Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

Yes, Britain refers to the island of England, Wales, and Scotland. The purpose of the NI protocol was to have the Brits apply EU customs rules to goods which were leaving Britain, passing through NI and destined for the EU single market. They can still check goods entering Britain while simply not checking goods leaving Britain.

All WTO members will be treated equally under this scenario.


I'm just now wondering if the the UKs threat is stronger than I originally thought. If the UK don't enforce border controls in NI, would this mean that the entire world has a backdoor into the EU single market?



I wouldn't put too much faith in the reason that the UK are giving for undermining the NI protocol. They will use NI as a bargaining chip without second thought.



Cheers for that.

You do realise if the UK puts import controls on Goods entering Britain they will have put an economic border between NI and the rest of the UK. This would annoy unionists as what they want is there to be no border between NI and the UK. As the UK won't check the goods entering NI that means a border in Ireland for trade purposes which annoys nationalists. You are talking about Northern Ireland having a hard border with both the rest of the UK and Ireland. This is quiet literally the worst case scenario for them and a scenario that suits no one.

The reality is that NI is part of the UK. If the UK government takes NI out of the EU single market and customs Union we have a hard border end of. What the UK decides to do with NI Britain trade is to a large degree irrelevant and to a degree none of anyone else's business. Again to avoid a hard border NI must stay in the EU Single market and customs Union. If your solution doesn't manage that it isn't a solution.

The UK can't really use the NI border as a bargaining chip with the EU. I would argue though that the EU can and ultimately has. The UK needs a deal with the EU, the trade block it does over half is trade with or through. One of the conditions for a deal is ultimately that NI stays in the EU single market and customs Union. How that happens is up to the UK to decide. Hence the reason the EU has allowed the UK to flip flop and do u turn after u turn on the exact mechanism that achieves that goal.

To give you an idea of how the UK can't use the Irish border as leverage look at the events this week. The UK purposes a law and remember proposes not actually pass a law that threatens the Irish border under the withdrawal agreement, the EU takes legal action against the UK. This is something that raises the prospect of a no deal. So by messing around with the Irish border the UK government has made it harder to achieve the trade deal it needs. So much for UK leverage. Then again Brexit was supposed to be the easiest deal in history and the UK was supposed to hold all the cards. Your idea about the Irish border giving leverage to the UK government is just another variation of Brexiter arguments that have been demonstrated as fantasy over the last few years.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Yes, Britain refers to the island of England, Wales, and Scotland. The purpose of the NI protocol was to have the Brits apply EU customs rules to goods which were leaving Britain, passing through NI and destined for the EU single market. They can still check goods entering Britain while simply not checking goods leaving Britain.

Well, somewhat the opposite of this. Goods leaving Britain must be checked when moving to northern Ireland or the EU according to the treaty. Goods entering britain don't have to be checked, as long as that policy is applied equally to all WTO members.

If your underlying assumption is that the EU will have an open/unchecked customs border with Britain, which therefore must be extended to other WTO members, then what's your basis for that.

I'm just now wondering if the the UKs threat is stronger than I originally thought. If the UK don't enforce border controls in NI, would this mean that the entire world has a backdoor into the EU single market?

This is exactly what makes the strategy so weak. If the UK decides to not enforce customs borders that's entirely up to them. The world, as you pointed out, gets backdoor access to the entire UK market.

The EU can still enforce their border controls to avoid this.

Originally

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reality is that NI is part of the UK.

Irish govenment make decision a lot of years ago to be unionists too and Sin Fein to agree good friday agreement. No? Give they up occupied territories, no?

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

There's nothing in the WTO rules that can force the UK to put up a hard border:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136

They might decide to go for the "alternative arrangements" they talked so much about. The technological solution. Then again, they might just see how far they can push it.

Would you happen to know the part of the WTO rules that says that? I'd be interested to understand it better.

Here you go: Most Favoured Nation rules.

No, the WTO won't force the UK to implement border controls on the NI-EU border on the island of Ireland, but if they don't enforce controls there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK. It's the old having cake and eating it dilemma again: either NI is part of the UK, in which case the whole world has access to the whole UK market; or NI is treated as a separate territory with region-specific rules.

Originally

CelticRambler wrote: »

island of Ireland,

Ireland is island, no. Ireland is more islands 1 islands. ireland is seaside sea and airway airs and blaskets and aranss islands and thing like that. yes?

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure how many times I will have to repeat this, but we wouldn't be leaving the EU.

We would remain full members of all the institutions and treaties. There would be checks on our goods entering the single market would be the only change. The cost of this could, in principle, be offset with the special arrangements for the zone.

I'm not sure how many times you have to be told, but being outside of the Single Market means we could no longer be full members of the EU. We'd be, at best, at about the same level of associate membership as Norway ... but even they have access to the Single Market.

Not only that, but if our goods (including agricultural produce) is deemed unfit for unfettered entry into the EU's single market, we lose access to all the world markets whose conditions of trade are based on the EU standard. So a massive wallop to Ireland's economy for no tangible benefit whatsoever. Or Irexit in all but name.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

No we won't be outside the EU because thankfully there is zero chance we will be leaving the EU.

Indeed. Under neither situation would we be leaving the EU.

fly_agaric

roosh wrote: »

Our government and the EU have maintained the position that there can be no hard border because it would threaten peace in NI. Is the peace process in NI then an acceptable cost?

Once again I dispute the way you put it and I can't speak for Ireland or whatever, but yes, IMO trying to "save" NI from consequences of Brexit + the UK voiding the withdrawal agreement is not worth distancing ourselves from the EU/fighting with the other member states for special status.

roosh wrote: »

Putting up a hard border will be an equally monumental decision, given the history of this island

No I don't think so. It is not (equally monumental) for Ireland.

NI is not part of this country and is highly unlikely to become part of it any time soon. At present we can't even agree a common strategy to fight an infectious disease during a global pandemic. It is quite pathetic.

We have our own garden to tend here + IMO our future is in the EU as an integral part of it not a semi-detached adjunct twisting ourselves in knots over Brexit and the malign actions of the UK. If people in NI want the same, they know what to do.

roosh wrote: »

I would see it, not as Brexit voters making the decision for us - because that is effectively what putting up a hard border would do - but taking control of the situation, showing the UK their plan is dead from the get-go and getting them to negotiate in earnest.

Sorry, that seems deluded. I think UK would be quite delighted to see us going to bat with "Brussels" + all the other member states, wasting time trying to wangle this special status.

One thing I also wonder about is the strains it may create. I know you've always said your idea is "short term", but if it is not, it would be a weird situation being in the Eurozone and yet outside single market and customs area.
Not an economist but could a situation like that create problems in the economy that would drive us out of the Eurozone?

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Indeed. Under neither situation would we be leaving the EU.

There is no multiple situations. Your either in the EU like Ireland is or not in the EU which is now the case for the UK.

Originally

eire4 wrote: »

Your either in the EU like Ireland is or not in the EU which is now the case for the UK.

or Ireland dilly dally, hokey cokey, one leg in, big foots out.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realise if the UK puts import controls on Goods entering Britain they will have put an economic border between NI and the rest of the UK. This would annoy unionists as what they want is there to be no border between NI and the UK.

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the Tories value NI and unionists. The only value that NI has to the UK is as a pawn in Brexit negotiations. The Tories will happily throw unionists under the bus as they have done several times before.

PeadarCo wrote: »

As the UK won't check the goods entering NI that means a border in Ireland for trade purposes which annoys nationalists. You are talking about Northern Ireland having a hard border with both the rest of the UK and Ireland. This is quiet literally the worst case scenario for them and a scenario that suits no one.

Again, this is the point. The hard border on the island of Ireland will be put up by us/the EU and not the UK.

The UK do not care how good or bad this is for NI, plus they presumably don't think it will get that far.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reality is that NI is part of the UK. If the UK government takes NI out of the EU single market and customs Union we have a hard border end of.

A hard border put up by the EU not the UK.

PeadarCo wrote: »

What the UK decides to do with NI Britain trade is to a large degree irrelevant and to a degree none of anyone else's business.

It becomes our business when goods from Britain are threatening the integrity of the single market by coming through Ireland.

What happens to goods from other countries entering NI, I wonder? Is there something in the NI protocol about that? Will the rest of the world have a back door into the single market?

PeadarCo wrote: »

Again to avoid a hard border NI must stay in the EU Single market and customs Union. If your solution doesn't manage that it isn't a solution.

That is not the only way to avoid a hard border. The proposition I have suggested would also avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Again, the crux of the issue is who will be putting up that hard border?

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK can't really use the NI border as a bargaining chip with the EU. I would argue though that the EU can and ultimately has.

The EU has what? Used peace in NI as a bargaining chip? Are you suggesting that the EU has been negotiating in bad faith?

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK needs a deal with the EU, the trade block it does over half is trade with or through. One of the conditions for a deal is ultimately that NI stays in the EU single market and customs Union. How that happens is up to the UK to decide. Hence the reason the EU has allowed the UK to flip flop and do u turn after u turn on the exact mechanism that achieves that goal.

Yes, they do need a trade deal but they want a trade deal that will allow them to have their cake and eat it. Worst case scenario (for them), their plan doesn't work and they get the trade deal they were always going to get. This is their only play to get a worthwhile trade deal.

PeadarCo wrote: »

To give you an idea of how the UK can't use the Irish border as leverage look at the events this week. The UK purposes a law and remember proposes not actually pass a law that threatens the Irish border under the withdrawal agreement, the EU takes legal action against the UK. This is something that raises the prospect of a no deal. So by messing around with the Irish border the UK government has made it harder to achieve the trade deal it needs. So much for UK leverage. Then again Brexit was supposed to be the easiest deal in history and the UK was supposed to hold all the cards. Your idea about the Irish border giving leverage to the UK government is just another variation of Brexiter arguments that have been demonstrated as fantasy over the last few years.

In the meantime, the UK is outside the single market (including NI) and are trading with the rest of the world under WTO rules meaning that the rest of the world have a back door into the EU single market.

How long do you think the EU will tolerate that?

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Well, somewhat the opposite of this. Goods leaving Britain must be checked when moving to northern Ireland or the EU according to the treaty. Goods entering britain don't have to be checked, as long as that policy is applied equally to all WTO members.

You've got this slightly backwards.

The UK are threatening to undermine the treaty i.e. they are threatening to not fulfill their obligations under the treaty. This is where their threat to the single market lies.

They can check goods entering the island of Britain for all WTO members but they simply won't uphold the NI protocol for goods leaving the island of Britain headed for the EU single market. This is a threat to the EU single market. This is what will force the EU to put up a hard border on the island of Ireland.

moon2 wrote: »

If your underlying assumption is that the EU will have an open/unchecked customs border with Britain, which therefore must be extended to other WTO members, then what's your basis for that.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here as that isn't the underlying assumption.

The underlying assumption is simply that the UK will follow through on their threat to undermine the NI protocol. If we assume that they will attempt to follow through on this, then they can protect their own market by checking goods entering Britain but they threaten the integrity of the single market by not fulfilling the NI protocol i.e. they don't apply EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain destined for the single market.

There is a further threat to the EU single market from a no deal because it would mean that the entire world has a back door into the EU single market.

This is what will force the EU to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. It won't be the UK putting up the border infrastructure.

moon2 wrote: »

This is exactly what makes the strategy so weak. If the UK decides to not enforce customs borders that's entirely up to them. The world, as you pointed out, gets backdoor access to the entire UK market.

The EU can still enforce their border controls to avoid this.

The UK can enforce border checks on goods entering Britain so the world doesn't have a backdoor to the British market. It will however provide backdoor access to the EU single market for the entire world.

This is what will force the EU to put up a hard border on the island of Ireland.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here you go: Most Favoured Nation rules.

No, the WTO won't force the UK to implement border controls on the NI-EU border on the island of Ireland, but if they don't enforce controls there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK. It's the old having cake and eating it dilemma again: either NI is part of the UK, in which case the whole world has access to the whole UK market; or NI is treated as a separate territory with region-specific rules.

Which part specifically says that if they don't enforce rules there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK?

But I think you've answered your own dilemma there anyway. NI could be treated as a separate entity with region-specific rules.

roosh

fly_agaric wrote: »

Once again I dispute the way you put it and I can't speak for Ireland or whatever, but yes, IMO trying to "save" NI from consequences of Brexit + the UK voiding the withdrawal agreement is not worth distancing ourselves from the EU/fighting with the other member states for special status.

I'm sure there are plenty in government who share your opinion and it may ultimately come to that, but it doesn't change the position that our government and the EU have maintained all along.

The whole reason for the backstop/NI protocol debacle is because we said that there couldn't be a hard border in NI under any circumstances. If this wasn't the case, then negotiations could have proceeded on the basis that a hard border is the default but that's not the position we adopted.

fly_agaric wrote: »

No I don't think so. It is not (equally monumental) for Ireland.

Well, our position, and that of the EU has been that it is more monumental. That's the reason for the backstop debacle.

To say that it isn't equally monumental is to completely ignore the short history of this country and the troubled history of NI.

fly_agaric wrote: »

We have our own garden to tend here + IMO our future is in the EU as an integral part of it not a semi-detached adjunct twisting ourselves in knots over Brexit and the malign actions of the UK. If people in NI want the same, they know what to do.

Yes, our future is in the EU. I'm not suggesting that we leave it.

If the hard border isn't such a big issue then why did we insist that there could be no negotiations until there was something in place to avoid a hard border?

fly_agaric wrote: »

Sorry, that seems deluded. I think UK would be quite delighted to see us going to bat with "Brussels" + all the other member states, wasting time trying to wangle this special status.

Why would we be "going to bat with Brussels"? I thought "we are the EU the EU is us"? We wouldn't need to go to bat with them, we would be showing solidarity by finding a solution to an intractable problem and "sacrificing" ourselves yet again, for the good of the European project.

fly_agaric wrote: »

One thing I also wonder about is the strains it may create. I know you've always said your idea is "short term", but if it is not, it would be a weird situation being in the Eurozone and yet outside single market and customs area.
Not an economist but could a situation like that create problems in the economy that would drive us out of the Eurozone?

These were the kinds of ideas I was hoping to tease out.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

There is no multiple situations. Your either in the EU like Ireland is or not in the EU which is now the case for the UK.

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Which part specifically says that if they don't enforce rules there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK?

The very first part. NI is part of the UK. If the UK grants EU traders based in the Republic unfettered access to NI (=UK), then they *must* allow the same access to every other WTO member. And once granted, they must not discriminate between imports and locally produced goods.

The same does not apply in reverse, because the EU has explicitly stated that the UK will be treated as a third country until such time as they sign a trade deal, so anyone trying to flood the EU with cheap crap from elsewhere (see example of the UK doing that some years ago with Chinese imports) will be punished.

If you didn't already know all of this, it might explain why you're having so much trouble understanding why your proposal is such a catastrophic solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the Tories value NI and unionists. The only value that NI has to the UK is as a pawn in Brexit negotiations. The Tories will happily throw unionists under the bus as they have done several times before.



Again, this is the point. The hard border on the island of Ireland will be put up by us/the EU and not the UK.

The UK do not care how good or bad this is for NI, plus they presumably don't think it will get that far.



A hard border put up by the EU not the UK.



It becomes our business when goods from Britain are threatening the integrity of the single market by coming through Ireland.

What happens to goods from other countries entering NI, I wonder? Is there something in the NI protocol about that? Will the rest of the world have a back door into the single market?


That is not the only way to avoid a hard border. The proposition I have suggested would also avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Again, the crux of the issue is who will be putting up that hard border?




The EU has what? Used peace in NI as a bargaining chip? Are you suggesting that the EU has been negotiating in bad faith?



Yes, they do need a trade deal but they want a trade deal that will allow them to have their cake and eat it. Worst case scenario (for them), their plan doesn't work and they get the trade deal they were always going to get. This is their only play to get a worthwhile trade deal.



In the meantime, the UK is outside the single market (including NI) and are trading with the rest of the world under WTO rules meaning that the rest of the world have a back door into the EU single market.

How long do you think the EU will tolerate that?

What are you trying to say in your response? Honestly I don't understand what you are saying. Nothing in it seems to refute my point that if NI leaves the EU single market and customs Union we will have a hard border.

Originally

Ireland, make eu version partrition 100 more years later, after world war once. Throw all optionse up in air, see what will fall best solution best way. Make people happy north south be live togetrer. Tell, germans + tell britsers go make trouble somewhere elses.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

No you couldn't. Ports are not normal, open economies where people live, play, raise families ...

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

No there is no or other situation. Your either in the EU which Ireland thankfully is or you are not which is now the case for the UK. No amount of magical thinking can make it otherwise.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

The very first part. NI is part of the UK. If the UK grants EU traders based in the Republic unfettered access to NI (=UK), then they *must* allow the same access to every other WTO member. And once granted, they must not discriminate between imports and locally produced goods.

Every other WTO member will have the same access to NI. All goods will then be checked entering Britain, so imported goods will be treated the same.

This [potential] fact actually heightens the UK's threat to the single market because the entire world will have a backdoor to the EU single market via NI.

CelticRambler wrote: »

The same does not apply in reverse, because the EU has explicitly stated that the UK will be treated as a third country until such time as they sign a trade deal, so anyone trying to flood the EU with cheap crap from elsewhere (see example of the UK doing that some years ago with Chinese imports) will be punished.

If you didn't already know all of this, it might explain why you're having so much trouble understanding why your proposal is such a catastrophic solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

If it were this simple, then there would be no need for border infrastructure because everyone would be working on the honour system. Of course, that's not how it works in the real world.

Was it yourself who made the point about smugglers earlier?

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

What are you trying to say in your response? Honestly I don't understand what you are saying. Nothing in it seems to refute my point that if NI leaves the EU single market and customs Union we will have a hard border.

I'm not refuting that point. It might be more productive to take it step by step.

The first point was about unionists being annoyed and the situation being unfavourable to NI. To this I replied that you are overestimating the value the Tories place on NI.

With regard to the inevitability of the hard border, who is it that will be putting up the hard border? Will it be the EU or will it be the UK?


What did you mean by this btw:

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK can't really use the NI border as a bargaining chip with the EU. I would argue though that the EU can and ultimately has.

Did you mean that the EU was using peace in NI as a bargaining chip?

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

No you couldn't. Ports are not normal, open economies where people live, play, raise families ...

Call it a special economic zone then.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

No there is no or other situation. Your either in the EU which Ireland thankfully is or you are not which is now the case for the UK. No amount of magical thinking can make it otherwise.

Currently there is no other situation but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be.

You're right, no amount of magical thinking could make it otherwise, it would take serious political will and legal work.

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Currently there is no other situation but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be.

You're right, no amount of magical thinking could make it otherwise, it would take serious political will and legal work.

Well again thankfully Ireland is very much a part of the EU and no chance that status is changing in any way shape or form.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

Well again thankfully Ireland is very much a part of the EU and no chance that status is changing in any way shape or form.

Hopefully, it remains that way.

But, if a hard border on the island of Ireland really is a redline for the EU, as opposed to a bad faith negotiating ploy, then we might need to look at possible short term alternatives until the Brits come to their senses.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Every other WTO member will have the same access to NI. All goods will then be checked entering Britain, so imported goods will be treated the same.

Nope. WTO rules prevent discrimination between the regions, and the new IMB - which is the motivation for your plan to remove Ireland from full EU membership - further prohibits transfers of goods from NI being subject to checks.

So no checks at Newry means no checks at Dover.

But hey, if you want to re-write the fundamental principles of the EU, why not re-write those of the WTO while you're at it?

Oh wait, you're cherry-picking. A fine Brexiter tradition. :rolleyes:

Nody

roosh wrote: »

then they can protect their own market by checking goods entering Britain but they threaten the integrity of the single market by not fulfilling the NI protocol i.e. they don't apply EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain destined for the single market.

Which is what the NI protocol is; a check on goods entering the UK at the NI border. Now you can place those checks at the NI port, or in the UK port but either way you've split UK which is what Boris claims he's not going to do and what the bill is exactly targeted at ensuring does not happen.

This is what will force the EU to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. It won't be the UK putting up the border infrastructure.

Except you've already stated that UK will do a control on the goods from NI to not fall foul of the WTO terms; so UK would put up a hard border; if you put it on the island or in UK does not really matter because the impact on NI is the same.

The UK can enforce border checks on goods entering Britain so the world doesn't have a backdoor to the British market.

So you've admitted a hard border splitting NI from the UK market and implementing a hard border.

It will however provide backdoor access to the EU single market for the entire world.

How exactly do you then envision NI to allow all flow in one direction after UK has bordered them off? You expect NI will happily stand there and wave all the trucks rolling over while their own trucks get stopped? In essence you've implemented the WA except you moved the controls and tried to claim they will be one way only while breaking an international treaty and assume NI will still cooperate in being cut off from the UK market. In which scenario do you think NI would do that over saying "f*** this; we're aligning with the WA instead"? NI got nothing to lose; they already got locked out of the UK market anyway.

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Hopefully, it remains that way.

But, if a hard border on the island of Ireland really is a redline for the EU, as opposed to a bad faith negotiating ploy, then we might need to look at possible short term alternatives until the Brits come to their senses.

No we don't. We are very much part of the EU and will remain so regardless of what the UK does or does not do.

Capt'n Midnight

roosh wrote: »

There's nothing in the WTO rules that can force the UK to put up a hard border:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136

They might decide to go for the "alternative arrangements" they talked so much about. The technological solution. Then again, they might just see how far they can push it.

Would you happen to know the part of the WTO rules that says that? I'd be interested to understand it better.

And we're back to Most Favoured Nation vs Max Fac

Most Favoured Nation means that ANY concession outside of an agreement has to be offered to all nations. So HMCR would loose out on tariff revenue and likely be a victim of more Chinese dumping of steel and whatnot which would kill the domestic industries (except the steel plants the Chinese own because they need them to hold the UK over a barrel for the rails for HS2)

Max Fac is an honesty based system. As I keep pointing out NI had 40% of vehicle fuel from dishonest sources at a time when 27,000 troops and other security forces were accused of having a shoot to kill policy. In today's less severe circumstances it would lead to a porous border and third parties would claim it's not for purpose and demand Most Favoured Nation treatment too.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

I'm not refuting that point. It might be more productive to take it step by step.

The first point was about unionists being annoyed and the situation being unfavourable to NI. To this I replied that you are overestimating the value the Tories place on NI.

With regard to the inevitability of the hard border, who is it that will be putting up the hard border? Will it be the EU or will it be the UK?


What did you mean by this btw:

Did you mean that the EU was using peace in NI as a bargaining chip?

My point is if the UK wants a trade deal it must keep NI in the EU single market and customs Union. Or put it another way it must lose partial control of its territory. Its a fairly extraordinary situation for any country to be in when it comes to a trade deal and highlights how weak the UK position is. Something Brexiters and UK electorate in general did not appreciate was how closely the Good Friday agreement tied the UK to Ireland and therefore the EU. Without the GFA the EU/Irish demands would be out of order.

If NI was not part of the UK Brexit would have gone far smoother. Successive UK governments have tied themselves up in knots by trying to adhere to the GFA and aim for a hard Brexit for the entire UK.

On your other point about ignoring unionists if they didn't care about unionists why bother undermining the withdrawal agreement as they are doing. Your idea is not only nonsensical on legal and practical grounds as articulated by other posters also ignores the actions of not only the current UK government but previous ones as well.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

Call it a special economic zone then.

I'll ask you again as you seem to ignore this question but it's key for your idea to work. Can you give any example of an open border between two countries/trade blocs where the relevant parties are in different customs unions and single markets?

Originally

PeadarCo wrote: »

Can you give any example of an open border between two countries/trade blocs where the relevant parties are in different customs unions and single markets?

When we need solutions to problems some bright spark will eventually make an invention. Inventions don't exist, they are new solutions. We can look all day, every day and be under the illusion we are making progress by looking for what does not exist.


In answer to the question, black markets exist, illegal trade exists over borders, it works just fine if you do it properly.

fly_agaric

roosh wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty in government who share your opinion and it may ultimately come to that, but it doesn't change the position that our government and the EU have maintained all along.

The whole reason for the backstop/NI protocol debacle is because we said that there couldn't be a hard border in NI under any circumstances. If this wasn't the case, then negotiations could have proceeded on the basis that a hard border is the default but that's not the position we adopted.

You've taken a very literal and wide ranging interpretation of "any circumstances".

It was an EU/Irish goal for the negotiations (a "red line" to recall another term that got thrown about) but if negotiations fail, as it looks like they might do retrospectively if UK voids the NI protocol, what happens then?

You are also using another Brexiter argument here about the EU/Irish position in the negotiations so I'm beginning to think if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc...

roosh wrote: »

To say that it isn't equally monumental is to completely ignore the short history of this country and the troubled history of NI.

roosh wrote: »

If the hard border isn't such a big issue then why did we insist that there could be no negotiations until there was something in place to avoid a hard border?

I didn't say it was not "a big issue" so why do you keep twisting my words + playing games?
My view is keeping our current status as a full EU member and maintaining the good relations with the EU and the other member states is more important to Ireland and its future than the NI border post Brexit.
You believe that is incorrect - fair enough.

roosh wrote: »

Yes, our future is in the EU. I'm not suggesting that we leave it.

You are not being straight here really. You are suggesting we diminish key aspects of our EU membership and also try and seek a special status (could be said to amouting to advantages over the other members) to suit ourselves. It didn't work out well in the end for the UK who had that approach to the EU for decades, and I don't think it will work for Ireland either.

wrote:

Why would we be "going to bat with Brussels"? I thought "we are the EU the EU is us"? We wouldn't need to go to bat with them, we would be showing solidarity by finding a solution to an intractable problem and "sacrificing" ourselves yet again, for the good of the European project.

Well, that was why I used the scare quotes. It is the brexiter/eurosceptic view.
The UK withdrawal negotiation was different in that we were seeking support from the other members for our position vis a vis an outsider/soon to be outsider.
Now we would be looking for special treatment over others as a member that could arguably change the meaning of membership and weaken the group as a whole. I don't think that is showing solidarity.

roosh wrote: »

These were the kinds of ideas I was hoping to tease out.

Do you have any views on it?
I have another thought.
You also said (I think) we'd still be following all the treaties, we'd have MEPs in EU parliament and nominate a Commissioner. The single market and customs are pretty key aspects of the EU which I imagine a lot of Commission and EU Parliament time is spent on. Say we have a special status and are not really part of those any more. Our our reps still voting on these things in the parliament and making decisions for the other members that do not affect us (edit or have different effects in Ireland)? Should they recuse themselves on those issues (unless its something do with us)? Should Irish commissioner be barred from taking up some of the roles relating to markets and trade? What would the other members think about it all I wonder?

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. WTO rules prevent discrimination between the regions, and the new IMB

So no checks at Newry means no checks at Dover.

I forgot to say it previously but thank you, because this is the type of discussion I was hoping for.

Where does it say that if there are no checks at Newry there can be no checks at Dover?

The same, of course, would apply to the EU. If there are no checks along the border between NI and the ROI, then there can be no checks anywhere in the EU single market - for countries trading on WTO rules.


With regard to discrimination between the regions of the UK, there would be none, because all the regions of the UK would be treated the same. Any goods from any region of the UK entering the island of Britain would be checked.

CelticRambler wrote: »

which is the motivation for your plan to remove Ireland from full EU membership
....
Oh wait, you're cherry-picking. A fine Brexiter tradition. :rolleyes:

You're just wrong in your assessment here.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Where does it say that if there are no checks at Newry there can be no checks at Dover?

I linked you to the page which describes how the WTO works. This is item 1 in the page I shared.

The same, of course, would apply to the EU. If there are no checks along the border between NI and the ROI, then there can be no checks anywhere in the EU single market - for countries trading on WTO rules.

Exactly. That's why the withdrawal agreement is necessary. without IT there'll be a hard border which falls under WTO rules. This is also why the border will be checked by both the UK and the EU.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

Which is what the NI protocol is; a check on goods entering the UK at the NI border. Now you can place those checks at the NI port, or in the UK port but either way you've split UK which is what Boris claims he's not going to do and what the bill is exactly targeted at ensuring does not happen.

Boris and the Tories don't care what happens to NI. They are simply using it as a bargaining chip and will do whatever is most expedient for them. If the UK doesn't implement the NI protocol it means that they will not be applying EU customs rules as goods enter NI. This is the threat to the single market.

Nody wrote: »

Except you've already stated that UK will do a control on the goods from NI to not fall foul of the WTO terms; so UK would put up a hard border; if you put it on the island or in UK does not really matter because the impact on NI is the same.

The Tories don't care about the impact on NI, they care about what they see as leverage in the negotiations, which is the threat that the border on our island poses to the single market.

Nody wrote: »

How exactly do you then envision NI to allow all flow in one direction after UK has bordered them off? You expect NI will happily stand there and wave all the trucks rolling over while their own trucks get stopped? In essence you've implemented the WA except you moved the controls and tried to claim they will be one way only while breaking an international treaty and assume NI will still cooperate in being cut off from the UK market. In which scenario do you think NI would do that over saying "f*** this; we're aligning with the WA instead"? NI got nothing to lose; they already got locked out of the UK market anyway.

I'm sure there will be disruption but I think the Tories are hoping they can manage it for as long or as short as is necessary.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

I linked you to the page which describes how the WTO works. This is item 1 in the page I shared.

I've read it, but I don' think the wording supports the conclusion you are drawing.

moon2 wrote: »

Exactly. That's why the withdrawal agreement is necessary. without IT there'll be a hard border which falls under WTO rules. This is also why the border will be checked by both the UK and the EU.

That's why the UK are threatening to go without a deal because they hope that this threat to the single market will be enough to make the EU give them more concessions.

On day 1 of no deal, the entire EU single market is open to the rest of the world - according to WTO rules. The Brits are hoping that this will be enough to make the EU blink first.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

No we don't. We are very much part of the EU and will remain so regardless of what the UK does or does not do.

Nothing I have suggested would change this fact.

roosh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And we're back to Most Favoured Nation vs Max Fac

Most Favoured Nation means that ANY concession outside of an agreement has to be offered to all nations. So HMCR would loose out on tariff revenue and likely be a victim of more Chinese dumping of steel and whatnot which would kill the domestic industries (except the steel plants the Chinese own because they need them to hold the UK over a barrel for the rails for HS2)

Max Fac is an honesty based system. As I keep pointing out NI had 40% of vehicle fuel from dishonest sources at a time when 27,000 troops and other security forces were accused of having a shoot to kill policy. In today's less severe circumstances it would lead to a porous border and third parties would claim it's not for purpose and demand Most Favoured Nation treatment too.

The point is, if they go Max Fac in NI they will argue that they are complying with WTO rules but not in such a way that the EU will be satisfied and thus it will be the EU putting up that hard border infrastructure.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

I've read it, but I don' think the wording supports the conclusion you are drawing.

Not much I can do about this unfortunately.

On day 1 of no deal, the entire EU single market is open to the rest of the world - according to WTO rules. The Brits are hoping that this will be enough to make the EU blink first.

No, not at all. The EU will enforce the border that the UK create by repudiating the withdrawal agreement. The UK will also enforce it as no-one will sign a FTA when the market is already fully open. You can't get better than 'no checks, no limits'.

The point is, if they go Max Fac in NI they will argue that they are complying with WTO rules but not in such a way that the EU will be satisfied and thus it will be the EU putting up that hard border infrastructure.

'Max fac' is not the same as an agreed FTA or similar. The uk can't claim to have a bilateral agreement with the EU if the EU says such a bilateral agreement doesn't exist. There's no way for a unilateral statement from the UK to comply with WTO rules. It has to be bilateral/multi-lateral.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

On your other point about ignoring unionists if they didn't care about unionists why bother undermining the withdrawal agreement as they are doing. Your idea is not only nonsensical on legal and practical grounds as articulated by other posters also ignores the actions of not only the current UK government but previous ones as well.

I'm replying to this first because I think it's demonstrative of the basic misunderstanding at play.

Do you believe that the UK are threatening to undermine the withdrawal agreement for the sole purpose of appeasing unionists?

The reason they are undermining it is because it is the only way they can threaten the EU single market. It is the only bargaining chip they have. It has nothing to do with pandering to unionists.

PeadarCo wrote: »

My point is if the UK wants a trade deal it must keep NI in the EU single market and customs Union.

The only way the UK can get a "good deal" as opposed to a "bad deal" is by threatening to undermine the NI protocol, because that's their only real bargaining chip.

They will ultimately agree to keeping NI in the EU market and customs union, but they are hoping to secure more concessions first.

Nody

roosh wrote: »

I've read it, but I don' think the wording supports the conclusion you are drawing.

Then I suggest you actually read it this time.

2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

Ergo; once it's over the UK border at any location, be that NI or Dover it has to be treated exactly the same as domestic goods. Hence your controls being placed on the UK Island is not compliant with the WTO terms because they entered the UK already in NI. The only alternative to this is if NI was to be in a unique customs region instead which was which proposal again...

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Not much I can do about this unfortunately.

You could reference the exact sentences you think support your conclusion i.e. copy and past them here. And we can dissect them.

moon2 wrote: »

No, not at all. The EU will enforce the border that the UK create by repudiating the withdrawal agreement. The UK will also enforce it as no-one will sign a FTA when the market is already fully open. You can't get better than 'no checks, no limits'.

I'm not sure if it was you or someone else who said, the border is there already, the issue is the hardening of the border. As you suggest here, it will be the EU who harden the border.

The UK will trade on WTO terms, as they have said.

moon2 wrote: »

'Max fac' is not the same as an agreed FTA or similar. The uk can't claim to have a bilateral agreement with the EU if the EU says such a bilateral agreement doesn't exist. There's no way for a unilateral statement from the UK to comply with WTO rules. It has to be bilateral/multi-lateral.

It's not meant to be part of an FTA, just the UK perfroming the requisite "checks" to comply with WTO rules but in such a way as to maintain the threat to the single market.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

Then I suggest you actually read it this time.

Ergo; once it's over the UK border at any location, be that NI or Dover it has to be treated exactly the same as domestic goods. Hence your controls being placed on the UK Island is not compliant with the WTO terms because they entered the UK already in NI. The only alternative to this is if NI was to be in a unique customs region instead which was which proposal again...

They will be treated the same as domestic goods. All domestic goods entering the island of Britain will be checked. This would apply to goods produced on the island of Britain which (for whatever reason) would leave the island of Britain and then re-enter.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'll ask you again as you seem to ignore this question but it's key for your idea to work. Can you give any example of an open border between two countries/trade blocs where the relevant parties are in different customs unions and single markets?

Maybe I missed it previously, but I think this is the fist time you've asked this question.

Why do you need an example for something that would be a unique solution to a unique situation?

moon2

roosh wrote: »

They will be treated the same as domestic goods. All domestic goods entering the island of Britain will be checked. This would apply to goods produced on the island of Britain which (for whatever reason) would leave the island of Britain and then re-enter.

Once the goods have entered the UK they are now legally indistinguishable from any good produced in the rest of the UK. A customs border between NI and Britain would accomplish what exactly? What impact would the UK have by introducing an internal customs border between regions, one which only processes domestic goods? What would this even accomplish?!

I find it curious that you so strongly hold to your position even though it was only 5 days ago when you first came to learn of the literal first rule of the WTO ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114800235&postcount=208 ).

This thread has run it's course for me.

roosh

fly_agaric wrote: »

You've taken a very literal and wide ranging interpretation of "any circumstances".

It was an EU/Irish goal for the negotiations (a "red line" to recall another term that got thrown about) but if negotiations fail, as it looks like they might do retrospectively if UK voids the NI protocol, what happens then?

The EU would not allow negotiations to begin until there was a solution in place which would avoid a hard border. The current UK government were willing to start from the default position of a hard border.

fly_agaric wrote: »

You are also using another Brexiter argument here about the EU/Irish position in the negotiations so I'm beginning to think if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc...

Here's a concept you might want to add to your lexicon - Steel Man

fly_agaric wrote: »

I didn't say it was not "a big issue" so why do you keep twisting my words + playing games?
My view is keeping our current status as a full EU member and maintaining the good relations with the EU and the other member states is more important to Ireland and its future than the NI border post Brexit.
You believe that is incorrect - fair enough.

You do seem to be overestimating the political will to put up a hard border on the island though.

fly_agaric wrote: »

You are not being straight here really. You are suggesting we diminish key aspects of our EU membership and also try and seek a special status (could be said to amouting to advantages over the other members) to suit ourselves. It didn't work out well in the end for the UK who had that approach to the EU for decades, and I don't think it will work for Ireland either.

The UK are trying to have all of the benefits of the EU with none of the contributions. We would arguably be disadvantaging ourselves for the good of the EU single market. This is the complete opposite of what Brexit sought to achieve.

The idea is that the drawbacks would have to be offset, somehow. (Obviously that "somehow" would take a lot of work to figure out).

fly_agaric wrote: »

Well, that was why I used the scare quotes. It is the brexiter/eurosceptic view.
The UK withdrawal negotiation was different in that we were seeking support from the other members for our position vis a vis an outsider/soon to be outsider.
Now we would be looking for special treatment over others as a member that could arguably change the meaning of membership and weaken the group as a whole. I don't think that is showing solidarity.

We would be "martyring" ourselves for the sake of the single market. If that isn't solidarity, then I'm not sure what is.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Do you have any views on it?

I have another thought.
You also said (I think) we'd still be following all the treaties, we'd have MEPs in EU parliament and nominate a Commissioner. The single market and customs are pretty key aspects of the EU which I imagine a lot of Commission and EU Parliament time is spent on. Say we have a special status and are not really part of those any more. Our our reps still voting on these things in the parliament and making decisions for the other members that do not affect us (edit or have different effects in Ireland)? Should they recuse themselves on those issues (unless its something do with us)? Should Irish commissioner be barred from taking up some of the roles relating to markets and trade? What would the other members think about it all I wonder?

Thank you. These are the kinds of questions I was hoping for when I started the thread.

I think arguments could be made either way on this, but there should be no reason that Ireland would have to sit out these discussion because ultimately the decisions will affect our goods in the single market as well.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Once the goods have entered the UK they are now legally indistinguishable from any good produced in the rest of the UK.

Precisely, and all UK goods will be checked entering the island of Britain, including goods produced on the island of Britain which leave and then re-enter.

moon2 wrote: »

A customs border between NI and Britain would accomplish what exactly? What impact would the UK have by introducing an internal customs border between regions, one which only processes domestic goods? What would this even accomplish?!

The sole purpose is the threat it poses to the EU single market as a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU.

moon2 wrote: »

I find it curious that you so strongly hold to your position even though it was only 5 days ago when you first came to learn of the literal first rule of the WTO ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114800235&postcount=208 ).

I was familiar with the MFN rule previously, although not with the minutiae of it. However, I wasn't familiar with your interpretation of it. Now I am, and I don't believe your interpretation is supported by the wording.

moon2 wrote: »

This thread has run it's course for me.

I appreciate your engagement up until now.

VinLieger

In your original post you asked to have a discussion on your idea but throughout the course of this thread its become increasingly obvious you don't really want to have a discussion and instead were hoping for people to come on here praising you for such an ingenious solution.

Yet in 260 posts, minus your own of course, i don't think there's one person who has agreed that your idea is realistic in any way or has any viable merit whatsoever, making this entire thread a waste of your time and everyone who has participated.

Sums up Brexit in a nutshell though.