Talk:Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Northern Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The title of the article should not begin with "The" (not Wikipedia convention). And the border is a British frontier as much as an Irish one, the title of the article should reflect this. JAJ 00:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently the article was named "The British-Irish border" and was moved to its present title by user:NotMuchToSay with the summary "The term "British-Irish border" is not really used. The "Irish Border" is the correct term, as it is a border within the island of Ireland, seperating NI from ROI.".

I agree that the article title should not start with "The". I would suggest an alternative title of "

Republic of Ireland-Northern Ireland border". To save work sorting out redirects I wont move it to either title until we get agreement. Thryduulf 23:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border would reflect the fact there are two sovereign states involved. JAJ 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. I'll

be bold and move the page to that title and set-up some redirects. Thryduulf 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• I have restarted this discussion below. Please comment there. --Red King (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When setting up some redirects to the new page name (see above), I discovered that an article called

]

There is a precedent to use the name of the two states in the title, eg

Canada-United States border. The term "Irish border" is non-specific and to an outsider does not obviously refer to the international frontier. JAJ 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Now done. JAJ 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite correct to say that these have never been in operation on the Border, as this was the case under the Stormont regime (NI government until 1972). I have corrected this as well as tidying and tightenening-up the text. I've also used an uppercase "B" to refer to the Border, as is the common practice in Ireland. Regards, bigpad 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for passport controls in the Stormont era? I would not have thought that a devolved government would have authority over border controls. JAJ 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll get back to you on this but am fairly sure I'm on good ground with it. Thanks, bigpad 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland did impose de-facto immigration control in 1947 Safeguarding of Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1947 however this is similar to the immigration controls imposed today by the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. It doesn't seem to have had any impact on border controls and it's not clear whether it was ever challenged as ultra vires with respect to the constitutional authority of Stormont as per the Government of Ireland Act 1920. JAJ 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the Emergency/

World War 2, controls were in place and identity cards of some form (issued by the British authorities - I think) were required for travel from the Free State to any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland. This was quite inconvenient for places such as the village of Pettigo which spans the border where people had been used to a liberal travel regime. Signor Eclectic 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have checked up on this from a colleague who specialises in borders and employment. Here's a summary of what she said. In 1942, it was agreed (presumably by Stormont and Whitehall) that the scale of “infiltration” from the Free State (to take up wartime work in NI) had become high enough to be a security risk. Stricter regulations were devised, including deportation, to cover all British subjects (under British law, still including Irish nationals) who were not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland on 1 January 1940. In 1945, with large-scale building lay-offs inevitable and the return of armed services personnel imminent, Stormont asked the Home Office to relinquish power to the Northern Ireland Government to exercise Border controls.

The initial Home Office response was that, while it would “welcome being relieved of responsibility”, allowing the devolved government the power to “ring-fence” Northern Ireland was inconsistent with the Government of Ireland Act under which the UK government retained responsibility for immigration.

In November 1946, Westminster was asked again for powers to control entry to Northern Ireland, for the purposes of residence and employment. This was allowed and, in 1947, the Safeguarding of Employment (Northern Ireland) Act was passed by Stormont. It restricted any employment and apprenticeship to persons born or ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland unless non-Northern Irish people were authorized to be employed by a permit for a specified post with a specified employer in a specific place. This act became a minor issue during negotiations for membership of the then EEC. Although phased out in practice, the act was not formally repealed until 1981 bigpad 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If you come to Ireland and visit the Border, you will have a hard job spotting it!! I should know what I'm talking about, as I don't live that far from it and cross it quite often. I was also involved in a recent university research project on the Irish Border (see article). For these reasons, and for the fact that I am not saying that it is the 'only' inconspicuous border in Europe, I have reverted the "citation needed" edit bigpad 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically no borders between France and Belgium, Belgium and the Netherlands, Netherlands and Germany to name a few, so to say it is one of the most inconspicous and open borders is a false claim. Tim! 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To come into this as a neutral. The border between the UK and ROI is totally inconspicuous. The fact that others are as well does not negate the fact that it is one of the most inconspicous and open borders etc etc etc. The claim is not that it is THE most inconspicuous, but ONE OF the most inconspicuous. I fail to see how this can be disputed. Fork me 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the Pacific ocean should be described as one of the wettest oceans, as there are none which are wetter? It's a totally pointless claim. Tim! 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tim, but that is a totally crass and pointless reply. There is no comparison between what we are discussing here and wetness of Oceans (although as a chemist, I would dispute youruse of the word "wet", Oceans do have different levels of wetness and indeed, there are many liquids wetter than water, however, I digress). The vast majority of borders in the World are obvious, a few are inconspicuous, the Irish border IS one of the most inconspicuous in the World, the majority of the rest that fit into this category also happen to be in europe, for the reasons you haver given. However, that does not in any way alter the FACT that the Irish border is ONE of the most inconspicuous etc etc etc Fork me 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most borders in Western Europe are fairly inconspicuous by the standards of the rest of the world. The Irish border is no more and no less conspicuous than those between France/Germany, Germany/Netherlands etc so saying it's one of the most inconspicuous in Europe is fairly meaningless. Perhaps a more neutral way of putting the issue across would be to say something like "In common with many borders in Western Europe, it is relatively inconspicuous by world standards" ??? JAJ 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fairly sensible compromise to me. Fork me 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, thanks for the comments. IMHO, the Irish Border is much more "open" than that between Germany and Holland but I am happy enough to have updated the article as "is a very inconspicuous and open Border" without further qualification bigpad 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps coming a bit late to the discussion, but the Irish border is less conspicuous than the European borders mentions, which are at least marked at most major crossings.--Breadandcheese 10:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some of the borders on Google Street View, inconspicuous is a good description. The argument regarding the Schengen borders is silly. Although there is no passport control between Schengen countries, on main roads there is always a big sign with the name of the country written on it. Even the borders between England and Scotland and Wales are more obvious than the UK-Irish border. You don't find roads between, say, France and Germany where the only indication of the border is a speed limit sign.

Regarding the speed limit signs, I notice on some roads there is just a single pole with a UK speed limit sign on one side and an Irish sign on the other. I wonder who pays for the pole. And I wonder who puts the sign up, since technically the UK sign is on the Irish side (since it faces the traffic coming from Ireland) and the Irish sign is on the UK side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.104.102 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and Irish signs are generally on separate poles a few metres apart although Ive witnessed quite a few (fairly minor) anomalies such as signs clearly erected by one jurisdiction on the wrong side of the actual border by a few metres or more. The most noticeable one is in

Bus Eireann and an Ulsterbus one ! 90.218.228.161 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

There are basically no borders between France and Belgium, Belgium and the Netherlands

So what's this[1] then ? 86.112.90.70 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one crosses most other internal EU borders by road there are (usually several) signs indicating that one has (or is about to) cross into another country (lots of examples here [2] ). Along with signs (in multiple languages and/or pictograms) summarizing the key traffic regulations in the country one is entering. On the UK/Irish border this has rarely been the case until the recent introduction of "speed limits miles/kilometers per hour" signs and (on some crossings) "Welcome to Northern Ireland" signs. On some minor back roads there may be still be little/no indication at all. Bizarrely on crossing into the Republic one sometimes encounters signs (more usually seen at airports) in English, French and German advising motorists to "Drive on left". It's somewhat odd given that both countries drive on the left and always have done ! 2.127.209.195 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that the border between Scotland and England is more marked by signs (e.g. here) than the Ireland land border. Why is the border usually not marked by signs? Does the republic not want to fully recognize the border, wanting to have North?--BIL (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may have hit the nail on the head. The Republic (until 1998) had a territorial claim on NI written into its

single European market). On the NI side perhaps there was the fear that any signage would be vandalized ? 2.221.93.93 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Use of the term "Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland"

In an article of this nature, using the term of "Ireland" instead of the "Republic of Ireland" is confusing and not NPOV. JAJ 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, perhaps, but certainly not failing NPOV. The name of the state in the south of Ireland is unambiguously and without qualification "Ireland". The "Republic of Ireland" is simply a descriptive term. --Breadandcheese 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Belfast Agreement, each jurisdiction has agreed to use the terms "Ireland" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". These are the names of the states in international law and these are what we should use. --Red King (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inline citations in this article. --Mal 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the section on crossing the border is not written clearly. is a passport or id required to cross from the republic to the uk or not? —The preceding

]

A passport is not required (as long as one is an Irish or UK citizen) ID isint required either although it may be advisable to have some anyway to avoid any inconvenience for the (nowadays fairly rare) occasions when one might be stopped and questioned. Personally Ive crossed the border hundreds of times (Nowadays its very rare to even see Police or army at the border) and only been asked for ID twice -Once in NI and once in the Republic. On both occasions I wasnt actually AT the border but maybe 4 or 5 miles from it. Most times they just wave you through. There was a clampdown a few years back by the Irish immigration authorities where busses were quite frequently boarded and ID demanded from individuals of Non Northwest-European appearance however the bad publicity which resulted forced them into taking a less blatently racist approach. (one black guy they stopped turned out not only to be an Irish citizen but actually told off the officer in Gaelic) 80.229.222.48 10:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this blows away the "In recent times (since the early 90s) such controls have not been in operation on the border." line in the main article, then? The last time I saw the patrols was about mid-2005, but then I normally take the 8:00 Belfast-Dublin train. But I understand the Garda still maintains an Immigration unit out of Dundalk Garda station? The patrols tend to be on the N1 on a layby south of the Ravensdale Inn, or they would do a walkthrough of the train at Dundalk station. Even when the patrols were on the N1, I've never been stopped while driving, only when they did a walkthrough on a bus. And I'm not of Non Northwest-European appearance, but a driver's licence with a Belfast address helps, I suppose. -Kain 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the towns, farms (Including that of the infamous Slab Murphy) and even petrol stations bisected by the border there have been anecdotal stories (can anyone confirm them or provide citations) of the border passing through peoples houses and how they can choose which side they get their water, electricity, landline telephone etc from.

Would such households need to pay domestic rates for the "Northern" part of their property and how would

]

There are lots of buildings bisected by the Belgian-Dutch [[3]]. The practice there is that all buildings fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country their front door is in. Perhaps there is a similar arrangement in Ireland ? 2.221.93.93 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reckons "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed" But I beg to differ and wonder what others think. It may be "trivia" but its still quite interesting, contains a lot of useful titbits of information and lends a lot to the article. Maybe a better idea would be to come up with a better title for the section. Any takers ? 80.229.222.48 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it interesting? "UK postboxes are red, the Republic's are green ..." "Mobile phones often alert the user with a beep when the Border has been crossed ..." "Subtle differences in road surface arising from differing technical standards ..." "The road numbering systems are different." "Place-name signage in the Republic is bilingual (Gaelic and English), whereas UK place-name signage is (usually) English only with subtle differences in colouring and fonts."

Did the person(s) who wrote this section never cross any other border in Europe? The summation of the "trivia" appears to be "blink and you'll miss it." Simply not notable.

There are also factual errors regarding the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Both the Republic's and the UK road sign system predate the Convention - the UK's system is from 1964 and the Republic's is from 1956 - however, both are broadly in keeping with the Convention. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to anyone who happens to find themselves in that part of the world and wants to know which country they are in. Of course there will be some people who dont find this interesting but the best advice one can give them is go and read another article ! As for road signs how can BOTH countries road signs be "in keeping with the Convention" when there are so many differences between them ? 80.229.222.48 12:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both countries can be in keeping with the Convention because the Convention allows for variance in colour and shape for the same class of road sign. The article says that the warning signs in the Republic are not in keeping with the Convention because they use diamond-shaped signs with yellow backgrounds, black borders and black symbols, whereas the UK uses equilateral triangles, with white backgrounds, red borders and black symbols for the same class of sign. In fact, the convention explicitly allows for both variants. See the article.

