It’s the will of the people

[meridian]

There is a big difference between a soft and hard border in Ireland. Can’t believe you posted that question.

The rest of your statement sounds a bit simple.

So you can’t answer it then?

Let me ask the same question a different way. What, in your mind, constitutes the definition of a “soft” border?

[woohoo]

So you can’t answer it then?

Let me ask the same question a different way. What, in your mind, constitutes the definition of a “soft” border?

No don’t put it a different way.

Think about it... Ireland why would a hard border cause issues? Why are they reluctant to put in a wall and checkpoints?

[NotAllThere]

No don’t put it a different way.

Think about it... Ireland why would a hard border cause issues? Why are they reluctant to put in a wall and checkpoints?

"Ireland argues ...(an open border)... is necessary not just to ensure frictionless trade but to protect a fragile peace. It argues that the “normalisation” of life on the border is a byproduct of the cross-border cooperation in trade, schools, healthcare and agriculture that has flourished since the Good Friday agreement."

A hard border would definitely radically complicate such cooperation, if not kill it. Whether that would lead to the resumption of hostilities, I don't know enough about the Irish/NI mindset to comment. But they seem to think it will.

[meridian]

No don’t put it a different way.

Think about it... Ireland why would a hard border cause issues? Why are they reluctant to put in a wall and checkpoints?

Oh, okay. So you can’t even answer an easier one asking you to describe what you think a “soft” border is. Fair enough.

As for your second one, now you’re just trolling.

[woohoo]

Oh, okay. So you can’t even answer an easier one asking you to describe what you think a “soft” border is. Fair enough.

As for your second one, now you’re just trolling.

Nat has done a good job of describing a hard border. Soft border is about implementing checks via intelligence, onsite checks etc.

I understand you asked a stupid question and statement and are now trying to distract from that by asking questions in a silly trolling manner. I’m sure you will respond with some quip.

Anyway, my point was I don’t believe Ireland or the Eu will implement a hard border. Which is why I think the whole border question is being used as leverage.

[meridian]

Nat has done a good job of describing a hard border. Soft border is about implementing checks via intelligence, onsite checks etc.

So, either what we have now (which requires full regulatory alignment) or some form of magical “Alternative Arrangements”.

Either way, this fits in with the Withdrawal Agreement, so there should be no problem agreeing that?

Except for some reason there is.

I understand you asked a stupid question and statement and are now trying to distract from that by asking questions in a silly trolling manner. I’m sure you will respond with some quip.

Anyway, my point was I don’t believe Ireland or the Eu will implement a hard border. Which is why I think the whole border question is being used as leverage.

There have been a couple of posters on here saying “they don’t believe xx will implement a hard border” (insert either IE, EU, U.K. here). Without giving any reasons why. Just belief is enough, apparently.

I asked a few posts back whether you considered that any other country might have a say in whether borders are secured. Any advance on that? Or are you still maintaining that it is only an IE/EU issue to secure Britain’s border?

[Zigenare]

So, either what we have now (which requires full regulatory alignment) or some form of magical “Alternative Arrangements”.

Either way, this fits in with the Withdrawal Agreement, so there should be no problem agreeing that?

Except for some reason there is.




There have been a couple of posters on here saying “they don’t believe xx will implement a hard border” (insert either IE, EU, U.K. here). Without giving any reasons why. Just belief is enough, apparently.

I asked a few posts back whether you considered that any other country might have a say in whether borders are secured. Any advance on that? Or are you still maintaining that it is only an IE/EU issue to secure Britain’s border?

I though we were discussing a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, not Britain.

Just chipping in to ensure that we all know what we're discussing here...

[WTFH]

No don’t put it a different way.

Think about it... Ireland why would a hard border cause issues? Why are they reluctant to put in a wall and checkpoints?

"They" aren't the ones who voted for it.

Ask the people who voted for the UK to leave the EU why they want a border in Ireland.
Before the vote it was not an issue.
Because of the vote, it became one.

[BlasterBates]

"They" aren't the ones who voted for it.

Ask the people who voted for the UK to leave the EU why they want a border in Ireland.
Before the vote it was not an issue.
Because of the vote, it became one.

Indeed the troubles in Ireland were resolved because being in the EU single market made the Irish border issue irrelevant.

[Old Greg]

Nat has done a good job of describing a hard border. Soft border is about implementing checks via intelligence, onsite checks etc.

I understand you asked a stupid question and statement and are now trying to distract from that by asking questions in a silly trolling manner. I’m sure you will respond with some quip.

Anyway, my point was I don’t believe Ireland or the Eu will implement a hard border. Which is why I think the whole border question is being used as leverage.

Hidden underneath this thread is an interesting discussion. What is at stake is the current state integration of the island of Ireland. There are currently some regulatory and other differences between RoI and NI (exemplified by the proliferation of fireworks merchants on the NI side of the border) but they are largely minor and ignored. However, now that the UK is leaving the SM and CU and refusing to ratify the agreement that it negotiated with the EU, this creates a regulatory (including phytosanitary) and customs border, within the context of a currently integrated economy. It will also approximately double the number of crossing points that EU countries have with non-EU countries. This challenge to the integrity of the SM and CU, which is of the UK's making will need a response, if the UK continues to refuse to ratify the agreement it negotiated.

There is no easy solution, as installing border infrastructure (which even exists on the border between the closely aligned Norway and Sweden) is hugely unpalatable and a huge task across the >200 crossings. However, leaving open a border with a UK that seeks to diverge from EU regulations is also unpalatable. You seem to put a lot of weight on the first half of the dilemma and little on the second half.

The 'return to violence' argument that some are making should be more nuanced than is presented. It is not a binary no violence vs 1980s alternative. There is already paramilitary violence now. There are risks that it could increase and that increase could be smaller or greater. However, talking to colleagues who live in the border area, some of whom commute across every day and remember 'the bad old days', the main concern is not paramilitary violence but the disruption of an integrated economy. The border is an important part of it and is also perhaps totemic, but it is not the core of the problem.