Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market
Options
Comments
-
No checks is a consequence of the customs union and single market. Simply having no checks does not necessarily mean that you have a customs union and single market. Similarly, having checks on goods doesn't necessarily mean that you are outside the customs union and single market because you can still apply the same customs rules. What it means is that you are not enjoying one of the primary benefits of the single market and customs union.
As has been repeatedly stated, this inconvenience to Irish businesses would need to be offset.
And I will answer again. I don't think Ireland should leave the EU. EU membership has been nothing but beneficial to us.
Your point suggests that the EU is nothing more than having no checks on goods. That, of course, simply isn't the case. So no, having checks on Irish goods would not mean leaving the EU bcos all of the EU treaties would still apply to Ireland, except for having checks on goods.
If don't think Ireland should leave the EU why are you talking about having checks on Irish goods going going to and from the EU. Where in EU regulations does it allow this? The minute you have any checks on Irish goods you are talking about Ireland leaving the EU. A basic understanding of how any single market and customs Union would tell that. You yourself acknowledge the whole issue with the checks as an inconvenience. Except you completely understate the term. You are talking ripping up Irelands entire economic model. Look at Brexit, remember that many high profile Brexiters were promising that nothing would change, that the UK would stay in the Customs Union and Single market. Your posts are very similar to those promises. As we have found out those promises were lies.
So what are the benefits of Ireland leaving the EU? At this stage I find it hard to believe you don't understand the basics of how the EU works, many different posters have explained it to you.0 -
I think perhaps my own lack of clarity around this has contributed to the misunderstanding. As I said in the OP, it was ill-thought out. I didn't have an end picture in mind, I was hoping to possibly build that picture.
Launching into something without an end picture in mind is, yet again, a Brexiter hallmark. And trying to build a picture of something undefinable that has no economic, social or political advantage, and no purpose other than to cause maximum disruption to all parties is another classic Brexiter trait.
Whether you like it or not, the supposed problem that you are thinking about resolving some time in the future was identified in 2015, discussed at EU level in 2016, resolved by the EU in 2018, signed off by the Brits in 2019 and put into effect in 2020. You're five years late to the party.
In any case, you seem to determined to stick to your belief that taking Ireland out of a key part of the EU is not a partial exit from the EU, so I'm going to follow moon2's lead and head for the forum exit myself. Adieu !0 -
Because in the hypothetical situation that the UK doesn't back down from their current position then we will be faced with the position where WE are forced to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. We/the EU have set our stall out in opposition to this, stating that trade talks could not begin until a solution to the issue of a hard border was agreed.If don't think Ireland should leave the EU why are you talking about having checks on Irish goods going going to and from the EU.
I was hoping to explore a possible alternative to the hard border in the event that the UK follow through on their threat.
It doesn't. This would have to be worked out among the EU27Where in EU regulations does it allow this?
A basic knowledge of how any single market and customs Union works and basic logic will tell you that there is more to a single market and customs union than simply the absence of checks. Basic logic will also tell you that you can have a customs union with checks - see the foot and mouth checks.The minute you have any checks on Irish goods you are talking about Ireland leaving the EU. A basic understanding of how any single market and customs Union would tell that.
Having no checks is a consequence of a customs union/single market, it is one of the benefits. It is not all there is to a customs union.
A key difference here is that, as part of Brexit, the UK were always going to be triggering Article 50. This would mean that EU treaties no longer applied to them and the default position is that they would be out of the customs union and single market, as a matter of necessity and legality.You yourself acknowledge the whole issue with the checks as an inconvenience. Except you completely understate the term. You are talking ripping up Irelands entire economic model. Look at Brexit, remember that many high profile Brexiters were promising that nothing would change, that the UK would stay in the Customs Union and Single market. Your posts are very similar to those promises. As we have found out those promises were lies.
I have been quite categorical that we would not be triggering article 50 and so ALL of the EU treaties would still apply to us, albeit with whatever specific amendment would need to be agreed to allow for checks on our goods. We would remain within the customs union and single market but we would be foregoing one of the primary benefits of it. This is what would need to be offset.