"It is interesting to anyone who happens to find themselves in that part of the world and wants to know which country they are in." On what occasion do you surmise that this might happen? This is not the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Take that kind of stuff to

not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the "trivia" section is just that. Crossing the RoI-UK border is no different to crossing any other internal EU border. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I made a big edit, but kept most of the information - by judgements were based on "could a person reading this be able to tell when they cross and what side they are on?" --sony-youth^pléigh 10:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One user is objecting to the inclusion of 'County Londonderry' after the entry for 'Derry' in the section on border settlements. His post on my talk page and my response are copied below:

Please stop adding the term County Londonderry after the listing of the city of Derry, like Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham etc the count of a city is very listed after the city name in articles. Not only that you are adding oxygen to fire that is the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute. Currently there is little/no argument over this issue amongest established editors please edit within the consensus or establish a new one.--Vintagekits 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, or Birmingham are border towns. As with all other settlements listed in that section of the article, Derry has always had its county listed - you seem to be the only objector. As regards the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute, the

WP:IMOS is quite clear - Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't see what the issue is here. I'm going to restore the name and we can see what other editors think. This is the proper place to discuss it, not an editor's talk page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like a needless repetition. If it were not for the Wiki convention, it would be like listing the name as "Derry, Co. Derry" or "Londonderry, Co. Londonderry". (Would anyone write, Cork, Co. Cork, Dublin, Co. Dublin, Galway, Co. Galway, Kilkenny, Co. Kilkenny, etc. etc.?) Mixing the two sounds even stranger - especially for anyone aware of the issue, so I tend to agree with Vintage on this one: it looks like the county is only added because of the Wiki convention and so does fan the flames.

I'd propose a Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to get around this one. On this article, and this article alone, let's write Derry/Londonderry. We might as well limit our dirty laundry to being only aired in public, rather than washing it in public altogether. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bastun that controversial changes should be discussed here first.

I agree with Dr Sony that it might be logical to

WP:MOS-IR helps to defuse these battles by providing clear guidance which Bastun has followed. Let us take refuge in "the roolz" for once! VK/Domer48 likes to establish and follow the "roolz" with regard to capitalisation so I hope he will understand the position here and not regard it as provocative - merely consistent...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If he want to do a list of Counties that are border counties then by all means add Co. Londonderry but when we discuss Derry as the city we never add the county after it. There is also no need to add "Derry/Londonderry" as that will just open a can of worms as other will start crying out for County Londonderry/Derry in all articles. There is an argeement on how we display the county and city of Londonderry/Derry - no one likes it, I dont like it BUT it works and stops these sorts of arguements - infact I am pretty p'ed off that Bastun is causing this argument here especially as there a long standing agreement on this issue.--Vintagekits 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there is no need to refer to Derry as Derry/Londonderry. As for the rest of it - eh? This article has long listed all the settlements near the border, along with the county they are in. That includes Derry. Vk keeps referring to an agreement and/or MoS (here, and on my talk page, where he brought this first) never to list Derry with its county - I can find nothing regarding this (in relation to Derry or any other town or city) on the

WP:NC:CITY), and despite a request, Vk has yet to produce a link to same. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Distance convention in UK/Ireland

Are we using metric or imperial (diff). I had assumed that WP always used metric. The Canada–United States border uses metric (e.g. it is "8,891 kilometres (5,522 mi) long"). Are we not? --sony-youth^pléigh 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that articles of British or Irish interest use "British English", we're using the British-Irish convention of imperial notation first, which is in common use in these islands. bigpad 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally we wouild probably use Hiberno-English--Vintagekits 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think metric would be best. From my experience imperial is redundant apart from the road signs in the north (which you always just convert into km in your head anyway).Derry Boi 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What! You're obviously on your ownr, as I and most people I know think in miles and I *never hear anyone say "such and such is x KM away!!" bigpad 10:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Manual of style of units such as distances (

WP:UNITS

) is pretty clear. In US-related articles, use imperial. In UK-related articles, use one or the other but be consistent within the article. In all other cases use metric. This is a strange article in the since it is literally half UK-related and half non-UK-related. The last point from the MOS is that, "If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses."

My preference is for metric. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should be using KM first with imperial in brackets.--Vintagekits 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same distance conventions are used in Ireland and the UK, so there's no problem there. To "Vintagekits": why 'should' we. What evidence have you for this or is this your opinion? Thanks, bigpad 12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong but both countries are members of the EU and its standard EU practice to issue distances in Km.--Vintagekits 12:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I am right after all!.--Vintagekits 12:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be our much-loved EU convention to speak of KM but the common usage for the vast majority of people in the UK and Ireland is miles first. But I won't revert it to avoid an edit war bigpad 19:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"common usage" in Ireland is kilometres!--Vintagekits 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, sorry! bigpad 11:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, ya it is.--Vintagekits 11:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how old you are... while all roadsigns are in Km (there is no doubt the odd exception), the older generation still think in and speak of miles, while the younger think in and speak of kilometres. And the ones in between have gotten very adept at dividing by 5 and multiplying by 8 and vice versa... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that Bastun, both are in common usage but the official status of the metric trumps the imperial, would you agree?--Vintagekits 12:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, absolutely. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by the "older generation" you mean people over 21, then you are correct... Km will never become the main way of working out distances in Ireland, north or south. bigpad 14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can you buy

crystal balls these days??!!!--Vintagekits 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Km will never become the main way of working out distances in Ireland, north or south"

(Sigh) Im sure there were people back in 1970 saying "Litres will never become the main way of selling milk (or petrol)" or "Kilogrammes will never become the main way of buying vegetables" and WHAT would they have thought of Euro currency ? 80.229.222.48 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let alone decimal currency! Never catch on! What's wrong with LSD??? [well apart from the hallucinations obviously]

Distances have been shown in km on road signs in IE for at least 10 years. Admittedly the speed limits have just been done. Schools in IE were using metric routinely long before schools in UK began. In Oz, anybody under 40 routinely uses K without thinking about it, oldies hesitate a moment but still use K. Give it time - and not a lot either. --Red King 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless arguement. It's only a matter of time before metric distances are introduced as standard in the UK, in fact the

- Rubensni (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 December 1922, Stormont resolves to make its address to leave Irish Free State; 13 December, PM Craig confirms King had received and responded to address (but what day did the King receive the address? - That is the relevant date). The

on 9 December 1922. Possibly this is the relevant date as it might be unlikely that the office would have been established if the King had not received the Stormont address on or before then. Some one might know or find out the answer?

The above repeats this User's entry on Partition of Ireland talk page. User Red King appeared to think that he had located a source. This user could not find anything re 13 December date on that link. If there is a statement to that effect, perhaps user Red King could set it out here on this talk page. This would be appreciated. In the mean time I have deleted reference to 13 December date in the absence of certainty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redking7 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, according to the (unwritten!) constitution of the UK, the moment of partition happened when the King gave Royal Assent to the request from Northern Ireland and not before. I should think it very likely that Craig would have announced it immediately he got it. But I accept that the source is not clear and consequently can't be used as a citation for a specific date. [also a repeat of reply at Partition of Ireland] --Red King (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Post refers to this picture

I propose removing the image identifying itself as being of Swalinbar (it isn't) Co. Cavan (it's taken 6km into Fermanagh) and whose filename suggests that it's on the border (it isn't). It seems of questionable relevance to the article. I can substitute an image of mine of the border at Pettigo, Counties Donegal/Fermanagh. --Mackerski (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 213.40.106.183 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has marked it do not delete but until they can provide justification for it It should be removed 213.40.110.233 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture of the border taken on one side looking across. It is a relevant as you can get. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the border is in the picture there is nothing to indicate where it is (all road markings and signs are UK style and in any case as one contributer has already pointed out and verified by Google maps and geograph.org.uk it is at least 6Km from the border) It isint even in Swalinbar (signpost in picture indicates its 5.5 miles from Swalinbar) It is no more a picture of the border than one taken in the centre of

L'Derry. 213.40.112.15 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Incorrect. The photo was taken in the South. The "Yield" sign is an Irish sign; in the North it reads "Give way". The road markings at the junction also clearly indicate that the road in the photo terminates at the border. Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. actually you are right and I have erred slightly. The sign says "Give Way". I hope you have found this exchange instructive and will be more careful the next time. And the road markings at the junction also clearly indicate that the road in the photo is in NI. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hereis a picture of the actual border taken at Beleek on the N3/A46 from Co. Donegal looking into County Fermanagh. (Im not sure how the establishment on the left can claim to be in Co Donegal though -unless the border bends parallel with the left hand side of the road for a few metres which is possible) However there may be copyright issues with using this picture in the article ????? 213.40.104.250 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most border crossings are now viewable on google streetview. 86.112.87.9 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article was changed in April (see #Title), but clearly those who did so have not much grasp of international diplomatic protocol (or indeed the Belfast Agreement). The names of the states concerned are "Ireland" and "The United Kingdom" (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). [There is no such state as 'the Republic of Ireland' - "Republic" is just the description of its constitutional status.] So I propose that the article be moved again - to "Ireland - United Kingdom border". (The opening paragraph should begin with the long form title of the UK). --Red King (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph would then read

• • The Ireland - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Border also referred to as The Irish border, or (in the island of Ireland) as The Border, is the international boundary between the north-east part of the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and the rest of the island that forms the state of Ireland.

--Red King (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an explanatory background, see

Names of the Irish State#Name dispute with the UK, especially "Resolution". --Red King (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I prefer the current title; as the alternative is too long & cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the current title is wrong. Wikipedia should reflect what is, not what we would like it to be. --Red King (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is too cumbersome. Besides it's best to try and get Republic of Ireland changed before doing this (a change that's been rejected repeatly). GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. I believe we should reflect real-world practice here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I not overly fussy; whatever ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Ireland-UK border actualy extends all the way down the Irish Sea, therefore, the correct title should actually be Republic of Ireland - Northern Ireland border, if we realy have to have it 100% correct.MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you are perfectly free to write some text on the sea boundary. I'm sure you can find the map showing the territorial waters boundary. There is one at Rockall that would do at a pinch. --Red King (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just rename the article to precisely what it describes currently, the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international border, though (thus UK is required). GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, when forced to look at this in a 100% correct way by proposals of this sort, the length of the UK-Ireland international border is actually longer than the subject presented in this article, which is realy only about a land border between ROI/NI. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the name change suggested for the article (Ireland - United Kingdom border). It is more correct and shorter. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The border is entirely contained in the island of Ireland, the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland is this border plus a nautical one. -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The border is not entirely contained in the island: it is just that the present article does not describe the sea border. In either case, would you please explain what it has got to do with the name of the article. --Red King (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should be assuming our readers don't know anything... and if they don't, don't you think they might find the article confusing? -MichiganCharms (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "We should be assuming our readers don't know anything": If that is the idea, then it seems to me that the name change is an even better idea. Otherwise "ignorant" readers might be misled concerning the names of the bordering states: Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Re the discussion of the marine border: that doesn't relate to the name of the article. The territorial waters are the respective territorial waters of the two states....so the names of the states are the appropriate reference point....Not sure what you have in mind on that. I would say if some one wanted to research the point to expand it to cover the border between Ireland and the UK at sea, that would be a welcome addition to the article. If you have time it would be a valuable contribution. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't rename articles based on what might be added to them in the future. As the discussion about the maritime border demonstrates, there is no grounds to rename this article based on reader confusion over what border is being referred to, the article is quite clearly about the land border between the two places. And on wikipedia, when referred to in the context of and separate to the subject of Ireland the island itself, those two places are called Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. So we are back to the original reason, the dimplomatic recognition of the name of Ireland on wikipedia articles, and why you won't take that issue up at the appropriate article, Republic of Ireland, rather than pushing for the renaming of fringe articles into overlong but diplomatically correct names. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that Northern Ireland is not a state and "The Republic of Irealand" is not the name of a state, merely a description of its constitutional arrangements [that it is not a monarchy]. This article is about an international border should name the states on either side of it, using the names that are internationally recognised. To do otherwise offends

WP:NPOV. --Red King (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A nice idea. Perhaps you can start the policy that lays out precisely that not including the official state names in a wikipedia article about a border between two states constitutes original research. Because I for one have never seen it before, because I doubt its even needed. Wikipedia is not the UN, frankly, if the current title makes sense and is not confusing, I don't think anyone realy cares except yourself. Some people I guess can just 'blue sky' it, and see it for what it is, a proposal that is not designed to improve the atticle or the understanding for the reader. MickMacNee (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok MickMacNee, I suppose now the reason you are opposed to the renaming is clear: it has nothing to do with marine borders (!) and everything to do with the name of the Irish state which you don't like. Too much POV is held on that one so intellecutal reasoning won't advance that discussion unfortunately - even though you say you don't think anyone cares (when clearly we all do!). Well, I support the change. You don't and that's not going to change. I guess it's a case of no more reasoning but just seeing what the broadest conensus decides on. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be moved - Ireland-United Kingdom Border the current title is misleading.ThatsGrand (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; Ireland-United Kingdom Border is the correct solution. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the a proposal not debated since 2nd July is not grounds for an out of process move. See

]

Requested move (Jan 2009)

Note: section header refactored [4] MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Note

Re. this closure, on a technicality, the page was originally at

]

Since there was no consensus for the original move, the article should revert to the last stable name. I'll move it back now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, Sinn Féin have called for there to be an 'all-island' telecommunications network, especially regarding mobile phones.

Is this really worthy of inclusion in the article ? Opposition to the existance of the border is more or less Sinn Fein's principal raison d'etre so stating that they advocate 'all-island' telecommunications network (or 'all-island' anything else for that matter) is pretty much stating the blindingly obvious is it not ? In any case the fact that the O2 mobile network have been offering an "all Ireland" tarriff for quite some time now surely much renders the point pretty much moot ! 213.40.112.15 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to keep that in the article. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an item for the articles Ireland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland ~ R.T.G 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is kidding yourself? In Ireland (anywhere on the island) it is refered to as "The Border" and certainly not the "Irish border". The border is not referred to as the "Irish" border outside of Ireland? If all people and places of Ireland, north and south, are refered to as Irish by outsiders, it doesn't take much to guess the average name of the border... Consider any English speaking country of the world (outside

]

Inner German border ~ R.T.G 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean border ~ R.T.G 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Sea ~ R.T.G 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "border" needed to be capitalized in this article. I therefore standardized on lower case throughout. --John (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Mooretwin (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. It is a common noun, not a proper one. 174.16.18.77 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Why would anyone prefer the other version? Still, let's discuss it here and see if we can sort it out. --John (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by how I could "violate something" by making a simple revert. A good faith edit does not equal a good edit. Your edit removed a lot of good information which was more accurate than your "simplifying edit". What's strange is that you almost seem to take offense at being reverted, labeling my edit strange. Why would anyone prefer your edit is the real question here;the burden is on you to justify the change.MITH 23:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content issue seems to be your preference for "the north-east part of the island of Ireland" rather than my preference "Northern Ireland". I prefer my version because it is shorter, carries the same info, and links to an article. Perhaps you could now justify why you prefer the more convoluted wording? If you wish to upgrade your knowledge of wikiquette, here would be the place to start. Reverting is only supposed to be used on vandalism, hence my slightly peevish tone. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read

WP:CONSENSUS ever come into play? I reverted in order to keep the article in a more NPOV. It is an international border between two countries called the United Kingdom and Ireland not between two called Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.MITH 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe I have read WP:BRD. You aren't discussing very well though. My version had "...between Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom), and the rest of the island, which forms the Republic of Ireland." which seems to describe the situation very well indeed and in fewer words. What is your objection to shortening the text and keeping the meaning the same? And, re "Your edit removed a lot of good information"; which information did it remove exactly? --John (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The name of the latter country in question is not the Republic of Ireland for one matter. Either way it's less NPOV. You're switching the primary topic. It's not a border with Northern Ireland its a border between Ireland and the United Kingdom. The previous version had that, yours doesn't.MITH 00:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see where my version had "Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom)"? --John (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see where I said saying "an international border between Northern Ireland and"....is not NPOV?MITH 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making a compromise edit. If you're not happy with it, revert and we can discuss again here, otherwise this is going in circles.MITH 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be consensus for this change. RashersTierney (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine or John's? Mine was a compromise edit - you can revert if you want.MITH 00:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ref. was to original change by User John. If the compromise proposed by you is thought reasonable all round, fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, we're getting there, that is a little better. Still too many words for the

]

Now that you know what I and others think the issues are, feel free to propose a new text here on the talk page.MITH 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. I only see you and one other (singular) in the discussion so far, and it would be great to have wider input. Re "The name of the latter country in question is not the Republic of Ireland"; if that is not its name why is the article at this title? --John (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very long story - one currently been sorted out by Arbcom. There is a certain POV that use of the country's official name of Ireland is incorrect, although it looks like the Arbcom process will result in all titles with ROI being changed to Ireland (state). Read Names of the Irish state for further info.MITH 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. It reminds me of the nonsense we have had to endure regarding the naming dispute over

WP:COMMONNAMES quite sensibly implies we use Ireland to refer to the country in most cases, but Republic of Ireland in cases (like this one) where ambiguity might result. --John (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly, John. Mooretwin (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're just smarter than the rest of us, I don't find it in the least bit silly.

talk) 10:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The Irish border?

This border is usually referred to as the 'Irish border', the name should be changed as per

]

"between the north-east part of the island of Ireland called Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom, and Ireland, also sometimes called " the Republic of Ireland".

Fewer words, same meaning. --John (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia should be explicit, and educate. "Meaning" stops short of that.

talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't agree. See

WP:LEDE. Should be obvious that the lede is not the place for this level of detail. It belongs in the article, just not in the first paragraph. --John (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we have consensus for Music's 'comprimise' change, or is this little discussion to be POV pushing by a thousand cuts? RashersTierney (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Purple Arrow who made the compromise edit. I support it. Sadly, MiTH has reverted it. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought back the article to the stable edit like its been for a while, excluding my "compromise edit" which anyone can remove at any time.I don't really agree to any of the lead changes at the moment, the stable version is much better.MITH 12:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --John (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because its more accurate. Just one of the changes is trying to bring all this Republic of Ireland nonsense into the piece - its just not correct. I could just as easily justify saying the "UK (also known as England)" in the lead. Arbcom are currently sorting out the Ireland naming dispute - articles are being remained stable everywhere until its sorted. I recommend this article do the same. It's just the same old arguments otherwise.MITH 13:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more accurate. It is, however, less clear to say "Ireland" than "Republic of Ireland", given that the former is ambiguous. It wouldn't be the same as saying the "UK (also known as England)" in the lead, because the UK is not also known as England. As for "Arbcom are currently sorting out the Ireland naming dispute" - that whole process has pretty much collapsed. Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, closed on 4 January? --John (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No

WP:IECOLL.MITH 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see anything relevant to this discussion there. I do see All editors are encouraged to pledge to no more than 1RR per day though. --John (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland-United Kingdom border is needlessly confusing for the uninitiated and the current title will do. However, Irish border by far the common name. Straightforwardness seems to get lost in the strive for so-called "accuracy" in many Ireland-related articles. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (

coṁrá) 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd be happy with a move to the "Irish Border".

MITH 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I also support a move to "Irish border". There shouldn't be any confusion since it's the only (international) border in Ireland.

~Asarlaí 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If no one objects in the next few days the page should be moved.

MITH 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Known as the Irish border here too. Has this been moved yet?Qaziphone (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Judging by the current title, obviously not. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects in the next few days, I shall MOVE the article to "Irish border", following existing wikipedia practice at Korean border. I don't think we want to copy Inner German border! --Red King (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there is an existing redirect, I have entered a Move Request at #Requested move below.

Are there any beaches on the "Northern" side of Lough Foyle/Carlingford lough and if so if one is walking along the beach when the tide is out and they go beyond the high water mark have they just entered another country ? 213.40.117.87 (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have and you are likely to be snatched and

rendered by Republican frogmen. My advice? Don't do it. Sarah777 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It would actually be at the low water mark (Teritorial seas are measured from the low water mark wheras land ownership starts at the high water mark) so one would have to be in the water 213.40.109.40 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much here on the Maritime Border between Ireland and the UK Territorial Waters/ EEZ associated with Great Britain. Whilst understandable Island of Ireland matter are the chief focus, there are other aspects to the UK-Ireland border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.189.190 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of roads transverse the border multiple times. The N54 (or A3) being an interesting case because a section of it is in the Republic but appears to be inaccessable from all but a few square kilometres of the Republic without passing through Northern Ireland. How is this section of road (and the area around it) policed ? Are the Garda Síochána allowed to pass through Northern Ireland in order to police it ? What is the situation in relation to other officials from the Irish Government or public utilities. Do water mains, telephone and electric lines all cross the border here too ? 213.40.117.87 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unmarked Garda vehicles can cross the border but while in NI cant use flashing lights/sirens and must observe the UK highway code (including speed limits). Officers cant carry firearms and have no more powers of stop/arrest than any member of the public. While in theory they could still peform a Citizen's arrest within NI they couldnt take a suspect back over the border but would have to hand them over to the NI authorities. There have been proposals to give both police forces powers to pursue suspects a certain distance across the border but to date nothing has come of this. 178.167.216.84 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What were "Concession roads" and "Unapproved roads" and before the European Single market were all customs posts on border crossings closed to vehicular traffic at night ? 213.40.117.87 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can gather "Approved Roads" had permanent customs posts were the only places one could legally cross the border if one had goods to declare. "Unapproved roads" (insofar as they were open at all) were subject to random checks and were only intended for local traffic not carrying goods of such nature/quantity/value which would one would have been required to declare and "concession roads" were transit routes for traffic between two points in one jurisdiction passing through (but not stopping) in the other e.g. the portion of the road between Dundalk and Castleblaney which passed through Northern Ireland was a concession route. [5] [6] [7] In 1973 there were 20 approved roads and 17 concession routes out of a total 224 crossings. 86.129.213.73 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section and it's subsection appear not to have been updated since circa 2008/2009. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done February/March 2012. --Red King (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign that

). This article is not named in the same style as 'Franco-German border', where an unspaced hyphen is certainly correct. But it doesn't apply here.

This change should not have been made without dicussion and in my view should not have been made at all. --Red King (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the UK and Ireland entered the EEC in 1973 but the this article claims (without citation) that some customs controls remained in place until the Treaty of Maastricht that established the Internal Market. However, the

article says "Progress on the customs union proceeded much faster than the twelve years planned", so we still need a citation for its practical implementation between the UK and Ireland.
Also, we needed to distinguish between customs controls and security controls, which I've done.--Red King (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The

treaty of Maastricht had nothing to do with it ! It was the Single European Act which effectively abolished (most) customs controls between NI, the Republic (and every other EC/EU state for that matter). 2.221.93.93 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like the treaty abolish some borders: «Le traité crée un marché intérieur caractérisé par l'abolition, entre les États membres, des obstacles à la libre circulation des marchandises, des personnes, des services et des capitaux (ajout des marchandises, qui n'apparaissait pas sur le traité de 1957). Le traité de Maastricht ajoute aussi des mesures relatives à l'entrée et à la circulation des personnes dans le marché intérieur conformément à l'article 100 C. Le traité étend la politique commune à la pêche, alors que seule l'agriculture faisait l'objet du traité de 1957. » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the farce that someone has called 'consensus-building' over at Carlingford Lough talk page, I noticed one person there heavily pushing the idea that this border cannot be referred to as being between NI and ROI anywhere on Wikipedia while the title of this article resides at ROI-UK. Since protections and warnings have been applied in the fallout from that farce, but nobody in authority ever pulled him up on this obviously fallacious position, I'd like to test the consensus as to whether such a move would be agreeable, and thus whether that changes the landscape in that dispute (and any others this point may have been made in). I've only chosen NI-ROI rather than ROI-NI out of the simple presumption that it was decided that way originally to be in alphabetical order. If this wasn't the case, I'm happy with ROI-NI. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If the title of this article supposedly governs how it's referred to in places like the Carlingford Lough article, then clearly a form that refers to the two entities it separates on the island, namely NI and ROI, is more useful to uninformed readers than one that doesn't and thus wrongly assumes that people reading an article about a Loch on the island of Ireland would appreciate its constitutional significance in relation to a sovereign state which mostly resides on a whole other island, several miles away to the East. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it is in-line with other international border articles. An example of which is [Canada–United States border]. Murry1975 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not compelling (as well as being a well-known

  how to make your point properly is needed for everyone involved in Troubles issues). Neetandtidy (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Argument" has at least two meanings in English. The one I am using is the kind you advance in a discussion, not the one where you throw plates and cups. Neetandtidy (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no ambiguity, as similar US-CAN off island, are you proposing that the UK is an island state? The UK has one land border, with Ireland, this article and its title deal with that and remove any amibgiuity. Murry1975 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm lost. All I'm asking for is if you knew of any part of the US-CAN border that exists on an island separate from the main land mass, so that any comparison to the issues I raised with this article and its use in relation to the Loch, might make some sort of sense. Neetandtidy (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you here bring up one point that multiple socks have done? There are many islands in the US-Canada border none that both occupy. I am sure there are many Asian examples I will get back to you if I find one that is nearer the sole point of your account. Murry1975 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you trying to paint everyone who makes a particular point as a sock? Are you deliberately trying to ignore the issue? Are you trying to use the existence of disruption as an excuse not to conduct a proper discussion? If you find an example, then brilliant, we'll discuss how referring to the border article is dealt with in the place article. If you don't, then my point stands. Your accusations are irrelevant unless you want to act on them in the proscribed manner. Last warning per the post below. Neetandtidy (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per any other international border. Not another bloody sock! Bjmullan (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  BJMullen, unless or until you are

  given checkuser status or you have a confirmed investigation report in your posession, you are not entitled to call me a "bloody sock", anywhere, at any time, on Wikipedia. You'll get one and only one warning on this from me. If you can't control yourself in future inspite of this warning, I'll have to ask someone to put a sock in your mouth unless or until you learn some manners and self-control. I'd also point out to anyone reading that BJMullen is the user whose filibuster technique I was referring to originally, which should put his subsequent opposition to a move here into context, lest anyone give it any undue weight - he's locked himself into having to oppose here by virtue of what he's tried to use as an 'argument' over there. Neetandtidy (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Actually until you prove, after your admitance that you have a previous account that isnt linked to this acccount, that your new account is clean you could be labeled a sock. Not bad faith, ask Bjmullan to strike his comment, I am sure he will after you proved the details required. Until then dont strike his words. I have removed your strike until Bjmaullan does it himself. Murry1975 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The same warning goes to you too. You clearly do not know the policies that govern this sort of thing - there is a correct way to go about this, and this is most certainly not it. I am not obliged to do anything to prove my innocence of trumped up charges of sock puppetry to either you or him; my admission of having a past account since retired does not oblige me to do anything else except not reactivate it. It's retired. You are expected to assume good faith on that score, or you can take

  WP:DUCK test. So your best move now if you don't want to give out the impression that your continued pressing of the point is intended to just aggravate me for no ends, would be to just drop it. If not, then I repeat, you are most definitely not allowed to simply call me a sock, and expect me to prove to you I am not. If you continue to do that, then it's you who will be blocked, not me. Seriously, last warning. From this point on, you will not be able to simply claim ignorance of policy, I've told you everything I can, I will not indulge you further. I'm not your teacher, and you're not a cop. Neetandtidy (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Where have I called you a sock? So dont misrepresent what I say and then threaten me with a block, that is a blockable offence. There is nothing in the guidelines to stop us asking everytime we interact with you, as you state AGF- you know it also applies to the answering of questions. And policy states retired or not you have to connect the accounts "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". So I know you know the routine and I know you have been blocked whether you are now unblocked or not. So if you want interaction, connect your accounts. You fall into the context of a sock account by not connecting or disclosing your accounts, but you throw the toys out of the pram when it gets pointed out. Do not misqoute me or misrepresent anything I have said again, got it? Good. Lets see how we get on shall we? If it is a cleanstart "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." You have seen mine I would really like to see yours. Your contributions and edits that is. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  PS ask Bjmullan to strike his words, do not do it for him. I am sure he will oblige when you ask, he might like to know a few things first. Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're starting to really fucking piss me off now with your total ignorance of policy, so I will say this one last time. You are not entitled to ask me to prove I am not a sock just because you think I am one. This is not AGF, that is ABF. A retired account is not a sock, nor is it a way of splitting contributions to evade scrutiny. One account stops, the other starts. No connection is required, and that's why you've failed to show otherwise in the above. A retired account is also not the same as an alternate account that wouldn't be allowed on talk pages and like, for the same bloody reason. If you are alleging that I have abused a WP:clean start, then whether you realise it or not, by saying so, you've yet again just accused me of sock puppetry. And to repeat for you once again, because clearly it's not getting through to you, there is a procedure to follow if you want to do that. And you are not doing it with this shit. Me simply talking on this page is not sufficient grounds for you to have a legitimate interest in my prior account's editting history, whether you like it or not. It's called a privacy policy for a reason. And this is all besides the point anyway, because the stuff you quoted above in no way, not one single way, authorises you to keep accusing me of being a sock without evidence or without acting on it, which is most definitely not allowed, not least under AGF - which is probably the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. If you think you know what the fuck you're doing and want to show you do, then instead of talking any more about stuff you obviously don't understand, just go and get an admin to come here and unstrike the comment, and demand I prove I am not a sock or reveal my past account, on pain of blocking. If he does that, then I offer you a thousand apologies in advance. I am not required to ask anyone's permission to remove it, and I'll keep doing so until you realise that. I am not going to listen to anything more you've got to say on the issue of socks. If you don't get an admin to back you up on your views and you continue to remove that strike or accuse me of being a sock, I will be asking for a block of yourself for extreme aggravation of another editor at the very minimum. Neetandtidy (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Neetandtidy, your attitude stinks, foul, abusive and threatening. Where have I accused you of being a sock? Again misrepresenting what I have said. You have an alternative account, retired yes, fully and openly disclosed, no. I have unsticken the comment, again, from your qouted

WP:TPO Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request so a breach there too. Another threat of a block form you, you are not an admin and at best right now an SPA. I have asked questions that you have not answered but continue misqouting me. You have seen my contributions I want to see yours, if you wont there is nothing I can do other than bring an ANI and as it is already there that would just be frivilous. But why do hide your previous account?Murry1975 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've had enough. I'm not even surprised to see TPO is something you also don't understand. You can take your chances with the admins, I've reported your behaviour to ANI. Hopefully you'll get the education you badly need, as like I already said, I'm not your bloody teacher. Neetandtidy (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already added to where we are bud. Murry1975 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As per any other international border. Appropriate aswell given that the map used is of Ireland and not the British Isles.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment show examples of other international borders you speak of. Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided as much rationale as Bjmullan. That appears to enough for you not to question his opposition.Hackneyhound (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is he is following my example, I was wonderering what your example is or are. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can assume that from Bjmullans comment given that they say "any international border" which does not specify anything and the link you provided does not work.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This border is not analogous to the US-Canada border, the Azerbaijan-Armenia border or any other border where the whole - or nearly the whole - of two states share the same landmass. This border separates a specific part of the UK i.e. Northern Ireland, from the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is not just any old part of the UK; it is a semi-autonomous region with its own legislative assembly and executive. It has been, and is, referred to by various terms such as constituent country, state and statelet. This fact, plus
  WP:COMMONNAME, suggests that "Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border" is the logical title for the article. Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I also support the move. I don't think articles such as Mexico–United States border are intended to be common names for their subject matter but rather descriptive names for otherwise biased names, like "Mexican border". Neither do I see there is any naming paradigm such as "sovstate-sovstate border". I do however think that the border is more notable for dividing the island of Ireland than being the only land border between the UK and Ireland. That the border originally divided two parts of the UK — Northern and Southern Ireland — and was created as part of partition strengthens this point. The proposed title is also more descriptive and specific than the current title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Support - if the article was also substantially about the maritime boundary, (Rockall dispute etc.), that would be a different matter, but it isn't, nor is there any indication to me that it will develop in this direction. This discussion fundamentally undermined by socking. RashersTierney (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is an international border and so the appropriate context is between the two states involved. There is also a fundamental difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the topic: border control is not a matter devolved to the Northern Ireland administration. Indeed, it is an excepted matter and so is never envisioned to be devolved.

The initial premise for the proposal is also fundamentally flawed: "...one person [on another article is] heavily pushing the idea that this border cannot be referred to as being between NI and ROI anywhere on Wikipedia while the title of this article resides at ROI-UK." So, if we supposedly cannot refer to the border as being between NI and ROI because of the current article name, would a change mean we could not say this is the border between the UK and ROI?

WP:BATTLES

from other talk pages should be left there and not carried across the 'pedia.

(

talk) 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. If people are not yet aware both the proposer for this change (Neetandtidy) and one of the supporters (Hackneyhound) have been given indef blocks for socking. I think we can close this discussion now and not waste any more time on it. Bjmullan (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is an International border. Mo ainm~Talk 10:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can add nothing that has not already been said, other than the posts by socks of banned users should be struck.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The proposal would add clarity to the situation. The proposed description is by far and away the most common usage. Van Speijk (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As the proposer of this move has been banned for sockpuppetry, I will reluctantly change my vote to speedy close as the proposal does seem somewhat tainted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support common sense edit.Wp aide (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get farcical. If you want to try your hand at sock puppetry, at least try and make an effort! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree! Beyond a joke.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to closing admin:

• Neetandtidy/Hackneyhound has been blocked indefinately for socking and as a "POV-pushing single purpose account, only here to stir up trouble". Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wp aide has also been blocked as an sock puppet. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• FYI there will be no closing admin, because the RM template was removed quite some time ago, therefore this page is not at WP:RM. In effect the discussion is already closed and we can move on. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Why not "Northern Ireland border"? See, it doesn't work. You have to mention both. Srsrox (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion ended months ago, there is no point adding any more supports or opposes to it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Northern Ireland

Is it still true to say "Although, unlike many other EU borders, there are no sign posts at crossing points notifying travellers that they are entering a different jurisdiction." There is now a sign while travelling north on the Irish M1 (N1) "Welcome to Northern Ireland", a different jusidiction. Stanstaple (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed elsewhere the signs you refer to were introduced in recent years but to date are only on a handful of border crossings and some of them have been removed/defaced/vandalized. 2.221.93.93 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"only in the highlands of the Cavan-Fermanagh section could the border be said to accord with any significant physical impediments to movement."

What about Lough Foyle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.92.249 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section says:

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there were British military checkpoints on main border crossings and UK security forces made the remaining crossings impassable. By about 2005, in phase with implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, remaining controls were definitively removed.

Could that please be explained a little more? I.e. was it a Berlin Wall type of situation with defectors trying to escape across the border and all that? If yes, was it mostly in just one direction; and if so, which? Yes we in the USA really are this clueless about this stuff. I'm hearing about it now mostly because of Brexit. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It wasn't the Berlin wall. People crossing the border weren't "trying to escape". They were trying to go to work. Or to visit family. Or church. Or to get groceries. Or to football training. Or otherwise just getting from A to B. Normal day-to-day stuff. Not 'The Spy Who Came in from the Cold'. Or some East Berlin spy movie. Just normal life. On smaller country roads the barriers that prevented them from getting to their grandmother's house were immovable blockades. Where bridges and roads were dismantled and replaced with concrete-filled casements. A manufactured dead-end. Compare the "then and now" photos of the Lacken Bridge road here for example. On larger roads (the official crossings), the checkpoints weren't immovable barriers. But gated checkpoints like this. Where you might just get waved through (at best), stopped and asked questions through the car window (if not), stopped and the car searched (sometimes), or shot dead if those manning the checkpoint were tired, in fear of attack or perhaps had wet fingers from the rain. The northern side of the border were manned by UK customs, RUC and the British Army. The southern side of these crossings weren't typically policed to any great extent. Irish Customs might wave larger trucks and vans into a lay-by before they reached the border proper. This is all covered in the Republic_of_Ireland–United_Kingdom_border#The_Troubles section. Guliolopez (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That last linked section (the Troubles section) paints a clearer picture. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border#Distinctive physical characteristics and Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border#Waters around Northern Ireland we have the same text of Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, and Southern Ireland shall consist of so much of Ireland as is not comprised within the said parliamentary counties and boroughs. As the latter section notes the Act did not explicitly address the position of territorial waters, so is there any objection to the removal of the duplicate quote (and any associated text) from the latter section? FDW777 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FDW777 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the top flag on this map. 2603:8000:C100:5B30:A55D:A942:7266:577F (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]