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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market
Comments
-
Charles Babbage wrote: »I think you haven't thought about it either, the whole point of this legislation is to ensure there is no hard economic border between Britain and NI, not the other way around.
I know but I'm not talking about the legislation brought forward by the UK government, I'm talking about the idea put forward by Roosh. Roosh is point was it wouldn't matter if there was no border on the island of Ireland for the UK because under Roosh's idea goods would be checked when going between NI and Britain. Checking goods that go between NI and Britain is a hard economic border which is something the UK wants to avoid as you correctly point out. But if there is no border on the Irish sea the UK will have to errect customs controls on the Irish border for reasons already pointed out by myself and some other posters earlier in the thread.
If NI leaves the EU Single Market and customs Union we will have a hard border and ultimately if that's what the UK wants there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do. Hard borders are the international norm for a reason and economic and political considerations will force both sides to erect border controls if NI leaves the CU and SM long term.0 -
If NI leaves the EU Single Market and customs Union we will have a hard border and ultimately if that's what the UK wants there is nothing Ireland and the EU can do. Hard borders are the international norm for a reason and economic and political considerations will force both sides to erect border controls if NI leaves the CU and SM long term.
It's quite simple really. In the event of a no deal Brexit, we will either we have a hard border with NI or a hard border with the rest of the EU. Effectively the NI border might as well be with North Korea in terms of trade. That's the long and short of it.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »It's quite simple really. In the event of a no deal Brexit, we will either we have a hard border with NI or a hard border with the rest of the EU. Effectively the NI border might as well be with North Korea in terms of trade. That's the long and short of it.
Wonder will the DUP rig up some loudspeakers and blare "The Sash" at the enemy over the border?
Joking aside "North Korea" may be a slight exaggeration but if UK leave with no "deal" and they also break the Withdrawal Agreement it will be equivalent to the EUs Russian land border for trade.
Turkey has a customs agreement with EU and Ukraine is an EU accession state (edit: sorry - error there) so those don't seem quite the same as what UK is aiming towards at the moment.0 -
Belarus is the closest comparator. The UK wants a "Belarus-style deal" with the EU.fly_agaric wrote: »Turkey has a customs agreement with EU and Ukraine is an EU accession state (edit: sorry - error there) so those don't seem quite the same as what UK is aiming towards at the moment.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Belarus is the closest comparator. The UK wants a "Belarus-style deal" with the EU.
"Belarus (or Russia) style deal" doesn't have quite same ring to it as the "Australia deal" for me. It is not bringing the same images and associations to my mind.
0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »"Belarus (or Russia) style deal" doesn't have quite same ring to it as the "Australia deal" for me. It is not bringing the same images and associations to my mind.
nuclear waste for cash incoming0 -
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the Tories give a tuppence about NI. It's nothing but a bargaining chip to them.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.
We have to remember that the hard border is their only real bargaining chip. It is the only real leverage that they have in the negotiations. In order to get the best possible deal for themselves, they have to be willing to play it all the way. That is why the Brexiters and Boris were so desperate to keep no deal on the table.
If they back down - which means fully implementing the NI protocol - then their leverage is gone. They have to be willing to allow NI take the pain in the short term.
It's basically a game of who blinks first.0 -
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.
And who will be putting up the border??
It is acting in bad faith to say that under no circumstances whatsoever can there be a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI and to then come along and put up a hard border.
The UK will simply say that they are not the ones putting up the hard border and they might even go so far as to implore the EU not to put up a hard border, but the UK no longer has any say over what the EU does. If we put up a hard border, that's on the us.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37367
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the Tories give a tuppence about NI. It's nothing but a bargaining chip to them.
We have to remember that the hard border is their only real bargaining chip. It is the only real leverage that they have in the negotiations. In order to get the best possible deal for themselves, they have to be willing to play it all the way. That is why the Brexiters and Boris were so desperate to keep no deal on the table.
If they back down - which means fully implementing the NI protocol - then their leverage is gone. They have to be willing to allow NI take the pain in the short term.
It's basically a game of who blinks first.
The hard border is a bargaining chip of very limited utility and playing it will result in significant damage to the UK's reputation as well as souring relations with the United States.
It's the equivalent of demanding half off a Passat at a Volkswagen dealership while threating to shoot yourself in the foot in front of a large crowd. No good will come of this.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Again, you don't seem to be following the reasoning because you think this is somehow an attempt to accommodate the UK, when in fact it is the exact opposite. The intention is to demonstrate to the UK that their one and only real bit if leverage can actually be turned back on them.correct horse battery staple wrote: »The UK politicians and media have said alot of things, they even signed international agreements which we are know learning are not worth paper they were written on.
Like I said and pointed out in the past few years our economy decoupled to the point where UK is destination for only 6% of our exports.
We don't need to do anything to accommodate the UK, just point out the international agreements they did sign such as GFA and WA, and try to continue to reach a trade deal.
The clock is ticking down to the implosion of UK all we have to do is stand firm and not bendover as per your suggestion.
At present, their only bargaining chip is the prospect that we will have to put up a hard border - that's it! They pretty much have nothing else.
Yep, we can go down the legal route and see where that gets us, and I'm not suggesting that we don't pursue that option.
But, if we're being prudent and assuming the worst case scenario, whereby the UK don't back down, we should be considering other ways of bending them over.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies if this has already been said in the intervening replies.
This is a severe misunderstanding of the situation.
The WA agreement was to prevent a border. By invalidating the agreement the UK bring back the need for a hard border. It *does not* mean "there was never a need for one". There always was, and will remain, a need for one of there's sufficient regulatory divergence.
There's no reading of this series of events which has the EU acting in "bad faith" by respecting the hard border the UK have brought into existence by reneging on the WA and introducing regulatory divergence.
Apart from that, the assumption you're making is that the EU will still give the UK what they want trade-wise despite them throwing out the previous agreement. This doesn't make sense.
The UK position will simply be that it is not they who is putting up a hard border.
If we want to avoid a hard border, the UK will argue that we simply need not put one up because they won't be. It will be entirely on us!
Our position all along has been that there cannot be, under any circumstances, a return to a hard border on this island. The reason we have given is that it will threaten peace in NI. If we come along then and put up a hard border when the UK doesn't, it will demonstrate that it was us who had been acting in bad faith from the beginning.
The UK will say that we have a very clear choice. Concede more in the negotations or go ahead and endanger peace in NI - because it won't be them putting up the hard border.0 -
ancapailldorcha wrote: »The hard border is a bargaining chip of very limited utility and playing it will result in significant damage to the UK's reputation as well as souring relations with the United States.
It's the equivalent of demanding half off a Passat at a Volkswagen dealership while threating to shoot yourself in the foot in front of a large crowd. No good will come of this.
It may well be of limited utility but it is about the only real leverage that the UK has.
Perspectives in the US will change quite quickly when it is us who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK. They will simply say, "see, we told you it wasn't us who were endangering peace in NI".
Now, imagine that Trump gets reelected and he's got that stick to beat the EU with. There will also be plenty of lobbyists in the US, who would benefit from a trade deal with the UK, who will be only too happy to help people see the UK perspective.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
It may well be of limited utility but it is about the only real leverage that the UK has.
Perspectives in the US will change quite quickly when it is us who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK. They will simply say, "see, we told you it wasn't us who were endangering peace in NI".
Now, imagine that Trump gets reelected and he's got that stick to beat the EU with. There will also be plenty of lobbyists in the US, who would benefit from a trade deal with the UK, who will be only too happy to help people see the UK perspective.
It isn't really leverage though. The EU will not undermine the single market to placate a country so willing to violate international law.
It's clear to everyone who will be responsible for the hard border. It will be the country that voted for Brexit without any thought whatsoever for NI or the GFA which the US was instrumental in negotiating. The American president is not a dictator who can unilaterally negotiate trade deals and the current incumbent has done a spectacularly bad job of persuading anyone outside his voter base of anything.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.ancapailldorcha wrote: »It isn't really leverage though. The EU will not undermine the single market to placate a country so willing to violate international law.
It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.ancapailldorcha wrote: »It's clear to everyone who will be responsible for the hard border. It will be the country that voted for Brexit without any thought whatsoever for NI or the GFA which the US was instrumental in negotiating. The American president is not a dictator who can unilaterally negotiate trade deals and the current incumbent has done a spectacularly bad job of persuading anyone outside his voter base of anything.
Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.
The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.
It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.
Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.
The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.
I think you will find the Dover situation will more than dominate the coverage of Brexit in January 2021, and NI will just bumble along, being ignored by both sides of the border. There is already SPS validation at Larne - that will continue. I would say there will be little beyond token inspections anywhere on the island outside Dublin, and other ports and airports.
Will the UK impose tariffs at Holyhead? - or even customs inspections? Do they even have facilities to do so?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
If it wasn't leverage then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.
There was a need for a backstop because the UK has no idea what sort of Brexit it wants and because it's been negotiating in bad faith.It will be very hard to maintain the narrative that the UK is responsible for the hard border if it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure and not the UK. Add to this, the UK making public calls for the EU to not put up a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI. Add to this, Trump tweeting every minute of the day about how the EU are the ones putting up a hard border and not the UK.
It really won't be. This is the result of a decision by the British and their refusal to accept the consequences of that decision or even to hold to the deal they campaigned on last year.
Is Trump tweeting "every minute of the day" about the border? What's your source on that?Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.
What strong narrative? If this were true, the UK could have just left in 2019 instead of begging for extensions but they did not.
What multi-billion dollar lobbyists are pressuring them to see the British side? Specifics please. How successful have they been given the aforementioned begging for extensions?The UK are perfectly entitled to leave the EU. If they don't put up a hard border but we do, then that is on us. It's not a difficult narrative to sell because it's true. We simply need to recognise this fact and work on nullifying it.
No, it isn't. It's on them and they'll have to erect a border themselves. You keep saying that they will not but that's just nonsense. You can't have open borders allowing anyone and anything in.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Then there's no problem and no need for hard border on the island, so no need for a backstop or an NI protocol. We can just let it bumble along indefinitely.Sam Russell wrote: »I think you will find the Dover situation will more than dominate the coverage of Brexit in January 2021, and NI will just bumble along, being ignored by both sides of the border. There is already SPS validation at Larne - that will continue. I would say there will be little beyond token inspections anywhere on the island outside Dublin, and other ports and airports.
I'm guessing their hope is that it won't get that far. They're hoping that the EU will blink first.Sam Russell wrote: »Will the UK impose tariffs at Holyhead? - or even customs inspections? Do they even have facilities to do so?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
Then there's no problem and no need for hard border on the island, so no need for a backstop or an NI protocol. We can just let it bumble along indefinitely.
No, that is not what was said or what was meant.
Ireland will, if required, check any material matters affecting the single market. If that requires checks, then so be it.I'm guessing their hope is that it won't get that far. They're hoping that the EU will blink first.
I think they are preparing lorry parks for thousands of trucks in Kent. I suppose that is preparing not to blink.
I wonder how many customs officers have been appointed and trained. I wander how many customs clearance agents are available. I wonder how many SMEs are ready for the tsunami of paperwork that will need to be prepared to export goods to the EU. I wonder if they understand their new VAT system that will be required. I wonder if it has even been tested yet.
We will find out in a few months - one way or another.0 -
No, the need for the backstop was because a no deal Brexit would lead to a hard border. The issue is, the UK won't have to put up border infrastructure on the island. The EU will.ancapailldorcha wrote: »There was a need for a backstop because the UK has no idea what sort of Brexit it wants and because it's been negotiating in bad faith.
Our position all along has been "no hard border - peace in NI". We wouldn't allow negotiations to start until a backstop was in place or the NI protocol was agreed. But, here we are now saying that not only has a hard border has been a possibility all along but it's us that will be putting it up, not the Brits.