At this stage I find it hard to believe you don't understand the basics of how Brexit works. I have repeatedly and exasperatedly explained it to you. Brexit involves triggering article 50 which means that, by matter of necessity, the treaties of the EU would no longer apply to the UK.So what are the benefits of Ireland leaving the EU? At this stage I find it hard to believe you don't understand the basics of how the EU works, many different posters have explained it to you.
Under this proposal (as ill thought out as it is) we would not be triggering article 50 and so all of the treaties of the EU would continue to apply to us. So, your question about what the benefits of leaving the EU would be is a spurious one because we would not be leaving the EU.0 -
You'd swear we were in the halls of power here. Wake up to yourself lad, we're on a bloody message board!CelticRambler wrote: »Launching into something without an end picture in mind is, yet again, a Brexiter hallmark. And trying to build a picture of something undefinable that has no economic, social or political advantage, and no purpose other than to cause maximum disruption to all parties is another classic Brexiter trait.
Except there is a slight issue with this and it's that in 2020, there is still no trade deal agreed and the UK are threatening to undermine the solution that has been agreed.CelticRambler wrote: »Whether you like it or not, the supposed problem that you are thinking about resolving some time in the future was identified in 2015, discussed at EU level in 2016, resolved by the EU in 2018, signed off by the Brits in 2019 and put into effect in 2020. You're five years late to the party.
I'll explain it again for posterity.CelticRambler wrote: »In any case, you seem to determined to stick to your belief that taking Ireland out of a key part of the EU is not a partial exit from the EU
Brexit involves the triggering of Article 50 which says:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit/brexit-brief-article-503. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
If Ireland were to be designated a special economic zone, an outermost region, or whatever term might apply, we would NOT and I'll repeat that again NOT BE TRIGGERING ARTICLE 50. This means that ALL of the EU treaties would continue to apply to Ireland. There would need to be additional legislation to allow for checks on Irish goods but this would not constitute leaving the EU because it would be an act of EU law itself.
You and others here seem to believe that Brexit somehow means that ALL of the EU treaties would continue to apply to the UK as a consequence of Brexit. At least, that is the logical necessity of your position when you suggest that the proposal here, in any way, resembles Brexit.
That of course is just nonsensical.
No worries. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it this far. Aside from having to outline the differences between this proposal and Brexit, yourself and others put forth some information of the type I was hoping for.CelticRambler wrote: », so I'm going to follow moon2's lead and head for the forum exit myself. Adieu !0 -
Neither Ireland nor the other member states are going to discuss much less agree to any checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
In the TEU, one of the stated aims of the EU is clearly stated as:Art 3
...
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. ...
And in the TFEU, it states about it:TITLE I
THE INTERNAL MARKET
Article 26 (ex Article 14 TEC)
1. The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
2. The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.
Your ideas are directly contrary to the EU Treaties and no one is going to discuss them much less agree to them.0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't said they would. I was hoping to explore an alternative to a hard border on the island, in the event that the UK doesn't back down from their current position.Neither Ireland nor the other member states are going to discuss much less agree to any checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU.
That's why additional legislation would be required, applicable to Ireland. There would be no need for internal frontiers anywhere else.In the TEU, one of the stated aims of the EU is clearly stated as:
And in the TFEU, it states about it:
Your ideas are directly contrary to the EU Treaties and no one is going to discuss them much less agree to them.0 -
I haven't said they would. I was hoping to explore an alternative to a hard border on the island, in the event that the UK doesn't back down from their current position.
That's why additional legislation would be required, applicable to Ireland. There would be no need for internal frontiers anywhere else.
You say on one hand there will be no need for internal frontiers but your whole entire plan involves putting one up between Ireland and the EU. The again for if you are a Brexiter what you are really talking about is between Ireland and the UK.
As long as the UK abides by the agreements its signed the Irish border isn't an issue. And if the UK doesn't it doesn't get a trade deal with the trade bloc that it does roughly half its trade with. That's plenty of leverage for Ireland and the EU as the last few years have shown
In terms of your plan why would Ireland agree to leave the EU? Why would any country particularly Ireland agree to this extra legislation ie Ireland leaving the EU. I know you don't like me repeating this point but your whole entire plan revolves around Ireland leaving the EU via the back door and not officially by triggering article 50. Which is quiet deceitful as you obviously want Ireland to leave the EU but are aware of how crazy that sounds and don't appear to want to nail your colours to the mast.
