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

ancapailldorcha

roosh wrote: »

You clearly have not understood a single thing in this thread!

Be civil please. This is not acceptable here.

BluePlanet

roosh the border with NI exists because Britain created it.

The "hardness" of that border is entirely dependent on the trade relationships that Britain has with the EU (of which RoI is but one member).
Previously both countries were members of the EU block, hence that NI border has been pretty much invisible hereto.
Now that Britain choose to leave that block and has been balking at every deal the EU presented it, that border will likely harden.
That's not the EU's creating a border, that's just the realty of how borders work between trading blocks.

A hard border is Britain's doing, as they are the ones that unilaterally exited the trading and customs arrangement that permitted that border to remain invisible.

Every single international arbitration court will see it that way.

fly_agaric

roosh wrote: »

This is where the EU is forced to come along an put up a hard border on the island of Ireland - something we have said cannot be allowed to happen.

I don't remember our govt. saying Ireland + people living here were going to pay any price to avoid the hardening of the NI border.

My position is the type of thing you are suggesting as a "solution" is just too high a cost.

If our govt. decides to diminish or damage our EU membership in some way to keep the NI border "open"/"invisible" (as it is at present) I'm going to be quite peed off with them (doubt I'll be the only one).

They'll have made a monumental decision about all our futures and asked or consulted precisely noone about any of it and no party will ever have said a whisper about it in a manifesto.

Effectively they will have let the UKs Brexit voters make decisions for us.

BluePlanet

It would be economic suicide for Rep of Ireland to leave the EU as it would immediately render us dependent on the UK, as a smaller party.

While the Brits would love to lord over the entire island, it is in our national interest, as an independent sovereign nation to not allow such a scenario to come to pass.

eire4

BluePlanet wrote: »

It would be economic suicide for Rep of Ireland to leave the EU as it would immediately render us dependent on the UK, as a smaller party.

While the Brits would love to lord over the entire island, it is in our national interest, as an independent sovereign nation to not allow such a scenario to come to pass.

Totally agree Ireland outside the EU would be financial armageddon. Thankfully no chance of that happening.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

]Except what you're talking about is exactly implementing what the deal is which is NI in a separate legislation with separate checks. Why bother doing this instead of simply following the deal you agreed to in the first place? You'll cause the same unrest in NI by implementing a border check; the only difference is the location of it.

The idea of the NI protocol is that the Brits will check goods leaving Britain, headed for NI and destined for the EU single market and apply EU customs rules to those goods. Their threat is essentially that they will not perform these checks on outgoing goods. They can however check incoming goods. Thereby protecting their own maket.

Nody wrote: »

You have yourself added border controls though; so now you expect them to do first break an international agreed treaty only to do the same thing they decided to break? I mean I know we don't have high regard to Brexiteers thinking but you're taking it to a whole new level here.

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

They can check goods coming into Britain, while simply not performing the requisite checks on goods leaving Britain i.e. not implement the NI protocol.

Nody wrote: »

And it makes no flipping difference if they operate them in the UK because they still break the GFA and break an second international agreement.

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

It won't be the UK who is breaking the GFA because they won't be putting up a hard border between NI and the ROI.

Let's try a different approach. Why don't you tell me precisely how the UK will be breaking the GFA?

Nody wrote: »

You can keep repeating it until you're out of breath; the problem is you and brexiteers are about the only once who actually believe that's the case. The rest of the world see's UK breaking an agreement they signed a year earlier forcing EU to put up a hard border.

I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in.

At least we're getting closer to the point here. It won't be the UK forcing the EU to put up a hard border. The UK have no such control over the EU. In fact, the UK will be shouting from the rooftops telling the EU not to put up a hard border.

Again, the arsonist can blame everyone under the sun for forcing them to start fires, but it's not going to carry much weight.

Nody wrote: »

Along with the fisheries etc. and once again nothing new here. When Boris comes knocking asking about making a deal after all EU will simply point to NI and say fix it and we'll consider it. Same way they will with fish etc.

Yep, this is what we're all hoping. In the meantime, the UK are hoping that the impending threat to the single market will be enough to make us put up a hard border.

Nody wrote: »

Why give your enemy what they want? Boris wants EU to walk away to ensure he can continue blaming EU; if EU remain there saying we'll be here ready go to talk but before that fix the deal we already agreed to let us proceed they pull the wind from Boris sails.

I was simply following your logic.

Nody wrote: »

They already know their plan is dead in water, as was the previous more cunning then a fox from the university of cunningham plans were as well. That has however never stopped Brexiteers thinking they will somehow work. Instead EU will keep acting as an adult in the room, state fix the previous deal and we'll talk while simply smiling and waiting as the Brexiteers gets more and more desperate as they realize EU is not budging after all.

Do they already know this? What makes you say that?

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

At the current time, NI is part of the UK. If the UK does not enforce border controls for imports into NI (UK) from the EU (Ireland) then according to WTO rules every other country in the world can send whatever it wants to any part of the UK without checks.

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

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

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

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you have to refute so many arguments from so many other posters with the assertion that those contributors haven't understood a single thing, then maybe your idea is either not properly thought out, or it's inherently incomprehensible?

Or, those reading it have jumped straight to conclusions and their bias is making them incorrectly interpret what has been written.

So far, nearly everyone has claimed that the proposal (which I said in the OP wasn't well thought out) is just a form or Irexit, despite it patently being the complete opposite. They have also tried suggesting that this is somehow giving the Brits what they want when it is actually aimed at completely nullifying their negotiating position.

These points have been corrected countless times at this stage.

roosh

VinLieger wrote: »

All ive understood is your idea makes no sense from an Irish or EU perspective.

It would completely neutralise the British negotiating position and hopefully force them to negotiate in earnest, sooner rather than having to go through a protracted legal battle and customs stand-off, which could be damaging to the Irish economy.

I think that makes some sense from our perspective.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

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

...

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

No-one made that claim except you.

The point made previously was that if the UK have an open border with 1 WTO member and also do not have a FTA agreement with that member, by WTO rules the UK must have a similarly open border with all WTO members.

As you might imagine, a completely open border obviates the need for a FTA. At this point either the UK leaves the WTO too, or they actually control imports/exports from all WTO members equally.

Originally

roosh wrote: »

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

I not know if possble and inquality is result , if so , I think. Ireland , southside border, equal state EU , people need same rights other people eu. Freeport idea , who know, me think no .

roosh

BluePlanet wrote: »

roosh the border with NI exists because Britain created it.

The "hardness" of that border is entirely dependent on the trade relationships that Britain has with the EU (of which RoI is but one member).
Previously both countries were members of the EU block, hence that NI border has been pretty much invisible hereto.

Thank you, I am quite familiar with this.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Now that Britain choose to leave that block and has been balking at every deal the EU presented it, that border will likely harden.

How exactly does an invisible border magically harden? For it to harden, it requires border infrastructure to be built.

BluePlanet wrote: »

That's not the EU's creating a border, that's just the realty of how borders work between trading blocks.

If the EU put up border infrastructure that is the EU creating a border. That's just the reality of how border infrastructure works.

BluePlanet wrote: »

A hard border is Britain's doing, as they are the ones that unilaterally exited the trading and customs arrangement that permitted that border to remain invisible.

IF the EU puts up border infrastructure while the UK does not, then it is the EU who are hardening the border.

The UK will be shouting from the rooftops for the EU not to put up border infrastructure because the UK will not be putting it up.

The arsonist can try to blame the police* for making them start fires, all they like.

*I understand the irony of the police representing the UK in this analogy.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Every single international arbitration court will see it that way.

If the courts are asked to arbitrate on the question of who is hardening the border, then they will find it hard to say that the UK are the ones hardening the border on the island when the preponderance of evidence will show that it is the EU putting up border infrastructure and not the UK.

That won't be the point they will be called into decide however.

roosh

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't remember our govt. saying Ireland + people living here were going to pay any price to avoid the hardening of the NI border.

Why did we have the whole debacle over the backstop and now the NI protocol?

This is a rhetorical question btw.

fly_agaric wrote: »

My position is the type of thing you are suggesting as a "solution" is just too high a cost.

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

My point is that the cost of becoming a free port would hopefully not be one that we would actually have to bear - hoping the UK see they've got nowhere to go - or it would be a short term one - hoping the economic impact on the UK of no deal would bring them back to negotiate.

There is also the idea/hope that the cost of such an arrangement could actually be offset.

fly_agaric wrote: »

If our govt. decides to diminish or damage our EU membership in some way to keep the NI border "open"/"invisible" (as it is at present) I'm going to be quite peed off with them (doubt I'll be the only one).

They'll have made a monumental decision about all our futures and asked or consulted precisely noone about any of it and no party will ever have said a whisper about it in a manifesto.

Effectively they will have let the UKs Brexit voters make decisions for us.

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

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

roosh

BluePlanet wrote: »

It would be economic suicide for Rep of Ireland to leave the EU as it would immediately render us dependent on the UK, as a smaller party.

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

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

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

Totally agree Ireland outside the EU would be financial armageddon. Thankfully no chance of that happening.

We wouldn't be outside the EU.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

No-one made that claim except you.

The point made previously was that if the UK have an open border with 1 WTO member and also do not have a FTA agreement with that member, by WTO rules the UK must have a similarly open border with all WTO members.

As you might imagine, a completely open border obviates the need for a FTA. At this point either the UK leaves the WTO too, or they actually control imports/exports from all WTO members equally.

They will control all imports/exports from all WTO members equally. They will do it as the goods enter Britain.

Can you cite the section of the WTO rules that you are referring to btw? I'm just interested to see the exact wording.

PommieBast

moon2 wrote: »

As you might imagine, a completely open border obviates the need for a FTA. At this point either the UK leaves the WTO too, or they actually control imports/exports from all WTO members equally.

Pretty sure Liam Fox has made noises in the past about removing all import controls. That'll be fun to watch...

moon2

roosh wrote: »

They will control all imports/exports from all WTO members equally. They will do it as the goods enter Britain.

I assume the use of the word britain is to explicitly exclude Northern Ireland from these arrangements. What's the legal path, compliant with WTO rules, for this to happen. Also, would this be compatible with the UKs current approach of there being no trade barriers between NI and mainland Britain?

Can you cite the section of the WTO rules that you are referring to btw? I'm just interested to see the exact wording.

This is point 1 in "Understanding the WTO". https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm .

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

I assume the use of the word britain is to explicitly exclude Northern Ireland from these arrangements. What's the legal path, compliant with WTO rules, for this to happen.

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

All WTO members will be treated equally under this scenario.

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

moon2 wrote: »

Also, would this be compatible with the UKs current approach of there being no trade barriers between NI and mainland Britain?

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

moon2 wrote: »

This is point 1 in "Understanding the WTO". https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm .

Cheers for that.

eire4

roosh wrote: »

We wouldn't be outside the EU.

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

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

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

All WTO members will be treated equally under this scenario.

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

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

Cheers for that.

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

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

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

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

moon2

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reality is that NI is part of the UK.

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

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

Here you go: Most Favoured Nation rules.

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

Originally

CelticRambler wrote: »

island of Ireland,

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

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

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

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

fly_agaric

roosh wrote: »

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

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

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

eire4

roosh wrote: »

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

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

Originally

eire4 wrote: »

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

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