Boris is bunging them some of the £39billion. 
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Robert Peston saying on twitter that a minister told him they hope they aren't briefed on what was discussed in the meeting. Ffs. 
Ivan Rogers wrote the following by way of explanation:
“Nor can you just wish away issues at borders, whether on land or cross-Channel, when the entire purpose of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union must be to run deliberately different regulatory regimes – chosen by your own Parliament – where you believe it suits you.
“Such choices by definition entail a hard border. Borders across the whole world demarcate different regulatory regimes.
“Even the border between Sweden and Norway, one in the EU, the other out of it but wanting to remain much closer ‘in’ to EU institutional and legal frameworks (Single Market, Schengen) than our government, is a hard border. If alternative arrangements currently existed which obviated the need for any such border, they would already be operating right there. They are not.”
That's a bit of a fallacious statement don't you think? Hard borders have to exist because hard borders do exist. If hard borders didn't have to exist hard borders wouldn't exist.
Can you imagine if you applied that to everything? Cancer is unsolvable because if it were solvable we'd have already solved it. The fact that it hasn't already been solved proves it's unsolvable.
I'm asking what is the difference between chlorinated chicken being ok in NI and illegal in ROI and cannabis being legal in California and illegal in Arizona?
Yep.
Johnson is not going to persuade the EU to change it's belief in the four freedoms, and in particular the one we all know is most relevant to the Brexit vote, freedom of movement. To hint that he can is dishonest. I'm not quite sure why you think my view on that is flippant, I am quite serious.
Agreed. Well said.
There are no borders between the EU states other than the UK and Ireland because they are outside of Schengen.
Each nation within the EU is sovereign and has their own laws. Just taking driving laws for example - you can drive in the UK at 17 but in France it's 18 or the national speed limit is 60mph in the UK but 80km/h in France - these laws are policed by the national bodies.
Take chlorinated chicken which is prohibited in the whole of the EU so at all entry points into the EU chlorinated chicken should be stopped and the easiest most cost efficicient way is at a customs border.
Not knowing much about US law but I believe each US state is sovereign and can make their own laws and policed in the same way whereas if something is federal it supercedes that.
Whereas product x would be banned in the whole of the USA and would be stopped at customs entry points from the outside world.
Of course smuggling goes on but if somthing is found it could be traced back through documentation and false declarations and that company/person could be permanently banned from importing/exporting to that country.
Australia are particularly concerned about diseases entering their territory and have very strict checks at their points of entry. The documentation shipping to Australia is something else.
When/if Luxembourg decriminalises cannabis I can guarantee there will be no calls for hard borders between the nation's they border and an end to Schengen on that area. It will simply be a matter for the police of the various nations who would work together.
If the reason the EU feel we need a hard border on Ireland given all the issues with that in the past is simply because it's "easier and cheaper" then God help us.
Post Brexit I'd be comfortable with the UK and France having an open border (again not for working) so I have no clue why it's an issue in Ireland.
Which would surely be the same in Ireland? There will be some natural regulatory alignment simply because they're two countries of similar wealth and values. These would mirror federal laws that are allowable or not allowable both sides of the border. For the minority of goods only allowable in one it would be policed exactly as Arizona polices cannabis... You're arrested 1 metre over the invisible border but safe 1 metre behind it.
I can understand with Australia given the region they're in having stark disparities in wealth, regulations and general values. I doubt their supermarkets would be looking to import meat from Papua New Guinea, but the government would be very strict just in case. Again though if the UK struck a trade deal with Australia those strict regulations wouldn't need to apply... The latter country would agree that our standards are fine and wouldn't need to check; just like we don't check French produce. Obviously if we had this "open border" situation with Australia but started buying meat from PNG and trying to smuggle it into Australia it would be dealt with by their police and our police.
No-one with an iota of sense would see a similar situation in Ireland either way. I'm trying to think of a logical reason why an open border would be an issue... All I can come to is it's politically convenient for it to be made as such.
Last edited:
"So Northern Ireland would leave the EU customs union and would enjoy all the benefits of an independent UK trade policy. But the customs border for administrative purposes would run alongside the regulatory border in the Irish Sea."
So, what's the difference between that and NI staying in the customs union then?
