roosh wrote: » This is just clear evidence that you don't understand the proposal whatsoever.
roosh wrote: » And I have corrected that erroneous conclusion several times. When Irish goods enter the single market, they would be subject to the same tariffs as everyone else in the single market. Unlike the UK we would have access to the single market. So no, we would not be outside either. The primary advantage of the free movement of goods would be removed but it would be possible, in principle at least, to minimise this or completely offset it. The alternative would be for the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border on the island, something they have argued blue in the face would threaten peace in NI and would also demonstrate that they were acting in bad faith all along. The rules and regulations pertaining to such a special economic zone could, in principle, be designed to offset the disadvantages of checks on goods. There could also be arrangements made to minimise the disription. The key difference from Brexit is that we would be remaining a fully fledged member of the EU and all its institutions and we wouldn't be able to sign FTAs with other countries or trading blocks. Yet another case of where you are completely wrong. I'll add it to the list. If the EU and Ireland even mention a hard border as a possibility then they will have demonstrated that the backstop and the NI protocol were acts of bad faith because a hard border was an option all along. That is their position. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but technically they will be vindicated.
roosh wrote: » This is the point, there would be no tariffs or extra VAT. We would still have the same arrangement as the rest of the single market. There would be customs checks and the bureaucracy that goes with that. This would be the major disadvantage. This is where the rules for such special economic zone would have to be carefully crafted, to try to offset these disadvantages. I don't see why this couldn't be done, in principle. EU membership is essential to Ireland and free port status wouldn't jeopardise that. You are probably correct, that a hard border will be the eventual outcome, if the UK persists. It will, however, only vindicate the UK position that the EU were acting in bad faith all along because the whole debacle around the backstop and the NI protocol are due to the EU and Ireland saying under no circumstances can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland. We don't need to get into the history of partition on this island but telling Germans to put back up the Berlin wall would be comparable (not exactly the same) as telling the Irish to put up a hard border on the island. In neither case would it be warmly received. If you ask the Irish government, if they had a choice, would they put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. The answer would be a resounding no. The rules of the EU will mean that we have to do this against our wishes, hence we will be forced to do it.There is also the small matter of the EU and Ireland having said that, absolutely, 100%, under no circumstances whatsoever can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland. That's not the issue. The issue is that narrative is key in politics. If the EU and Ireland put up a hard border after the debacle of the backstop and now the NI protocol, the UK will be vindicated in saying that we were acting in bad faith all along because there was never really a need for a backstop or the NI protocol. And, the sickening thing is, they will be correct. US senators won't be able to hold out for too long if this is the narrative and if it is demonstrably true. There will be enough lobbyists to persuade them, not to mention if Trump gets back in.
fly_agaric wrote: » As a layman the obvious thing I can see is that an awful lot of our trade is with the EU and the goods parts of that becomes an "export" with the full customs checks, tarrifs, extra VAT I think as well as a load of bureuacracy and procedures slowing everything down. That doesn't seem like it will be good for business here and will be very disruptive.
fly_agaric wrote: » EU membership is very important to Ireland and very popular, which is I think hard for people in the UK to get their heads around. Your idea (esp. if it ended up not being temporary) does detatch us further from the EU (we already can't join Schengen Area due to UK Common Travel Area and the border). I may be wrong, but I think retaining our current status in the EU will tip the scales over coming to some compromise position 1/2 way outside the EU just so we can retain a fully open border with NI. The latter is strongly desired and govt. has worked hard to try and retain it as UK exits the EU but they will not reorient our whole economy for it I think.
fly_agaric wrote: » NI is not "our" country. The partition always existed, but combination of Common Travel Area, Good Friday Agreement and us both being members of a larger collective (EU) handling trade as well as setting alot of common standards meant it didn't slap people in the face so much. The UK has pulled out 1 leg of that now by leaving the EU. WA was supposed to be a fudged solution/bandaid but it is looking like the UK is ripping that off too.
fly_agaric wrote: » No one is "forcing" us to do anything - it is just a fact of life that a fully open border with a 3rd country not in the EU with no agreement covering it is incompatible with our EU membership as it stands. We can leave, seek some special status like you suggested (unlikely to be sought IMO and unlikely to be granted or terms would amount to a "Irexit" of sorts) or we can implement border controls like the other members. That is it.
fly_agaric wrote: » As I said, I don't really care about who "blames" Ireland for this situation. People here should know by now we will be blamed by the UK govt. and Brexit supporters anyway and if the Irish government are worrying about this in how they may deal with the problem, that seems a bit stupid.
PeadarCo wrote: » Can I ask you a question why do you believe Ireland should leave the EU and rejoin the UK at least economicly? This is what your argument boils down to. Everything else is Brexit rubbish that has been shown to be complete fantasy over the last few years.
fly_agaric wrote: » I know it can characterised as "you started it", but UK has left the EU and it is looking like it could also insist on terminating the relationship in such an angry and disruptive way that our own full membership of the EU (which I'm defining as being a part of single market and customs union with no special 'free port' semi detatched status) comes into direct conflict with our open Customs border with NI.
fly_agaric wrote: » The UK actions are the root cause of all of this even if the final result is some sort of customs border with NI established by Ireland...and I'm sorry but in my opinion NI is not worth our own economy, our stability and prosperity here, in this country. You can't do anything for others by drowning (or maybe immolating) youself too.
fly_agaric wrote: » If things deteriorate in NI, it will mainly be the UKs problem as it was during the Troubles. Let them look to it as they have set this whole thing in train.
fly_agaric wrote: » I suppose that is possible. I think another poster suggested if we did end up having a Customs border with NI (which also neutralises the "bargaining chip" without affecting our status within the EU, trade between ourselves and other members etc.), the hope is probably that it would not last forever either. Maybe a vain hope though.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » What you just described is Ireland leaving the single market to accommodate a very minor (6%) trading partner. A trading partner country that lost its marbles and as we speak is in a middle of violating international laws it signed up to and endangering GFA like I said this is silly
VinLieger wrote: » No it wouldnt NI and Ireland are two seperate countries, your analogies like your reasoning throughout this entire topic are childishly ignorant and simple wrong.
VinLieger wrote: » And once again the rest of your post doesn't even need to be replied to as its brexiteer waffle.
VinLieger wrote: » Can you read? Honestly im asking as a serious question because its been pointed out to you multiple times now that exactly what you are describing is Ireland leaving and being outside both the single market and the customs union.
VinLieger wrote: » There are no arrangements possible to make up for this disadvantage. Your are literally now describing the argument of brexiteers of "we want access to the single market but dont want to be under the same rules"
VinLieger wrote: » Its what the UK are doing. This is a fact unless you come from the brexit camp of arseways reasoning which its becoming increasingly obvious you belong to.
VinLieger wrote: » They are the ones reneging on previously signed international agreement, not the EU.
roosh wrote: » No Irish government will ever want to be seen to be the ones who erect or even facilitate a hard border on the island. But, as you quite rightly point out, if we are not fulfilling a key condition of membership, other members will have to respond. That will likely take the form of "encouraging" the Irish government to do something they fundamentally do not want to do. I think "pressure" is a perfectly suitable term in this regard. As you quite rightly point out, if the UK doesn't back down, a hard border is almost inevitable. I'm inclined to think it could be avoided by granting Ireland free port status, even as a short term measure until the UK really starts to feel the pinch and is forced back to the negotiating table. Mooting is publicly as a possibility might even force their hand before actually following through with it.
roosh wrote: » At present, a hard border is the only solution I've heard mentioned. The UK is banking on this because they know that it will be the EU via the Irish government that would have to implement it. From the perspective of the other member states, this would be the easiest solution, just put up a border like exist elsewhere in Europe. But, it would be seen as forcing a smaller member state to partition their own country. It would be a bit like telling the Germans they need to divide the country between east and west again, for the sake of the single market. It would also take the argument about imperiling peace in NI and turn it back on the EU and Ireland bcos the UK won't be erecting the border, we will. There are issues with free port status but a special arrangement could be devised for a very special circumstance.
roosh wrote: » That is precisely what the UK is banking on. That is their negotiating position because they believe it will be so unpalatable to the EU and Ireland. Plus, it will be us who have to put up the hard border and therefore us and the EU who will be threatening the peace process - the argument which we have been throwing at them. A free port could avoid the need for a hard border and could bring the UK to the negotiating table quicker because their only real bargaining chip is neutralised.
fly_agaric wrote: Putting up a customs border with NI seems the safer option for Ireland.
roosh wrote: » After lambasting the UK for threatening peace in NI with the prospect of a hard border?
roosh wrote: » It would also, probably, be a short term solution. The whole idea is to nullify the UK threat to the single market. Once their goods can't avoid checks by coming through Ireland, their bargaining chip is neutralised and they will be forced to negotiate. Especially when the economy starts to feel it.
fash wrote: » Why would the EU do that when they have a treaty with the UK? Are you suggesting that the EU would allow a treaty partner to deliberately breach a treaty with it, bully an EU member state potentially causing the EU to break up/lose that member and certainly lose significant investments etc - and blame said member state and not the third party breaching the treaty? You must have a lower opinion of the EU than the brexiters.
VinLieger wrote: » Im going to not even address the rest of your post because its all straight out of the brexit fantasists strategy book from 3 years ago and has zero basis in any kind of reality.
