nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market

roosh

Firstly, I want to state that this isn't a very well thought out idea, primarily because I don't have a firm enough understanding of the area in question to fully reason through it. This thread will hopefully be a vehicle to help me to develop a better understanding.

It seems to me that the only real bargaining chip that the UK have in Brexit negotiations, is the threat that the border on this island poses to the integrity of the single market. It is clearly an issue that the EU takes seriously given that the Northern Irish protocol was the major stumbling block all throughout the process and is proving to be yet again. Their threat to undermine the NI protocol appears to be an attempt to play that bargaining chip.

If no-deal is reached by the end of the transition period and the UK follows through on its threat to undermine the NI protocol, then I'm inclined to think that there would be serious political pressure on the Irish government to do something to secure the land border between Ireland and the UK. This could result in some form of customs checks. It would be pretty disastrous if the ROI were the ones to enforce the border created during partition.

I'm wondering if there is any way in which to neutralise this threat from the UK.

This is the ill-thought out idea, the discussion of which will hopefully bring me to a better understanding:

Would it be possible for Ireland to become a free port of the EU, and if so what would the consequences of this be?

My poor understanding of what it means to be a free port leads me to envisage a scenario where Irish consumers would benefit from tax free (or lower tax goods). Would this mean that there would be a need for customs checks for goods entering and leaving the island, and would this be disastrous for Irish exports? Would there be any benefit to Irish businesses?

In terms of neutralising the threat to the single market, my thinking would be that it might possibly flip the situation, with cheaper goods from Ireland being a threat to the UK market. Again, this is based on a complete lack of understanding, so hopefully if someone can point out where I am wrong, I will develop a better understanding.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

VinLieger

Eric Cartman wrote: »

food safety standards existed long before the EU , chlorinated chicken etc.. won't be making its way to Britains shores any time soon. Im no fan of Brexit but all that stuff about unsafe foods etc.. is scaremongering with no basis.

Yup no basis whatsoever... Nothing to see here at all except the US pork producers saying it plain and clear

http://www.npa-uk.org.uk/US_pork.html

Sam Russell

VinLieger wrote: »

Yup no basis whatsoever... Nothing to see here at all except the US pork producers saying it plain and clear

http://www.npa-uk.org.uk/US_pork.html

That is nearly two years old. A week is a long time in the UK.

VinLieger

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is nearly two years old. A week is a long time in the UK.

Indeed, just countering the argument that there is no evidence for lowering of food standards in a US deal when there clearly is.

And even in the case of a Biden win and an amicable congress they will have to deal with the massive food lobby ib the US looking for everything they can get, standards being just one of the examples, they will be going after protected food statuses as well which the EU is also very serious on but who knows what the UK will be willing to give away?

moon2

roosh wrote: »

If we then come along and put up a hard border, it means that there was never a need for a backstop or the NI protocol - this means we would have acted in bad faith by insisting that no progress could be made without them.

Apologies if this has already been said in the intervening replies.

This is a severe misunderstanding of the situation.

The WA agreement was to prevent a border. By invalidating the agreement the UK bring back the need for a hard border. It *does not* mean "there was never a need for one". There always was, and will remain, a need for one of there's sufficient regulatory divergence.

There's no reading of this series of events which has the EU acting in "bad faith" by respecting the hard border the UK have brought into existence by reneging on the WA and introducing regulatory divergence.

Apart from that, the assumption you're making is that the EU will still give the UK what they want trade-wise despite them throwing out the previous agreement. This doesn't make sense.

beggars_bush

Will the EU pay for border infrastructure?

BluePlanet

beggars_bush wrote: »

Will the EU pay for border infrastructure?

As a general rule i don't think they ordinarily do.
But no doubt an extraordinary exception can be made here.

TCDStudent1

BluePlanet wrote: »

As a general rule i don't think they ordinarily do.
But no doubt an extraordinary exception can be made here.

Why? Would other countries not start asking about paying for their infrastructure then?

moon2

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Why? Would other countries not start asking about paying for their infrastructure then?

If a similar extraordinary event occurred at another border, yes I would expect them to ask! I'd also hope they'd be granted the same relief.

Edit: I can't find the link for the newer border fund, but this is the information on an older scheme: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/external-borders-fund_en

Charles Babbage

PeadarCo wrote: »

And guess what if the UK checks the goods entering the UK from NI they suddenly have created a border down the Irish Sea and now North Ireland is in the rather unique situation of having a hard economic border with both the rest of Ireland and Britain. This is the worst case scenario for Northern Ireland. The whole point of the legislation proposed by the UK government was to ensure that there was no hard economic border between NI and Britain. You really haven't thought this through. Every party in NI including the DUP would go crazy at your idea.

I think you haven't thought about it either, the whole point of this legislation is to ensure there is no hard economic border between Britain and NI, not the other way around.

View

beggars_bush wrote: »

Will the EU pay for border infrastructure?

There is an EU “External Borders Fund” which (from memory) can cover up to 50% of the cost needed to ensure that the external borders of a member state meet or exceed Schengen external border standards. That fund applies for Schengen member states only.

As we are not currently a Schengen member state, we would have no claim to any monies from that fund.

The obvious solution is for us to opt into Schengen, get half our border costs covered and stop hanging on the coat-tails of Brexit Britain.

PeadarCo

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I think you haven't thought about it either, the whole point of this legislation is to ensure there is no hard economic border between Britain and NI, not the other way around.

I know but I'm not talking about the legislation brought forward by the UK government, I'm talking about the idea put forward by Roosh. Roosh is point was it wouldn't matter if there was no border on the island of Ireland for the UK because under Roosh's idea goods would be checked when going between NI and Britain. Checking goods that go between NI and Britain is a hard economic border which is something the UK wants to avoid as you correctly point out. But if there is no border on the Irish sea the UK will have to errect customs controls on the Irish border for reasons already pointed out by myself and some other posters earlier in the thread.

If NI leaves the EU Single Market and customs Union we will have a hard border and ultimately if that's what the UK wants there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do. Hard borders are the international norm for a reason and economic and political considerations will force both sides to erect border controls if NI leaves the CU and SM long term.

[Deleted User]

PeadarCo wrote: »

If NI leaves the EU Single Market and customs Union we will have a hard border and ultimately if that's what the UK wants there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do. Hard borders are the international norm for a reason and economic and political considerations will force both sides to erect border controls if NI leaves the CU and SM long term.

It's quite simple really. In the event of a no deal Brexit, we will either we have a hard border with NI or a hard border with the rest of the EU. Effectively the NI border might as well be with North Korea in terms of trade. That's the long and short of it.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

It's quite simple really. In the event of a no deal Brexit, we will either we have a hard border with NI or a hard border with the rest of the EU. Effectively the NI border might as well be with North Korea in terms of trade. That's the long and short of it.

Wonder will the DUP rig up some loudspeakers and blare "The Sash" at the enemy over the border?

Joking aside "North Korea" may be a slight exaggeration but if UK leave with no "deal" and they also break the Withdrawal Agreement it will be equivalent to the EUs Russian land border for trade.

Turkey has a customs agreement with EU and Ukraine is an EU accession state (edit: sorry - error there) so those don't seem quite the same as what UK is aiming towards at the moment.

Peregrinus

fly_agaric wrote: »

Turkey has a customs agreement with EU and Ukraine is an EU accession state (edit: sorry - error there) so those don't seem quite the same as what UK is aiming towards at the moment.

Belarus is the closest comparator. The UK wants a "Belarus-style deal" with the EU.

fly_agaric

Peregrinus wrote: »

Belarus is the closest comparator. The UK wants a "Belarus-style deal" with the EU.

"Belarus (or Russia) style deal" doesn't have quite same ring to it as the "Australia deal" for me. It is not bringing the same images and associations to my mind.

beggars_bush

fly_agaric wrote: »

"Belarus (or Russia) style deal" doesn't have quite same ring to it as the "Australia deal" for me. It is not bringing the same images and associations to my mind.

nuclear waste for cash incoming

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

And guess what if the UK checks the goods entering the UK from NI they suddenly have created a border down the Irish Sea and now North Ireland is in the rather unique situation of having a hard economic border with both the rest of Ireland and Britain. This is the worst case scenario for Northern Ireland. The whole point of the legislation proposed by the UK government was to ensure that there was no hard economic border between NI and Britain. You really haven't thought this through. Every party in NI including the DUP would go crazy at your idea.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the Tories give a tuppence about NI. It's nothing but a bargaining chip to them.

We have to remember that the hard border is their only real bargaining chip. It is the only real leverage that they have in the negotiations. In order to get the best possible deal for themselves, they have to be willing to play it all the way. That is why the Brexiters and Boris were so desperate to keep no deal on the table.

If they back down - which means fully implementing the NI protocol - then their leverage is gone. They have to be willing to allow NI take the pain in the short term.

It's basically a game of who blinks first.

roosh

View wrote: »

It has always been clear that the erection of a hard border was the default situation. The protocol was drawn up to provide an alternative so that default could be avoided.

It is not “acting in bad faith” to try and secure such a protocol and nor is it “acting in bad faith”, if the refusal of the U.K. to honour what it agreed to, results in a return to the default situation of a hard border. Rather, it is the UK’s refusal that is the act of bad faith.

And who will be putting up the border??

It is acting in bad faith to say that under no circumstances whatsoever can there be a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI and to then come along and put up a hard border.

The UK will simply say that they are not the ones putting up the hard border and they might even go so far as to implore the EU not to put up a hard border, but the UK no longer has any say over what the EU does. If we put up a hard border, that's on the us.

ancapailldorcha

roosh wrote: »

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the Tories give a tuppence about NI. It's nothing but a bargaining chip to them.

We have to remember that the hard border is their only real bargaining chip. It is the only real leverage that they have in the negotiations. In order to get the best possible deal for themselves, they have to be willing to play it all the way. That is why the Brexiters and Boris were so desperate to keep no deal on the table.

If they back down - which means fully implementing the NI protocol - then their leverage is gone. They have to be willing to allow NI take the pain in the short term.

It's basically a game of who blinks first.

The hard border is a bargaining chip of very limited utility and playing it will result in significant damage to the UK's reputation as well as souring relations with the United States.

It's the equivalent of demanding half off a Passat at a Volkswagen dealership while threating to shoot yourself in the foot in front of a large crowd. No good will come of this.

roosh

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The UK politicians and media have said alot of things, they even signed international agreements which we are know learning are not worth paper they were written on.

Like I said and pointed out in the past few years our economy decoupled to the point where UK is destination for only 6% of our exports.

We don't need to do anything to accommodate the UK, just point out the international agreements they did sign such as GFA and WA, and try to continue to reach a trade deal.

The clock is ticking down to the implosion of UK all we have to do is stand firm and not bendover as per your suggestion.

Again, you don't seem to be following the reasoning because you think this is somehow an attempt to accommodate the UK, when in fact it is the exact opposite. The intention is to demonstrate to the UK that their one and only real bit if leverage can actually be turned back on them.

At present, their only bargaining chip is the prospect that we will have to put up a hard border - that's it! They pretty much have nothing else.

Yep, we can go down the legal route and see where that gets us, and I'm not suggesting that we don't pursue that option.

But, if we're being prudent and assuming the worst case scenario, whereby the UK don't back down, we should be considering other ways of bending them over.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been said in the intervening replies.

This is a severe misunderstanding of the situation.

The WA agreement was to prevent a border. By invalidating the agreement the UK bring back the need for a hard border. It *does not* mean "there was never a need for one". There always was, and will remain, a need for one of there's sufficient regulatory divergence.

There's no reading of this series of events which has the EU acting in "bad faith" by respecting the hard border the UK have brought into existence by reneging on the WA and introducing regulatory divergence.

Apart from that, the assumption you're making is that the EU will still give the UK what they want trade-wise despite them throwing out the previous agreement. This doesn't make sense.

The UK position will simply be that it is not they who is putting up a hard border.

If we want to avoid a hard border, the UK will argue that we simply need not put one up because they won't be. It will be entirely on us!

Our position all along has been that there cannot be, under any circumstances, a return to a hard border on this island. The reason we have given is that it will threaten peace in NI. If we come along then and put up a hard border when the UK doesn't, it will demonstrate that it was us who had been acting in bad faith from the beginning.

The UK will say that we have a very clear choice. Concede more in the negotations or go ahead and endanger peace in NI - because it won't be them putting up the hard border.

roosh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The hard border is a bargaining chip of very limited utility and playing it will result in significant damage to the UK's reputation as well as souring relations with the United States.

It's the equivalent of demanding half off a Passat at a Volkswagen dealership while threating to shoot yourself in the foot in front of a large crowd. No good will come of this.

It may well be of limited utility but it is about the only real leverage that the UK has.

Perspectives in the US will change quite quickly when it is us who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK. They will simply say, "see, we told you it wasn't us who were endangering peace in NI".

Now, imagine that Trump gets reelected and he's got that stick to beat the EU with. There will also be plenty of lobbyists in the US, who would benefit from a trade deal with the UK, who will be only too happy to help people see the UK perspective.

ancapailldorcha

roosh wrote: »

It may well be of limited utility but it is about the only real leverage that the UK has.

Perspectives in the US will change quite quickly when it is us who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK. They will simply say, "see, we told you it wasn't us who were endangering peace in NI".

Now, imagine that Trump gets reelected and he's got that stick to beat the EU with. There will also be plenty of lobbyists in the US, who would benefit from a trade deal with the UK, who will be only too happy to help people see the UK perspective.

It isn't really leverage though. The EU will not undermine the single market to placate a country so willing to violate international law.

It's clear to everyone who will be responsible for the hard border. It will be the country that voted for Brexit without any thought whatsoever for NI or the GFA which the US was instrumental in negotiating. The American president is not a dictator who can unilaterally negotiate trade deals and the current incumbent has done a spectacularly bad job of persuading anyone outside his voter base of anything.

roosh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It isn't really leverage though. The EU will not undermine the single market to placate a country so willing to violate international law.

If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's clear to everyone who will be responsible for the hard border. It will be the country that voted for Brexit without any thought whatsoever for NI or the GFA which the US was instrumental in negotiating. The American president is not a dictator who can unilaterally negotiate trade deals and the current incumbent has done a spectacularly bad job of persuading anyone outside his voter base of anything.

It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.

Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.

The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.

Sam Russell

roosh wrote: »

If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.

It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.

Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.

The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.

I think you will find the Dover situation will more than dominate the coverage of Brexit in January 2021, and NI will just bumble along, being ignored by both sides of the border. There is already SPS validation at Larne - that will continue. I would say there will be little beyond token inspections anywhere on the island outside Dublin, and other ports and airports.

Will the UK impose tariffs at Holyhead? - or even customs inspections? Do they even have facilities to do so?

ancapailldorcha

roosh wrote: »

If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.

There was a need for a backstop because the UK has no idea what sort of Brexit it wants and because it's been negotiating in bad faith.

roosh wrote: »

It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.

It really won't be. This is the result of a decision by the British and their refusal to accept the consequences of that decision or even to hold to the deal they campaigned on last year.

Is Trump tweeting "every minute of the day" about the border? What's your source on that?

roosh wrote: »

Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.

What strong narrative? If this were true, the UK could have just left in 2019 instead of begging for extensions but they did not.

What multi-billion dollar lobbyists are pressuring them to see the British side? Specifics please. How successful have they been given the aforementioned begging for extensions?

roosh wrote: »

The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.

No, it isn't. It's on them and they'll have to erect a border themselves. You keep saying that they will not but that's just nonsense. You can't have open borders allowing anyone and anything in.

roosh

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you will find the Dover situation will more than dominate the coverage of Brexit in January 2021, and NI will just bumble along, being ignored by both sides of the border. There is already SPS validation at Larne - that will continue. I would say there will be little beyond token inspections anywhere on the island outside Dublin, and other ports and airports.

Then there's no problem and no need for hard border on the island, so no need for a backstop or an NI protocol. We can just let it bumble along indefinitely.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will the UK impose tariffs at Holyhead? - or even customs inspections? Do they even have facilities to do so?

I'm guessing their hope is that it won't get that far. They're hoping that the EU will blink first.

Sam Russell

roosh wrote: »

Then there's no problem and no need for hard border on the island, so no need for a backstop or an NI protocol. We can just let it bumble along indefinitely.

No, that is not what was said or what was meant.

Ireland will, if required, check any material matters affecting the single market. If that requires checks, then so be it.

I'm guessing their hope is that it won't get that far. They're hoping that the EU will blink first.

I think they are preparing lorry parks for thousands of trucks in Kent. I suppose that is preparing not to blink.

I wonder how many customs officers have been appointed and trained. I wander how many customs clearance agents are available. I wonder how many SMEs are ready for the tsunami of paperwork that will need to be prepared to export goods to the EU. I wonder if they understand their new VAT system that will be required. I wonder if it has even been tested yet.

We will find out in a few months - one way or another.

roosh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There was a need for a backstop because the UK has no idea what sort of Brexit it wants and because it's been negotiating in bad faith.

No, the need for the backstop was because a no deal Brexit would lead to a hard border. The issue is, the UK won't have to put up border infrastructure on the island. The EU will.

Our position all along has been "no hard border - peace in NI". We wouldn't allow negotiations to start until a backstop was in place or the NI protocol was agreed. But, here we are now saying that not only has a hard border has been a possibility all along but it's us that will be putting it up, not the Brits.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It really won't be. This is the result of a decision by the British and their refusal to accept the consequences of that decision or even to hold to the deal they campaigned on last year.

The British are entitled to leave the EU. It's enshrined in EU law!

If they leave the EU and we are the ones who put up a border, not them, then that is the consequence of our decision because the UK will be deciding not to put up a hard border.

I know we all want to blame the UK but they are simply trying to get the best possible deal for themselves. Blaming them because we are the ones putting up border infrastructure is just silly.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is Trump tweeting "every minute of the day" about the border? What's your source on that?

I didn't say that he was currently doing it. If he gets re-elected then you can be sure he will be vocal about it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What strong narrative? If this were true, the UK could have just left in 2019 instead of begging for extensions but they did not.

That the UK are not the ones putting up border infrastructure on the island, that its actually us. This will be reinforced by pictures on the news of us putting up border infrastructure and not the Brits. That pretty strong narrative!

They asked for extensions because of the backstop, which apparently wasn't necessary all along because we are prepared to put up a hard border.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What multi-billion dollar lobbyists are pressuring them to see the British side? Specifics please. How successful have they been given the aforementioned begging for extensions?

It's a simple matter of not being naive. Are you familiar with the role of lobbyists in US politics? Do any particular industries stand to gain from a trade deal with the UK? Do you think there will be any particular pressure from these groups when it comes to a trade deal when.....wait for it....

They point to the fact that it is the EU who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

W
No, it isn't. It's on them and they'll have to erect a border themselves. You keep saying that they will not but that's just nonsense. You can't have open borders allowing anyone and anything in.

Not on the island of Ireland they won't. What do you think the NI protocol is about btw?

roosh

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, that is not what was said or what was meant.

Ireland will, if required, check any material matters affecting the single market. If that requires checks, then so be it.

That might not have been what was said or meant, but that is the consequnces of what was indeed said!

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they are preparing lorry parks for thousands of trucks in Kent. I suppose that is preparing not to blink.

I wonder how many customs officers have been appointed and trained. I wander how many customs clearance agents are available. I wonder how many SMEs are ready for the tsunami of paperwork that will need to be prepared to export goods to the EU. I wonder if they understand their new VAT system that will be required. I wonder if it has even been tested yet.

We will find out in a few months - one way or another.

They're clearly preparing to suck it up for as long as they can. I wonder how long it will take haulage companies start routing their operations through NI and the ROI