Edit - This seems to be suggesting the same thing:
But this is only one small example and the easiest and cheapest method meant to borders in general not specifically the Irish Border.
Say the UK had open borders to everywhere - so whatever is shipped from the UK to the EU or Australia could have originated from anywhere, ie your example of PNG meat shipped to the UK and shipped back to Australia.
It's not only the products but the packaging, the treatment etc.
Nigel Farage and Brexit party vote against EU resolution to stop Russian election meddling
Party says claims of interference are 'baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate'
Brexit Party MEPs have been criticised for voting against a European Parliament resolution backing stronger EU action to counter election meddling and disinformation from Russia.
The party's representatives, including Nigel Farage, rejected the proposal which called for "monitoring of the impact of foreign interference across Europe" and put forward a plans to "address the threats of external intervention in our European elections".
The motion called for the EU East StratCom Task Force - which focuses on disinformation from Europe's eastern neighbours – to be upgraded to a permanent mission. It also asked the European Commission to shine a light on "the question of foreign funding of European political parties and foundations" by external actors.
The Brexit Party said that claims of Russian interference in elections were "baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate". But other MEPs criticised the party's vote and said disinformation was being "weaponised by hostile foreign actors".
“In the aftermath of the Skripal attack, Russia reportedly published 138 contradictory accounts of the nerve agent attack, with disinformation reaching UK citizens through social media accounts," said Antony Hook, a Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee.
In June the Brexit party was asked to check £2.5m it has received in donations to ensure the money had come from legitimate sources. The UK Electoral Commission warned that the structure of the party “leaves it open to a high and ongoing risk of receiving and accepting impermissible donations”.
Brexit Party MEP David Bull, one of those who voted against the motion said: "The Brexit Party exists to remove the United Kingdom from the EU and ensure we are democratically governed. We will always vote against more power and spending by the EU.
"We won't take lessons in democracy from parties which have packed together in order to frustrate the Brexit vote, the largest democratic act in recent British history. Stories of Russian interference have been exposed as baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate. As a party of free speech, we oppose shutting down debate."
Party says claims of interference are 'baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate'
Brexit Party MEPs have been criticised for voting against a European Parliament resolution backing stronger EU action to counter election meddling and disinformation from Russia.
The party's representatives, including Nigel Farage, rejected the proposal which called for "monitoring of the impact of foreign interference across Europe" and put forward a plans to "address the threats of external intervention in our European elections".
The motion called for the EU East StratCom Task Force - which focuses on disinformation from Europe's eastern neighbours – to be upgraded to a permanent mission. It also asked the European Commission to shine a light on "the question of foreign funding of European political parties and foundations" by external actors.
The Brexit Party said that claims of Russian interference in elections were "baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate". But other MEPs criticised the party's vote and said disinformation was being "weaponised by hostile foreign actors".
“In the aftermath of the Skripal attack, Russia reportedly published 138 contradictory accounts of the nerve agent attack, with disinformation reaching UK citizens through social media accounts," said Antony Hook, a Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee.
In June the Brexit party was asked to check £2.5m it has received in donations to ensure the money had come from legitimate sources. The UK Electoral Commission warned that the structure of the party “leaves it open to a high and ongoing risk of receiving and accepting impermissible donations”.
Brexit Party MEP David Bull, one of those who voted against the motion said: "The Brexit Party exists to remove the United Kingdom from the EU and ensure we are democratically governed. We will always vote against more power and spending by the EU.
"We won't take lessons in democracy from parties which have packed together in order to frustrate the Brexit vote, the largest democratic act in recent British history. Stories of Russian interference have been exposed as baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate. As a party of free speech, we oppose shutting down debate."
It's too weak an excuse.
The UK would have zero interest in importing dangerous products, they would merely be importing products of a different regulatory system. Therefore the PNG example (which would be dealt with through policing anyway) wouldn't apply.
The UK would still have some of the highest standards in the world, with or without chlorinated chicken and beef with growth hormones.
That's why it has to be a political negotiating tool and it's why I imagine in a no deal.situation there still won't be a border. No border is guaranteed by the GFA so in a no deal scenario this couldn't be breached. If we can have an open border outside of the CM/SM in the event of no deal, why can't we with a deal?
These bolded statements are absolutely baseless. All indications are that UK will end up in a race to the bottom.
Arlene Foster won't be happy.
Please link me to a source whereby it's either stated or implied that the UK would want to bring dangerous goods into the country?
The UK are a wealthy first world nation and would be one irrespective of EU membership. They obviously wouldn't be bringing in unchecked Liberian meat... Not only because it could be dangerous but because shops wouldn't sell dangerous produce as they'd be sued.
Supply chains are much more opaque than you realise. Most small retailers will have no clue where their products are actually from (and are unable to verify it in any meaningful way), as they work with wholesalers.
Last edited:
His point is that the definition of a border is the line between different political, legal and regulatory regimes. Control of borders means control of those things. The EU wants to control those things because they want to protect the integrity of the entire cross Europe single market amongst other things. To be honest I expect the answer to your question lies in the difference between the political and legal construction of the EU and the US, ie between nation states pooling trading rules, and a federal system. But I’m not an expert. Possibly the difference also lies in the sheer scales of trade involved (and regulatory alignment needed for that) eg cannabis is an exception for obvious reasons - the rules are still being agreed and trade is quite small overall. But the rules for the vast majority of cross border trade are aligned presumably at federal level, because you the US itself operates a single internal market and customs union. Eg forget cannabis, can chlorinated chicken be legal in California and illegal in Arizona?
Last edited:
Some unfounded claims there. How can you guarantee certain individuals within the UK wouldn't put cost over quality when importing products? Seems a silly claim.
Indeed. Remember the recent one about horse meat being found in some UK supermarket burgers? And that’s in the current well regulated well understood system.
Mmm, the golden age of supermarket ready meals. Doesn’t taste the same now they’ve taken the horse out.
Oh no!
It depends what you mean. If you mean individuals who would import products from overseas that wouldn't meet the UK regulations then this is no different that the situation we're in right now (it's policed by the police). If you mean the UK government would allow cheaper goods into the UK that don't meet EU regulations; and that individuals would try to smuggle these across an open border, then again this is a policing issue. It would be exactly the same as Luxembourg legalising cannabis and it remaining illegal in Belgium... It would not cause a hard border around the perimeter of the former country... It would be policed as a partnership.
This is before even looking at the reality that it would be almost as easy to smuggle products a few hundred metres by boat as it would be across an open border (or a hard border for that matter since very few products are checked anyway). If it were incredibly profitable to smuggle these goods into ROI then it would happen regardless of a hard or open border.
My point is that there are dozens of examples throughout the world which involve open borders with different regulatory systems. Likewise there are dozens of examples of open borders with different tax regimes (including the EU itself). Therefore it is disingenuous to say an open border is factually incompatible with different regulatory systems. In fact it's false. Likewise it's disingenuous to state that freedom of movement for working is a non-negotiable aspect of EU membership. There are already restrictions that were brought up in this thread last week on new members such as Croatia, who do not have complete freedom to work in any Nation within the block.
Therefore the EU red lines are just as fallacious and ridiculous as the UK red lines. The only legal requirement is for there not to be a border between NI and ROI, therefore if both parties set aside their political agendas and made the GFA the starting point irrespective of whether a "deal" can be reached, we'd be much better off.
I'm not disputing this, however at some point along the supply chain someone is aware that they're partaking in illegal activity, whether it's importing with the intention to smuggle, or purchasing with the intention to smuggle. Just like we imprison cocaine dealers but punish users to a much lesser extent, we'd put resources into investigating and imprisoning the companies/individuals that were smuggling the goods across the border and merely fine the companies that didn't question the source of their produce, pleading ignorance. Fines as a % of turnover for these companies would make sense (as it would be equitable).
How can one just say borders are a policing issue (and by policing you mean custom officers) and not understand that a border is an integral part of those policing efforts.
No Change. She is never happy.
It makes no sense and it gets worse when you consider the fact that in case of problems, without customs records at the point of entry, you can't determine the point of entry and therefore can't know which jurisdiction is supposed to deal with the issue.
Isn’t it an EU thing to ensure that people see on the packaging where the meat is from?
