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

moon2

roosh wrote: »

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

Not much I can do about this unfortunately.

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.

No, not at all. The EU will enforce the border that the UK create by repudiating the withdrawal agreement. The UK will also enforce it as no-one will sign a FTA when the market is already fully open. You can't get better than 'no checks, no limits'.

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.

'Max fac' is not the same as an agreed FTA or similar. The uk can't claim to have a bilateral agreement with the EU if the EU says such a bilateral agreement doesn't exist. There's no way for a unilateral statement from the UK to comply with WTO rules. It has to be bilateral/multi-lateral.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

I'm replying to this first because I think it's demonstrative of the basic misunderstanding at play.

Do you believe that the UK are threatening to undermine the withdrawal agreement for the sole purpose of appeasing unionists?

The reason they are undermining it is because it is the only way they can threaten the EU single market. It is the only bargaining chip they have. It has nothing to do with pandering to unionists.

PeadarCo wrote: »

My point is if the UK wants a trade deal it must keep NI in the EU single market and customs Union.

The only way the UK can get a "good deal" as opposed to a "bad deal" is by threatening to undermine the NI protocol, because that's their only real bargaining chip.

They will ultimately agree to keeping NI in the EU market and customs union, but they are hoping to secure more concessions first.

Nody

roosh wrote: »

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

Then I suggest you actually read it this time.

2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

Ergo; once it's over the UK border at any location, be that NI or Dover it has to be treated exactly the same as domestic goods. Hence your controls being placed on the UK Island is not compliant with the WTO terms because they entered the UK already in NI. The only alternative to this is if NI was to be in a unique customs region instead which was which proposal again...

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Not much I can do about this unfortunately.

You could reference the exact sentences you think support your conclusion i.e. copy and past them here. And we can dissect them.

moon2 wrote: »

No, not at all. The EU will enforce the border that the UK create by repudiating the withdrawal agreement. The UK will also enforce it as no-one will sign a FTA when the market is already fully open. You can't get better than 'no checks, no limits'.

I'm not sure if it was you or someone else who said, the border is there already, the issue is the hardening of the border. As you suggest here, it will be the EU who harden the border.

The UK will trade on WTO terms, as they have said.

moon2 wrote: »

'Max fac' is not the same as an agreed FTA or similar. The uk can't claim to have a bilateral agreement with the EU if the EU says such a bilateral agreement doesn't exist. There's no way for a unilateral statement from the UK to comply with WTO rules. It has to be bilateral/multi-lateral.

It's not meant to be part of an FTA, just the UK perfroming the requisite "checks" to comply with WTO rules but in such a way as to maintain the threat to the single market.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

Then I suggest you actually read it this time.

Ergo; once it's over the UK border at any location, be that NI or Dover it has to be treated exactly the same as domestic goods. Hence your controls being placed on the UK Island is not compliant with the WTO terms because they entered the UK already in NI. The only alternative to this is if NI was to be in a unique customs region instead which was which proposal again...

They will be treated the same as domestic goods. All domestic goods entering the island of Britain will be checked. This would apply to goods produced on the island of Britain which (for whatever reason) would leave the island of Britain and then re-enter.

roosh

PeadarCo wrote: »

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?

Maybe I missed it previously, but I think this is the fist time you've asked this question.

Why do you need an example for something that would be a unique solution to a unique situation?

moon2

roosh wrote: »

They will be treated the same as domestic goods. All domestic goods entering the island of Britain will be checked. This would apply to goods produced on the island of Britain which (for whatever reason) would leave the island of Britain and then re-enter.

Once the goods have entered the UK they are now legally indistinguishable from any good produced in the rest of the UK. A customs border between NI and Britain would accomplish what exactly? What impact would the UK have by introducing an internal customs border between regions, one which only processes domestic goods? What would this even accomplish?!

I find it curious that you so strongly hold to your position even though it was only 5 days ago when you first came to learn of the literal first rule of the WTO ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114800235&postcount=208 ).

This thread has run it's course for me.

roosh

fly_agaric wrote: »

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?

The EU would not allow negotiations to begin until there was a solution in place which would avoid a hard border. The current UK government were willing to start from the default position of a hard border.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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...

Here's a concept you might want to add to your lexicon - Steel Man

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

You do seem to be overestimating the political will to put up a hard border on the island though.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

The UK are trying to have all of the benefits of the EU with none of the contributions. We would arguably be disadvantaging ourselves for the good of the EU single market. This is the complete opposite of what Brexit sought to achieve.

The idea is that the drawbacks would have to be offset, somehow. (Obviously that "somehow" would take a lot of work to figure out).

fly_agaric wrote: »

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.

We would be "martyring" ourselves for the sake of the single market. If that isn't solidarity, then I'm not sure what is.

fly_agaric wrote: »

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?

Thank you. These are the kinds of questions I was hoping for when I started the thread.

I think arguments could be made either way on this, but there should be no reason that Ireland would have to sit out these discussion because ultimately the decisions will affect our goods in the single market as well.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Once the goods have entered the UK they are now legally indistinguishable from any good produced in the rest of the UK.

Precisely, and all UK goods will be checked entering the island of Britain, including goods produced on the island of Britain which leave and then re-enter.

moon2 wrote: »

A customs border between NI and Britain would accomplish what exactly? What impact would the UK have by introducing an internal customs border between regions, one which only processes domestic goods? What would this even accomplish?!

The sole purpose is the threat it poses to the EU single market as a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU.

moon2 wrote: »

I find it curious that you so strongly hold to your position even though it was only 5 days ago when you first came to learn of the literal first rule of the WTO ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114800235&postcount=208 ).

I was familiar with the MFN rule previously, although not with the minutiae of it. However, I wasn't familiar with your interpretation of it. Now I am, and I don't believe your interpretation is supported by the wording.

moon2 wrote: »

This thread has run it's course for me.

I appreciate your engagement up until now.

VinLieger

In your original post you asked to have a discussion on your idea but throughout the course of this thread its become increasingly obvious you don't really want to have a discussion and instead were hoping for people to come on here praising you for such an ingenious solution.

Yet in 260 posts, minus your own of course, i don't think there's one person who has agreed that your idea is realistic in any way or has any viable merit whatsoever, making this entire thread a waste of your time and everyone who has participated.

Sums up Brexit in a nutshell though.

roosh

VinLieger wrote: »

In your original post you asked to have a discussion on your idea but throughout the course of this thread its become increasingly obvious you don't really want to have a discussion and instead were hoping for people to come on here praising you for such an ingenious solution.

I had been hoping for a discussion along the lines fly-agaric eventually got around to instead of having to repeatedly point out the obvious differences between the proposal here and Brexit.

VinLieger wrote: »

Yet in 260 posts, minus your own of course, i don't think there's one person who has agreed that your idea is realistic in any way or has any viable merit whatsoever, making this entire thread a waste of your time and everyone who has participated.

In 260 posts we still haven't been able to get passed the idea that the proposal is a form of Irexit, despite the differences being repeatedly and exasperatedly pointed out.

VinLieger wrote: »

Sums up Brexit in a nutshell though.

Indeed, yet the proposal here is the polar opposite of Brexit.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

In 260 posts we still haven't been able to get passed the idea that the proposal is a form of Irexit, despite the differences being repeatedly and exasperatedly pointed out.

<Snip>

Indeed, yet the proposal here is the polar opposite of Brexit.

Original question:

Would this mean that there would be a need for customs checks for goods entering and leaving the island

You propose a solution which places the Republic of Ireland in a special low tax regime. You then ask if this means introducing a customs border.

The answer is - yes it does! By virtue of introducing trade barriers between the EU and the Republic of Ireland this is a form of Irexit. Ireland would be exiting the customs union and entering a new regime incompatible with the internal EU market. This would be similar to (some of) the stated goals of Brexit.

Can you reframe your original proposal such thst it requires no customs border between the Republic of Ireland and the EU? Maybe you'll be able to move off the topic of Irexit if the proposal didn't necessitate that.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Original question:

You propose a solution which places the Republic of Ireland in a special low tax regime. You then ask if this means introducing a customs border.

The answer is - yes it does! By virtue of introducing trade barriers between the EU and the Republic of Ireland this is a form of Irexit. Ireland would be exiting the customs union and entering a new regime incompatible with the internal EU market. This would be similar to (some of) the stated goals of Brexit.

Can you reframe your original proposal such thst it requires no customs border between the Republic of Ireland and the EU? Maybe you'll be able to move off the topic of Irexit if the proposal didn't necessitate that.

Once again....

Ireland remains a member of all the EU institutions; we continue to elect MEPs; we continue to host the revolving presidency; we continue to contribute to the EU budget; we continue to be eligible for all EU grants; the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction over our legal system; the EU retains the power to impose sanctions on us for non-compliance with EU laws; we are still bound by EU state aid rules; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

Do you understand how ALL of that is completely antithetical to ALL of the stated goals of Brexit?

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Once again....

Ireland remains a member of all the EU institutions; we continue to elect MEPs; we continue to host the revolving presidency; we continue to contribute to the EU budget; we continue to be eligible for all EU grants; the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction over our legal system; the EU retains the power to impose sanctions on us for non-compliance with EU laws; we are still bound by EU state aid rules; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

Do you understand how ALL of that is completely antithetical to ALL of the stated goals of Brexit?

You are proposing putting Ireland outside the customs union, and thus the single market, correct?

View

roosh wrote: »

Once again....

Ireland remains a member of all the EU institutions; we continue to elect MEPs; we continue to host the revolving presidency; we continue to contribute to the EU budget; we continue to be eligible for all EU grants; the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction over our legal system; the EU retains the power to impose sanctions on us for non-compliance with EU laws; we are still bound by EU state aid rules; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

Do you understand how ALL of that is completely antithetical to ALL of the stated goals of Brexit?

Once again, your idea is antithetical to the stated aims of the EU and are therefore antithetical to our continued membership of it.

The other member states are not going to rewrite the entire EU Treaties because we suddenly decide that we don’t want to apply one of the most basic concepts of the ECs/EU after decades of doing so. They will rightly refuse to consider the idea and we would just undermined our own membership for no obvious reason, other than to “solve” a non-existent problem.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

You are proposing putting Ireland outside the customs union, and thus the single market, correct?

Incorrect. Irish goods would continue to have access to the EU single market without the need for us to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The details of this would, of course, have to be worked out but I don't see any reason why it couldn't work in principle. It would be a similar issue to which the EU are already working on with regard to Irish goods entering continental Europe via the UK land bridge: Irish Times Article

Regardless, the whole point of Brexit was to, as has been stated, have the cake and eat it. Brexit IS the leaving of all the institutions of the EU and it's legal structure. The idea here does not involve leaving the institutions of the EU or its legal structure therefore it is the complete opposite of Brexit.

roosh

View wrote: »

Once again, your idea is antithetical to the stated aims of the EU and are therefore antithetical to our continued membership of it.

The other member states are not going to rewrite the entire EU Treaties because we suddenly decide that we don’t want to apply one of the most basic concepts of the ECs/EU after decades of doing so. They will rightly refuse to consider the idea and we would just undermined our own membership for no obvious reason, other than to “solve” a non-existent problem.

Do you not accept the idea that IF the UK follow through on their threats then there is a problem to solve? Do you think that the other member states will want to take action to protect the integrity of the single market or will it be too much of a hassle to "rewrite the entire EU Treaties"?

Of course rewriting "the entire EU Treaties" is a spurious claim. Addressing one of the potential issues, that of Irish goods entering the EU single market via the UK land bridge already requires an amendment to the legislation.

The change requires an amendment to EU regulation 2019/2124, and is currently moving through the commission and will need to be approved by national leaders and the European Parliament.

Designating Ireland as a special economic zone wouldn't require the rewriting of "all the treaties" it would require new legislation on top of the existing treaties. This of course, is something that is happening all the time.

CelticRambler

:rolleyes: I can't quite believe that you're still flogging this dead horse ...

The point of Brexit was to be whatever anyone who had a gripe with the EU wanted it to be, so there is not and can never be a "complete opposite". What you are proposing - Ireland's exclusion from the Single Market by dint of customs controls between Ireland and the EU26 - is exactly the same as Brexit-lite.

Following GB down that path for no reason other than to keep us aligned with GB was one of the stated aspirations of some Brexiters, and that makes it an "Irexit" whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, 266 posts later, you still haven't presented any coherent social, economic or political advantage to Ireland arising from the weakening of our ties with the EU and our exclusion from the Single Market. Other than repeatedly telling us that it's not Irexit because you say so, that is an inherent Brexiter trait.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

:rolleyes: I can't quite believe that you're still flogging this dead horse ...

I'm actually pointing out that yourself and others are flogging a dead straw horse.

CelticRambler wrote: »

The point of Brexit was to be whatever anyone who had a gripe with the EU wanted it to be, so there is not and can never be a "complete opposite". What you are proposing - Ireland's exclusion from the Single Market by dint of customs controls between Ireland and the EU26 - is exactly the same as Brexit-lite.

The whole point of Brexit was for the UK to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the EU courts and save the money that it contributes to the EU budget for domestic use. It was also to enable it to agree its own trade deals with other countries. Their hope was that they could negotiate a good enough deal with the EU without any of the responsibilities on top of their other trade deals i.e. have their cake and eat it. The proposed special economic zone has none of that.

Let's assume for a moment that what is being suggested IS to remove Ireland from the single market - it's not, in any way shape or form, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it. This would entail remaining inside all of the institutions of the EU and its legal structure, continuing our obligation to contribute to the EU budget, and not be allowed to agree separate trade deals with other countries all while erecting barriers to trade with the EU. This would, indeed, be the complete opposite of Brexit.

But, as has been repeatedly stated, Ireland would not be excluded from the single market. There is already a similar issue to be resolved with two-thirds of Irish exporters who who use the UK land bridge to export to mainland Europe.

The European Union has long agreed that Irish goods arriving into the Continent must be exempt from any checks that British goods are subject to, because as part of the single market Ireland should be treated equally to any other EU member when it comes to trade.

But implementing this is tricky, and requires a system to distinguish Irish goods from British goods when they are unloaded from ferries at continental ports such as Rotterdam, Zeebrugge or Cherbourg.

I wonder would the EU see this as an overall solution?

CelticRambler wrote: »

Following GB down that path for no reason other than to keep us aligned with GB was one of the stated aspirations of some Brexiters, and that makes it an "Irexit" whether you like it or not.

This assessment is incorrect, for the reasons repeatedly stated.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Furthermore, 266 posts later, you still haven't presented any coherent social, economic or political advantage to Ireland arising from the weakening of our ties with the EU and our exclusion from the Single Market. Other than repeatedly telling us that it's not Irexit because you say so, that is an inherent Brexiter trait.

At least you acknowledge that I have repeatedly said that it isn't Irexit. In actuality, I have repeatedly demonstrated how it is completely different from Brexit/Irexit. That we haven't been able to move beyond that simple point is, if I'm being generous, a failure of communication on both our parts.

Peregrinus

I'm not sure if you have already answered this question, roosh, but, if you haven't, can you answer it?

moon2 wrote: »

You are proposing putting Ireland outside the customs union . . .correct?

(And if you have I apologise for having overlooked the answer, but can you remind me of it?)

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Incorrect. Irish goods would continue to have access to the EU single market without the need for us to negotiate a trade deal with the EU.

Can you describe how making Ireland a low tax, or tax free, zone is compatible with the EU single market and rules therein?

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)

What is the mechanism which ensures Irish tax free goods don't enter the EU market? Tax free goods would be a huge competitive advantage.

Would this mechanism put Ireland outside the customs union, and cut off direct access to the EU internal market?

Note - direct access means "no forms, no customs checks, no differences as compared to today's status quo"

roosh

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have already answered this question, roosh, but, if you haven't, can you answer it?

(And if you have I apologise for having overlooked the answer, but can you remind me of it?)

Here.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

Here.

Could you answer my.follow up questions as it still seems likely that you are describing a form of Irexit? Can you detail exactly how our membership of the internal EU market will or won't change under your proposal? It's unclear how we can remain part of it if we run a zero, or low, tax market as you propose.

roosh

moon2 wrote: »

Can you describe how making Ireland a low tax, or tax free, zone is compatible with the EU single market and rules therein?

Again, even if we grant the assumption that it would mean Ireland leaving the single market - which it wouldn't be - the fact that Ireland remains a part of every other institute of the EU makes it fundamentally different from Brexit. If it were as you have summarised, it would indeed be the opposite of Brexit.

To attempt to answer the question however:
These are the kinds of details that would have to be ironed. Tariffs/taxes would be applied to Irish goods sold in the single market, as opposed to on the island of Ireland. This would bring Irish goods in line with goods available in the rest of the EU single market.

Irish goods would still have access to the single market as a fully fledged member of the EU.

moon2 wrote: »

What is the mechanism which ensures Irish tax free goods don't enter the EU market? Tax free goods would be a huge competitive advantage.

Irish goods would be checked at ports of entry.

moon2 wrote: »

Would this mechanism put Ireland outside the customs union, and cut off direct access to the EU internal market?

A similar question might be raised with regard to the two-thirds of Irish exporters that use the UK land bridge to export to mainland Europe. These are the kinds of issues I was hoping to explore in a discussion, to see how these issues might be addressed.

moon2 wrote: »

Note - direct access means "no forms, no customs checks, no differences as compared to today's status quo"

Note: Irexit would mean an end to all of the following:
remaining a member of EU institutions, electing MEPs, attending all the EU summits, hosting the rotating EU presidency, contributing to the EU budget, having access to EU subsidies and grants, abiding by EU state aid rules, being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, having a vote on EU treaties, etc. etc.

The proposal here retains all of these. Therefore, it is not Irexit in any way, shape, or form.

CelticRambler

roosh wrote: »

Tariffs/taxes would be applied to Irish goods sold in the single market, as opposed to on the island of Ireland. This would bring Irish goods in line with goods available in the rest of the EU single market.

Irish goods would still have access to the single market as a fully fledged member of the EU.

Irish goods would be checked at ports of entry.

These three statements are mutually contradictory. If Irish goods have to be checked at (European) ports of entry, then - by definition - Irish goods do not have (unfettered) access to the Single Market.

If tariffs/taxes have to be applied to Irish goods sold into the Single Market, then - be definition - Ireland is not part of the Single Market. Furthermore, that would leave the Irish government with the need to apply non-EU taxes to goods sold in Ireland (to pay for government contributions to EU programmes, amongst other things), which would then have to be reclaimed/refunded by anyone exporting to the EU, followed by the application of/payment of taxes by the importer. The same would apply in reverse, to anyone importing anything from the EU - apply for a rebate of EU VAT & duties, then pay the Irish equivalents before the merchandise is released from Customs.

So in respect of everything to do with trade - domestic and international - your proposal makes Ireland a non-EU country. In other words: Irexit.

roosh

CelticRambler wrote: »

These three statements are mutually contradictory. If Irish goods have to be checked at (European) ports of entry, then - by definition - Irish goods do not have (unfettered) access to the Single Market.

I have never stated that we would retain unfettered access. We would, however, retain access to the single market. As was pointed out: two trucks present at a port, one carrying UK goods, the other carrying Irish goods. Both trucks are checked. The truck carrying Irish goods is waved through while the truck carrying UK goods is turned back. Hence, Irish goods retain access to single market while UK goods do not.

2/3 of Irish exporters use the UK land bridge to reach mainland Europe. This represents a similar problem.

CelticRambler wrote: »

If tariffs/taxes have to be applied to Irish goods sold into the Single Market, then - be definition - Ireland is not part of the Single Market.

Again, as per the example above, Irish goods are allowed in, while UK goods are stopped. That is access to the single market.

Any tariffs/taxes applied would bring Irish goods on par with those of other EU member states.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Furthermore, that would leave the Irish government with the need to apply non-EU taxes to goods sold in Ireland (to pay for government contributions to EU programmes, amongst other things), which would then have to be reclaimed/refunded by anyone exporting to the EU, followed by the application of/payment of taxes by the importer. The same would apply in reverse, to anyone importing anything from the EU - apply for a rebate of EU VAT & duties, then pay the Irish equivalents before the merchandise is released from Customs.

These are the issues that would have to be worked out to ensure Irish goods do not receive an unfair advantage or are not unfairly advantaged. It's not a simple task by any means, but it is possible in principle.

CelticRambler wrote: »

So in respect of everything to do with trade - domestic and international - your proposal makes Ireland a non-EU country. In other words: Irexit.

Do you believe that Brexit was about leaving the single market and erecting trade barriers, with the EU while remaining a member of EU institutions, electing MEPs, attending all the EU summits, hosting the rotating EU presidency, contributing to the EU budget, having access to EU subsidies and grants, abiding by EU state aid rules, being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, having a vote on EU treaties, etc. etc.?

Nody

roosh wrote: »

I have never stated that we would retain unfettered access. We would, however, retain access to the single market.

Every country in the world has access to the single market by your definition; however for the rest of the world being part of the single market (which is an integral reason to be part of EU) involves NOT having those checks. Anything that involves checks springing up is by definition an Irexit so thank you for confirming the fact we've kept hammering home the whole thread. Anyone who exports to EU single market has to meet all the EU controls and regulation; all you've done is state the country will be bound to them anyway while being outside of EU.

moon2

roosh wrote: »

I have never stated that we would retain unfettered access.

Excellent! We're in complete agreement then. Ireland loses unfettered access to the EU internal market as a direct result of the solution you're proposing. This is a form of Irexit. Now you can see why posters keep referring to this as a form of exiting the EU - we're actually losing access to core parts with this proposal!

roosh wrote:

2/3 of Irish exporters use the UK land bridge to reach mainland Europe. This represents a similar problem.

The landbridge is a very different problem. There is a system which allows trucks to be sealed, transit through non-EU areas, and then be admitted through an EU customs post with no checks other than verifying the seal has not been tampered with or removed. This system would allow Irish trucks to transit through a non-EU zone and bypass the customs checks. This is possible because Ireland follows the same customs rules as the rest of the EU today.

If we followed your suggestion, then Irish trucks would be subject to full customs inspections once they arrive at any EU customs post because the goods they contain come from a different customs/tax regime, incompatible with the single market. Goods coming from the UK would be no different in this respect.

roosh

Nody wrote: »

Every country in the world has access to the single market by your definition; however for the rest of the world being part of the single market (which is an integral reason to be part of EU) involves NOT having those checks. Anything that involves checks springing up is by definition an Irexit so thank you for confirming the fact we've kept hammering home the whole thread. Anyone who exports to EU single market has to meet all the EU controls and regulation; all you've done is state the country will be bound to them anyway while being outside of EU.

Does every country that exports to the EU elect MEPs, do they host the revolving presidency, do they contribute to the EU budget, are they under the jurisdiction of the EU courts?

Remaining part of those institutions is, by definition, NOT Irexit!! As I have been trying to hammer home for the whole thread.

VinLieger

roosh wrote: »

Remaining part of those institutions is, by definition, NOT Irexit!! As I have been trying to hammer home for the whole thread.

By your definition, but as we learned with Brexit, Irexit very likely means many different things to many different people.

To myself and others on here evidently leaving the single market as you are suggesting is simply a light version of an Irexit.