• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Brexit matters

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Nice if you can get it. Esp. Walnut and Victoria Sponge.

Victoria sponge, with you there! Don't bother with the walnuts though :cake:

Access to the SM was never going to be possible without adherence to at least some of those rules. I'm still having a difficult time trying to understand the mindset of those who thought otherwise. I'm sure 'we'll get what we're want because just because we're British' wasn't the reason for thinking it would happen..so what was it?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
The EU thought they had the UK in a pincer movement, to try and prevent departure from the SM & CU. They extracted signature of the protocol pretty much under duress, as there was no other alternative. In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that there is disquiet of the Protocol from the UK . When one of the signatories of an agreement feels cheated or disadvantaged there is rarely any good to come out of it. The history of the UK has plenty of experience, often with the boot on the other foot!
Saying that was effort on the EU's behalf to "prevent [the UK's] departure from the SM & CU" is extra-ordinarily wishful thinking, as if it's calculated to further the narrative that the UK is some sort of victim here.

What did they want then? Since they still can't seem to tell us, maybe you know?
Because to me it sounds like the Brexiteers wanted the impossible if you conclude they don't want a land border on the island of Ireland, they don't want to be in the Customs Union / Single market and they also don't want essentially a sea border between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.
There was some suggestion - of indefinite credibility - that certain groups in Northern Ireland had an expectation that the land border would be hardened again, while another unverifiable rumour holds that forcing Ireland to leave the CU and SM would have been acceptable to particular circles in London.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
I don't think it is quite right to be saying that the protocol was what they wanted. They wanted out of the EU Single Market and Customs Union. they did not want the Protocol, and a land border on the island of Ireland was simply not tenable in the International politics domain or for any possibility of an EU trade deal

So the protocol was the only possible way forward, for good or for bad, aside from 300 years of negotiations and the opportunity of leaving the SM & CU in their lifetime slipping away. They were not going to let the Northern Ireland question rob the rest of the UK of their destiny.

The EU thought they had the UK in a pincer movement, to try and prevent departure from the SM & CU. They extracted signature of the protocol pretty much under duress, as there was no other alternative. In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that there is disquiet of the Protocol from the UK . When one of the signatories of an agreement feels cheated or disadvantaged there is rarely any good to come out of it. The history of the UK has plenty of experience, often with the boot on the other foot!

What did they want then? Since they still can't seem to tell us, maybe you know?
Because to me it sounds like the Brexiteers wanted the impossible if you conclude they don't want a land border on the island of Ireland, they don't want to be in the Customs Union / Single market and they also don't want essentially a sea border between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

No, the Conservatives definitely did not want the protocol. But a land border was politically unacceptable. Throughout the negotiations with the EU, there were often comments from the E.U. along the lines ‘the U.K. needs to tell us what they want’. There was definitely no clear majority in parliament for any option hence all the trouble that May had. And the clear frustration from the E.U.

Hence the ‘least worse’ (if you are a Conservative brexiteer) option was the protocol. However, just like most things with brexit, the practical effects were either not thought through or if they were, they were glossed over in order to ‘get brexit done’.

And going by the cries from business about the lack of guidance, I’m not sure even the government knew the full implications… or maybe they did, but did not want us to know…

So I would not describe the E.U. as having the U.K. in a pincer movement. But rather the U.K. only knowing that it wanted out of the E.U. but not having taken the time to clearly work out all the practical problems and what restrictions/limitations there would be as a result. Let alone actually tell the people of the U.K.

Unless anyone here can find a record, article, video or audio clip where Boris gives detailed answers to the questions where he is asked how will the protocol work in practice.

So like the loss of fishing rights that has fishing boats laid up because they can no longer fish in E.U. waters, plus various many other problems, this is all 100% the actual outcome of brexit. The U.K. wanted brexit, this is the real brexit, rather than the rose tinted imaginary version that the leave E.U. campaign were peddling.

I’m sure over the coming years, various other problems will come to light as well.

Oh, and IMHO, there are no winners. All the effort in leaving the E.U. has distracted the people, businesses and the government from improvements and moving forward with far more important things, such as reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, dealing with the problems of plastic contamination of our planet, improving air quality in our towns and cities, improving our health and social care, reducing poverty and improving education of both children and adults.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
..... while another unverifiable rumour holds that forcing Ireland to leave the CU and SM would have been acceptable to particular circles in London.
Presumably those circles rumoured to exist that expect the Republic of Ireland to come to its senses one day and see that its true future lies not with the European Union but bound up again in some very close association with an Eternally-United Kngdom. The successors no doubt to the British politicians who misread Ireland so badly through pretty well the whole of the nineteenth century—and probably the same people who have never come to terms with the end of empire and the loss of the workshop of the world.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,179
Victoria sponge, with you there! Don't bother with the walnuts though :cake:

Access to the SM was never going to be possible without adherence to at least some of those rules. I'm still having a difficult time trying to understand the mindset of those who thought otherwise. I'm sure 'we'll get what we're want because just because we're British' wasn't the reason for thinking it would happen..so what was it?
I would imagine that there was an expectation that this would not be possible without adherence to at least some of the rules. Of course, some of the rules carried greater weight (depending on which side you are on!) than others. Remember the bold suggestions that German car manufacturers are gagging for UK orders, so a trade deal would be easy? I suspect that what was not expected was how little of importance to the UK the EU was prepared to move on, and the hard divorce deal it struck to just agree to holding trade talks at all. At that point a SM/CU membership 'lite' was clearly never going to be possible without severely prostituting the 'taking back control' ideal of Brexit. The die was cast for the unwanted NI Protocol and all the trouble that is now going to bring.

Saying that was effort on the EU's behalf to "prevent [the UK's] departure from the SM & CU" is extra-ordinarily wishful thinking, as if it's calculated to further the narrative that the UK is some sort of victim here.
Prevent or make life as difficult and as hard as possible - either because they wanted us to stay in, or as an example to any other country contemplating such a move, or some of both. Either way it could be seen as 'controlling', which is possibly one of the reasons for the Brexit vote in the first place.
There was some suggestion - of indefinite credibility - that certain groups in Northern Ireland had an expectation that the land border would be hardened again, while another unverifiable rumour holds that forcing Ireland to leave the CU and SM would have been acceptable to particular circles in London.
There will always be some groups of people with fantasy ideas.

No, the Conservatives definitely did not want the protocol. But a land border was politically unacceptable. Throughout the negotiations with the EU, there were often comments from the E.U. along the lines ‘the U.K. needs to tell us what they want’. There was definitely no clear majority in parliament for any option hence all the trouble that May had. And the clear frustration from the E.U.
I rather suspect that the EU did not want to hear what the Brexiteers really wanted, because there was no chance of it being granted. The EU may well have been frustrated, but when you have a 48/52 referendum result splitting the country and the two main political parties down the middle, what do you expect? Sorry that we didn't vote more decisively. Of course there are no EU countries with similar issues (Belgium, Italy etc)
Hence the ‘least worse’ (if you are a Conservative brexiteer) option was the protocol. However, just like most things with brexit, the practical effects were either not thought through or if they were, they were glossed over in order to ‘get brexit done’.

And going by the cries from business about the lack of guidance, I’m not sure even the government knew the full implications… or maybe they did, but did not want us to know…

So I would not describe the E.U. as having the U.K. in a pincer movement. But rather the U.K. only knowing that it wanted out of the E.U. but not having taken the time to clearly work out all the practical problems and what restrictions/limitations there would be as a result. Let alone actually tell the people of the U.K.

Unless anyone here can find a record, article, video or audio clip where Boris gives detailed answers to the questions where he is asked how will the protocol work in practice.
Of course they won't. If you want something, would you go around telling everybody the potential downsides to help them preventing you getting it? I certainly wouldn't. Let them work it out for themselves.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I rather suspect that the EU did not want to hear what the Brexiteers really wanted, because there was no chance of it being granted. The EU may well have been frustrated, but when you have a 48/52 referendum result splitting the country and the two main political parties down the middle, what do you expect? Sorry that we didn't vote more decisively. Of course there are no EU countries with similar issues (Belgium, Italy etc)

Of course they won't. If you want something, would you go around telling everybody the potential downsides to help them preventing you getting it? I certainly wouldn't. Let them work it out for themselves.
That's entirely down to the incompetent way the Cameron administration framed the debate, and the dishonest way the Brexiters lied and dissembled to hoodwink the public into granting a narrow and temporary majority in support of leaving. It's not just a question of glossing over the downsides, but the outright lies about what would be possible. If we are to believe Dominic Cummings the £350m on the bus was a deliberate lie intended to sidetrack the other side.

The result was a narrow majority for something that nobody could define in a way that a majority could agree with,, and a substantial slice of the population considered it was obtained by deceit anyway. Unsurprising that it has led to five years (and counting) of confusion.

Politicians in a democratic society need to have a moral duty to respect the facts, otherwise we get into incredibly dangerous territory. Unfortunately the current crowd don't appear to have morals of any sort.
 

superjohn

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
531
If we are to believe Dominic Cummings the £350m on the bus was a deliberate lie intended to sidetrack the other side.
Given NHS funding was already over £2.5 billion per week at the time, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the pandemic has meant the £350 million extra has actually happened. If not, then the real increase must be close enough that the figures could be fiddled to make it seem so. We have never heard any more about it though. Perhaps it is considered a bit of an embarrassment and has been dropped now its purpose has been served.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Given NHS funding was already over £2.5 billion per week at the time, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the pandemic has meant the £350 million extra has actually happened. If not, then the real increase must be close enough that the figures could be fiddled to make it seem so. We have never heard any more about it though. Perhaps it is considered a bit of an embarrassment and has been dropped now its purpose has been served.
Quite probably true. But the issue is that the figure of £350 million per week to the EU was a blatant lie, which we are now being asked to believe was put out there solely to change the focus of the debate onto the accuracy of the figures. Since then there have been many other lies from the Brexit/Johnson camp, and democracy really can't function without some basic respect for the facts.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
That’s an incredibly naive viewpoint.

Brexit really is not as simple as that.

We live in a democracy by the way, you can’t silence people who disagree with Brexit.

I somehow think you didn't quite see the sarcasm.

What did they want then? Since they still can't seem to tell us, maybe you know?
Because to me it sounds like the Brexiteers wanted the impossible if you conclude they don't want a land border on the island of Ireland, they don't want to be in the Customs Union / Single market and they also don't want essentially a sea border between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Didn't Boris or some other Tory say they'd solve it through technology. I don't think they ever explained what that might be, but Brexiteers didn't seem to care as long as it got done.

Anyone could see how the problem is an impossible one to solve. The EU may well compromise, but has no reason to.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Didn't Boris or some other Tory say they'd solve it through technology. I don't think they ever explained what that might be, but Brexiteers didn't seem to care as long as it got done.

Possibly ‘Smart border-controlling’, which is available in the same suite of technology as ‘Smart Timetabling’
 

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
734
Location
Paignton
If Britain invokes article 16 then the EU can build the hard border, but it would not do Irelands and the EUs aspirations for a united Ireland that has always dogged the negotiations. Someone's bluff will have to be called. The Unionists were sold down the river and are still armed. The "peace lines" have never gone after decades of the Good Friday agreement. The marching season could be a real flashpoint.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
If Britain invokes article 16 then the EU can build the hard border, but it would not do Irelands and the EUs aspirations for a united Ireland that has always dogged the negotiations.
It's clear that Ireland has a desire to reunite the island, but I wasn't aware that the EU had stated that as an aspiration. Any chance of a quote?
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
If Britain invokes article 16 then the EU can build the hard border.
I can’t see Boris doing anything that would result in a hard border. Any resulting trouble (and there would definitely be trouble) would all be blamed on him. Everyone would blame him, all political parties, all the E.U. countries, the U.S.A., Russia and China, the news and media etc… That is definitely not something he wants to be remembered for.
Of course, his government will likely do the sabre rattling and pretend, but stop short.

Unfortunately, it appears that rather than have low key talks to try to come to a negotiated solution, we are back to the public blame game and the ‘we will ignore the rules if we want to’ attitude.
 
Last edited:

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
If Britain invokes article 16 then the EU can build the hard border, but it would not do Irelands and the EUs aspirations for a united Ireland that has always dogged the negotiations. Someone's bluff will have to be called. The Unionists were sold down the river and are still armed. The "peace lines" have never gone after decades of the Good Friday agreement. The marching season could be a real flashpoint.
I very much doubt that the UK government is going to invoke Article 16 anytime soon. We are in for a period of protracted talks and extensions to grace periods I suspect.

But I would like to comment on some of the implications of the post above. It's a long post, but bear with me.

You're correct to say that there have continued to be ongoing inter-community tensions since 1998, but the impact has reduced significantly to be mainly criminal activities rather than terrorist in nature. I'd also point out that the main element of the marching season is now done, with only a few parades left between now and the end of August, so I think that risk has moved on for this year.

And while Ireland does have an aspiration for unity, it has clearly stated that it can only happen on the basis of consent by the majority in NI, so let's not suggest that has "dogged the negotiations". Most people in Ireland do I think realise that any such change would be extraordinarily complex, and would require a significant majority approval in NI to work (not 52/48 like Brexit!). I think that it does need to be said that Ireland did not choose to be in this situation. Ireland wished for the status quo on the island to be maintained. But realistically Brexit and the desire to maintain an open land border mean that the Irish Sea is the only place that some form of trade border is located, given the length and nature of the land border, which bisects some towns and farmlands. There is no magic technological solution in existence anywhere that would respect the integrity of the EU Single Market and the integrity of the UK - there have to be checks somewhere unfortunately.

It is my view that the Brexiteers in the UK Parliament wanted Brexit delivered at any price, and that they accepted the NI Protocol as a means of delivering that, even if it upset the Unionists in NI. But they also clearly thought that it could then be changed after the event. But this notion of re-negotiating international treaties, a short time after signing them due to internal political needs, is clearly not a good way of conducting international relations.

The Irish Government, supported by the EU, wanted a solution that maintained the open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which did not have any form of customs checks or border posts which could potentially reignite dissident republican terrorism. Remember that were that to happen, it would cause Ireland to have to increase security measures along the border too, something that no government here wants to have to deal with again. That exact risk was put very clearly by the Chief Constable of the PSNI along with the Garda Commissioner during the referendum campaign and during the negotiations, along with Julian Smith when he was NI Secretary. That frankly is the greater issue here rather than any desire for a United Ireland. The EU have clearly supported the Good Friday Agreement, through funding many initiatives under the peace process. Cross-border human and economic activity between Ireland and NI before Brexit had increased dramatically as a result of the peace process, and for many people using different currencies is the only visible difference between the two jurisdictions.

I think that it does need to be mentioned that a majority of the people in NI wanted to maintain the status quo in the referendum, a majority of NI Members of Parliament support the Protocol, but of course given that Sinn Féin don't take their seats, this isn't that visible. Also a majority of MLAs in the NI Assembly support the Protocol.

I've no doubt personally that the DUP, prior to the referendum, saw Brexit as an opportunity to reinforce NI's position in the UK, and to re-establish a customs border between Ireland and NI. Hence they campaigned vigorously for it. But they completely misjudged international opinion on that, particularly the reaction from the US. And that has resulted in the siege mentality returning.

I think that treating people in NI like idiots as the UK Prime Minister and senior members of the Government have, by denying that the NI Protocol did create any form of trade border between GB and NI, when it clearly did increase the number of checks, has certainly not helped one iota. Nor did the brief threat by the EU to invoke Article 16 - that was one of the miscalculations of the century so far. Anything to do with NI requires a significant amount of tact and finesse, and that was akin to sending a bull into a china shop. Clearly the Irish Government moved to quash that threat as fast as it happened, but the damage was done. Loyalism saw that as the perfect opportunity to ignite tensions and have played on it ever since. Elements of loyalism (mainly criminal, although egged on by some less than advisable comments from some in Unionist politics and the Conservative government) are reverting to the siege mentality, and trying to portray this as yet another threat to their existence and have whipped up tensions, often mainly due to increased checks making the criminal elements' lives more difficult.

All of that being said, the two parties to the treaty, the UK and the EU, need to sit down and come up with derogations that facilitate GB-NI trade for goods that clearly aren't going outside of the six counties of NI. Both sides also need to dial down the rhetoric, as words do matter significantly in NI politics, and acerbic comments in either direction that might be forgotten in other situations can result in igniting tensions in NI unnecessarily. Rather than grandstanding, the only way this will be solved will be coming up with yet another "fudge" behind closed doors between negotiators. Constant negative comments really does nothing to resolve the risk of tensions rising in NI.

NI remaining part of the UK, something I don't personally see changing in the next 20 years, does significantly complicate Brexit and the UK-EU relationship. It's incumbent upon politicians from all sides to realise that, and that, due to the complicated history of NI which does make it a unique place within the UK (not the same as Finchley!), a clean break on either side is not in my view possible. Compromises are the only solution. I think far more regular north-south and east-west dialogue is needed, and parties grandstanding by threatening to boycott meetings does no one any favours.

A bit more direct involvement by the UK PM in those east-west meetings with less rhetoric would also help the optics, which are important. Some mutual respect for both traditions in Northern Ireland by politicians across the board would also go a long way. As I said, NI is a form of tinder box. Words matter there, and loose tongues don't help.
 
Last edited:

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
734
Location
Paignton
I very much doubt that the UK government is going to invoke Article 16 anytime soon. We are in for a period of protracted talks and extensions to grace periods I suspect.

But I would like to comment on some of the implications of the post above. It's a long post, but bear with me.

You're correct to say that there have continued to be ongoing inter-community tensions since 1998, but the impact has reduced significantly to be mainly criminal activities rather than terrorist in nature. I'd also point out that the main element of the marching season is now done, with only a few parades left between now and the end of August, so I think that risk has moved on for this year.

And while Ireland does have an aspiration for unity, it has clearly stated that it can only happen on the basis of consent by the majority in NI, so let's not suggest that has "dogged the negotiations". Most people in Ireland do I think realise that any such change would be extraordinarily complex, and would require a significant majority approval in NI to work (not 52/48 like Brexit!). I think that it does need to be said that Ireland did not choose to be in this situation. Ireland wished for the status quo on the island to be maintained. But realistically Brexit and the desire to maintain an open land border mean that the Irish Sea is the only place that some form of trade border is located, given the length and nature of the land border, which bisects some towns and farmlands. There is no magic technological solution in existence anywhere that would respect the integrity of the EU Single Market and the integrity of the UK - there have to be checks somewhere unfortunately.

It is my view that the Brexiteers in the UK Parliament wanted Brexit delivered at any price, and that they accepted the NI Protocol as a means of delivering that, even if it upset the Unionists in NI. But they also clearly thought that it could then be changed after the event. But this notion of re-negotiating international treaties, a short time after signing them due to internal political needs, is clearly not a good way of conducting international relations.

The Irish Government, supported by the EU, wanted a solution that maintained the open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which did not have any form of customs checks or border posts which could potentially reignite dissident republican terrorism. Remember that were that to happen, it would cause Ireland to have to increase security measures along the border too, something that no government here wants to have to deal with again. That exact risk was put very clearly by the Chief Constable of the PSNI along with the Garda Commissioner during the referendum campaign and during the negotiations, along with Julian Smith when he was NI Secretary. That frankly is the greater issue here rather than any desire for a United Ireland. The EU have clearly supported the Good Friday Agreement, through funding many initiatives under the peace process. Cross-border human and economic activity between Ireland and NI before Brexit had increased dramatically as a result of the peace process, and for many people using different currencies is the only visible difference between the two jurisdictions.

I think that it does need to be mentioned that a majority of the people in NI wanted to maintain the status quo in the referendum, a majority of NI Members of Parliament support the Protocol, but of course given that Sinn Féin don't take their seats, this isn't that visible. Also a majority of MLAs in the NI Assembly support the Protocol.

I've no doubt personally that the DUP, prior to the referendum, saw Brexit as an opportunity to reinforce NI's position in the UK, and to re-establish a customs border between Ireland and NI. Hence they campaigned vigorously for it. But they completletely misjudged international opinion on that, particularly the reaction from the US. And that has resulted in the siege mentality returning.

I think that treating people in NI like idiots as the UK Prime Minister and senior members of the Government have, by denying that the NI Protocol did create any form of trade border between GB and NI, when it clearly did increase the number of checks, has certainly not helped one iota. Nor did the brief threat by the EU to invoke Article 16 - that was one of the miscalculations of the century so far. Anything to do with NI requires a significant amount of tact and finesse, and that was akin to sending a bull into a china shop. Clearly the Irish Government moved to quash that threat as fast as it happened, but the damage was done. Loyalism saw that as the perfect opportunity to ignite tensions and have played on it ever since. Elements of loyalism (mainly criminal, although egged on by some less than advisable comments from some in Unionist politics and the Conservative government) are reverting to the siege mentality, and trying to portray this as yet another threat to their existence and have whipped up tensions, often mainly due to increased checks making the criminal elements' lives more difficult.

All of that being said, the two parties to the treaty, the UK and the EU, need to sit down and come up with derogations that facilitate GB-NI trade for goods that clearly aren't going outside of the six counties of NI. Both sides also need to dial down the rhetoric, as words do matter significantly in NI politics, and acerbic comments in either direction that might be forgotten in other situations can result in igniting tensions in NI unnecessarily. Rather than grandstanding, the only way this will be solved will be coming up with yet another "fudge" behind closed doors between negotiators. Constant negative comments really does nothing to resolve the risk of tensions rising in NI.

NI remaining part of the UK, something I don't personally see changing in the next 20 years, does significantly complicate Brexit and the UK-EU relationship. It's incumbent upon politicians from all sides to realise that, and that, due to the complicated history of NI which does make it a unique place within the UK (not the same as Finchley!), a clean break on either side is not in my view possible. Compromises are the only solution. I think far more regular north-south and east-west dialogue is needed, and parties grandstanding by threatening to boycott meetings does no one any favours.

A bit more direct involvement by the UK PM in those east-west meetings with less rhetoric would also help the optics, which are important. Some mutual respect for both traditions in Northern Ireland by politicians across the board would also go a long way. As I said, NI is a form of tinder box. Words matter there, and loose tongues don't help.
This is very well thought out but the demographic that created Northern Ireland (6 counties out of the 9 Ulster counties) which had a protestant majority is changing by emigration/birthrate/other so the protestants feel under real threat.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
All of that being said, the two parties to the treaty, the UK and the EU, need to sit down and come up with derogations that facilitate GB-NI trade for goods that clearly aren't going outside of the six counties of NI.
And therein lies the problem. How do you tell?
 

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
This is very well thought out but the demographic that created Northern Ireland (6 counties out of the 9 Ulster counties) which had a protestant majority is changing by emigration/birthrate/other so the protestants feel under real threat.
It is indeed but like everything in life, people need to evolve and adapt to change.

Unionism has traditionally tried to maintain the status quo and not change anything. That approach won’t work anymore, for one with the changes in demographics.

They need to start being positive about the future, accentuating the benefits of Northern Ireland’s unique status. To a degree, I think that the new Ulster Unionist leader Doug Beattie has realised this. It will be very interesting to see how they do in the next Assembly elections.

Going back to the trench mentality will appeal to the die-hards, but being honest it isn’t going to solve anything, as that group are slowly diminishing in number.

How to deal with change is something that Unionism hasn’t mastered yet.

And therein lies the problem. How do you tell?
Well I think that it’s pretty clear that products sent to NI retailers such as supermarkets etc. isn’t going to prove a major threat to the EU single market.

It may boil down to trusted traders guaranteeing products are in line with EU standards but with more light touch checks.

Ultimately it needs compromise on both sides. That’s one for the negotiations to come up with another “rules fudge”.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Well I think that it’s pretty clear that products sent to NI retailers such as supermarkets etc. isn’t going to prove a major threat to the EU single market.
In theory, yes. But given that a not insubstantial amount of GB to NI trade passes through ROI there's always the risk of shrinkage.
 

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
In theory, yes. But given that a not insubstantial amount of GB to NI trade passes through ROI there's always the risk of shrinkage.
GB to NI via ROI is already UK to EU Single Market which would have to be cleared at the Irish port of entry, likely Dublin or Rosslare. That will have to be checked regardless. I don’t think that will change.

It is stuff from GB to NI direct that is the issue and ultimately I think that there will have to be some tolerance levels of cross-border supermarket purchases by Irish residents in NI by the EU.

Again it’ll be a compromise and a rules fudge of some sort at the end of the day. That’s the only way in which NI can function, given the unique nature of that place. Looking at things as black and white just doesn’t work there.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201

I very much doubt that the UK government is going to invoke Article 16 anytime soon. We are in for a period of protracted talks and extensions to grace periods I suspect.

But I would like to comment on some of the implications of the post above. It's a long post, but bear with me.

You're correct to say that there have continued to be ongoing inter-community tensions since 1998, but the impact has reduced significantly to be mainly criminal activities rather than terrorist in nature. I'd also point out that the main element of the marching season is now done, with only a few parades left between now and the end of August, so I think that risk has moved on for this year.

And while Ireland does have an aspiration for unity, it has clearly stated that it can only happen on the basis of consent by the majority in NI, so let's not suggest that has "dogged the negotiations". Most people in Ireland do I think realise that any such change would be extraordinarily complex, and would require a significant majority approval in NI to work (not 52/48 like Brexit!). I think that it does need to be said that Ireland did not choose to be in this situation. Ireland wished for the status quo on the island to be maintained. But realistically Brexit and the desire to maintain an open land border mean that the Irish Sea is the only place that some form of trade border is located, given the length and nature of the land border, which bisects some towns and farmlands. There is no magic technological solution in existence anywhere that would respect the integrity of the EU Single Market and the integrity of the UK - there have to be checks somewhere unfortunately.

It is my view that the Brexiteers in the UK Parliament wanted Brexit delivered at any price, and that they accepted the NI Protocol as a means of delivering that, even if it upset the Unionists in NI. But they also clearly thought that it could then be changed after the event. But this notion of re-negotiating international treaties, a short time after signing them due to internal political needs, is clearly not a good way of conducting international relations.

The Irish Government, supported by the EU, wanted a solution that maintained the open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which did not have any form of customs checks or border posts which could potentially reignite dissident republican terrorism. Remember that were that to happen, it would cause Ireland to have to increase security measures along the border too, something that no government here wants to have to deal with again. That exact risk was put very clearly by the Chief Constable of the PSNI along with the Garda Commissioner during the referendum campaign and during the negotiations, along with Julian Smith when he was NI Secretary. That frankly is the greater issue here rather than any desire for a United Ireland. The EU have clearly supported the Good Friday Agreement, through funding many initiatives under the peace process. Cross-border human and economic activity between Ireland and NI before Brexit had increased dramatically as a result of the peace process, and for many people using different currencies is the only visible difference between the two jurisdictions.

I think that it does need to be mentioned that a majority of the people in NI wanted to maintain the status quo in the referendum, a majority of NI Members of Parliament support the Protocol, but of course given that Sinn Féin don't take their seats, this isn't that visible. Also a majority of MLAs in the NI Assembly support the Protocol.

I've no doubt personally that the DUP, prior to the referendum, saw Brexit as an opportunity to reinforce NI's position in the UK, and to re-establish a customs border between Ireland and NI. Hence they campaigned vigorously for it. But they completletely misjudged international opinion on that, particularly the reaction from the US. And that has resulted in the siege mentality returning.

I think that treating people in NI like idiots as the UK Prime Minister and senior members of the Government have, by denying that the NI Protocol did create any form of trade border between GB and NI, when it clearly did increase the number of checks, has certainly not helped one iota. Nor did the brief threat by the EU to invoke Article 16 - that was one of the miscalculations of the century so far. Anything to do with NI requires a significant amount of tact and finesse, and that was akin to sending a bull into a china shop. Clearly the Irish Government moved to quash that threat as fast as it happened, but the damage was done. Loyalism saw that as the perfect opportunity to ignite tensions and have played on it ever since. Elements of loyalism (mainly criminal, although egged on by some less than advisable comments from some in Unionist politics and the Conservative government) are reverting to the siege mentality, and trying to portray this as yet another threat to their existence and have whipped up tensions, often mainly due to increased checks making the criminal elements' lives more difficult.

All of that being said, the two parties to the treaty, the UK and the EU, need to sit down and come up with derogations that facilitate GB-NI trade for goods that clearly aren't going outside of the six counties of NI. Both sides also need to dial down the rhetoric, as words do matter significantly in NI politics, and acerbic comments in either direction that might be forgotten in other situations can result in igniting tensions in NI unnecessarily. Rather than grandstanding, the only way this will be solved will be coming up with yet another "fudge" behind closed doors between negotiators. Constant negative comments really does nothing to resolve the risk of tensions rising in NI.

NI remaining part of the UK, something I don't personally see changing in the next 20 years, does significantly complicate Brexit and the UK-EU relationship. It's incumbent upon politicians from all sides to realise that, and that, due to the complicated history of NI which does make it a unique place within the UK (not the same as Finchley!), a clean break on either side is not in my view possible. Compromises are the only solution. I think far more regular north-south and east-west dialogue is needed, and parties grandstanding by threatening to boycott meetings does no one any favours.

A bit more direct involvement by the UK PM in those east-west meetings with less rhetoric would also help the optics, which are important. Some mutual respect for both traditions in Northern Ireland by politicians across the board would also go a long way. As I said, NI is a form of tinder box. Words matter there, and loose tongues don't help.
An excellent overview of the situation - thank you
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
GB to NI via ROI is already UK to EU Single Market which would have to be cleared at the Irish port of entry, likely Dublin or Rosslare. That will have to be checked regardless. I don’t think that will change.

