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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally

Ireland, make eu version partrition 100 more years later, after world war once. Throw all optionse up in air, see what will fall best solution best way. Make people happy north south be live togetrer. Tell, germans + tell britsers go make trouble somewhere elses.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

No you couldn't. Ports are not normal, open economies where people live, play, raise families ...

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Or you could be a free port in the EU.

No there is no or other situation. Your either in the EU which Ireland thankfully is or you are not which is now the case for the UK. No amount of magical thinking can make it otherwise.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

Every other WTO member will have the same access to NI. All goods will then be checked entering Britain, so imported goods will be treated the same.

This [potential] fact actually heightens the UK's threat to the single market because the entire world will have a backdoor to the EU single market via NI.

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

If it were this simple, then there would be no need for border infrastructure because everyone would be working on the honour system. Of course, that's not how it works in the real world.

Was it yourself who made the point about smugglers earlier?

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

I'm not refuting that point. It might be more productive to take it step by step.

The first point was about unionists being annoyed and the situation being unfavourable to NI. To this I replied that you are overestimating the value the Tories place on NI.

With regard to the inevitability of the hard border, who is it that will be putting up the hard border? Will it be the EU or will it be the UK?

What did you mean by this btw:

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.

Did you mean that the EU was using peace in NI as a bargaining chip?

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

No you couldn't. Ports are not normal, open economies where people live, play, raise families ...

Call it a special economic zone then.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

No there is no or other situation. Your either in the EU which Ireland thankfully is or you are not which is now the case for the UK. No amount of magical thinking can make it otherwise.

Currently there is no other situation but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be.

You're right, no amount of magical thinking could make it otherwise, it would take serious political will and legal work.

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Currently there is no other situation but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be.

You're right, no amount of magical thinking could make it otherwise, it would take serious political will and legal work.

Well again thankfully Ireland is very much a part of the EU and no chance that status is changing in any way shape or form.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

Well again thankfully Ireland is very much a part of the EU and no chance that status is changing in any way shape or form.

Hopefully, it remains that way.

But, if a hard border on the island of Ireland really is a redline for the EU, as opposed to a bad faith negotiating ploy, then we might need to look at possible short term alternatives until the Brits come to their senses.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Every other WTO member will have the same access to NI. All goods will then be checked entering Britain, so imported goods will be treated the same.

Nope. WTO rules prevent discrimination between the regions, and the new IMB - which is the motivation for your plan to remove Ireland from full EU membership - further prohibits transfers of goods from NI being subject to checks.

So no checks at Newry means no checks at Dover.

But hey, if you want to re-write the fundamental principles of the EU, why not re-write those of the WTO while you're at it?

Oh wait, you're cherry-picking. A fine Brexiter tradition. :rolleyes:

Nody

roosh wrote: »

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.

Which is what the NI protocol is; a check on goods entering the UK at the NI border. Now you can place those checks at the NI port, or in the UK port but either way you've split UK which is what Boris claims he's not going to do and what the bill is exactly targeted at ensuring does not happen.

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.

Except you've already stated that UK will do a control on the goods from NI to not fall foul of the WTO terms; so UK would put up a hard border; if you put it on the island or in UK does not really matter because the impact on NI is the same.

The UK can enforce border checks on goods entering Britain so the world doesn't have a backdoor to the British market.

So you've admitted a hard border splitting NI from the UK market and implementing a hard border.

It will however provide backdoor access to the EU single market for the entire world.

How exactly do you then envision NI to allow all flow in one direction after UK has bordered them off? You expect NI will happily stand there and wave all the trucks rolling over while their own trucks get stopped? In essence you've implemented the WA except you moved the controls and tried to claim they will be one way only while breaking an international treaty and assume NI will still cooperate in being cut off from the UK market. In which scenario do you think NI would do that over saying "f*** this; we're aligning with the WA instead"? NI got nothing to lose; they already got locked out of the UK market anyway.

eire4

roosh wrote: »

Hopefully, it remains that way.

But, if a hard border on the island of Ireland really is a redline for the EU, as opposed to a bad faith negotiating ploy, then we might need to look at possible short term alternatives until the Brits come to their senses.

No we don't. We are very much part of the EU and will remain so regardless of what the UK does or does not do.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

And we're back to Most Favoured Nation vs Max Fac

Most Favoured Nation means that ANY concession outside of an agreement has to be offered to all nations. So HMCR would loose out on tariff revenue and likely be a victim of more Chinese dumping of steel and whatnot which would kill the domestic industries (except the steel plants the Chinese own because they need them to hold the UK over a barrel for the rails for HS2)

Max Fac is an honesty based system. As I keep pointing out NI had 40% of vehicle fuel from dishonest sources at a time when 27,000 troops and other security forces were accused of having a shoot to kill policy. In today's less severe circumstances it would lead to a porous border and third parties would claim it's not for purpose and demand Most Favoured Nation treatment too.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

I'm not refuting that point. It might be more productive to take it step by step.

The first point was about unionists being annoyed and the situation being unfavourable to NI. To this I replied that you are overestimating the value the Tories place on NI.

With regard to the inevitability of the hard border, who is it that will be putting up the hard border? Will it be the EU or will it be the UK?

What did you mean by this btw:

Did you mean that the EU was using peace in NI as a bargaining chip?

My point is if the UK wants a trade deal it must keep NI in the EU single market and customs Union. Or put it another way it must lose partial control of its territory. Its a fairly extraordinary situation for any country to be in when it comes to a trade deal and highlights how weak the UK position is. Something Brexiters and UK electorate in general did not appreciate was how closely the Good Friday agreement tied the UK to Ireland and therefore the EU. Without the GFA the EU/Irish demands would be out of order.

If NI was not part of the UK Brexit would have gone far smoother. Successive UK governments have tied themselves up in knots by trying to adhere to the GFA and aim for a hard Brexit for the entire UK.

On your other point about ignoring unionists if they didn't care about unionists why bother undermining the withdrawal agreement as they are doing. Your idea is not only nonsensical on legal and practical grounds as articulated by other posters also ignores the actions of not only the current UK government but previous ones as well.

PeadarCo

roosh wrote: »

Call it a special economic zone then.

I'll ask you again as you seem to ignore this question but it's key for your idea to work. Can you give any example of an open border between two countries/trade blocs where the relevant parties are in different customs unions and single markets?

Originally

PeadarCo wrote: »

Can you give any example of an open border between two countries/trade blocs where the relevant parties are in different customs unions and single markets?

When we need solutions to problems some bright spark will eventually make an invention. Inventions don't exist, they are new solutions. We can look all day, every day and be under the illusion we are making progress by looking for what does not exist.

In answer to the question, black markets exist, illegal trade exists over borders, it works just fine if you do it properly.

fly_agaric

roosh wrote: »

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.

You've taken a very literal and wide ranging interpretation of "any circumstances".

It was an EU/Irish goal for the negotiations (a "red line" to recall another term that got thrown about) but if negotiations fail, as it looks like they might do retrospectively if UK voids the NI protocol, what happens then?

You are also using another Brexiter argument here about the EU/Irish position in the negotiations so I'm beginning to think if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc...

roosh wrote: »

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

roosh wrote: »

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?

I didn't say it was not "a big issue" so why do you keep twisting my words + playing games?
My view is keeping our current status as a full EU member and maintaining the good relations with the EU and the other member states is more important to Ireland and its future than the NI border post Brexit.
You believe that is incorrect - fair enough.

roosh wrote: »

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

You are not being straight here really. You are suggesting we diminish key aspects of our EU membership and also try and seek a special status (could be said to amouting to advantages over the other members) to suit ourselves. It didn't work out well in the end for the UK who had that approach to the EU for decades, and I don't think it will work for Ireland either.

wrote:

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.

Well, that was why I used the scare quotes. It is the brexiter/eurosceptic view.
The UK withdrawal negotiation was different in that we were seeking support from the other members for our position vis a vis an outsider/soon to be outsider.
Now we would be looking for special treatment over others as a member that could arguably change the meaning of membership and weaken the group as a whole. I don't think that is showing solidarity.

roosh wrote: »

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

Do you have any views on it?
I have another thought.
You also said (I think) we'd still be following all the treaties, we'd have MEPs in EU parliament and nominate a Commissioner. The single market and customs are pretty key aspects of the EU which I imagine a lot of Commission and EU Parliament time is spent on. Say we have a special status and are not really part of those any more. Our our reps still voting on these things in the parliament and making decisions for the other members that do not affect us (edit or have different effects in Ireland)? Should they recuse themselves on those issues (unless its something do with us)? Should Irish commissioner be barred from taking up some of the roles relating to markets and trade? What would the other members think about it all I wonder?

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. WTO rules prevent discrimination between the regions, and the new IMB

So no checks at Newry means no checks at Dover.

I forgot to say it previously but thank you, because this is the type of discussion I was hoping for.

Where does it say that if there are no checks at Newry there can be no checks at Dover?

The same, of course, would apply to the EU. If there are no checks along the border between NI and the ROI, then there can be no checks anywhere in the EU single market - for countries trading on WTO rules.

With regard to discrimination between the regions of the UK, there would be none, because all the regions of the UK would be treated the same. Any goods from any region of the UK entering the island of Britain would be checked.

CelticRambler wrote: »

which is the motivation for your plan to remove Ireland from full EU membership
....
Oh wait, you're cherry-picking. A fine Brexiter tradition. :rolleyes:

You're just wrong in your assessment here.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Where does it say that if there are no checks at Newry there can be no checks at Dover?

I linked you to the page which describes how the WTO works. This is item 1 in the page I shared.

The same, of course, would apply to the EU. If there are no checks along the border between NI and the ROI, then there can be no checks anywhere in the EU single market - for countries trading on WTO rules.

Exactly. That's why the withdrawal agreement is necessary. without IT there'll be a hard border which falls under WTO rules. This is also why the border will be checked by both the UK and the EU.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

Which is what the NI protocol is; a check on goods entering the UK at the NI border. Now you can place those checks at the NI port, or in the UK port but either way you've split UK which is what Boris claims he's not going to do and what the bill is exactly targeted at ensuring does not happen.

Boris and the Tories don't care what happens to NI. They are simply using it as a bargaining chip and will do whatever is most expedient for them. If the UK doesn't implement the NI protocol it means that they will not be applying EU customs rules as goods enter NI. This is the threat to the single market.

Nody wrote: »

Except you've already stated that UK will do a control on the goods from NI to not fall foul of the WTO terms; so UK would put up a hard border; if you put it on the island or in UK does not really matter because the impact on NI is the same.

The Tories don't care about the impact on NI, they care about what they see as leverage in the negotiations, which is the threat that the border on our island poses to the single market.

Nody wrote: »

How exactly do you then envision NI to allow all flow in one direction after UK has bordered them off? You expect NI will happily stand there and wave all the trucks rolling over while their own trucks get stopped? In essence you've implemented the WA except you moved the controls and tried to claim they will be one way only while breaking an international treaty and assume NI will still cooperate in being cut off from the UK market. In which scenario do you think NI would do that over saying "f*** this; we're aligning with the WA instead"? NI got nothing to lose; they already got locked out of the UK market anyway.

I'm sure there will be disruption but I think the Tories are hoping they can manage it for as long or as short as is necessary.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

I linked you to the page which describes how the WTO works. This is item 1 in the page I shared.

I've read it, but I don' think the wording supports the conclusion you are drawing.

moon2 wrote: »

Exactly. That's why the withdrawal agreement is necessary. without IT there'll be a hard border which falls under WTO rules. This is also why the border will be checked by both the UK and the EU.

That's why the UK are threatening to go without a deal because they hope that this threat to the single market will be enough to make the EU give them more concessions.

On day 1 of no deal, the entire EU single market is open to the rest of the world - according to WTO rules. The Brits are hoping that this will be enough to make the EU blink first.

roosh

eire4 wrote: »

No we don't. We are very much part of the EU and will remain so regardless of what the UK does or does not do.

Nothing I have suggested would change this fact.

roosh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And we're back to Most Favoured Nation vs Max Fac

Most Favoured Nation means that ANY concession outside of an agreement has to be offered to all nations. So HMCR would loose out on tariff revenue and likely be a victim of more Chinese dumping of steel and whatnot which would kill the domestic industries (except the steel plants the Chinese own because they need them to hold the UK over a barrel for the rails for HS2)

Max Fac is an honesty based system. As I keep pointing out NI had 40% of vehicle fuel from dishonest sources at a time when 27,000 troops and other security forces were accused of having a shoot to kill policy. In today's less severe circumstances it would lead to a porous border and third parties would claim it's not for purpose and demand Most Favoured Nation treatment too.

The point is, if they go Max Fac in NI they will argue that they are complying with WTO rules but not in such a way that the EU will be satisfied and thus it will be the EU putting up that hard border infrastructure.