37

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?

Jimmy Breck-McKye
  • 664
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • 6
    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer. – Philipp Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 03:11
  • @Ed999 That is why I called it a "proposed" Irish / customs union backstop. – Jimmy Breck-McKye Nov 19 '18 at 11:59

9 Answers9

66

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.

The European council - which is the body containing the heads of government of each of the EU countries - unanimously adopted a set of negotiating guidelines at a meeting in May 2017. These guidelines covered the border in Ireland. Subsequently, Michel Barnier et al have followed these guidelines closely, whilst leading Irish politicians, including PM Leo Varadkar, have been explicit in their desire for and support of the guidelines.

stuart10
  • 1,190
  • 7
  • 8
  • FYI, the name of the country is Ireland (or Éire if you're speaking Irish), not the Republic of Ireland. – James Moore Nov 15 '18 at 00:10
  • 39
    @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 '18 at 00:22
  • 15
    @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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948 – Schwern Nov 15 '18 at 00:26
  • 68
    @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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement – Schwern Nov 15 '18 at 00:30
  • 4
    To add to this answer: the EU has made serious financial contributions to the economy of the north of Ireland too (and here, that's not alternative nomenclature for the six-county 'British' statelet - some of the money went to the 'southern' border counties). This money came as part of a special programme for the north, but also as part of the regular budget - structural funds, CAP payment etc., where the north, as a relatively deprived, rural area, has long been a net recipient - and regional programmes such as Interreg. The EU is thoroughly invested in NI - in every sense. – tmgr Nov 16 '18 at 11:33
  • 3
    @alephzero Depends whether you want guard posts on the NI border again. The EU and Eire could live with that; whether the UK could live with the consequences, given that this was a large part of what stopped the civil war in NI, is unknown. If the UK leaves the EU, by definition it has borders with the EU. The purpose of Brexit was to limit movement across UK borders, and you can't do that selectively. Remainers shouted loudly about this issue, so it's sad that Brexiteers are only just realising this. It might almost make one wonder if other Remainer predictions could also be true...? – Graham Nov 16 '18 at 17:53
  • 6
    While this answer is technically true, I think it rather avoids the main issue, which is the Good Friday Agreement. The GFA requires that there be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by law, and the backstop ensures that this remains the case. – walrus Nov 17 '18 at 19:41
  • 1
    @alephzero There is a disconnect between "leaving the EU", and stopping all treaties that have been made (as both parties seem to want to avoid the latter). – yyny Nov 18 '18 at 18:28
  • 5
    @walrus To expand further: the EU is not party to the Good Friday Agreement and so has no direct obligations itself to avoid a hard border. However, the Republic of Ireland is and so they have instructed the EU to pursue an agreement which satisfies their (Republic of Ireland) obligations. – stuart10 Nov 19 '18 at 08:34
  • IMO this answer would be better if it explained WHY lack of hard border is so important. "The Troubles", NI stability, threat of civil war and so on. – M i ech Nov 19 '18 at 10:24
  • This answer is wrong because there is already a binding agreement in place, the Good Friday Agreement, made by the governments in London and Dublin under which both the UK and the Republic are committed to there being no return to border posts separating Ulster from the Republic. This binding bilateral agreement has been in place for many years, and neither party has ever cast doubt on it continuing. Accordingly, no further binding agreement is necessary. And so it is misleading to say that the Dublin government has no existing binding agreement with the UK to avoid a 'hard' border. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:45
  • This answer is wrong because the Good Friday Agreement, which has been honoured by the parties to it for many years, exists for the benefit of the people of Ulster and/or UK, not for the benefit of the Republic. The GF Agreement brought to an end the era of violence and terrorism which had existed in Ulster, and thereby was of benefit to the UK as a whole, and to the population of Northern Ireland especially. It was not directly of benefit to the Dublin government, as the population and territory of the Republic had never been involved. The Republic is a guarantor, not a beneficiary, of it. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:57
  • @Ed999 The GFA does benefit people in the UK, it clearly also benefits those south of the border too. Irregardless, the EU is not party to the GFA and is not acting out of a sense of altruism. The European commission has been negotiating on the agreed instructions of and so in the interests of the EU27 - this includes the Republic of Ireland, it (obviously) does not include the UK, which is treated as an external country for the purposes of the withdrawal negotiations. – stuart10 Nov 28 '18 at 08:50
  • @stuart10 : There never was violence or disorder within the borders of the Republic, which thus clearly does not benefit from the GFA. It acts purely as a guarantor. The Republic has not given the EU any such direction as you suggest, that's a pretext put forward by the EU, a fig leaf to obscure its decision to use the Irish border issue as a wedge to break up the UK. Certainly, the other 26 EU states have no stake at all in the security issues of the GFA, only the Republic and the UK do. The EU is acting solely to break off Ulster: to keep part of the UK if it can't keep it all. It hopes. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 09:40
  • @Ed999 The troubles did spill over south of the border - there were loyalist bombings and other attacks (e.g. in Dublin) , whilst IRA activities resulted in confrontations (some lethal) with Gardai. It is simply not true to say that there was never any violence within the Republic. In addition, peace in NI is clearly to the economic and social benefit of the Republic. – stuart10 Nov 30 '18 at 08:52
  • 1
    @Ed999 The RoI is not a guarantor to the GFA: the GFA is actually two ageements - one between the two governments (UK & RoI) and the second between the governments and various NI political parties. Both governments are 'full' signatories to both. I've added to the answer covering the process by which the EU arrived at its negotiating guidelines (which Barnier et al have subsequently followed). Whatever stake the other 26 countries have in NI, the whole point is that, through their EU membership, Ireland has 26 other countries lining up to support them, whilst the UK stands alone. – stuart10 Nov 30 '18 at 09:00
  • @Ed999 "... as the population and territory of the Republic had never been involved." Ireland most definitely included Northern Ireland - see article 2 of the constitution: "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." Part of the GFA was the nineteenth amendment to the Irish constitution modifying that. – James Moore Dec 03 '18 at 00:10
46

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.

Agent_L
  • 1,110
  • 6
  • 11
  • 45
    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 '18 at 16:10
  • 2
    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 Nov 15 '18 at 11:39
  • 37
    @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 Nov 15 '18 at 12:14
  • 5
    Oh, right, civil war within NI. Sorry that makes sense. – Lightness Races in Orbit Nov 15 '18 at 13:37
  • 1
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, by definition, civil war in NI = civil war in UK. – Araucaria - him. Nov 15 '18 at 23:56
  • @Araucaria Aye. I misinterpreted your statement as meaning war between Ireland and NI => civil war which is harder to accept. – Lightness Races in Orbit Nov 16 '18 at 10:45
  • This answer is a load of rubbish because the people "in power in the UK" are the Conservative Government of the UK. The Conservative Party is committed to retaining the unity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What part of the phrase United Kingdom did you not understand? The Party was traditionally known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, and originally comprised Unionist MPs from Ulster, as well as MPs from England, Scotland and Wales. The DUP currently vote with the Conservatives in Parliament. The EU seeks to break up the UK (not the Conservative Party). – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 04:12
  • 1
    @Ed999 I don't understand what part of the answer you think you are addressing. While the Conservative government has reiterated its commitment to a United Kingdom, it's not the prospect of dividing the UK that is likely to respark the Troubles in NI. It is separating NI from Eire, which is what a hard border in NI represents. And so far there's still nothing on the table to deal with that beyond the backstop which large numbers of MPs oppose. The EU is doing nothing but sticking up for its member state, which is its job. – Jontia Nov 30 '18 at 13:52
36

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.

Jontia
  • 24,192
  • 4
  • 94
  • 120
15

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.

Community
  • 1
RedGrittyBrick
  • 9,071
  • 4
  • 35
  • 46
11

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.

Doctor Jones
  • 205
  • 1
  • 8
  • 3
    +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 Nov 15 '18 at 20:53
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 02:25
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 03:00
  • 7
    "simple matter to check goods arriving by ship in Rotterdam from Ireland" : no, that's against EU free movement of goods! The whole point of the EU is the ability to do that without checks. – pjc50 Nov 18 '18 at 12:21
  • 6
    @Ed999 That's not a solution, let alone an easy one, that's wishing Ireland away. Which is a common theme in some conservative commentary nowadays but that's incredibly arrogant and deeply ironic when Brexit supposedly is about the British deciding for themselves free from meddling from the outside. What it really is about is the British (or the English really) deciding for the Irish and the whole of the EU, not about any concern for democracy or respect... – Relaxed Nov 18 '18 at 19:34
  • 5
    @Ed999 "to check goods arriving by ship from Ireland" essentially means a border between Ireland and mainland EU, which is not a matter the UK has a say in. It's akin to suggesting that US could open the border between Mexico and TX and just check the papers on inner TX borders. – Dmitry Grigoryev Nov 19 '18 at 10:16
  • 3
    @Ed999, it's not that the UK wants to violate EU rules for some nefarious purpose. If the UK wants to import US beef for example,that's an issue for them but the EU doesn't want to allow it into their food chain. That means either border checks between mainland Britain and the island of Ireland (unionists won't like that), border checks between NI and ROI (nobody will like that) or border checks between ROI and the rest of the EU. That last proposal would mean that Brexit is achieved at the expense of ROI trade with the EU, why would ROI volunteer to take that hit even if it were legal? – PhilDin Nov 19 '18 at 11:43
  • @pjc50 : No, you're mistaken. It's not against EU rules to check a shipment believed to originate from the UK, where the UK is not a member of the EU. A lot of checking of genuine UK shipments will take place in Rotterdam, and any Irish exporter suspected of carrying contraband goods originating in Ulster - or elsewhere in the UK - will inevitably find itself sucked into those checks. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:19
  • @Dimitry : In settling the terms of the agreement between the UK and the EU, it is open to the EU to agree to remove the checking of goods originating in the UK from the Ulster border to Rotterdam, just as all other goods being exported from the UK to the EU will be checked at Rotterdam; and if the issue was genuinely a concern that the UK might seek to export goods to the EU via the Republic, this is what the EU would have proposed. The fact that no such proposal was made is evidence of the EU's bad faith, as is the EU's proposal to break up the UK by splitting off Ulster. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:27
4

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).

user
  • 17,667
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
3

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.

Relaxed
  • 30,938
  • 2
  • 75
  • 109
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 02:29
  • The EU is extremely good at sticking to its own rules and agreements. What kind of "not good faith" did you mean? – pjc50 Nov 18 '18 at 12:23
  • 2
    @Ed999 I do not believe the EU is desperate or even interested in preventing the UK from leaving at this point. But that's neither here nor there, I don't think anybody believes these claims, pro-Brexit politicians just make them when it's expedient and then act as if they did not believe them (for example by being very concerned about the backstop). – Relaxed Nov 18 '18 at 19:22
  • @ed999 Frankly from an EU perspective the UK has been always a big pain in the neck, always wanting exceptions, special deals, rebates etc. It is one of the big limiting factors in the ability to address many of the shortcomings of the EU. – Paul de Vrieze Nov 19 '18 at 10:35
  • The EU might (or might not) stick to terms it has agreed. That is not the point. The issue is whether the EU will act in good faith, if the UK was fool enough to sign an agreement that the UK and EU will use their best endeavours to agree terms for future trade. It is not a question of honouring a set of agreed rules, but instead is a matter of agreeing a set of rules. The EU wants the UK to sign an agreement that will apply until a further agreement is made, but will the EU ever make that further agreement? Clearly, it won't, as the initial deal locks the UK into the EU's rules forever. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 02:33
3

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.

Mike Scott
  • 4,442
  • 14
  • 22
  • 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 Nov 15 '18 at 20:57
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 02:35
  • 3
    @Ed999 No, the EU isn’t trying to break up the UK. It would be perfectly happy for the whole UK to stay in the customs union and single market, or indeed in the EU. What is your counter-proposal to comply with the Good Friday Agreement while protecting the EU from unauthorised imports from the UK, without invoking magic technology that isn’t currently used anywhere in the world? – Mike Scott Nov 18 '18 at 07:10
  • 1
    @ed999 The agreement is an agreement between two parties. The problem is that the hard Brexiteers don't care about Northern Ireland and only want extreme deregulation. If there is any breaking up it is due to the cake-and-eat-it approach (publicly) used creating large friction in UK politics, possibly leading to a break in both the conservative party and the UK (if NI goes it is likely that Schotland goes as well, at least Charles will be able to stay the Prince of Wales). – Paul de Vrieze Nov 19 '18 at 10:30
  • @Ed999 Three parties, not two. It needed the consent of the Irish people, the Northern Irish people and the UK government. – Mike Scott Nov 19 '18 at 10:37
  • @MikeScott Just to be clear, in my comment I meant the EU & UK withdrawal agreement. Not the Good Friday Agreement that is indeed quite more complex. – Paul de Vrieze Nov 19 '18 at 18:20
  • There is no "extreme de-regulation". You clearly have no idea what WTO membership involves, nor how complex are the rules which govern trade between WTO members! A complex set of bi-lateral deals inevitably replaces the default (MFN) rules, for most members. Being outside the EU is inevitably going to require more bi-lateral trade deals than before; but the UK has faced that situation previously, and survived it, in every year prior to 1973. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:03
  • @MikeScott - 1: One way to resolve the problem is the easy way - for the EU to impose any customs checks at the Seaports. Either monitor imports at the port of entry into the Republic, or at Rotterdam, the port of entry for goods shipped from the Republic to the EU. 2: Another way to resolve the problem is open only to the Dublin government, namely to follow the UK out of the EU, and thereafter resolve security issues bilaterally between London (or, preferably, Stormont) and Dublin, without interference from outside parties. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 03:10
  • @Ed999 Ireland is not going to leave the EU, which both of your proposals effectively involve. What is your counter-proposal that doesn’t erect trade barriers between Ireland and the rest of the EU? – Mike Scott Nov 28 '18 at 06:47
  • My #1 proposal doesn't involve the Republic leaving the EU. If you understood it in that way, you misunderstood it. All UK exports to the EU will pass through Rotterdam and be checked there. If the customs post there suspects shipments are bringing in contraband goods originating in the UK, even though shipped via Eire, the Irish shipper is going to find his goods being checked in short order. But I make no proposal to tax shipments from the Republic, unless the goods originate in the UK. So there is no suggestion of imposing any tariffs or trade barrier between the Republic and the EU. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 06:59
  • @Ed999 Checking everything shipped from Ireland to the rest of the EU to make sure it didn’t originate in the UK is a trade barrier, and means that Ireland is no longer in the single market. Also, how do you propose to protect the Irish themselves from food imported from the UK that doesn’t meet EU standards? – Mike Scott Nov 28 '18 at 07:04
-3

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.

Ed999
  • 212
  • 1
  • 7
  • 3
    This does not appear to be a popular idea in the Republic. – Harry Johnston Nov 17 '18 at 01:08
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 02:39
  • 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 Nov 18 '18 at 02:44
  • Sounds like wishful thinking to me. But I suppose time will tell. – Harry Johnston Nov 18 '18 at 07:09
  • 1
    There is zero popularity for this in Ireland, the chaos is going to be on the UK side, Ireland is an extremely different country from 1973, Ireland already has free trade with the UK, and its own Common Travel Area, and it's far more likely that NI will vote to rejoin the Republic. – pjc50 Nov 18 '18 at 12:28
  • 2
    That's an interesting perspective and not entirely implausible. The anti-EU conspiracy theory is however entirely unwarranted, the people most interested in preventing that outcome are the Irish themselves, not the rest of the EU. If Ireland is in fact forced out of the EU and in a close association with Britain, it would not be because it's particularly desirable but because the UK (and not the EU!) is once again imposing arbitrary rules on others. Which is exactly what the demands around Brexit amount to, no matter how strongly the English wish to portray themselves as victims. – Relaxed Nov 18 '18 at 19:28
  • 1
    @Ed999 No one can make an unconditional offer of a free trade deal. Suppose Ireland starts to heavily subsidise its manufacturing industry to allow it to undercut UK manufacturers? Suppose it relaxes its environmental standards? Suppose it decides to grant citizenship to a million refugees on condition that they relocate to the UK? Free trade deals have to be full of rules and regulations and restrictions. – Mike Scott Nov 19 '18 at 10:41
  • No, it wouldn't be the UK forcing the Republic to do anything. The situation would be driven solely by the economic realities of the Republic sharing a land border with the UK, but not with any EU member, and hence doing most of its trade with the UK. And it would be a purely economic and security arrangement, not a political one. And the UK would be offering a deal to faciliate cross-border trade, not to harm it. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 02:40
  • @MikeScott : I don't see how a trade deal enables the Republic to gain control over the issue of immigration into the UK. Any deal is a deal about trade, and only about trade. Also, a free trade deal - under WTO rules - means any bi-lateral agreement on trade: one allowing the parties to deviate from the non-discrimination rule of WTO membership, by setting their own tariffs on goods, rather than being bound by the rates they apply to imports from other WTO members. But it can include zero tariffs on specified classes of goods. And wouldn't take 16 years to negotiate, unlike EU trade deals. – Ed999 Nov 28 '18 at 02:50
  • This article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42223732 puts the amount of Ireland's exports to the UK at 13.8% of their total. The UK's trade with the EU is 44% or higher depending on who's figures you like https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43212899 if economic necessity isn't enough to hang onto 44% of your export trade, why would it be enough to hang onto 13.8%? – Jontia Nov 30 '18 at 14:07