VinLieger wrote: » Im highlighting the above to show you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Im going to explain a fundamental fact to you that you dont seem to understand. Access to the customs union means a truck getting on a boat in rosslare can dock in france and then drive all the way across europe to any external EU border and never once need a check until it gets there.
VinLieger wrote: » When we are in the single market and customs union outside of suspected criminal activity or random security etc there are no customs checks... Ever.... Do you understand that?
VinLieger wrote: » What you have described above is the exact definition of being outside both of them.
theguzman wrote: » I think we will see a hard border, the UK agenda seems to want to carry the North of Ireland totally into their hard brexit, we will have no choice but to enact customs and border checks between ROI and NI or otherwise risk getting our own goods and services checked at the ferry into France as we could become a back door for UK WTO goods to enter the EU by default. Smugglers everywhere must be thinking all their Christmasses have come early I'd say.
roosh wrote: » It would be like telling the Germans they need to re-partition the country for the good of the single market.
fly_agaric wrote: » I think I'm understanding a bit better. What you are hinging it all on is idea that downgrading our EU membership would be worth these future "free port" benefits (were EU and other member states to agree).
fly_agaric wrote: » I'm not enough of an expert to know, but it seems like a big and dangerous shot in the dark to upend our whole economy (developed assuming free movement of goods and services between us and the other member states) in the hope of these potential benefits & that the UK will be see us right and ensure there is no "hard" border with NI.
fly_agaric wrote: » The other thing is that your concept of "turning the UKs most powerful bargaining chip into a weakness" suggests one of the benefits is to increase our exports to the UK. That will make us even more dependent on their good graces and at their mercy, just as Ireland was from the 20s and post WW2 up until it joined the EEC. So a return to orbiting the UK economy.
fly_agaric wrote: » It is as large a risk as the punt the UK has taken on its hard Brexit. Putting up a customs border with NI seems the safer option for Ireland.
roosh wrote: » We would remain a full member of the EU, so that is just plain wrong. The checks would be to ensure that UK goods are not entering via Ireland. Imagine two trucks going through, on with UK goods, one with Irish goods. The UK truck is stopped and searched and turned away, the Irish good is searched and sent through. We still have access to the single market and are still in the customs union.
roosh wrote: » The issue is that border checks would be a disadvantage to Irish businesses, so there would need to be arrangements made to ensure that this is balanced out.
roosh wrote: » That'll be a great look for the EU. Accusing the UK of imperiling peace in NI, with the prospect of a hard border, then coming along and putting up a hard border.
PeadarCo wrote: » It should be remembered that this free port idea for the entire country is basically the whole idea and plan for Brexit it the first place. All the benefits with none of the costs. The whole Brexit process demonstrates that this idea of the whole country being half in or out is absolute nonsense. It didn't work for the UK and won't work for Ireland./quote] Nope, because we would still be a fully fledged member, unable to negotiate separate trade deals, subject to the rules and regulations of the EU, everything. PeadarCo wrote: » If we have to put up a border will be put up. The economic consequences of not doing so would sink any government never mind with the current difficulties associated with Covid. Northern Ireland is part of the UK at least in the short-term and we have to deal with that reality. That's not to say I don't have sympathy on anyone living along the border and how they have been treated by certain UK politicians who have at best have not cared about them. I don't think a hard border is the only answer. In fact, this is exactly what the UK are hoping for bcos it is more likely to bring the EU to the negotiating table. A strong argument against the UK's actions is that they are putting the peace process in danger by risking a hard border. The EU cannot then come along and risk the peace process by putting up a hard border.
PeadarCo wrote: » If we have to put up a border will be put up. The economic consequences of not doing so would sink any government never mind with the current difficulties associated with Covid. Northern Ireland is part of the UK at least in the short-term and we have to deal with that reality. That's not to say I don't have sympathy on anyone living along the border and how they have been treated by certain UK politicians who have at best have not cared about them.
View wrote: » Yes, there are such ports. There is no case of an entire member state being outside the EU CU & SM, and it is absurd to suggest that we would seek it, much less that the other member would even contemplate giving it to us.
View wrote: » Yes.
View wrote: » The other EU member states don’t have to “pressure” Ireland. If there is “no deal”/the WA collapsea we are legally & politically obliged/committed to apply the exact same procedures & tariffs on all our trade with the U.K. as we would on our trade with every other non-EU country. That would require a hard border.
View wrote: » NI isn’t part of our country. If it were there wouldn’t be any need for a NI protocol. Any trying an argument about “partition” with the other EU member states would just get us laughed at given that almost all of them have been partitioned and repartitioned on multiple occasions in the last century.
roosh wrote: » We would still have access. Imagine a situation where a lorry trying to smuggle UK goods into Europe, alongside Irish goods, is stopped at a checkpoint. The lorry is searched and the UK goods are removed, while the Irish goods are allowed through. A system for charging VAT and customs duty would have to be worked out to ensure that Irish goods don't experience an unfair advantage over other EU goods. Or, a system which offsets the disadvantage to Irish businesses of having their goods undergo customs checks. In effect, balancing itself out but still granting access to the single market while blocking UK goods. Importing and re-exporting, it says. The tax rules could be engineered to ensure no unfair advantage to Irish goods as well as no disadvantaging.
PeadarCo wrote: » What you are talking about is Ireland leaving the EU. You can't have your cake and eat it. Brexiters thought they could and look at them now.
PeadarCo wrote: » You are either in the Single market and or customs Union or you are not. Look at the Swiss borders and Norwegian/Swedish border for an example of the customs controls required even for countries that are in one or other.
PeadarCo wrote: » If the UK and NI leaves the Single market and customs Union without the UK putting controls between Britain and Northern Ireland we will have a hard border. Either that or Ireland for all intense and purposes Ireland leaves the EU. Anything else is wishful thinking.
PeadarCo wrote: » The only thing is it will take time meanwhile there would be chaos at all the UK ports as they deal with the consequences of countries like Ireland, France, Holland etc immediately inspecting all UK imports and blowing a part the supply chains of any company that's runs a just in time supply chain. And that's before we start talking about the UK services economy and the impact a no deal has on those exports.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » As I pointed out earlier backed by CSO facts and figures our trade with UK is down to 6%. Leaving the EU which is effectively what the op proposes is even more silly than Brexit itself. UK could make all noise the noise they want, but at end of day they need us more than we need them one could say.
fly_agaric wrote: » On 1st point terming it "pressure" is a bit reflective of your mentality on this perhaps. I think this stuff is pretty fundamental. We are either an EU member or not. If we are not fulfilling key conditions of membership (e.g. by having a free for all/open customs border with a 3rd country and no agreements whatsoever covering the operation of it) the other members have to respond to that and protect themselves otherwise the organisation becomes worthless and may as well disband. All the member states with external borders do have customs checks etc.
fly_agaric wrote: » I think you mean "Ireland" in 2nd point? (Ireland becomes a "free port" inside EU and based on your short article everything leaving Ireland to go to another member state now needs full suite of customs checks, duty and VAT done as if it is an EU import). The rest of the members must agree, and EU would have to allow us this status, we cannot just declare it.
fly_agaric wrote: » That is the point I think. I don't know the trade offs either, but it would restrict Ireland's access to the single market, heavily I imagine. Being in the single market and having such free access is a pillar of our EU membership. It would be a very fundamental change to the economy here (every company exporting back into the EU now has to deal with full customs bureaucracy again, has delays on transit etc). The article you linked mentioned some EU reservations and skepticism of the free port idea - a potential gateway to tax evasion and other sorts of fraud/criminality. That is when it is limited to a port or a city at the very most. What happens when it becomes a EUR300Bn economy with 5m or so citizens??
fly_agaric wrote: » If success of your policy (not only "hard" Brexit, but burn down remaining bridges with the EU) may depend on the re-election of Trump and an increase in power for the gang that enables him (US Republican party controlling both houses of US Congress) it should make you reconsider if it is wise I think. He does seem to like Boris Johnson (unlike Theresa May) but he can also change like the weather when those he likes and respects one day do not lick his backside with enough enthusiasm the next day.
VinLieger wrote: » Ohh look what happened over nighthttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-us-uk-trade-deal-nancy-pelosi-good-friday-agreement-b421226.html This must be easily the third if not 4th time Pelosi who is going nowhere anytime soon as house leader has made such a statement. What you are saying shes lying?
roosh wrote: » wrt the US. They will put pressure on the UK no doubt, but they are not going to throw away a free trade deal with the UK where they can dictate the terms. They will demonstrate that, technically, they are not in breach of the GFA and that will have to be sufficient for the US.
roosh wrote: » If the UK continue to act in bad faith it becomes our problem bcos the EU are not going to simply say, "oh well, those dastardly brits aren't implementing the NI protocol properly and now it's threatening the integrity of the single market. I guess there's nothing we can do!" No, they are going to put pressure on us to solve the issue that is on our island.
roosh wrote: » We would still have access. Imagine a situation where a lorry trying to smuggle UK goods into Europe, alongside Irish goods, is stopped at a checkpoint. The lorry is searched and the UK goods are removed, while the Irish goods are allowed through. A system for charging VAT and customs duty would have to be worked out to ensure that Irish goods don't experience an unfair advantage over other EU goods. Or, a system which offsets the disadvantage to Irish businesses of having their goods undergo customs checks. In effect, balancing itself out but still granting access to the single market while blocking UK goods.