It's just like how all the Brexiters pushing for a no deal brexit said the UK wouldn't leave the EU single market and customs Union. Your posts are the same idea and are actually more dishonest as at least Brexiters were honest enough in there messaging to say they wanted to leave the EU which was/is true. Your plan/posts can't even manage that.0 -
I haven't said they would. I was hoping to explore an alternative to a hard border on the island, in the event that the UK doesn't back down from their current position.
As had been said to you before, the alternative is to put up a hard border which is what every other country does in a similar situation. It has always been clear that was a possibility even if it was one our government preferred to avoid.That's why additional legislation would be required, applicable to Ireland. There would be no need for internal frontiers anywhere else.
Your suggested “Additional legislation” would be directly contrary to the EU Treaties - ie “unconstitutional”. Our government isn’t going to propose something like that and the other EU member states aren’t going to agree to it even if they did.
Internal frontiers are directly contrary to the internal market and there is no question of us effectively “opting out” of the major aims of the EU.0 -
I'd imagine your plan as a change to treaties would require a full approval process by national parliaments or electorates, including a referendum here.
Do you think your plan would pass a referendum here?
It would be a bit of a hard sell.
'Let's take ourselves out of the single market to suit the tories'0 -
The statement about internal frontiers was qualified. I said no need for frontiers "anywhere else".You say on one hand there will be no need for internal frontiers but your whole entire plan involves putting one up between Ireland and the EU.
Well I'm not, so I don't.The again for if you are a Brexiter what you are really talking about is between Ireland and the UK.
Hopefully it is enough. But Brexiters appear to be somewhat of a kamikaze bunch. We can only speculate as to what the motivation is for many of them. As I said, however, the discussion is based on the hypothetical situation where they don't back down.As long as the UK abides by the agreements its signed the Irish border isn't an issue. And if the UK doesn't it doesn't get a trade deal with the trade bloc that it does roughly half its trade with. That's plenty of leverage for Ireland and the EU as the last few years have shown.
Firstly, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, it would not constitute leaving the EU. Secondly, we might agree to it so as to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland - do we need to get into the reasons why a hard border on the island would be contentious?In terms of your plan why would Ireland agree to leave the EU? Why would any country particularly Ireland agree to this extra legislation ie Ireland leaving the EU.
Thirdly, as has been repeatedly stated, the drawbacks of this "taking one for the team" act would have to be offset.
I don't like you repeating it bcos it's exasperating having to continually correct it. It appears as though you've formed a preconception about me which is completely incorrect but now, rather than admit your initial assessment was incorrect you are attempting to defend it, which is forcing you to employ a level of cognitive dissonance that requires you to believe that remaining in all of the EU institutions is somehow the same thing as leaving the EU.I know you don't like me repeating this point but your whole entire plan revolves around Ireland leaving the EU via the back door and not officially by triggering article 50. Which is quiet deceitful as you obviously want Ireland to leave the EU but are aware of how crazy that sounds and don't appear to want to nail your colours to the mast.
It's really quite simple. The EU is defined by its treaties. Counties who are bound by these treaties are in the EU. The point of Brexit was to "take back control" by triggering Article 50 and bringing about a situation where they would no longer be bound by these treaties. Thereby they would be exiting the EU - hence the term Brexit.
The proposal here - as ill thought out as it is - would involve Ireland remaining bound by the treaties of the EU. Additional legislation or amendments to the existing treaties would be required but Ireland would still be bound by these. Therefore, Ireland remains in the EU.
It really is that simple.
At the risk of you further mistaking this question as an indication of support for Brexit, I would be interested to see where these contradictory claims were made.It's just like how all the Brexiters pushing for a no deal brexit said the UK wouldn't leave the EU single market and customs Union.
As I said, you've formed a preconception of my political leanings and you are so wedded to it that you are having to employ a staggering level of cognitive dissonance whereby by reamaining bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU somehow means leaving the EU.Your posts are the same idea and are actually more dishonest as at least Brexiters were honest enough in there messaging to say they wanted to leave the EU which was/is true. Your plan/posts can't even manage that.0 -
Advertisement
-
At the risk of you further mistaking this question as an indication of support for Brexit, I would be interested to see where these contradictory claims were made.
Theres many examples but i think the most obvious and impactful is Farage
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/11/08/when-he-supported-norway-the-brexit-policy-farage-would-rath0 -
Indeed, and this thread was intended to explore a possible alternative to putting up a hard border, in the event that the UK don't back down.As had been said to you before, the alternative is to put up a hard border which is what every other country does in a similar situation. It has always been clear that was a possibility even if it was one our government preferred to avoid.
Our government and the EU set our stall out on the issue of the hard border. We said that trade negotiations couldn't begin until the issue of the hard border was resolved.
Are you familiar with the process of amending legislation?Your suggested “Additional legislation” would be directly contrary to the EU Treaties - ie “unconstitutional”. Our government isn’t going to propose something like that and the other EU member states aren’t going to agree to it even if they did.
Internal frontiers are directly contrary to the internal market and there is no question of us effectively “opting out” of the major aims of the EU.0 -
OK, so I think you are confusing the flip-flopping of Farage with what is being suggested here.Theres many examples but i think the most obvious and impactful is Farage
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/11/08/when-he-supported-norway-the-brexit-policy-farage-would-rath
You said:
In the article you cited, it says that Farage and the alliance published their "Flexcit" strategy, which would see Brexit happen over ther period of a decade. This would involve the UK remaining in the single market for whatever period. This alliance then fell apart.It's just like how all the Brexiters pushing for a no deal brexit said the UK wouldn't leave the EU single market and customs Union.
Nowhere in the article does it say that Farage claimed that leaving with a no-deal would mean the UK remain in the single market.
Of course, there is a critical difference here, which I have been at pains to point out. There would be no Irexit hence no need for a flexcit, no possibility of a no-deal. Ireland would remain in the EU, the single market and the customs union. There would however be checks on Irish goods.0 -
Presumably it would require all of that. All of this would, of course, be carried out under the umbrella of the EU, further reinforcing the point that we would not be leaving the EU.Deleted User wrote: »I'd imagine your plan as a change to treaties would require a full approval process by national parliaments or electorates, including a referendum here.
I have no idea whether or not it would pass. Of course, there would be some who see it that way - as evidenced by this thread. But as with any referendum you would have to work on correcting people's preconceived and incorrect perceptions.Deleted User wrote: »Do you think your plan would pass a referendum here?
It would be a bit of a hard sell.
'Let's take ourselves out of the single market to suit the tories'
You would have to point out that it would be done "to suit the tories", it would be done "to shaft the tories". It would probably have to be pointed out that, if the UK insists on a stand-off and the implicit threat to the single market that entails, then agreeing to have checks on goods leaving the island of Ireland would neutralise that threat. This could force the tories to come back to the negotiating table sooner rather than later and potentially avoid a stand-off altogether.
It might also need to be pointed out that the alternative would be for us (not the UK) to put up a hard border on the island. And I think, "let us, the Irish people, partition the island of Ireland by putting up a hard border again and risk a return to violence in NI" might be an equally hard sell.0 -
As much fun as this thread has been, I'm going to follow the example of a few others and bow out.
I have no problem admitting that the proposed idea here was ill-thought out, impractical, unworkable, naiive, idiotic, etc. etc. etc.
But I draw the line at being accused of being a Brexiter!!
EDIT: or an Irexiter.0 -
OK, so I think you are confusing the flip-flopping of Farage with what is being suggested here.
You said:
In the article you cited, it says that Farage and the alliance published their "Flexcit" strategy, which would see Brexit happen over ther period of a decade. This would involve the UK remaining in the single market for whatever period. This alliance then fell apart.
Nowhere in the article does it say that Farage claimed that leaving with a no-deal would mean the UK remain in the single market.
You are misniterpreting the original question, the statement is refferring to those brexiteers who are now pushing for no deal previously prior to the election were claiming that brexit didnt mean leaving the single market as the article i linked shows evidence of happening.
You seem to think Farage gets to change his interpretation of what brexit means because his alliance fell apart which is absurdOf course, there is a critical difference here, which I have been at pains to point out. There would be no Irexit hence no need for a flexcit, no possibility of a no-deal. Ireland would remain in the EU, the single market and the customs union.
Its an Irexit in all but name and again this comes back to what your definition of an Irext is vs what everyone elses is which you still refuse to comprehend. There is never and will never be one singular definition of brexit that anyone can agree on so trying to define what and Irexit is or isnt absed off what you define Brexit as being is absolutely pointless and just plain ignorant.There would however be checks on Irish goods.
Then as many have been at pains to point out to you were are in the single market and customs union in name only while mechanically we are outside it.0 -
I'll reply to these two points for posterity.
This sounds like a reasonable point, but it is a spurious one.Its an Irexit in all but name and again this comes back to what your definition of an Irext is vs what everyone elses is which you still refuse to comprehend. There is never and will never be one singular definition of brexit that anyone can agree on so trying to define what and Irexit is or isnt absed off what you define Brexit as being is absolutely pointless and just plain ignorant.
The treaties of the EU define what the EU is. Ireland is one of 27 countries bound by those treaties. Those 27 countries are said to be "in the EU". The UK had been bound by those treaties until they triggered Article 50 and began their exit from those treaties. This is the process by which they "exited the EU" a process referred to as Brexit.
After triggering article 50 the UK and the EU have to negotiate a new working arrangement. The form that this arrangement could take are many, ranging from not agreeing a deal and trading on WTO terms (termed "no deal"), to a full free-trade agreement that give the UK tariff free access to the single market, and every option in between. This is why there is no single version of Brexit.
Even under a full free trade agreement the UK would not be considered to be "in the EU" because they would not be bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
So, while there is never and will never be one singular definition of brexit, EVERY version of Brexit does involve triggering Article 50.
No possible definition of Brexit could ever involve remaining bound by ALL the treaties of the EU because remaining bound by ALL the treaties of the EU would simply mean staying in the EU. Triggering article 50 stipulates that.
To try to conflate the proposal here with Brexit by calling it Irexit light or any form of Irexit is to either misunderstand what Brexit necessitates i.e. becoming unbound by ALL of the EU treaties, to misunderstand the proposal, both of these, or to misunderstand what it means to be a member of the EU, or all of the above. If it were Irexit light, then it would be so light as to be indistinguishable from remaining in the EU.
The proposal here would mean that Ireland remains bound by ALL of the EU traties - with the necessary amendment to the treaties - and would remain a member of the EU27. There would be no "taking back control", there would be non "XXbn per week to go toward Slaintecare", there would be no withdrawal agreement, there would be no negotiating of a free trade agreement as a non EU member.
We would remain in the customs union and single market by applying the same customs rules and tariffs to our goods as with the rest of the single market. The one exception would be that there would be checks on goods leaving the island or Ireland. Not because we are outside the customs union but because there is the possibility that UK goods might enter the single market via Ireland. These checks would hopefully not be a permanent feature, once the UK backs down.
These checks could be compared to those checks on livestock traveling between Britain and NI on account of foot and mouth. Such checks do not mean that NI is not in a single market with the UK.
We would legally be in the SM and CU because we would be applying the same customs rules and taxes. The checks would be similar to the checks on livestock traveling between NI and Britain.Then as many have been at pains to point out to you were are in the single market and customs union in name only while mechanically we are outside it.0 -
SNIP. No more incoherent posts please.0
-
As I said, you've formed a preconception of my political leanings and you are so wedded to it that you are having to employ a staggering level of cognitive dissonance whereby by reamaining bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU somehow means leaving the EU.
But here's the thing you don't want Ireland to remain bound by all the treaties. Your entire plan rests on Ireland having an exemption from EU treaties ie not being bound by EU treaties. This has been pointed out in detail with reference to those same treaties by numerous different posters.
I don't care about your views but I'd consider your plan Irexit by another name. Even the whole idea of ignoring the actual EU treaties and what's necessary for a transnational customs Union and single market to work is the same strategy Brexiters adopted. So whether you realise it or not your plan, is a plan for Irexit on all but name.0 -
There would be no exemption, there would be an imposition of checks on Irish goods. This would have to be offset. This would require an amendment to certain treaties.But here's the thing you don't want Ireland to remain bound by all the treaties. Your entire plan rests on Ireland having an exemption from EU treaties ie not being bound by EU treaties. This has been pointed out in detail with reference to those same treaties by numerous different posters.
Any amendment to the treaties would be carried out through the legal framework of the EU and Ireland would remain bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
EVERY form of Brexit involves/involved triggering Article 50 and no longer being bound by the traties of the EU.I don't care about your views but I'd consider your plan Irexit by another name. Even the whole idea of ignoring the actual EU treaties and what's necessary for a transnational customs Union and single market to work is the same strategy Brexiters adopted. So whether you realise it or not your plan, is a plan for Irexit on all but name.
Under this proposal we would be bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
It wouldn't even be Irexit in name only because there would be exit from the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
There would be no exemption, there would be an imposition of checks on Irish goods. This would have to be offset. This would require an amendment to certain treaties.
Any amendment to the treaties would be carried out through the legal framework of the EU and Ireland would remain bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
EVERY form of Brexit involves/involved triggering Article 50 and no longer being bound by the traties of the EU.
Under this proposal we would be bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
It wouldn't even be Irexit in name only because there would be exit from the EU.
The problem is you are asking for a referendum in Ireland. Which means your plan would take months at best to implement therefore having no impact on negotiations probably the opposite as it is the dream for Brexiters that other countries would leave the EU.
Even then your argument for the referendum is that Ireland should leave the EU CU and SM to pacify the Brits and particularly the Tory Party.You want Irish goods to checked. That means Ireland leaving the EU in all but name. The whole point of the EU/a customs Union and single market is that there are no checks. If you don't understand that point you don't understand what a CU and SM are. Even worse you are saying Irish people and Irish businesses should incur extra costs to satisfy the objections of the UK to an agreement they have already agreed to. This is a classic argument of Brexiters.
So in light of the above do you have any idea of how little chance that the referendum you are proposing has of passing? Politicians like many of the Brexiters in charge currently in the UK are an Irish nationalists dream come true. The current UK government has done more for Irish unification, Scottish and Welsh independence than any government in the last 100 years. Never mind that Irish support for the EU extremely high. Honestly you would have a better chance of getting a new referendum in the UK to reverse Brexit.0 -
Yep, this would be an issue if there were no other way of implementing it.The problem is you are asking for a referendum in Ireland. Which means your plan would take months at best to implement therefore having no impact on negotiations probably the opposite as it is the dream for Brexiters that other countries would leave the EU.
See all of my previous replies outlining how your assessment here is incorrect.Even then your argument for the referendum is that Ireland should leave the EU CU and SM to pacify the Brits and particularly the Tory Party.You want Irish goods to checked. That means Ireland leaving the EU in all but name. The whole point of the EU/a customs Union and single market is that there are no checks. If you don't understand that point you don't understand what a CU and SM are. Even worse you are saying Irish people and Irish businesses should incur extra costs to satisfy the objections of the UK to an agreement they have already agreed to. This is a classic argument of Brexiters.
Putting up a hard border on the island is not an Irish nationalists dream come true.So in light of the above do you have any idea of how little chance that the referendum you are proposing has of passing? Politicians like many of the Brexiters in charge currently in the UK are an Irish nationalists dream come true. The current UK government has done more for Irish unification, Scottish and Welsh independence than any government in the last 100 years. Never mind that Irish support for the EU extremely high. Honestly you would have a better chance of getting a new referendum in the UK to reverse Brexit.0 -
Yep, this would be an issue if there were no other way of implementing it.
See all of my previous replies outlining how your assessment here is incorrect.
Putting up a hard border on the island is not an Irish nationalists dream come true.
You are talking about a change in the EU treaties. You have been provided evidence of how internal trade checks on goods between EU is against the EU treaties. You yourself have even admitted that the EU would have to change things. So therefore you are talking about a treaty change/new treaty. Which means a referendum in Ireland. Which has no hope of passing. If you don't think it requires a treaty change can you show with specific reference to the EU treaties how your proposal is legal under EU law.
The idea Ireland would allow checks on the goods coming to or from the EU merely to allow the UK to break an agreement the UK has already signed and that Irish politicians and diplomats have spent years working to get is pure fantasy. I can only guess you are not from Ireland because when I describe your proposed referendum as pure fantasy I am putting things very very mildly.
For anyone seeking unification of Ireland a hard border is exactly what they want because it would provide fairly graphic illustration of the border. Look at Sinn Fein. They have done nothing substantively to oppose the border. In the last UK parliament Sinn Fein could have taken their seats and helped achieve a soft border. A hard border makes life a lot more difficult for people who live along the border who tend to be more likely to support unification of Ireland. Which is a very easy way to sort out the issue. Combined with the current English nationalists that run the UK and don't care about NI regardless of tribe. It makes a border poll more likely. Or put it another way Brexit has done wonders for a border poll as it has highlighted the problems associated with a soft border fairly clearly. Again this shouldn't be news for anyone fimilar with Ireland in general.0 -
Indeed, and this thread was intended to explore a possible alternative to putting up a hard border, in the event that the UK don't back down.
Our government and the EU set our stall out on the issue of the hard border. We said that trade negotiations couldn't begin until the issue of the hard border was resolved.
This is completely incorrect.
It was always made clear that a hard border was a possibility but one that our government and the EU would prefer to avoid. That is why it was an issue as part of the WA negotiations.
It is also incorrect to say that “We said that trade negotiations couldn't begin until the issue of the hard border was resolved.”
The position of the governments of the EU member states was always that the WA had to be concluded first and that only after the U.K. had actually left the EU would the EU governments consider entering into negotiations on a post-exit trade deal.Are you familiar with the process of amending legislation?
I am fully familiar with the process of amending legislation. That is not what you are proposing. Rather you are proposing amending the “constitution” of the EU (ie the EU Treaties) and in a manner that is directly contrary to the stated aims of the EU.
Your proposal would have run directly contrary to the Treaties of the three ECs as they were initially agreed, never mind as the EU Treaties exist today. There is no way our government is going to ask to have the EU Treaties modified to introduce an idea that would have meant our membership applications for the ECs would have been rejected out of hand. And there is less chance that the other countries would agree to it, since they will just say no and point us toward the exit if we persist with an idea that runs contrary to the aims of the EU.0 -
See reply below outlining how being bound by ALL of the EU treaties means remaining in the EU and how operating within the legal framework of the EU to enact a change to the treaty/treaties further reiterates the point that Ireland would not be leaving the EU.
The proposal may be pure fantasy, idiotic, unworkable, naiive, etc. etc. but one thing it isn't, is a proposal which would see Ireland leaving the EU.The treaties of the EU define what the EU is. Ireland is one of 27 countries bound by those treaties. Those 27 countries are said to be "in the EU". The UK had been bound by those treaties until they triggered Article 50 and began their exit from those treaties. This is the process by which they "exited the EU" a process referred to as Brexit.
After triggering article 50 the UK and the EU have to negotiate a new working arrangement. The form that this arrangement could take are many, ranging from not agreeing a deal and trading on WTO terms (termed "no deal"), to a full free-trade agreement that give the UK tariff free access to the single market, and every option in between. This is why there is no single version of Brexit.
Even under a full free trade agreement the UK would not be considered to be "in the EU" because they would not be bound by ALL of the treaties of the EU.
So, while there is never and will never be one singular definition of brexit, EVERY version of Brexit does involve triggering Article 50.
No possible definition of Brexit could ever involve remaining bound by ALL the treaties of the EU because remaining bound by ALL the treaties of the EU would simply mean staying in the EU. Triggering article 50 stipulates that.
To try to conflate the proposal here with Brexit by calling it Irexit light or any form of Irexit is to either misunderstand what Brexit necessitates i.e. becoming unbound by ALL of the EU treaties, to misunderstand the proposal, both of these, or to misunderstand what it means to be a member of the EU, or all of the above. If it were Irexit light, then it would be so light as to be indistinguishable from remaining in the EU.
The proposal here would mean that Ireland remains bound by ALL of the EU traties - with the necessary amendment to the treaties - and would remain a member of the EU27. There would be no "taking back control", there would be non "XXbn per week to go toward Slaintecare", there would be no withdrawal agreement, there would be no negotiating of a free trade agreement as a non EU member.
We would remain in the customs union and single market by applying the same customs rules and tariffs to our goods as with the rest of the single market. The one exception would be that there would be checks on goods leaving the island or Ireland. Not because we are outside the customs union but because there is the possibility that UK goods might enter the single market via Ireland. These checks would hopefully not be a permanent feature, once the UK backs down.
These checks could be compared to those checks on livestock traveling between Britain and NI on account of foot and mouth. Such checks do not mean that NI is not in a single market with the UK.
We would legally be in the SM and CU because we would be applying the same customs rules and taxes. The checks would be similar to the checks on livestock traveling between NI and Britain.0 -
See reply below outlining how being bound by ALL of the EU treaties means remaining in the EU and how operating within the legal framework of the EU to enact a change to the treaty/treaties further reiterates the point that Ireland would not be leaving the EU.
The proposal may be pure fantasy, idiotic, unworkable, naiive, etc. etc. but one thing it isn't, is a proposal which would see Ireland leaving the EU.
As has been explained to you, the internal market of the EU is clearly defined in the EU Treaties and your suggestion runs directly contrary to it.
No one is going to agree to your suggestion since it amount to us effectively “opting out” of the internal market. Your suggestion would violate both the spirit and the letter of the EU Treaties, and as the internal market “stuff” still accounts for 85-90% of the legislation that the EU deals with every year, it is an absolute non-runner.0 -
See reply below outlining how being bound by ALL of the EU treaties means remaining in the EU and how operating within the legal framework of the EU to enact a change to the treaty/treaties further reiterates the point that Ireland would not be leaving the EU.
The proposal may be pure fantasy, idiotic, unworkable, naiive, etc. etc. but one thing it isn't, is a proposal which would see Ireland leaving the EU.
But your proposal requires an EU treaty change. You've been asked to show how your proposal is legal under current EU law and you haven't. So therefore your proposal does not involve Ireland remaining bound by the current EU treaties. Therefore for your proposal to work either a new EU treaty is put in place which which is where the fantasy bit comes in or Ireland leave the EU.
So in short your proposal does not work and ultimately the issue it is trying to solve has already been sorted. If the UK breaks that agreement well, it will have bigger issues that a vote on Irish unification to worry about.0 -
with the likes of "pacify the Brits" being used by irish and the uk statement of "no border checks etc."
i have to remind the irish that the EU will impose the border and checks for which EIRE will have to
man and pay for as it is EU regulations and law.the uk if wanted Could place taxes on all that passes through uk
on route from eu if wanted.
the alternative is to quickly set up wexford\waterford as major import ports fro receiving food etc. from eu.
this would be costly and obvious will raise the costs of goods arriving into eire.
catch 22 is name of game for eu funds received in past with now its pay the piper "eu".
government can issue a local law under eu agreements as still a little sovereignity at country level
or speed up a referendum. two months could see it through.
as for irish unity eire cannot afford the cost of n.ireland hospitals alone as crises here in south already.
kick can down road and hope is the usual FF\FG farce since start of state in 1920s.0 -
with the likes of "pacify the Brits" being used by irish and the uk statement of "no border checks etc."
i have to remind the irish that the EU will impose the border and checks for which EIRE will have to
man and pay for as it is EU regulations and law.the uk if wanted Could place taxes on all that passes through uk
on route from eu if wanted.
the alternative is to quickly set up wexford\waterford as major import ports fro receiving food etc. from eu.
this would be costly and obvious will raise the costs of goods arriving into eire.
catch 22 is name of game for eu funds received in past with now its pay the piper "eu".
government can issue a local law under eu agreements as still a little sovereignity at country level
or speed up a referendum. two months could see it through.
as for irish unity eire cannot afford the cost of n.ireland hospitals alone as crises here in south already.
kick can down road and hope is the usual FF\FG farce since start of state in 1920s.
I assume you do know that Eire is part of the EU?
From your post it reads as though you view the two as separate entities.Genealogy Forum Mod
0 -
Advertisement
-
oh really - i thought i lived in a eu cash dustbin on atlantic coastline which can see companies move to cheapI assume you do know that Eire is part of the EU?
From your post it reads as though you view the two as separate entities.
low cost new eu countries leaving unemployed behind and after eire tax given to those same companies for
start up and provide jobs in eire. did eu give dell grants for moving to low cost poland and provide jobs there?.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement