Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Excellent! We're in complete agreement then. Ireland loses unfettered access to the EU internal market as a direct result of the solution you're proposing. This is a form of Irexit. Now you can see why posters keep referring to this as a form of exiting the EU - we're actually losing access to core parts with this proposal!

I'm not sure why you are treating this as some sort of revelation. I have said from the very start that Irish goods would be subject to checks. The point that you and others have been arguing is that this would constitute leaving the EU, when that simply isn't the case.

moon2 wrote: »

The landbridge is a very different problem. There is a system which allows trucks to be sealed, transit through non-EU areas, and then be admitted through an EU customs post with no checks other than verifying the seal has not been tampered with or removed. This system would allow Irish trucks to transit through a non-EU zone and bypass the customs checks. This is possible because Ireland follows the same customs rules as the rest of the EU today.

Thank you, this is the kind of information I was hoping to glean form starting this thread.

moon2 wrote: »

If we followed your suggestion, then Irish trucks would be subject to full customs inspections once they arrive at any EU customs post because the goods they contain come from a different customs/tax regime, incompatible with the single market. Goods coming from the UK would be no different in this respect.

Could the same process of sealing trucks be applied to all (or the majority of) exports, with VAT etc. collected at the point of sale?

roosh

VinLieger wrote: »

By your definition, but as we learned with Brexit, Irexit very likely means many different things to many different people.

To myself and others on here evidently leaving the single market as you are suggesting is simply a light version of an Irexit.

That's fair enough. The issue then lies in the choice of moniker, as Irexit is intended to mean the Irish exit from the EU in the manner in which the UK left i.e. Brexit.

The primary purpose of Brexit was not to leave the single market. Indeed, the idea was to retain as unfettered access to the single market as possible. The primary purpose of Brexit was to leave all of the other institutions. The proposed special economic zone would involve staying in all of those institutions and so is, to all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of Brexit.

VinLieger

roosh wrote: »

That's fair enough. The issue then lies in the choice of moniker, as Irexit is intended to mean the Irish exit from the EU in the manner in which the UK left i.e. Brexit.

Again brexit meant a whole raft of different things, the only people who have ever tried to claim that brexit only meant one specific scenario are its supporters who have conveniently changed exactly what it was at every turn of this farce.

roosh wrote: »

The primary purpose of Brexit was not to leave the single market.

In your opinion, i bet it would be incredibly easy to find brexiteers who believed the exact opposite.

roosh wrote: »

Indeed, the idea was to retain as unfettered access to the single market as possible.

In your opinion, again there's undoubtedly a significant percentage of those who voted for brexit that believe the exact opposite.

roosh wrote: »

The primary purpose of Brexit was to leave all of the other institutions.

You can present a leaflet or policy list from the brexit camp that says this exactly i assume?

roosh wrote: »

The proposed special economic zone would involve staying in all of those institutions and so is, to all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of Brexit.

Except its not because Brexit is not a singular specific scenario of the UK leaving the EU like you are trying to make it out to be, it is a thousand different things to a thousand different people and trying to reduce it down to suit your ridiculous proposal is disingenuous, ignorant and reductionist.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are treating this as some sort of revelation. I have said from the very start that Irish goods would be subject to checks. The point that you and others have been arguing is that this would constitute leaving the EU, when that simply isn't the case.



Thank you, this is the kind of information I was hoping to glean form starting this thread.


Could the same process of sealing trucks be applied to all (or the majority of) exports, with VAT etc. collected at the point of sale?

This sounds like the VAT changes the UK just introduced. The expectation is that it will now be unaffordable for small shops to sell into the UK market as the costs of administering VAT at the point of sale are too high. The estimate is €5000 a year simply to correctly pay UK import duty/VAT.

Anything is possible - it's likely not feasible. The single market is the thing which removes these barriers.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

I have never stated that we would retain unfettered access. We would, however, retain access to the single market. As was pointed out: two trucks present at a port, one carrying UK goods, the other carrying Irish goods. Both trucks are checked. The truck carrying Irish goods is waved through while the truck carrying UK goods is turned back. Hence, Irish goods retain access to single market while UK goods do not.

Hang on a second: before you wave that Irish truck through, everything on the truck has to be checked to ensure that it is, in fact, Irish; and then - and then - documentation has to be produced for everything on the truck stating what it is, what taxes and duties have already been paid (or not, in your freeport scenario, assuming that the goods were not placed on the domestic market), and then - and then - the relevant EU taxes and duties must be applied and paid before the truck continues on its way.

Exactly the same as for the British truck.

roosh wrote: »

Again, as per the example above, Irish goods are allowed in, while UK goods are stopped. That is access to the single market.

Any tariffs/taxes applied would bring Irish goods on par with those of other EU member states.

These are the issues that would have to be worked out to ensure Irish goods do not receive an unfair advantage or are not unfairly advantaged. It's not a simple task by any means, but it is possible in principle.

No, not a simple task by any means, which is why you have to present a very strong argument in favour of changing the current seamless, frictionless, duty-less, customs-less, fee-free access that Ireland has right now, and outlining exactly how Irish businesses and consumers will generate the extra revenue needed to pay for the extra bureaucracy required to implement such a scheme - because you can be damn sure the French aren't going to pay for it. :pac:

roosh wrote: »

Do you believe that Brexit was about leaving the single market and erecting trade barriers, with the EU while remaining a member of EU institutions, electing MEPs, attending all the EU summits, hosting the rotating EU presidency, contributing to the EU budget, having access to EU subsidies and grants, abiding by EU state aid rules, being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, having a vote on EU treaties, etc. etc.?

As I already pointed out, Brexit can mean anything to anyone. Even now, many months after the UK's departure from the EU and less than three months before the end of the transition period, there's still no agreement amongst Brexiters as to what Brexit meant/means.

roosh wrote: »

Does every country that exports to the EU elect MEPs, do they host the revolving presidency, do they contribute to the EU budget, are they under the jurisdiction of the EU courts?

Remaining part of those institutions is, by definition, NOT Irexit!! As I have been trying to hammer home for the whole thread.

No to the first two points, yes to the second (depending on their Agreement). You're looking at this the wrong way: "Irexit" is not determined by what Ireland would still be signed up to, but by what it would lose. And losing (unfettered) access to the Single Market is Irexit by default.

fash

roosh wrote: »

That's fair enough. The issue then lies in the choice of moniker, as Irexit is intended to mean the Irish exit from the EU in the manner in which the UK left i.e. Brexit.

The primary purpose of Brexit was not to leave the single market. Indeed, the idea was to retain as unfettered access to the single market as possible. The primary purpose of Brexit was to leave all of the other institutions. The proposed special economic zone would involve staying in all of those institutions and so is, to all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of Brexit.

Under your proposal, does Ireland get any say in any of the differences to the single market? Or do we just hand all is that over to England?

roosh

VinLieger wrote: »

Again brexit meant a whole raft of different things, the only people who have ever tried to claim that brexit only meant one specific scenario are its supporters who have conveniently changed exactly what it was at every turn of this farce.

I don't question the inability of Brexiters to coalesce on a single coherent definition of Brexit, but I don't think, at any point, Brexit ever meant continuing to allow EU courts have jurisdiction over the UK, to continue contributing to the EU budget, to continue to elect MEPs, and remain a part of all the other institutions.

VinLieger wrote: »

In your opinion, i bet it would be incredibly easy to find brexiteers who believed the exact opposite.

VinLieger wrote: »

In your opinion, again there's undoubtedly a significant percentage of those who voted for brexit that believe the exact opposite.

Brexit: 12 objectives of Theresa May's negotiations

8. Free trade with European markets

The UK will quit the single market and seek a “new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious” free trade deal instead. This would aim to ensure the “greatest possible access” to the single market on a reciprocal basis.

As has been repeatedly stated, Brexiter's have always wanted to have their cake and eat it. That involves having access to the single market without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

VinLieger wrote: »

You can present a leaflet or policy list from the brexit camp that says this exactly i assume?

What do you think they meant when they were said "Let's take back control"?

Brexit: 12 objectives of Theresa May's negotiations

2. Control of our own laws


If Brexit was about “taking back control”, then Mrs May stressed that must mean leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Laws made in the UK will be “interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country”.

VinLieger wrote: »

Except its not because Brexit is not a singular specific scenario of the UK leaving the EU like you are trying to make it out to be, it is a thousand different things to a thousand different people and trying to reduce it down to suit your ridiculous proposal is disingenuous, ignorant and reductionist.

It's disingenuous to suggest that Brexit has always meant leaving the institutions and legal jurisdiction of the EU??

I'm afraid it's not me that's being disingenuous.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

This sounds like the VAT changes the UK just introduced. The expectation is that it will now be unaffordable for small shops to sell into the UK market as the costs of administering VAT at the point of sale are too high. The estimate is €5000 a year simply to correctly pay UK import duty/VAT.

Anything is possible - it's likely not feasible. The single market is the thing which removes these barriers.

Again, thank you. This is the type of information I had been hoping for.

With regard to the sealing of the other 1/3 of trucks that export to mainland Europe. Is there a reason we couldn't do that?

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Again, thank you. This is the type of information I had been hoping for.

With regard to the sealing of the other 1/3 of trucks that export to mainland Europe. Is there a reason we couldn't do that?

You cannot seal a truck for instant entry to the EU unless the goods that are put into it can be guaranteed to comply with all EU regulations.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

With regard to the sealing of the other 1/3 of trucks that export to mainland Europe. Is there a reason we couldn't do that?

Yes - see my response above. Your "solution" to this non-existent problem means that all goods coming from Ireland - personal and commercial - have to be inspected and taxed appropriately. Ireland (and the Irish) would no longer be part of the common EU framework. You can't cherry pick which bits of EU membership you want to keep.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hang on a second: before you wave that Irish truck through, everything on the truck has to be checked to ensure that it is, in fact, Irish; and then - and then - documentation has to be produced for everything on the truck stating what it is, what taxes and duties have already been paid (or not, in your freeport scenario, assuming that the goods were not placed on the domestic market), and then - and then - the relevant EU taxes and duties must be applied and paid before the truck continues on its way.

