The EU and the Irish Border.

[Geo-atkinson 10]

The EU have plenty of exerience dealing with land borders with None member countries. All along the eastern side of the EU Member states border non member countries with varying degrees of access for thousands of miles so dealing with a border with the Republic of Ireland would be nothing to them.

 

However, if the open borders agreement succeeds and it looks as though it will, and there is to be no hard border with Great Britain for goods and people because the whole country is to accept the customs union and free movement, then haven't we just not unjoined the EU via the back door?

[L00b 441]

You seem to be the one trolling by implying a vote to trigger Article 50 is the same as voting in the referendum to leave the EU.

I'm not implying anything: the referendum was advisory and not legally binding at all, the Parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50 was legally binding, and it is the triggering Article 50 which automatically kicks the UK out of the EU after 2 years no matter what, nothing else.

 

So yes, it is the democratically-elected Members of Parliament who, exercising the full prerogative of Parliament's sovereignty, by democratically voting 494 to 122 for triggering Article 50 under the standard constitutional requirements and due process of the UK, effectively Brexited the UK in February 2017. Not voters who simply expressed a preference out of a binary choice in the opinion poll of June 2016.

 

I'd have thought you'd be aware and glad of the fact.

 

But then I was trolling, eh? PMSL!

[Annie Bynnol 612]

40 non-EU countries have a border with an EU member state.

 

Thousands of miles of these borders have no checkpoints, barriers, or customs points.

 

Perhaps the EU might learn from these member states which already have stable open borders?

 

Is this a quiz on borders?

Question: Name "40 non-EU countries have a border with an EU member state."

I can think of 15 16 17 non-EU countries with borders with the EU.

Of which Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, Lichtenstein have open borders of a few not 400 miles between them. Are we really going to ask them for advice?

 

The others: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro? and Morocco all have customs, immigration and border forces, some are UN and some are NATO fortified.

 

Switzerland and Norway are in Schengen and EEU and you can just walk across the border with your local ID.

Any analogy with the ROI/UK border, its history, hidden and open agreements, 1993 EU compliance, etc. is silly.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:10 ----------

 

The EU have plenty of exerience dealing with land borders with None member countries. All along the eastern side of the EU Member states border non member countries with varying degrees of access for thousands of miles so dealing with a border with the Republic of Ireland would be nothing to them.

 

However, if the open borders agreement succeeds and it looks as though it will, and there is to be no hard border with Great Britain for goods and people because the whole country is to accept the customs union and free movement, then haven't we just not unjoined the EU via the back door?

 

Individual states manage their EU and non-EU borders as they wish and in varying compliance with their commitment to UN, NATO, EU, EFTA, EEU, Schengen and bilateral agreements and unilateral decisions often surrounding migration and duty criminality.

As you refer to the Eastern border you may wish to remind yourself of tens of thousands of people in armed border patrols and in the NATO forces backed up by continuous electronic surveilance.

[ENG601PM 10]

I'm not implying anything: the referendum was advisory and not legally binding at all, the Parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50 was legally binding, and it is the triggering Article 50 which automatically kicks the UK out of the EU after 2 years no matter what, nothing else. :

Interesting aside;

I think that's more a tick of the UK's constitutional arrangements, I seem to remember that referenda can never be legally binding as our constitution doesn't allow it. The government of the day was very clear on implementing the outcome though, so Article 50 was a formality, not just the mechanism. All the 2nd vote and best of 3/5/7 discussions were ill informed fantasies, and let's not forget that Parliament voted to have the referendum in the first place. To ignore the outcome would have been unimaginable in the UK.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:30 ----------

 

Is this a quiz on borders?

Question: Name "40 non-EU countries have a border with an EU member state."

I can think of 15 16 17 non-EU countries with borders with the EU.

Of which Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, Lichtenstein have open borders of a few not 400 miles between them. Are we really going to ask them for advice?

 

The others: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro? and Morocco all have customs, immigration and border forces, some are UN and some are NATO fortified.

 

Switzerland and Norway are in Schengen and EEU and you can just walk across the border with your local ID.

Any analogy with the ROI/UK border, its history, hidden and open agreements, 1993 EU compliance, etc. is silly.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:10 ----------

 

 

Individual states manage their EU and non-EU borders as they wish and in varying compliance with their commitment to UN, NATO, EU, EFTA, EEU, Schengen and bilateral agreements and unilateral decisions often surrounding migration and duty criminality.

As you refer to the Eastern border you may wish to remind yourself of tens of thousands of people in armed border patrols and in the NATO forces backed up by continuous electronic surveilance.

 

It all goes to show that the UK does borderless borders really very well indeed, and has done since the Romans left. Quite why the EU thinks the UK needs advice is baffling. but it's been fascinating to see the EUrofacists demanding a hard border where none exists and none was implied.

[chalga 10]

Interesting aside;

I think that's more a tick of the UK's constitutional arrangements, I seem to remember that referenda can never be legally binding as our constitution doesn't allow it. The government of the day was very clear on implementing the outcome though, so Article 50 was a formality, not just the mechanism. All the 2nd vote and best of 3/5/7 discussions were ill informed fantasies, and let's not forget that Parliament voted to have the referendum in the first place. To ignore the outcome would have been unimaginable in the UK.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:30 ----------

 

 

It all goes to show that the UK does borderless borders really very well indeed, and has done since the Romans left. Quite why the EU thinks the UK needs advice is baffling. but it's been fascinating to see the EUrofacists demanding a hard border where none exists and none was implied.

 

The EU hasn't demanded a hard border.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

 

It all goes to show that the UK does borderless borders really very well indeed, and has done since the Romans left. Quite why the EU thinks the UK needs advice is baffling. but it's been fascinating to see the EUrofacists demanding a hard border where none exists and none was implied.

 

The EU is not advising the UK, it is acting on behalf of a member state which wants to know what the UK is going to do politically and economically. The message from the UK was/is one of political confusion and probable undue influence from a hostile political group in the north.

Hard Brexit politics requires the blame to be put on EU at all times.

That negotiations over a border where all parties were agreed from the start in principle, took so long is a sign of what will happen in the future.

 

Since the Romans left? Eurofacists? Bizarre concepts.

[L00b 441]

Interesting aside;

I think that's more a tick of the UK's constitutional arrangements, I seem to remember that referenda can never be legally binding as our constitution doesn't allow it.

You might wish to look up the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, Sections 8 and 9, for informing -and thus correcting- your belief

 

Then perhaps compare and contrast same, with the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

(or save yourself the hassle and just take my word for it: it's not as if I can modify what each Act states and does not state, is it?)

[ENG601PM 10]

You might wish to look up the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, Sections 8 and 9, for informing -and thus correcting- your belief

 

Then perhaps compare and contrast same, with the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

 

(or save yourself the hassle and just take my word for it: it's not as if I can modify what each Act states and does not state, is it?)

 

Thanks for the clarification. It seems that my recollection is partially correct, as is yours, the point of difference that for a referendum to be legal within the UK constitution a provision for it to be so needs to be engrossed in the individual referendum act. The Irish constitution was my marker with the fuss over the 'wrong decisions' on the Lisbon and Nice Treaties which required additional referenda to hammer through.

[L00b 441]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems that my recollection is partially correct, as is yours, the point of difference that for a referendum to be legal within the UK constitution a provision for it to be so needs to be engrossed in the individual referendum act. The Irish constitution was my marker with the fuss over the 'wrong decisions' on the Lisbon and Nice Treaties which required additional referenda to hammer through.

Pleasure. And some common misconceptions there.

 

The UK has no constitution.

 

Any referendum must be organised by an Act of Parliament, and its outcome can optionally be made binding through relevant section(s) of that Act. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion poll of the British electorate (a corpus of variable geometry, since defined by the Act as well), subjected to the oversight of the electoral commission.

 

The AV referendum was binding, the EU referendum was not. Them's simple and transparent facts, not subject to opinion, discussion or interpretation.

 

The Republic of Ireland has a constitution. Which specifies that any accession by the RoI to a new treaty of any sort, having the effect of impinging upon Irish constitutional rights in any way, must be approved by referendum (always binding, in that context).

 

Ireland's signing of the Lisbon treaty (which impinged upon Irish constitutional rights a fair bit) was therefore subordinated to referendum, fully in accordance with Ireland's constitutional requirements.

 

The original version of the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by referendum. The EU listened, and amended the Lisbon Treaty on the basis of the Irish feedback.

 

Signing of the amended version of the Lisbon treaty was again subordinated to referendum, fully in accordance with Ireland's constitutional requirements. And this time found to be acceptable.

 

There was no 'wrong decision' with the first Lisbon Treaty version/referendum, just the Irish decision about that first version of the Lisbon Treaty through exercising their democratic constitutional right.

 

But I can certainly appreciate how the notions of a 'wrong decision' righted with a second vote, of coercing the signing up to Lisbon out of the Irish, appeals to Europhobes and other assorted idiots (not you, I hasten to add - I'm just commenting generally about this enduring and imbecilic slogan of a 'wrong first vote').

 

I'm not really sure how that makes my recollection partically correct, but happy to clarify further for your personal edification. I happen to know a fair bit about Irish law, having qualified under same for legal practice over there in years gone by (same with UK law, plus some multinational treaties)

Edited December 8, 2017 by L00b

[El Cid 220]

As a matter of fact, they didn't: the Commons voted 494 to 122 for triggering Article 50 back in February

 

Yes, after the referendum; but before the referendum MPs were roughly 2/1 in favour of staying in the EU.

So most will the need for a soft landing.

[Lockdoctor 10]

Yes, after the referendum; but before the referendum MPs were roughly 2/1 in favour of staying in the EU.

So most will the need for a soft landing.

What you originally said was correct, El Cid. L00b seems to post too much irrelevant information.

[L00b 441]

Yes, after the referendum; but before the referendum MPs were roughly 2/1 in favour of staying in the EU.

 

So most will the need for a soft landing.

Whatever they may have believed or said "before the referendum" or since, doesn't matter one bit, what matters is what they've done and are doing: the Article 50 vote was months later, and then there was a GE which returned most MPs back to their seats unchanged. Even staunch self-professed remainers in staunch pro-Brexit constituencies.

 

I daresay most voters hadn't yet copped on at the time of the GE, that MPs had sealed in Brexit through their Article 50 vote - and by the evidence of Lockdoctor on here, probably many still haven't.

 

So I doubt "most" will need any sort of soft landing. Unless Brexit turns out truly horrible, on the scale predicted by the Treasury during the referendum campaign, of course. But by that scale, voting would be the least of anyone's concern.