No Deal it is, then. :rubshands:

[Peter]

For whom is it a problem, p? To the EU and their precious, sanctified single market - not to us.

If they want to impose a border, let them.

Hang on, I thought we were jumping up and down with excitement about being in control of our own borders.... apart from that one?

Wont all the nasty foreigners just land in Dublin and then enter the UK in the North before slowly making their way to your neighbourhood, and mine?

[Burney]

Hang on, I thought we were jumping up and down with excitement about being in control of our own borders.... apart from that one?

Wont all the nasty foreigners just land in Dublin and then enter the UK in the North before slowly making their way to your neighbourhood, and mine?

Err...we would be in control of our borders. We'd be choosing to keep that one open - or not. And then we'd be entitled to set our own immigration and naturalisation laws that could control such things.

[Peter]

Err...we would be in control of our borders. We'd be choosing to keep that one open - or not. And then we'd be entitled to set our own immigration and naturalisation laws that could control such things.

So we would exercise our control of our border by not having a border? That makes a lot of sense

And how do you go about enforcing an immigration law without a border?

I believe others have considered some sort of wall in similar scenarios....

[Burney]

So we would exercise our control of our border by not having a border? That makes a lot of sense

And how do you go about enforcing an immigration law without a border?

I believe others have considered some sort of wall in similar scenarios....

First, you prevent them coming by making it not worth their while - no rights to employment, housing, welfare or health provision, etc, etc (as we'll be free to do when not in the EU). They'll soon fùck off back to the Republic - and if they don't, you physically deport them.
Also, you can impose stringent identity checks on such migrants to tell you who is or isn't in your country and severely limit their rights. They can also be prevented from travelling from NI to the mainland (as we used to with certain people during the Troubles).

[Peter]

First, you prevent them coming by making it not worth their while - no rights to employment, housing, welfare or health provision, etc, etc (as we'll be free to do when not in the EU). They'll soon fùck off back to the Republic - and if they don't, you physically deport them.
Also, you can impose stringent identity checks on such migrants to tell you who is or isn't in your country and severely limit their rights. They can also be prevented from travelling from NI to the mainland (as we used to with certain people during the Troubles).

This does raise the broader point of an effective border between the Republic and the rest of the UK, a border which has never really existed in any modern sense. This means I am going to have to show my passport tothat **** at Stansted. He is going to love this....

What you are really doing is leaving Northern Ireland open and keeping a mainland border. If a hard border on the island is unacceptable then this really is the only option.

I still dont see why this has to mean no deal. It sounds like *******s to me.

[Burney]

This does raise the broader point of an effective border between the Republic and the rest of the UK, a border which has never really existed in any modern sense. This means I am going to have to show my passport tothat **** at Stansted. He is going to love this....

What you are really doing is leaving Northern Ireland open and keeping a mainland border. If a hard border on the island is unacceptable then this really is the only option.

I still dont see why this has to mean no deal. It sounds like *******s to me.

As with any 'intractable' diplomatic problem, it simply screams out for a fudge in which one thing is said and quite another done. So either an 'open' border which is actually manned or a 'hard' border that is not enforced. Unfortunately, there does seem to be too little flexibility or subtlety being shown by either side to achieve such a thing.

[Peter]

As with any 'intractable' diplomatic problem, it simply screams out for a fudge in which one thing is said and quite another done. So either an 'open' border which is actually manned or a 'hard' border that is not enforced. Unfortunately, there does seem to be too little flexibility or subtlety being shown by either side to achieve such a thing.

Why cant they all just **** off and get on with it? Border, no border, who gives a ****.

Bunch of whining ****s.

[Pat Vegas]

So we would exercise our control of our border by not having a border? That makes a lot of sense

And how do you go about enforcing an immigration law without a border?

I believe others have considered some sort of wall in similar scenarios....

Keep NI open but have all people coming to the mainland subject to full customs.

[Burney]

Keep NI open but have all people coming to the mainland subject to full customs.

This is what will almost certainly happen anyway. it's not as if we've never treated NI as an effectively separate country in the past anyway. We treat it as a special case all the time.

[IUFG]

This is what will almost certainly happen anyway. it's not as if we've never treated NI as an effectively separate country in the past anyway. We treat it as a special case all the time.

Do adverts (especially those regarding insurance) still say "...excludes Northern Ireland"

I don't see too many adverts nowadays...