Reply to: No need for a hard border

[Zigenare]

Unified Ireland.

The Irish can't afford it.

The Brits can't afford it.

A large proportion of Northern Irish people (still)genuinely believe that they will be driven into the sea and Northern Ireland ethnically cleansed.

Hth.

[GreenMirror]

Unified Ireland.

[original PM]

Is that the majority of the UK voters with their heads down, and only a minority not falling for the lies of JRM, BoJo, Gove, etc?

Good question - what do you think?

[WTFH]

Is that the majority of the UK voters with their heads down, and only a minority not falling for the lies of JRM, BoJo, Gove, etc?

[sasguru]

I would have though that as a contractor you'd have at least a tenuous grasp on what contracts/treaties/legal agreements are, and what negotiation is.

And there's the nub of the problem. He's not a contractor, just a simpleton half-wit.

[original PM]

[NotAllThere]

...Imagine if there was no border

Ah, stow it, John Lennon. These people have enough trouble dealing with reality, never mind imagining something.

[NotAllThere]

I am in favour of questioning the status quo.

Just because we have always done something it does not mean we should continue to do it (and by we I mean the Human Race not the UK)

Yes, and that's an admirable position to hold. But in this case to change the status quo will require the agreement of all members of the WTO, and even if they were keen to help out the UK, it would still not go into effect until some time after Brexit is supposed to happen.

I would have though that as a contractor you'd have at least a tenuous grasp on what contracts/treaties/legal agreements are, and what negotiation is.

[darmstadt]

There only needs to be a border because current traditional thinking means that for some reason a line drawn on a map has some form of real world equivalent.

Why do we need a hard border?

The UK currently has a 'semi-hard' border with Europe but that hasn't stopped Brexiters moaning about immigration, imagine if there was no border

[Eirikur]

We should always question the status quo. How else would we have evolved technologically to where we are to day. Why do we have or need mobile phones when the standard desk/landline phone worked (to quote yourself) "fine for everybody" for years and years.

As with any process individuals/organisations will find ways of making it work for them. It doesn't mean that that process is right, it just means it has been made to work. Another process will work better for some than others. there is no "one-size fit all". What we need is a border that is fit for our future trading of goods and services bearing in mind that they might not be the same goods and services as they are now.

We're talking about jobs and people's livelihoods here not about mobiles or commercial organisations.

[Yorkie62]

Why to give up a status quo that works fine for everybody and go to an unknown status which nobody knows what it will look like and what it will mean for them (except some hedgefund managers such as JRM)

We should always question the status quo. How else would we have evolved technologically to where we are to day. Why do we have or need mobile phones when the standard desk/landline phone worked (to quote yourself) "fine for everybody" for years and years.

As with any process individuals/organisations will find ways of making it work for them. It doesn't mean that that process is right, it just means it has been made to work. Another process will work better for some than others. there is no "one-size fit all". What we need is a border that is fit for our future trading of goods and services bearing in mind that they might not be the same goods and services as they are now.

[Eirikur]

I am in favour of questioning the status quo.

Just because we have always done something it does not mean we should continue to do it (and by we I mean the Human Race not the UK)

Why to give up a status quo that works fine for everybody and go to an unknown status which nobody knows what it will look like and what it will mean for them (except some hedgefund managers such as JRM)

[original PM]

Of course, the WTO legal framework could, if all parties are willing, be modified to remove the need for a hard border, but if we leave the EU without a deal, then we fall back to WTO rules, which say there must be a hard border.

Clear enough?

Or are you in favour of leaving the WTO and the EU? Brexit+.

I am in favour of questioning the status quo.

Just because we have always done something it does not mean we should continue to do it (and by we I mean the Human Race not the UK)

[NotAllThere]

There only needs to be a border because current traditional thinking means that for some reason a line drawn on a map has some form of real world equivalent.

Why do we need a hard border?

Of course, the WTO legal framework could, if all parties are willing, be modified to remove the need for a hard border, but if we leave the EU without a deal, then we fall back to WTO rules, which say there must be a hard border.

Clear enough?

Or are you in favour of leaving the WTO and the EU? Brexit+.

[Yorkie62]

The solution is simple.

We build a wall and charge the EU £39bn to pay for it. No hard or soft border, just a wall with no passage through. We could even use or new free trade agreement with Donald to get him supply knowledge and IP on wall building.