The British are entitled to leave the EU. It's enshrined in EU law!ancapailldorcha wrote: »It really won't be. This is the result of a decision by the British and their refusal to accept the consequences of that decision or even to hold to the deal they campaigned on last year.
If they leave the EU and we are the ones who put up a border, not them, then that is the consequence of our decision because the UK will be deciding not to put up a hard border.
I know we all want to blame the UK but they are simply trying to get the best possible deal for themselves. Blaming them because we are the ones putting up border infrastructure is just silly.
I didn't say that he was currently doing it. If he gets re-elected then you can be sure he will be vocal about it.ancapailldorcha wrote: »Is Trump tweeting "every minute of the day" about the border? What's your source on that?
That the UK are not the ones putting up border infrastructure on the island, that its actually us. This will be reinforced by pictures on the news of us putting up border infrastructure and not the Brits. That pretty strong narrative!ancapailldorcha wrote: »What strong narrative? If this were true, the UK could have just left in 2019 instead of begging for extensions but they did not.
They asked for extensions because of the backstop, which apparently wasn't necessary all along because we are prepared to put up a hard border.
It's a simple matter of not being naive. Are you familiar with the role of lobbyists in US politics? Do any particular industries stand to gain from a trade deal with the UK? Do you think there will be any particular pressure from these groups when it comes to a trade deal when.....wait for it....ancapailldorcha wrote: »What multi-billion dollar lobbyists are pressuring them to see the British side? Specifics please. How successful have they been given the aforementioned begging for extensions?
They point to the fact that it is the EU who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK?
Not on the island of Ireland they won't. What do you think the NI protocol is about btw?ancapailldorcha wrote: »W
No, it isn't. It's on them and they'll have to erect a border themselves. You keep saying that they will not but that's just nonsense. You can't have open borders allowing anyone and anything in.0 -
Advertisement
-
That might not have been what was said or meant, but that is the consequnces of what was indeed said!Sam Russell wrote: »No, that is not what was said or what was meant.
Ireland will, if required, check any material matters affecting the single market. If that requires checks, then so be it.
They're clearly preparing to suck it up for as long as they can. I wonder how long it will take haulage companies start routing their operations through NI and the ROISam Russell wrote: »I think they are preparing lorry parks for thousands of trucks in Kent. I suppose that is preparing not to blink.
I wonder how many customs officers have been appointed and trained. I wander how many customs clearance agents are available. I wonder how many SMEs are ready for the tsunami of paperwork that will need to be prepared to export goods to the EU. I wonder if they understand their new VAT system that will be required. I wonder if it has even been tested yet.
We will find out in a few months - one way or another.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
No, the need for the backstop was because a no deal Brexit would lead to a hard border. The issue is, the UK won't have to put up border infrastructure on the island. The EU will.
Our position all along has been "no hard border - peace in NI". We wouldn't allow negotiations to start until a backstop was in place or the NI protocol was agreed. But, here we are now saying that not only has a hard border has been a possibility all along but it's us that will be putting it up, not the Brits.
The British are responsible for this. They signed an international treaty in the form of the WA which they clearly now intend to renege on.
It's entirely their fault as has been explained to you. They have left so saying they're entitled to leave is a bit silly to be honest.The British are entitled to leave the EU. It's enshrined in EU law!
If they leave the EU and we are the ones who put up a border, not them, then that is the consequence of our decision because the UK will be deciding not to put up a hard border.
I know we all want to blame the UK but they are simply trying to get the best possible deal for themselves. Blaming them because we are the ones putting up border infrastructure is just silly.I didn't say that he was currently doing it. If he gets re-elected then you can be sure he will be vocal about it.
Based on what? How many tweets has he got about the border to date?That the UK are not the ones putting up border infrastructure on the island, that its actually us. This will be reinforced by pictures on the news of us putting up border infrastructure and not the Brits. That pretty strong narrative!
They asked for extensions because of the backstop, which apparently wasn't necessary all along because we are prepared to put up a hard border.
Repeating this does not make it true. The British will have to hire and train customs staff, purchase equipment and premise along with erecting infrastructure for the whole of the UK.It's a simple matter of not being naive. Are you familiar with the role of lobbyists in US politics? Do any particular industries stand to gain from a trade deal with the UK? Do you think there will be any particular pressure from these groups when it comes to a trade deal when.....wait for it....
They point to the fact that it is the EU who are putting up border infrastructure on the island and not the UK?
As expected, no evidence.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
They're clearly preparing to suck it up for as long as they can. I wonder how long it will take haulage companies start routing their operations through NI and the ROI
You are assuming they have a plan.
They will not be able to route traffic through NI because there is no capacity, and they do not have the haulage licences. Also, having got to Ireland, how will they get to Calais - by landbridge? I doubt the ferries avoiding the landbridge would accept bookings from them because they would need pre-clearance for customs.
You (and they) have not thought this through.0 -
Indeed. But they won't be responsible for the EU putting up border infrastructure. That will be the responsibility of the EU.ancapailldorcha wrote: »The British are responsible for this. They signed an international treaty in the form of the WA which they clearly now intend to renege on.
As has been explained, it won't be the UK who are putting up border infrastructure, that will be the EU. We can try to blame the UK all we like but it won't change that simple, fundamental fact.ancapailldorcha wrote: »It's entirely their fault as has been explained to you. They have left so saying they're entitled to leave is a bit silly to be honest.
Are you familiar with Trumps views on the EU? Have you heard him mention anything about Brexit previously?ancapailldorcha wrote: »Based on what? How many tweets has he got about the border to date?
They will not have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. This is their position. This is their only bargaining chip.ancapailldorcha wrote: »Repeating this does not make it true. The British will have to hire and train customs staff, purchase equipment and premise along with erecting infrastructure for the whole of the UK.
Ignoring it doesn't change that fact.
No, just a basic familiariaty with US politics and politics in general.ancapailldorcha wrote: »As expected, no evidence.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
Indeed. But they won't be responsible for the EU putting up border infrastructure. That will be the responsibility of the EU.
As has been explained, it won't be the UK who are putting up border infrastructure, that will be the EU. We can try to blame the UK all we like but it won't change that simple, fundamental fact.
Source please.Are you familiar with Trumps views on the EU? Have you heard him mention anything about Brexit previously?
That's not what I asked. Do not move the goalposts please? What quantifiable interest has he shown in the Irish border?They will not have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland. This is their position. This is their only bargaining chip.
Ignoring it doesn't change that fact.
Prove it please.No, just a basic familiariaty with US politics and politics in general.
So nothing. You can't identify any of the lobby groups, organisations or individuals pushing for this at all.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136ancapailldorcha wrote: »Source please.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148298496140820480?s=20ancapailldorcha wrote: »That's not what I asked. Do not move the goalposts please? What quantifiable interest has he shown in the Irish border?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559443845668864?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/746458701565988864?s=20
This one:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/766246213079498752?s=20
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136ancapailldorcha wrote: »Prove it please.
Are you saying that there will be no lobbyists whatsoever pushing for a trade deal with the UK?ancapailldorcha wrote: »So nothing. You can't identify any of the lobby groups, organisations or individuals pushing for this at all.
Because if you're not, then you support my contention.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
Not my point. The WTO can't force anything
Not one of which mentions the border.Are you saying that there will be no lobbyists whatsoever pushing for a trade deal with the UK?
Because if you're not, then you support my contention.
No, I'm asking for details of this alleged lobby. I've done so multiple times at this stage and you've yet to give any info at all beyond stating that they exist.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
You asked for a source to prove my point!ancapailldorcha wrote: »Not my point. The WTO can't force anything
My point was that the UK won't have to put up border infrastructure.
Do we need to break down the ins and outs of Brexit for you?ancapailldorcha wrote: »Not one of which mentions the border.
Or, I can simply ask you if you believe that Trump will be completely silent on the matter, if he gets re-elected?
You don't seem to understand the point, quelle surprise.ancapailldorcha wrote: »No, I'm asking for details of this alleged lobby. I've done so multiple times at this stage and you've yet to give any info at all beyond stating that they exist.
If you disagree with the point, then you are saying that there will be no lobby groups in the US pushing for a trade deal with the UK.
If you've never heard of the influence of lobby groups in US politics then a cursory google search would help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(03)00803-9/fulltextHealth care lobbying expenditures totaled $237 million in 2000. These expenditures accounted for 15% of all federal lobbying and were larger than the lobbying expenditures of every other sector, including agriculture, communications, and defense. A total of 1192 organizations were involved in health care lobbying. Pharmaceutical and health product companies spent the most ($96 million), followed by physicians and other health professionals ($46 million). Disease advocacy and public health organizations spent $12 million. From 1997 to 2000, lobbying expenditures by physicians and other health professionals grew more slowly than lobbying by other organizations (10% vs. 26%).
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=1990&ind=a070 -
And who will be putting up the border??
In the event of a “no deal” scenario, both countries would be required to put a (land) border under WTO rules. In addition, we would be required to put one up under EU rules (including, presumably, Schengen ones since we should immediately join it if the U.K. goes for “no deal”).It is acting in bad faith to say that under no circumstances whatsoever can there be a hard border because it will threaten peace in NI and to then come along and put up a hard border.
No, it is not. It was always made clear that a hard border was the default option arising as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The reason people wanted a special NI protocol in the WA was to avoid the default option of a hard border.The UK will simply say that they are not the ones putting up the hard border and they might even go so far as to implore the EU not to put up a hard border, but the UK no longer has any say over what the EU does. If we put up a hard border, that's on the us.
The current U.K. government can, and will, say anything they want. It is they, though, that signed up to the protocol - apparently AFTER having sought legal advice on breaking it - and they that decided to breech international law last week.
That’s not our problem. Our concern is to meet our obligations as a member of the WTO and the EU/EEA. Our place in the EU SM is what drives our economy and that must take precedence over everything else, particularly as the massive global recession that Covid is unleashing on us all takes hold.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37367
If you've never heard of the influence of lobby groups in US politics then a cursory google search would help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(03)00803-9/fulltext
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=1990&ind=a07
This is nonsense. You've made no effort whatsoever to substantiate your claims and have just moved the goalposts again. I'm going to just dismiss your claims as baseless and leave it at that.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Trump certainly cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals but in the face of a strong narrative that the UK are not the ones putting up a hard border - which will be 100% correct - it will be difficult for the Senate to maintain their opposition. Not least when there are multi-billion dollar lobbyists putting pressure on them to see the UK's narrative.
I'm not sure you are correct about this.
I judge that the geopolitics (the US relationships with the EU and its member states, the benefits to the US of a wealthy and stable + united Europe that is allied with it) is still more important to the Democrats than any corporate lobbying and desire of US companies to profit from new trade agreements with post Brexit UK. They've been pretty consistent in their messages to the UK about the whole Brexit project for a long time (going back to Obama).
If the UK breaks the Withdrawal agreement, it torches relations with the EU and member states. I don't think they will be encouraging or rewarding this behaviour with some new trade deals to help the UK out etc. whoever puts up a border first. They'll be putting pressure on the UK to "kiss and make up" with the other traditional US allies in the EU.
I suppose the UK govt. may be praying now that Trump wins and the Republicans also sweep the elections, it is kind of "sad" as Trump would say.
And as regards the border, it would be on both sides eventually even if EU goes first. I do not believe UK can persist in maintaining an open border in NI long term. They may claim that, but I'm sceptical.
As you say the UK govt. do not particularly care about NI or what its people think. If the open NI border (on UK side) starts to hit UK business due to distorted flows of trade, smuggling etc...only one way that ends (with UK putting up a border).0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed. But they won't be responsible for the EU putting up border infrastructure. That will be the responsibility of the EU.
