Talk:Brexit and the Irish border

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little/no physical infrastructure?[edit]

I have to question whether there is at present any border infrastructure as such, little or otherwise. Compare, for example, with the border between England and Scotland. There are big signs saying "Welcome to Scotland" "to England". The road numbering changes from M6 to A74M and the junction numbering changes from counting up from M1J19 to down to M8J22. No doubt there are the usual speed cameras. There may even be surveillance cameras in case someone steals the Gretna Green sign. Is that "border infrastructure"? I don't think so.

So looking [via Google Street view, I've never been there!] at the Irish border, there are even fewer such markers. On the N1/A1, the margin lines changed from dashed amber to continuous white. There are signs advising motorists of that speed limits are in kph or mph as the case may be. That's it. No red/white barriers, no document inspection, no customs, nada. So essentially the same - just like Belgium/Netherlands, Italy/France. So it seems to me that the article should say "no" infrastructure. So I'll change it to "little or no" as a reasonable compromise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal alert[edit]

Users Ahdjd and Naficki (if different people) seem to be just vandals: their interventions contain too many types of error, of reasoning and of language, to be products of mere eccentricity. If they continue, they should be blocked. Wikiain (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start due process, I have left a template:uw-disruptive1 warning on both their talk pages. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wikiain (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of user:Borcker. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal is back again using floating IPs. Is it time to request an authentication block for a month or three? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the article be semi-protected and this has been done but for a shorter period. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit & the British/Irish border[edit]

I can't find any sources, but it would be interesting if we can put into the article, exactly how the EU can force a hard border. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As does the UK. World Trade Organisation rules: all members have to be treated alike unless they have a bilateral free trade agreement. So if the UK has an open border to one member (the EU, for example), they have to open it to all others – China for example. The same applies to the EU, mutatis mutandis – and it applies equally at Dover/Calais and Folkestone/Rotterdam. I've seen that online somewhere, keep looking. The keywords are WTO and "most favoured nation". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But do we have a source that show where the European Union can move in any military & force the British & Irish to do what they want? GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be a question of military force, "only" of economic and political sanctions. But a source would still be needed here. Wikiain (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The EU risking the wrath of Ireland, would be an interesting development indeed. But yes, a source would be required. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will find no credible source saying such a thing outside conspiracy theories and unreliable sources like the Telegraph,Express, HuffPost. It is self-evidently arrant nonsense since each member state at the edge of the Union is responsible for its own borders and thus the EU external border of the Union. The EU is not a federation, there is no Federal government and no federal border force to take such action. Edge states may (and have) requested and received assistance from fellow states only when the pressure of numbers has been excessive. For example, many members [including the UK] have contributed naval forces to support Italy against people traffickers from North Africa. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The EU is an association of member states, of which Ireland is one - is it to attack itself? The EU starts in Donegal and Orkney, not Calais. If the UK walks away from its international obligations, the wrath will be directed at London, not Paris, Rome or Warsaw. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-irish-border-hard-backstop-theresa-may-withdrawal-good-friday-agreement-a8740676.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.197.160 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This correctly states that no-deal implies WTO terms which mean that, unless each wants to drop all controls world-wide, each side has to have customs controls on all its borders. The only exception is for explicit free trade agreements. So no-deal means hard borders and anyone in London, Dublin or Belfast who says otherwise is either lying or deluded. The question was whether Ireland can be "forced" to do it. I suppose the correct answer would be yes but economically, not by military force. But all this is hypothetical arm-chair general stuff, surely sanity will prevail. Per WP:CRYSTAL, there is no basis for this to go in the article. Yet.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background: brexit vote in NI[edit]

I reverted a good faith edit by an IP editor who pointed out (in #Reactions) that NI had voted remain: it was unsourced (though true) and in the wrong place. But the article should mention that, probably in the background section. I would do it but don't have time to track down the citation, so could someone else oblige? Maybe also opinion polls that say that NI would vote to join the RoI if there is a hard brexit with hard border? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some text for the first point but not the second. As usual,feel free to edit.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Brexit and the Irish border at this time, per the discussion below, with a redirect also created at Irish border and Brexit. Dekimasuよ! 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irish border question → Irish border and Brexit – The Brexit Irish border question is *a" question, not "the" question. The whole Partition of Ireland since the Ulster crisis of 1912 is a succession of "Irish border questions". jnestorius(talk) 12:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fully agree, except that I'd reverse it to Brexit and the Irish border, to foreground the context of Brexit. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I put "Irish border" first is that is saves a "the" in the title. Either is OK. jnestorius(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree and also prefer the reversal, since Brexit is the reason why there is a question now. Wikiain (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Per jnestorius, there were "border questions" throughout the 20th century (1912, 1917, 1922, 1924/25 and subsequently). The title here should reflect the scope of the article/subject. Being the most recent 21st century "Brexit question". This will help address the inherent/apparent WP:DAB issues. And WP:RECENTISM issues. And WP:WORLDVIEW issues. (On the latter, for example, in Ireland it isn't referred to as an "Irish" question. It is a Brexit consideration.) So long as the title includes the term Brexit, then I am less precious about what the title is. Guliolopez (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to "Brexit and the Irish border", reasons as above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but prefer "Brexit and the Northern Ireland border", or the other way around ("Northern ... and Brexit"). Using just "Irish border" or "Ireland border" seems to imply the entire national border of Ireland, when this is about the border between the RoI and NI (because "Ireland" by itself is most often taken to refer to the RoI, not to the geological landmass, unless context dictates otherwise). Regardless, I will not oppose the proposed shorter name, or the alternative reversed shorter name, because they are still improvements over the current one; I never in a bazillion years would've guessed that "Irish border question" referred to anything but the Troubles and the historical RoI/NI thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC) (revised)[reply]
  • Agree "Brexit and Irish Border". This acknowledges the specific current context of the Irish border question in light of the potential fallout from a "no-deal" Brexit, and as evidenced by new calls for a Border Poll. Hazegrayed (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I would include the article in the page title, as otherwise it reads a bit odd. I don't think we should go to great lengths to avoid a "the" in a title. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Brexit and the Irish Border" per the above. "Irish border question" though should be a disambiguation page for all the various different questions about and resulting from the land border between the two countries with territory on the island of Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brexit and the Irish Border per above comments. I am also wondering if there should be a disambiguation page at Irish border question per User:Guliolopez and User:SMcCandlish's comments above. —  AjaxSmack  22:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any title containing the word "and" per WP:AND. I would prefer something like Effects of Brexit on the Irish border. feminist (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately that would take us straight into WP:CRYSTAL territory, as we have no idea what the effects will be. It might be more accurate to write Effects of the Irish border on Brexit, since that is really the issue at present. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Irish border question is a controversy about the impact that Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, will have on the Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border on the island of Ireland, in other words "Impact Brexit will have on the Irish border", which means "Effects of Brexit on the Irish border", not the other way round. feminist (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AND admonishes "where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using 'and'." That seems to be the case here in light of WP:CONCISE. The title can be changed again later to reflect future events. —  AjaxSmack  18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur with AjaxSmack on this. It's one of those "not a bureaucracy" and "not a suicide pact" matters. We do not follow a rule (which actually has explicitly limited application in the first place) to a result that isn't common-sensical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed Technical Solutions?[edit]

I think "Technical solutions" would be possibly more NPOV if it was "Proposed Technical Solutions". The text of the section does clarify in places but I think it may be clearer if the section name was updated. Cros13 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Since I created that heading I will be bold and change it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stormont lock"[edit]

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted recently added material about what the Telegraph calls a "Stormont lock". I did so because the material is about the balance of power that the DUP holds over Parliamentary approval of the Brexit withdrawal agreement and so belongs in another article per wp:fork. The position of the DUP is, as I understand it (!), that the possibility of a regulatory barrier down the Irish Sea, that would see NI treated differently from (say) East Anglia, is unacceptable to them. (Note that this is not the same "Stormont lock" that was being floated a year or so ago that would leave it to the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide separately whether or not NI should remain in the EUCU if GB were to leave. The outcome of that was the PM's 'deal' that all of the UK should stay in the EUCU until the magical solution is found). But others may disagree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Protocol[edit]

I have heavily edited Northern Ireland Protocol (née Irish Backstop) to try to make it a more balanced. I may have gone to far the other way! Also, I don't have the familiarity of Irish matters that others here do. There are quite a few uncited statements that need follow up. So would interested editors please review. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary needed of NI Department for the Economy paper[edit]

I have briefly summarised in the lead Tony Connelly's analysis of the paper (Irish land border - existing and potential customs facilitations in a no-deal scenario - see External Links). But for it to stand in the lead, there must be a more extensive discussion in hte body. I don't have time, would someone else please do the honours? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article and no question it adds to the body of the article, but why is it so important to be in the lead? JASpencer (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Government paper on no-deal[edit]

The IfG has done a detailed paper on the implications of a no-deal Brexit, which contains references to NI and the border. May provide some material for this article? See https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/preparing-brexit-no-deal-final.pdf --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the three most important areas" deletions [Discussion copied from my talk page][edit]

You have clearly been around here long enough to know that deletion of credible content is the last resort, not the first. I'm at a loss to understand your reasoning, since the material is certainly credible and was widely reported. I have reverted your deletions, this time tagging with template:cn as you should have done. --Red King (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red King: "One of the three most important areas" is not encylopedic, NPOV language. It is a subjective assessment; different parties will perceive different areas of negotiation as important. I see you added references, good for you, but they still do not support that language. There were three separate negotiation topic groups established, yes, and one of those was for the border but that might just be because it is a difficult and intricate matter to negotiate, not a mark of its importance over other matters. I don't agree that that language should be in the article (which is why I removed it, didn't just ask for a citation). Your reversions have re-introduced interpretative bias into the article. Oska (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your logic, thank you for explaining - though I still think that your edit was unhelpful. The media certainly considered these aspects as important. They were listed in May's A50 letter, so certainly not incidental.

I accept that it is a leap of logic to go from a decision to have dedicated negotiating strands on these points to declaring them the most important. How about "most difficult"? --Red King (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red King: Thank you for these replies. How about "one of three focus areas identified for special negotiation" or something along those lines? I think that better reflects the references. "Most difficult" would still be a subjective interpretation and we could only quote someone saying something like that, not put it down as objective fact. Oska (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "one of three areas selected for focused negotiation" might be better phrasing. Oska (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I like that. Achieves the same result without the arguable NPOV/SYN transgression. Thanks --Red King (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: I've seen your later edit. Thanks for accommodating my concerns. One last point, just for completeness. Looking at the first source, the agreed terms of reference pdf, under point 3 of "Negotiation Structures" you can see that the Irish border wasn't actually one of the three groups. They were 1) Citizens' rights, 2) Financial Settlement and 3) Other Separation issues. Presumably the Irish border comes under area 3. But they then go on to say "In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched under the authority of the Coordinators." The other two sources misinterpret this, it appears, but the first source is the canonical one (as it's the two parties' formally declared terms of reference).
Anyway, I'm just commenting on this for completeness and before I move on. I'm not interested at this time in further editing of this article. Up to you if you want to act on what I've said here. Cheers, Oska (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please insert Hard Border back into article with explicit references[edit]

I am deleting the Hard Border paragraph from the article and placing it here for the moment. The entire section is completely unreferenced. Yet it sounds useful and has a ring of truth about it.

In the context of Brexit, a "hard border" means one where there are limited number of authorised (and physically controlled) crossing points, staffed by customs officers and police, supported in times of tension by military forces. Drivers of vehicles crossing are required to declare goods in carriage, commercial carriers must produce bills of lading and evidence that the goods comply with the minimum standards of the territory being entered. Tariffs (in the form of customs duty) may be payable. This was the position that pertained on the border from 1922 until the Single European Act in 1993. (In this context, a "hard border" does not mean a fortified border but, during The Troubles, Crown Forces blocked many unapproved crossings for security reasons. Under the terms of the Common Travel Area agreement, British and Irish citizens are free to cross the border without any passport controls).

Please find references for the various claims made and then place it, properly referenced, back into the article.86.178.175.34 (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a grossly disproportionate reaction. Yes, it should be cited but it is not dubious. In such cases, a cautionary note, using template:Unreferenced section is the appropriate response. Which I have now done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guliolopez for adding an excellent reference so quickly. It is amazing that this glaring omission went unnoticed so long. A little Jimmy-Wales-stye radical deletion now and again speeds things up a bit, it seems! 86.178.175.34 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added the refs in response to John Maynard Friedman's tag. Not the "radical deletion". Otherwise, simply addressing a problem is perhaps more economical for everyone all-round. Not least as refs in this area (which explain what a border is, how a border is controlled, and how tariffs may be applied at a border) are not especially controversial, not open to much interpretation or subjectivity, and not hard to come by. Guliolopez (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it was teamwork, thanks to both of you. Some people feel offended if one deletes their elaborate but unreferenced content, I am glad that is not the case here.86.178.175.34 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add something about Brexit withdrawal agreement[edit]

I added the following template to the article: Parts of this article (those related to Brexit withdrawal agreement) need to be updated. The reason given is: The article focuses on negotiation positions, mainly pre-2019, but does not describe the agreement regarding the Irish border. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. In general, Brexit was held in very high attention in the UK during the negotiation process, causing a lot to be written in various Brexit articles on Wikipedia, even if nothing was really decided. After the approval of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, everyone seem to be fairly tired of the subject, leaving the articles with a lot of negotiation and debate statements but little on final decision and post-Brexit development.--BIL (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information you want is already in the article, but long past the tl;dr point. I have replaced your 'update needed' tag with a (rather messy, as pipes not allowed) hat note.
But your main point remains valid. This article needs splitting into 'Brexit negotiations 2017-2019 concerning Ireland' and Effect of Brexit on Ireland (currently redirects here) starting with the New Protocol. The big problem with that is that nobody knows the effect until the FTA talks reach agreement or collapse. This is equally true of the broader Impact of Brexit on the European Union (including RoI, but NI needs explicit treatment). I don't see how a proper update can be written yet. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) (updated --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I found it confusing if the 2019 renegotiation: New Protocol chapter described a decision or a negotiation proposal, since it seems to list the differences to the backstop, which itself is not clearly described. One thing I wonder about is: Assuming the agreement expires and is not extended on the end of 2020; does the deal on Northern Ireland and the land border end with the agreement, creating a customs border anyway, or is it more permanent?--BIL (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely needs a complete rewrite and a lot more citations in a new article, because it does assume that readers have ploughed through the gory details of the preceding three years. Even if they have, it is hard going and incomplete / not comprehensive.
No, the WA is a binding international treaty, that applies no matter what happens in the next six months. NI stays in the CU for at least another four years, renewable (or cancellable) for as many sets of further two (four?) year 'leases' thereafter as a simple majority of the NI Assembly may decide. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

BDD removed the hatnote that provides a shortcut to the section that gives the terms of the final agreement and I reinstated it for now. BDD is correct that it is rather odd to use {{about}} for this purpose. But it seems to me that we do need to give readers s shortcut through the briar patch of the May Ministry negotiations. Another way to do it would be to give all those negotiations off to a subsidiary article. Or to give the final agreement its own article. I admit that the hat note was the lazy way out. Does anyone feel sufficiently in touch with the topic to do any of those. I only got here wanting to understand what the "border down the Irish Sea" meant and nearly list the will to live ploughing through all the false starts and dead ends. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lead states what the current situation is. Also, there's a table of contents. No need for an additional article or hatnote here. Wakari07 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Practicalities[edit]

The article doesn't really touch on the practical (as opposed to political) difficulties of a hard border.

  • The large number/density of crossing points.
  • The towns, villages farms and even buildings bisected by the border.
  • The roads which cross the border multiple times in the course of a few kilometres.
  • The properties inaccessible without crossing the border.
  • The roads where the border runs parallel to or even down the middle of them.
  • The tens of thousands of people who commute across the border daily.
  • Salients, Polyps, Panhandles and other oddities.
  • The places (including two bodies of water) where the exact location of the border is unclear/disputed.

How can one possibly control the movement of goods, services and people across 499km of that ?

Why is this point important ? When the uninitiated hear the word "border" they probably imagine large rivers with a handful of bridges like the Oder–Neisse line or a small number of perpendicular road crossings on straight open roads conveniently away from towns etc. The complexity of the Irish border rivals that of Baarle-Nassau !

2A00:23C3:70A:4100:194D:E18B:F9DF:EAF (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
This article possibly doesn't cover much of the practicalities (of navigating pene-enclaves, salients and the like) because there may be limited discussion on those practicalities in reliable, independent sources. (WP:OR is to be avoided. If independent reliable sources have discussed pene-enclaves and salients, in the context of Brexit, then it could be expanded. But original research and opinions are best avoided.)
This article possibly doesn't cover much of physical geography (of the placement or nature of pene-enclaves, salients and the like) because they are probably best discussed in the article on the border itself. Currently at Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border. (WP:CFORKs are best avoided. If the stuff you mention, about the number/nature of crossing points and enclaved farms, is to be covered anywhere, it should first be covered in the article about the border. With perhaps a reference or a summary here.)
Otherwise, if you feel that there are reliable independent sources available, which can be used to expand and improve this/these articles (in a way which is consistent with the projects editing and content guidelines), then please consider how to address that yourself.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to, preferably in Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border list major roads crossing the border, roads crossing multiple times, areas accessible only through the border, etc, and have an official map as reference.--BIL (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to this discussion that the "Fisheries" section I added a couple of months ago discusses the problems with the water ends of the border, the issue raised in the last bullet point. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just today, the UK and the EU announced an agreement "in particular with regard to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland" (the "new protocol" covered in this article) on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. The agreed issues are said to be "including border checks on animal and plant products, the supply of medicines and deliveries of chilled meats and other food products to supermarkets". The British commit to retract "the controversial clauses" of the Internal Market Bill — 44, 45 and 47. Luckily, the UK version and the EU version of the announcement are the same (except the UK has "Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and the EU has "Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement" and the EU has an apostrophe straight but the UK has it curly). It says a fifth meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee should formally adopt the agreement, before the end of the year. I guess we will be enlightened on the practicalities by then, but a "hard border" inside the island of Ireland seems out of the question now. Wakari07 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Now we need the detail ASAP", tweets a Logistics UK manager. Wakari07 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split out the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol[edit]

As the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is now covered in a paragraph on this page, and a paragraph on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, and doesn't have its own article, I propose to use the paragraph here as the basis for a stand alone article. An alternative is to convert the old proposal (Irish backstop) into the present protocol, but I would prefer to keep that article for historical purposes. Thoughts are welcome. L.tak (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree (as proposer) L.tak (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, this material will continue to expand. NI Assembly to vote to continue/discontinue in 2024. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "Irish backstop", as proposed in the alternative.---Darius (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the face of it, that should make sense as they are heavily related. But what would we call the resulting article? How would it be integrated so we don't in effect have two articles crammed into one container? —John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this seems a bit mute... I am going to take a bit of a middle way here. Get a new protocol-page, with the information in. This is to have a separate paragraph on the older version (the backstop) with a "main-template" referring to the the backstop.... L.tak (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Irish Sea border[edit]

A new article has been created, Irish Sea border, that probably could do with more eyes and a broader perspective. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HMG plan for ETSA requirement to cross border[edit]

Still at the WP: crystal stage as sanity may prevail, but thought it worth saving this link here in case we might need it later:

No doubt there will be more to follow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brexit_and_the_Irish_border&oldid=1206429738"