roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » 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?
roosh wrote: » 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
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The British are responsible for this. They signed an international treaty in the form of the WA which they clearly now intend to renege on.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » It's entirely their fault as has been explained to you. They have left so saying they're entitled to leave is a bit silly to be honest.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Based on what? How many tweets has he got about the border to date?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Repeating this does not make it true. The British will have to hire and train customs staff, purchase equipment and premise along with erecting infrastructure for the whole of the UK.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » As expected, no evidence.
roosh wrote: » Indeed. But they won't be responsible for the EU putting up border infrastructure. That will be the responsibility of the EU. As has been explained, it won't be the UK who are putting up border infrastructure, that will be the EU. We can try to blame the UK all we like but it won't change that simple, fundamental fact.
roosh wrote: » Are you familiar with Trumps views on the EU? Have you heard him mention anything about Brexit previously?
roosh wrote: » They will not have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. This is their position. This is their only bargaining chip. Ignoring it doesn't change that fact.
roosh wrote: » No, just a basic familiariaty with US politics and politics in general.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Source please.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » That's not what I asked. Do not move the goalposts please? What quantifiable interest has he shown in the Irish border?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Prove it please.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » So nothing. You can't identify any of the lobby groups, organisations or individuals pushing for this at all.
roosh wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136
roosh wrote: » https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148298496140820480?s=20https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559443845668864?s=20https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/746458701565988864?s=20 This one:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/766246213079498752?s=20
roosh wrote: » Are you saying that there will be no lobbyists whatsoever pushing for a trade deal with the UK? Because if you're not, then you support my contention.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Not my point. The WTO can't force anything
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Not one of which mentions the border.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » No, I'm asking for details of this alleged lobby. I've done so multiple times at this stage and you've yet to give any info at all beyond stating that they exist.
Health care lobbying expenditures totaled $237 million in 2000. These expenditures accounted for 15% of all federal lobbying and were larger than the lobbying expenditures of every other sector, including agriculture, communications, and defense. A total of 1192 organizations were involved in health care lobbying. Pharmaceutical and health product companies spent the most ($96 million), followed by physicians and other health professionals ($46 million). Disease advocacy and public health organizations spent $12 million. From 1997 to 2000, lobbying expenditures by physicians and other health professionals grew more slowly than lobbying by other organizations (10% vs. 26%).
roosh wrote: » And who will be putting up the border??
roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » 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.
roosh wrote: » If you've never heard of the influence of lobby groups in US politics then a cursory google search would help.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobbyhttps://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(03)00803-9/fulltexthttp://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=1990&ind=a07
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.
View wrote: » In the event of a “no deal” scenario, both countries would be required to put a (land) border under WTO rules. In addition, we would be required to put one up under EU rules (including, presumably, Schengen ones since we should immediately join it if the U.K. goes for “no deal”).
View wrote: » No, it is not. It was always made clear that a hard border was the default option arising as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The reason people wanted a special NI protocol in the WA was to avoid the default option of a hard border.
View wrote: » The current U.K. government can, and will, say anything they want. It is they, though, that signed up to the protocol - apparently AFTER having sought legal advice on breaking it - and they that decided to breech international law last week.
View wrote: » That’s not our problem. Our concern is to meet our obligations as a member of the WTO and the EU/EEA. Our place in the EU SM is what drives our economy and that must take precedence over everything else, particularly as the massive global recession that Covid is unleashing on us all takes hold.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » This is nonsense. You've made no effort whatsoever to substantiate your claims and have just moved the goalposts again. I'm going to just dismiss your claims as baseless and leave it at that.
fly_agaric wrote: » I'm not sure you are correct about this. I judge that the geopolitics (the US relationships with the EU and its member states, the benefits to the US of a wealthy and stable + united Europe that is allied with it) is still more important to the Democrats than any corporate lobbying and desire of US companies to profit from new trade agreements with post Brexit UK. They've been pretty consistent in their messages to the UK about the whole Brexit project for a long time (going back to Obama).
fly_agaric wrote: » If the UK breaks the Withdrawal agreement, it torches relations with the EU and member states. I don't think they will be encouraging or rewarding this behaviour with some new trade deals to help the UK out etc. whoever puts up a border first. They'll be putting pressure on the UK to "kiss and make up" with the other traditional US allies in the EU. I suppose the UK govt. may be praying now that Trump wins and the Republicans also sweep the elections, it is kind of "sad" as Trump would say.
fly_agaric wrote: » And as regards the border, it would be on both sides eventually even if EU goes first. I do not believe UK can persist in maintaining an open border in NI long term. They may claim that, but I'm sceptical. As you say the UK govt. do not particularly care about NI or what its people think. If the open NI border (on UK side) starts to hit UK business due to distorted flows of trade, smuggling etc...only one way that ends (with UK putting up a border).
moon2 wrote: » The UK want to close all their borders, the republic do not want to close the border with the north.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » - If they can, we put up a border. If they can’t they come back to the table and sign the WA again The rest is all waffle and misdirection. Britain can have whatever internal political narratives it chooses. It isn’t relevant to us.
roosh wrote: » If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » What’s the point of this thread really?
LuckyLloyd wrote: » - If Britain reneges on the WA and Frontstop they will be leaving Ireland and the EU no theoretical choice other than to erect a border of some description in Ireland
LuckyLloyd wrote: » - Britain violating an International treaty forces this, so it is simply their “fault”
LuckyLloyd wrote: » - Ireland and the EU will have plans in place but will likely wait the U.K out for six months first. As Sterling tanks, lorries queue as far as the eye can see at Dover and the City of London faces an existential threat we’ll see if they can bear it
LuckyLloyd wrote: » - If they can, we put up a border. If they can’t they come back to the table and sign the WA again
LuckyLloyd wrote: » The rest is all waffle and misdirection. Britain can have whatever internal political narratives it chooses. It isn’t relevant to us.
moon2 wrote: » The best way would be to comply with international treaties and obligations and abide by the rule of law.
moon2 wrote: » Until you can demonstrate an understanding of the ramifications of this course of action, and how it interacts with our obligations under international treaties, there's nothing to debate.
roosh wrote: » This is the crux of the issue. If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure? The end goal for the UK isn't "close all borders" it is to get the best possible deal for the UK. This will require the UK getting the best possible trade deal with the EU. A trade deal that makes Brexit worthwhile. Their only possible way of doing this is by using NI as a bargaining chip. It's bargaining power is the threat to the EU single market. Enforcing the NI protocol weakens their negotiating position and effectively neutralises their only real leverage. This would mean that Brexit doesn't turn out as successful as it potentially could be - and let's not kid ourselves, Brexit could turn our remarkably successful for the UK if they get a very good trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, it is in their interests to push this as far as they possibly can to try and get the EU to back down and give them the concessions they are looking for.
roosh wrote: » Nice attempt to dodge the question.
roosh wrote: » This is the crux of the issue. If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?.
The end goal for the UK isn't "close all borders" it is to get the best possible deal for the UK. This will require the UK getting the best possible trade deal with the EU. A trade deal that makes Brexit worthwhile. .
Their only possible way of doing this is by using NI as a bargaining chip. It's bargaining power is the threat to the EU single market. Enforcing the NI protocol weakens their negotiating position and effectively neutralises their only real leverage. This would mean that Brexit doesn't turn out as successful as it potentially could be - and let's not kid ourselves, Brexit could turn our remarkably successful for the UK if they get a very good trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, it is in their interests to push this as far as they possibly can to try and get the EU to back down and give them the concessions they are looking for.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Why is there an assumption that Ireland (or big bad EU will put up a border for goods at all? We can take a leaf out of UKs book and simply do nothing, by time WTO notices and takes any action and whole thing is dragged thru courts for years with us and EU pointing out that we are willing to reach a deal with UK who are not playing ball nor honouring existing law, and pointing our that peace in NI is sort of more important than WTO stuff, which could be amended. While all that is happening the UK collapses. All that needs to be done is call their bluff while continuing to decouple from UK (already down 6% exports)
briany wrote: » *By* enforcing the NI protocol, the UK stands to get a very good trade deal with the EU, whereas the UK stands to be left out in the cold by the EU if they don't do something about the border question. All their current posturing is really achieving is playing to internal political gallery, and even there it's far from the entire audience that is pleased.
briany wrote: » The EU and Ireland have been clear - negotiations hinge on a mutually agreeable solution to the border question. If the UK is not cooperative, they don't get a deal, and the chances of Brexit being a success go down the toilet. The Republic may have to enforce a border at some stage, but at no point will this be called normal, and resumption of talks rests on the UK seeing sense, perhaps when they finally elect a more sensible government.
roosh wrote: » The UK has very little leverage in negotiations, other than the threat to the single market. The NI protocol neutralises this threat and therefore the leverage that the UK has. If they stand to get a very good trade deal with the NI protocol, then they are calculating that they can get an incredible deal without it. The very good deal scenario might see them worse off because of Brexit while the incredible deal could see them better off because of it.
Again, I think you are underestimating the political fall out from the EU putting up a hard border. We can call it abnormal, temporary, whatever the hell we like, it will still be seen as us putting up a hard border on the island. If you honestly believe that it is not a big deal to put up border infrastructure, then you must believe that there was never any need for a backstop or an NI protocol. If you say that there was a need for these, then the idea that we will just throw up a hard border, call it abnormal and blame the Brits doesn't carry much water. The Brits are gambling on our/the EU's reticence at putting a hard border on the island. Politically, it clearly is a big deal and something the EU want to avoid.
moon2 wrote: » The first post in thread started with the idea that all of ireland would be granted special status so we wouldn't have to abide by normal EU port/export rules.
moon2 wrote: » This special status would purely be for the convenience of the Uk as they continue to be incapable of defining what they want post-brexit, and as a result they cannot negotiate a trade deal.
moon2 wrote: » Now the premise is that Ireland will just ignore EU import/export rules and the EU (and all of its existing trade partners) will turn a blind eye. Once again, this is purely for the benefit of the UK as the UK seem to be reneging on the mutually agreed treaty which resolved this issue.
moon2 wrote: » So - what exactly are you proposing? The EU just give the UK whatever they want, whenever they decide what it is that they want and no-one else will care?
moon2 wrote: » At the end of the day, despite your constant repetition to the contrary, if the UK want diverging standards then they'll erect a border. This belief that they'll refuse to monitor their borders *and also* maintain control over imports and exports is bonkers.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Businesses don't vote a government in, they are welcome to put up walls with "sponsored by insert Irish business name here" and see how quickly public opinion tours sour on them. Hell I can see farmers themselves blocking off smaller access roads as threat of GM food from UK and no standards there will threaten their livelihoods. We stand back and let em do it on smallest routes. What our government however can do is put up so much red tape and taxes and laws (tie em in to environmental/genetic/animal reasons) to make it so onerous on business to import from UK that they switch to EU providers for those imports. Hell maybe even require large bonds to be paid and put in random audits of importing companies with stiff penalties. Which would only leave criminals and smugglers importing from UK who can be dealt with by revenue, gardai and public opinion turned against inferior UK goods via buy Irish type advertising campaigns. No imports from UK then no need for using to put up any border posts for goods check coming in. In meantime the UK collapses.
roosh wrote: » The idea is that, to avoid a hard border and thereby neutralise the UK's leverage, Ireland could be designated a special economic zone. We would still abide by EU rules but goods leaving the island for the single market would be checked to ensure UK goods weren't entering the single market.