As has been explained, it won't be the UK who are putting up border infrastructure, that will be the EU. We can try to blame the UK all we like but it won't change that simple, fundamental fact.
There's little point in continuing this discussion. Your beliefs and interpretation of events are just too different to reconcile.
The UK want to close all their borders, the republic do not want to close the border with the north.
To somehow "blame" Ireland or the EU for the border infrastructure is like blaming Diageo for causing you to be drunk because you consumed a dozen pints. I can see how it's somewhat true, but it's also ridiculous.0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136In the event of a “no deal” scenario, both countries would be required to put a (land) border under WTO rules. In addition, we would be required to put one up under EU rules (including, presumably, Schengen ones since we should immediately join it if the U.K. goes for “no deal”).
And the Brits will make it clear that the default position is that the EU and Ireland will be the ones putting up that hard border, not the UK.No, it is not. It was always made clear that a hard border was the default option arising as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The reason people wanted a special NI protocol in the WA was to avoid the default option of a hard border.
The right of a member state to leave the EU is enshrined in EU law. The hard border is the default position arising out of the rules of the EU.
Yes, they will say and do anything in order to try to get the best possible deal for themselves, in negotiations with the EU. We cannot underestimate how far they are willing to go.The current U.K. government can, and will, say anything they want. It is they, though, that signed up to the protocol - apparently AFTER having sought legal advice on breaking it - and they that decided to breech international law last week.
They will absolutely need an trade agreement with the EU. The difference between a great trade deal and a mediocre one for them, depends on how far they are willing to push this. If they back down on this, then they will only get a mediocre trade deal. It is entirely in their interests to push this as far as they can. The future success of the UK is in no small part dependent on the EU trade deal.
If a hard border wasn't a problem to begin with, then there would have been no need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.That’s not our problem. Our concern is to meet our obligations as a member of the WTO and the EU/EEA. Our place in the EU SM is what drives our economy and that must take precedence over everything else, particularly as the massive global recession that Covid is unleashing on us all takes hold.
The hard border is our problem because it is us who will be putting it up.0 -
I know that would be convenient for you.ancapailldorcha wrote: »This is nonsense. You've made no effort whatsoever to substantiate your claims and have just moved the goalposts again. I'm going to just dismiss your claims as baseless and leave it at that.
I've said that there will be lobbyists in the US lobbying for the government to do a trade deal with the UK because they stand to gain. You were looking for more concrete details of these lobby groups. I've given you those details by way of the most basic of google searches.
Now, either you are completely unfamiliar with the idea of lobby groups and their role in US politics or you simply don't believe that there will be any lobby groups pushing for a trade deal with the UK.
In both cases, I would suggest you don't understand how lobbying works.0 -
Again, the narrative will be key here.fly_agaric wrote: »I'm not sure you are correct about this.
I judge that the geopolitics (the US relationships with the EU and its member states, the benefits to the US of a wealthy and stable + united Europe that is allied with it) is still more important to the Democrats than any corporate lobbying and desire of US companies to profit from new trade agreements with post Brexit UK. They've been pretty consistent in their messages to the UK about the whole Brexit project for a long time (going back to Obama).
It will be hard for the EU to maintain their narrative that it is the UK who are threatening peace in NI when it is the EU who are putting up the border infrastructure.
I'm not sure why everyone thinks that every move in this is to "help the UK out" or that a trade deal with be "rewarding" the them.fly_agaric wrote: »If the UK breaks the Withdrawal agreement, it torches relations with the EU and member states. I don't think they will be encouraging or rewarding this behaviour with some new trade deals to help the UK out etc. whoever puts up a border first. They'll be putting pressure on the UK to "kiss and make up" with the other traditional US allies in the EU.
I suppose the UK govt. may be praying now that Trump wins and the Republicans also sweep the elections, it is kind of "sad" as Trump would say.
It works better for the US if the UK don't get a trade deal with the EU because the UK will be in a much weaker negotiating position and the US will be better placed to dictate terms. A trade deal between the UK and the EU could put restrictions on the type of trade deal that the US can do with the UK, depending on the details of it.
If there is pressure on to "kiss and make up", then the US will be putting pressure on in such a way as to protect US interests. There will be as much pressure on the EU not to put up border infrastructure in the first place because of the role the US played in negotiating the GFA.
I think you might be underestimating the political fall out of the EU putting up border infrastructure in the first place.fly_agaric wrote: »And as regards the border, it would be on both sides eventually even if EU goes first. I do not believe UK can persist in maintaining an open border in NI long term. They may claim that, but I'm sceptical.
As you say the UK govt. do not particularly care about NI or what its people think. If the open NI border (on UK side) starts to hit UK business due to distorted flows of trade, smuggling etc...only one way that ends (with UK putting up a border).
If it's not such a big deal that we put up a border, then there was never a need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place, because putting up a border wouldn't be such a big deal.0 -
What’s the point of this thread really?
- If Britain reneges on the WA and Frontstop they will be leaving Ireland and the EU no theoretical choice other than to erect a border of some description in Ireland
- Britain violating an International treaty forces this, so it is simply their “fault”
- Ireland and the EU will have plans in place but will likely wait the U.K out for six months first. As Sterling tanks, lorries queue as far as the eye can see at Dover and the City of London faces an existential threat we’ll see if they can bear it
- If they can, we put up a border. If they can’t they come back to the table and sign the WA again
The rest is all waffle and misdirection. Britain can have whatever internal political narratives it chooses. It isn’t relevant to us.0 -
This is the crux of the issue.The UK want to close all their borders, the republic do not want to close the border with the north.
If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?
The end goal for the UK isn't "close all borders" it is to get the best possible deal for the UK. This will require the UK getting the best possible trade deal with the EU. A trade deal that makes Brexit worthwhile. Their only possible way of doing this is by using NI as a bargaining chip. It's bargaining power is the threat to the EU single market.
