Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a proposed Irish backstop?











up vote
34
down vote

favorite
1












As I understand, one of the sticking points in the Brexit negotiations has been Britain's level of obligation to a proposed customs union backstop.



I understand also that this is essentially a transitional arrangement to keep the entirety of the UK in a de-facto customs union and single market, to avoid either the physical division of Ireland or the political division of the United Kingdom (the clue being in the name).



What I don't think I fully appreciate is why the EU objects to the UK having the power to walk away from a backstop before a new arrangement is found. Is the reason economic - because it creates uncertainty? Is the reason diplomatic - because it undermines the EU's position in the subsequent talks? Or is there another subtlety I haven't grasped?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 5




    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
    – Philipp
    2 days ago










  • Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
    – Ed999
    37 mins ago















up vote
34
down vote

favorite
1












As I understand, one of the sticking points in the Brexit negotiations has been Britain's level of obligation to a proposed customs union backstop.



I understand also that this is essentially a transitional arrangement to keep the entirety of the UK in a de-facto customs union and single market, to avoid either the physical division of Ireland or the political division of the United Kingdom (the clue being in the name).



What I don't think I fully appreciate is why the EU objects to the UK having the power to walk away from a backstop before a new arrangement is found. Is the reason economic - because it creates uncertainty? Is the reason diplomatic - because it undermines the EU's position in the subsequent talks? Or is there another subtlety I haven't grasped?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 5




    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
    – Philipp
    2 days ago










  • Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
    – Ed999
    37 mins ago













up vote
34
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
34
down vote

favorite
1






1





As I understand, one of the sticking points in the Brexit negotiations has been Britain's level of obligation to a proposed customs union backstop.



I understand also that this is essentially a transitional arrangement to keep the entirety of the UK in a de-facto customs union and single market, to avoid either the physical division of Ireland or the political division of the United Kingdom (the clue being in the name).



What I don't think I fully appreciate is why the EU objects to the UK having the power to walk away from a backstop before a new arrangement is found. Is the reason economic - because it creates uncertainty? Is the reason diplomatic - because it undermines the EU's position in the subsequent talks? Or is there another subtlety I haven't grasped?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











As I understand, one of the sticking points in the Brexit negotiations has been Britain's level of obligation to a proposed customs union backstop.



I understand also that this is essentially a transitional arrangement to keep the entirety of the UK in a de-facto customs union and single market, to avoid either the physical division of Ireland or the political division of the United Kingdom (the clue being in the name).



What I don't think I fully appreciate is why the EU objects to the UK having the power to walk away from a backstop before a new arrangement is found. Is the reason economic - because it creates uncertainty? Is the reason diplomatic - because it undermines the EU's position in the subsequent talks? Or is there another subtlety I haven't grasped?







united-kingdom european-union brexit treaty






share|improve this question







New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Nov 14 at 11:52









Jimmy Breck-McKye

27125




27125




New contributor




Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 5




    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
    – Philipp
    2 days ago










  • Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
    – Ed999
    37 mins ago














  • 5




    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
    – Philipp
    2 days ago










  • Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
    – Ed999
    37 mins ago








5




5




Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
– Philipp
2 days ago




Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer.
– Philipp
2 days ago












Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
– Ed999
37 mins ago




Your question implies that a new arrangement is certain to be agreed. Would you like to modify your question, to clarify the possibility (some would say likelihood) that no such arrangement ever emerges, or in light of the fact that it took Canada sixteen years to negotiate such an arrangement? No doubt it would suit Teresa May to kick the problem into the long grass, but her political enemies will not want to wait so long to be rid of her.
– Ed999
37 mins ago










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
57
down vote













The EU is acting in the interests of the remaining 27 members. In this case it is specifically acting in the interests and on the instructions of the Republic of Ireland, which opposes a hard border under any circumstances.



The Republic of Ireland, and so the EU, are opposed to the UK having the ability to unilaterally exit the backstop as it removes any power they (IRE & EU) have to ensure that a hard border is avoided.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 15




    In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
    – alephzero
    Nov 14 at 22:08








  • 86




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    Nov 14 at 23:23






  • 32




    @JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
    – WS2
    Nov 15 at 0:22








  • 11




    @JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:26






  • 56




    @alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:30




















up vote
40
down vote













What's so important about the border? It's because dividing Ireland means an open invitation for a civil war again. The Troubles may or may not materialize again, but everybody would rather play it safe than find out.



EU doesn't want that. UK can't really be trusted they won't break the agreement that ended The Troubles, because some of the factions in power in UK act like they don't care about peace in Ireland.



Tying the backstop to the rest of the deal means that the deal is held hostage by the backstop. It basically sours the pot for the UK in case they consider bringing civil war back to Ireland. That's what makes it so attractive for Ireland, EU, and some in UK. Without the connection, UK could bring hard border back and retain eg. ability to import medicines from EU. With the connection, UK gets hit twice: once with risk inherent to hard border and secondly, with cutting down economic ties to EU (what makes the risk of eventual civil war even costlier, eg. without medicines to patch up SAS soldiers wounded in NI firefights).



Assuming that UK doesn't actually want hard border, they objectively lose nothing. The only thing they lose is face, because voters view it as giving up some options. And that's way more than it sounds, because the whole Brexit is about giving UK some options.






share|improve this answer

















  • 36




    My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
    – Agent_L
    Nov 14 at 16:10












  • Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 25




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
    – Agent_L
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago












  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
    – Araucaria
    2 days ago




















up vote
31
down vote













If either party can walk away unilaterally from part of an agreement, then what use is the negotiation in the first place? In this instance if the UK walks away from the backstop proposals unilaterally, this means there would not be a replacement agreement to deal with the issue of the Irish Border and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), because by definition if there was such an agreement it would be bilateral.



The EU is concerned that allowing the UK to unilaterally change a part of the deal leaves the island of Ireland in a constant limbo with no clear picture of what state the border will be in next year, or potentially next week. Any change to conditions on the Irish Border risk the GFA and if done unilaterally would lead to a chaotic situation where it would be unclear under what principals goods and/or people could move across the NI/Eire border.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
    – Jontia
    2 days ago










  • The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago










  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
    – DoctorDestructo
    2 days ago






  • 17




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
    – amalloy
    2 days ago




















up vote
13
down vote














Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a backstop




I don't think that is an accurate description of the issue.



Backstop



UK Pro-Brexit MPs want a backstop to have a time limit or clear exit route. This is because they believe that locking the UK into the EU's customs union indefinitely would mean the UK could not have a meaningful independent trade policy.



The Irish government assert that the backstop cannot have an arbitrary end point but must apply unless and until some other political or technical development means it is no longer needed.



(paraphrased from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404 - my emphasis)



Hard Borders



The UK government has said it does not want a hard border in the island of Ireland, so there is general agreement in the whole of the EU on that fundamental point. So far as I know, no major UK political party has proposed a hard border in the island of Ireland.



The BBC report




There is widespread agreement among UK politicians that there should be no return to what they call a hard border and that the Common Travel Area (CTA) should be maintained after Brexit.




Keeping agreements



The issue isn't whether the current or future UK government can be trusted to keep agreements it or it's predecessors have made.



If you don't trust someone to keep an agreement, you generally don't solve the trust issue by negotiating another agreement with them.



The point is to make sure that any agreement clearly and unambiguously meets the concerns of all parties to that agreement.



Unilateral withdrawal



So far as I know, governments only unilaterally withdraw from an agreement if the agreement provides for them to do so (but see Vienna convention below). For example article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which an EU member state can arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraw from the union. It says "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"



So far as I can discern, the main pro-Brexit viewpoint is not that there should be a unilateral withdrawal clause to the backstop but that there should be a clause which describes the pre-agreed circumstances under which the backstop would become no longer needed to meet UK or IE concerns (e.g. perhaps a clear definition meeting the "some other political or technical development" of the Irish government's position).



The Irish Times puts it thus:




The breakthrough came with an agreement on a review mechanism that would determine when the backstop is no longer necessary to ensure that the Border remains open after Brexit.



The backstop is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland. It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK cannot reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.




Vienna convention




The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed.







share|improve this answer























  • The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
    – Peter Green
    yesterday










  • @PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday












  • The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
    – Ed999
    53 mins ago


















up vote
6
down vote













All parties want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but the problem is that the UK also wants to be free to trade with anyone they want, even if that trade violates EU rules.



If the EU agreed to allow the UK to do this, and also allowed for there to be no hard border in Ireland, it would end up compromising the EU borders. The UK would be free to import goods from anywhere in the world, and then export those goods to the EU. The UK would essentially become a backdoor into the EU. It's pretty obvious that they cannot allow this situation to happen.



The UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want to both be part of the EU (no hard border in Ireland), and not part of the EU (free to make their own trade rules). These two aims are in direct opposition.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    +1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
    – Ed999
    48 mins ago


















up vote
4
down vote













The UK's unwritten constitution has the provision that current parliament cannot tie the hands of future ones in most cases. Therefore any promises made by the current government regarding the Irish border can only be enforced by international treaty, not merely by UK law (which can be repealed/amended unilaterally by future governments).






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago










  • Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday


















up vote
3
down vote













Many important points have already been made but one thing missing is that the backstop is emphatically not a transitional agreement. It's a fallback position if at some point in the future the arrangements between the UK and the EU fail to guarantee a border without physical infrastructure. It would not come into force in March 2019 when UK-Irish trade is still covered by the so-called “transition period” rules. In fact, it's not supposed to ever come into force, if you believe the claims that it should be possible to agree to some trade agreement that would deal with the border issue before the end of the transition period.






share|improve this answer























  • But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago


















up vote
2
down vote













The EU is simply insisting that the UK stick to other commitments that it has made to EU members, in this case the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. That agreement can only be modified with the consent of the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the former of whom didn’t vote on Brexit and the latter of whom voted against it. If the Brexiters want a looser relationship with the EU while keeping the UK intact, then democracy requires that they convince those voters, not just the voters of England and Wales. Since they haven’t done so, then the UK must stay aligned with the EU in many ways to enable the border to stay open.






share|improve this answer





















  • I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago


















up vote
-1
down vote













It is an open question whether the Irish Republic can remain in the EU, when the UK is not in it.



In the 1970s, the Republic found it necessary to follow the UK into the EEC, on January 1st, 1973. The UK is the Republic's most important trading partner, and the Republic and the UK had a common currency until 1979.



Now the Irish border is a concern, and the only possible solution is not to have one. But this means the Irish government may have to bow to the necessities of history and follow the UK out. One out, all out.



The Irish Free State must once again become free.



.



Addendum:



The Republic and the UK are both committed to the Good Friday Agreement, whereby there is no 'hard' border, i.e. no physical checkpoints.



One method of achieving this is for the EU to be removed from the equation, so that the UK and the Republic can resolve the matter bi-laterally. This requires the Dublin government to make a bold move, and leave the EU.



There is no disagreement between London and Dublin; the Good Friday Agreement has been long in effect. The EU is now part of the problem, and so the next move is up to Dublin. But so far they have not yet recognised the changed political and economic situation they find themselves in.



The EU is unhappy about this possibility: all of its manoeuvering is designed to edge the situation away from this, mainly by seeking to control the UK's actions in perpetuity, by locking the UK into an agreement with no exit provisions, in which true control of the border will be handled (permanently) by Brussels.



The security situation in Ireland can only work if the Republic and Northern Ireland are both on the same side, and that includes the same side of the Brexit arrangements. It only works if both states are in the Eu, or both are out of the EU. It won't work with interference from Brussels: there is no squaring the circle if the EU is free to impose its arbitrary rules, full of conditions that simply can't be met.



An end to EU interference in the problem is a sine qua non of future progress.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday










  • But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35347%2fwhy-is-the-eu-concerned-about-the-uk-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-a-proposed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes








9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
57
down vote













The EU is acting in the interests of the remaining 27 members. In this case it is specifically acting in the interests and on the instructions of the Republic of Ireland, which opposes a hard border under any circumstances.



The Republic of Ireland, and so the EU, are opposed to the UK having the ability to unilaterally exit the backstop as it removes any power they (IRE & EU) have to ensure that a hard border is avoided.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 15




    In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
    – alephzero
    Nov 14 at 22:08








  • 86




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    Nov 14 at 23:23






  • 32




    @JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
    – WS2
    Nov 15 at 0:22








  • 11




    @JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:26






  • 56




    @alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:30

















up vote
57
down vote













The EU is acting in the interests of the remaining 27 members. In this case it is specifically acting in the interests and on the instructions of the Republic of Ireland, which opposes a hard border under any circumstances.



The Republic of Ireland, and so the EU, are opposed to the UK having the ability to unilaterally exit the backstop as it removes any power they (IRE & EU) have to ensure that a hard border is avoided.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 15




    In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
    – alephzero
    Nov 14 at 22:08








  • 86




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    Nov 14 at 23:23






  • 32




    @JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
    – WS2
    Nov 15 at 0:22








  • 11




    @JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:26






  • 56




    @alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:30















up vote
57
down vote










up vote
57
down vote









The EU is acting in the interests of the remaining 27 members. In this case it is specifically acting in the interests and on the instructions of the Republic of Ireland, which opposes a hard border under any circumstances.



The Republic of Ireland, and so the EU, are opposed to the UK having the ability to unilaterally exit the backstop as it removes any power they (IRE & EU) have to ensure that a hard border is avoided.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









The EU is acting in the interests of the remaining 27 members. In this case it is specifically acting in the interests and on the instructions of the Republic of Ireland, which opposes a hard border under any circumstances.



The Republic of Ireland, and so the EU, are opposed to the UK having the ability to unilaterally exit the backstop as it removes any power they (IRE & EU) have to ensure that a hard border is avoided.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered Nov 14 at 13:58









stuart10

60114




60114




New contributor




stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






stuart10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 15




    In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
    – alephzero
    Nov 14 at 22:08








  • 86




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    Nov 14 at 23:23






  • 32




    @JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
    – WS2
    Nov 15 at 0:22








  • 11




    @JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:26






  • 56




    @alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:30
















  • 15




    In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
    – alephzero
    Nov 14 at 22:08








  • 86




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    Nov 14 at 23:23






  • 32




    @JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
    – WS2
    Nov 15 at 0:22








  • 11




    @JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:26






  • 56




    @alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
    – Schwern
    Nov 15 at 0:30










15




15




In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
– alephzero
Nov 14 at 22:08






In other words, the EU hasn't yet got its collective head around the fact that the hypothetical fluff they put in the treaty about "a member leaving the EU" actually wasn't hypothetical at all, and they are desperately trying to set up a scenario where "leaving" doesn't actually mean "leaving."
– alephzero
Nov 14 at 22:08






86




86




@alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
– Harry Johnston
Nov 14 at 23:23




@alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
– Harry Johnston
Nov 14 at 23:23




32




32




@JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
– WS2
Nov 15 at 0:22






@JamesMoore But it is perfectly normal, and in everyday currency,to use the term "Republic of Ireland", so as to distinguish that sovereign territory from Northern Ireland, and to be clear that one is not speaking of the island of Ireland as a whole. In the same way it used to be accepted, for clarity's sake to speak of East Germany and West Germany, even though they were not the names of the countries concerned. Similarly it is the case still with North Korea and South Korea - they are not their official names.
– WS2
Nov 15 at 0:22






11




11




@JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
– Schwern
Nov 15 at 0:26




@JamesMoore It's officially ok to refer to it as the Republic Of Ireland. And unofficially it makes this answer less confusing to make a clear distinction between the Republic Of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the island of Ireland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
– Schwern
Nov 15 at 0:26




56




56




@alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
– Schwern
Nov 15 at 0:30






@alephzero A hard border would violate one of the key tenants of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles and has saved hundreds of lives. The EU is protecting its members, that's what a union is for. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
– Schwern
Nov 15 at 0:30












up vote
40
down vote













What's so important about the border? It's because dividing Ireland means an open invitation for a civil war again. The Troubles may or may not materialize again, but everybody would rather play it safe than find out.



EU doesn't want that. UK can't really be trusted they won't break the agreement that ended The Troubles, because some of the factions in power in UK act like they don't care about peace in Ireland.



Tying the backstop to the rest of the deal means that the deal is held hostage by the backstop. It basically sours the pot for the UK in case they consider bringing civil war back to Ireland. That's what makes it so attractive for Ireland, EU, and some in UK. Without the connection, UK could bring hard border back and retain eg. ability to import medicines from EU. With the connection, UK gets hit twice: once with risk inherent to hard border and secondly, with cutting down economic ties to EU (what makes the risk of eventual civil war even costlier, eg. without medicines to patch up SAS soldiers wounded in NI firefights).



Assuming that UK doesn't actually want hard border, they objectively lose nothing. The only thing they lose is face, because voters view it as giving up some options. And that's way more than it sounds, because the whole Brexit is about giving UK some options.






share|improve this answer

















  • 36




    My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
    – Agent_L
    Nov 14 at 16:10












  • Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 25




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
    – Agent_L
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago












  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
    – Araucaria
    2 days ago

















up vote
40
down vote













What's so important about the border? It's because dividing Ireland means an open invitation for a civil war again. The Troubles may or may not materialize again, but everybody would rather play it safe than find out.



EU doesn't want that. UK can't really be trusted they won't break the agreement that ended The Troubles, because some of the factions in power in UK act like they don't care about peace in Ireland.



Tying the backstop to the rest of the deal means that the deal is held hostage by the backstop. It basically sours the pot for the UK in case they consider bringing civil war back to Ireland. That's what makes it so attractive for Ireland, EU, and some in UK. Without the connection, UK could bring hard border back and retain eg. ability to import medicines from EU. With the connection, UK gets hit twice: once with risk inherent to hard border and secondly, with cutting down economic ties to EU (what makes the risk of eventual civil war even costlier, eg. without medicines to patch up SAS soldiers wounded in NI firefights).



Assuming that UK doesn't actually want hard border, they objectively lose nothing. The only thing they lose is face, because voters view it as giving up some options. And that's way more than it sounds, because the whole Brexit is about giving UK some options.






share|improve this answer

















  • 36




    My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
    – Agent_L
    Nov 14 at 16:10












  • Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 25




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
    – Agent_L
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago












  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
    – Araucaria
    2 days ago















up vote
40
down vote










up vote
40
down vote









What's so important about the border? It's because dividing Ireland means an open invitation for a civil war again. The Troubles may or may not materialize again, but everybody would rather play it safe than find out.



EU doesn't want that. UK can't really be trusted they won't break the agreement that ended The Troubles, because some of the factions in power in UK act like they don't care about peace in Ireland.



Tying the backstop to the rest of the deal means that the deal is held hostage by the backstop. It basically sours the pot for the UK in case they consider bringing civil war back to Ireland. That's what makes it so attractive for Ireland, EU, and some in UK. Without the connection, UK could bring hard border back and retain eg. ability to import medicines from EU. With the connection, UK gets hit twice: once with risk inherent to hard border and secondly, with cutting down economic ties to EU (what makes the risk of eventual civil war even costlier, eg. without medicines to patch up SAS soldiers wounded in NI firefights).



Assuming that UK doesn't actually want hard border, they objectively lose nothing. The only thing they lose is face, because voters view it as giving up some options. And that's way more than it sounds, because the whole Brexit is about giving UK some options.






share|improve this answer












What's so important about the border? It's because dividing Ireland means an open invitation for a civil war again. The Troubles may or may not materialize again, but everybody would rather play it safe than find out.



EU doesn't want that. UK can't really be trusted they won't break the agreement that ended The Troubles, because some of the factions in power in UK act like they don't care about peace in Ireland.



Tying the backstop to the rest of the deal means that the deal is held hostage by the backstop. It basically sours the pot for the UK in case they consider bringing civil war back to Ireland. That's what makes it so attractive for Ireland, EU, and some in UK. Without the connection, UK could bring hard border back and retain eg. ability to import medicines from EU. With the connection, UK gets hit twice: once with risk inherent to hard border and secondly, with cutting down economic ties to EU (what makes the risk of eventual civil war even costlier, eg. without medicines to patch up SAS soldiers wounded in NI firefights).



Assuming that UK doesn't actually want hard border, they objectively lose nothing. The only thing they lose is face, because voters view it as giving up some options. And that's way more than it sounds, because the whole Brexit is about giving UK some options.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 14 at 15:55









Agent_L

69729




69729








  • 36




    My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
    – Agent_L
    Nov 14 at 16:10












  • Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 25




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
    – Agent_L
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago












  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
    – Araucaria
    2 days ago
















  • 36




    My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
    – Agent_L
    Nov 14 at 16:10












  • Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 25




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
    – Agent_L
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago












  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
    – Araucaria
    2 days ago










36




36




My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
– Agent_L
Nov 14 at 16:10






My personal opinion is that keeping the status quo of NI is possible only when both UK and Éire are parts of one, bigger thing. This way Republicans can act like they're in Éire, Unionists can act like they're in UK and everybody's happy. The very idea of Brexit is against peace in NI. UK government has demonstrated irresponsibility in this matter by allowing the referendum, they've played "all in" being sure to win - and lost. Twice, if one counts the extra elections. Now, nobody can trust UK to do the right thing, and this makes negotiations harder.
– Agent_L
Nov 14 at 16:10














Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago




Hard to imagine describing NI/Ireland troubles resurgence as "a civil war" when they are already divided i.e. not the same state
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago




25




25




@LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
– Agent_L
2 days ago




@LightnessRacesinOrbit The Troubles happened inside Northern Ireland. It's "NI people who want to join Republic" vs "NI people who want to remain in UK". Dublin is not a side in this conflict. Hence I used the term "civil war". The "civil" part is unquestionable, although I exaggerated the "war" part.
– Agent_L
2 days ago




4




4




Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago






Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago














@LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
– Araucaria
2 days ago






@LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK.
– Araucaria
2 days ago












up vote
31
down vote













If either party can walk away unilaterally from part of an agreement, then what use is the negotiation in the first place? In this instance if the UK walks away from the backstop proposals unilaterally, this means there would not be a replacement agreement to deal with the issue of the Irish Border and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), because by definition if there was such an agreement it would be bilateral.



The EU is concerned that allowing the UK to unilaterally change a part of the deal leaves the island of Ireland in a constant limbo with no clear picture of what state the border will be in next year, or potentially next week. Any change to conditions on the Irish Border risk the GFA and if done unilaterally would lead to a chaotic situation where it would be unclear under what principals goods and/or people could move across the NI/Eire border.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
    – Jontia
    2 days ago










  • The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago










  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
    – DoctorDestructo
    2 days ago






  • 17




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
    – amalloy
    2 days ago

















up vote
31
down vote













If either party can walk away unilaterally from part of an agreement, then what use is the negotiation in the first place? In this instance if the UK walks away from the backstop proposals unilaterally, this means there would not be a replacement agreement to deal with the issue of the Irish Border and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), because by definition if there was such an agreement it would be bilateral.



The EU is concerned that allowing the UK to unilaterally change a part of the deal leaves the island of Ireland in a constant limbo with no clear picture of what state the border will be in next year, or potentially next week. Any change to conditions on the Irish Border risk the GFA and if done unilaterally would lead to a chaotic situation where it would be unclear under what principals goods and/or people could move across the NI/Eire border.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
    – Jontia
    2 days ago










  • The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago










  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
    – DoctorDestructo
    2 days ago






  • 17




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
    – amalloy
    2 days ago















up vote
31
down vote










up vote
31
down vote









If either party can walk away unilaterally from part of an agreement, then what use is the negotiation in the first place? In this instance if the UK walks away from the backstop proposals unilaterally, this means there would not be a replacement agreement to deal with the issue of the Irish Border and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), because by definition if there was such an agreement it would be bilateral.



The EU is concerned that allowing the UK to unilaterally change a part of the deal leaves the island of Ireland in a constant limbo with no clear picture of what state the border will be in next year, or potentially next week. Any change to conditions on the Irish Border risk the GFA and if done unilaterally would lead to a chaotic situation where it would be unclear under what principals goods and/or people could move across the NI/Eire border.






share|improve this answer












If either party can walk away unilaterally from part of an agreement, then what use is the negotiation in the first place? In this instance if the UK walks away from the backstop proposals unilaterally, this means there would not be a replacement agreement to deal with the issue of the Irish Border and the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), because by definition if there was such an agreement it would be bilateral.



The EU is concerned that allowing the UK to unilaterally change a part of the deal leaves the island of Ireland in a constant limbo with no clear picture of what state the border will be in next year, or potentially next week. Any change to conditions on the Irish Border risk the GFA and if done unilaterally would lead to a chaotic situation where it would be unclear under what principals goods and/or people could move across the NI/Eire border.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 14 at 13:00









Jontia

2,2501320




2,2501320








  • 1




    Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
    – Jontia
    2 days ago










  • The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago










  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
    – DoctorDestructo
    2 days ago






  • 17




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
    – amalloy
    2 days ago
















  • 1




    Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
    – Jontia
    2 days ago










  • The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    2 days ago










  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
    – DoctorDestructo
    2 days ago






  • 17




    @LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
    – amalloy
    2 days ago










1




1




Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago




Not sure what the risk is "next week"?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago




3




3




@LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
– Jontia
2 days ago




@LightnessRacesinOrbit it means that you can't predict what the situation will be even over a short period of time.
– Jontia
2 days ago












The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago




The UK is in the EU until next year no matter what
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago












@LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
– DoctorDestructo
2 days ago




@LightnessRacesinOrbit And regardless, borders are between states, not in them.
– DoctorDestructo
2 days ago




17




17




@LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
– amalloy
2 days ago






@LightnessRacesinOrbit The statement is phrased from a future point of view, not necessarily right his instant. "Next week" doesn't mean "the week of November 19th", but rather "at some point in the future, after Brexit has occurred, it would be impossible to predict the situation a week in advance, because the UK is allowed to walk away from the agreement on a whim."
– amalloy
2 days ago












up vote
13
down vote














Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a backstop




I don't think that is an accurate description of the issue.



Backstop



UK Pro-Brexit MPs want a backstop to have a time limit or clear exit route. This is because they believe that locking the UK into the EU's customs union indefinitely would mean the UK could not have a meaningful independent trade policy.



The Irish government assert that the backstop cannot have an arbitrary end point but must apply unless and until some other political or technical development means it is no longer needed.



(paraphrased from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404 - my emphasis)



Hard Borders



The UK government has said it does not want a hard border in the island of Ireland, so there is general agreement in the whole of the EU on that fundamental point. So far as I know, no major UK political party has proposed a hard border in the island of Ireland.



The BBC report




There is widespread agreement among UK politicians that there should be no return to what they call a hard border and that the Common Travel Area (CTA) should be maintained after Brexit.




Keeping agreements



The issue isn't whether the current or future UK government can be trusted to keep agreements it or it's predecessors have made.



If you don't trust someone to keep an agreement, you generally don't solve the trust issue by negotiating another agreement with them.



The point is to make sure that any agreement clearly and unambiguously meets the concerns of all parties to that agreement.



Unilateral withdrawal



So far as I know, governments only unilaterally withdraw from an agreement if the agreement provides for them to do so (but see Vienna convention below). For example article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which an EU member state can arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraw from the union. It says "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"



So far as I can discern, the main pro-Brexit viewpoint is not that there should be a unilateral withdrawal clause to the backstop but that there should be a clause which describes the pre-agreed circumstances under which the backstop would become no longer needed to meet UK or IE concerns (e.g. perhaps a clear definition meeting the "some other political or technical development" of the Irish government's position).



The Irish Times puts it thus:




The breakthrough came with an agreement on a review mechanism that would determine when the backstop is no longer necessary to ensure that the Border remains open after Brexit.



The backstop is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland. It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK cannot reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.




Vienna convention




The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed.







share|improve this answer























  • The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
    – Peter Green
    yesterday










  • @PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday












  • The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
    – Ed999
    53 mins ago















up vote
13
down vote














Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a backstop




I don't think that is an accurate description of the issue.



Backstop



UK Pro-Brexit MPs want a backstop to have a time limit or clear exit route. This is because they believe that locking the UK into the EU's customs union indefinitely would mean the UK could not have a meaningful independent trade policy.



The Irish government assert that the backstop cannot have an arbitrary end point but must apply unless and until some other political or technical development means it is no longer needed.



(paraphrased from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404 - my emphasis)



Hard Borders



The UK government has said it does not want a hard border in the island of Ireland, so there is general agreement in the whole of the EU on that fundamental point. So far as I know, no major UK political party has proposed a hard border in the island of Ireland.



The BBC report




There is widespread agreement among UK politicians that there should be no return to what they call a hard border and that the Common Travel Area (CTA) should be maintained after Brexit.




Keeping agreements



The issue isn't whether the current or future UK government can be trusted to keep agreements it or it's predecessors have made.



If you don't trust someone to keep an agreement, you generally don't solve the trust issue by negotiating another agreement with them.



The point is to make sure that any agreement clearly and unambiguously meets the concerns of all parties to that agreement.



Unilateral withdrawal



So far as I know, governments only unilaterally withdraw from an agreement if the agreement provides for them to do so (but see Vienna convention below). For example article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which an EU member state can arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraw from the union. It says "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"



So far as I can discern, the main pro-Brexit viewpoint is not that there should be a unilateral withdrawal clause to the backstop but that there should be a clause which describes the pre-agreed circumstances under which the backstop would become no longer needed to meet UK or IE concerns (e.g. perhaps a clear definition meeting the "some other political or technical development" of the Irish government's position).



The Irish Times puts it thus:




The breakthrough came with an agreement on a review mechanism that would determine when the backstop is no longer necessary to ensure that the Border remains open after Brexit.



The backstop is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland. It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK cannot reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.




Vienna convention




The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed.







share|improve this answer























  • The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
    – Peter Green
    yesterday










  • @PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday












  • The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
    – Ed999
    53 mins ago













up vote
13
down vote










up vote
13
down vote










Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a backstop




I don't think that is an accurate description of the issue.



Backstop



UK Pro-Brexit MPs want a backstop to have a time limit or clear exit route. This is because they believe that locking the UK into the EU's customs union indefinitely would mean the UK could not have a meaningful independent trade policy.



The Irish government assert that the backstop cannot have an arbitrary end point but must apply unless and until some other political or technical development means it is no longer needed.



(paraphrased from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404 - my emphasis)



Hard Borders



The UK government has said it does not want a hard border in the island of Ireland, so there is general agreement in the whole of the EU on that fundamental point. So far as I know, no major UK political party has proposed a hard border in the island of Ireland.



The BBC report




There is widespread agreement among UK politicians that there should be no return to what they call a hard border and that the Common Travel Area (CTA) should be maintained after Brexit.




Keeping agreements



The issue isn't whether the current or future UK government can be trusted to keep agreements it or it's predecessors have made.



If you don't trust someone to keep an agreement, you generally don't solve the trust issue by negotiating another agreement with them.



The point is to make sure that any agreement clearly and unambiguously meets the concerns of all parties to that agreement.



Unilateral withdrawal



So far as I know, governments only unilaterally withdraw from an agreement if the agreement provides for them to do so (but see Vienna convention below). For example article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which an EU member state can arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraw from the union. It says "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"



So far as I can discern, the main pro-Brexit viewpoint is not that there should be a unilateral withdrawal clause to the backstop but that there should be a clause which describes the pre-agreed circumstances under which the backstop would become no longer needed to meet UK or IE concerns (e.g. perhaps a clear definition meeting the "some other political or technical development" of the Irish government's position).



The Irish Times puts it thus:




The breakthrough came with an agreement on a review mechanism that would determine when the backstop is no longer necessary to ensure that the Border remains open after Brexit.



The backstop is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland. It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK cannot reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.




Vienna convention




The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed.







share|improve this answer















Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a backstop




I don't think that is an accurate description of the issue.



Backstop



UK Pro-Brexit MPs want a backstop to have a time limit or clear exit route. This is because they believe that locking the UK into the EU's customs union indefinitely would mean the UK could not have a meaningful independent trade policy.



The Irish government assert that the backstop cannot have an arbitrary end point but must apply unless and until some other political or technical development means it is no longer needed.



(paraphrased from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404 - my emphasis)



Hard Borders



The UK government has said it does not want a hard border in the island of Ireland, so there is general agreement in the whole of the EU on that fundamental point. So far as I know, no major UK political party has proposed a hard border in the island of Ireland.



The BBC report




There is widespread agreement among UK politicians that there should be no return to what they call a hard border and that the Common Travel Area (CTA) should be maintained after Brexit.




Keeping agreements



The issue isn't whether the current or future UK government can be trusted to keep agreements it or it's predecessors have made.



If you don't trust someone to keep an agreement, you generally don't solve the trust issue by negotiating another agreement with them.



The point is to make sure that any agreement clearly and unambiguously meets the concerns of all parties to that agreement.



Unilateral withdrawal



So far as I know, governments only unilaterally withdraw from an agreement if the agreement provides for them to do so (but see Vienna convention below). For example article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon provides a mechanism by which an EU member state can arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraw from the union. It says "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"



So far as I can discern, the main pro-Brexit viewpoint is not that there should be a unilateral withdrawal clause to the backstop but that there should be a clause which describes the pre-agreed circumstances under which the backstop would become no longer needed to meet UK or IE concerns (e.g. perhaps a clear definition meeting the "some other political or technical development" of the Irish government's position).



The Irish Times puts it thus:




The breakthrough came with an agreement on a review mechanism that would determine when the backstop is no longer necessary to ensure that the Border remains open after Brexit.



The backstop is an insurance policy written into the withdrawal agreement guaranteeing no harder border on the island of Ireland. It would only be used as a last resort or the default option if the EU and UK cannot reach an overarching free trade deal that would make trade so frictionless that there would be no border between the EU and the UK, including on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.




Vienna convention




The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 at 21:21

























answered Nov 14 at 20:43









RedGrittyBrick

3,6861722




3,6861722












  • The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
    – Peter Green
    yesterday










  • @PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday












  • The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
    – Ed999
    53 mins ago


















  • The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
    – Peter Green
    yesterday










  • @PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday












  • The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
    – Ed999
    53 mins ago
















The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
– Peter Green
yesterday




The trouble with a term like "hard border" is it means different things to different people. Does a border with no permanent barriers but number plate scanners and targetted customs inspections count as a "hard border"?
– Peter Green
yesterday












@PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
– RedGrittyBrick
yesterday






@PeterGreen: The term is essentially undefined. Some Irish politicians say "harder border" rather than "hard border". So far as I can tell, the border arrangements are not defined or even mentioned in the 1998 British-Irish Agreement (also known as The Belfast Agreement / The Good Friday Agreement)
– RedGrittyBrick
yesterday














The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
– Ed999
53 mins ago




The term is generally understood to mean no return to the old days of border checkpoints. Any purely electronic measures relating to the export/import of goods would not be considered a return to the bad old days.
– Ed999
53 mins ago










up vote
6
down vote













All parties want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but the problem is that the UK also wants to be free to trade with anyone they want, even if that trade violates EU rules.



If the EU agreed to allow the UK to do this, and also allowed for there to be no hard border in Ireland, it would end up compromising the EU borders. The UK would be free to import goods from anywhere in the world, and then export those goods to the EU. The UK would essentially become a backdoor into the EU. It's pretty obvious that they cannot allow this situation to happen.



The UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want to both be part of the EU (no hard border in Ireland), and not part of the EU (free to make their own trade rules). These two aims are in direct opposition.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    +1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
    – Ed999
    48 mins ago















up vote
6
down vote













All parties want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but the problem is that the UK also wants to be free to trade with anyone they want, even if that trade violates EU rules.



If the EU agreed to allow the UK to do this, and also allowed for there to be no hard border in Ireland, it would end up compromising the EU borders. The UK would be free to import goods from anywhere in the world, and then export those goods to the EU. The UK would essentially become a backdoor into the EU. It's pretty obvious that they cannot allow this situation to happen.



The UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want to both be part of the EU (no hard border in Ireland), and not part of the EU (free to make their own trade rules). These two aims are in direct opposition.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    +1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
    – Ed999
    48 mins ago













up vote
6
down vote










up vote
6
down vote









All parties want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but the problem is that the UK also wants to be free to trade with anyone they want, even if that trade violates EU rules.



If the EU agreed to allow the UK to do this, and also allowed for there to be no hard border in Ireland, it would end up compromising the EU borders. The UK would be free to import goods from anywhere in the world, and then export those goods to the EU. The UK would essentially become a backdoor into the EU. It's pretty obvious that they cannot allow this situation to happen.



The UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want to both be part of the EU (no hard border in Ireland), and not part of the EU (free to make their own trade rules). These two aims are in direct opposition.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









All parties want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but the problem is that the UK also wants to be free to trade with anyone they want, even if that trade violates EU rules.



If the EU agreed to allow the UK to do this, and also allowed for there to be no hard border in Ireland, it would end up compromising the EU borders. The UK would be free to import goods from anywhere in the world, and then export those goods to the EU. The UK would essentially become a backdoor into the EU. It's pretty obvious that they cannot allow this situation to happen.



The UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want to both be part of the EU (no hard border in Ireland), and not part of the EU (free to make their own trade rules). These two aims are in direct opposition.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









Doctor Jones

1612




1612




New contributor




Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Doctor Jones is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2




    +1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
    – Ed999
    48 mins ago














  • 2




    +1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
    – Ed999
    48 mins ago








2




2




+1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
– Harry Johnston
2 days ago




+1, but I would add that there are potential solutions, e.g., the proposal to place a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Or Northern Ireland could become an independent nation, or even part of the Republic. It's just that the UK don't like those ideas either, and to be fair, they would probably result in just about as much trouble as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would.
– Harry Johnston
2 days ago












There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
– Ed999
1 hour ago




There are easy solutions, it's just that the EU doesn't want to give the UK an easy exit. For one thing, the Republic has no land border with any other EU state. So it would be a simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland, if the EU is genuinely concerned that the UK is exporting goods to the EU through the Republic. But it isn't about trade, it's a pretext used to try to prevent the UK from really leaving, by keeping it chained to EU rules.
– Ed999
1 hour ago












It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
– Ed999
48 mins ago




It is a misrepresentation to claim that the UK wants to violate EU rules. After leaving, the UK is freed from those rules, which become irrelevant. There is no proposal by the UK that the EU should not have its own customs arrangements, but no one in the UK can see any valid reason why there should be a new border down the Irish Sea between Liverpool and Belfast.
– Ed999
48 mins ago










up vote
4
down vote













The UK's unwritten constitution has the provision that current parliament cannot tie the hands of future ones in most cases. Therefore any promises made by the current government regarding the Irish border can only be enforced by international treaty, not merely by UK law (which can be repealed/amended unilaterally by future governments).






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago










  • Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday















up vote
4
down vote













The UK's unwritten constitution has the provision that current parliament cannot tie the hands of future ones in most cases. Therefore any promises made by the current government regarding the Irish border can only be enforced by international treaty, not merely by UK law (which can be repealed/amended unilaterally by future governments).






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago










  • Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









The UK's unwritten constitution has the provision that current parliament cannot tie the hands of future ones in most cases. Therefore any promises made by the current government regarding the Irish border can only be enforced by international treaty, not merely by UK law (which can be repealed/amended unilaterally by future governments).






share|improve this answer














The UK's unwritten constitution has the provision that current parliament cannot tie the hands of future ones in most cases. Therefore any promises made by the current government regarding the Irish border can only be enforced by international treaty, not merely by UK law (which can be repealed/amended unilaterally by future governments).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









user

5,35121126




5,35121126








  • 3




    Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago










  • Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday














  • 3




    Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago










  • Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
    – RedGrittyBrick
    yesterday








3




3




Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago




Parliaments, not governments. It’s Parliament that is sovereign, not the government.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago












Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
– RedGrittyBrick
yesterday




Side note: The provision is written down in The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp 39-40.
– RedGrittyBrick
yesterday










up vote
3
down vote













Many important points have already been made but one thing missing is that the backstop is emphatically not a transitional agreement. It's a fallback position if at some point in the future the arrangements between the UK and the EU fail to guarantee a border without physical infrastructure. It would not come into force in March 2019 when UK-Irish trade is still covered by the so-called “transition period” rules. In fact, it's not supposed to ever come into force, if you believe the claims that it should be possible to agree to some trade agreement that would deal with the border issue before the end of the transition period.






share|improve this answer























  • But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago















up vote
3
down vote













Many important points have already been made but one thing missing is that the backstop is emphatically not a transitional agreement. It's a fallback position if at some point in the future the arrangements between the UK and the EU fail to guarantee a border without physical infrastructure. It would not come into force in March 2019 when UK-Irish trade is still covered by the so-called “transition period” rules. In fact, it's not supposed to ever come into force, if you believe the claims that it should be possible to agree to some trade agreement that would deal with the border issue before the end of the transition period.






share|improve this answer























  • But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Many important points have already been made but one thing missing is that the backstop is emphatically not a transitional agreement. It's a fallback position if at some point in the future the arrangements between the UK and the EU fail to guarantee a border without physical infrastructure. It would not come into force in March 2019 when UK-Irish trade is still covered by the so-called “transition period” rules. In fact, it's not supposed to ever come into force, if you believe the claims that it should be possible to agree to some trade agreement that would deal with the border issue before the end of the transition period.






share|improve this answer














Many important points have already been made but one thing missing is that the backstop is emphatically not a transitional agreement. It's a fallback position if at some point in the future the arrangements between the UK and the EU fail to guarantee a border without physical infrastructure. It would not come into force in March 2019 when UK-Irish trade is still covered by the so-called “transition period” rules. In fact, it's not supposed to ever come into force, if you believe the claims that it should be possible to agree to some trade agreement that would deal with the border issue before the end of the transition period.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Relaxed

16.1k3455




16.1k3455












  • But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago


















  • But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago
















But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
– Ed999
1 hour ago




But who really believes the claims? Are the UK's politicians really so stupid that they would believe that the EU will act in good faith, when the EU is so transparently desperate to prevent the UK from leaving?
– Ed999
1 hour ago










up vote
2
down vote













The EU is simply insisting that the UK stick to other commitments that it has made to EU members, in this case the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. That agreement can only be modified with the consent of the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the former of whom didn’t vote on Brexit and the latter of whom voted against it. If the Brexiters want a looser relationship with the EU while keeping the UK intact, then democracy requires that they convince those voters, not just the voters of England and Wales. Since they haven’t done so, then the UK must stay aligned with the EU in many ways to enable the border to stay open.






share|improve this answer





















  • I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago















up vote
2
down vote













The EU is simply insisting that the UK stick to other commitments that it has made to EU members, in this case the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. That agreement can only be modified with the consent of the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the former of whom didn’t vote on Brexit and the latter of whom voted against it. If the Brexiters want a looser relationship with the EU while keeping the UK intact, then democracy requires that they convince those voters, not just the voters of England and Wales. Since they haven’t done so, then the UK must stay aligned with the EU in many ways to enable the border to stay open.






share|improve this answer





















  • I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago













up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









The EU is simply insisting that the UK stick to other commitments that it has made to EU members, in this case the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. That agreement can only be modified with the consent of the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the former of whom didn’t vote on Brexit and the latter of whom voted against it. If the Brexiters want a looser relationship with the EU while keeping the UK intact, then democracy requires that they convince those voters, not just the voters of England and Wales. Since they haven’t done so, then the UK must stay aligned with the EU in many ways to enable the border to stay open.






share|improve this answer












The EU is simply insisting that the UK stick to other commitments that it has made to EU members, in this case the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland. That agreement can only be modified with the consent of the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the former of whom didn’t vote on Brexit and the latter of whom voted against it. If the Brexiters want a looser relationship with the EU while keeping the UK intact, then democracy requires that they convince those voters, not just the voters of England and Wales. Since they haven’t done so, then the UK must stay aligned with the EU in many ways to enable the border to stay open.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Mike Scott

82637




82637












  • I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago


















  • I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
    – Harry Johnston
    2 days ago










  • The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago
















I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
– Harry Johnston
2 days ago




I'm not sure it would make any difference if Northern Ireland had voted for Brexit; the Irish republicans would presumably still demand that the GFA be enforced.
– Harry Johnston
2 days ago












The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
– Ed999
1 hour ago




The EU proposal is transparently an attempt to break up the United Kingdom, by splitting off Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable to the politicians in London and in Belfast. Hardly surprising. But it demonstrates the degree of bad faith which the EU is willing to employ.
– Ed999
1 hour ago










up vote
-1
down vote













It is an open question whether the Irish Republic can remain in the EU, when the UK is not in it.



In the 1970s, the Republic found it necessary to follow the UK into the EEC, on January 1st, 1973. The UK is the Republic's most important trading partner, and the Republic and the UK had a common currency until 1979.



Now the Irish border is a concern, and the only possible solution is not to have one. But this means the Irish government may have to bow to the necessities of history and follow the UK out. One out, all out.



The Irish Free State must once again become free.



.



Addendum:



The Republic and the UK are both committed to the Good Friday Agreement, whereby there is no 'hard' border, i.e. no physical checkpoints.



One method of achieving this is for the EU to be removed from the equation, so that the UK and the Republic can resolve the matter bi-laterally. This requires the Dublin government to make a bold move, and leave the EU.



There is no disagreement between London and Dublin; the Good Friday Agreement has been long in effect. The EU is now part of the problem, and so the next move is up to Dublin. But so far they have not yet recognised the changed political and economic situation they find themselves in.



The EU is unhappy about this possibility: all of its manoeuvering is designed to edge the situation away from this, mainly by seeking to control the UK's actions in perpetuity, by locking the UK into an agreement with no exit provisions, in which true control of the border will be handled (permanently) by Brussels.



The security situation in Ireland can only work if the Republic and Northern Ireland are both on the same side, and that includes the same side of the Brexit arrangements. It only works if both states are in the Eu, or both are out of the EU. It won't work with interference from Brussels: there is no squaring the circle if the EU is free to impose its arbitrary rules, full of conditions that simply can't be met.



An end to EU interference in the problem is a sine qua non of future progress.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday










  • But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago















up vote
-1
down vote













It is an open question whether the Irish Republic can remain in the EU, when the UK is not in it.



In the 1970s, the Republic found it necessary to follow the UK into the EEC, on January 1st, 1973. The UK is the Republic's most important trading partner, and the Republic and the UK had a common currency until 1979.



Now the Irish border is a concern, and the only possible solution is not to have one. But this means the Irish government may have to bow to the necessities of history and follow the UK out. One out, all out.



The Irish Free State must once again become free.



.



Addendum:



The Republic and the UK are both committed to the Good Friday Agreement, whereby there is no 'hard' border, i.e. no physical checkpoints.



One method of achieving this is for the EU to be removed from the equation, so that the UK and the Republic can resolve the matter bi-laterally. This requires the Dublin government to make a bold move, and leave the EU.



There is no disagreement between London and Dublin; the Good Friday Agreement has been long in effect. The EU is now part of the problem, and so the next move is up to Dublin. But so far they have not yet recognised the changed political and economic situation they find themselves in.



The EU is unhappy about this possibility: all of its manoeuvering is designed to edge the situation away from this, mainly by seeking to control the UK's actions in perpetuity, by locking the UK into an agreement with no exit provisions, in which true control of the border will be handled (permanently) by Brussels.



The security situation in Ireland can only work if the Republic and Northern Ireland are both on the same side, and that includes the same side of the Brexit arrangements. It only works if both states are in the Eu, or both are out of the EU. It won't work with interference from Brussels: there is no squaring the circle if the EU is free to impose its arbitrary rules, full of conditions that simply can't be met.



An end to EU interference in the problem is a sine qua non of future progress.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday










  • But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago













up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote









It is an open question whether the Irish Republic can remain in the EU, when the UK is not in it.



In the 1970s, the Republic found it necessary to follow the UK into the EEC, on January 1st, 1973. The UK is the Republic's most important trading partner, and the Republic and the UK had a common currency until 1979.



Now the Irish border is a concern, and the only possible solution is not to have one. But this means the Irish government may have to bow to the necessities of history and follow the UK out. One out, all out.



The Irish Free State must once again become free.



.



Addendum:



The Republic and the UK are both committed to the Good Friday Agreement, whereby there is no 'hard' border, i.e. no physical checkpoints.



One method of achieving this is for the EU to be removed from the equation, so that the UK and the Republic can resolve the matter bi-laterally. This requires the Dublin government to make a bold move, and leave the EU.



There is no disagreement between London and Dublin; the Good Friday Agreement has been long in effect. The EU is now part of the problem, and so the next move is up to Dublin. But so far they have not yet recognised the changed political and economic situation they find themselves in.



The EU is unhappy about this possibility: all of its manoeuvering is designed to edge the situation away from this, mainly by seeking to control the UK's actions in perpetuity, by locking the UK into an agreement with no exit provisions, in which true control of the border will be handled (permanently) by Brussels.



The security situation in Ireland can only work if the Republic and Northern Ireland are both on the same side, and that includes the same side of the Brexit arrangements. It only works if both states are in the Eu, or both are out of the EU. It won't work with interference from Brussels: there is no squaring the circle if the EU is free to impose its arbitrary rules, full of conditions that simply can't be met.



An end to EU interference in the problem is a sine qua non of future progress.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









It is an open question whether the Irish Republic can remain in the EU, when the UK is not in it.



In the 1970s, the Republic found it necessary to follow the UK into the EEC, on January 1st, 1973. The UK is the Republic's most important trading partner, and the Republic and the UK had a common currency until 1979.



Now the Irish border is a concern, and the only possible solution is not to have one. But this means the Irish government may have to bow to the necessities of history and follow the UK out. One out, all out.



The Irish Free State must once again become free.



.



Addendum:



The Republic and the UK are both committed to the Good Friday Agreement, whereby there is no 'hard' border, i.e. no physical checkpoints.



One method of achieving this is for the EU to be removed from the equation, so that the UK and the Republic can resolve the matter bi-laterally. This requires the Dublin government to make a bold move, and leave the EU.



There is no disagreement between London and Dublin; the Good Friday Agreement has been long in effect. The EU is now part of the problem, and so the next move is up to Dublin. But so far they have not yet recognised the changed political and economic situation they find themselves in.



The EU is unhappy about this possibility: all of its manoeuvering is designed to edge the situation away from this, mainly by seeking to control the UK's actions in perpetuity, by locking the UK into an agreement with no exit provisions, in which true control of the border will be handled (permanently) by Brussels.



The security situation in Ireland can only work if the Republic and Northern Ireland are both on the same side, and that includes the same side of the Brexit arrangements. It only works if both states are in the Eu, or both are out of the EU. It won't work with interference from Brussels: there is no squaring the circle if the EU is free to impose its arbitrary rules, full of conditions that simply can't be met.



An end to EU interference in the problem is a sine qua non of future progress.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday





















New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered yesterday









Ed999

1174




1174




New contributor




Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ed999 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday










  • But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago


















  • This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday










  • But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago










  • The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
    – Ed999
    1 hour ago
















This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
– Harry Johnston
yesterday




This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic.
– Harry Johnston
yesterday












But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
– Ed999
1 hour ago




But a few years of economic chaos in the Republic once the UK has left the EU may lead to a desire to restore the more beneficial economic arrangements which existed between Eire and the UK prior to 1973.
– Ed999
1 hour ago












The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
– Ed999
1 hour ago




The UK may decide to respond to the EU's proposal to break up the United Kingdom with a counter-proposal to break up the EU, by inviting Eire to leave with us. To demonstrate good faith, the UK Government could make the Republic an unconditional offer of a free trade deal, and/or offer them 'most favoured nation' status.
– Ed999
1 hour ago










Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










 

draft saved


draft discarded


















Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Jimmy Breck-McKye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35347%2fwhy-is-the-eu-concerned-about-the-uk-unilaterally-withdrawing-from-a-proposed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater