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

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the Tories value NI and unionists. The only value that NI has to the UK is as a pawn in Brexit negotiations. The Tories will happily throw unionists under the bus as they have done several times before.

Again, this is the point. The hard border on the island of Ireland will be put up by us/the EU and not the UK.

The UK do not care how good or bad this is for NI, plus they presumably don't think it will get that far.

A hard border put up by the EU not the UK.

It becomes our business when goods from Britain are threatening the integrity of the single market by coming through Ireland.

What happens to goods from other countries entering NI, I wonder? Is there something in the NI protocol about that? Will the rest of the world have a back door into the single market?

That is not the only way to avoid a hard border. The proposition I have suggested would also avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Again, the crux of the issue is who will be putting up that hard border?

The EU has what? Used peace in NI as a bargaining chip? Are you suggesting that the EU has been negotiating in bad faith?

Yes, they do need a trade deal but they want a trade deal that will allow them to have their cake and eat it. Worst case scenario (for them), their plan doesn't work and they get the trade deal they were always going to get. This is their only play to get a worthwhile trade deal.

In the meantime, the UK is outside the single market (including NI) and are trading with the rest of the world under WTO rules meaning that the rest of the world have a back door into the EU single market.

How long do you think the EU will tolerate that?

What are you trying to say in your response? Honestly I don't understand what you are saying. Nothing in it seems to refute my point that if NI leaves the EU single market and customs Union we will have a hard border.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Which part specifically says that if they don't enforce rules there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK?

The very first part. NI is part of the UK. If the UK grants EU traders based in the Republic unfettered access to NI (=UK), then they *must* allow the same access to every other WTO member. And once granted, they must not discriminate between imports and locally produced goods.

The same does not apply in reverse, because the EU has explicitly stated that the UK will be treated as a third country until such time as they sign a trade deal, so anyone trying to flood the EU with cheap crap from elsewhere (see example of the UK doing that some years ago with Chinese imports) will be punished.

If you didn't already know all of this, it might explain why you're having so much trouble understanding why your proposal is such a catastrophic solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

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.

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

roosh

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

I'm sure there are plenty in government who share your opinion and it may ultimately come to that, but it doesn't change the position that our government and the EU have maintained all along.

The whole reason for the backstop/NI protocol debacle is because we said that there couldn't be a hard border in NI under any circumstances. If this wasn't the case, then negotiations could have proceeded on the basis that a hard border is the default but that's not the position we adopted.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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

Well, our position, and that of the EU has been that it is more monumental. That's the reason for the backstop debacle.

To say that it isn't equally monumental is to completely ignore the short history of this country and the troubled history of NI.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

Yes, our future is in the EU. I'm not suggesting that we leave it.

If the hard border isn't such a big issue then why did we insist that there could be no negotiations until there was something in place to avoid a hard border?

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

Why would we be "going to bat with Brussels"? I thought "we are the EU the EU is us"? We wouldn't need to go to bat with them, we would be showing solidarity by finding a solution to an intractable problem and "sacrificing" ourselves yet again, for the good of the European project.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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?

These were the kinds of ideas I was hoping to tease out.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

Which part specifically says that if they don't enforce rules there, they can't enforce them anywhere in the UK?

But I think you've answered your own dilemma there anyway. NI could be treated as a separate entity with region-specific rules.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

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.

You've got this slightly backwards.

The UK are threatening to undermine the treaty i.e. they are threatening to not fulfill their obligations under the treaty. This is where their threat to the single market lies.

They can check goods entering the island of Britain for all WTO members but they simply won't uphold the NI protocol for goods leaving the island of Britain headed for the EU single market. This is a threat to the EU single market. This is what will force the EU to put up a hard border on the island of Ireland.

moon2 wrote: »

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 think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here as that isn't the underlying assumption.

The underlying assumption is simply that the UK will follow through on their threat to undermine the NI protocol. If we assume that they will attempt to follow through on this, then they can protect their own market by checking goods entering Britain but they threaten the integrity of the single market by not fulfilling the NI protocol i.e. they don't apply EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain destined for the single market.

There is a further threat to the EU single market from a no deal because it would mean that the entire world has a back door into the EU single market.

This is what will force the EU to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. It won't be the UK putting up the border infrastructure.

moon2 wrote: »

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.

The UK can enforce border checks on goods entering Britain so the world doesn't have a backdoor to the British market. It will however provide backdoor access to the EU single market for the entire world.

This is what will force the EU to put up a hard border on the island of Ireland.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

I think you are seriously overestimating how much the Tories value NI and unionists. The only value that NI has to the UK is as a pawn in Brexit negotiations. The Tories will happily throw unionists under the bus as they have done several times before.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

Again, this is the point. The hard border on the island of Ireland will be put up by us/the EU and not the UK.

The UK do not care how good or bad this is for NI, plus they presumably don't think it will get that far.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

A hard border put up by the EU not the UK.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

It becomes our business when goods from Britain are threatening the integrity of the single market by coming through Ireland.

What happens to goods from other countries entering NI, I wonder? Is there something in the NI protocol about that? Will the rest of the world have a back door into the single market?

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

That is not the only way to avoid a hard border. The proposition I have suggested would also avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Again, the crux of the issue is who will be putting up that hard border?

PeadarCo wrote: »

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 EU has what? Used peace in NI as a bargaining chip? Are you suggesting that the EU has been negotiating in bad faith?

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

Yes, they do need a trade deal but they want a trade deal that will allow them to have their cake and eat it. Worst case scenario (for them), their plan doesn't work and they get the trade deal they were always going to get. This is their only play to get a worthwhile trade deal.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

In the meantime, the UK is outside the single market (including NI) and are trading with the rest of the world under WTO rules meaning that the rest of the world have a back door into the EU single market.

How long do you think the EU will tolerate that?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: »

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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...

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.

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

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

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: »

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.