Enforcing the NI protocol weakens their negotiating position and effectively neutralises their only real leverage. This would mean that Brexit doesn't turn out as successful as it potentially could be - and let's not kid ourselves, Brexit could turn our remarkably successful for the UK if they get a very good trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, it is in their interests to push this as far as they possibly can to try and get the EU to back down and give them the concessions they are looking for.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »- If they can, we put up a border. If they can’t they come back to the table and sign the WA again
The rest is all waffle and misdirection. Britain can have whatever internal political narratives it chooses. It isn’t relevant to us.
It's getting to the point that agreements with the UK are not worth the paper they're written on. EU negotiators would be entitled to ask the question of why any agreement should be made when the UK has already shown its form for reneging on things. If the UK press thought the last one was a surrender, I shudder to think what they'd call the next one the EU lays on the table that's designed to give the UK no wiggle room whatsoever.0 -
If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?.
The best way would be to comply with international treaties and obligations and abide by the rule of law.
Until you can demonstrate an understanding of the ramifications of this course of action, and how it interacts with our obligations under international treaties, there's nothing to debate.0 -
It is to explore a possible alternative to putting up a hard border. One which hopefully wouldn't have to come to fruition, that by simply demonstrating to the UK that their play is easily countered, it might force them back to the negotiating table.LuckyLloyd wrote: »What’s the point of this thread really?
The UK will say (and have been saying) that the EU can offer a better trade deal and they will happily implement the NI protocolLuckyLloyd wrote: »- If Britain reneges on the WA and Frontstop they will be leaving Ireland and the EU no theoretical choice other than to erect a border of some description in Ireland
If the EU and Ireland put up a hard border then they will be threatening peace in NI, not the UK. To avoid this, the EU can make concessions in the negotations.
If a hard border isn't such a big deal after all, and the EU will be putting one up, then there was never a need for a backstop or the NI protocol in the first place. This means that the EU were the ones negotiating in bad faith.LuckyLloyd wrote: »- Britain violating an International treaty forces this, so it is simply their “fault”
UK Logistics companies, however, will start re-routing their operations through NI and into the single market, via Ireland, unchecked.LuckyLloyd wrote: »- Ireland and the EU will have plans in place but will likely wait the U.K out for six months first. As Sterling tanks, lorries queue as far as the eye can see at Dover and the City of London faces an existential threat we’ll see if they can bear it
This is the game of chicken that will be played.
The difference between Brexit being an overwhelming success and being an abject failure is the deal that the UK strikes with the EU. If they get a great trade deal and are also able to make trade deals with other countries (the cake and eat it outcome) it would be a real coup for the UK. However, if they don't get a great trade deal with the EU, then Brexit might turn out to be the disaster everyone has been anticipating.
The NI protocol (and the threat to the single market) is effectively the only real leverage that the UK has to get a great trade deal. It is in their interests to push it as far as they can. This could potentially see the EU putting up a hard border on the island of Ireland.
I think you might be underestimating the political fall out of putting up a hard border.LuckyLloyd wrote: »- If they can, we put up a border. If they can’t they come back to the table and sign the WA again
If it wasn't such a big deal in the first place, then there was never a need for a backstop. If it isn't the threat to peace in NI that the EU have been saying it is, then we have been using the peace process as cheap negotiating ploy.
Irrelevant except for the fact that we might have to partition the island. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Irish history but I think you might find that would be a pretty contentious issue.LuckyLloyd wrote: »The rest is all waffle and misdirection. Britain can have whatever internal political narratives it chooses. It isn’t relevant to us.
There's also the issue of the EU being seen as having negotiated in bad faith and using peace in NI as a cheap bargaining trick - as the UK and DUP have recently been claiming.0 -
Nice attempt to dodge the question.The best way would be to comply with international treaties and obligations and abide by the rule of law.
We can't control what the UK does and they can't control what we do. You said that the aim of the republic was to keep the border with NI open. Does the republic achieve this aim by erecting border infrastructure or not erecting border infrastructure?
It is if course a rhetorical question.
Is it a big deal that we keep the border open or is it not really that big an issue?
If wasn't that big an issue to begin with then there was never a need for a backstop or an NI protocol.
Oh, do please tell me what the ramifications are going to be. Will they be similar to the ramifications that Ireland faced when we systematically dismantled the Anglo-Irish treaty and established our own republic? I'd say the Brits might take a similar outcome, if you ask me.Until you can demonstrate an understanding of the ramifications of this course of action, and how it interacts with our obligations under international treaties, there's nothing to debate.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is the crux of the issue.
If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?
The end goal for the UK isn't "close all borders" it is to get the best possible deal for the UK. This will require the UK getting the best possible trade deal with the EU. A trade deal that makes Brexit worthwhile. Their only possible way of doing this is by using NI as a bargaining chip. It's bargaining power is the threat to the EU single market.
Enforcing the NI protocol weakens their negotiating position and effectively neutralises their only real leverage. This would mean that Brexit doesn't turn out as successful as it potentially could be - and let's not kid ourselves, Brexit could turn our remarkably successful for the UK if they get a very good trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, it is in their interests to push this as far as they possibly can to try and get the EU to back down and give them the concessions they are looking for.
*By* enforcing the NI protocol, the UK stands to get a very good trade deal with the EU, whereas the UK stands to be left out in the cold by the EU if they don't do something about the border question. All their current posturing is really achieving is playing to internal political gallery, and even there it's far from the entire audience that is pleased.
The EU and Ireland have been clear - negotiations hinge on a mutually agreeable solution to the border question. If the UK is not cooperative, they don't get a deal, and the chances of Brexit being a success go down the toilet. The Republic may have to enforce a border at some stage, but at no point will this be called normal, and resumption of talks rests on the UK seeing sense, perhaps when they finally elect a more sensible government.0 -
Nice attempt to dodge the question.
The first post in thread started with the idea that all of ireland would be granted special status so we wouldn't have to abide by normal EU port/export rules. This special status would purely be for the convenience of the Uk as they continue to be incapable of defining what they want post-brexit, and as a result they cannot negotiate a trade deal.
Now the premise is that Ireland will just ignore EU import/export rules and the EU (and all of its existing trade partners) will turn a blind eye. Once again, this is purely for the benefit of the UK as the UK seem to be reneging on the mutually agreed treaty which resolved this issue.
So - what exactly are you proposing? The EU just give the UK whatever they want, whenever they decide what it is that they want and no-one else will care?
At the end of the day, despite your constant repetition to the contrary, if the UK want diverging standards then they'll erect a border. This belief that they'll refuse to monitor their borders *and also* maintain control over imports and exports is bonkers.0 -
Listen roosh, I’m not going point for point with you. You’re echoing Telegraph editorial positions. People are entitled to believe Britain have a strong position with plenty of leverage if they so choose. The facts don’t support this imo.
The suggestion that I’m not familiar with Irish history amused me fwiw.0 -
The best solution would be to threaten (and actually carry out if necessary the annihilation of every UK citizen if the UK causes a hard border to be installed. If that is not realistic, then less drastic threats are necessary - threats which inflict disproportionate pain on the UK. Fortunately as we are in the EU, we now have that ability.This is the crux of the issue.
If the republic do not want to close the border with the north then what would be the best way to go about achieving this aim? Would it be to put up border infrastructure or would it be to not put up border infrastructure?.
.
Except that nothing makes Brexit worthwhile - so the UK's intentions are irrelevant (and at best shared by a tiny and fickle minority)The end goal for the UK isn't "close all borders" it is to get the best possible deal for the UK. This will require the UK getting the best possible trade deal with the EU. A trade deal that makes Brexit worthwhile.
.
that is correct - and it is in our interest to ensure that they are never again in a position to do so.
Their only possible way of doing this is by using NI as a bargaining chip. It's bargaining power is the threat to the EU single market.
Enforcing the NI protocol weakens their negotiating position and effectively neutralises their only real leverage. This would mean that Brexit doesn't turn out as successful as it potentially could be - and let's not kid ourselves, Brexit could turn our remarkably successful for the UK if they get a very good trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, it is in their interests to push this as far as they possibly can to try and get the EU to back down and give them the concessions they are looking for.0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Why is there an assumption that Ireland (or big bad EU will put up a border for goods at all?
We can take a leaf out of UKs book and simply do nothing, by time WTO notices and takes any action and whole thing is dragged thru courts for years with us and EU pointing out that we are willing to reach a deal with UK who are not playing ball nor honouring existing law, and pointing our that peace in NI is sort of more important than WTO stuff, which could be amended.
While all that is happening the UK collapses.
All that needs to be done is call their bluff while continuing to decouple from UK (already down 6% exports)
Because Irish and EU businesses will demand it never mind other EU countries. You can't have an open border with a country/trade bloc that are in a different Customs Union and Single Market. Its a smugglers dream and would cost the EU, Ireland and the UK hundreds of millions if not billions in lost revenue by not erecting a border. Remember the Foot and Mouth epidemic back in 2002 and how quickly the border was manned and that only endangered a small part of Irelands economy.
The argument put forward by Brexiters like Roosh is that Ireland should leave the EU and rejoin the UK. Or that the Irish should behave themselves and know their place. Its a nicely worded argument that relies on people who have forgotten that the only reason a soft border exists is because of the EU. The GFA was agreed in the context of both Ireland and the UK being committed EU members. Remember hard borders are the norm internationally. The Irish UK border is very unusual. I've heard of Indian reservations in the US with more visible border signage than parts of border in Ireland.
There is the practical side that it will take time to get border controls operational and in the short term the issues would be along the ports in Britain. But again you are assuming this would make the UK change its mind which is a risky assumption. Despite the promises made by Brexiters turning out to lies they have grown more powerful in the UK parliament. We are dealing with a UK government controlled by people who hate the EU and it would dangerous to assume they'd back down in a worst case scenario. Again look at the argument put forward by Roosh despite the UK ripping up an international agreement it signed within the last year its the EU to blame.0 -
The UK has very little leverage in negotiations, other than the threat to the single market. The NI protocol neutralises this threat and therefore the leverage that the UK has.*By* enforcing the NI protocol, the UK stands to get a very good trade deal with the EU, whereas the UK stands to be left out in the cold by the EU if they don't do something about the border question. All their current posturing is really achieving is playing to internal political gallery, and even there it's far from the entire audience that is pleased.
If they stand to get a very good trade deal with the NI protocol, then they are calculating that they can get an incredible deal without it.
The very good deal scenario might see them worse off because of Brexit while the incredible deal could see them better off because of it.
Again, I think you are underestimating the political fall out from the EU putting up a hard border. We can call it abnormal, temporary, whatever the hell we like, it will still be seen as us putting up a hard border on the island.The EU and Ireland have been clear - negotiations hinge on a mutually agreeable solution to the border question. If the UK is not cooperative, they don't get a deal, and the chances of Brexit being a success go down the toilet. The Republic may have to enforce a border at some stage, but at no point will this be called normal, and resumption of talks rests on the UK seeing sense, perhaps when they finally elect a more sensible government.
If you honestly believe that it is not a big deal to put up border infrastructure, then you must believe that there was never any need for a backstop or an NI protocol.
If you say that there was a need for these, then the idea that we will just throw up a hard border, call it abnormal and blame the Brits doesn't carry much water.
The Brits are gambling on our/the EU's reticence at putting a hard border on the island. Politically, it clearly is a big deal and something the EU want to avoid.0 -
The UK has very little leverage in negotiations, other than the threat to the single market. The NI protocol neutralises this threat and therefore the leverage that the UK has.
If they stand to get a very good trade deal with the NI protocol, then they are calculating that they can get an incredible deal without it.
The very good deal scenario might see them worse off because of Brexit while the incredible deal could see them better off because of it.
The idea that the UK can get an even better deal by using NI as a bargaining chip does not reside in any sort of reality. Considering, also, that Democrats in the USA are threatening UK envoys with no trade deal (allowing this hinges on the Democrats getting in in November), who do you think can really stand to play this game of political chicken that the UK seems so intent on playing, and that they have no need to? It would be quite the epic climbdown for the EU to give the UK it's even-better trade deal considering the upper hand it has right now.Again, I think you are underestimating the political fall out from the EU putting up a hard border. We can call it abnormal, temporary, whatever the hell we like, it will still be seen as us putting up a hard border on the island.
If you honestly believe that it is not a big deal to put up border infrastructure, then you must believe that there was never any need for a backstop or an NI protocol.
If you say that there was a need for these, then the idea that we will just throw up a hard border, call it abnormal and blame the Brits doesn't carry much water.
The Brits are gambling on our/the EU's reticence at putting a hard border on the island. Politically, it clearly is a big deal and something the EU want to avoid.
No, putting up a border would be a big deal. Abnormal situations like that tend to be a bigger deal than normal ones. What would be even more abnormal would be the UK getting its great trade deal by having breached the previous withdrawal agreement, and the EU signing an agreement without returning to the question of the border. Let's not forget, the current WA agreement has a mechanism for NI assembly to decide their country's relationship to EU law. If the UK think that by breaking that whole agreement they can get an even better deal, well, I've already mentioned my opinion on that. How long would the UK be able to wait out their new economic isolate status, I wonder?0 -
That is incorrect.The first post in thread started with the idea that all of ireland would be granted special status so we wouldn't have to abide by normal EU port/export rules.
The idea is that, to avoid a hard border and thereby neutralise the UK's leverage, Ireland could be designated a special economic zone. We would still abide by EU rules but goods leaving the island for the single market would be checked to ensure UK goods weren't entering the single market.
This would completely neutralise the UK's negotiating position and hopefully make them see sense instead of having a 6-month stand-off with the EU. If there is such a stand-off, then the UK's threat is still neurtalised and the economic impact should be felt by the UK only.
Again, completely incorrect.This special status would purely be for the convenience of the Uk as they continue to be incapable of defining what they want post-brexit, and as a result they cannot negotiate a trade deal.
There would be no benefit to the UK whatsoever in fact, it would take away the only advantage that they have in the negotiations and hopefully bring them back to the negotiating table sooner rather than after a stand-off.
This is even more wrong than the others (granted because it is a combination of the other two).Now the premise is that Ireland will just ignore EU import/export rules and the EU (and all of its existing trade partners) will turn a blind eye. Once again, this is purely for the benefit of the UK as the UK seem to be reneging on the mutually agreed treaty which resolved this issue.
There would be no benefit to the UK. Their negotiating position would be completely neutralised. You seem to think that the Brits actaully want no deal as opposed to seeing it as a bargaining position. Your answer to this is to do precisely what their bargaining position calls for.
What is it that you think the UK wants??So - what exactly are you proposing? The EU just give the UK whatever they want, whenever they decide what it is that they want and no-one else will care?
They want a great trade deal with the EU. The threat to the single market is their only real leverage in negotiations. This threat includes the propistion that the EU will have to put up a hard border on the island. Yours, and other's, suggestions is to do play precisely into the UK's hands.
I'm suggesting an alternative that will neutralise that threat and bring them back to the negotiating table sooner.
Their diverging standards won't be so that they can have higher standards, it will be so that they can have lower standards. There won't be the same pressing need to protect their market from higher quality goods.At the end of the day, despite your constant repetition to the contrary, if the UK want diverging standards then they'll erect a border. This belief that they'll refuse to monitor their borders *and also* maintain control over imports and exports is bonkers.
What do you think the NI protocol is designed to do?0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Businesses don't vote a government in,
they are welcome to put up walls with "sponsored by insert Irish business name here" and see how quickly public opinion tours sour on them.
Hell I can see farmers themselves blocking off smaller access roads as threat of GM food from UK and no standards there will threaten their livelihoods. We stand back and let em do it on smallest routes.
What our government however can do is put up so much red tape and taxes and laws (tie em in to environmental/genetic/animal reasons) to make it so onerous on business to import from UK that they switch to EU providers for those imports. Hell maybe even require large bonds to be paid and put in random audits of importing companies with stiff penalties.
Which would only leave criminals and smugglers importing from UK who can be dealt with by revenue, gardai and public opinion turned against inferior UK goods via buy Irish type advertising campaigns.
No imports from UK then no need for using to put up any border posts for goods check coming in.
In meantime the UK collapses.
No voters vote governments in and do honestly think that an electorate already fed up with Covid are going to put up with illegal goods an services entering Ireland, do you think they will happy with the the government throwing money away, do you think trade unions will tolerate illegal goods endangering the jobs of their members? And remember by not enforcing a hard border Ireland has left the EU SM and CU and joined the UK version ie Ireland leaves the EU.
You talk about red tape put in place by the government, the public boycotting British products, one question how do you enforce all that without a hard border, how do you enforce tarrifs etc. To get around the public boycott all you have do is change the labelling to made in Ireland/EU. Something again the only way you can check the labelling is a hard border.0 -
Advertisement
-
The idea is that, to avoid a hard border and thereby neutralise the UK's leverage, Ireland could be designated a special economic zone. We would still abide by EU rules but goods leaving the island for the single market would be checked to ensure UK goods weren't entering the single market.
So to neutralise a threat that has already been castrated (by the signed and legally enforceable Withdrawal Agreement) you're still arguing that Ireland should leave the Single Market and suffer all the hassle and inconvenience as the British, thereby neutralising our own commercial advantage of being in the Single Market?
That makes no more sense today than when you first came up with this Irexit-by-another-name idea.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement