@Chizz The suggestion was The WTO would not allow nations with non-secure borders to trade under WTO rules, so I'm curious how other countries with similar borders manage it.
I agree a 'no deal' would be madness, im honestly interested if anyone knows the answer, rather than trying to make any particular point.
If the people of Northern Ireland are being ignored for Brexit, spare a thought for the people of Gibraltar who seem to not enter at all into the UK government's shambolic preparations for Brexit, with this phrase from the report below summing it up:
''The depressing reality seems to be that it is Spain that recognises the urgency of arriving at a Brexit deal and the chaos that will be caused at the border with Gibraltar if no deal is reached''
The people of Gibraltar have previously voted overwhelmingly to stay as a UK territory but are being given no reassurances by the UK about their future. Yet another mess created with no resolution put in place or even thought through.
The U.K. Government don’t care that Northern Ireland and Scotland massively (especially in the later case) oppose Brexit, do you think the feeling of people in Gibraltar have even crossed Theresa May’s mind for a second?
Might as well hand it over to the Spanish the way we’re trearing it.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
If the people of Northern Ireland are being ignored for Brexit, spare a thought for the people of Gibraltar who seem to not enter at all into the UK government's shambolic preparations for Brexit, with this phrase from the report below summing it up:
''The depressing reality seems to be that it is Spain that recognises the urgency of arriving at a Brexit deal and the chaos that will be caused at the border with Gibraltar if no deal is reached''
The people of Gibraltar have previously voted overwhelmingly to stay as a UK territory but are being given no reassurances by the UK about their future. Yet another mess created with no resolution put in place or even thought through.
It’s examples like these that really wind me up. This was always going to be a mega undertaking in the event of a vote to leave. It’s baffles me as to how little planning we’ve done re: an event that is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives. I can only assume that at the time of the referendum, Cameron etc assumed we would vote to remain, and they didn’t have to plan. Based on the shambles since it’s becoming very clear we never planned or expected a leave vote. Otherwise we would have had more than the main protagonists offering journalists tea whilst we all ride headlong into the shit
Or, perhaps I’m being very naive. Perhaps a few clever rich men have identified a way they can get a lot richer in a way that squeezes the less well off. I just don’t know anymore
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
And you can't even see the border on the beach, not sure how many trucks transporting goods use those routes though which is probably what the WTO really worry about
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
don't worry as I can guess what it said......something along the lines of
own it make it happen
ad infinitum.
No. It was in response to your post saying you voted for the government to 'negotiate' leaving. What exactly do you want them to negotiate? Why negotiate anything rather than have an absolute break and cut off all contact completely? Unless of course there are details you want sorted out and outcomes you expect? If so what details and what outcomes did you have in mind when voting, and how exactly are they to be achieved? Maybe you don't know, but expect 'the government' to read your mind or second guess you.
I didn't. I voted simply to leave. If it were down to me I would have done as you suggested & simply left. It appears that triggering Artcle 50 meant we have
If the people of Northern Ireland are being ignored for Brexit, spare a thought for the people of Gibraltar who seem to not enter at all into the UK government's shambolic preparations for Brexit, with this phrase from the report below summing it up:
''The depressing reality seems to be that it is Spain that recognises the urgency of arriving at a Brexit deal and the chaos that will be caused at the border with Gibraltar if no deal is reached''
The people of Gibraltar have previously voted overwhelmingly to stay as a UK territory but are being given no reassurances by the UK about their future. Yet another mess created with no resolution put in place or even thought through.
It’s examples like these that really wind me up. This was always going to be a mega undertaking in the event of a vote to leave. It’s baffles me as to how little planning we’ve done re: an event that is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives. I can only assume that at the time of the referendum, Cameron etc assumed we would vote to remain, and they didn’t have to plan. Based on the shambles since it’s becoming very clear we never planned or expected a leave vote. Otherwise we would have had more than the main protagonists offering journalists tea whilst we all ride headlong into the shit
Or, perhaps I’m being very naive. Perhaps a few clever rich men have identified a way they can get a lot richer in a way that squeezes the less well off. I just don’t know anymore
I don't think most of the scumbags who bankrolled the Brexit campaign give a f*** about the UK - most of them have portable wealth and can play the tax system.
Periodically I have suggested how the Irish border could operate when the UK and the EU are separate entities. It would cost a fortune, mean the UK breaking it's word in a treaty, and be hugely impactful in terms of politics and quite serious strife but it can be done. Nobody has suggested it though. What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line. Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition. Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for? Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
No, it really doesn't say that. It says that the WTO would require that a third country checks, by means of customs arrangements, good travelling between it and other countries.
Periodically I have suggested how the Irish border could operate when the UK and the EU are separate entities. It would cost a fortune, mean the UK breaking it's word in a treaty, and be hugely impactful in terms of politics and quite serious strife but it can be done. Nobody has suggested it though. What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line. Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition. Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for? Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
As I’ve said before should just annex Ireland. It would be much easier and cheaper than anything else which has been suggested, it would keep the DUP happy plus I don’t think Ireland are part of NATO so they’re fair game really.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
No, it really doesn't say that. It says that the WTO would require that a third country checks, by means of customs arrangements, good travelling between it and other countries.
This is what I meant: Would you scrabble about to get some kind of barrier built over the 400km of the border and hope it's in place soon enough for a WTO deal to be put in place?
Periodically I have suggested how the Irish border could operate when the UK and the EU are separate entities. It would cost a fortune, mean the UK breaking it's word in a treaty, and be hugely impactful in terms of politics and quite serious strife but it can be done. Nobody has suggested it though. What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line. Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition. Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for? Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
As I’ve said before should just annex Ireland. It would be much easier and cheaper than anything else which has been suggested, it would keep the DUP happy plus I don’t think Ireland are part of NATO so they’re fair game really.
Periodically I have suggested how the Irish border could operate when the UK and the EU are separate entities. It would cost a fortune, mean the UK breaking it's word in a treaty, and be hugely impactful in terms of politics and quite serious strife but it can be done. Nobody has suggested it though. What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line. Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition. Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for? Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
As I’ve said before should just annex Ireland. It would be much easier and cheaper than anything else which has been suggested, it would keep the DUP happy plus I don’t think Ireland are part of NATO so they’re fair game really.
Interesting use of the word 'just' there.
I bet @PragueAddick would be up for this if it was followed by corporation tax increases, etc to sort out Apple, et al
Periodically I have suggested how the Irish border could operate when the UK and the EU are separate entities. It would cost a fortune, mean the UK breaking it's word in a treaty, and be hugely impactful in terms of politics and quite serious strife but it can be done. Nobody has suggested it though. What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line. Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition. Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for? Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
As I’ve said before should just annex Ireland. It would be much easier and cheaper than anything else which has been suggested, it would keep the DUP happy plus I don’t think Ireland are part of NATO so they’re fair game really.
Interesting use of the word 'just' there.
I bet @PragueAddick would be up for this if it was followed by corporation tax increases, etc to sort out Apple, et al
That’s another good point - we can stop losing out on tax revenue for big multinationals HQ’d in Dublin.
The business case for this is almost overwhelming.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
Controls would clearly be required, if WTO rules are to be complied with. But, even with South Armagh ingenuity, most goods will transit by road. In WTO terms, it is control of road crossings that would be key.
(The question of a fence, or other controls, along the rest of the border is more of an issue for things like people smuggling, controls for livestock and agricultural products, including preventing cross border transit of illegal chemicals.)
And, unless any of us accompany goods being brought across a non-Single Market border, with all that that implies for both tariff and regulatory documentation, it is difficult to make statements about how "soft" a border is.
In many cases, states will require that goods traffic must enter at certain locations, which may or may not be the same as used by tourists or other visitors (certainly this is what happens on the Norwegian-Swedish border).
Unless a WTO member is to unilaterally abandon all tariffs and standards, there is no form of trade border that can be defined as "soft", if by "soft" we mean the present border status in Ireland and within the Single Market.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
Controls would clearly be required, if WTO rules are to be complied with. But, even with South Armagh ingenuity, most goods will transit by road. In WTO terms, it is control of road crossings that would be key.
(The question of a fence, or other controls, along the rest of the border is more of an issue for things like people smuggling, controls for livestock and agricultural products, including preventing cross border transit of illegal chemicals.)
And, unless any of us accompany goods being brought across a non-Single Market border, with all that that implies for both tariff and regulatory documentation, it is difficult to make statements about how "soft" a border is.
In many cases, states will require that goods traffic must enter at certain locations, which may or may not be the same as used by tourists or other visitors (certainly this is what happens on the Norwegian-Swedish border).
Unless a WTO member is to unilaterally abandon all tariffs and standards, there is no form of trade border that can be defined as "soft", if by "soft" we mean the present border status in Ireland and within the Single Market.
Thanks for the info, so, if I'm understanding you right, only some crossing points would need to be check points.
I was curious as I've been to many border crossings in Asia that are totally in no way checked, or restricted other than at official crossings, yet they WTO members, so that makes a lot of sense. No need for the 400km wall/fence barrier.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way we should be getting a 'no deal' here, the above situation would still be madness.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
Controls would clearly be required, if WTO rules are to be complied with. But, even with South Armagh ingenuity, most goods will transit by road. In WTO terms, it is control of road crossings that would be key.
(The question of a fence, or other controls, along the rest of the border is more of an issue for things like people smuggling, controls for livestock and agricultural products, including preventing cross border transit of illegal chemicals.)
And, unless any of us accompany goods being brought across a non-Single Market border, with all that that implies for both tariff and regulatory documentation, it is difficult to make statements about how "soft" a border is.
In many cases, states will require that goods traffic must enter at certain locations, which may or may not be the same as used by tourists or other visitors (certainly this is what happens on the Norwegian-Swedish border).
Unless a WTO member is to unilaterally abandon all tariffs and standards, there is no form of trade border that can be defined as "soft", if by "soft" we mean the present border status in Ireland and within the Single Market.
Thanks for the info, so, if I'm understanding you right, only some crossing points would need to be check points.
I was curious as I've been to many border crossings in Asia that are totally in no way checked, or restricted other than at official crossings, yet they WTO members, so that makes a lot of sense. No need for the 400km wall/fence barrier.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way we should be getting a 'no deal' here, the above situation would still be madness.
Yes.
The common approach is to have specified locations (including parking/waiting facilities) where required checks are carried out and paperwork completed.
The unusual issue for the border in Ireland is the number of road crossings that have to be taken into account.
Most borders would not have anywhere near as many (for such a relatively short distance).
If the UK or EU (by which I also mean Ireland) were to require (as seems likely the longer the present dual carriageway negotiating process continues) cross border trade to be checked, I would expect that they would identify those routes on which the checks would be conducted.
The concern, if smuggling is to be avoided, is how you monitor all the other crossing points.
It is the stated position of HMG that there will be no additional infrastructure on the border than there is today (and this is, naturally, completely incompatible with other commitments that the Government have made). Without wishing to be too pedantic, the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras (which, allied with mobile Customs patrols, would be the bare minimum required) is the creation of new infrastructure. Customs facilities would also, obviously have to be reinstated on the approved routes.
In essence, if the UK is to be out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, "because that is the Brexit people voted for" (allegedly), and a Free Trade Agreement is not in place, trade controls have to be implemented between the UK and EU, or all trade controls have to be removed. Even if there is a Free Trade Agreement between both sides (which I imagine is unlikely to be speedily agreed), they will have to have these controls in place for any goods being transhipped from third countries, and for protecting the health and well-being of the human, animal and plant populations.
@Stu_of_Kunming Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
In places, it is, as is the border with Canada.
Not that I'd ever want to be seen to be being pedantic, or suggest that the US border guards engage in any form of racial profiling, but..
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
But it was stated that to trade under WTO rules, we would need a wall/fence covering the entire border in Northern Ireland, no I was curious how other countries, that do not have these walls/fences - with China/Burma being my first example - manage to still be members of, and I assume, at times, rely on the rules of the WTO.
No, it really doesn't say that. It says that the WTO would require that a third country checks, by means of customs arrangements, good travelling between it and other countries.
This is what I meant: Would you scrabble about to get some kind of barrier built over the 400km of the border and hope it's in place soon enough for a WTO deal to be put in place?
So that barrier would not be needed?
No. But, if we were to trade under WTO rules, customs checks would be required. And those checks don't currently exist.
So my question - aimed at @golfaddick - remains. If we were "simply" to leave, what is the solution for the Irish border, that allows us to have trade deals with e.g. the WTO? Or would we do without trade deals, just to make Brexit happen?
Customs (passport) checks at Heathrow, about the busiest airport in the world are up to 2 1/2 hours now. We are 9 months from exit. How is this going to be a seemless no deal? Encourage people to spend money in UK. Where are the ads to recruit and train new staff? At all ports, airports and the Irish border. Where is the planning? Would you trust these people to run your bath let alone your country?
Barn pot thinks were spying on them now..i was under the illusion listening to some of you lot, there hadn't been any talks...
Well I’m sure the EU side have had plenty of talks amongst themselves as they’ve been able to agree a coherent negotiating strategy amongst 27 member states. We have had plenty of talks on our side too but have yet to agree a coherent negotiating strategy amongst one political party.
Barn pot thinks were spying on them now..i was under the illusion listening to some of you lot, there hadn't been any talks...
Well I’m sure the EU side have had plenty of talks amongst themselves as they’ve been able to agree a coherent negotiating strategy amongst 27 member states. We have had plenty of talks on our side too but have yet to agree a coherent negotiating strategy amongst one political party.
Seeing as how there is no agreement on the way forward within the government itself I’m not too surprised that no progress with the 27 is being made.
How can May suggest or agree anything with Barnier when she knows darned well that anything she does come back from Brussels with will be vetoed by her own party.
If this was Greece or Italy we were talking about we would be staring on incredulously. The UK is becoming a world joke for mismanagement and stupidity.
It's always pissed me off when national politicians - anywhere - try to put the blame on "the EU" for problems which have been created and can be fixed 100% by the national politicians concerned. But a special kind of contempt should be reserved for Matteo Salvini, Italy's new deputy PM as he tried to somehow incriminate the EU in the Genoa bridge catastrophe.
It reminds me that one of the biggest problems facing the EU is the existence of Italy and the fact that it is a founder member of the Common Market. In the optimistic days of the late 50s- early 60s, the other countries were getting back on their feet and becoming more mature societies as a result. It was assumed they were all on the same path. Not, it turned out, Italy. I remember as a child in the early 60s being terrified by a BBC drama series called Vendetta, which introduced me to the Mafia. They never addressed this scourge. It has got worse and worse, eating away at both the body politic and the public finances of Italy to the present day. Civil engineering experts were quick to point out that the role of the Mafia in public projects means that material used, such as concrete were not of the quality as demanded, as described and paid for by the State, and that this bridge may well be one of those so blighted. None of this 60 year reign of the Mafias could happen if the majority of politicians were not in some way complicit. I will be massively unsurprised if we soon find that this applies to Mr Salvini himself.
RIP to the innocent victims of several countries including a father from the Czech Republic. Commiserations to those brave Italians who constantly speak out against the influence of the mafias. The rest of the Italian nation, both politicians and citizens, gaze upon what you have brought on yourselves, and take some bloody responsibility.
Comments
I agree a 'no deal' would be madness, im honestly interested if anyone knows the answer, rather than trying to make any particular point.
Might as well hand it over to the Spanish the way we’re trearing it.
Have you ever crossed the border from the US to Mexico? It’s anything but soft!
It is probably much easier to travel from the USA to Mexico, than in the other direction, and even travel from Mexico to the USA is facilitated if you happen not to look Hispanic (or whichever nationality is the "threat" of the day).
I don't think that any part of the USA - Mexico border is as easy to traverse as some parts of the USA - Canada border (Darby Line?).
But, neither border is "soft", notwithstanding shared NAFTA membership, when it comes to transit of goods, because NAFTA is not a Single Market with shared external Customs and regulatory controls.
Or, perhaps I’m being very naive. Perhaps a few clever rich men have identified a way they can get a lot richer in a way that squeezes the less well off. I just don’t know anymore
Nobody has suggested it though.
What I am referring to is a heavily armed, policed, barriered, and formally checked 400km line.
Or the alternative is no border therefore no brexit in terms of taking back control, probably no brexit under any definition.
Nobody has suggested a workable solution that would exist between my two examples, and even my 'barbed wire' solution is unlikely to work 100% in practice.
When will brexit voters accept they didn't know what they were voting for?
Until that acceptance is made manifest in some way, the UK will continue to spiral into chaos.
Would you scrabble about to get some kind of barrier built over the 400km of the border and hope it's in place soon enough for a WTO deal to be put in place?
So that barrier would not be needed?
The business case for this is almost overwhelming.
(The question of a fence, or other controls, along the rest of the border is more of an issue for things like people smuggling, controls for livestock and agricultural products, including preventing cross border transit of illegal chemicals.)
And, unless any of us accompany goods being brought across a non-Single Market border, with all that that implies for both tariff and regulatory documentation, it is difficult to make statements about how "soft" a border is.
In many cases, states will require that goods traffic must enter at certain locations, which may or may not be the same as used by tourists or other visitors (certainly this is what happens on the Norwegian-Swedish border).
Unless a WTO member is to unilaterally abandon all tariffs and standards, there is no form of trade border that can be defined as "soft", if by "soft" we mean the present border status in Ireland and within the Single Market.
I was curious as I've been to many border crossings in Asia that are totally in no way checked, or restricted other than at official crossings, yet they WTO members, so that makes a lot of sense. No need for the 400km wall/fence barrier.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way we should be getting a 'no deal' here, the above situation would still be madness.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1029256536605044736
The common approach is to have specified locations (including parking/waiting facilities) where required checks are carried out and paperwork completed.
The unusual issue for the border in Ireland is the number of road crossings that have to be taken into account.
Most borders would not have anywhere near as many (for such a relatively short distance).
If the UK or EU (by which I also mean Ireland) were to require (as seems likely the longer the present dual carriageway negotiating process continues) cross border trade to be checked, I would expect that they would identify those routes on which the checks would be conducted.
The concern, if smuggling is to be avoided, is how you monitor all the other crossing points.
It is the stated position of HMG that there will be no additional infrastructure on the border than there is today (and this is, naturally, completely incompatible with other commitments that the Government have made). Without wishing to be too pedantic, the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras (which, allied with mobile Customs patrols, would be the bare minimum required) is the creation of new infrastructure. Customs facilities would also, obviously have to be reinstated on the approved routes.
In essence, if the UK is to be out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, "because that is the Brexit people voted for" (allegedly), and a Free Trade Agreement is not in place, trade controls have to be implemented between the UK and EU, or all trade controls have to be removed. Even if there is a Free Trade Agreement between both sides (which I imagine is unlikely to be speedily agreed), they will have to have these controls in place for any goods being transhipped from third countries, and for protecting the health and well-being of the human, animal and plant populations.
So my question - aimed at @golfaddick - remains. If we were "simply" to leave, what is the solution for the Irish border, that allows us to have trade deals with e.g. the WTO? Or would we do without trade deals, just to make Brexit happen?
How can May suggest or agree anything with Barnier when she knows darned well that anything she does come back from Brussels with will be vetoed by her own party.
If this was Greece or Italy we were talking about we would be staring on incredulously. The UK is becoming a world joke for mismanagement and stupidity.
It reminds me that one of the biggest problems facing the EU is the existence of Italy and the fact that it is a founder member of the Common Market. In the optimistic days of the late 50s- early 60s, the other countries were getting back on their feet and becoming more mature societies as a result. It was assumed they were all on the same path. Not, it turned out, Italy. I remember as a child in the early 60s being terrified by a BBC drama series called Vendetta, which introduced me to the Mafia. They never addressed this scourge. It has got worse and worse, eating away at both the body politic and the public finances of Italy to the present day. Civil engineering experts were quick to point out that the role of the Mafia in public projects means that material used, such as concrete were not of the quality as demanded, as described and paid for by the State, and that this bridge may well be one of those so blighted. None of this 60 year reign of the Mafias could happen if the majority of politicians were not in some way complicit. I will be massively unsurprised if we soon find that this applies to Mr Salvini himself.
RIP to the innocent victims of several countries including a father from the Czech Republic. Commiserations to those brave Italians who constantly speak out against the influence of the mafias. The rest of the Italian nation, both politicians and citizens, gaze upon what you have brought on yourselves, and take some bloody responsibility.