Some of the things @finneh is saying now are very similar to what JRM was saying in relation to importing beef from Australia. Basically we don’t need to check because I’ve eaten Australian beef so we can trust their standards
I'm talking about individual companies, if there are no checks who is going to stop dangerous goods. What is considered dangerous, which regulations apply. How do other countries know that UK goods are safe, how do they know their wooden crates are not infested with termites, how do they know the origin of any goods and under what conditions they were produced.
The UK want to abandon EU standards, what are the new standards, Where do goods get tested. It is no good just saying the UK have high standards, they have to be proven and legally accountable. All documentation accompanying shipments have to conform to the legislation.
There are less checks on goods between members of a single market or customs union because they have the same standards.
There are less checks between countries with a free trade agreement because all fine détails per my first paragraph would have been agreed in the years of discussions leading up to the agreement.
The UK are leaving not just the EU but all the partnerships and agreements they currently have.
Whether the UK will be so lax with their borders will not change other countries or group of countries on their view.
On Ireland I can only see a border in the Irish sea.
Last edited:
You can trust Australian beef but can Australia trust food from the UK once they exit the EU?
We give you our word it hasn’t got mad cow
It will if we stick Arlene Foster in it.
That is deeply offensive to cows everywhere.
Quite possibly and if so it would still be a requirement afterwards.
Unsure what JRM is or what they said... My point isn't that certain foods are fine or that the EU should accept any standards that they don't want to. My point is that policing these unacceptable goods need not occur at any border. If the US don't need a hard border between California and Arizona to police cannabis I don't see why Australian beef would need a hard border between NI and ROI to police.
The same people who stop cannabis from being grown in France and being imported into Germany... Or the same people who ensure Romania are not ignoring EU regulations and making substandard products and smuggling them into neighbouring countries... The police of those nations.
Again the new standards are somewhat irrelevant. If something is legal in NI and illegal in ROI it would be policed and legislated as such (as would be the case if it's illegal in both). Policing does not have to occur at the border as is illustrated by numerous examples of different states/countries with different laws/regulations across the globe.
A hard border is merely a tool that countries use to police the import/export of goods, however it's one that isn't very successful. If hard borders were a perfect tool then cocaine wouldn't be freely available.
Lets say a hard border is implemented and also that chlorinated chicken becomes acceptable in NI. Let's also say that huge profits would be made by a smuggler selling chlorinated chicken in ROI and the EU... In this environment chlorinated chicken would already be being sold in the EU, exactly as cocaine currently is! The fact that chlorinated chicken isn't being sold in the EU is nothing to do with EU regulations, it's to do with the fact that the risk of smuggling these goods outweighs the profit that would be made... This situation would remain the case irrespective of a soft border.
I'd put money on these stories of progress being little more than delay tactics by Boris and any 'deal' will fall through following the extension deadline. The EU threatened to end negotiations and he knows he can't be seen to do nothing.
But the question is - what will be legal in the UK - the UK are abandoning EU legislation , most of the EU regulations that the UK don't like (or think they don't like or are told by the press they don't like) actually applies to trade and standards of goods. So what will be legal in the UK, cannabis, cocaine, beef injected with acid, who knows? If Romania manufactured sub-standard products they would cracked down upon by the local authorities because they are illegal not only in EU but in Romania as well. If found out the production would be shut down. If the UK are producing cocaine legally the local police wouldn't shut them down. Therefore it would be down to foreign police/custom officers to stop it entering their territory.
The easiest way to stop it is to have a border and in the case of Ireland it would thus have to be in the Irish Sea. Or you could employ tens or hundreds of thousands of customs officers at checkpoints throughout the country.
Nothing is foolproof.
Borders have to exist because by definition, a border is the place where one set of rules ends and another set of rules begins. Wars have been fought over this shit. I know you wish that wasn't the case - and it doesn't have to be if you agree to standardise and align your rules with your neighbours. That is what the EC does.
Sure, I guess you could get the police to check the legality of every individual item on sale (according to your spliff logic) so that instead of rules being checked at one place, they are checked at 100 billion but that doesn't sound like a good or practical idea (and that is what the 'the technology isn't there' argument boils down to).
Presumably because chicken is completely legal and regulated, and cannabis is somewhat legal and unregulated.
Last edited: