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

1356712

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    What you just described is Ireland leaving the single market to accommodate a very minor (6%) trading partner.

    A trading partner country that lost its marbles and as we speak is in a middle of violating international laws it signed up to and endangering GFA

    like I said this is silly
    Maybe I haven't been clear on this because I'm nbot sure where you are getting the notion that we would be accommodating the UK.

    The UK's position is simple. They are not threatening peace in NI because they have no intention of putting up a hard border. The reason being, their bargaining position is based on the threat to the single market.

    The backstop and NI protocol were negotiated because the EU and Ireland said that there absolutely cannot be a hard border on the island as it would threaten peace in NI.

    The UK is saying, "no problem, we have no intention of putting up a hard border, what you do is your buisness".

    If the EU and Ireland then come along and even mention the possibility of a hard border then it is we who are threatening peace in NI not the UK. If the EU's redline of "no hard border" is crossed by the EU in favour of protect the single market, then the UK will be vindicated in their claim that the EU have been acting in bad faith and that the NI protocol represents that bad faith. It won't be hard to sell this narrative if the EU and Ireland start putting up border controls and the UK don't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    I know it can characterised as "you started it", but UK has left the EU and it is looking like it could also insist on terminating the relationship in such an angry and disruptive way that our own full membership of the EU (which I'm defining as being a part of single market and customs union with no special 'free port' semi detatched status) comes into direct conflict with our open Customs border with NI.
    Yes, that is absolutely their position. They are threatening the single market because of our open border with NI.

    First the backstop then the NI protocol was negotiated to address this. The reason they were negotiated - and were such a major bone of contention - is that the EU and Ireland said that there could be no hard border on the island full stop. It was our redline.

    If we then come along and put up a hard border the UK can say, "we told you that the EU were acting in bad faith. They've just done what they said absolutely, 100% said could not be allowed to happen". Hence the NI protocol was an act of bad faith by the EU and the UK will sell the narrative that they were fully justified in breaking it. And, as difficult as it is to swallow, they will be correct.
    fly_agaric wrote: »
    The UK actions are the root cause of all of this even if the final result is some sort of customs border with NI established by Ireland...and I'm sorry but in my opinion NI is not worth our own economy, our stability and prosperity here, in this country.

    You can't do anything for others by drowning (or maybe immolating) youself too.
    There would be no self immolation. The idea would be to create an arrangement whereby the disadvantages to Irish business would be offset. This would be possible in principle at least, with tax breaks and expediated checks.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    If things deteriorate in NI, it will mainly be the UKs problem as it was during the Troubles. Let them look to it as they have set this whole thing in train.
    By, if things deteriorate in NI, do you mean if violence breaks out again? As much as you might think we can leave to them lot up there, the narrative would be that the border erected by the EU and Ireland (not the UK) is the cause of this. This would go against the very foundations of the EU.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    I suppose that is possible.
    I think another poster suggested if we did end up having a Customs border with NI (which also neutralises the "bargaining chip" without affecting our status within the EU, trade between ourselves and other members etc.), the hope is probably that it would not last forever either. Maybe a vain hope though.
    Yep, a hard border is certainly a possibility and if it is, hopefully a short term one. But, it is also something the EU and Ireland have set their stall out as saying, 100% cannot happen. The whole issue around the backstop and the NI protocol are because we have said a hard border simply cannot be allowed.

    If we put up a hard border then we are the bad faith actors.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question why do you believe Ireland should leave the EU and rejoin the UK at least economicly?


    This is what your argument boils down to. Everything else is Brexit rubbish that has been shown to be complete fantasy over the last few years.
    This is just clear evidence that you don't understand the proposal whatsoever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    As a layman the obvious thing I can see is that an awful lot of our trade is with the EU and the goods parts of that becomes an "export" with the full customs checks, tarrifs, extra VAT I think as well as a load of bureuacracy and procedures slowing everything down.
    That doesn't seem like it will be good for business here and will be very disruptive.
    This is the point, there would be no tariffs or extra VAT. We would still have the same arrangement as the rest of the single market.

    There would be customs checks and the bureaucracy that goes with that. This would be the major disadvantage. This is where the rules for such special economic zone would have to be carefully crafted, to try to offset these disadvantages. I don't see why this couldn't be done, in principle.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    EU membership is very important to Ireland and very popular, which is I think hard for people in the UK to get their heads around. Your idea (esp. if it ended up not being temporary) does detatch us further from the EU (we already can't join Schengen Area due to UK Common Travel Area and the border).
    I may be wrong, but I think retaining our current status in the EU will tip the scales over coming to some compromise position 1/2 way outside the EU just so we can retain a fully open border with NI. The latter is strongly desired and govt. has worked hard to try and retain it as UK exits the EU but they will not reorient our whole economy for it I think.
    EU membership is essential to Ireland and free port status wouldn't jeopardise that.

    You are probably correct, that a hard border will be the eventual outcome, if the UK persists. It will, however, only vindicate the UK position that the EU were acting in bad faith all along because the whole debacle around the backstop and the NI protocol are due to the EU and Ireland saying under no circumstances can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland.
    fly_agaric wrote: »
    NI is not "our" country. The partition always existed, but combination of Common Travel Area, Good Friday Agreement and us both being members of a larger collective (EU) handling trade as well as setting alot of common standards meant it didn't slap people in the face so much. The UK has pulled out 1 leg of that now by leaving the EU.
    WA was supposed to be a fudged solution/bandaid but it is looking like the UK is ripping that off too.
    We don't need to get into the history of partition on this island but telling Germans to put back up the Berlin wall would be comparable (not exactly the same) as telling the Irish to put up a hard border on the island.

    In neither case would it be warmly received.
    fly_agaric wrote: »
    No one is "forcing" us to do anything - it is just a fact of life that a fully open border with a 3rd country not in the EU with no agreement covering it is incompatible with our EU membership as it stands. We can leave, seek some special status like you suggested (unlikely to be sought IMO and unlikely to be granted or terms would amount to a "Irexit" of sorts) or we can implement border controls like the other members. That is it.
    If you ask the Irish government, if they had a choice, would they put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. The answer would be a resounding no. The rules of the EU will mean that we have to do this against our wishes, hence we will be forced to do it.

    There is also the small matter of the EU and Ireland having said that, absolutely, 100%, under no circumstances whatsoever can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    As I said, I don't really care about who "blames" Ireland for this situation. People here should know by now we will be blamed by the UK govt. and Brexit supporters anyway and if the Irish government are worrying about this in how they may deal with the problem, that seems a bit stupid.
    That's not the issue. The issue is that narrative is key in politics. If the EU and Ireland put up a hard border after the debacle of the backstop and now the NI protocol, the UK will be vindicated in saying that we were acting in bad faith all along because there was never really a need for a backstop or the NI protocol.


    And, the sickening thing is, they will be correct. US senators won't be able to hold out for too long if this is the narrative and if it is demonstrably true. There will be enough lobbyists to persuade them, not to mention if Trump gets back in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    roosh wrote: »
    This is the point, there would be no tariffs or extra VAT. We would still have the same arrangement as the rest of the single market.

    There would be customs checks and the bureaucracy that goes with that. This would be the major disadvantage. This is where the rules for such special economic zone would have to be carefully crafted, to try to offset these disadvantages. I don't see why this couldn't be done, in principle.



    EU membership is essential to Ireland and free port status wouldn't jeopardise that.

    You are probably correct, that a hard border will be the eventual outcome, if the UK persists. It will, however, only vindicate the UK position that the EU were acting in bad faith all along because the whole debacle around the backstop and the NI protocol are due to the EU and Ireland saying under no circumstances can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland.


    We don't need to get into the history of partition on this island but telling Germans to put back up the Berlin wall would be comparable (not exactly the same) as telling the Irish to put up a hard border on the island.

    In neither case would it be warmly received.


    If you ask the Irish government, if they had a choice, would they put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. The answer would be a resounding no. The rules of the EU will mean that we have to do this against our wishes, hence we will be forced to do it.

    There is also the small matter of the EU and Ireland having said that, absolutely, 100%, under no circumstances whatsoever can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland.



    That's not the issue. The issue is that narrative is key in politics. If the EU and Ireland put up a hard border after the debacle of the backstop and now the NI protocol, the UK will be vindicated in saying that we were acting in bad faith all along because there was never really a need for a backstop or the NI protocol.


    And, the sickening thing is, they will be correct. US senators won't be able to hold out for too long if this is the narrative and if it is demonstrably true. There will be enough lobbyists to persuade them, not to mention if Trump gets back in.

    Perhaps, they will argue for a border poll. Give the people in the North the decision. Join the Republic and the EU, or join Britain. If they vote to join Britain, then nobody can really argue with the hard border. It;s probably what should have happened in the 1920's instead of the Border Commission anyway.
    Arguably the first time in the North's history that they could make a decision not purely on historic religious divides?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,521 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    roosh wrote: »
    And I have corrected that erroneous conclusion several times.

    When Irish goods enter the single market, they would be subject to the same tariffs as everyone else in the single market. Unlike the UK we would have access to the single market. So no, we would not be outside either.

    The primary advantage of the free movement of goods would be removed but it would be possible, in principle at least, to minimise this or completely offset it.

    The alternative would be for the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border on the island, something they have argued blue in the face would threaten peace in NI and would also demonstrate that they were acting in bad faith all along.



    The rules and regulations pertaining to such a special economic zone could, in principle, be designed to offset the disadvantages of checks on goods. There could also be arrangements made to minimise the disription.

    The key difference from Brexit is that we would be remaining a fully fledged member of the EU and all its institutions and we wouldn't be able to sign FTAs with other countries or trading blocks.



    Yet another case of where you are completely wrong. I'll add it to the list.


    If the EU and Ireland even mention a hard border as a possibility then they will have demonstrated that the backstop and the NI protocol were acts of bad faith because a hard border was an option all along. That is their position. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but technically they will be vindicated.


    The EU just have to offer to extend the transition phase. And they would probably do that indefinitely while trade talks are taking place.Britain is insisting on not extending the transition phase. They are the ones who are forcing the hard border upon us not the EU. There is no two ways about it. This is entirely the fault of the British. You can’t spin it any other way.
    It will be the most unnecessary border of all time spawned of a time of peace and prosperity entirely the fault of the British government.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    roosh wrote: »
    This is just clear evidence that you don't understand the proposal whatsoever.

    I understand your proposal very well. You are saying there is a way Ireland can have a soft border with North Ireland even if NI is outside the EU Customs Union and Single market. If the UK wants a deal a requirement of the deal that NI is in both the Single market and customs Union. However if the UK does not want a deal there is nothing the EU or Ireland by extension can do to avoid a hard border without Ireland leaving the EU. Remember NI is part of the UK whether anyone likes it or not. This is not going to change over the next few months at the very least.


    Given that the UK has attempted to get the EU to agree to your idea and been soundly rejected. It should be fairly clear after the last 4 years of negotiations the EU will not allow a country to be half in the EU Customs Union and single market. If you are not in both you have some form of hard border. See the various EU land borders with countries outside one or both of the Single market/customs Union. Anyone who has paid any attention to Brexit will realise your proposal is what Brexiters first proposed. Remember we have gone from not leaving the single market to potentially leaving with no deal. Which tells you how realistic the idea has been.



    Why do you think Ireland should leave the EU and rejoin the UK economic block? Its a very simple question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    roosh wrote: »
    This is the point, there would be no tariffs or extra VAT. We would still have the same arrangement as the rest of the single market.

    There would be customs checks and the bureaucracy that goes with that. This would be the major disadvantage. This is where the rules for such special economic zone would have to be carefully crafted, to try to offset these disadvantages. I don't see why this couldn't be done, in principle.

    The bit I read in your article about "free ports" and the short blurb about how the current "free zones" existing in the EU work said that the goods entering the zone are allowed in (with no EU customs duties) but then the goods exiting (to go elsewhere in EU outside the zone) must be exports with all that entails.

    https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-procedures/what-is-importation/free-zones_en

    ("Such goods may, following the period in the free zones, be released for free circulation (subject to payment of import duty and other charges), or be placed under another special procedure (e.g. inward processing, temporary admission or end-use procedures – under the conditions laid down for these procedures) or re-exported.")

