A101 wrote:JJJ wrote:
So your definition of free movement is one where you can only cross on foot?
Ask the Gibraltarians how does that work for them.
Obviously you don’t understand what I wrote, the checks were purely customs checks pre 65 due to smuggling of goods across the border in vehicles and vehicles were temporarily imported, these restrictions were reduced when the Irish-Anglo trade agreement of 65 came into force.
Once again the restrictions were not on free movement of iritcitzens from North to South but on customs complains with regulations at the time.
No, you're not understanding me. I'm speaking about the practicalities of a border. People were stopped and checked. It was a border in every conceivable sense.
That's why freedom of movement for people is in practical terms useless unless it comes with freedom of goods. Any person can conceivably carry potentially commercial quantities of goods on their person.
A101 wrote:JJJ wrote:Of course the WTO will not tell you how to enforce a border, it's a trade not a policing authority.
What they will do is open the gates for everyone to throw the book at you for not doing enough to control your borders. If your only hope hinges on getting an exception well, let's just say the UK will be getting a taste of the glacial pace and heavy fines of the WTO (which probably works just fine for the current British leadership, they know they'll just be dumping it on following Prime Ministers).
No. WTO Article XXI Security Exceptions prevents any member from taking action against another state in order to maintain international peace and security.
Isn’t that what the GFA is manifestly about to prevent the troubles and intent of the security exceptions
Well, you may want to ask Ukraine why they challenged Russia's use of an art. XXI exception. Or the Qatar-UAE that's still pending decision. Or the USA measures on steel and aluminium (where XXI was used) that has been challenged by just about everyone.