Exactly the same as for the British truck.

There is already work being done with regard to the 2/3 of exporters that use the UK land bridge to ensure that they can use the "no-check green lanes" at UK ports.
Irish Times Article

As moon2 has pointed out, with regard to those exporters that use the UK land bridge, trucks can be sealed to ensure that they are compliant. This must be how they can use those "green lanes".

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, not a simple task by any means, which is why you have to present a very strong argument in favour of changing the current seamless, frictionless, duty-less, customs-less, fee-free access that Ireland has right now, and outlining exactly how Irish businesses and consumers will generate the extra revenue needed to pay for the extra bureaucracy required to implement such a scheme - because you can be damn sure the French aren't going to pay for it. :pac:

It would largely depend on the political appetite to avoid a hard border on the island.

As mentioned, it would ideally either be a very short term solution, until the UK back down, or else it wouldn't be required at all, in the hope that simply signalling it as a possible solution would bring them back to the table without the need for an expensive stand-off.

CelticRambler wrote: »

As I already pointed out, Brexit can mean anything to anyone. Even now, many months after the UK's departure from the EU and less than three months before the end of the transition period, there's still no agreement amongst Brexiters as to what Brexit meant/means.

I'm not disputing the incoherency of the Brexiters multivarious notions but I don't think it can be argued that Brexit means remaining a member of ALL the aforementions institutes as well as reamaining under the jurisdiction of the EU courts.

CelticRambler wrote: »

No to the first two points, yes to the second (depending on their Agreement). You're looking at this the wrong way: "Irexit" is not determined by what Ireland would still be signed up to, but by what it would lose. And losing (unfettered) access to the Single Market is Irexit by default.

In what way do they contribute to the EU budget? I think I know what you mean, but I just want to be sure.

As for being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, I think you know what I meant by that. Do the EU courts have jurisdiction over ALL of their courts?

roosh

fash wrote: »

Under your proposal, does Ireland get any say in any of the differences to the single market?

Yes. As has been repeatedly stated, we remain a full member of all the EU institutions, we continue to send MEPs to Brussels, we continue to vote on the budget, etc. etc.

fash wrote: »

Or do we just hand all is that over to England?

No, because that would involve leaving the EU.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

You cannot seal a truck for instant entry to the EU unless the goods that are put into it can be guaranteed to comply with all EU regulations.

Ah yes, I see. Thank you.

That would be a difficult issue to resolve.

What you are proposing does sort of exist already, but for smaller parts of existing countries that for practical or historical reasons are separated from their countries.

The Canaries would be the biggest probably.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union

If we were to try for a similar case it would very definitely be a case of us trying to have our cake and eat it.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes - see my response above. Your "solution" to this non-existent problem means that all goods coming from Ireland - personal and commercial - have to be inspected and taxed appropriately.

The problem is the prospect of a hard border on the island, IF the UK don't back down. We have set our stall out on the basis that this cannot be allowed to happen. If we assume that we/EU have been acting in good faith, then there would be a problem to be solved.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ireland (and the Irish) would no longer be part of the common EU framework. You can't cherry pick which bits of EU membership you want to keep.

"Common EU framework"? What is that?

The problem* is that you are looking at this through the lens of Irexit and this is clouding your judgement. There is no "cherry picking". It wouldn't be a case of us trying to have our cake and eat it, it would actually be a case of us "taking one for the team".

We would still elect MEPs, we would still ratify treaties, we would still host the EU presidency, we would still contribute to and vote on the budget, we would still be eligible for EU grants and subsidies, etc. etc.

That is not Irexit, no matter what way you look at it.


*Not the problem with the proposal, which is undoubtedly very problematic itself.

VinLieger

roosh wrote: »

I don't question the inability of Brexiters to coalesce on a single coherent definition of Brexit, but I don't think, at any point, Brexit ever meant continuing to allow EU courts have jurisdiction over the UK, to continue contributing to the EU budget, to continue to elect MEPs, and remain a part of all the other institutions.

Brexit: 12 objectives of Theresa May's negotiations

As has been repeatedly stated, Brexiter's have always wanted to have their cake and eat it. That involves having access to the single market without any of the responsibilities that go with it.

What do you think they meant when they were said "Let's take back control"?

Brexit: 12 objectives of Theresa May's negotiations

It's disingenuous to suggest that Brexit has always meant leaving the institutions and legal jurisdiction of the EU??

I'm afraid it's not me that's being disingenuous.

Jesus its like talking to a circular wall.

I never said that, i said it meant that among multiple other things depending on who you talk to.

FYI the "Lets take back control" slogan was specifically designed to mean literally anything to everyone, that's what was so brilliant about it, its like "Make America Great Again", anyone can support it because it can literally mean anything.

Those 12 objectives didnt exist at the time of the election so to claim thats what Brexit has always meant is absurd. They also didnt exist at the time of the article 50 letter and considering Boris is no longer following her 12 objectives the idea that you can say for sure what brexit is and has always meant is absolutely ludicrous and yet another reason why people on this thread are of the opinion that you are pro-brexit because its yet another classic idiotic tactic brexiteers have been repeatedly using for the last 4 years.

Also Nigel Farage the founder of the Brexit party literally said prior to the election he didnt want the UK to be in the Single Market.

roosh

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are proposing does sort of exist already, but for smaller parts of existing countries that for practical or historical reasons are separated from their countries.

The Canaries would be the biggest probably.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union

If we were to try for a similar case it would very definitely be a case of us trying to have our cake and eat it.

Thanks pg. I'll have a look at this. This is the type of info I was hoping to get.

I would see it more as "taking one for the team" than having our cake, but maybe I'm wrong. If it was a case of having our cake and eating, it, then it might be all the more reason to go for it.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

There is already work being done with regard to the 2/3 of exporters that use the UK land bridge to ensure that they can use the "no-check green lanes" at UK ports.
Irish Times Article

As moon2 has pointed out, with regard to those exporters that use the UK land bridge, trucks can be sealed to ensure that they are compliant. This must be how they can use those "green lanes".

Yet again, this is typical Brexiter braindeadedness. You cannot take as an example something that works under the current circumstances, then change the circumstances and say that the example is still valid.

Today, Ireland is in the EU, 100%, so all kinds of options are available to our importers and exporters. That there's a non-EU landmass between us and some parts of the continent is irrelevant: "we are the EU" as was frequently repeated during the Brexit hokey-cokey period.

But you're suggesting that we change our relationship, and that the whole of Ireland is transformed into a "free port" territory. So now everything - all commercial and personal goods - are no longer subject to EU customs, taxes and tariffs. That means that every tangible object that anyone - commercial or personal - wants to carry into the EU is potentially an illegal import. That means that when you, as a holiday maker, pass through a French or German or Spanish airport, you can be asked to justify whether or not you've paid EU duties on your camera, your smartphone, your wallet, your trousers, your trainers - exactly the same as people coming back from a weekend shopping trip to the States.

Similarly, anything you order from Amazon will be subject to a whole range of new Irish domestic taxes, duties an tariffs, because the government is not going to give up all the EU revenue it currently collects for the sake of some wacky Irexit-in-all-but-name project - especially when it still has to pay membership fees for all the services of the EU it still wants to be part of.

roosh wrote: »

In what way do they contribute to the EU budget? I think I know what you mean, but I just want to be sure.

Seriously??? Contribute, as in "here's the money we owe you for our 2021 access to [x] programme, could we have a receipt please." The EU does not offer its services for free.

You could also add, as an example, the UK being expected to pay from now on, for its access to EU programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon.

roosh wrote: »

As for being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, I think you know what I meant by that. Do the EU courts have jurisdiction over ALL of their courts?

The EU courts don't even have jurisdiction over "all" national courts, so the answer to that is obviously "no" - but the ECJ does have jurisdiction over those aspects of access that have been agreed.

roosh wrote: »

As mentioned, it would ideally either be a very short term solution, until the UK back down, or else it wouldn't be required at all, in the hope that simply signalling it as a possible solution would bring them back to the table without the need for an expensive stand-off.

So you want to go through all the expense and political difficulties, possibly taking five years or more, for a "short term solution" that may or may not be needed.

Or your alternative is "signalling" as a negotiating tactic? Isn't that exactly what Boris Johnson's IMB was, which has potentially caused irreparable harm to Britain's reputation and has no chance of achieving anything constructive?

D'you know what? We could get the UK back to the table in the short term by doing precisely what we're doing at the moment. No cost to the EU, no stupidly crazy Irexit plans. No additional disruption to Irish business on top of Covid and Brexit. All we need to do is say to your idea "WTF???" and feed it into the shredder.

roosh

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus its like talking to a circular wall.

Don't worry, I can empathise!

VinLieger wrote: »

I never said that, i said it meant that among multiple other things depending on who you talk to.

You can say that about absolutely everything. Ask a variety of people what the EU means and you'll get as many different answers.

If you want to reference what Dean from Margate said when he phoned the James O'Brien show, then by all means go ahead. We can also discuss the nuances of Rita from Halifax's position that she articulate in 180 characters in twitter.

VinLieger wrote: »

Those 12 objectives didnt exist at the time of the election so to claim thats what Brexit has always meant is absurd. They also didnt exist at the time of the article 50 letter and considering Boris is no longer following her 12 objectives the idea that you can say for sure what brexit is and has always meant is absolutely ludicrous and yet another reason why people on this thread are of the opinion that you are pro-brexit because its yet another classic idiotic tactic brexiteers have been repeatedly using for the last 4 years.

I can appreciate how, in the beginning, people may have mistaken my position for being pro-Brexit - not least bcos I pointed out some very basic points about the erection of border infrastructure. But, at this point, I'm afraid it can only be attributed to persistent cognitive dissonance.

I think I see the issue, however. I am not referring to those 12 objectives and saying "this is what Brexit has always meant". I'm pointing to the fact that under the proposal Ireland will remain in ALL of the aforementioned institutions as well as remain under the jurisdiction of the EU courts.

What I am saying is that Brexit has NEVER been about REMAINING in ALL of those. It has, arguably always been about leaving ALL of those institutions.

What we can perhaps say, that Brexit is and always has been, is whatever the consequences are of triggering Article 50. Whatever Article 50 says about leaving whichever instiutions.

The proposal would not involve triggering Article 50 and is therefore, not a form of Brexit or Irexit, in any way, shape or form.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

Don't worry, I can empathise!


You can say that about absolutely everything. Ask a variety of people what the EU means and you'll get as many different answers.

If you want to reference what Dean from Margate said when he phoned the James O'Brien show, then by all means go ahead. We can also discuss the nuances of Rita from Halifax's position that she articulate in 180 characters in twitter.



I can appreciate how, in the beginning, people may have mistaken my position for being pro-Brexit - not least bcos I pointed out some very basic points about the erection of border infrastructure. But, at this point, I'm afraid it can only be attributed to persistent cognitive dissonance.

I think I see the issue, however. I am not referring to those 12 objectives and saying "this is what Brexit has always meant". I'm pointing to the fact that under the proposal Ireland will remain in ALL of the aforementioned institutions as well as remain under the jurisdiction of the EU courts.

What I am saying is that Brexit has NEVER been about REMAINING in ALL of those. It has, arguably always been about leaving ALL of those institutions.

What we can perhaps say, that Brexit is and always has been, is whatever the consequences are of triggering Article 50. Whatever Article 50 says about leaving whichever instiutions.

The proposal would not involve triggering Article 50 and is therefore, not a form of Brexit or Irexit, in any way, shape or form.

To be honest I don't think you understand what the EU is. The EU is a highly integrated trans national customs Union and single market. All the other stuff EU, parliament, commission, courts, etc exist to support that.

You are proposing that Ireland leave the EU Single market and customs Union. Once you leave them there's no point having voting rights within the EU as the any laws would have 0 direct impact on Ireland in that situation. In fact other countries would not want a country that was outside the EU having voting rights. The EU courts would be irrelevant as Ireland would not be applying EU laws and therefore the EU would have no jurisdiction.

There is a reason myself and other posters are calling your position an Irexit position. Because that's what you are calling for. If Ireland leaves the EU customs Union and single market, Ireland is leaving the EU. Take those 2 things away the EU ceases to exist. The EU is not some sort of superstate that some people make it out to be.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yet again, this is typical Brexiter braindeadedness.

The only braindeadedness here is is the suggestion that remaining a member of ALL the aforementioned EU institutions is somehow what Brexit is or what an Irexit would be.

CelticRambler wrote: »

You cannot take as an example something that works under the current circumstances, then change the circumstances and say that the example is still valid.

No, but it can potentially be taken and adapted to the new circumstances.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Today, Ireland is in the EU, 100%, so all kinds of options are available to our importers and exporters. That there's a non-EU landmass between us and some parts of the continent is irrelevant: "we are the EU" as was frequently repeated during the Brexit hokey-cokey period.

But you're suggesting that we change our relationship, and that the whole of Ireland is transformed into a "free port" territory. So now everything - all commercial and personal goods - are no longer subject to EU customs, taxes and tariffs. That means that every tangible object that anyone - commercial or personal - wants to carry into the EU is potentially an illegal import. That means that when you, as a holiday maker, pass through a French or German or Spanish airport, you can be asked to justify whether or not you've paid EU duties on your camera, your smartphone, your wallet, your trousers, your trainers - exactly the same as people coming back from a weekend shopping trip to the States.

Yes, we could be, not that we necessarily will be. Obviously, if someone is carrying luggage packed full of smartphones they will be asked if they have paid the EU duties. Irish people would walk through the "nothing to declare" lane just the same as every passenger passing through an airport be they an EU citizen or not. They could be stopped and searched, just like any passenger from the EU or our outside the EU.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Similarly, anything you order from Amazon will be subject to a whole range of new Irish domestic taxes, duties an tariffs, because the government is not going to give up all the EU revenue it currently collects

So basically, they will just charge the same.

CelticRambler wrote: »

for the sake of some wacky Irexit-in-all-but-name project

*Irexit-in-all-but-the-actual-objectives-and-effects-of-Brexit
or
*Irexit-in-name-only-according-to-those-who-think-remaining-in-ALL-of-the-EU-institutions-in-any-way-resembles-Brexit.

CelticRambler wrote: »

- especially when it still has to pay membership fees for all the services of the EU it still wants to be part of.

Allowances would have to be made in this regard to offset the costs to Ireland.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Seriously??? Contribute, as in "here's the money we owe you for our 2021 access to [x] programme, could we have a receipt please." The EU does not offer its services for free.

You could also add, as an example, the UK being expected to pay from now on, for its access to EU programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon.

