EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[furnessvale]

How so? To get to Ireland (to then get across the border into NI) they'd either need to get onto a ferry or a flight both of which will be subject to full immigration checks requiring ID and travel documents. Failing that it would require stowing away on a flight or ship which is certainly not impossible but neither is it particularly easy. I'd suggest that this is not a particularly easy way of sneaking into the country!!

So how will that route be any easier AFTER Brexit?

 

[ainsworth74]

So how will that route be any easier AFTER Brexit?

Dunno! I don't think it will be!

 

[edwin_m]

I think the issue is that people who have right of free movement in the EU can travel to Ireland and cross the border to get into the UK. They can do that now, although there is no good reason to because free movement also allows travel direct to the UK. But in the future the UK may want to exclude those people. So in fact not allowing free movement esssentially requires a hard border.

 

[mmh]

So how will that route be any easier AFTER Brexit?

This is one of the crucial things remainers obsessed by Ireland as the spanner in the works can never answer. It would be no less or more easy than now.

 

[EM2]

This is one of the crucial things remainers obsessed by Ireland as the spanner in the works can never answer. It would be no less or more easy than now.

There's no way of knowing. But history tells us how it was in the past, and there's every reason to think that it will be again, *if* the UK's departure from the EU does not respect the Good Friday Agreement.
http://www.irishborderlands.com/living/customs/index.html

Though the political partition of Ireland occurred in 1920-1 the border became more significant both as a symbol of separation and as practical reality following the creation of the customs barrier in 1923 which financially separated the Irish Free State from Northern Ireland and the British State. A system of duties payable on the movement of goods between the two jurisdictions was put in place and with it a whole new set of arrangements for the regulation of the movement of people and goods across the border, that involved paperwork, permits, custom points, practices of inspection and officially approved routes for travel.

In order to make a system of checking effective, people moving goods for personal use or sale were required to cross the border at a series of official designated crossing place where their goods could be checked. These 'Approved Frontier Crossing Points' and approved routes on the existing road network were agreed between the British and Irish custom authorities. Those bringing goods across the border were required to use these routes at the approved daytime hours. Some roads near approved crossing points were also blocked at this stage but most other roads remained open for people travelling on foot.

However, car travel was prohibited on them and people using these routes could be subject to checks and penalties from patrolling customs officers. These fifteen routes and crossing points remained in place for over six decades. With their associated custom stations, known was 'frontier posts', 'frontier stations' or locally as 'custom huts', on either side, they became an established and significant aspect of the border Customs officers on both sides were responsible for checking what people were bringing with them as they crossed the border and imposing duties when appropriate. People were required to keep up with changes in the lists of what goods were subject to duties and the nature of any allowances or exclusions.

In addition the routes of the railway network at the time of partition frequently crossed the border and a new system for interrupting cross border train journeys for the examination of the goods being transported by individuals or in bulk to supply retailers was established. The difficulties of running railways services under these conditions contributed to the closure of the railway lines that crossed the border. Only the cross-border railway service between Dublin and Belfast survived the closures of the 1950s. These closures had serious consequences for the patterns of work, trade and travel that had developed round the railway network and increased the isolation of the borderlands.

Therefore, until the early 1990s every journey across the border on foot, bicycle, cart, car or train could be subject to some form of inspection either at customs points or by custom patrols. As travelling with some form of shopping is such a routine part of everyday life, the requirement to use approved routes or be subject to penalties meant that most travel in the borderlands had to be planned around using the approved crossing points. This system resulted in three of the key features of borderland life – firstly the experience of being checked by customs officers either side of the border; secondly, people’s efforts to avoid restrictions on or duties payable on the goods they brought with them across the border by smuggling goods across; and thirdly the much longer journeys many people faced in order to cross at an approved route much further away rather than the unapproved routes near by.

The movement of motor vehicles was also regulated after April 1925. Those travelling across the border by car or van were required to obtain authorised pass for travel known as a 'triptyque' or bond in the form of an annual deposit. Acquiring one could be time consuming, difficult and expensive especially for those who lived in the Free State (and later Republic) and needed to have their bond guaranteed by a ratepaying resident in Northern Ireland.

Drivers were required to have a pass book stamped on crossing the border either way and to either do so during daytime hours or pay to cross and be officially stamped back across the border at a specified requested time. Those who failed to have their car pass stamped on the way back across the border could have their vehicle confiscated. This system of regulating car travel also became an established feature of borderland life. Vehicles owners were also required to make sure their vehicles were taxed and insured for travel on both sides of the border.