It is stuff from GB to NI direct that is the issue and ultimately I think that there will have to be some tolerance levels of cross-border supermarket purchases by Irish residents in NI by the EU.
But that's exactly the point!

Let's say there's a company that operates throughout the UK and RIO - a supermarket call Fresco. They want to send 50 pallets of dog food to Dublin and 50 to Belfast from their warehouse in England. Last year they could just put all 100 pallets in a truck and send it off along its way. The lorry driver could drop off 50 in Dublin and continue up to Belfast, they were even free to pick up a load that needs to go from Dublin to Belfast. No customs checks required.

The 50 that are going to Dublin obviously need customs checks but the 50 that are going to NI? How do you avoid customs checks against them? I guess you could put them in a separate truck, but that'll push up costs.
 

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
But that's exactly the point!

Let's say there's a company that operates throughout the UK and RIO - a supermarket call Fresco. They want to send 50 pallets of dog food to Dublin and 50 to Belfast from their warehouse in England. Last year they could just put all 100 pallets in a truck and send it off along its way. The lorry driver could drop off 50 in Dublin and continue up to Belfast, they were even free to pick up a load that needs to go from Dublin to Belfast. No customs checks required.

The 50 that are going to Dublin obviously need customs checks but the 50 that are going to NI? How do you avoid customs checks against them? I guess you could put them in a separate truck, but that'll push up costs.
I do not actually think that is the issue here.

Deliveries from GB to NI through Ireland are going to have be checked at Dublin port regardless. If that means extra cost in either Ireland or NI, well that would be a fact of life as a result of Brexit, regardless of where the customs post were located. But that’s a matter of choice for the shippers. That’s a cost of Brexit that is unavoidable and isn’t going to go away. Supply chain routes could have to change or indeed prices may increase on goods shipped in that way. You are already seeing retailers in Ireland source certain items from alternative locations within the EU and presumably supplying their outlets in NI from those sources too.

The real issue that is causing the problem between the EU and UK (and in NI) is checks at NI ports (being the point of entry from GB to the EU Single Market) on direct deliveries from GB. That’s the crux of this.

Ultimately some form of compromise is going to have to be negotiated between the EU and GB with regard to products shipped directly from GB to NI that is for consumption in NI.

On that front there will ultimately have to be some tolerance by the EU of some cross-border consumption of products purchased in NI retailers that were shipped directly from GB to NI by people living in Ireland, and that such items will have minimal customs checks when travelling from GB to NI. But again GB may have to commit to in that circumstance to matching EU standards on shipments to NI. I’m not saying that these are the magic solutions, but merely suggesting potential routes out of this mess.

Life in NI ultimately functions on a basis of tolerance and compromise. You’re going to have disagreements and tensions along the way, but it never functions on the basis of looking at things as black or white. That is the problem that a hard Brexit results in. It just won’t work there as it’s too black and white.
 

alex397

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
1,546
Location
UK
Some brexiters brains will explode …

I must say, I’m quite surprised about that. I was expecting the UK government to order the removal of any EU symbols, not the opposite!

It shows how desperate we are for cash, which is a bit worrying.

Also interesting in that article is where it is said Wales received £400 million from the EU, but will receive just £10 million from the UK gov. I’m sure Wales know what they voted for though…
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,029
Location
No longer here
Why does the EU stipulate its flag has to be displayed wherever its great benevolence has been imparted?

Why don’t people who get angry at Union Flags on government buildings have anything to say about the EU Flag?
 

172007

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2021
Messages
724
Location
West Mids
Why shouldn't an organisation who donates money stipulate that their logo be displayed to show they were the benefactor. I go to many places which have corporate logos and even lottery logos all proudly stating they funded this and that. The EU flag is logo after all, flags are the original logos.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,029
Location
No longer here
Why shouldn't an organisation who donates money stipulate that their logo be displayed to show they were the benefactor. I go to many places which have corporate logos and even lottery logos all proudly stating they funded this and that. The EU flag is logo after all, flags are the original logos.
Well quite; there is no problem.

I trust we will hear no further quibble from staunch Remainers about Union Flags on government buildings or projects, which has served only to irredeemably damage the cause of Remain.

I voted Remain and am more annoyed about the intellectual dishonesty of my own “side” than the other. At least Tory dishonesty and malpractice is being taken apart bit by bit in this thread.
 

Top