    Most of the goods entering here would I presume, after being processed or changed or whatever be re-imported afterwards into other EU member states. If I've understood correctly, we'd need something even more generous than these "free zones" to avoid the tariffs and VAT.
    And as I said before even "little old Ireland" has a few million citizens and a multi-hundred billion Euro GDP. It is very large for a "port" or a "zone".
    Sure almost anything can be done "in principle" I suppose,whether it would happen in reality is another matter!
    roosh wrote: »
    If you ask the Irish government, if they had a choice, would they put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. The answer would be a resounding no. The rules of the EU will mean that we have to do this against our wishes, hence we will be forced to do it.

    Fair enough. It was your position of the EU as some external agent "forcing" us to do it (sounds unfair) which I always disagreed with. We'd be forced to do it alright (unless a way around it can be found) by our circumstances, by the logic of the situation.
    roosh wrote: »
    There is also the small matter of the EU and Ireland having said that, absolutely, 100%, under no circumstances whatsoever can a hard border be allowed on the island of Ireland.

    Well that was the negotiating goal but the UK is now making that impossible.
    (unless we upend our whole economy here in some way).
    Can't say the EU and ourselves did not try.
    roosh wrote: »
    That's not the issue. The issue is that narrative is key in politics. If the EU and Ireland put up a hard border after the debacle of the backstop and now the NI protocol, the UK will be vindicated in saying that we were acting in bad faith all along because there was never really a need for a backstop or the NI protocol.

    I don't know how someone who is not a partisan Brexit supporter can characterise the situation that way. Ourselves and the EU would have done the very best we could to prevent a border.
    We both thought the UK wanted the same thing and we'd be able to come to an arrangement (due to the risks it takes with NI) but it is becoming clearer that they do not.
    Brexit and the vision the current government seems to have for the UK's future (maybe a more centralised state and abolition of NI/Scotland/Wales "devolution") is much more important to them. So be it. I don't believe that in the situation of a permanent "hard" Brexit that the UK will keep their side of the NI border open for EU goods inward forever anyway. Perhaps longer than Ireland just to say "we didn't do it first" and promote their own "narrative" as you say, but that is it.
    roosh wrote: »
    And, the sickening thing is, they will be correct. US senators won't be able to hold out for too long if this is the narrative and if it is demonstrably true. There will be enough lobbyists to persuade them, not to mention if Trump gets back in.

    It is really a false narrative (although, God knows that seems to matter less and less every day). As above, it is the narrative of those who agree with Brexit and support it.
    Unfortunately Trump does support Brexit, he has praised it repeatedly during his term. Trump has also described the EU as a "foe".
    Trump (and at least a portion of the Republican party - not sure how much, will have to wait till post Trump to get the answer to that) now views the EU (and some key member states) as a US adversary. We will get no support from him or the Republicans on any of these issues (unless perhaps Ireland is willing to distance itself from the EU).
    The Democratic party does still seem to care about its European allies etc and their last US president disagreed with and publically opposed "Brexit", so I am pretty sure they won't be so forgiving of the UK even in event Ireland/EU put up a border first, whatever narrative is being promulgated by the UK/Brexiters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    20silkcut wrote: »
    The EU just have to offer to extend the transition phase. And they would probably do that indefinitely while trade talks are taking place.Britain is insisting on not extending the transition phase. They are the ones who are forcing the hard border upon us not the EU. There is no two ways about it. This is entirely the fault of the British. You can’t spin it any other way.
    It will be the most unnecessary border of all time spawned of a time of peace and prosperity entirely the fault of the British government.
    The UK will not be forcing us to put up a hard border. That is not spin, that is a simple statement of fact. In fact, they would actively be encouraging us not to put one up.

    It is the rules of membership of the EU that will force us to put up a hard border. Again, fact, not spin.

    Playing the blame game is absolutely pointless. We can blame the UK all we want, as they tell us not to put up a border while the rules of the EU tell us that we must.

    They are simply playing their negotiating position. Blame will get us nowhere, we need to recognise what their narrative will be and what the end game is, and counter it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    I understand your proposal very well.
    I like how you said that and then proceeded to demonstrate the exact opposite.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    However if the UK does not want a deal there is nothing the EU or Ireland by extension can do to avoid a hard border without Ireland leaving the EU.
    The emboldened part is the sticking point. I'm not sure how many times I will have to say it but, Ireland would remain a full member of the EU and all it's institutions. We would continue to elect MEPs who take up their roles in the European parliament, we would continue to chair the European council, the ECJ would continue to have jurisdiction over us, we would continue to contribute to the budget, we would still qualify for EU funding, the EU flag would not be taking off another star.

    There would however, be checks on goods entering the single market via Ireland.

    If you think this is what Brexiteers were aiming for, or that it even remotely resembles Brexit, then not only have you not understood what I'm saying, you haven't understood anything from the past 3/4 years.

    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Given that the UK has attempted to get the EU to agree to your idea and been soundly rejected.
    Even more resoundly rejected was the idea of a hard border on the island of Ireland. The whole backstop debacle was based on that issue.

    PeadarCo wrote: »
    It should be fairly clear after the last 4 years of negotiations the EU will not allow a country to be half in the EU Customs Union and single market. If you are not in both you have some form of hard border.
    We would be in both, but we would be at a slight disadvantage because our goods would face checks - yet another departure from what the Brexiteers wanted, demonstrating your conflation of the two is in accuarte.

    The task would be to structure the special economic in such a way as to offset that disadvantage.

    PeadarCo wrote: »
    See the various EU land borders with countries outside one or both of the Single market/customs Union. Anyone who has paid any attention to Brexit will realise your proposal is what Brexiters first proposed. Remember we have gone from not leaving the single market to potentially leaving with no deal. Which tells you how realistic the idea has been.
    Anyone who has paid any attention to Brexit would realise that Brexiteers wanted to leave all of Europe's institutions, this proposal would mean that Ireland remains a full member.

    Further, anyone who has paid even the remotest attention to Brexit will realise that the backstop debacle was a result of the EU and Ireland's insistence that there could be, under no circumstances whatsoever, a hard border on the island of Ireland. In fact, Brexit up until this point has basically centred around the idea that there can be no hard border on this island.

    If the EU and Ireland turn around and put up a hard border, they will have vindicated the UK's position because it has been us who have been acting in bad faith.

    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Why do you think Ireland should leave the EU and rejoin the UK economic block? Its a very simple question.
    And I have given a very simple answer. You are completely incorrect in your understanding of what I have been saying.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    roosh wrote: »
    The UK will not be forcing us to put up a hard border. That is not spin, that is a simple statement of fact. In fact, they would actively be encouraging us not to put one up.

    It is the rules of membership of the EU that will force us to put up a hard border. Again, fact, not spin.

    Playing the blame game is absolutely pointless. We can blame the UK all we want, as they tell us not to put up a border while the rules of the EU tell us that we must.

    They are simply playing their negotiating position. Blame will get us nowhere, we need to recognise what their narrative will be and what the end game is, and counter it.

    The UK is leaving the EU customs Union and single market. That means both sides need to put up a hard border if they want to maintain the integrity of the their internal markets. If the UK don't put up border controls it means that the EU will have free unimpeded access to the UK markets and to a degree renders a trade deal between the EU and UK unnecessary. Remember Ireland/the EU won't inspect stuff going into the UK/NI. Without border controls in Northern Ireland any EU company can sell into the UK by routing stuff via the Irish UK border. The UK on the other hand will still face tariffs and regulations going the other way. In many ways great for the border region even if would make it one of the smuggling capitals of the world. And on top of that since the UK has given the EU free access to its markets without any conditions every other country in the world will want the same thing.

    What you don't seem to understand hard borders are the norm. If you want to maintain the integrity of your internal market you must have a hard border. The only reason we don't have a hard border currently is because of the EU and the countries within the EU have an integrated Customs Union and Single market. The UK by leaving the SM and CU means both sides have to revert to the international norm of having a hard border.

    The UK is an sovereign country. The EU/Ireland cannot force the UK to stay in the SM and CU. Blaming the EU for decisions that the UK government has taken freely and in complete knowledge of the consequences is standard Brexiter tactics


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    roosh wrote: »
    I like how you said that and then proceeded to demonstrate the exact opposite.


    The emboldened part is the sticking point. I'm not sure how many times I will have to say it but, Ireland would remain a full member of the EU and all it's institutions. We would continue to elect MEPs who take up their roles in the European parliament, we would continue to chair the European council, the ECJ would continue to have jurisdiction over us, we would continue to contribute to the budget, we would still qualify for EU funding, the EU flag would not be taking off another star.

    There would however, be checks on goods entering the single market via Ireland.

    If you think this is what Brexiteers were aiming for, or that it even remotely resembles Brexit, then not only have you not understood what I'm saying, you haven't understood anything from the past 3/4 years.



    Even more resoundly rejected was the idea of a hard border on the island of Ireland. The whole backstop debacle was based on that issue.



    We would be in both, but we would be at a slight disadvantage because our goods would face checks - yet another departure from what the Brexiteers wanted, demonstrating your conflation of the two is in accuarte.

    The task would be to structure the special economic in such a way as to offset that disadvantage.



    Anyone who has paid any attention to Brexit would realise that Brexiteers wanted to leave all of Europe's institutions, this proposal would mean that Ireland remains a full member.

    Further, anyone who has paid even the remotest attention to Brexit will realise that the backstop debacle was a result of the EU and Ireland's insistence that there could be, under no circumstances whatsoever, a hard border on the island of Ireland. In fact, Brexit up until this point has basically centred around the idea that there can be no hard border on this island.

    If the EU and Ireland turn around and put up a hard border, they will have vindicated the UK's position because it has been us who have been acting in bad faith.



    And I have given a very simple answer. You are completely incorrect in your understanding of what I have been saying.

    The backstop debacle was a result of Teresa May's 3 red lines which of which only 2 were achievable at once. The backstop was the result/EU compromise. It wasn't the EU calling for the backstop it was the UK. The backstop was a hard won concession by the EU to the UK. Probably the biggest of the entire negotiations. Something that a lot of people here didn't thing the EU would grant.

    I'll repeat if the UK wants a trade deal one of the conditions is a soft border on the island of Ireland. If it doesn't we have a hard border end of. Literally the only other option is Ireland leave the EU. Brexiters have said for years you could have all the benefits but not have the associated costs(ie enforcing and applying EU laws one of which is inspecting all goods coming from 3rd countries ie potentially NI/UK after 1 Jan 21). As we all know that's rubbish and its very frustrating that these ideas are regurgitated after it's been shown how clearly fantastical they are.

    As I said in my last post the UK will have to put up a hard border on NI long term otherwise it will shoot its legs off in any future trade negotiations with any trade bloc.

    Ireland will have to put up a hard border. As I said hard borders are the norm when you have different regulations on the same land mass.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    ("Such goods may, following the period in the free zones, be released for free circulation (subject to payment of import duty and other charges)
    Subject to payment of import duty and other charges would simply put us on an even keel with the rest of the EU27 - just as we are now.

    We might get some concessions to offset the costs associated with the following:
    fly_agaric wrote: »
    , or be placed under another special procedure (e.g. inward processing, temporary admission or end-use procedures – under the conditions laid down for these procedures) or re-exported.")
    The details of these would have to be carefully engineered to mitigate the disadvantage to Irish businesses. Other ways of offsetting the negatives might also have to be worked out, but could be done in principle.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    Most of the goods entering here would I presume, after being processed or changed or whatever be re-imported afterwards into other EU member states. If I've understood correctly, we'd need something even more generous than these "free zones" to avoid the tariffs and VAT.
    Any tariffs or VAT would be levied to simply put us on an even keel with the rest of the single market, so that we don't have any unfair advantage.

    The details of this would have to be carefully constructed, of course.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    And as I said before even "little old Ireland" has a few million citizens and a multi-hundred billion Euro GDP. It is very large for a "port" or a "zone".
    Sure almost anything can be done "in principle" I suppose,whether it would happen in reality is another matter!
    It would be complicated, no doubt, but not impossible I would think.


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    Fair enough. It was your position of the EU as some external agent "forcing" us to do it (sounds unfair) which I always disagreed with. We'd be forced to do it alright (unless a way around it can be found) by our circumstances, by the logic of the situation.
    The special economic zone might be one such around it.


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    Well that was the negotiating goal but the UK is now making that impossible.
    (unless we upend our whole economy here in some way).
    Can't say the EU and ourselves did not try.
    The negotiating goal of the UK is to get a good trade deal with the EU. I'm sure they would happily give NI back, not to mind implement the NI protocol, if the EU were to make concessions.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    I don't know how someone who is not a partisan Brexit supporter can characterise the situation that way. Ourselves and the EU would have done the very best we could to prevent a border.
    We both thought the UK wanted the same thing and we'd be able to come to an arrangement (due to the risks it takes with NI) but it is becoming clearer that they do not.
    I'm the furthest thing from a Brexit supporter but I can understand what their narrative is and it make perfect sense. We tried to use our negotiating position to get them to agree to first the backstop and second the NI protocol. We did this by saying that a hard border cannot happen, under any circumstances. Now, all of a sudden, a hard border might have to happen and it won't be them that will be putting it up, it will be us.

    Yes, they signed up the NI protocol but they can argue that we were acting in bad faith all along - and if we put up a hard border, they are correct.

    They will argue that all we need to do is make concessions in the negotiations and they will happily enforce the NI protocol.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    It is really a false narrative
    I'm not entirely convinced that it is a false narrative. We tried to use peace in NI as a bargaining chip but when it comes down to it, it'll be us who put up the border and therefore threaten that peace.

    fly_agaric wrote: »
    Unfortunately Trump does support Brexit, he has praised it repeatedly during his term. Trump has also described the EU as a "foe".
    Trump (and at least a portion of the Republican party - not sure how much, will have to wait till post Trump to get the answer to that) now views the EU (and some key member states) as a US adversary. We will get no support from him or the Republicans on any of these issues (unless perhaps Ireland is willing to distance itself from the EU).
    The Democratic party does still seem to care about its European allies etc and their last US president disagreed with and publically opposed "Brexit", so I am pretty sure they won't be so forgiving of the UK even in event Ireland/EU put up a border first, whatever narrative is being promulgated by the UK/Brexiters.
    Trump is one very real reason we shouldn't be relying on Irish America to get us out of this. The lobbyists who influence the government are another very real reason.

    The only issue with the UK position is their threat to undermine the NI protocol. They will argue that it was an act of bad faith from the EU in the first place and so they are justified in circumventing it. Us putting up a hard border will vindicate their position and the US Sentate will have no choice but to back a trade deal.


    Or, we can show them that we have another option and that they will be left without an FTA from Europe and their narrative about the EU acting in bad faith will hold less water, giving the US senate more foundation on which to stand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    roosh wrote: »
    Subject to payment of import duty and other charges would simply put us on an even keel with the rest of the EU27 - just as we are now.

    We might get some concessions to offset the costs associated with the following:


    The details of these would have to be carefully engineered to mitigate the disadvantage to Irish businesses. Other ways of offsetting the negatives might also have to be worked out, but could be done in principle.



    Any tariffs or VAT would be levied to simply put us on an even keel with the rest of the single market, so that we don't have any unfair advantage.

    The details of this would have to be carefully constructed, of course.



    It would be complicated, no doubt, but not impossible I would think.




    The special economic zone might be one such around it.




    The negotiating goal of the UK is to get a good trade deal with the EU. I'm sure they would happily give NI back, not to mind implement the NI protocol, if the EU were to make concessions.



    I'm the furthest thing from a Brexit supporter but I can understand what their narrative is and it make perfect sense. We tried to use our negotiating position to get them to agree to first the backstop and second the NI protocol. We did this by saying that a hard border cannot happen, under any circumstances. Now, all of a sudden, a hard border might have to happen and it won't be them that will be putting it up, it will be us.

    Yes, they signed up the NI protocol but they can argue that we were acting in bad faith all along - and if we put up a hard border, they are correct.

    They will argue that all we need to do is make concessions in the negotiations and they will happily enforce the NI protocol.



    I'm not entirely convinced that it is a false narrative. We tried to use peace in NI as a bargaining chip but when it comes down to it, it'll be us who put up the border and therefore threaten that peace.



    Trump is one very real reason we shouldn't be relying on Irish America to get us out of this. The lobbyists who influence the government are another very real reason.

    The only issue with the UK position is their threat to undermine the NI protocol. They will argue that it was an act of bad faith from the EU in the first place and so they are justified in circumventing it. Us putting up a hard border will vindicate their position and the US Sentate will have no choice but to back a trade deal.


    Or, we can show them that we have another option and that they will be left without an FTA from Europe and their narrative about the EU acting in bad faith will hold less water, giving the US senate more foundation on which to stand.

    Can I ask you a question why should or would the Irish government not enforce a hard border? Let's ignore the EU for a second. Why would we allow products and services into the country that do not meet our laws and would potentially illegal for an Irish based company to produce? Why would we allow in effect the UK to pass laws that say what is legal/illegal in Ireland without the say of any Irish politican? Remember the only way to identify goods that don't meet Irish regulations and laws is via a hard border. Any government that did not enforce a hard border would being allowing a massive undermining of Irish sovereignty. Irish businesses wouldn't stand for it and the various trade unions, business and employers bodies would head straight to the border to do their own checks.

    For a prime example look at the history of the Irish farmers association and Argentinen beef and the lengths they went to get it banned/EU regulations enforced on imports to the EU. Look at the foot and mouth crisis back in 2001/2002 and how quickly controls were enforced on the border to prevent the spread into Ireland.

    So even ignoring the EU no Irish government would get anyway with not enforcing a hard border once the implications became obvious to the Irish electorate.

    Never mind that the UK attempted to but be half in and out as you have proposed and we see how that has turned out. There is a reason soft borders between countries are so rare. If you have different regulations and laws on either side of a border and you don't enforce border checks you are allowing other countries to dictate your laws.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    The UK is leaving the EU customs Union and single market. That means both sides need to put up a hard border if they want to maintain the integrity of the their internal markets. If the UK don't put up border controls it means that the EU will have free unimpeded access to the UK markets and to a degree renders a trade deal between the EU and UK unnecessary.

    Remember Ireland/the EU won't inspect stuff going into the UK/NI. Without border controls in Northern Ireland any EU company can sell into the UK by routing stuff via the Irish UK border. The UK on the other hand will still face tariffs and regulations going the other way. In many ways great for the border region even if would make it one of the smuggling capitals of the world. And on top of that since the UK has given the EU free access to its markets without any conditions every other country in the world will want the same thing.
    If it were that straight forward, there would have been a deal by now and there wouldn't have been such an issue over the border on the island.

    Both sides are trying to play their negotiating positions. The hard border was an apparent red line for the EU, when in actual fact their red line is the integrity of the single market. The UK recognises this fact and is banking on the fact that the integrity of the single market is more important to the EU than the integrity of the UK market is to the UK.

    If EU goods enter the UK they will likely be more expensive than UK goods because of the higher standards EU goods will be subject to. Demand for EU goods will likely be lower.


    If the EU puts up a hard border then they will be shown to have been acting in bad faith all along and the UK position will be vindicated.

    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What you don't seem to understand hard borders are the norm. If you want to maintain the integrity of your internal market you must have a hard border. The only reason we don't have a hard border currently is because of the EU and the countries within the EU have an integrated Customs Union and Single market. The UK by leaving the SM and CU means both sides have to revert to the international norm of having a hard border.

    The UK is an sovereign country. The EU/Ireland cannot force the UK to stay in the SM and CU. Blaming the EU for decisions that the UK government has taken freely and in complete knowledge of the consequences is standard Brexiter tactics

    You don't seem to understand that the EU and Ireland have said that we cannot have a hard border on the island of Ireland because it will threaten the peace in NI. The UK are simply using this as their bargaining position.

    If borders being the norm were the answer, then we would've had a deal long ago. We may well end up with a border, but it will be ourselves who put it up and that will demonstrate that we were the ones acting in bad faith all along.

    We and the EU may very well just hold our hands up and say, "ya got me", but I'm not sure how that will go down internationally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question why should or would the Irish government not enforce a hard border?
    What have the Irish government and the EU been giving as the reason that a hard border on the island is not an option.

    Answering that will give you your answer.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,246 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    roosh wrote: »
    If EU goods enter the UK they will likely be more expensive than UK goods because of the higher standards EU goods will be subject to. Demand for EU goods will likely be lower.
    Here let me give you a simple scenario for you to play out; I buy a truck load of tobacco in Romania, drive it over to Ireland and gain all VAT & excise duties back as I declare an export to UK of the goods. I drive the truck over the NI border where in your world UK has zero controls on incoming goods. Want to guess how much money I've just saved in dodging import duties and excise?
    Try seven figures.
    . Now multiply that with anything with an excise such as fuel, alcohol, illegal chemicals etc. UK will be putting up a hard border very quickly in NI. I'd give them 3 months but due to the general Brexit chaos let's make that six months as they will be running around like headless chickens as it turns out EU did not give in last minute. UK government will lose countless billions a month on the smuggling that will come in via NI and then add in from all other ways goods will enter.
    If the EU puts up a hard border then they will be shown to have been acting in bad faith all along and the UK position will be vindicated.
    No, EU negotiated a deal to avoid a hard border that the UK PM and parliament voted on and agreed with. If the UK PM then turns around and says I kept my fingers crossed behind my back so it does not count will not exactly impress anyone outside UK or indeed inside.
    You don't seem to understand that the EU and Ireland have said that we cannot have a hard border on the island of Ireland because it will threaten the peace in NI. The UK are simply using this as their bargaining position.
    No, you seem to fail to realize that the single market requirements overrules this. Yes; avoiding a border is very important and the WA emphasized this but don't mistake that to mean that it is the most important priority for EU if the choice is an open border to an lawless UK or potential some conflict over border controls for goods. That's before we take into the account the chaos of NI is likely to trigger a vote in NI to merge with Ireland to sort things out. But you are free to find a statement to Bernier that no border is the most important thing to achieve.
    We and the EU may very well just hold our hands up and say, "ya got me", but I'm not sure how that will go down internationally.
    Compared to the PM who signed the agreement and then turns around to break it 9 months later? Yea; that answer is already out there and it's clear on EU's side, sorry to spoil your argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    roosh wrote: »
    Subject to payment of import duty and other charges would simply put us on an even keel with the rest of the EU27 - just as we are now.

    We might get some concessions to offset the costs associated with the following:...

    The details of these would have to be carefully engineered to mitigate the disadvantage to Irish businesses. Other ways of offsetting the negatives might also have to be worked out, but could be done in principle.

    As you say the devil of your idea is in all the details but I think we would not be on an even keel vs our current position without some further benefits given to us by the other members over a "free zone" (e.g. a relaxed Customs regime for the goods leaving Ireland to other EU member states).

    Alot of the member states on the EUs edge have contentious borders with rogue states let by belligerent and unpredictable leaders (Russia, Turkey...perhaps now the UK amazing as it is to write!) and they just have to get on with being EU members as best they can manage without all these special conditions being granted to them.
    roosh wrote: »
    The negotiating goal of the UK is to get a good trade deal with the EU. I'm sure they would happily give NI back, not to mind implement the NI protocol, if the EU were to make concessions.

    I'm not sure that it is the case now. They have a really funny way of going about it. I think the UK government are ideological extremists. They are obsessed with the EU, cannot let go and are working to break it up however nuts that idea is. Setting up these rows & crises in the way that they do and organising the UK "Brexit" to cause the maximum disruption and pain possible are consistent with that. They expected more countries to leave by now I'd say.
    I think the current UK government are also nationalists.
    They view NI/Scotland/Wales purely as the UKs posessions that they would be very loath to give up under any circumstances.
    (If UK govt. still holds to the Good Friday Agreement) NI is not theirs to just give up. It is up to the people themselves via a vote whenever that gets held.
    roosh wrote: »
    I'm the furthest thing from a Brexit supporter but I can understand what their narrative is and it make perfect sense. We tried to use our negotiating position to get them to agree to first the backstop and second the NI protocol. We did this by saying that a hard border cannot happen, under any circumstances. Now, all of a sudden, a hard border might have to happen and it won't be them that will be putting it up, it will be us.

    Yes, they signed up the NI protocol but they can argue that we were acting in bad faith all along - and if we put up a hard border, they are correct.

    They will argue that all we need to do is make concessions in the negotiations and they will happily enforce the NI protocol.

    Brexiter or not you are using their arguments. I think an agreement was made to avoid a hard border and if UK then breaks it or undermines it afterwards (necessitating a border) they have not acted in "good faith" regardless of who goes first with putting up the border.
    As I said I do not believe the UK will be able to maintain a free for all/smugglers paradise at the NI border either for long under conditions of a "hard" Brexit even if Ireland/EU accepts reality first (and gets blamed by you for this). Would agree with PeaderCo. I think maybe the EU and the freedom it has enabled across Europe has spolied some people. They don't fully appreciate that usually there are borders and impediments to free trade and movements of people between countries with different governments and different polices and standards etc. People now think that what exists across the EU is some sort of natural situation or a right, not result of alot of hard (and perhaps mind-numbing/tedious) work over a period of decades to make it happen (which UK is busy ripping asunder).


  • Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭moon2


    roosh wrote: »

    If the EU puts up a hard border then they will be shown to have been acting in bad faith all along and the UK position will be vindicated.

    This doesn't make sense.

    The EU have stated a hard border is something they want to avoid if at all possible. They offered several options to enable this. The UK have acted in a way which necessitates a hard border.

    How can this possibly be the EU acting in bad faith?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    moon2 wrote: »
    This doesn't make sense.

    The EU have stated a hard border is something they want to avoid if at all possible. They offered several options to enable this. The UK have acted in a way which necessitates a hard border.

    How can this possibly be the EU acting in bad faith?

    When you are a Brexiter, the EU offering you the winning lottery ticket is an example of bad faith.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Nody wrote: »
    Oh sweet summerchild; you have no idea what you're talking about. Here let me give you a simple scenario for you to play out; I buy a truck load of tobacco in Romania, drive it over to Ireland and gain all VAT & excise duties back as I declare an export to UK of the goods. I drive the truck over the NI border where in your world UK has zero controls on incoming goods. Want to guess how much money I've just saved in dodging import duties and excise?
    Try seven figures.
    . Now multiply that with anything with an excise such as fuel, alcohol, illegal chemicals etc. UK will be putting up a hard border very quickly in NI. I'd give them 3 months but due to the general Brexit chaos let's make that six months as they will be running around like headless chickens as it turns out EU did not give in last minute. UK government will lose countless billions a month on the smuggling that will come in via NI and then add in from all other ways goods will enter.
    Yep, but those goods are checked entering Britain, not at a hard border on the island of Ireland. The issue is around checks on goods leaving Britain and entering Ireland and the single market via NI. This is what the UK is reneging on, it doesn't mean that they won't check goods entering Britain (as opposed to NI).


    Nody wrote: »
    No, EU negotiated a deal to avoid a hard border that the UK PM and parliament voted on and agreed with. If the UK PM then turns around and says I kept my fingers crossed behind my back so it does not count will not exactly impress anyone outside UK or indeed inside.
    The backstop and NI protocol were negotiated on the basis that there could be no hard border on the island of Ireland, under any circumstances because this would be a threat to peace in NI.

    This means we can't even mention a hard border as a possibility, not to mind actually putting one up, without vindicating the UK's position that we were acting in bad faith by saying there could be no hard border under any circumstances.

    The UK is calling our bluff on this one and saying they won't be putting up a border.

    Nody wrote: »
    No, you seem to fail to realize that the single market requirements overrules this. Yes; avoiding a border is very important and the WA emphasized this but don't mistake that to mean that it is the most important priority for EU if the choice is an open border to an lawless UK or potential some conflict over border controls for goods. That's before we take into the account the chaos of NI is likely to trigger a vote in NI to merge with Ireland to sort things out. But you are free to find a statement to Bernier that no border is the most important thing to achieve.
    It's really quite simple, if a hard border was an option all along, then there was never any need for a backstop or the NI protocol. I'll leave you parse Barnier's quotes to find statements on that.

    Yes, the single market rules require that a hard border is required in the event of no deal, but this is precisely the UK's position. They will not be putting up the border. It is us who will be putting it up, despite our cries all along that there can be no hard border because of the peace process in NI.

    If a hard border is the real backstop, then the EU will be seen to have been acting in bad faith because it was the backstop which held up negotiations.
    Nody wrote: »
    Compared to the PM who signed the agreement and then turns around to break it 9 months later? Yea; that answer is already out there and it's clear on EU's side, sorry to spoil your argument.
    A deal he will say he had to sign to advance the will of the British people against an EU who were acting in bad faith when they said that a hard border on the island of Ireland simply wasn't an option.

    And the thing is, if a hard border actually is an option, then we actually have been acting in bad faith. Pure and simple.


    It doesn't really matter who has been acting in bad faith (truth be told we probably both have) what matters is the end game. If the we are OK with being seen to have acted in bad faith, then we put up a border. If we are OK with endangering the peace process in NI, then we put up a border. If an Irish government wants to be seen as the government that partitioned the island, then we put up a border.

    There might be a possible way to put the squeeze on the UK, however, without tarnishing our political reputation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    moon2 wrote: »
    This doesn't make sense.

    The EU have stated a hard border is something they want to avoid if at all possible. They offered several options to enable this. The UK have acted in a way which necessitates a hard border.

    How can this possibly be the EU acting in bad faith?

    We have said that there can be no border on the island because of the impact it would have on peace in NI.

    The whole backstop debacle was because we said a hard border wasn't an option.

    If we then come along and put up a hard border, it means that there was never a need for a backstop or the NI protocol - this means we would have acted in bad faith by insisting that no progress could be made without them.

    If there is no need for the NI protocol, the the UK's act of bad faith is just to undo the act of bad faith by the EU which necessitated it. This is precisely how the UK will sell it, and they won't necessarily be wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    Isn't there going to be a very strong security threat to border posts from Dissident Republican groups? Fast forward say 9 months and with a hard border and the mass Unemployment and Welfare Cuts that is facing both the UK and Ireland and there will be alot of disaffected people ready and led into open insurrection, if this is not handled very carefully then we could be looking at a return to violence and warfare in Northern Ireland. The Irish Govt will have to oppose a hardborder at all costs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    moon2 wrote: »
    This doesn't make sense.

    The EU have stated a hard border is something they want to avoid if at all possible. They offered several options to enable this. The UK have acted in a way which necessitates a hard border.

    How can this possibly be the EU acting in bad faith?

    Because for a lot of Brexiters it's blame the EU for everything bad(the uncomfortable compromises the UK has to make) with Brexit. Not that the whole idea of Brexit in the sense you could have all the benefits with none of the costs was fantasy in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    theguzman wrote: »
    Isn't there going to be a very strong security threat to border posts from Dissident Republican groups? Fast forward say 9 months and with a hard border and the mass Unemployment and Welfare Cuts that is facing both the UK and Ireland and there will be alot of disaffected people ready and led into open insurrection, if this is not handled very carefully then we could be looking at a return to violence and warfare in Northern Ireland. The Irish Govt will have to oppose a hardborder at all costs.

    The Irish government has but the EU and the Irish government cannot force the UK to keep NI in the EU Customs Union and single market against the UK will. NI is part of the UK in the short term at least.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question why should or would the Irish government not enforce a hard border? Let's ignore the EU for a second. Why would we allow products and services into the country that do not meet our laws and would potentially illegal for an Irish based company to produce? Why would we allow in effect the UK to pass laws that say what is legal/illegal in Ireland without the say of any Irish politican? Remember the only way to identify goods that don't meet Irish regulations and laws is via a hard border. Any government that did not enforce a hard border would being allowing a massive undermining of Irish sovereignty. Irish businesses wouldn't stand for it and the various trade unions, business and employers bodies would head straight to the border to do their own checks.

    For a prime example look at the history of the Irish farmers association and Argentinen beef and the lengths they went to get it banned/EU regulations enforced on imports to the EU. Look at the foot and mouth crisis back in 2001/2002 and how quickly controls were enforced on the border to prevent the spread into Ireland.

    So even ignoring the EU no Irish government would get anyway with not enforcing a hard border once the implications became obvious to the Irish electorate.

    Never mind that the UK attempted to but be half in and out as you have proposed and we see how that has turned out. There is a reason soft borders between countries are so rare. If you have different regulations and laws on either side of a border and you don't enforce border checks you are allowing other countries to dictate your laws.

    It should also be pointed out that under WTO rules we are legally obliged to apply full customs and tariffs on all imports from the U.K., including from NI, UNLESS there is either:
    1) a special case protocol for NI which keeps it as a de facto part of the EU CU., or,
    2) a FTA between Ireland and the U.K.

    The latter is not an option while we are an EU member and the U.K. is tearing up the former.

    Coming up with proposals that would effectively require a whole sale rewriting of the EU Treaties AND the WTO Treaty is totally unrealistic.

    Right now, if the people and politicians in NI want to maintain an open border, they can send delegations to Dublin and Brussels to discuss alternatives to being part of the U.K. If they aren’t doing so, then they and we have to live with the consequences of their decision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    VinLieger wrote: »
    I think your missing the problem about how this is not just about cheaper goods its about how those cheaper goods could come to be so cheap and thats by a lowering of standards in the UK.

    Once the UK is out of the EU and depending on the FTA rules or lack thereof they will not have to meet the EU minimum food and product standards anymore. This is a key part of why the US are so giddy to get an FTA done with the UK post brexit because they will then be able to flood the UK with their chlorinated chicken and the likes which is cheaper but also far less safe.

    Obviously cheaper goods are still a big concern but they are only one of them and the EU definitely do not want substandard goods, especially food, to be able to enter the single market.

    food safety standards existed long before the EU , chlorinated chicken etc.. won't be making its way to Britains shores any time soon. Im no fan of Brexit but all that stuff about unsafe foods etc.. is scaremongering with no basis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    roosh wrote: »
    Yep, but those goods are checked entering Britain, not at a hard border on the island of Ireland. The issue is around checks on goods leaving Britain and entering Ireland and the single market via NI. This is what the UK is reneging on, it doesn't mean that they won't check goods entering Britain (as opposed to NI).

    And guess what if the UK checks the goods entering the UK from NI they suddenly have created a border down the Irish Sea and now North Ireland is in the rather unique situation of having a hard economic border with both the rest of Ireland and Britain. This is the worst case scenario for Northern Ireland. The whole point of the legislation proposed by the UK government was to ensure that there was no hard economic border between NI and Britain. You really haven't thought this through. Every party in NI including the DUP would go crazy at your idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    roosh wrote: »
    We have said that there can be no border on the island because of the impact it would have on peace in NI.

    The whole backstop debacle was because we said a hard border wasn't an option.

    If we then come along and put up a hard border, it means that there was never a need for a backstop or the NI protocol - this means we would have acted in bad faith by insisting that no progress could be made without them.

    If there is no need for the NI protocol, the the UK's act of bad faith is just to undo the act of bad faith by the EU which necessitated it. This is precisely how the UK will sell it, and they won't necessarily be wrong.

    It has always been clear that the erection of a hard border was the default situation. The protocol was drawn up to provide an alternative so that default could be avoided.

    It is not “acting in bad faith” to try and secure such a protocol and nor is it “acting in bad faith”, if the refusal of the U.K. to honour what it agreed to, results in a return to the default situation of a hard border. Rather, it is the UK’s refusal that is the act of bad faith.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    food safety standards existed long before the EU , chlorinated chicken etc.. won't be making its way to Britains shores any time soon. Im no fan of Brexit but all that stuff about unsafe foods etc.. is scaremongering with no basis.

    You have no idea if it is scaremongering or not since you have no idea what food standards the loonies in Westminster will adopt.


Advertisement