Thread by @t0nyyates

I was going to write a recap thread on the impossible trinity of no border between RoI/NI, no border between NI/GB and leaving the single market, but I just got fresh chilli in my eye so you are spared.

Right. So probably the fundamental cause of the problem is that trade is mostly good; trade is easier with those close by. And nations have commitment problems.

This leads - following a very bumpy road - to the set up of the WTO and its legal structures. Facilitating nations, often close by each other, signing FTAs, and providing some kind of rule based structure to enforce them.

In that context you get the Mother of all FTAs, the EU's single market. Almost entirely free trade across the EU. Not a coincidence that his happens, because the proximity of countries means the potential gains from trade are very large [as they proved to be].

Not surprisingly, the UK and Ireland want to be in it. Not only because the trade it brings is good, but because it helps permit multiple parallel identities of unionists and nationalists to coexist in Northern Ireland, greatly de-escalating the conflict there.

These identities are permitted by the absence of physical borders, partly. An absence catalysed by the needs of the single market, and the absence of need for military security on both borders as the conflict subsides.

The driving force 'trade is good' could have lead to entirely synchronous, global agreements to reduce trade. But it didn't. It produced Free Trade Agreements between small groups of nations, instead. This is not by chance.

The imperative for trade is much greater between some nations - usually those close by- than others. And the more sovereign entities you include in a discussion, the more likely one of them will veto something. [They being allowed to veto being what defines them as sovereign].

So you get faster lowering of trade barriers between some groups than others. And to make this work and stick, the agreements have to police their collective borders. [This is crucial, because it bears on the current UK/EU dispute].

If you don't police your borders, one member of the agreement can cheat by acting as a conduit for produce that does not meet the agreed common standards, presumably gaining something for itself.

If that happens, you also lose your leverage as a collective if you attempt to sign an agreement with another grouping.

So 'trade is good' creates the context for the current bind the UK, EU and Ireland find itself in. The single market, which has to be policed, the agreement to have no borders between GB/NI and RoI/NI...

Of course Brexit itself seems to confound the attempt to explain all of this with the homily 'trade is good'.

Much ink has been spilled on this. Obvs there are more forces at work. But part of it was some mendacity by the Brexiteers: 'if we leave, the trade will be good!' And part of it was perhaps sincere misapprehension that leaving would be good for trade.

Reminder: leaving will be bad for trade because it means customs and regulatory borders with our nearest and largest partner, that won't be made up for by new agreements.

1) because those agreements won't be as deep and barrier reducing as the single market [the loss of sovereignty they require after all being an obstacle for us] and 2) the other countries are too far away, or too small, or both.

Note that the illusory uplands of trade - outside the single market - would not exist if the imperatives for reducing trade barriers were not so uneven. It's the trade gravity in Europe that creates the illusion of missing trade outside it for the Brexiteers.

So the misapprehension - or the lie - about the benefits of trade generate the necessity to leave the single market; but the actual benefits of it, both for Northern Ireland's politics historically, and for EU members, ensure the single market's continued existence and policing.

If you are an optimist, you'll beieve that because the misapprehensions and lies can't be sustained forever, that the problem will ease as we slowly make our way back into the single market.

Ireland is not going to leave it. The SM itself is not going to be dismantled. The rest of the world is not going to join it.

Why not? Because trade is [mostly] good, but its benefits depend a lot on proximity, so the imperative to exploit the benefits and overcome the political and sectional obstacles exist unevenly.