The EU courts don't even have jurisdiction over "all" national courts, so the answer to that is obviously "no" - but the ECJ does have jurisdiction over those aspects of access that have been agreed.

You seem to be trying to paint a picture whereby countries outside the EU basically are the same as the EU27 in terms of budgetary contributions and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

I'll try to put it in simpler terms. Ireland would not be triggering Article 50 and we would still have the same voting rights, budgetary responsibilities, and legal responsibilities as the other 27 members of the EU.

Can you see how it's not Irexit now?

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you want to go through all the expense and political difficulties, possibly taking five years or more, for a "short term solution" that may or may not be needed.

Alternatively, we go through all the political difficulties and expense of putting up border infrastructure on the island until the UK agree to implement the NI protocol.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Or your alternative is "signalling" as a negotiating tactic? Isn't that exactly what Boris Johnson's IMB was, which has potentially caused irreparable harm to Britain's reputation and has no chance of achieving anything constructive?

We wouldn't be threatening to breach international law.

CelticRambler wrote: »

D'you know what? We could get the UK back to the table in the short term by doing precisely what we're doing at the moment. No cost to the EU, no stupidly crazy Irexit plans. No additional disruption to Irish business on top of Covid and Brexit. All we need to do is say to your idea "WTF???" and feed it into the shredder.

I see you struggle with the concept of hypothetical situations.

I said IF the UK doesn't back down.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you understand what the EU is. The EU is a highly integrated trans national customs Union and single market. All the other stuff EU, parliament, commission, courts, etc exist to support that.

You are proposing that Ireland leave the EU Single market and customs Union. Once you leave them there's no point having voting rights within the EU as the any laws would have 0 direct impact on Ireland in that situation. In fact other countries would not want a country that was outside the EU having voting rights. The EU courts would be irrelevant as Ireland would not be applying EU laws and therefore the EU would have no jurisdiction.

There is a reason myself and other posters are calling your position an Irexit position. Because that's what you are calling for. If Ireland leaves the EU customs Union and single market, Ireland is leaving the EU. Take those 2 things away the EU ceases to exist. The EU is not some sort of superstate that some people make it out to be.

As I said before, we could just have checks on Irish goods at ports of entry. This would not equate to us leaving the customs union or the single market.

The costs of this, to Irish businesses, would have to be offset somehow. Perhaps, as referenced , this would be done by designating Ireland as an "outermost region" - what I had been referring to as a "special economic zone".

moon2

roosh wrote: »

As I said before, we could just have checks on Irish goods at ports of entry. This would not equate to us leaving the customs union or the single market.

The costs of this, to Irish businesses, would have to be offset somehow. Perhaps, as referenced , this would be done by designating Ireland as an "outermost region" - what I had been referring to as a "special economic zone".

Why do they have to be offset? In this scenario Ireland is choosing an Irexit-lite and so should bear all the costs.

Can you describe the scenario in which Ireland makes this move, introduces these trade barriers, and then also receives funding from the EU to offset the cost of this course of action?

Also on top of this Ireland retains all rights in the EU?

This is sounding more and more like the original vision of Brexit - apply a different customs and tax regime to "increase competitiveness" and lose none of the benefits of being in a tightly integrated and harmonized market.

Nothing about this proposal makes it viable for Ireland or the EU. Especially when the EU would have to *fund* Ireland for taking this damaging course of action

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Why do they have to be offset? In this scenario Ireland is choosing an Irexit-lite and so should bear all the costs.

Ireland would be resolving the border issue, against which the EU set out its stall. It would also not be triggering Article 50, so it wouldn't be an Irexit in any way, shape or form.

moon2 wrote: »

Can you describe the scenario in which Ireland makes this move, introduces these trade barriers, and then also receives funding from the EU to offset the cost of this course of action?

The scenario in which the UK doesn't back down from their current threat and the EU is face with the decision to erect border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. A position against which it has set out its stall.

moon2 wrote: »

Also on top of this Ireland retains all rights in the EU?

With the exception of checks on Irish goods, yes.

moon2 wrote: »

This is sounding more and more like the original vision of Brexit - apply a different customs and tax regime to "increase competitiveness" and lose none of the benefits of being in a tightly integrated and harmonized market.

Nothing about this proposal makes it viable for Ireland or the EU. Especially when the EU would have to *fund* Ireland for taking this damaging course of action

We don't necessarily need a different customs and tax regime. As I initially said, we could have checks on all goods entering mainland Europe through Ireland (or the UK land bridge).

The costs of this to Irish businesses would need to be offset somehow. This might be done by designating Ireland as a special economic zone - the details of which would have to be worked out or perhaps designating it as an outermost region of the EU or something akin to that.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

You can say that about absolutely everything. Ask a variety of people what the EU means and you'll get as many different answers.

There's one huge, significant difference: "what the EU means" is defined by its treaties. It's written down for everyone to see and understand (except you, it seems ... ) There's no debate over what is and isn't allowed or expected as a condition of membership, with a charter setting out the benefits and sanctions for adherence or breach of those conditions.

And according to those treaties ...

roosh wrote: »

I'll try to put it in simpler terms. Ireland would not be triggering Article 50 and we would still have the same voting rights, budgetary responsibilities, and legal responsibilities as the other 27 members of the EU.

Can you see how it's not Irexit now?

Yep - definitely the fantasy cherry-picking Irexit that Brexiters were telling us was entirely possible. Can you not get your head around the fact that Ireland cannot unilaterally decide to renounce its Single Market treaty obligations without asking the EU to re-write the treaty? So Ireland has a choice: follow the rules, or leave the club. Irexit.

roosh wrote: »

No, but it can potentially be taken and adapted to the new circumstances.

No, it can't. Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental, Brexiter-like, lack of understanding about how international trade works. We went through all of this when the Brexiter were trying to tell us that Switzerland had "frictionless trade" with the EU, and how the long-promised-never-delivered MaxFac Solution would solve the NI problem. It didn't, but the Withdrawal Agreement did. End of problem.

roosh wrote: »

Yes, we could be, not that we necessarily will be. Obviously, if someone is carrying luggage packed full of smartphones they will be asked if they have paid the EU duties. Irish people would walk through the "nothing to declare" lane just the same as every passenger passing through an airport be they an EU citizen or not. They could be stopped and searched, just like any passenger from the EU or our outside the EU.

Again, you really, really, really don't understand the implications of not being in the EU. Maybe you should pop over to the Classic Cars forum and see the hoops that those guys are facing come January. As things stand at the moment, as an Irish citizen flying into Paris, you walk through the Blue channel, not the Green nothing to declare channel. Under your proposal, Irish citizens will have to choose either the Red or Green channel - just like the Brits from January onwards - and if they choose Green while carrying items that Customs think might be re-sold, then oooof, that'll cost you ...

And you can forget about bringing back a bootful of cheap wine for personal consumption after a trip to France, because that'll all have to have Irish taxes and duties applied at the point of entry. Sure, you can probably claim a refund from the French authorities, but will you remember to keep all your receipts and be in a position to copy them and fill in all the forms when you turn up at the ferry port with only 30 minutes to spare?

Now multiply all that paperwork and cost for every single shipment going each way - are you beginning to understand why the UK need to recruit 50000 border staff and build 29 lorry parks?

OK, now explain to us again why Ireland should suffer such a killer blow to our economy? Oh yeah,

roosh wrote: »

we go through all the political difficulties and expense of putting up border infrastructure on the island until the UK agree to implement the NI protocol.

because you're still fantasising about border infrastructure that doesn't currently exist and for which there are no plans, because the UK has agreed to implement the NI protocol, has already awarded contracts for the work to be carried out and agreed terms & conditions for the EU inspectors to do what they need to do in NI.

The UK has been manoeuvred into cooperating exactly as the EU (and the Irish) wanted them to, no Irexit in any form necessary.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

As I said before, we could just have checks on Irish goods at ports of entry. This would not equate to us leaving the customs union or the single market.

The costs of this, to Irish businesses, would have to be offset somehow. Perhaps, as referenced , this would be done by designating Ireland as an "outermost region" - what I had been referring to as a "special economic zone".

The whole point of customs Union and single market is that you have no checks. The fact that your plan has any checks on Irish goods going to and or from the EU is calling for Ireland to leave the EU.

So I'll ask you again why do you think Ireland should leave the EU? That's what your idea amounts to. If you don't want Ireland to leave the EU your plan must scrap any hint of checks between Ireland and the EU.

moon2

The we could just have checks on Irish goods at ports of entry. This would not equate to us leaving the customs union or the single market..

The customs union requires no checks.

You have a plan which mandates checks, therefore we're no longer part of the customs union.

If you really can't see this then it explains why this thread has gone on for so long, still stumbling at the first step.

I'm out - this really can't lead anywhere.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's one huge, significant difference: "what the EU means" is defined by its treaties. It's written down for everyone to see and understand (except you, it seems ... ) There's no debate over what is and isn't allowed or expected as a condition of membership, with a charter setting out the benefits and sanctions for adherence or breach of those conditions.

And according to those treaties ...

There is of course one major similarity. Just as the EU is defined by it's treaties, so is Brexit defined by Article 50. It sets out what Brexit means. "It's written down for everyone to see and understand (except you [and others in this thread], it seems ... )". It doesn't matter what Dean from Margate thinks it means, bcos triggering article 50 stipulates what it means.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Here is the fundamental difference. Designating Ireland as a special economic zone would not involve us triggering Article 50 therefore the treaties shall continue to apply to the state in question i.e. us. There would be no negotiation of a withdrawal agreement and there would be no transition period.

Therefore, ispo facto, there would be no Irexit and no actual similiarities to Brexit.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yep - definitely the fantasy cherry-picking Irexit that Brexiters were telling us was entirely possible. Can you not get your head around the fact that Ireland cannot unilaterally decide to renounce its Single Market treaty obligations without asking the EU to re-write the treaty? So Ireland has a choice: follow the rules, or leave the club. Irexit.

Where has it been stated that Ireland would be unilaterally doing anything? This would all have to be done in consultation with the EU and voted on by all member states.

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, it can't. Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental, Brexiter-like, lack of understanding about how international trade works. We went through all of this when the Brexiter were trying to tell us that Switzerland had "frictionless trade" with the EU, and how the long-promised-never-delivered MaxFac Solution would solve the NI problem. It didn't, but the Withdrawal Agreement did. End of problem.

I think perhaps my own lack of clarity around this has contributed to the misunderstanding. As I said in the OP, it was ill-thought out. I didn't have an end picture in mind, I was hoping to possibly build that picture. That was the purpose of the thread. It was intended to be a discussion on the issues, such as the one you raise here.

I never suggested that there would be completely frictionless trade. In fact, I said in the beginning that there would be checks on Irish goods and the cost to Irish businesses would have to be offset somehow - the "somehow" was equally something I was hoping to explore. My use of the term "free port" in that context is clearly causing an issue. Again, it doesn't necessarily need to be a "free port" it could be designated a special economic zone or just given some kind of special status while applying all the customs rules of the single market. This would still mean checks on Irish goods but this cost to Irish businesses would have to be offset.

The sealing of trucks is a possible template for a solution. Yes, the circumstances are different, but that means the system would have to be amended to address the issue.

A very basic solution would be to check all goods entering mainland Europe via Ireland, while Ireland applies all the same customs rules. This would result in an additional cost to Irish businesses, which would have to be offset.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Again, you really, really, really don't understand the implications of not being in the EU. Maybe you should pop over to the Classic Cars forum and see the hoops that those guys are facing come January. As things stand at the moment, as an Irish citizen flying into Paris, you walk through the Blue channel, not the Green nothing to declare channel. Under your proposal, Irish citizens will have to choose either the Red or Green channel - just like the Brits from January onwards - and if they choose Green while carrying items that Customs think might be re-sold, then oooof, that'll cost you ...

OK, so we have to walk through the green channel instead of the Blue channel. This would be an inconvenience but so too would a hard border on the island.

CelticRambler wrote: »

And you can forget about bringing back a bootful of cheap wine for personal consumption after a trip to France, because that'll all have to have Irish taxes and duties applied at the point of entry. Sure, you can probably claim a refund from the French authorities, but will you remember to keep all your receipts and be in a position to copy them and fill in all the forms when you turn up at the ferry port with only 30 minutes to spare?

We can apply the same taxes and duties and have checks on goods leaving the island.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Now multiply all that paperwork and cost for every single shipment going each way - are you beginning to understand why the UK need to recruit 50000 border staff and build 29 lorry parks?

OK, now explain to us again why Ireland should suffer such a killer blow to our economy? Oh yeah

We shouldn't. This is why it would need to be offset.

CelticRambler wrote: »

because you're still fantasising about border infrastructure that doesn't currently exist and for which there are no plans, because the UK has agreed to implement the NI protocol, has already awarded contracts for the work to be carried out and agreed terms & conditions for the EU inspectors to do what they need to do in NI.

The UK has been manoeuvred into cooperating exactly as the EU (and the Irish) wanted them to, no Irexit in any form necessary.

Again, no Irexit was ever proposed.

I was talking about the hypothetical situation in which the UK does not back down.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

The whole point of customs Union and single market is that you have no checks. The fact that your plan has any checks on Irish goods going to and or from the EU is calling for Ireland to leave the EU.

No checks is a consequence of the customs union and single market. Simply having no checks does not necessarily mean that you have a customs union and single market. Similarly, having checks on goods doesn't necessarily mean that you are outside the customs union and single market because you can still apply the same customs rules. What it means is that you are not enjoying one of the primary benefits of the single market and customs union.

As has been repeatedly stated, this inconvenience to Irish businesses would need to be offset.

PeadarCo wrote: »

So I'll ask you again why do you think Ireland should leave the EU? That's what your idea amounts to. If you don't want Ireland to leave the EU your plan must scrap any hint of checks between Ireland and the EU.

And I will answer again. I don't think Ireland should leave the EU. EU membership has been nothing but beneficial to us.

Your point suggests that the EU is nothing more than having no checks on goods. That, of course, simply isn't the case. So no, having checks on Irish goods would not mean leaving the EU bcos all of the EU treaties would still apply to Ireland, except for having checks on goods.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

The customs union requires no checks.


You have a plan which mandates checks, therefore we're no longer part of the customs union.

If you really can't see this then it explains why this thread has gone on for so long, still stumbling at the first step.

I'm out - this really can't lead anywhere.

No checks is a benefit of the customs union. Having checks does not necessarily mean that you are no longer part of the customs union. We can still apply the same customs rules as the rest of the EU. Our goods would simply be checked bcos of the possibility of goods from the UK entering via Ireland.

We would not be triggering Article 50, there would be no withdrawal agreement to negotiate, all of the EU treaties would still apply to Ireland with an amendment with regard to checks on goods.

We would still be in the customs union but we would be losing one of the major advantages of it. This would need to be offset.