to start to shake, then it's going to get really interesting.
Schengen, the Euro, the single market, all mainstays of the EU and standing on less than solid ground it would seem.
Well I'm off to Iceland on the 19th for a 4 night stay. Not an EU member but a member of the EEA. Wonder how long I will have to queue at the border.
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border.
I am aware of that. I didnt even need to look it up on the internet.
How many times? Even though there is a border, it is an open border with no infrastructure.
Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European Union. As the two states share a Common Travel Area and (as of 2021) Northern Ireland (the only exception within the UK and only in some respects) and the Republic of Ireland are participants in the European Single Market, the border is essentially an open one, allowing free passage of people since 1923 and of goods since 1993. There are circa 270 public roads that cross the border.[3][4] Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, this border is also the frontier between the EU and a non-member country. The Brexit withdrawal agreement commits all involved parties to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea between the two islands.
Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
Yet they are also in the SM/CU, and therefore a problem.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
Yes, she said that no British PM would ever put a border in the Irish Sea.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
I dont believe they do.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
Therefore no real alternative anytime soon.
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
I dont dispute that. What is the alternative?
There are lots of alternatives. Many of which, objectively, would be a considerable net gain for the people of Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to have NI as part of the EU purely for limited trading purposes. And part of the UK for Governmental purposes. Its just that the various opposing factions will never be able to contemplate such a thing, never mind agree.
The simple problem is that every one of those solutions would benefit either the North or the Republic more. The UK or Ireland more. Or Protestants or Catholics more. So in the Short-Term everyone lies. While various interested parties seek to move towards their preferred position.
And that hasn't just been a problem since 2016. Or even 1921. That goes back way further than that.
The laws pertaining to International Trade are complex. But an absolute doddle compared to Northern Ireland and its future.
My argument from the beginning was that the DUP should be careful what they wish for. They are demanding the removal of the border as well as continued access to the SM. I merely pointed out that if the border was removed, then the likelihood is that they would lose their access to the SM. The reason I said this is because they are only in the SM, because of the border. If a hard border was possible in Ireland, they wouldnt be in it. That was my argument full stop.
Now in response you have come up with some spurious comparisons with other countries, some of which dont have any permanent inhabitants. You have suggested that better deals have been done elsewhere. The situation in NI has been created by the UK/EU border. Everything else has flowed from that. I find difficult to see any feasible alternative at present. You must be cleverer than the 4 PMs, hundreds of Cabinet Ministers, and thousands of Civil Servants, that were involved in the negotiations. Either that or you are wrong.
Been very interesting to read about the latest from the EU and how they feel regarding Turing over Erasmus and that odious toad Guy Verhofstadt and Ursula the sea witch calling on the young of the UK to help change things. Yeah like giving the young real decisions (big on ideology, lacking in real world experience) ever worked out well.
It will be even more interesting to watch the internal rows as a potential Nexit and Swexit loom, France's Le Penn and his Eurosceptic policies gain popularity, Belgium is in a state of political flux moving to the right and Germany sinks deeper into financial trouble.
Brussels it would appear want Member states to be pretty much self financing whilst obviously the poorer Northern and Eastern Nations want the status quo. Why would that be.
It wont take much for the whole edifice to start to shake, then it's going to get really interesting.
Schengen, the Euro, the single market, all mainstays of the EU and standing on less than solid ground it would seem.
Well I'm off to Iceland on the 19th for a 4 night stay. Not an EU member but a member of the EEA. Wonder how long I will have to queue at the border.
Incidentally Sammy Wilson said this the other day, which I believe is correct, and proved me wrong, I previously referred to NIs unfettered access to both markets. The UK Government would have been well aware of this when they signed the protocol, which was approved by Parliament. Although I dont believe it is a choice, because nobody can choose, circumstances dictate that they are stuck with what they have got. He needs to let Jeffrey Donaldson know.
DUP's Sammy Wilson says full access to both the UK and EU markets isn't possible - it's a choice
The East Antrim MP also questioned the ability of the government to deliver on a deal even if it wanted to – and said that the DUP has a judgement call to make on returning to Stormont, as that would end its leverage.
In his New Year message to the public, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he wanted to safeguard “our place in the UK internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market”. He said these objectives “are not mutually exclusive”.
Speaking to the News Letter, Mr Wilson said: “You can have pure access to the EU market and compromised access to the UK market” or vice versa, “but you can’t have both. It’s as simple as that.
The above article embodies part of the reason why people voted to leave.
It tries to claim that it was some sort of Old Etonian elitist plot to get us to leave the EU. Yet, within the self-same article, refers to "that dreadful Referendum of 2016". What exactly was "dreadful" about it? Was it the fact that the great unwashed got to have a say? Or the truly appalling campaign to Remain? The 1 that failed to raise any of the genuine economic impacts of Leaving, as opposed to resorting to acting like Corporal Jones from Dads Army?
It also refers to Thatcher agreeing to Delors' idea of the Single Market, before falling out over closer political ties, and the single currency. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Thatcher. But the fact remains that the UK is a whole lot keener on the Economic benefits of the Single Market than it is on being an integral part of a European political superstate. EEC. EC. Not EU.
The Remain campaign not only failed to accurately explain the Economic benefits. It failed to get to grips with the real problems leaving would bring. Failed to grasp the need to ensure that we effectively remain an Island politically (as opposed to economically), rather than part of Europe. Failed to try and show that the Benefits would outweigh any cost. Failed to force the Leave campaign to actually come out and say how we were leaving.
The losing side has spent 7 years referring to the lies told by Vote Leave. And next to none examining why the losing side lost.
The above article embodies part of the reason why people voted to leave.
I thought it was a view that not everyone will share.
It tries to claim that it was some sort of Old Etonian elitist plot to get us to leave the EU. Yet, within the self-same article, refers to "that dreadful Referendum of 2016". What exactly was "dreadful" about it? Was it the fact that the great unwashed got to have a say? Or the truly appalling campaign to Remain? The 1 that failed to raise any of the genuine economic impacts of Leaving, as opposed to resorting to acting like Corporal Jones from Dads Army?
Looking at the repercussions makes the Remain campaign appear very naive, and unprofessional. Besides the lies from the Leave campaign, actually leaving was far more complex than they made out. Having a referendum was not a good idea. If there was no way around it, a super majority should have been required in order to leave.
It also refers to Thatcher agreeing to Delors' idea of the Single Market, before falling out over closer political ties, and the single currency. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Thatcher. But the fact remains that the UK is a whole lot keener on the Economic benefits of the Single Market than it is on being an integral part of a European political superstate. EEC. EC. Not EU.
People in the UK seem to suffer from a superiority complex. We seem to think we are better than everyone else. That we are world leaders in just about everything. Despite this being obviously untrue, the view seems to persist. Back in my youth all Americans were Yanks, all the French were frogs, and we won the war. Stan Boardman used to get a laugh every time he referred to Germans, as Jeermans. The Duke of Edinburgh claimed all Belgians were boring. So it comes as no surprise to me that a section of the British public wished to blame the EU for anything they didnt like. Even though the EU is not responsible for most of what they were blaming them for. This has happened recently on this thread, and still persists. We also seem prepared to argue about what the EU is thinking, or what they are planning to do at some point. Much of which never seems to materialise. I think that part of the Leave vote came from people that were fed up with Tory austerity, and thought that leaving would have to be an improvement.
The Remain campaign not only failed to accurately explain the Economic benefits. It failed to get to grips with the real problems leaving would bring. Failed to grasp the need to ensure that we effectively remain an Island politically (as opposed to economically), rather than part of Europe. Failed to try and show that the Benefits would outweigh any cost. Failed to force the Leave campaign to actually come out and say how we were leaving.
The Remain campaign was a complete failure. The Irish Sea border never figured. The Leave campaign was very innovative, and probably didnt need to resort to the lies. If Dominic **** ran the Remain campaign, we would be still members
The losing side has spent 7 years referring to the lies told by Vote Leave. And next to none examining why the losing side lost.
Hardly a new development, the losers blaming the winners, and not themselves.
The Redwood article is nonsense. Besides the rhetoric he calls for two things. The first is for the VAT threshold to be increased for small companies. You would have thought that this might have been done in the 3 years since we have left, if it was worthwhile. It would have a massive effect if you believe that thousands of small companies are turning away all their potential new customers to avoid exceeding the current threshold. Although I personally dont. The second was to renegotiate the fishing deal, and increase quotas for our fisherman. I am not sure that our fisherman landing loads more fish wouldnt lead to a collapse in wholesale prices. It seems that a reduction in prices for producers rarely reaches the consumer. So I am not sure who would actually benefit from these two ideas.
Did we really leave the EU to increase the Vat threshold, land more fish, get pints of wine onto supermarket shelves, stop Freedom of Movement, break all immigration records, and not send one single person to Rwanda?
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border.
I am aware of that. I didnt even need to look it up on the internet.
How many times? Even though there is a border, it is an open border with no infrastructure.
Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European Union. As the two states share a Common Travel Area and (as of 2021) Northern Ireland (the only exception within the UK and only in some respects) and the Republic of Ireland are participants in the European Single Market, the border is essentially an open one, allowing free passage of people since 1923 and of goods since 1993. There are circa 270 public roads that cross the border.[3][4] Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, this border is also the frontier between the EU and a non-member country. The Brexit withdrawal agreement commits all involved parties to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea between the two islands.
Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
Yet they are also in the SM/CU, and therefore a problem.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
Yes, she said that no British PM would ever put a border in the Irish Sea.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
I dont believe they do.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
Therefore no real alternative anytime soon.
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
I dont dispute that. What is the alternative?
There are lots of alternatives. Many of which, objectively, would be a considerable net gain for the people of Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to have NI as part of the EU purely for limited trading purposes. And part of the UK for Governmental purposes. Its just that the various opposing factions will never be able to contemplate such a thing, never mind agree.
The simple problem is that every one of those solutions would benefit either the North or the Republic more. The UK or Ireland more. Or Protestants or Catholics more. So in the Short-Term everyone lies. While various interested parties seek to move towards their preferred position.
And that hasn't just been a problem since 2016. Or even 1921. That goes back way further than that.
The laws pertaining to International Trade are complex. But an absolute doddle compared to Northern Ireland and its future.
Brexit: How the NI Protocol became the Windsor Framework
In 2023 the Northern Ireland Protocol became the Windsor Framework.
The new deal was enough to normalise relations between the UK and EU.
But it has not yet been enough to persuade the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to return to Stormont.
It also gave some long-desired legal certainty to businesses, but the Irish Sea border will always be evolving so long as UK and EU rules continue to diverge.
For the EU, the new framework left the basic architecture of 2019's protocol intact: a trade border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains in place as the way to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU conceded that what was originally agreed in 2019 on medicines and supermarket goods was unworkable and Northern Ireland would have to stay closer to UK rules.
The other innovation in the framework was the creation of the Stormont Brake which gives the Northern Ireland's devolved government a conditional arms-length veto over updates to EU legislation that applies in Northern Ireland.
It remains to be seen in what circumstances the brake could ever actually be used but some unionist politicians will be itching to give it a try.
It was clear that the deal was on from early January when the then foreign secretary James Cleverly and his EU counterpart Maroš Šefčovič reached agreement on sharing trade data.
To those who have grown bored of Brexit, the significance of this was not immediately obvious but it fulfilled a long-standing EU demand, so unblocking a path to the bigger deal.
Before that deal arrived, the Supreme Court had its say, ruling that the protocol was legal and bringing down the curtain on a unionist legal challenge.
'Exciting economic zone'
At its heart was a new trusted trader scheme and a system of green lanes and red lanes.
These are designed to reduce, but not entirely remove, the bureaucracy applied to Great Britain goods which are being sold to Northern Ireland consumers.
Mr Sunak sold the deal with gusto, telling the audience at a factory in Lisburn that the framework made Northern Ireland "the world's most exciting economic zone".
He also had to sell it to his own party, but there would be no repeat of the anguished, nail-biting Commons votes, which accompanied Theresa May's attempts to legislate for a Northern Ireland Brexit deal.
'Not for EU'
There is more implementation to come in 2024, most significantly the start of green lane arrangements for parcels and internet shopping.
Brexit continues to be a process, not a one-off event.
The Border between the UK and Ireland has a land border.
I am aware of that. I didnt even need to look it up on the internet.
How many times? Even though there is a border, it is an open border with no infrastructure.
Border markings are inconspicuous, in common with many inter-state borders in the European Union. As the two states share a Common Travel Area and (as of 2021) Northern Ireland (the only exception within the UK and only in some respects) and the Republic of Ireland are participants in the European Single Market, the border is essentially an open one, allowing free passage of people since 1923 and of goods since 1993. There are circa 270 public roads that cross the border.[3][4] Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, this border is also the frontier between the EU and a non-member country. The Brexit withdrawal agreement commits all involved parties to maintaining an open border in Ireland, so that (in many respects) the de facto frontier is the Irish Sea between the two islands.
Simply because NI is part of the trading territory of the UK. Not the EU.
Yet they are also in the SM/CU, and therefore a problem.
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
Yes, she said that no British PM would ever put a border in the Irish Sea.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
I dont believe they do.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
Therefore no real alternative anytime soon.
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
I dont dispute that. What is the alternative?
There are lots of alternatives. Many of which, objectively, would be a considerable net gain for the people of Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to have NI as part of the EU purely for limited trading purposes. And part of the UK for Governmental purposes. Its just that the various opposing factions will never be able to contemplate such a thing, never mind agree.
The simple problem is that every one of those solutions would benefit either the North or the Republic more. The UK or Ireland more. Or Protestants or Catholics more. So in the Short-Term everyone lies. While various interested parties seek to move towards their preferred position.
And that hasn't just been a problem since 2016. Or even 1921. That goes back way further than that.
The laws pertaining to International Trade are complex. But an absolute doddle compared to Northern Ireland and its future.
Brexit: How the NI Protocol became the Windsor Framework
In 2023 the Northern Ireland Protocol became the Windsor Framework.
The new deal was enough to normalise relations between the UK and EU.
But it has not yet been enough to persuade the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to return to Stormont.
It also gave some long-desired legal certainty to businesses, but the Irish Sea border will always be evolving so long as UK and EU rules continue to diverge.
For the EU, the new framework left the basic architecture of 2019's protocol intact: a trade border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains in place as the way to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU conceded that what was originally agreed in 2019 on medicines and supermarket goods was unworkable and Northern Ireland would have to stay closer to UK rules.
The other innovation in the framework was the creation of the Stormont Brake which gives the Northern Ireland's devolved government a conditional arms-length veto over updates to EU legislation that applies in Northern Ireland.
It remains to be seen in what circumstances the brake could ever actually be used but some unionist politicians will be itching to give it a try.
It was clear that the deal was on from early January when the then foreign secretary James Cleverly and his EU counterpart Maroš Šefčovič reached agreement on sharing trade data.
To those who have grown bored of Brexit, the significance of this was not immediately obvious but it fulfilled a long-standing EU demand, so unblocking a path to the bigger deal.
Before that deal arrived, the Supreme Court had its say, ruling that the protocol was legal and bringing down the curtain on a unionist legal challenge.
'Exciting economic zone'
At its heart was a new trusted trader scheme and a system of green lanes and red lanes.
These are designed to reduce, but not entirely remove, the bureaucracy applied to Great Britain goods which are being sold to Northern Ireland consumers.
Mr Sunak sold the deal with gusto, telling the audience at a factory in Lisburn that the framework made Northern Ireland "the world's most exciting economic zone".
He also had to sell it to his own party, but there would be no repeat of the anguished, nail-biting Commons votes, which accompanied Theresa May's attempts to legislate for a Northern Ireland Brexit deal.
'Not for EU'
There is more implementation to come in 2024, most significantly the start of green lane arrangements for parcels and internet shopping.
Brexit continues to be a process, not a one-off event.
The DUP's Sammy Wilson told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme that the Windsor Framework "weakened" Northern Ireland's place within the UK.
"The evidence is there," he said.
"There will be different laws applied to Northern Ireland without any democratic control."
The SDLP's Claire Hanna said the framework "is the available compromise after years of torturous wrangling over how we reconcile our geography, our economy and the Brexit that Britain chose.
"The framework is what we have, it is coming whether people like it or not."
Alliance Party assembly member Sorcha Eastwood said the framework provided "an opportunity for Northern Ireland in terms of having dual market access".
There has been a border between the separate parts of Ireland for more than 100 years. Regardless of the EU. Regardless of what UK politicians think.
It's just that the Tory Party felt unable to accept the truth. So voted for Johnson's lies. And it suits various politicians on all sides to pretend they have "created" borders that were already there. Together with 1 that has never existed.
You may believe that a border between 1 part of a country that has left the EU is in no way relevant to the only other part of a country that has left the EU.
The key question for me is whether Greenland refusing to be part of the EU or the SM should entitle it to a far better deal than the 1 given to NI. and whether you (or anyone) can seriously believe that, in a field of 2, NI has "the best of both worlds".
I think this quote sums it up quite well.
The SDLP's Claire Hanna said the framework "is the available compromise after years of torturous wrangling over how we reconcile our geography, our economy and the Brexit that Britain chose. "The framework is what we have, it is coming whether people like it or not."
The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?
Comments
In fact I think that everyone assumed from day one that there would be a border.
There has been a border between the separate parts of Ireland for more than 100 years. Regardless of the EU. Regardless of what UK politicians think.
It's just that the Tory Party felt unable to accept the truth. So voted for Johnson's lies. And it suits various politicians on all sides to pretend they have "created" borders that were already there. Together with 1 that has never existed.
You may believe that a border between 1 part of a country that has left the EU is in no way relevant to the only other part of a country that has left the EU.
The key question for me is whether Greenland refusing to be part of the EU or the SM should entitle it to a far better deal than the 1 given to NI. and whether you (or anyone) can seriously believe that, in a field of 2, NI has "the best of both worlds".
There is lots of smoke and mirrors. It suited Boris to lie as people would not accept May's more honest account.
All relevant Parties want to claim that there is no Border. But there is.
In relation to "hard border", a lot depends on how you perceive it. Because, while I'm no mind reader, I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a hard border "soon".
The trouble is in relation to future attraction of external investment. Suppose you are a multinational, and want to set up a business to run for 50 years in either Ireland or NI. Which are you going to choose-low risk or no risk?
When NI was referred to as having the best of both worlds, this specifically referred to them having unfettered access to both the GB, and EU markets.
I dont think anyone has argued that their access to the SM, has not been an advantage.
I think your argument about Greenland is full of holes.
They have one export.
First off you claimed they export to the EU, subsequently to Denmark.
Assuming your later post was correct, then surely that is equivalent to NI exporting to the UK.
Not being that clever I did try to look up on the internet what access they had to the SM, but could find it quickly, and gave up.
When I look stuff up on the internet I try to stick to reliable sources.
Either way I dont think that any Greenland comparison is relevant.
The situation in NI has been caused by circumstances, not from choice.
There had to be a border.
Its in the only place it could go.
The border separated NI from the rest of the UK.
Through this they were left on the EU side, and therefore had to remain in the SM/CU, and I looked this bit up on the internet.
As of the end of the transition period, Northern Ireland is subject to a limited set of EU rules related to the Single Market for goods and the Customs Union1. These rules include:
The Union's Customs Code applies to all goods entering or exiting Northern Ireland1.
Northern Ireland remains part of the UK customs territory but is subject to the EU customs code.
Northern Ireland is subject to EU VAT rules.
Northern Ireland is subject to EU Single Market regulations for goods.
Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules.
Northern Ireland is subject to EU regulations relating to electricity supply and energy markets.
What is the alternative?
Some countries, like France, choose to have most of their overseas Departments as part of France, for both Nation status and for Trade Purposes. So, for example, French Guiana is part of France. It is in the EU, and its trade with France is not an "export" as it is trade within 1 nation and 1 trading system.
Greenland does not follow this. For the purposes of Nation status within the UN, it is part of Denmark. But it lies in a different trading entity, with different trading rules. Consequently, anything it sells to the EU, including Denmark, is classed as an export. I appreciate that is a difficult concept. But that is the way it works.
It is not like NI trading with the UK. It is closer to NI trading with Ireland. Except in this instance Greenland have been allowed to put the equivalent of road blocks to stop the SM or freedom of movement in the Sea. While its people are designated as EU citizens. To use your phrase, they get the penny and the bun.
For international trade purposes, NI exports to Ireland. And trades via a purely internal market with the UK. 1 is reliant on external factors via both Ireland and the EU. And the other is not.
However much politicians tell you otherwise.
The simple problem is that every one of those solutions would benefit either the North or the Republic more. The UK or Ireland more. Or Protestants or Catholics more. So in the Short-Term everyone lies. While various interested parties seek to move towards their preferred position.
And that hasn't just been a problem since 2016. Or even 1921. That goes back way further than that.
The laws pertaining to International Trade are complex. But an absolute doddle compared to Northern Ireland and its future.
It will be even more interesting to watch the internal rows as a potential Nexit and Swexit loom, France's Le Penn and his Eurosceptic policies gain popularity, Belgium is in a state of political flux moving to the right and Germany sinks deeper into financial trouble.
Brussels it would appear want Member states to be pretty much self financing whilst obviously the poorer Northern and Eastern Nations want the status quo. Why would that be.
It wont take much for the whole edifice to start to shake, then it's going to get really interesting.
Schengen, the Euro, the single market, all mainstays of the EU and standing on less than solid ground it would seem.
Well I'm off to Iceland on the 19th for a 4 night stay. Not an EU member but a member of the EEA. Wonder how long I will have to queue at the border.
They are demanding the removal of the border as well as continued access to the SM.
I merely pointed out that if the border was removed, then the likelihood is that they would lose their access to the SM.
The reason I said this is because they are only in the SM, because of the border.
If a hard border was possible in Ireland, they wouldnt be in it.
That was my argument full stop.
Now in response you have come up with some spurious comparisons with other countries, some of which dont have any permanent inhabitants.
You have suggested that better deals have been done elsewhere.
The situation in NI has been created by the UK/EU border.
Everything else has flowed from that.
I find difficult to see any feasible alternative at present.
You must be cleverer than the 4 PMs, hundreds of Cabinet Ministers, and thousands of Civil Servants, that were involved in the negotiations.
Either that or you are wrong.
The UK Government would have been well aware of this when they signed the protocol, which was approved by Parliament.
Although I dont believe it is a choice, because nobody can choose, circumstances dictate that they are stuck with what they have got.
He needs to let Jeffrey Donaldson know.
DUP's Sammy Wilson says full access to both the UK and EU markets isn't possible - it's a choice
The East Antrim MP also questioned the ability of the government to deliver on a deal even if it wanted to – and said that the DUP has a judgement call to make on returning to Stormont, as that would end its leverage.
In his New Year message to the public, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he wanted to safeguard “our place in the UK internal market both now and for the future, whilst retaining our access to the EU single market”. He said these objectives “are not mutually exclusive”.
Speaking to the News Letter, Mr Wilson said: “You can have pure access to the EU market and compromised access to the UK market” or vice versa, “but you can’t have both. It’s as simple as that.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dups-sammy-wilson-says-full-access-to-both-the-uk-and-eu-markets-isnt-possible-its-a-choice/ar-AA1mngld
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/million-undecided-voters-critical-of-brexit-and-want-labour-to-pursue-closer-eu-ties/ar-AA1myGqN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=244e5b857db747c2a6623ec3eee9c5e3&ei=27
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/it-is-high-time-we-take-back-control-and-end-stifling-eu-demands-says-john-redwood/ar-AA1mykPG?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=656fbf08ae674e569534591bf7ed13b2&ei=45
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/brexit-pint-sized-benefits-measure-070013596.html
It tries to claim that it was some sort of Old Etonian elitist plot to get us to leave the EU. Yet, within the self-same article, refers to "that dreadful Referendum of 2016". What exactly was "dreadful" about it? Was it the fact that the great unwashed got to have a say? Or the truly appalling campaign to Remain? The 1 that failed to raise any of the genuine economic impacts of Leaving, as opposed to resorting to acting like Corporal Jones from Dads Army?
It also refers to Thatcher agreeing to Delors' idea of the Single Market, before falling out over closer political ties, and the single currency. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Thatcher. But the fact remains that the UK is a whole lot keener on the Economic benefits of the Single Market than it is on being an integral part of a European political superstate. EEC. EC. Not EU.
The Remain campaign not only failed to accurately explain the Economic benefits. It failed to get to grips with the real problems leaving would bring. Failed to grasp the need to ensure that we effectively remain an Island politically (as opposed to economically), rather than part of Europe. Failed to try and show that the Benefits would outweigh any cost. Failed to force the Leave campaign to actually come out and say how we were leaving.
The losing side has spent 7 years referring to the lies told by Vote Leave. And next to none examining why the losing side lost.
The Redwood article is nonsense.
Besides the rhetoric he calls for two things.
The first is for the VAT threshold to be increased for small companies.
You would have thought that this might have been done in the 3 years since we have left, if it was worthwhile.
It would have a massive effect if you believe that thousands of small companies are turning away all their potential new customers to avoid exceeding the current threshold.
Although I personally dont.
The second was to renegotiate the fishing deal, and increase quotas for our fisherman.
I am not sure that our fisherman landing loads more fish wouldnt lead to a collapse in wholesale prices.
It seems that a reduction in prices for producers rarely reaches the consumer.
So I am not sure who would actually benefit from these two ideas.
Did we really leave the EU to increase the Vat threshold, land more fish, get pints of wine onto supermarket shelves, stop Freedom of Movement, break all immigration records, and not send one single person to Rwanda?
In 2023 the Northern Ireland Protocol became the Windsor Framework.
The new deal was enough to normalise relations between the UK and EU.
But it has not yet been enough to persuade the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to return to Stormont.
It also gave some long-desired legal certainty to businesses, but the Irish Sea border will always be evolving so long as UK and EU rules continue to diverge.
For the EU, the new framework left the basic architecture of 2019's protocol intact: a trade border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains in place as the way to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU conceded that what was originally agreed in 2019 on medicines and supermarket goods was unworkable and Northern Ireland would have to stay closer to UK rules.
The other innovation in the framework was the creation of the Stormont Brake which gives the Northern Ireland's devolved government a conditional arms-length veto over updates to EU legislation that applies in Northern Ireland.
It remains to be seen in what circumstances the brake could ever actually be used but some unionist politicians will be itching to give it a try.
It was clear that the deal was on from early January when the then foreign secretary James Cleverly and his EU counterpart Maroš Šefčovič reached agreement on sharing trade data.
To those who have grown bored of Brexit, the significance of this was not immediately obvious but it fulfilled a long-standing EU demand, so unblocking a path to the bigger deal.
Before that deal arrived, the Supreme Court had its say, ruling that the protocol was legal and bringing down the curtain on a unionist legal challenge.
'Exciting economic zone'
At its heart was a new trusted trader scheme and a system of green lanes and red lanes.
These are designed to reduce, but not entirely remove, the bureaucracy applied to Great Britain goods which are being sold to Northern Ireland consumers.
Mr Sunak sold the deal with gusto, telling the audience at a factory in Lisburn that the framework made Northern Ireland "the world's most exciting economic zone".
He also had to sell it to his own party, but there would be no repeat of the anguished, nail-biting Commons votes, which accompanied Theresa May's attempts to legislate for a Northern Ireland Brexit deal.
'Not for EU'
There is more implementation to come in 2024, most significantly the start of green lane arrangements for parcels and internet shopping.
Brexit continues to be a process, not a one-off event.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67748392
The DUP's Sammy Wilson told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme that the Windsor Framework "weakened" Northern Ireland's place within the UK.
"The evidence is there," he said.
"There will be different laws applied to Northern Ireland without any democratic control."
The SDLP's Claire Hanna said the framework "is the available compromise after years of torturous wrangling over how we reconcile our geography, our economy and the Brexit that Britain chose.
"The framework is what we have, it is coming whether people like it or not."
Alliance Party assembly member Sorcha Eastwood said the framework provided "an opportunity for Northern Ireland in terms of having dual market access".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66937192
The SDLP's Claire Hanna said the framework "is the available compromise after years of torturous wrangling over how we reconcile our geography, our economy and the Brexit that Britain chose.
"The framework is what we have, it is coming whether people like it or not."
The SDLP is 1 of the 2 main Irish Nationalist Parties, whose political position is for a unified Ireland under Dublin rule. In the shorter term, they seek to reduce UK power, and increase Ireland's power, over NI. They make no secret of that. That is their official Party line.
This is the fundamental problem within NI. What pleases 1 side will almost inevitably displease the other.
The "compromise" between the UK and Ireland involves transfer of various powers and influence from Belfast/London to Dublin.
I'm not saying that is wrong. What I am saying is that every "solution" will enrage a portion of the residents of NI.
What do you think she means when she says "reconcile our geography"?