Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit: Threat to the Integrity of the Single Market
Options
Comments
-
Negotiations are all about leverage. The only real leverage that the UK has over the EU is NI, it is the threat to the single market and the the threat that the EU will have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland.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.
If you pay close attention to what the US Senators are saying, they are saying that there will be no trade deal for the UK if they threaten the GFA. This is implicitly and explicitly linked to the issue of a hard border.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.
The UK will simply say that they are not threatening the GFA because they are not the ones putting up border infrastructure on the island of Ireland.
This narrative will be reinforced by video footage of the EU and Ireland putting up border infrastructure while the UK urge them not to. The UK will urge them to return to the negotiating table.
So, do you agree that the EU do not want to put up a hard border?No, putting up a border would be a big deal. Abnormal situations like that tend to be a bigger deal than normal ones.
The UK's position is simple. Give them a better deal and they will enforce the NI protocol.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?
Alternatively, the EU (and not the UK) can put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. Something they have said cannot be allowed to happen because it will threaten peace in NI.0 -
Negotiations are all about leverage. The only real leverage that the UK has over the EU is NI, it is the threat to the single market and the the threat that the EU will have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The UK has no leverage. The WA is signed. Problem of "NI leverage" solved. They've even given the Japanese, this week, a contract to manage the Irish Sea border for them.
Besides, the UK is barely negotiating. Every time the EU asks for a detailed description of what the UK wants, they get nothing in return. There is absolutely no point in anyone trying to "neutralise" the Brexit press in England or the fun of it.
In any event, do you really think that GB business is going to massively relocate to NI just so that they can shovel non-conforming products across the border into Ireland for onward transmission (possibly still via GB) into continental Europe? Or that they would think that no-one would notice how Ireland has suddenly become a net exporter of stuff that was never produced in Ireland before, and without any new built production facilities?0 -
Again, if you or other's believe that this is Irexit by another name then either you haven't understood the proposition or you don't understand Brexit.CelticRambler wrote: »That makes no more sense today than when you first came up with this Irexit-by-another-name idea.
We would remain a full member of the EU and all it's institutions. We would still elect MEPs, we would still host the rotating EU presidency, we would still contribute to the EU budget, we would still be able to apply for EU grants, etc. etc. etc.
Do you understand how this is not only fundamentally different to Brexit but pretty much diametrically opposite to it? If you can't understand that then you don't understand anything about the last 3/4 years of the Brexit process.
This should also be your first hint that you may not be understanding the proposition clearly?
Do you understand what the UK is proposing to do with regard to the NI protocol? Do you understand what the NI protocol is designed to do? If you don't understand those then you won't understand the proposal here.CelticRambler wrote: »So to neutralise a threat that has already been castrated (by the signed and legally enforceable Withdrawal Agreement)
No. I'm not suggesting that we leave the single market. We would adhere to all the standards required by the single market.CelticRambler wrote: »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?
The only thing that would change is that goods leaving the island would be subject to checks entering mainland Europe. Everything else about our membership of the single market would remain the same.
This would obviously be an impediment to Irish businesses exporting to the rest of the EU. For this reason, special rules would have to be designed for Ireland to ensure that this impediment would be offset. That might be done by way of VAT rules, taxation rules, or some other mechanism.
Irish goods could also be prioritised at ports of entry to reduce the disruption.
To understand how Ireland would not be leaving the single market in this instance we can imagine two trucks presenting at a port entering mainland Europe. One truck is carrying Irish made goods, the other goods produced in the UK. Both trucks are checked but only the truck with the Irish goods is allowed through, while the truck with the UK goods is turned away. Hence, Ireland is still in the single market, albeit with checks at ports of entry.
This would hopefully be a temporary measure, if it would need to be used at all, because the UK would quickly see that their threat to the single market is easily neutralised.0 -
Maybe you've missed the most recent news. The UK is trying to pass legislation to undermine the NI protocol. I thought you might have heard it because it's made the headlines.CelticRambler wrote: »The UK has no leverage. The WA is signed. Problem of "NI leverage" solved. They've even given the Japanese, this week, a contract to manage the Irish Sea border for them.
What nonsense are you talking about neutralisng the Brexit press??CelticRambler wrote: »Besides, the UK is barely negotiating. Every time the EU asks for a detailed description of what the UK wants, they get nothing in return. There is absolutely no point in anyone trying to "neutralise" the Brexit press in England or the fun of it.
Do you think that the UK ultimately wants, or rather needs, a trade deal with the EU?
Do you think that companies will fail to look at the logistics of having their trucks sitting in lorry parks at ports and all the customs issues around that, and then realise that they can simply re-route their trucks through NI, without having to deal with all the customs issues and without having to relocate to NI?CelticRambler wrote: »In any event, do you really think that GB business is going to massively relocate to NI just so that they can shovel non-conforming products across the border into Ireland for onward transmission (possibly still via GB) into continental Europe? Or that they would think that no-one would notice how Ireland has suddenly become a net exporter of stuff that was never produced in Ireland before, and without any new built production facilities?
Do you think that comapanies wouldn't open operations in NI if it was profitable to do so?
What do you think will happen when they start to notice that Ireland has suddenly become a net exporter of stuff that was never produced in Ireland before, and without any new built production facilities?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Again, if you or other's believe that this is Irexit by another name then either you haven't understood the proposition or you don't understand Brexit.
Your proposition is to re-write the rules of the European Union to recognise the UK's exceptionalism, and to use Ireland as a sacrificial lamb to facilitate the UK's refusal to engage proactively in FTA negotiations.
That's the exact same Brexity mentality that got the UK into the mess they're in at the moment.
Yes, I do understand it. Yes I do understand what it's designed to do. And, yes (although you haven't asked) I do believe that Japanese consortium will do what the British government have tasked them with doing to make the NI protocol work.Do you understand what the UK is proposing to do with regard to the NI protocol? Do you understand what the NI protocol is designed to do? If you don't understand those then you won't understand the proposal here.
So we'd lose the primary advantage of being in the Single Market - frictionless trade.The only thing that would change is that goods leaving the island would be subject to checks entering mainland Europe. Everything else about our membership of the single market would remain the same.
This would obviously be an impediment to Irish businesses exporting to the rest of the EU. For this reason, special rules would have to be designed for Ireland to ensure that this impediment would be offset. That might be done by way of VAT rules, taxation rules, or some other mechanism.
Irish goods could also be prioritised at ports of entry to reduce the disruption.To understand how Ireland would not be leaving the single market in this instance we can imagine two trucks presenting at a port entering mainland Europe. One truck is carrying Irish made goods, the other goods produced in the UK. Both trucks are checked but only the truck with the Irish goods is allowed through, while the truck with the UK goods is turned away. Hence, Ireland is still in the single market, albeit with checks at ports of entry.
How many times have you driven through the customs posts on the Swiss-German border? How long do you think trucks spend parked up there at the weekend when the border is closed? How will Irish trucks be prioritised when there's no-one there to carry out the checks? How do you imagine Irish goods will be prioritised when they're in a sealed container that may or may not contain goods from the UK?
No, they don't want one, but yes they do need one. Et alors?Do you think that the UK ultimately wants, or rather needs, a trade deal with the EU?Do you think that companies will fail to look at the logistics of having their trucks sitting in lorry parks at ports and all the customs issues around that, and then realise that they can simply re-route their trucks through NI, without having to deal with all the customs issues and without having to relocate to NI?
And do you seriously think that a company that can't get its act together to send a truck to Kent with the right paperwork is, instead, going to send it to Liverpool, or all the way up to Scotland, so that it can cross the Irish Sea, disembark in NI, then drive all the way down to Dublin or Rosslare to be loaded onto a ferry to Le Havre (competing for space with freight of Irish origin) so that it can finally be delivered to somewhere in continental Europe that'll know it came from the UK because they were the ones that placed the order? I don't think you've ever worked in either logistics or international import-export.0 -
Negotiations are all about leverage. The only real leverage that the UK has over the EU is NI, it is the threat to the single market and the the threat that the EU will have to put a hard border on the island of Ireland.
If the only leverage the UK has is with NI, then they're pretty much out of moves.If you pay close attention to what the US Senators are saying, they are saying that there will be no trade deal for the UK if they threaten the GFA. This is implicitly and explicitly linked to the issue of a hard border.
The UK will simply say that they are not threatening the GFA because they are not the ones putting up border infrastructure on the island of Ireland.
This narrative will be reinforced by video footage of the EU and Ireland putting up border infrastructure while the UK urge them not to. The UK will urge them to return to the negotiating table.
And this will be seen as complete disingenuousness on the part of the UK by any halfway impartial international observer. The UK reneging on its current agreement, careening towards no deal and forcing Ireland/EU to erect a hard border would be Ireland willfully breaching the GFA as much as forcing a man to blow his brains out and then declaring he committed suicide because he was terribly depressed. In order words, transparently false and conniving. I'm sure that if the Democrats get back into to power in the US, they'll appreciate the context.So, do you agree that the EU do not want to put up a hard border?
The EU's been consistent on the point that they do not, but even in the event of a no-deal, the EU and Ireland will probably wait things out and border checks would only be instituted on a gradual basis, or they could do the origin checks at Dublin or whatever Irish port being exported from. Again, this would be an exceptional circumstance, and far from being the gotcha moment where the EU must breach its own internal market regulations, anyone could see that this is being done because of ludicrous intransigence from the UK.The UK's position is simple. Give them a better deal and they will enforce the NI protocol.
Alternatively, the EU (and not the UK) can put up a hard border on the island of Ireland. Something they have said cannot be allowed to happen because it will threaten peace in NI.
The EU position is similarly simple. Get the border sorted and you can have a deal. Better yet, stick to the agreement already signed, and act like adults.0 -
Just for the record.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Look whether you consider yourself in favour of Brexit is irrelevant. I don't particularly care what your personal views on Brexit are.
However your argument is one of classic arguments we have heard from Brexiters. It's the bad EU forcing Ireland to errect a border and thats there is some magical way of having an open border between 2 different trade blocs. I am calling it magical because this was the whole point of the backstop. Once this system was developed the backstop would end. Well as the UK figured out a soft border between 2 different trade blocs is currently impossible with current technology. To get around this the withdrawal agreement was signed. However the UK has ripped up the agreement breaking international law by their own admission. Thereby bringing us to the default position that two different trade blocs must have a hard border. All as a result of UK decisions. But you blame the EU. Again every time reality has intruded Brexiters have blamed the EU.
The only other way to avoid a hard border is for Ireland to leave the EU and rejoin the UK economic block. Again something certain Brexiters would wish to happen.0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Which would make it a criminal matter, can then comedown on any individuals and companies involved.
That plus public opinion could be used to completely kill most imports from UK negating the need for a physical goods checks border.
And how does any of this get around the need for a hard border? Smuggling is already illegal and happens anyway on the border. The UK leaving the SM and CU the market for smuggling just explodes.
Irish products are clearly labelled as is. And if I am a UK exporter I just change the packaging and the consumer is none the wiser. Impossible to detect without a hard border.
Could you give me an example of a soft land border between 2 different trade blocs?0 -
Again, completely incorrect.CelticRambler wrote: »Your proposition is to re-write the rules of the European Union to recognise the UK's exceptionalism, and to use Ireland as a sacrificial lamb to facilitate the UK's refusal to engage proactively in FTA negotiations.
Firstly, it might never need to actually happen. It might be sufficient to signal to the UK that it could happen. If they still persisted, then it could be a temporary measure until such time as the economic impact brings them back to the table.
Nope. Wrong again. It's not a mentality of exiting the EU. We remain full members as has been pointed out time and time and time again.CelticRambler wrote: »That's the exact same Brexity mentality that got the UK into the mess they're in at the moment.
Do you believe that the UK government then are then threatening to undermine the NI protocol just purely for the craic? Do you think they're going to turn around and say that the first thing they've done with their regained sovereignty from Brexit is to reschedule April Fools day?CelticRambler wrote: »Yes, I do understand it. Yes I do understand what it's designed to do. And, yes (although you haven't asked) I do believe that Japanese consortium will do what the British government have tasked them with doing to make the NI protocol work.
What do you think their purpose with all this posturing is?
Well, at least you're finally starting to understand something.CelticRambler wrote: »So we'd lose the primary advantage of being in the Single Market - frictionless trade.
IF (and that is a big IF) we had to follow through with it, then yes we would. But, this would hopefully be temporary as the UK would need to come back to the table (in a much weakened position) to negotiate.
This, however, would not be the same as exiting the single market as our goods would still have access while goods from the UK would not.
These are some of the issues that would have to be worked out, but they are not insurmountable.CelticRambler wrote: »How many times have you driven through the customs posts on the Swiss-German border? How long do you think trucks spend parked up there at the weekend when the border is closed? How will Irish trucks be prioritised when there's no-one there to carry out the checks? How do you imagine Irish goods will be prioritised when they're in a sealed container that may or may not contain goods from the UK?
I think you're confusing their attempt to play their negotiating position as hard as they can with a lack of desire for a trade deal. They want one, they just want one that makes Brexit worthwhile.CelticRambler wrote: »No, they don't want one, but yes they do need one. Et alors?
Great, so there's no need for a hard border on the island of Ireland then because all these companies will just follow the rules. Problem solved.....oh wait....CelticRambler wrote: »And do you seriously think that a company that can't get its act together to send a truck to Kent with the right paperwork is, instead, going to send it to Liverpool, or all the way up to Scotland, so that it can cross the Irish Sea, disembark in NI, then drive all the way down to Dublin or Rosslare to be loaded onto a ferry to Le Havre (competing for space with freight of Irish origin) so that it can finally be delivered to somewhere in continental Europe that'll know it came from the UK because they were the ones that placed the order? I don't think you've ever worked in either logistics or international import-export.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well then, I'll thank you to not make statements about my personal views on Brexit.Look whether you consider yourself in favour of Brexit is irrelevant. I don't particularly care what your personal views on Brexit are.
This is because I am looking at their position and following it to its logical conclusion instead of saying UK bad, EU good, wah wah wah.However your argument is one of classic arguments we have heard from Brexiters.
I'm making a single assumption, namely, that the EU do not want to put a hard border on the island of Ireland because their position all along has been that no hard border can be allowed.
From the UK perspective, the "magical" ways of keeping the border open are:It's the bad EU forcing Ireland to errect a border and thats there is some magical way of having an open border between 2 different trade blocs.
1) Make concessions to the UK in negotiations.
2) Simply don't put up border infrastructure.
They are banking on the EU balking at option #2 because of the position we have maintained all along.
Again, the UK are saying there alternatives to this:I am calling it magical because this was the whole point of the backstop. Once this system was developed the backstop would end. Well as the UK figured out a soft border between 2 different trade blocs is currently impossible with current technology. To get around this the withdrawal agreement was signed.
1) Make concessions to the UK in negotiations.
2) Simply don't put up border infrastructure.
Do you take this position seriously?However the UK has ripped up the agreement breaking international law by their own admission.
Again, the UK are saying there alternatives to this:Thereby bringing us to the default position that two different trade blocs must have a hard border. All as a result of UK decisions. But you blame the EU. Again every time reality has intruded Brexiters have blamed the EU.
1) Make concessions to the UK in negotiations.
2) Simply don't put up border infrastructure.
I don't blame the EU. I'm simply looking at the logic of the situation and leaving my disdain for Brexiters our of it.
Or.....we could stay in the EU. We could remain full members of the EU and all its institutions but we could be designated a special economic zone.The only other way to avoid a hard border is for Ireland to leave the EU and rejoin the UK economic block. Again something certain Brexiters would wish to happen.
This would hopefully never actually have to be implemented but if it does, it would hopefully be until the UK are forced back to the table in a much weakened position.0 -
That is literally the Brexit line, as uttered by Johnson & minions only last week. But we don't need to worry about temporary measures because we've got permanent redress through the Withdrawal Agreement, now in force and (in case you missed it) with a clock counting down until the EU takes legal action against the UK for breaching it.Firstly, it might never need to actually happen. It might be sufficient to signal to the UK that it could happen. If they still persisted, then it could be a temporary measure until such time as the economic impact brings them back to the table.
If we're not fully part of the Single Market - fully part of it - then we're not full members of the EU. You seem to be having real trouble getting your head around that.Nope. Wrong again. It's not a mentality of exiting the EU. We remain full members as has been pointed out time and time and time again.
YesDo you believe that the UK government then are then threatening to undermine the NI protocol just purely for the craic?
Part of the fantasy that they'll be able to blame the EU for being Big Bad Bullies and not give them the cake they've been demanding.What do you think their purpose with all this posturing is?
They're already in a much weakened position without us doing anything as stupid as re-writing the EU's rules and taking Ireland out of the Single Market. They'll be "back" at the table (not that they've ever really been there in the first place) by the end of January, possibly with a hefty fine to pay for being thick eejits over their breach of the WA.But, this would hopefully be temporary as the UK would need to come back to the table (in a much weakened position) to negotiate.
Funny that: again, pure Brexit speech. Point to any border in the world where these problems have been surmounted. The Brexiters couldn't do it, and voted for the WA instead as the only realistic solution. If they've conceded the point, why can't you?These are some of the issues that would have to be worked out, but they are not insurmountable.0 -
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.
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'm sure the US will look out for its own interests + is well able to.
However, you are sensitive to narrative, so you must see that the US signing + bringing into force a new trade agreement with the UK would be a very big deal and a major win for Boris Johnson/the Conservatives.
It would be at least one concrete thing they could point to as a vindication of Brexit.
They would be delighted and shout it from the rooftops. Even if the actual content of the agreement might not be great for Joe Bloggs in the UK, it could make a lot of money for some sectors and also help provide a boost to the UK economy after damage of Brexit & Covid-19.
So yes, it would be a reward, given we are saying this all happens after UK has quite deliberately given a middle finger salute to all its former partners in the EU (incl. Ireland), who are US allies also.
If Trump wins, and Republicans (who always support everything Trump does in lockstep) also have control of Congress it is far more likely the UK will get a trade deal whatever the state of relations with the EU.
If the other party wins out in the election, the UKs behaviour over last 4 years since the Brexit vote won't just be forgotten I think and replaced with your own/the Brexit supporter's narrative (the bad faith EU/Ireland connive to trap the UK and put up the NI border and thereby destroy the GFA etc.).
This is much bigger than Ireland/NI really + US "blame" for the bad situation between the UK/EU is going to be placed fully on the UK and I'm certain they will be the ones pressured to try and smooth things over.I think you might be underestimating the political fall out of the EU putting up border infrastructure in the first place.
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.
I never said it wasn't a big deal. It is a big deal.
My point was I don't believe the UK can keep the border fully "open" post hard Brexit any more than the EU (Ireland) can long term, whoever goes first and shoulders all the blame for the situation in your eyes.
The UK claim the contrary at the moment but their current leaders aren't exactly trustworthy anyway as shown by the last few years.0 -
correct horse battery staple wrote: »That would be counterfeiting, a serious offence for anyone involved in creation and resale of such products.
We already have example of companies being used in policing it's called vat and audits around it. Same concept, government can create all sorts of new criminal offences and have companies self police until there are no imports from UK.
No imports from UK > no need for incoming goods checks
All without us having to install physical infrastructure and all while the UK collapses.
Or worse following UK out of EU as brexiters think we would do.
Can you give me an example of soft land border between 2 different trade blocs? Because you seem to think that's possible based on your posts.
The whole argument about companies self policing, new laws etc well unfortunately the UK government already tried to get that past the EU. The whole reason for the backstop was because the UK thought they could up with a system that could do away with the need for a hard border. As for how they got on with that well the details of the withdrawal agreement should make that obvious.
Remember even with Brexit Ireland will still import from the UK, just less and at more expense. What's the basis for thinking the UK will stop exporting suddenly?0 -
Take a moment. Think about this. You're conflating two different things.CelticRambler wrote: »That is literally the Brexit line, as uttered by Johnson & minions only last week.
They have said that their Internal markets bill will hopefully not have to be used. I'm saying designating Ireland as special economic zone might never have to be used.
Yes, we might both be saying "It will hopefully never have to be used" but we're talking about two entirely different things.
That's great! It's a good job there are no bones of contention with regard to the withdrawal agreement then isn't it.CelticRambler wrote: »But we don't need to worry about temporary measures because we've got permanent redress through the Withdrawal Agreement, now in force and (in case you missed it) with a clock counting down until the EU takes legal action against the UK for breaching it.
We still elect MEPs; we still participate in all the EU institutions; we are still bound by all the EU treaties; EU courts have jurisdiction over ours; we still host the rotating presidency; the EU flag doesn't lose another star; we still contribute to the EU budget; we still vote on the budget; we still have access to EU grants; we still have access to the single market.CelticRambler wrote: »If we're not fully part of the Single Market - fully part of it - then we're not full members of the EU. You seem to be having real trouble getting your head around that.
Tell me again how that's Irexit in all but name....
Then I would suggest you don't understand the negotiating process.CelticRambler wrote: »Yes
This may well be one aspect of it but equally they realise that it is the only possible way they can have their cake and eat it.CelticRambler wrote: »Part of the fantasy that they'll be able to blame the EU for being Big Bad Bullies and not give them the cake they've been demanding.
Yep, and if so, then there will be no need for contingency plans.CelticRambler wrote: »They're already in a much weakened position without us doing anything as stupid as re-writing the EU's rules and taking Ireland out of the Single Market. They'll be "back" at the table (not that they've ever really been there in the first place) by the end of January, possibly with a hefty fine to pay for being thick eejits over their breach of the WA.
Or we could show them the contingency plan and get them back at the table sooner.
Again, you are conflating two different things.CelticRambler wrote: »Funny that: again, pure Brexit speech. Point to any border in the world where these problems have been surmounted. The Brexiters couldn't do it, and voted for the WA instead as the only realistic solution. If they've conceded the point, why can't you?
The Brexiters were saying that there would be no need for border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. I'm not saying that there will be no infrastructure to check Irish goods. I'm saying that a system can be worked to prioritise Irish goods at customs.0 -
And what will those interests be? A new trade deal with a weakened UK would certainly be in their interest.fly_agaric wrote: »I'm sure the US will look out for its own interests + is well able to.
You are conflating two different things here. Ireland becoming a special economic zone does not reward the UK.fly_agaric wrote: »However, you are sensitive to narrative, so you must see that the US signing + bringing into force a new trade agreement with the UK would be a very big deal and a major win for Boris Johnson/the Conservatives.
....
So yes, it would be a reward, given we are saying this all happens after UK has quite deliberately given a middle finger salute to all its former partners in the EU (incl. Ireland), who are US allies also.
Yep, and they will be very vocal about the EU putting border infrastructure on the island.fly_agaric wrote: »If Trump wins, and Republicans (who always support everything Trump does in lockstep) also have control of Congress it is far more likely the UK will get a trade deal whatever the state of relations with the EU.
The Senators who have spoken on this matter have made it clear that there would be no trade deal if the UK threatens the GFA.fly_agaric wrote: »If the other party wins out in the election, the UKs behaviour over last 4 years since the Brexit vote won't just be forgotten I think and replaced with your own/the Brexit supporter's narrative (the bad faith EU/Ireland connive to put up the NI border and thereby destroy the GFA etc.).
This is much bigger than Ireland/NI really + US "blame" for the bad situation between the UK/EU is going to be placed on the UK and I'm certain they will be the ones pressured to try and smooth things over.
If a hard border is the threat to the GFA, then it will be very hard to maintain our narrative that it is the UK who are threatening the GFA when it is ourselves who are putting up the hard border - complete with videos on the news of EU officials putting up a hard border.
It would be like an arsonist blaming the government (or anyone else) for the fact that they are going around setting things on fire - yes, that is an extreme example but hopefully it illustrates the point.
Then you might agree that the EU will want to avoid putting up border infrastructure?fly_agaric wrote: »I never said it wasn't a big deal. It is a big deal.
The UK can control the borders into Britain and leave the NI border open. The NI protocol was supposed to see the UK apply EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain and entering NI. They can still keep the border to Britain closed while not applying EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain.fly_agaric wrote: »My point was I don't believe the UK can keep the border fully "open" post hard Brexit any more than the EU (Ireland) can long term, whoever goes first and shoulders all the blame for the situation in your eyes.
The UK claim the contrary at the moment but their current leaders aren't exactly trustworthy anyway as shown by the last few years.
They will not have to put a hard border on the island. We will.0 -
Again, the narrative will be key here.
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.
Well see this is the thing.
The British narrative is irrelevant.
Their unhappiness about not having EU benefits while being a third country is irrelevant
The European and world media simply laugh at their government and belief in exceptionalism
At the end of the day, the Brits are afraid a hard border will bring back the IRA - who they could not defeat over several decades - even with FG collaborating with them
We must stop pretending their fake news to their own subjects is our problem0 -
And what will those interests be? A new trade deal with a weakened UK would certainly be in their interest.
The interests are the old fashioned cold war and post cold war ones the US has always had in Europe until the current president. The ones the UK has also been taking a hammer to with Brexit. I think the purely transactional approach that Trump takes towards all US allies (maybe he'd prefer the term "clients") is not quite universal across US politics. At least I'd hope not.You are conflating two different things here. Ireland becoming a special economic zone does not reward the UK.
Okay, perhaps I misunderstood your post or you mine but I meant a US trade deal would be a "reward" for the UK post Brexit. The UK will not agree to it if it does not provide any economic benefit. It may of course be one sided towards the US (getting far more benefit) but there will need to be something in it for UK too. Such an agreement could not have existed without Brexit as the UK trade policy was handled at the EU level.Yep, and they will be very vocal about the EU putting border infrastructure on the island.
So? Whatever we do will have little effect on how Trump/Republicans will approach this.The Senators who have spoken on this matter have made it clear that there would be no trade deal if the UK threatens the GFA.
If a hard border is the threat to the GFA, then it will be very hard to maintain our narrative that it is the UK who are threatening the GFA when it is ourselves who are putting up the hard border - complete with videos on the news of EU officials putting up a hard border.
It would be like an arsonist blaming the government (or anyone else) for the fact that they are going around setting things on fire - yes, that is an extreme example but hopefully it illustrates the point.
We're talking in circles and cannot agree whatever analogies you deploy. The UK approaching Brexit in the belligerent way it has is the threat. The border is just a logical consequence. I said before UK were pulling a leg out from under the structures maintaining a fiction that there is no partition in Ireland. The border is there already.The UK can control the borders into Britain and leave the NI border open. The NI protocol was supposed to see the UK apply EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain and entering NI. They can still keep the border to Britain closed while not applying EU customs rules to goods leaving Britain.
They will not have to put a hard border on the island. We will.
The whole claim from the UK is that the WA is terrible because it is establishing internal borders between NI and GB (i.e. within the UK). I think I read one of provisions of their new bill is that there can be no such new Customs checks between NI/GB (in the NI-GB direction).
As already explained to you, instituting such checks would also anger unionists in NI anyway (much more than checks placed at the Irish border I'd guess). So if smuggling via NI is damaging the UK economy I think I can predict where their checks will go narrative be damned.
That may leave them with the claim "well we didn't put up the border first so there", but that is it.0 -
Take a moment. Think about this. You're conflating two different things.
They have said that their Internal markets bill will hopefully not have to be used. I'm saying designating Ireland as special economic zone might never have to be used.
Yes, we might both be saying "It will hopefully never have to be used" but we're talking about two entirely different things.
"They" - Johnson-Cummings - have invented a solution to a problem that has been resolved, i.e. that of NI's status post Brexit; one which introduces new terms and conditions incompatible with current negotiations and future relationship of Ireland-Northern-Ireland and the EU.
You have invented a solution to a problem that has been resolved, that of NI's status post Brexit; one which introduces new terms and conditions incompatible with current negotiations and future relationship of Ireland-Northern-Ireland and the EU.
The only difference between your position and that of the Tories is that you seem to think there's a good reason to sacrifice Ireland's full and unencumbered membership of the EU to placate a bunch of British delinquents.
You haven't (yet) offered any properly thought-out mechanism by which your proposal can be put into practice in real life (another Brexiter trait); instead preferring to claim that "a system can be worked" to resolve the problem your new process has created.
And all this for what? To put pressure on the British? Well, they're under as much pressure as will ever be effective. Come 1st January, unless they sit down and start talking sense, they're locked out of the EU - all of them, Leavers, Remainers and Undecideds. We literally don't need to do anything else, because after 1st January, their only recourse is to ask (plead with) us to let them recover some of their membership benefits. First condition: no hard border on the island of Ireland.0 -
If you’re going to look at the logic of the situation you have to be, well, logical. And, logically, what the UK are saying here won’t stack up.Again, the UK are saying there alternatives to this:
1) Make concessions to the UK in negotiations.
2) Simply don't put up border infrastructure.
I don't blame the EU. I'm simply looking at the logic of the situation and leaving my disdain for Brexiters our of it.
The claim that one way to avoid a hard border is “simply don't put up border infrastructure” rests on the unstated premise that “hard border” = “border infrastructure”. But, logically, that’s indefensible. Any checks, controls, impediments, delays etc that affect traffic, goods, people moving across the border in either direction or both is a hardening of the border, whether or not it involves physical infrastructure at the border.
So, logically,for option 2 to have to work, we’d have to restate it as “simply don’t control movements across the border”.
But, sticking with logic, we also have to note that this is not really a runner. Without agreed arrangements that are effective to avoid the need for controls, simply not operating controls is illegal (for both governments), economically damaging and destabilising, and politically unacceptable (especially in the UK, where Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of the border, not abandoning control of the border). It’s not gonna happen. A few of the madder Brexiters claim that the UK will unilaterally operate no controls on its side, but (a) that wouldn’t avoid a hard border, and (b) the claim is in any event false; the UK must operate controls.
As for option 1, make concessions to the UK in negotiation, we know that doesn’t work to avoid a hard border, because we already did it, and it hasn’t worked. The EU made concessions to get the UK to enter into a treaty which would include measures designed to avoid the need for border controls. It appeared to work; the UK entered into the treaty. But now they’re repudiating the treaty, which gives rise to two observations:
(a) This is not behaviour calculated to encourage the EU to make concessions; rather the opposite.
(b) Even if we did make concessions, there’s no reason to think they would avoid a hard border, since the UK would presumably repudiate any future treaty as lightly as they repudiate the treaty they already have.
Logically, there are two fundamentals that can’t be logicked away:
First, you can’t avoid a hard border without agreed arrangements to avoid a hard border.
Secondly, you can’t have agreed arrangements if there isn’t a basic level of trust between the parties to the agreement; both parties must accept that, having made an agreement, they have to comply with it.
So I think that, whether you look at it from the UK side or the EU side, step 1 has to be damage repair; the UK has to take steps to re-establish itself as a credible treaty partner. And the EU has to make it possible for the UK to take those steps.
Re-establishing trust requires the UK to recommit to implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, in good faith, in full, in all circumstances. That, obviously, will be politically humiliating for Johnson but, on the plus side, he does have the capacity to survive a good deal of humiliation through a combination of bluster and shamelessness. The EU will need to make space to allow him to do this. There has to be something he can point to as a “victory” over the jackbooted unelected bureaucrats of Brussels.
The space is there. The UK can apply for, and will almost certainly easily obtain, approval for its food standards as a third country, thus laying to rest any concerns about GB food being excluded from NI on regulatory grounds. The Tory Papers can then run stories about how, in the face of stern British resolution, the EU has collapsed, caved and withdrawn its vile and cowardly threat of a blockade. And Johnson, the man of the moment, the hero of the hour, can then conclude an FTA which includes a clause recommitting the UK to implementation of the WA.0 -
Advertisement
-
The narrative, be it British or otherwise, is entirely relevant. If the narrative around a hard border were irrelevant then there would never have been a need for a backstop or an NI protocol in the first place.An Claidheamh wrote: »Well see this is the thing.
The British narrative is irrelevant.
Their unhappiness about not having EU benefits while being a third country is irrelevant
The European and world media simply laugh at their government and belief in exceptionalism
I think you might be overestimating how much the Brits care about NI, other than as it's use as a bargaining chip.An Claidheamh wrote: »At the end of the day, the Brits are afraid a hard border will bring back the IRA - who they could not defeat over several decades - even with FG collaborating with them
But of course, it won't be the Brits who are putting up border infrastructure and if the IRA attack the border infrastructure they will be attacking the EU and the ROI not the UK.0 -
Among their interests will be securing a trade agreement with the UK.fly_agaric wrote: »The interests are the old fashioned cold war and post cold war ones the US has always had in Europe until the current president. The ones the UK has also been taking a hammer to with Brexit. I think the purely transactional approach that Trump takes towards all US allies (maybe he'd prefer the term "clients") is not quite universal across US politics. At least I'd hope not.
They have left the EU and they will be getting this "reward" anyway. You were using it as an argument against the proposal put forward here. It isn't a valid argument.fly_agaric wrote: »Okay, perhaps I misunderstood your post or you mine but I meant a US trade deal would be a "reward" for the UK post Brexit. The UK will not agree to it if it does not provide any economic benefit. It may of course be one sided towards the US (getting far more benefit) but there will need to be something in it for UK too. Such an agreement could not have existed without Brexit as the UK trade policy was handled at the EU level.
Not putting up border infrastructure will very much have an effect on how Trump talks/tweets about the EU putting up border infrastructure.fly_agaric wrote: »So? Whatever we do will have little effect on how Trump/Republicans will approach this.
A hard border is not there already, however.fly_agaric wrote: »We're talking in circles and cannot agree whatever analogies you deploy. The UK approaching Brexit in the belligerent way it has is the threat. The border is just a logical consequence. I said before UK were pulling a leg out from under the structures maintaining a fiction that there is no partition in Ireland. The border is there already.
The analogy explains the argument in quite simplistic terms. If an arsonist goes around setting fires and the police are calling for the arsonist to stop setting fires the arsonists attempt to blame the police will be seen as clueless at best and a sign of mental illness at worst.
Similarly, if the EU are putting up a hard border on the island of Ireland and the UK government are calling on us not to put it up, then our claims that it is the UKs fault aren't going to hold much weight.
Again, I think you might be overestimating just how much the UK actually values NI's position in the union. It is nothing more than a bargaining chip to them. They will have their border in the Irish sea for goods entering Britain.fly_agaric wrote: »The whole claim from the UK is that the WA is terrible because it is establishing internal borders between NI and GB (i.e. within the UK). I think I read one of provisions of their new bill is that there can be no such new Customs checks between NI/GB (in the NI-GB direction).
As already explained to you, instituting such checks would also anger unionists in NI anyway (much more than checks placed at the Irish border I'd guess). So if smuggling via NI is damaging the UK economy I think I can predict where their checks will go narrative be damned.
That may leave them with the claim "well we didn't put up the border first so there", but that is it.
The whole point of the NI protocol however, is that they will apply EU customs rules to goods going the other way. They can protect the integrity of the market in Britain while not adhering the to the NI protocol, thereby threatening the integrity of the EU single market.
This is where the EU is forced to come along an put up a hard border on the island of Ireland - something we have said cannot be allowed to happen.0 -
This is the crux of the issue! The problem is only resolved if the UK uphold their end of the agreement. NEWSFLASH: They are threatening to not uphold their end of the agreement!CelticRambler wrote: »"They" - Johnson-Cummings - have invented a solution to a problem that has been resolved, i.e. that of NI's status post Brexit; one which introduces new terms and conditions incompatible with current negotiations and future relationship of Ireland-Northern-Ireland and the EU.
Therefore, there is a potentially new problem to be resolved.
See above.CelticRambler wrote: »You have invented a solution to a problem that has been resolved, that of NI's status post Brexit; one which introduces new terms and conditions incompatible with current negotiations and future relationship of Ireland-Northern-Ireland and the EU.
I've explained countless times at this stage how you are wrong on this point. Once again, however, it is not to placate the Brits, it's to show them that their new "clever" plan is dead before it ever gets started, without the need to have 6 months of a stand-off.CelticRambler wrote: »The only difference between your position and that of the Tories is that you seem to think there's a good reason to sacrifice Ireland's full and unencumbered membership of the EU to placate a bunch of British delinquents.
Well, if you'd read the OP instead of jumping to conclusions and launching straight into strawman arguments you would have seen that I was looking to explore the idea to see if it could work.CelticRambler wrote: »You haven't (yet) offered any properly thought-out mechanism by which your proposal can be put into practice in real life (another Brexiter trait); instead preferring to claim that "a system can be worked" to resolve the problem your new process has created.
I believe it works in principle.
We could let this stand-off play out and see how far the Brits are willing to push it while allowing Irish businesses to take the economic hit at a time when a global pandemic is already putting huge pressure on them. We could see how long the EU will give us before we are required to start putting up border infrastructure and hope that the UK backs down before this, when it's in their interests to hold out as long as possible. We could do that.CelticRambler wrote: »And all this for what? To put pressure on the British? Well, they're under as much pressure as will ever be effective. Come 1st January, unless they sit down and start talking sense, they're locked out of the EU - all of them, Leavers, Remainers and Undecideds. We literally don't need to do anything else, because after 1st January, their only recourse is to ask (plead with) us to let them recover some of their membership benefits. First condition: no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Or, we could start discussing a possible workaround that demonstrates to the Brits that their "clever" plan is dead in the water and try to get them to come back to the table before we have to go through all of that.0 -
Or, we could start discussing a possible workaround that demonstrates to the Brits that their "clever" plan is dead in the water and try to get them to come back to the table before we have to go through all of that.
You mean like has already started happening?
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1310115122283778049?s=20
Every time and i mean literally EVERY time the UK have tried some clever scheme to try to outfox or outwit the EU people like you have been on here saying we need to give in or start giving them what they want and again every time the EU haven't blinked and the UK have publicly and humiliatingly backed down.0 -
This post started off so promisingly.Peregrinus wrote: »If you’re going to look at the logic of the situation you have to be, well, logical.
The UK won't have to check goods coming into NI because they don't really care about NI and the integrity of the NI market is not critical. They can check goods entering Britain however. Hence, it will not the the UK who are hardening the border, it will be us.Peregrinus wrote: »The claim that one way to avoid a hard border is “simply don't put up border infrastructure” rests on the unstated premise that “hard border” = “border infrastructure”. But, logically, that’s indefensible. Any checks, controls, impediments, delays etc that affect traffic, goods, people moving across the border in either direction or both is a hardening of the border, whether or not it involves physical infrastructure at the border.
So, logically,for option 2 to have to work, we’d have to restate it as “simply don’t control movements across the border”.
You said you were sticking with logic but then you go on to say that not operating controls is illegal and you use this as a reason that "it's not gonna happen". The fact that the UK are threatening to break international law demonstrates that your point is a non-sequitir.Peregrinus wrote: »But, sticking with logic, we also have to note that this is not really a runner. Without agreed arrangements that are effective to avoid the need for controls, simply not operating controls is illegal (for both governments), economically damaging and destabilising, and politically unacceptable (especially in the UK, where Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of the border, not abandoning control of the border). It’s not gonna happen. A few of the madder Brexiters claim that the UK will unilaterally operate no controls on its side, but (a) that wouldn’t avoid a hard border, and (b) the claim is in any event false; the UK must operate controls.
With regard to your points (a) and (b) above: the UK can unilaterlly operate no border controls ON THE ISLAND OF IRELAND. They can however, operate controls for goods entering Britian i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales.
You are correct with (a), that will not avoid a hard border......but here's the kicker.....it will be the EU putting up a hard border and not the UK.
With regard to (b), this article suggests that they won't have to do customs checks on the island of Ireland.
The UK prerogative is to get the best possible deal they can for the UK. They are playing their only real hand. Clearly the Tories did what they needed to do to progress Brexit and get a majority in the commons. We thought we had the upper hand in the negotiations (and ultimately we do) but the Brits are playing the one chip that they have to play.Peregrinus wrote: »As for option 1, make concessions to the UK in negotiation, we know that doesn’t work to avoid a hard border, because we already did it, and it hasn’t worked. The EU made concessions to get the UK to enter into a treaty which would include measures designed to avoid the need for border controls. It appeared to work; the UK entered into the treaty. But now they’re repudiating the treaty, which gives rise to two observations:
They're not trying to "encourage" the EU, they're treating it (as they have from the beginning) as a hostile negotiation. They are trying to use our position - no hard border - against us.Peregrinus wrote: »(a) This is not behaviour calculated to encourage the EU to make concessions; rather the opposite.
The logic of this it that there's no point in doing any trade deal with them whatsoever and we should walk away from the negotations.Peregrinus wrote: »(b) Even if we did make concessions, there’s no reason to think they would avoid a hard border, since the UK would presumably repudiate any future treaty as lightly as they repudiate the treaty they already have.
They will of course say that they only want a fairer deal and that they will honour any fair agreement.
Again, it will be us who is putting up the hard border and not the UK.Peregrinus wrote: »Logically, there are two fundamentals that can’t be logicked away:
First, you can’t avoid a hard border without agreed arrangements to avoid a hard border.
And their argument is that, if a hard border has been an option all along, then how can they trust us?Peregrinus wrote: »Secondly, you can’t have agreed arrangements if there isn’t a basic level of trust between the parties to the agreement; both parties must accept that, having made an agreement, they have to comply with it.
Or, we can treat it as a hostile negotiation as the UK are trying to do and we can show them a plan which lets them know that their plan is dead in the water.Peregrinus wrote: »So I think that, whether you look at it from the UK side or the EU side, step 1 has to be damage repair; the UK has to take steps to re-establish itself as a credible treaty partner. And the EU has to make it possible for the UK to take those steps.0 -
Every time and i mean literally EVERY time the UK have tried some clever scheme to try to outfox or outwit the EU people like you have been on here saying we need to give in or start giving them what they want and again every time the EU haven't blinked and the UK have publicly and humiliatingly backed down.
You clearly have not understood a single thing in this thread!0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,269 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16299
]Except what you're talking about is exactly implementing what the deal is which is NI in a separate legislation with separate checks. Why bother doing this instead of simply following the deal you agreed to in the first place? You'll cause the same unrest in NI by implementing a border check; the only difference is the location of it.The UK won't have to check goods coming into NI because they don't really care about NI and the integrity of the NI market is not critical. They can check goods entering Britain however. Hence, it will not the the UK who are hardening the border, it will be us.
You have yourself added border controls though; so now you expect them to do first break an international agreed treaty only to do the same thing they decided to break? I mean I know we don't have high regard to Brexiteers thinking but you're taking it to a whole new level here.You said you were sticking with logic but then you go on to say that not operating controls is illegal and you use this as a reason that "it's not gonna happen". The fact that the UK are threatening to break international law demonstrates that your point is a non-sequitir.
And it makes no flipping difference if they operate them in the UK because they still break the GFA and break an second international agreement.With regard to your points (a) and (b) above: the UK can unilaterlly operate no border controls ON THE ISLAND OF IRELAND. They can however, operate controls for goods entering Britian i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales.
You can keep repeating it until you're out of breath; the problem is you and brexiteers are about the only once who actually believe that's the case. The rest of the world see's UK breaking an agreement they signed a year earlier forcing EU to put up a hard border.You are correct with (a), that will not avoid a hard border......but here's the kicker.....it will be the EU putting up a hard border and not the UK.
Along with the fisheries etc. and once again nothing new here. When Boris comes knocking asking about making a deal after all EU will simply point to NI and say fix it and we'll consider it. Same way they will with fish etc.They're not trying to "encourage" the EU, they're treating it (as they have from the beginning) as a hostile negotiation. They are trying to use our position - no hard border - against us.
Why give your enemy what they want? Boris wants EU to walk away to ensure he can continue blaming EU; if EU remain there saying we'll be here ready go to talk but before that fix the deal we already agreed to let us proceed they pull the wind from Boris sails.The logic of this it that there's no point in doing any trade deal with them whatsoever and we should walk away from the negotations.
They already know their plan is dead in water, as was the previous more cunning then a fox from the university of cunningham plans were as well. That has however never stopped Brexiteers thinking they will somehow work. Instead EU will keep acting as an adult in the room, state fix the previous deal and we'll talk while simply smiling and waiting as the Brexiteers gets more and more desperate as they realize EU is not budging after all.Or, we can treat it as a hostile negotiation as the UK are trying to do and we can show them a plan which lets them know that their plan is dead in the water.0 -
With regard to your points (a) and (b) above: the UK can unilaterlly operate no border controls ON THE ISLAND OF IRELAND. They can however, operate controls for goods entering Britian i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales.
You are correct with (a), that will not avoid a hard border......but here's the kicker.....it will be the EU putting up a hard border and not the UK.
At the current time, NI is part of the UK. If the UK does not enforce border controls for imports into NI (UK) from the EU (Ireland) then according to WTO rules every other country in the world can send whatever it wants to any part of the UK without checks.0 -
I was looking to explore the idea to see if it could work.
I believe it works in principle.You clearly have not understood a single thing in this thread!
If you have to refute so many arguments from so many other posters with the assertion that those contributors haven't understood a single thing, then maybe your idea is either not properly thought out, or it's inherently incomprehensible?0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement