42

I believe I know the Brexit issue pretty well. However, I haven't been closely following it since Boris became PM (but still followed it somewhat). What I don't understand is this:

[...] what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain.

These are the words of the UK's foreign minister reported by BBC. Now, it is my understanding that

  1. you either have a border between NI and the mainland UK or a border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member (because the EU can't allow the UK to make an effective breach in their customs border);

  2. the UK voluntarily agreed to the former option as part of an agreement with the EU.

How is the EU erecting anything if they agreed to it themselves without having a gun pointed to their head? And what is the UK's alternative proposal other than setting up a hard border on Ireland which many fear could reignite the Troubles?

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
Sergey Zolotarev
  • 4,173
  • 2
  • 21
  • 33
  • 2
    This is a soapbox question. The final paragraph gives it away. – Venture2099 Sep 24 '20 at 11:59
  • @Venture2099 Since I hadn't been following it for months, I didn't rule out that I missed some piece of context – Sergey Zolotarev Sep 24 '20 at 14:05
  • I voted to remain; I am an ardent supporter of the EU but I also reject that the EU is not "erecting" anything. There is delivery by intent and also delivery by omission. The truth is; the EU border, as required by it's customs standards for single market access are not the concern of the United Kingdom and neither should they be. If the EU wish to impose a border on the physical landmass of Ireland in order to protect their Union then that is a discussion that needs to be open, transparent and not inferred or hinted at by omission. – Venture2099 Sep 25 '20 at 13:00
  • 1
    It is nothing to do with the United Kingdom and its relationship with Northern Ireland which imposes no such border between UK member states. So I voted to close this question because it was soapboxing and also had a pre-formed opinion about what is happening; the question was framed as pro-EU, anti-UK. I doubt OP is willing to accept a UK-centric viewpoint even if it had it's basis in legal, historical or legislative fact. Which it may or may not. – Venture2099 Sep 25 '20 at 13:00

6 Answers6

85

Simplified, one key issue that drove or drives the Brexit movement is for the UK to have full sovereign control over the standards goods must adhere to.

Equally simplified, one key issue for the EU is what is known as the integrity of the internal market, i.e. that goods all across the EU adhere to the same sets of standards that were agreed upon by Parliament, Council and Commission—a.k.a. representatives of the people of the member states, the governments of the member states, and a kind of ‘expert committee’ nominally independent of the member states.

This would not be a problem if it were not for the history of the island of Ireland, especially the six counties in the northeastern corner usually known as Northern Ireland. Parts of the population see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom while other parts of the population see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland. One poll conducted in February this year found just over one third of the population identifying as Irish and another third as British; one quarter said they were Unionist and one quarter said they were Nationalist.
This conflict is almost impossible to solve, but the peace agreement currently in force has done a good job of preventing further violence that was prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. Although a commitment to a fully open border is not literally part of this agreement, the current open border and the agreement are often mentioned hand in hand (e.g. by the Irish Prime Minister) which led to the public often associating the open border primarily with this agreement.

There is one more party whose wants we need to consider: the Republic of Ireland. It joined the EU (then EC) together with the UK in 1973 but it does not intend to leave the EU now or any time soon. In fact, as it uses the common currency it is more integrated into the EU than the UK ever was. It most likely sees significant benefits in remaining part of the EU, especially the Common Market. In addition, it has regularly repeated its commitment to keeping the border as open as possible.

Thus, from an EU point of view, the Common Market must include the Republic of Ireland. But also, there needs to be a fully open border between the UK territory of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. On the other hand barring agreements that the UK has indicated it is not willing to make, there cannot be an equally open border between the EU and the UK as a whole.

From a UK point of view, their internal market (between England, Scotland, Wales and critically Northern Ireland) must also remain open. The UK also wishes to uphold the peace process which in the minds of many requires the open border across the island of Ireland. Finally, they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to engage in a Monaco, Norway or Switzerland-like model with a fully open border to the EU as this violates the sovereign control mentioned at the very top of this answer.

Putting all together, there must be a customs border between the UK and the EU somewhere. This could be:

  • between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ideal in the eyes of Ireland and the EU, unacceptable for the UK)
  • between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (absolutely unacceptable for the Republic of Ireland; not desired by any other party)
  • between the mainland and the British Isles (unacceptable for the EU and the Republic of Ireland, possibly ideal in the eyes of the UK)

None of these solutions are good. Each violate a core idea (national sovereignty, the EU integrity or an international agreement). ‘Technical solutions’ have been used for years as a way to solve the problem but to the best of my knowledge no convincing idea of such a technical solution has been proposed. Until I see a working suggestion for these ‘technical solutions’, I consider them hot air.

Such are the facts. The rest is opinions. The UK, especially its current Prime Minister has voiced the opinion that the EU be forcing a customs border across the Irish sea. The EU might reply that the outcome of the Brexit vote and subsequent agreement are forcing the EU to suggest this model as it may be the only one possible. It might also argue that essentially the UK is forcing negotiations into that direction as they refuse to make other concessions that would facilitate a different solution. The UK might reply that it is merely following the result of a referendum.

These opinions can be written either way and amount to nothing more than shifting the blame to the other side. Importantly though, all parties can claim whatever they want but ultimately analysts and historians a decade down the line will assign blame if it is to be assigned.

Jan
  • 13,152
  • 4
  • 43
  • 68
  • Indeed, Ulster seems to have been at war with the rest of Ireland long before the 20thC Troubles... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A1in_B%C3%B3_C%C3%BAailnge – user_1818839 Sep 17 '20 at 10:37
  • 10
    Actually it has factual errors and ignores several key facts.
    1. The relevant issue for British voting to leave the EU is to control movement of people not goods. EU membership requires both or neither.
    2. The will and desires of the people of NI and ROI are secondary to the legal agreement called the "Good Friday Agreement" signed into British Law in 1998. Renaging on this agreement would reignite violence in the region.
    3. "six counties... known as Ulster, Northern Ireland" - Ulster has 9 counties. It is not a synonym for Northern Ireland.
     – Colm Sep 17 '20 at 10:42
  • @Colm There was no ROI at the time ... with Connacht, in that story... :-) – user_1818839 Sep 17 '20 at 10:47
  • @BrianDrummond. :) I understand you now. – Colm Sep 17 '20 at 10:48
  • 2
    @Colm 3. thank you for clearing that up, I had assumed that they were synonyms. As they are not, I have removed the Ulster bit. 1. I specifically wrote one, not the. I also added simplified. I am aware that there are many underlying reasons that led to the Brexit vote. EU rules concerning goods was definitely one of them (something about pillow and pillowcase jumps to mind). As far as the content of this answer is concerned, the movement of people is not a problem. Neither the Republic of Ireland nor the UK are part of Schengen so there are ID checks when travelling from the RoI to … – Jan Sep 17 '20 at 11:13
  • 8
    the remaining EU states. Thus, the RoI–NI border can be completely open to people (no ID checks) before and after Brexit as long as both sides want it (they do). While EU citizens would be granted all Freedom of Movement rights in the RoI, they would not in the UK, which would be exactly as desired. Therefore, nothing about the movement of people is inhibitory when it comes to the issues the question asks about. 2. The legal agreement GFA has been signed by the UK, the RoI and various parties in NI, and it has been ratified (in your words: ‘signed into law’) by both the RoI and the UK. … – Jan Sep 17 '20 at 11:17
  • 18
    I have tried to briefly outline why it is important and why no party is openly trying to break it. However, I have also heard voices from the UK that suggest ‘solutions’ in violation of the GFA. That is why I chose to write absolutely unacceptable for the RoI without mentioning the UK as it seems that there is a less universal acceptance of the terms of the GFA in the UK. – Jan Sep 17 '20 at 11:20
  • 12
    The only other point to maybe add here was that there seemed to be wilful ignorance about the points noted her in relation to Northern Ireland on behalf of the conservative government when it came to negotiating the brexit agreement.

    Even after years of negotiation where this was one of the main sticking points, to be now expressing surprise at the possibility of a sea border when this was an obvious outcome of the agreement would indicate either extreme ignorance or a desperate political ploy for it not to be 'their fault' in the eyes of history.

     – Paddy Sep 17 '20 at 11:38
  • Is a separate Northern Ireland sovereign nation, separate to the Republic of Ireland and also separate to the UK, any solution ? – Criggie Sep 17 '20 at 11:42
  • 8
    @Criggie Who would that satisfy? In Northern Ireland, not the Loyalists that want to remain part of the UK, nor the Republicans that want to to be part of a united Republic. Neither the rest of the UK which would then cease to be the United Kingdom and would revert to being Great Britain, and risk further break-up by an emboldened Scottish or Welsh independence. I don't know what the feeling would be in the ROI but I don't think what the rest of the EU think is relevant in such a matter. – Andy Hames Sep 17 '20 at 12:13
  • 6
    +1 Also, @Paddy is correct. Boris' agreement with the EU explicitly consented to the first bullet point. The UK signed a treaty with the EU that would impose customs requirements between Ulster and the UK mainland. Now the UK wants to break that agreement – Dave Gremlin Sep 17 '20 at 12:39
  • 2
    As an additional point about the willful ignorance of the agreement, it's perhaps noteworthy that the UK government already published a document in May which appears to acknowledge several of the potential issues the prime minister has brought up, such as customs checks on agricultural products between the islands. It appears that the government has been aware of these things since at least May, and as such they shouldn't be surprises at this time. – user10186512 Sep 17 '20 at 13:18
  • 2
    (Said document also contains statements like "Whilst the Protocol is in force, both the UK and EU must respect and abide by the legal obligations it contains", which is in contrast with recent UK government statements indicating they intend to potentially breach the legal obligations it contains.) – user10186512 Sep 17 '20 at 13:21
  • 3
    +1 It's so refreshing to see an answer on this site which is not a propaganda for one side or the other, but presents both from a neutral and factual perspective! – vsz Sep 18 '20 at 05:42
  • "The population is approximately evenly split between those who see themselves as British and wish to stay part of the United Kingdom and those who see themselves as Irish and wish to be close to or unified with the Republic of Ireland." - this is incorrect and as far as I am aware has never been correct and indeed is a core part of the problem. See for example here – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 07:57
  • @JBentley Thanks for clearing that up, I have rephrased and incorporated data from that article. I may have missed instances of the alleged even split further down. – Jan Sep 18 '20 at 09:27
  • or a fence surrounding private property - I know that this is not the core of the answer but I am really curious (as a French): it is not allowed to put fences around one's land/garden in NI? (or UK, I do not know) Are there other signs of Alan limits (you mention that not even a line is possible) – WoJ Sep 18 '20 at 12:07
  • 1
    @WoJ I think you misread that: a line on the ground between NI and RoI is fine; you can also tell on which side you are based on how the road markings look. A fence along the border as a border fence would not be fine, but of course an individual can put a fence around their property. Because that wouldn’t be a border fence, just one surrounding their property – and a private endeavour, not a government one ;) – Jan Sep 18 '20 at 12:34
  • @Jan: I understand that placing a border fence (that is a construction of a certain height that delimits both countries) is not acceptable. The answer says anything that amounts to more than a line on the ground (or a fence surrounding private property) can be seen as a violation of this agreement.. I an a non-native English speaker so I read it as "a fence surrounding private property can be seen as a violation of this agreement". Otherwise what would be more than "a fence surrounding private property" in that case? (can you give me an example?) – WoJ Sep 18 '20 at 12:39
  • @WoJ The sentence is meant as: anything that amounts to more than [a line on the ground (or a fence surrounding private property)] can be … – Jan Sep 18 '20 at 12:44
  • @Jan: I understand, thank you. I am still not clear what the "anything" could be beside a wall on the border (because what happens within the countries is their choice) and how this related to a fence around a private property (within any of the countries) but anyway. – WoJ Sep 18 '20 at 12:51
  • @WoJ they are saying that any sort of wall or fence or barrier along the border that isn't simply a private citizen's property fence would be considered unacceptable. The largest acceptable "barrier" along the border being a simple line in the sand. No one is concerned about barriers around private property, rather, they are concerned about national borders not having a physical barrier. – fyrepenguin Sep 18 '20 at 21:03
  • "A key part of this agreement is a completely open border": have you read the GFA? It says nothing about border controls. What part of it supposedly has this effect? – phoog Sep 19 '20 at 03:19
  • @Colm there are several countries that are in the Schengen area without being in the customs union. Turkey has a partial customs union with the EU without participating in the free movement system. It would not be impossible for the UK to continue to participate in the customs union while withdrawing from free movement of person's, but Brexiteer politicians have repeatedly said that they do not want to do so. Because it is indeed wrong to say that Brexit was only about movement of people: sovereignty over product standards was always an issue as well. – phoog Sep 19 '20 at 03:29
  • 1
    Probably not a direct answer, but don't gloss over the fact that the current Government is proposing legislation that would purportedly override Sovereign Scottish Law, which would be, shall we say: "interesting". This is not entirely about NI – MikeB Sep 19 '20 at 09:14
  • @phoog Apparently the Security section does. I’ll admit that it’s something I read over and over again and never bothered to check against sources. – Jan Sep 23 '20 at 06:43
  • @phoog I spent part of today looking up things and have reworded the relevant paragraphs that claim the GFA has a direct implication on the border. I may have missed one. – Jan Sep 24 '20 at 11:08
  • @Jan thanks. It is widely misunderstood. The security installations were just that: they had nothing to do with customs since those controls were removed in 1993 because of the EU (the GFA was signed in 1998). "Normalization of security arrangements and practices" presumably admits the possibility of customs checks on a border between distinct customs territories, since that is normal. Some will presumably argue that "security installations" includes customs checkpoints. In fact, the agreement as written only makes sense in the context of the customs union, but renegotiating it seems unlikely. – phoog Oct 01 '20 at 16:36
64

From the EU27 viewpoint, the Brexiteers promised a unicorn and now expect the EU27 to deliver this impossible creature. The EU27 always said that it can't be done without breaking something, and that it won't be the EU internal market which breaks.

  • The EU27 want to have an open internal market, notably between the ROI and the mainland EU.
  • The UK want to have an open internal market, notably between NI and England/Scotland/Wales.
  • The ROI and NI should have no hard border, and there should be good economic integration.
  • The UK and the EU27 will have separate internal markets after Brexit unless current and future regulations are the same.

From the Brexiteer viewpoint, the problems can be solved with a little bit of technology (online tracking of freight) and goodwill on both sides, and it is the EU27 being difficult on purpose to frustrate the Brexiteer goals. UK safety standards would remain high, they say, even if they differ in details, and there would not be smuggling on an industrial scale from England via Ireland to the mainland EU.

Sergey Zolotarev
  • 4,173
  • 2
  • 21
  • 33
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
55

Let's just start with your title question:

Why is the UK blaming the EU

Boris Johnson and every Brexiteer have a choice: blame themselves or blame the EU. They're not going to ever accept any blame themselves, so they will blame the EU for anything they think is unpopular.

Cynical politicians will not be the ones to stand up and say "My Fault !".

So expect more of the same.

One problem here is that UK voters seem to pay no attention at all to what is actually said by the EU. Their news is mostly fed via sources "they trust" - i.e. they choose sources that confirm their biases. Instead, people describe anything they don't already believe as "biased".

So in this climate ("us" and "them") in the UK, there's no checks and no balances to blaming the "them" and in this case that's the EU.

The EU, while exasperated by all this, has been planning with the expectation the UK would be daft enough to go for a no deal Brexit for a long time. My impression is that EU negotiators have regarded the UK as not engaging in negotiations for a long time.

and what does the UK want ?

To eat the cake while still having the cake.

The UK "position" has always been that they should have free access to EU markets without having to obey the same rules as every other business in the EU ("the level playing field" concept), rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey.

It's the EU's marketplace - their pitch, their rules. Seems reasonable to me.

The UK present a level playing as "no rules for the UK", which of course is completely unacceptable to anyone in the EU, which is why the EU is in the rare position of being 100% united on its position on Brexit.

There never was (from the referendum on) any single unified UK position on what the UK actually wants from Brexit. There was no (realistic) plan, there is no plan and it seems quite like that when the UK "drives off the cliff edge" at the end of the year 2020, there will still be no plan.

What the UK wants is everything it had inside the EU without being subject to the rules that define that market.

No one will ever get that - it would be absurd for the EU to grant that wish.

And now that quote from the UK's foreign minister:

what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain

This is what the UK agreed to under international law.

It was not hidden in the text, in the small print (and even if it was, the UK helped write that text and has a lot of lawyers for reading small print). They were not duped, tricked or pressured. They wrote it. It was, in fact, the single most important aspect that allowed a withdrawal agreement to be agreed.

They now have an international agreement they want to get out of.

What happens when you do that? No one trusts you.

Japan won't ratify the proposed trade deal it has (which is very favorable to Japan) until after Brexit is complete. Why? They want to see if the UK will stick to its agreements. How likely is it that the Japanese will ratify a deal with a country that (if things continue as they are) will have broken another international deal with a trading partner (the EU) that is orders of magnitude more important to them than the UK?

Not very, I think.

The US (even the Republican party with Trump at the helm !) has already made it clear that breaking international law is a non-starter and will make a trade deal with the US "problematic". (And if Brexiteers think the EU is unfair, wait until you see US trade terms.)

Risking stability and peace in Northern Ireland for that is staggeringly irresponsible, but it's apparently what the UK government is willing to do. The other thing being risked is that the UK will become something of a pariah if it violates international agreements.

The UK wants everything and will never get it. That is the nub of the problem.

Andrew Morton
  • 135
  • 7
StephenG - Help Ukraine
  • 3,005
  • 12
  • 20
  • 1
    I reluctantly upvoted because there are some reasonable points, but it is a very one sided answer which portrays the UK as being 100% in the wrong and the EU as 100% in the right. A bit of balance would be an improvement. For example, a mention of the two sides' position on a Canada-style arrangement which would address some of the issues you mentioned, but is not accepted by the EU. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 08:08
  • 14
    @JBentley I do not intend to insert an artificial impression of balance where there is none. The Canada arrangement (which the UK never actually proposed formally to the EU) could not be said to balance anything, and IIRC was rejected by the UK Parliament when it failed to agree any of a wide range of possible arrangements during a series of votes. If the UK cannot agree it's own approach there is no way to balance that lack of agreement in the EU which has a unified position. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 18 '20 at 09:34
  • 1
    That is regrettable as it means this answer is simply an anti-Brexit post rather than an unbiased analysis. I'm anti-Brexit myself but I can't endorse an answer which claims one side is entirely right and the other entirely wrong, so I've removed my upvote, although I do still think you have some good points. An example of where your answer is one-sided (and wrong) is this: "without having to obey the same rules as every other business in the EU, rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey", for which the Canada trade deal is a counter example. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 10:01
  • You might feel that a Canada style deal "could not be said to balance anything" but this ignores the fact that it allows a compromise between free trade and sovereignty, and demonstrates that these are not absolutely mutually exclusive. The details of the extent to which the UK has agreed or proposed such an approach doesn't change the fact that compromise is clearly possible if it weren't for the fact that the EU have outright ruled out such a trade deal. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 10:03
  • 14
    @JBentley We clearly are not going to agree. However you've claimed I'm stating things that are false and I'm not. The EU cannot be said to have outright rejected something that was never formally proposed to it. The Canada-style deal is explained in this BBC article and is neither comprehensive enough for an EU-UK scenario nor does it satisfy the UK's refusal to accept EU standards and laws when selling in the EU. It's the having your cake and eat it problem again. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 18 '20 at 10:19
  • 1
    The EU have rejected a Canada-style arrangement and saying that it doesn't count simply because it has never been formally proposed is a nitpick. I don't dispute whether or not a Canada-style deal would be a good idea or solve all the problems, but it certainly does contradict this line in your answer: "rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey" - that much is very clearly and demonstrably false, and where your answer relies on such incorrect statements to make its point, I think it's fair to say it lacks balance. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 10:33
  • 4
    @JBentley Barnier's actual statement was "We have proposed a trade agreement with a country that has a very particular and unique close geographical proximity not like Canada, not like South Korea and not like Japan,” Barnier said. “Very particular. We are ready to propose and work very quickly with Britain on the basis of the political declaration, which was agreed with Boris Johnson. We stand ready to propose this agreement, if the UK wants it". In other words the UK suddenly demanded the EU propose such a deal (the UK should do it themselves) against it's explicitly agreed approach. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 18 '20 at 11:20
  • 1
    I think you're missing my point somewhat; it isn't to apportion blame; it is to demonstrate that it is clearly possible to compromise between free trade and sovereignty. Whereas your answer tends to imply that it must be one (free trade) or the other (no rules) and that it is unreasonable of the UK to suggest that there could room for manoeuvre. By presenting it in such absolute terms you leave no room for nuance or balance. Again, your sentence "rules other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU also have to obey" is wrong by way of counter-example. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 11:56
  • 1
    @JBentley You are free to present your viewpoint in an answer if you wish. We're not going to agree so really extending this conversation won't achieve anything. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 18 '20 at 12:53
  • 1
    I wasn't asking you to agree, merely to explain why you disagree specifically in relation to the point I raised in connection with your sentence that I quoted (as opposed to side issues that you keep raising). I agree that it's pointless to carry on though if you're not willing to address it. I feel I did my best to explain my point without resorting to taking a particular side on the Brexit divide, but there's probably little else I can do now that I've repeated my point a few times in different ways. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 13:20
  • 5
    @JBentley I have already addressed all your points in detail. The result is not what you want - not my problem. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 18 '20 at 13:33
  • 2
    My primary point was that it is incorrect that "other non-EU countries in trade agreements with the EU have to obey [the rules]", and that the Canadian agreement is proof that there is significant flexibility on which rules need to be followed in order to reach a trade deal. You did not, in any way, address that point, despite your claim to have done so. If you had done so, and I simply disagreed, then I would acknowledge that "the result is not what I want", but that is not the case. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 13:47
  • 3
    @JBentley Your point itself is incorrect - the EU may pick and choose which rules it proposes for any particular agreement, but THOSE rules must be obeyed. The answer above is one of the least biased I have read. An "orderly Brexit" always was, and still is, fundamentally a unicorn. – MikeB Sep 19 '20 at 09:21
  • 1
    @MikeBrockington If I understand you correctly you are saying the group that owns the market controls the rules. Just to point out that in the context of international trade the bottom rung of this is the WTO rules (which are best described as "rudimentary and messy" IMO). It's not exactly that the EU rules must be obeyed that makes no-deal so crazy, it's that the fall back will be the even worse WTO rules (also not defined by the UK). There's no escaping rules defined elsewhere for the UK and this is why Brexit could never deliver what it promised IMO. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 19 '20 at 10:46
  • 1
    +1 for identifying the point about voters not paying attention to what is said by the EU. For whatever reason, I feel the EU has been rather unsuccessful in portraying its message within the UK. – David Fulton Sep 20 '20 at 08:08
  • 1
    @DavidFulton My impression is that the UK media (with some exceptions) aim to please a specific target audience to sell to that audience. Media that aims for balance (e.g. the BBC or Channel4, maybe The Times and Observer, Sky on a good day) tend to get attacked by both sides at once. The mainstream papers are (and have for decades) aimed the way they report news at specific political leanings and Brexit is just a case where that is enormously irresponsible. To put it another way, it's not that the EU side is not reported in the UK, it's that it's often down the page in smaller print. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 20 '20 at 11:09
  • @StephenG The Guardian (of which the Observer is merely the Sunday edition), the Independent, the Financial Times, as well as some weekly journals such as the Economist are resolutely opposed to Brexit - the Times (Murdoch owned) less so. The red-necked and raging downmarkets such as the Mail, Sun, Express etc. are Brexit supporting.However the left-wing, working-class, traditionally Labour-supporting Mirror expresses sympathy for Remain. – WS2 Sep 20 '20 at 12:00
  • @StephenG Oh! And the Telegraph, a broadsheet, is the more upmarket wing of the Brexit argument. – WS2 Sep 20 '20 at 12:06
  • 2
    @WS2 If someone is trying to be fair-minded, e.g. in the media, fair-minded probably won't be perceived as anything but anti-Brexit by about 50% of the UK. At the very least there's a very strong "if you're not with us, your against us" attitude on both sides of the debate in the UK. The UK at this stage is just utterly polarized by Brexit and most people seek confirmatory bias as comfort, which won't fix the problems. It's all very alarming for the economic future of the UK, regardless of whether they end up with deal or no-deal as all that polarization will poison politics in the future. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Sep 20 '20 at 13:19
  • 2
    @StephenG The same thing holds true of climate change. I know nothing whatever about climate science. But the fact that at least 90% of climatologists say it is a serious problem is enough to convince me. Similarly most economists and experts in international relations will say that Britain is far better off inside the EU. And the more serious and sober journals, with better educated readerships, reflect that view. It is not the percentage of people who support something that impresses me - it is which people. But Brexiteers do not trust "experts" - though Covid may have changed their minds. – WS2 Sep 20 '20 at 16:07
  • @MikeBrockington If you read the full quote that I was referring to (it's in my second comment) you'll see that it wasn't the rules proposed for a particular agreement that the answer claimed had to be followed, it was "the same rules as every other business in the EU". By your own reasoning, the rules for a particular agreement do not have to be (neither hypothetically nor in real-world agreements) the same rules that every other business in the EU follows. – JBentley Sep 21 '20 at 07:37
9

Just to add to "what the UK wants" ... it is a stretch to say the UK is united in this : "what the UK wants" is what a very small majority wanted before it got messy, or in practice, what quite a large majority in England wants.

A little historical context : The EU referendum came hard on the heels of another referendum, (September 2014) in which the UK government vowed to do everything it could to get and keep Scotland out of the EU if Scotland voted for independence : and thus the only way to remain IN the EU was to vote NO to independence.

So Scotland duly voted NO to independence ... granted I can't put a figure on how much of the modest "NO" majority was because of the EU ... but then voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU (about 63% to 38%) - as did N. Ireland (though less heavily).

Now the breaking of that 2014 promise as a result of the 2016 referendum imposes further internal stresses in the UK and Scotland desires a second IndyRef. "The UK" is officially opposed to this under the current government, but at some point in the future, and with or without UK permission, it is likely to happen, and current polling suggests, with a different result.

How this will all play out is anybody's guess, but in one feasible scenario additional to Jan's excellent answer, Scotland rejoins the EU, allowing a border free region involving NI and the EU (inc. ROI, Scotland) with controls at the Scottish border and between NI and English seaports.

In this scenario, NI may either opt to unite with the ROI to rejoin the EU, or remain in the "UK" under a similarly bizarre agreement.

user_1818839
  • 684
  • 5
  • 7
  • 14
    "what the UK wants" is what a very small majority wanted", actually even that is not accurate, because the referendum was solely about whether to remain in the EU or leave it. There was never a vote on the mechanics of leaving, and it's vanishingly unlikely the 52% who voted leave all have the same idea of "what the UK wants" in terms of the trade deal. It's why parliament was unable to reach consensus on just about anything EU-related under May's government: even pro-leave MPs couldn't agree on what leaving should mean. – JBentley Sep 18 '20 at 10:40
  • @JBentley very much so, that's what my "before it got messy" alludes to. – user_1818839 Sep 18 '20 at 11:02
5

The following chart shows the various different levels of membership/alignment with the EU, along with the reasons the UK government has given for them being unacceptable (source).

EU/UK future relationship chart

This chart was presented by Michel Barnier back in 2017 and the EU position has not changed since. Some details about what a Canada-style agreement would entail are covered here.

Essentially this would remove some tariffs and raise quotas but it would require some form of border checks between the EU and UK. In practice this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The UK government has said that instead of a hard border a technological solution could be used, however they have not provided any details of what such a solution would involve and there is speculation as to whether or not the required technology has been invented yet. If no technological solution can be found they will have to revert to a hard border.

So essentially the EU has given the UK a breakdown of the different relationships available but the UK government has rejected them all. The UK government wants the benefits of trading with the EU but refuses to accept any of the conditions required to make that possible. The UK is therefore trying to save face by blaming the EU for not giving them special treatment, despite the fact that the EU position has not changed since day one and the UK has never had a clear position of its own. Note that the UK has historically enjoyed a high representation in the EU and had a significant hand in producing the rules that they are now trying to change to their own benefit and to the EU's detriment.

ewanc
  • 944
  • 8
  • 11
-3

As a similitude to a game of chess, it's very general pawn protection angst from the UKgov. As in chess, there are millions of possible outcomes, and the UK wants to go backwards on the chess game, because it's the first time that they play the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable.

The UKgov wants to strengthen it's negotiation position because the EUgov has a stronger negotiating position through strength of numbers.

The UKgov has agreed that it does not trust the EUgov to play nicely after Brexit, on the subject of the N.I. pawn, and has decided to move the position of the N.I. pawn.

There is a deep mistrust in between the UKgov and the EUgov and it is entirely real and well justified because there are billions of dollars of commodities and of lobbying money at stake for both parties of politicians.

JS Lavertu
  • 229
  • 4
  • 12
bandybabboon
  • 2,918
  • 1
  • 11
  • 19
  • 6
    "the Brexit rules, which are rather strange and unpredictable" - citation needed for that - those with even a modicum of sense could see that this process was not going to be easy. Just like any divorce - if you go to court and ask for 51% you may well get it; but ask for 110% and you certainly won't, and that is what Westminster is doing. (Not the UK as a whole.) – MikeB Sep 19 '20 at 09:26
  • There is a common myth among Brexit opponents "Brexit leaders promised it would be straightforward/easy" As far as I know, the Brexit instigators emphasized that it was favorable to leave the EU no matter what the retaliation would be, rather than risk being ruled by a remote multilingual bureaucratic law system. Macron said that the EU should make it as difficult as possible for them... The simplicity stems from both prejudice and legal mechanics. – bandybabboon Sep 19 '20 at 10:05
  • 4
    @aliential It's not a myth. Liam Fox Easiest Deal in History, Gove We hold all the card, Davis Only considerable upsides – Jontia Sep 21 '20 at 09:08
  • 2
    and the rest is on record – Jontia Sep 21 '20 at 09:08
  • Liam Fox underestimated making a deal with integrationists who resent and don't want a deal to happen, who oppose any re-establishment of powers like: control of coastal water and control of demography, the American Union is monolingual and look what Cali anf NYC have to put up with, capitalist sleaze. Vox populi is a microscopic element in the EU. – bandybabboon Sep 22 '20 at 00:42
  • Besides, why can't the EU manage to restore any fish stocks since 2001 except the north sea? Its not infallible, thats a plain illustration of unscientific lucrative power structures. – bandybabboon Sep 22 '20 at 00:52
  • @aliential Liam Fox underestimating making a deal IS the point. He claimed it would be the easiest deal in history, and then it wasn't. Brexit leaders DID promise it would be straightforward/easy. – JS Lavertu Sep 22 '20 at 12:55
  • @JSLavertu by they way, brexit has simply happened, the trade agreement is seperate. The Barcelona agreement was even less sensible, the EU constitution change wasn't democratic and: "We really have to sign this new EU agreement, because the EEC so full of problems and inefficiencies, we don't understand what the EU means exactly but we have to fix the EEC agreement" ... So Liam Fox is accurate in context, they fixed a flawed constitution with a much more verbose one that national leaders don't even have time to personally decipher, brexit WAS much simpler than the Barcelona agreement. – bandybabboon Sep 23 '20 at 10:30
  • @aliential It's incredibly disingenuous to separate Brexit from the trade agreement. The two are directly and inextricably linked together. Regardless, as for Liam Fox, he was SPECIFICALLY talking about a trade agreement. There was zero mention of the Barcelona agreement so your whole argument is irrelevant anyways. – JS Lavertu Sep 23 '20 at 12:44
  • @jslavertu it's incredibly disingenuous to quote Liam Fox who has absolutely no flair as a politician, has lost all his leadership contests, has only worked in the cabinet once, prior to being discontinued there. It's like myself saying that you support jean claude Juncker when you had almost undoubtedly never heard of him prior to his presidency of the EU. What politicians say is generally nonsense, so the closer they are to scrutiny the better. – bandybabboon Sep 23 '20 at 13:12
  • JC Juncker was president of 0.6 million people, and they promoted him to preside a zone of 350 million people. it's like making the mayor of baltimore to president of the USA by senate appointment. it's completely flawed.nobody's ever heard of the mayor of baltimore OR JC juncker, they are equally as irrelevant. – bandybabboon Sep 23 '20 at 13:25
  • 2
    @aliential If Liam Fox isn't relevant, why didn't you say so when you replied to Jontia's comment? Your reply certainly made it seem like you consider him relevant. Besides, he was secretary of state for international trade from July 2016 to July 2019. To quote wikipedia: "Fox was appointed Secretary of State for International Trade, responsible for helping to secure trade deals with other countries following Brexit." So the man responsible for securing a trade deal with the EU said it would be the "easiest deal in history" (direct quote). You're grasping at straws. – JS Lavertu Sep 23 '20 at 14:32
  • 2
    @aliential As for JC Junker, he was the prime minister of Luxembourg prior to his appointment to the EC. Just because you never had heard of him (or Baltimore's mayor) doesn't mean he wasn't qualified for his office or irrelevant. And besides, JC Junker didn't push for Brexit by making grand claims about how easy it would be, unlike Liam Fox, so why bring him up? Seems to me like some good old whataboutism from someone who's been caught in their own logic. – JS Lavertu Sep 23 '20 at 14:36
  • 3
    I can assure you, @aliential, that people reading European political news will have known Juncker at least since the 2007/8 financial crisis due to his position as head of the Eurogroup. In addition to that, he was lead candidate of the EPP in the election after which he became President of the Commission – entirely the way one would expect this to proceed. His history is really much closer to a sitting Illinois Senator winning the primaries and election to become President of the United States. – Jan Sep 24 '20 at 11:17