 

[Howardh]

I'm in Gibraltar right now and I haven't seen the tanker. Mind you I've other things to do. Strangely as it's an EU thing, Gibraltar isn't in the EU. Also for the beginning of August there's a nippy wind off the sea. Tried to swim in it, bloody cold. Might be the mediterranean but too !uch Atlantic influence.

 

[Howardh]

This is one of the crucial things remainers obsessed by Ireland as the spanner in the works can never answer. It would be no less or more easy than now.

Eh??? Right now Ireland works and prospers and is peaceful.only complete dimwits would start imposing hard borders and set both sides back 30 years and reigninite the troubles.

Still, there's plenty of those in the Tories.

 

[Howardh]

I think the issue is that people who have right of free movement in the EU can travel to Ireland and cross the border to get into the UK. They can do that now, although there is no good reason to because free movement also allows travel direct to the UK. But in the future the UK may want to exclude those people. So in fact not allowing free movement esssentially requires a hard border.

Absolutely. It isn't an issue today as EU's have a right to enter through any UK port. Once we start filtering then the ones we should exclude will alter their plans to come via Ireland.
Although why anyone ahoush want to come here after Brexit defeats me.

 

[Struner]

At anchor in Gibraltar roads

 

[mmh]

There's no way of knowing.

Other than all of the UK, Ireland and the EU saying they've no intention to change anything. Who is proposing any changes?

But history tells us how it was in the past

Don't be so coy. What does history tell us?

and there's every reason to think that it will be again, *if* the UK's departure from the EU does not respect the Good Friday Agreement.
http://www.irishborderlands.com/living/customs/index.html

And again, this is a flawed remain tactic. Using Ireland as a weapon, a threat, a convenient problem to be capitalised on.

 

[Killingworth]

Absolutely. It isn't an issue today as EU's have a right to enter through any UK port. Once we start filtering then the ones we should exclude will alter their plans to come via Ireland.
Although why anyone ahoush want to come here after Brexit defeats me.

On hard and soft borders you need to look at some others in Europe. Before Schengen, and with supposed border controls across Europe, I drove without hindrance into or out of France from Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. My family thought it a bit odd seeking out all the obscure crossing points but it could be done. To Czechoslovakia from Germany and then to Austria however we used the approved routes and had door panels removed from the car!

Today if you go to Tromso in the north of Norway you'll find Romanian beggars on the streets even in winter. The determined will always find a way through, most especially if they can afford to pay.

 

[Esker-pades]

Other than all of the UK, Ireland and the EU saying they've no intention to change anything. Who is proposing any changes?



Don't be so coy. What does history tell us?



And again, this is a flawed remain tactic. Using Ireland as a weapon, a threat, a convenient problem to be capitalised on.

If you (or anyone for that matter) can show that there is a way for the UK and Republic of Ireland (EU) to have different customs laws but no border checks between:

• The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland
• Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK
• The Republic of Ireland and the rest of the European Union

then I would be genuinely interested. So far, the people who tell us that it is possible have provided no detail, just "there will be no hard border in Ireland" repeated on a loop. I can't see a solution, and I have never been given or seen an answer which contains detail.

I don't want a no-deal Brexit to be as awful as all the evidence suggests. That's because I prioritise my quality of life above my ego. If we leave with no-deal, and it's fine, then the worst I'll have to put up with is people like you (IE: people who wanted to leave the EU) banging on about how right they were and how I was a <insert pejorative here>. I'd rather that then food shortages.

 

[krus_aragon]

This is one of the crucial things remainers obsessed by Ireland as the spanner in the works can never answer. It would be no less or more easy than now.

It's certainly a circuitous route for people to travel from France to Ireland in order to walk into the UK. As said, in order to sneak yourself in that way you'd need to hide on a truck or somesuch, which appears to be the method used to cross the English Channel too. I don't think that this route is much of an issue for people smuggling (though I can't claim to be that well informed on the matter).

To my eye, the root issue is with the transport of goods. If the UK no longer follows EU laws, one could import some beef, dishwashers, cigarettes or somesuch into the UK that either doesn't meet the EU's legal standards, or just has had a different import tariff charged on it. What's to stop an individual from then driving those goods over the border and selling them on? (The same issue could arise in the other direction, too.)

An open, unchecked border between nations of differing standards is going to result in smuggling, either of sub-standard goods or of goods that haven't had the correct import duties paid to the government.

The border has been open for the free passage of people since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1923. There was no free passage of goods (until 1993), so when crossing the border you had to cross at an authorised customs post where the contents of your car/van/shopping bag was checked. While in earlier years you could get away with driving (or walking) along a quiet back-road instead, these routes were progressively closed down during the Troubles, funnelling everyone into the checkpoints. So even though there was a right of free passage for people, in practice you still needed to queue up and get your goods inspected.

The free passage of goods started in 1993 because all EU member states stopped inspecting goods on "internal" borders on that date. A few years later, along came the Good Friday Agreement, the end of the Troubles, and the normalisation of life for those in Northern Ireland. The peace is still fragile, however, and both sides agree that reintroducing border controls could reignite conflict. Those that lived through the Troubles have little desire to see them return.

 

[EM2]

Other than all of the UK, Ireland and the EU saying they've no intention to change anything. Who is proposing any changes?

If no-one is proposing any changes, why have they been negotiating on it for three years?! What is the backstop if it's not a change?

Don't be so coy. What does history tell us?

It tells us that pre-GFA, it was not a soft border.

And again, this is a flawed remain tactic. Using Ireland as a weapon, a threat, a convenient problem to be capitalised on.

Why is it flawed? This is how life was, even when both states were members of the EU. What will be different when one state isn't? If you want to control migration, and have 'control of our own borders', as we keep hearing from Leave voters, it needs to work.
If it doesn't, you'll have no control at all.

 

[thejuggler]

Today if you go to Tromso in the north of Norway you'll find Romanian beggars on the streets even in winter. The determined will always find a way through, most especially if they can afford to pay.

You don't need any determination to get from Romania to Norway. Norway allows free movement under EFTA.

 

[AM9]

In the Telegraph today (a hard-line leaver's paper), news of a warning from the US that if the UK introduce a 2% tax on profits from UK business of global tech companies to add to their virtually zero current tax bills, they will refuse to negotiate any trade deals with the UK. Only those besotted with leaving at any cost couldn't have seen that one coming.
Now if a body with 57% more population than the US and 97% of their current GDP decided to impose such a tax, does anybody here think that the bullies in the US would be so uncompromising?

 

[krus_aragon]

In the Telegraph today (a hard-line leaver's paper), news of a warning from the US that if the UK introduce a 2% tax on profits from UK business of global tech companies to add to their virtually zero current tax bills, they will refuse to negotiate any trade deals with the UK. Only those besotted with leaving at any cost couldn't have seen that one coming.
Now if a body with 57% more population than the US and 97% of their current GDP decided to impose such a tax, does anybody here think that the bullies in the US would be so uncompromising?

Generally, no. But their current President hasn't seen fit to compromise much with a number of other countries on trade matters.

 

[Bantamzen]

In the Telegraph today (a hard-line leaver's paper), news of a warning from the US that if the UK introduce a 2% tax on profits from UK business of global tech companies to add to their virtually zero current tax bills, they will refuse to negotiate any trade deals with the UK. Only those besotted with leaving at any cost couldn't have seen that one coming.
Now if a body with 57% more population than the US and 97% of their current GDP decided to impose such a tax, does anybody here think that the bullies in the US would be so uncompromising?

The bottom line is that any deal with the current US administration will only be brokered if the US gets to flood the UK with their crappiest produce, so that Trump can use it next year in his re-election campaign. There is no scenario right now where we will genuinely be better off under a new deal post Brexit.

 

[Doppelganger]

Saw this on twitter. I think it's a great analog.

 

[furnessvale]

Saw this on twitter. I think it's a great analog.

Great analogy but each side thinks the others have voted for the bombs!

 

[Doppelganger]

Great analogy but each side thinks the others have voted for the bombs!

I won't disagree with that, but it goes to show how entrenched each side are.

That said, saying we'll survive Brexit is a far cry to all those who claimed the UK would thrive!

 

[Howardh]

On hard and soft borders you need to look at some others in Europe. Before Schengen, and with supposed border controls across Europe, I drove without hindrance into or out of France from Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. My family thought it a bit odd seeking out all the obscure crossing points but it could be done. To Czechoslovakia from Germany and then to Austria however we used the approved routes and had door panels removed from the car!

Today if you go to Tromso in the north of Norway you'll find Romanian beggars on the streets even in winter. The determined will always find a way through, most especially if they can afford to pay.

Romanians don't have to be quite so determined as Norway has freedom of movement with the EU.

 

[Killingworth]

Romanians don't have to be quite so determined as Norway has freedom of movement with the EU.

Echo of thejuggler there!

That, of course, is one of the options we seem to have chosen to avoid.

Back in 2016 my two regular walking partners and I debated Brexit over many weeks. At least one of us felt that with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have joined. The advantages of not being in now were certainly quite convincing, but not overwhelmingly so. We were split, one for in, one for out and one sitting on the fence.

As the referendum date approached the fence sitter was starting to see the practical difficulties to leave. The effects on the European economy and the kick back to Britain was thought through. We became 2:1 to remain. We looked at various long, reasoned and well sourced reports and analysis. There was a wavering. The week before the vote we all agreed. Remain was right. Today all are totally in agreement, we should never have had such a vote.

It has been 3 years of wasted time when there's so much that has been neglected. The rest of Europe has been distracted too, something we seem to overlook in Britain.

All this has consequences. By having the vote with such a close result we've diminished ourselves. We're spending time fighting each other, and to those outside, the rest of Europe. That will have long term costs however it ends.

My eldest grandsons are too young to vote, but old enough and intelligent enough to understand what's going on. Their parents are having to prepare to manage the fall out.

I'm sick of hearing that old people are responsible for bringing this about, as though all voted in favour of a return to an idyllic period in the 1950s. 1956? I well remember the national humiliation during and after Suez.

Whichever party wrote a referendum into its manifesto, then honoured it, thinks it's done well. Another party decided to have an open election for a leader, and elected their champion serial voter against the party whip. A man to champion any cause, but with no history of managing anything. A third middle party? Evaporated.

There's no easy way out. I hope my children and grandchildren, and yours, can make the best of it. Good luck, think I'll go back to discussing trains.

 

[krus_aragon]

Echo of thejuggler there!

That, of course, is one of the options we seem to have chosen to avoid.

Back in 2016 my two regular walking partners and I debated Brexit over many weeks. At least one of us felt that with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have joined. The advantages of not being in now were certainly quite convincing, but not overwhelmingly so. We were split, one for in, one for out and one sitting on the fence.

As the referendum date approached the fence sitter was starting to see the practical difficulties to leave. The effects on the European economy and the kick back to Britain was thought through. We became 2:1 to remain. We looked at various long, reasoned and well sourced reports and analysis. There was a wavering. The week before the vote we all agreed. Remain was right. Today all are totally in agreement, we should never have had such a vote.

It has been 3 years of wasted time when there's so much that has been neglected. The rest of Europe has been distracted too, something we seem to overlook in Britain.

All this has consequences. By having the vote with such a close result we've diminished ourselves. We're spending time fighting each other, and to those outside, the rest of Europe. That will have long term costs however it ends.

My eldest grandsons are too young to vote, but old enough and intelligent enough to understand what's going on. Their parents are having to prepare to manage the fall out.

I'm sick of hearing that old people are responsible for bringing this about, as though all voted in favour of a return to an idyllic period in the 1950s. 1956? I well remember the national humiliation during and after Suez.

Whichever party wrote a referendum into its manifesto, then honoured it, thinks it's done well. Another party decided to have an open election for a leader, and elected their champion serial voter against the party whip. A man to champion any cause, but with no history of managing anything. A third middle party? Evaporated.

There's no easy way out. I hope my children and grandchildren, and yours, can make the best of it. Good luck, think I'll go back to discussing trains.

A pleasant post to read, thank you.

I suspect from your post that I'm one generation below you. Looking one generation up in my family, my Father was resolutely in favour of remaining, and was hopping mad at the result, becrying "it's impossible, they'll never manage to leave". My parents in law, having listened to both sides of the debate in the media, felt that neither side had been able to make a good case for their position, and consciously chose to withhold their votes.

 

[edwin_m]

It's certainly a circuitous route for people to travel from France to Ireland in order to walk into the UK. As said, in order to sneak yourself in that way you'd need to hide on a truck or somesuch, which appears to be the method used to cross the English Channel too. I don't think that this route is much of an issue for people smuggling (though I can't claim to be that well informed on the matter).

If it's an open border there are no passport checks so, unless subject to some sort of spot check, absolutely anyone can cross it by any means with no paperwork whatever.

To my eye, the root issue is with the transport of goods. If the UK no longer follows EU laws, one could import some beef, dishwashers, cigarettes or somesuch into the UK that either doesn't meet the EU's legal standards, or just has had a different import tariff charged on it. What's to stop an individual from then driving those goods over the border and selling them on? (The same issue could arise in the other direction, too.)

An open, unchecked border between nations of differing standards is going to result in smuggling, either of sub-standard goods or of goods that haven't had the correct import duties paid to the government.

Absolutely. Certain people in Ireland made a good deal of money by smuggling over the hard border, and much of this cash was used to fund terrorism. This would be much easier with a soft border. For example, if chlorinated chicken was allowed in the UK under a future US trade agreement it could be moved into Ireland and on into the rest of the EU to undercut the local product produced to higher standards.

Echo of thejuggler there!
I'm sick of hearing that old people are responsible for bringing this about, as though all voted in favour of a return to an idyllic period in the 1950s. 1956? I well remember the national humiliation during and after Suez.

It also seems to escape some people's attention that in the mid-70s around the time we joined the EU the UK was in a horrendous state, having to be bailed out by the IMF. While it's certainly not been plain sailing since then, I don't think may people could honestly disagree that in the 45 years since our membership the economy and the country as a whole are in a much better state.

 

[krus_aragon]

If it's an open border there are no passport checks so, unless subject to some sort of spot check, absolutely anyone can cross it by any means with no paperwork whatever.

My mention of sneaking was in reference to the ferry from France to Ireland. I believe you need to show some form of identification for that (like Holyhead-Dublin, or crossing the English Channel).

Going from the Republic to Northern Ireland is currently trivial, but our imaginary migrant would have to get into Ireland first.

 

[Killingworth]

A pleasant post to read, thank you.

I suspect from your post that I'm one generation below you. Looking one generation up in my family, my Father was resolutely in favour of remaining, and was hopping mad at the result, becrying "it's impossible, they'll never manage to leave". My parents in law, having listened to both sides of the debate in the media, felt that neither side had been able to make a good case for their position, and consciously chose to withhold their votes.

My mother in law was born in 1921 and voted to remain. All her friends, all by then a little younger, seem to have voted to leave. She couldn't argue with them, it wasn't polite with friends. However she'd been an army staff car driver during WW2 and had travelled widely, including near Sheffield when it was bombed and on the Isle of Wight in 1944. We only got a few clues as to who she drove, sworn to secrecy.

Her take was that at 95 her first 25 years had all been the acrimonious residue of WW1 and the preparations for, and participation in, WW2. The last 70 years had been peaceful in Europe, the exceptions being the break up of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union - and efforts to break up Northern Iraland and potentially Spain.

She's no longer with us, but it's wrong to blame many older people who did not vote to leave. On the other hand all younger people didn't vote to remain. And a lot were indeed totally confused, baffled and incredulous of all the campaigning activity from both sides. When a senior member of the government tells us not to believe experts it's no surprise we're in a mess.

 

[radamfi]

It also seems to escape some people's attention that in the mid-70s around the time we joined the EU the UK was in a horrendous state, having to be bailed out by the IMF. While it's certainly not been plain sailing since then, I don't think may people could honestly disagree that in the 45 years since our membership the economy and the country as a whole are in a much better state.

I still have a children's world atlas that I got in 1982. It has a map of Europe showing the GDP per capita of each country. The UK had the third lowest GDP per capita in the EEC, only Ireland and Italy were lower. Most EEC countries had a GDP per capita at least 50% higher than the UK.

 

[Killingworth]

Very interesting piece in the Brexit loving Express. They publish a map showing Job losses per member state in case of no deal Brexit. See:Brexit shock: Why Brussels believes Boris will blink first - 'This humiliation must end!' It's from the University of Leuven so has a European bias no doubt, however it's totally believable where the worst effects are likely to be - the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Denmark.

5 smaller states out of the block of 27 remaining to be supported but we're on our own. Good plan. It'll all be alright on the night. It had better be. Some shock.


.

 

[Typhoon]

My mother in law was born in 1921 and voted to remain. ...

Her take was that at 95 her first 25 years had all been the acrimonious residue of WW1 and the preparations for, and participation in, WW2. The last 70 years had been peaceful in Europe, the exceptions being the break up of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union - and efforts to break up Northern Ireland and potentially Spain.

She's no longer with us, but it's wrong to blame many older people who did not vote to leave. On the other hand all younger people didn't vote to remain. And a lot were indeed totally confused, baffled and incredulous of all the campaigning activity from both sides. When a senior member of the government tells us not to believe experts it's no surprise we're in a mess.

Two voices of sanity - your mother in law and you. Your mother in law for looking beyond the immediate self-gain - whether it was Leave or Remain - and considering the implications of their action. You for not treating whole swathes of people as the same.

The underlined section - these people face fifty years of voting - or not. I suspect following their experiences both at the time of the referendum and since it may be the latter in many cases. My mother was of a similar age, and experience, to your mother-in-law, always voted, even once when their was a thunderstorm, and in person until a few years ago I persuaded her to apply for a postal vote. I suspect many younger people will not show such dedication, not least because of the poor example that was shown three years ago and continues to be shown today.

This is not our finest hour.