How the Good Friday Agreement created an ‘all-Ireland’ economy
france24.com
france24.com
In other words, this agreement seemed to have survived Brexit.
> Today, the Schengen Area encompasses most EU countries, except for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland and Romania
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-...
I rephrase, technically I haven't needed to carry my driving license for the last several years of my driving career, but legally, I may be asked to present it at any time. I'd take the advice of the website cited above rather than believe you. I.e. you could be asked to prove that you're a UK/Irish citizen (easiest with ID or passport), and if you're a EU citizen entering the UK (the website even mentions crossing the Irish sea to enter Great Britain), you have to have a passport (although you might not be asked for it).
Before Brexit, the UK was part of the EU, and other EUians was allowed to enter it with just their ID card. So...
I mean, I don't expect this to be enforced for most travellers but I suspect if you want to stay in NI then you'll probably need to show a visa (based on current UK law).
The reverse has juxtaposed controls where you deal with both French exit controls and UK entry controls at the departure railway station.
Discussion-by-anecdote is pointless without dates etc, and a waste of time when it's easy enough to find the policy: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-pa...
I’ve been on this ferry trip post-Brexit and the only thing the border police are interested in is whether a dissident planted a bomb under your car when you weren’t looking.
The language says "may" and "should". You have to be a citizen of Ireland or the UK, and they may ask you to prove that you are. And if you're neither, you have to have a passport, but the checks may happen, or (more likely) they won't happen.
So, do you need ID as grandparent poster said, or "you don't", as you claim? The answer is... it depends. Mostly it depends whether there are checks or not. Technically I could've driven the last several thousand miles of my driving "career" without my driver's license, but legally, I could've been stopped and been asked to present it.
As per the Good Friday Agreement, this extends to the island of Ireland. In other words, you do not need to provide ID to travel between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. If you drive up the N1 / A1 dual carriageway (the main road between Dublin and Belfast), you'll see for yourself.
And on your driving license comment: in the UK, you do not need to carry your driving license with you at all. Traffic police are not going to stop you just to check you have one. Ever.
However, I suspect that this may change at some point, once the UK introduces their ESTA like scheme.
That's correct.
> However, I suspect that this may change at some point, once the UK introduces their ESTA like scheme.
No. It won't. That would violate the Good Friday Agreement.
How do you "only" check non-UK/Irish citizens? Do you listen for their accent? Do you go by skin colour? There will be no checks between Belfast/Stranraer just as there are no checks between Carlisle/Glasgow.
Here's an Irish Times article about the issue: https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/03/09/uk-amends-vis...
Looks like they've fixed the EU citizens living in Ireland crossing the border for work issue, thankfully.
The only evidence you’ve put forward contradicts what you say! You still haven’t answered a basic question:
How does Border Force check the passports of only non-UK or Irish citizens?
I have felt that way and been proven wrong so many times since 2016 that I'm hesitant to be certain of this.
I have no idea how they'll do it.
The most sensible thing to do would be to rely on the current approach (i.e. passport/visa checks by hotels/hostels/employers).
What I actually think will happen is zero enforcement till the Mail run a bunch of stories on it, and then everyone will get checked on the ferries.
Let me be very clear: the government has balked at every single initiative that would violate the Good Friday Agreement, for good reason. They’re not about to suddenly change tack here.
If the Government starting checking ferries from Belfast to Stranraer, unionists would start burning ports just like they did in 2021. You can’t provide evidence for any of your guesses because it doesn’t exist. I don’t know why you waste your time trying to continue the “debate.”
There is absolutely no need to get aggressive/annoyed.
If you don't want to engage, then leave the thread. It's not like there'll be a red bubble reminding you about it.
We're having a conversation about something that neither of us are certain about, thus there is no correct answer here.
> Let me be very clear: the government has balked at every single initiative that would violate the Good Friday Agreement, for good reason. They’re not about to suddenly change tack here.
Are we talking about the Irish government here? Cos I definitely remember the UK gov attempting to pass a whole bunch of stuff that would violate the GF/Belfast agreement since 2016. In fact, I believe that the Lords is the only reason they haven't.
> If the Government starting checking ferries from Belfast to Stranraer, unionists would start burning ports just like they did in 2021. You can’t provide evidence for any of your guesses because it doesn’t exist. I don’t know why you waste your time trying to continue the “debate.”
Perhaps, I personally wouldn't like to see it.
However, how does immigration control work if they don't? If an Albanian/Polish person can go to Dublin, cross the border and then head to the UK on a ferry and work illegally, then ultimately the UK government will have to do something. I have no special insight into what they'll do, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it involved passport/ID checking.
Lets remember that the UK government basically don't give a toss about NI, as evidenced by the last seven years post the Brexit vote.
I am certain. It. Will. Not. Happen.
How does immigration control work? It doesn’t. The Tories don’t give a fuck, never have and never will. And what does Albania have to do with anything? They’re not in the EU so they’d get stopped at the Irish border and sent back. That’s why they’re crossing the Channel; because it’s easier.
Why would a Polish person illegally come to the UK When they can just work legally anywhere in the EU?
Your arguments are full of holes because of what you said: you have no idea what you’re talking about. The best you can come up with is a bunch of stuff the Tories didn’t do.
This legislation wouldn’t even leave the Commons if they tried. Charles Walker and David Davis are only the most obvious names that would stop it.
And no, Labour have no interest in this issue whatsoever once they get into power. They have more important things to do.
The only changes Brexit brought about are Duty-Free shopping again, and I have recently - for the first time in 20 years commuting between RoI and UK - had my bag checked by Airport Customs in Ireland.
There was a very small risk that the CTA would be at risk due to Brexit so I know of some Irish people who obtained UK passports in case it did happen.
The scariest part in practice of crossing from the US to Canada, or vice-versa I presume.
The Brits should be held to account here by all parties- EU, and other trading partners - Brexit should not harm the agreement they entered freely, and has provided peace for decades.
If the U.K. wants to diverge the its regulatory regime then there must be customs checks where they differ, otherwise smuggling will thrive. Case in point, HMRC did a spot check at Dover (where customs checks are not currently applied) and found most lorries had illegal produce in them.
This entire sentence is a lie. The UK wanted a "magic invisible border" on the island of Ireland. The EU explicitly wanted no border at all on the island of Ireland.
If you're not sure how that contradicts what you said, then I'm sorry that your English comprehension education failed you.
Sounds like there are three options (I'm going to talk as if from the UK point of view):
- (1) Same customs laws + No custom checks = My sovereignty is getting violated because I can't change my laws without your permission
- (2) Different customs laws + Customs checks = We both have sovereignty and our regulations are enforced, but violent people who hate the border will attack it and kill people; that seems bad.
- (3) Different customs laws + No border = I make my own laws, and I choose to find violators at weigh stations, when pulling over people for traffic offenses, or by inspectors at the final destination (British equivalent of USDA?) I don't care enough about enforcement to check everyone, so I'm not going to make a physical border checkpoint. If you care so much about checking everyone, you're free to make a checkpoint on your own side. Your people will be the ones who do the dying when the violent border haters attack, but that's your problem. We both know border checkpoints here will cost lives, I don't think it's worth it, you do, I do what I think is right on my side, you do what you think is right on your side. That's what being different countries means, we can make different choices when different policy options involve trade-offs.
Option (3) seems pretty reasonable to me.
Only if you live in a fantasy world. The EU outright did not want this as a "solution" so they rejected it. The UK is actually doing something like this at this very moment. The result? We're currently allowing dangerous food into the country.
Your descriptions of options 1 and 2 are total nonsense from the moment you use the word "sovereignty." Nobody's sovereignty is violated by making an agreement, any more than your freedom is violated when you abide by the terms of a contract you freely agreed.
I would personally eat food that passes UK regulations (but not EU regulations), or EU regulations (but not UK regulations).
Are there reports of increased food poisoning attributed to Brexit? (I'm thinking along the lines of either an individual incident report saying "if only this meat had been inspected, it would have been pulled, and these people wouldn't have gotten sick," or a statistical study based on e.g. ER visits per capita for food poisoning symptoms.)
If there's no evidence of people actually getting sick, calling such food "dangerous" seems like fearmongering.
The food has not passed either UK or EU standards checks. EU health and customs bodies do not check food destined for the UK market. And neither do the UK equivalents.
Here is the newspaper report where the spot check was carried out: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/uk-risks-food-safety...
So yes, there is evidence that the food is dangerous.
Bitterness aside, the island being split in two makes no sense from an outsider.
This is an island smaller than Ohio with five million people on it - people with a shared history going back many hundreds of years and seeming to not want to be separated.
Brexit threw a wrench in the idea of a seamless border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. You either have a customs border between the islands of Ireland and GB, or you have a customs border between the Republic and the North. I don't see how it feasibly goes any other way, and neither of those make all parties happy.
Many people in Northern Ireland—a narrow majority at the moment—consider themselves to be British and do not want to be separated from the UK. That's why it's such a tricky problem.
Not saying you don't have a point (I have no skin in the game) but I read thousands of similar western comments about various countries "smaller than $state!" and they're never helpful.
You see, people sometimes use familiar locations or factual references to draw comparisons to other items or places.