What’s the point in the backstop if we get a hard border either way?

Noddy Nangle

They say if there is a hard brexit then it is inevitable that there will be a hard border on this island. The Irish Government refuse to budge on the backstop which might cause a softer brexit. My question is what’s the point if there is going to be a hard border either way. Can anyone shed light on this ?

Geuze

There won't be a customs border if the WA is passed by the UK parliament, AFAIK.

Nody

Noddy Nangle wrote: »

They say if there is a hard brexit then it is inevitable that there will be a hard border on this island. The Irish Government refuse to budge on the backstop which might cause a softer brexit. My question is what’s the point if there is going to be a hard border either way. Can anyone shed light on this ?

There are three options:

1) No deal ("hard brexit") - Default hard border goes up
2) Deal with time limit on border - UK simply ignores it and you get a hard border in X years time anyway
3) Requirement of a permanent backstop in place that actually works that UK has to agree to get any deal with EU (current option)

Now the reason why 3 matters is simple; UK will come back with a request for further deals after Brexit (esp. hard brexit) and guess what EU and Ireland can put as a requirement for any such deals to come into effect? Hence while a hard border is likely by having that as a requirement UK will end up giving up on it down the line simply because NI's value is far less to UK than the EU deal will be. Short term pain for long term gain were as a temporary deal is only can kicking as UK will do nothing to fix the issue anyway and you're back to square one only a few years down the line with the relevant deals already signed and hence lose pressure on UK to sort it out.

touts

I think there is a very real possibility that both the EU and UK dig their heels in and come April 1st the EU say to Ireland put up a hard border or we will shut you out of the common market until you do. European solidarity will suddenly twist against us it the UK are gone and we then find ourselves the ones out of step with the rest of the EU.

The problem is we basically can't seal off the border. It's too big and our customs/Gardai/army are too few. There is barely 2 months left and it would take closer to 2 years than 2 months to put the people and infrastructure in place. But the EU won't care because they will be aware that they don't want to set a precedent for its other borders in the east. It'll be put up the border or we hit you with sanctions and tariffs for not complying with EU regulations.

Then for a period Irish companies could find tariffs on their goods going into both the UK and EU. We'll basically be caught in a crossfire between the EU and UK. Eventually one of them will give in and a deal will be struck BUT that could take several weeks or months and by that time many small to medium Irish businesses will be bankrupt. The UK don't give a damn about us and the EU will be focused on maintaining the big picture and we're the small picture.

Basically we're going to get screwed and no one will care because we're not big enough to matter.

Junkyard Tom

It's like having a nuke. You have no intention of using your nuke but the fact that your neighbours know you have it changes their behaviour. The nuke only has the ability to affect your neighbours' behaviour if they know you're fully prepared to use it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

touts wrote: »

I think there is a very real possibility that both the EU and UK dig their heels in and come April 1st the EU say to Ireland put up a hard border or we will shut you out of the common market until you do. European solidarity will suddenly twist against us it the UK are gone and we then find ourselves the ones out of step with the rest of the EU.

The problem is we basically can't seal off the border. It's too big and our customs/Gardai/army are too few. There is barely 2 months left and it would take closer to 2 years than 2 months to put the people and infrastructure in place. But the EU won't care because they will be aware that they don't want to set a precedent for its other borders in the east. It'll be put up the border or we hit you with sanctions and tariffs for not complying with EU regulations.

Then for a period Irish companies could find tariffs on their goods going into both the UK and EU. We'll basically be caught in a crossfire between the EU and UK. Eventually one of them will give in and a deal will be struck BUT that could take several weeks or months and by that time many small to medium Irish businesses will be bankrupt. The UK don't give a damn about us and the EU will be focused on maintaining the big picture and we're the small picture.

Basically we're going to get screwed and no one will care because we're not big enough to matter.

That’s all fantastical nonsense. The border doesn’t have to be completely policed, we do what we can. There’s not going to be a tariff between Ireland and the EU.

I mean what mechanism do you think would apply there? Ireland would be semi kicked out of the EU, do you think that’s even constitutional?

touts

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s all fantastical nonsense. The border doesn’t have to be completely policed, we do what we can. There’s not going to be a tariff between Ireland and the EU.

I mean what mechanism do you think would apply there? Ireland would be semi kicked out of the EU, do you think that’s even constitutional?

Do you think Brussels will just let Ireland violate some core rules of the union with the likes of Italy Hungary and Greece looking on. Now THAT is fantastical nonsense.

judeboy101

touts wrote: »

I think there is a very real possibility that both the EU and UK dig their heels in and come April 1st the EU say to Ireland put up a hard border or we will shut you out of the common market until you do. European solidarity will suddenly twist against us it the UK are gone and we then find ourselves the ones out of step with the rest of the EU.

The problem is we basically can't seal off the border. It's too big and our customs/Gardai/army are too few. There is barely 2 months left and it would take closer to 2 years than 2 months to put the people and infrastructure in place. But the EU won't care because they will be aware that they don't want to set a precedent for its other borders in the east. It'll be put up the border or we hit you with sanctions and tariffs for not complying with EU regulations.

Then for a period Irish companies could find tariffs on their goods going into both the UK and EU. We'll basically be caught in a crossfire between the EU and UK. Eventually one of them will give in and a deal will be struck BUT that could take several weeks or months and by that time many small to medium Irish businesses will be bankrupt. The UK don't give a damn about us and the EU will be focused on maintaining the big picture and we're the small picture.

Basically we're going to get screwed and no one will care because we're not big enough to matter.

We can seal the border 100%, we choose not to for moral and ethical reasons.

Calina

Backstop means no hard border. Otherwise, absolutely anything else less than single market membership and customs union membership means border related checks.

The UK does not want sm and cu membership. They will guarantee a hard border. Do not be taken in by their honey sweet promises here. They have already welched on agreement twice.

nice_guy80

We've plenty of army personnel sitting in barracks doing sfa

For a short term solution they can support customs officials

The gardai and soldiers years ago wanted to be posted to the border as there was a nice allowance paid

joeguevara

How come there is no hard border between Switzerland and all the EU countries that they border with? is there a difference?

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

How come there is no hard border between Switzerland and all the EU countries that they border with? is there a difference?

Yes, a huge difference.

Switzerland has a slew of agreements along with freedom of movement. They have a border and customs for goods but agree to follow all EU standards so the process is more straight forward than a diverging UK.

Calina

joeguevara wrote: »

How come there is no hard border between Switzerland and all the EU countries that they border with? is there a difference?

There is a much harder border between France and Switzerland right now than there is between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

joeguevara

Calina wrote: »

There is a much harder border between France and Switzerland right now than there is between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

That wouldn’t be hard as there is currently no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Calina

joeguevara wrote: »

That wouldn’t be hard as there is currently no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Uhem, exactly.

joeguevara

Calina wrote: »

Uhem, exactly.

Yes exactly. A 3 foot garden fence as a border in Switzerland would still be a much harder border than we have here. I don’t get your point.

ArthurDayne

joeguevara wrote: »

How come there is no hard border between Switzerland and all the EU countries that they border with? is there a difference?

There are pretty big differences.

Firstly, Switzerland does have a hard border with its neighbours. Just because it is soft in some places does not change the fact that there are many border crossings there with physical customs infrastructure dealing mainly with heavy vehicles like cargo trucks, and occasionally light vehicles too. Even if a Swiss arrangement for the border was possible (which it isn't because of Brexiteer redlines) it still seems unlikely that the major arterial crossings would not have physical customs infrastructure -- unless these magical technological solutions are pulled out of a hat within a couple of months.

Secondly, Switzerland is not a member of the EU but has a very tight relationship with its laws and regulations. It is part of the Schengen area, it participates in the single market (it is effectively a member of the single market in all but name) and it adopts a policy of maintaining its law and regulations in a way which aligns strongly to EU law. The Brexiteers however are advocating regulatory divergence, lest the exercise of Brexit render Britain a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker etc etc etc ad nauseum. Divergence makes borders more likely to be hard.

Thirdly, the Swiss border is a well-defined political and national border which is not subject to the same kind of political dispute as the Irish one. If you drive from Dundalk to Crossmaglen you will meet Irish people, with Irish passports, who are recognised under both Irish and British law as Irish nationals. One of the major, major successes of the peace process was that it allowed Irish people in the North to operate with the South with such a degree of seamlessness both socially and commercially that their Irish identity was effectively given full effect (or as close as possible) even if they remained part of the UK. This kind of paradigm differs greatly from that of Switzerland.

joeguevara

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There are pretty big differences.

Firstly, Switzerland does have a hard border with its neighbours. Just because it is soft in some places does not change the fact that there are many border crossings there with physical customs infrastructure dealing mainly with heavy vehicles like cargo trucks, and occasionally light vehicles too. Even if a Swiss arrangement for the border was possible (which it isn't because of Brexiteer redlines) it still seems unlikely that the major arterial crossings would not have physical customs infrastructure -- unless these magical technological solutions are pulled out of a hat within a couple of months.

Secondly, Switzerland is not a member of the EU but has a very tight relationship with its laws and regulations. It is part of the Schengen area, it participates in the single market (it is effectively a member of the single market in all but name) and it adopts a policy of maintaining its law and regulations in a way which aligns strongly to EU law. The Brexiteers however are advocating regulatory divergence, lest the exercise of Brexit render Britain a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker etc etc etc ad nauseum. Divergence makes borders more likely to be hard.

Thirdly, the Swiss border is a well-defined political and national border which is not subject to the same kind of political dispute as the Irish one. If you drive from Dundalk to Crossmaglen you will meet Irish people, with Irish passports, who are recognised under both Irish and British law as Irish nationals. One of the major, major successes of the peace process was that it allowed Irish people in the North to operate with the South with such a degree of seamlessness both socially and commercially that their Irish identity was effectively given full effect (or as close as possible) even if they remained part of the UK. This kind of paradigm differs greatly from that of Switzerland.

Very informative and explains a lot. Thanks for taking the time to post.

LuckyLloyd

Noddy Nangle wrote: »

They say if there is a hard brexit then it is inevitable that there will be a hard border on this island. The Irish Government refuse to budge on the backstop which might cause a softer brexit. My question is what’s the point if there is going to be a hard border either way. Can anyone shed light on this ?

The point is that there is an important difference between Ireland having to make efforts to police a customs border in the event of a chaotic crash out Brexit and Ireland *agreeing* to any hardening of the border as part of negotiations.

If Ireland allowed a withdrawal agreement to conclude that either accepted a hard border in certain circumstances or made no provision to keep it open in the event of a delay to a FTA, then the potential of a hard border would be leveraged by Britain during the FTA negotiations. And essentially Ireland would become leveraged during those negotiations.

Therefore, the price for the UK of forming Brexit red lines in violation of their GFA responsibilities is necessarily a crash out Brexit and severe disruption to their economy. In such a scenario it is not implausible to see them come back to the negotiating table with the EU in short order, with a substantially weakened position. At that point, the backstop with an Irish Sea Border will be the first item on the agenda.

So, as such, the difference is short term pain for a potential long term gain and the avoidance to agreeing / asserting to a severely problematic position for the foreseeable future. It is obviously ridiculous that UK politics is in such a bad state to force this matter, but here we are. It is vital to the long term interests of Ireland and the EU that the integrity of the SM be maintained.

Geuze

joeguevara wrote: »

How come there is no hard border between Switzerland and all the EU countries that they border with? is there a difference?

There is a customs border between CH and EU.

Kleine Hundin

The Swiss border is closed to commercial traffic evenings and at weekends. There are crossings that are unmanned but commercial traffic entering or leaving are barred from using them.

Crock Rock

Geuze wrote: »

There won't be a customs border if the WA is passed by the UK parliament, AFAIK.

What does WA stand for? I wish people woudln't post acronyms. It doesn't take even a few extra seconds to type out the full word.

Crock Rock

Does that mean that most of the EU rules that were implemented will cease to exist in Ireland?

The gender ruling on Insurance and pensions?
Free roaming?
Healthcare across the EU?
Free movement of people visa free?
Fuck that.


The British caused this mess, they can solve it. They should just offer a United Ireland referendum. I'm 100% pro-Europe and don't want our position in the union to be compromised.

TCM

judeboy101 wrote:

We can seal the border 100%, we choose not to for moral and ethical reasons.

The border cannot be sealed 100% How would that be achieved? There. Are 500 crossing points between north & south.

volchitsa

touts wrote: »

I think there is a very real possibility that both the EU and UK dig their heels in and come April 1st the EU say to Ireland put up a hard border or we will shut you out of the common market until you do. European solidarity will suddenly twist against us it the UK are gone and we then find ourselves the ones out of step with the rest of the EU.

The problem is we basically can't seal off the border. It's too big and our customs/Gardai/army are too few. There is barely 2 months left and it would take closer to 2 years than 2 months to put the people and infrastructure in place. But the EU won't care because they will be aware that they don't want to set a precedent for its other borders in the east. It'll be put up the border or we hit you with sanctions and tariffs for not complying with EU regulations.

Then for a period Irish companies could find tariffs on their goods going into both the UK and EU. We'll basically be caught in a crossfire between the EU and UK. Eventually one of them will give in and a deal will be struck BUT that could take several weeks or months and by that time many small to medium Irish businesses will be bankrupt. The UK don't give a damn about us and the EU will be focused on maintaining the big picture and we're the small picture.

Basically we're going to get screwed and no one will care because we're not big enough to matter.

Is there any evidence for this other than your own head?

Kleine Hundin

WA stands for the withdrawal agreement.

ThePanjandrum

So explain to me, if Ireland institutes a hard border then won't this breach the Good Friday Agreement which you have said cannot be allowed to happen?

(Please ignore the fact that the GFA says no such thing, the EU and Ireland claim that it does so we must accept their wisdom).

Bit cynical

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So explain to me, if Ireland institutes a hard border then won't this breach the Good Friday Agreement which you have said cannot be allowed to happen?

No because we are merely obeying EU rules. Or something like that.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

No because we are merely obeying EU rules. Or something like that.

If I take put a gun in your hand, over power you and point the gun at your head and pull the trigger, did you commit suicide? Answer that and you'll be able to answer if Ireland breached the GFA by putting up a hard border due to a no deal brexit.

Bit cynical

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In such a scenario it is not implausible to see them come back to the negotiating table with the EU in short order, with a substantially weakened position. At that point, the backstop with an Irish Sea Border will be the first item on the agenda.

So, as such, the difference is short term pain for a potential long term gain and the avoidance to agreeing / asserting to a severely problematic position for the foreseeable future. It is obviously ridiculous that UK politics is in such a bad state to force this matter, but here we are. It is vital to the long term interests of Ireland and the EU that the integrity of the SM be maintained.

The question is: at what point does this policy of insisting on either the backstop or no deal become a failed policy. We all hope that the UK will accept that backstop or, failing that, only spend a short time with no deal before coming back. That is the hope. That is the basis on which the policy rests.

But the possibility remains that the UK will try to make a go of it with no deal. In such a scenario, at what point is our policy a mistake, e.g. six months? A year? How long is a short time? Remember that not long ago, the idea that the UK would leave with no deal was pretty much unthinkable yet it now looks like a serious possibility.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

If I take put a gun in your hand, over power you and point the gun at your head and pull the trigger, did you commit suicide? Answer that and you'll be able to answer if Ireland breached the GFA by putting up a hard border due to a no deal brexit.

Although we did not initiate brexit, we are also actors in this.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although we did not initiate brexit, we are also actors in this.

Although you did not willingly put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, you are also an actor in the above scenario - does that mean you committed suicide, yes or no?

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the possibility remains that the UK will try to make a go of it with no deal. In such a scenario, at what point is our policy a mistake, e.g. six months? A year? How long is a short time? Remember that not long ago, the idea that the UK would leave with no deal was pretty much unthinkable yet it now looks like a serious possibility.

At the point in time the UK gets a deal with the EU without a backstop.
Edit: Spain is still unhappy about Gibraltar 400 years later- why should we be happy about a hard border?

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Although you did not willingly put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, you are also an actor in the above scenario - does that mean you committed suicide, yes or no?

It is why your analogy does not work.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is why your analogy does not work.

The analogy works perfectly: by brexiting in a particular manner, the UK is forcing Ireland to take certain steps (which it is obliged to take under its international and entirely normal obligations).

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

At the point in time the UK gets a deal with the EU without a backstop.
Edit: Spain is still unhappy about Gibraltar 400 years later- why should we be happy about a hard border?

Again, the analogy doesn't really work. Spain want Gibraltar, but they are not losing anything by maintaining a claim on it. So they can keep up their claim for as long as they want.

We want no hard border, but we are putting up with one if there's no deal. This only makes sense if it is for a limited length of time. If it goes on indefinitely then our policy has failed.

So therefore the question remains: how long before the policy is considered a failure?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is why your analogy does not work.

Are you a member of any forums which follow your viewpoint? I'm interested in reading a bit of the inverse of what you come up against here.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

The analogy works perfectly: by brexiting in a particular manner, the UK is forcing Ireland to take certain steps (which it is obliged to take under its international and entirely normal obligations).

I'm afraid not. If the UK is holding a gun to our head, we are threatening them by also holding a gun to our head. If we carry out the threat and blow our own head off (even if we also kill them) then this would indeed be suicide.

This is the nearest I can stretch your analogy to cover the Brexit situation.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid not. If the UK is holding a gun to our head, we are threatening them by also holding a gun to our head. If we carry out the threat and blow our own head off (even if we also kill them) then this would indeed be suicide.

This is the nearest I can stretch your analogy to cover the Brexit situation.

Suicide is accepting any deal that brings a border. We're shooting our own hand to prevent a bullet to the head. Painful but non-permanent.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Suicide is accepting any deal that brings a border. We're shooting our own hand to prevent a bullet to the head. Painful but non-permanent.

I don't think either analogy is perfect.

What we are trying to do is impose pain on the UK if they don't agree to the deal we want. This is fine.

However in so doing we also impose pain on ourselves. This includes having the very thing we want to avoid.

Nothing wrong so far, but it must be limited in time in some way. Now the Irish government can't publicly put a time limit on it. But those of us who support the strategy must have in mind some time period beyond which, if there's no capitulation, the strategy has failed.

What if its three years from now and this thread is in its fortieth iteration and we're still calling the Brits stupid and xenophobic? They will have moved on; it will no longer be a news item, but we will still have the hard border.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think either analogy is perfect.

What we are trying to do is impose pain on the UK if they don't agree to the deal we want. This is fine.

However in so doing we also impose pain on ourselves. This includes having the very thing we want to avoid.

Nothing wrong so far, but it must be limited in time in some way. Now the Irish government can't publicly put a time limit on it. But those of us who support the strategy must have in mind some time period beyond which, if there's no capitulation, the strategy has failed.

What if its three years from now and this thread is in its fortieth iteration and we're still calling the Brits stupid and xenophobic? They will have moved on; it will no longer be a news item, but we will still have the hard border.

Why does everyone except you get the fact that accepting a permanent hard border is worse than a temporary one?

It's just so obvious. The UK will never seek to actually have no border unless forced. They've already said they would ensure it but they can't be trusted.

You are constantly running into people on this forum because you don't want to believe the actual outcome of a time limit. A hard border. Guaranteed. 100%. The Irish government is doing the only thing it can in this situation and that is to force the UK into not looking after only England.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does everyone except you get the fact that accepting a permanent hard border is worse than a temporary one?

It's just so obvious. The UK will never seek to actually have no border unless forced. They've already said they would ensure it but they can't be trusted.

You are constantly running into people on this forum because you don't want to believe the actual outcome of a time limit. A hard border. Guaranteed. 100%. The Irish government is doing the only thing it can in this situation and that is to force the UK into not looking after only England.

The answer is fairly straightforward. We don't know that the hard border we endure due to not compromising on the backstop is temporary. We suspect that at some point the UK will come round and accept the backstop but we do not know it.

The problem is that if you hold that the period of no deal is temporary, how are you proved wrong? You can always maintain that it is just another year and they will cave.

This is why there has to be some sort of time limit by which to judge the success of the strategy.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

The answer is fairly straightforward. We don't know that the hard border we endure due to not compromising on the backstop is temporary. We suspect that at some point the UK will come round and accept the backstop but we do not know it.

The problem is that if you hold that the period of no deal is temporary, how are you proved wrong? You can always maintain that it is just another year and they will cave.

This is why there has to be some sort of time limit by which to judge the success of the strategy.

What would you suggest as some sort of limit?

This is all academic anyways. In the same way they want to renege on their promise of no border, they can and probably will renege on the backstop, even if they sign up to it.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

What would you suggest as some sort of limit?

This is all academic anyways. In the same way they want to renege on their promise of no border, they can and probably will renege on the backstop, even if they sign up to it.

Well, I have never been a fan of the current strategy. I think the EU are using the backstop as a means of discouraging member states to remain in the EU. In the case of the UK it is the backstop; in some future exit it would be something else. It is a genuine concern of Ireland that there be no border on the island, but it is being used by the EU for a different purpose.

I am OK with this except that the burden falls disproportionately on Ireland if the strategy fails.

Therefore those who advocate the strategy need to have in their minds a time beyond which they can say that the strategy is no longer working. No matter what the strategy is, there has to be failure criteria.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, I have never been a fan of the current strategy. I think the EU are using the backstop as a means of discouraging member states to remain in the EU. In the case of the UK it is the backstop; in some future exit it would be something else. It is a genuine concern of Ireland that there be no border on the island, but it is being used by the EU for a different purpose.

I am OK with this except that the burden falls disproportionately on Ireland if the strategy fails.

Therefore those who advocate the strategy need to have in their minds a time beyond which they can say that the strategy is no longer working. No matter what the strategy is, there has to be failure criteria.

Well we are in total disagreement regarding your first paragraph. I think the EU would love nothing more than Ireland dropping the backstop.

Your point seems to rely on the idea that leaving would be fine if not for this complication, whereas I believe leaving is catastrophic even in the best of circumstances, mostly because of existing trade deals around the world evaporating. I don't think the EU is using this to strengthen the blow, I think they're doing it to support a member.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we are in total disagreement regarding your first paragraph. I think the EU would love nothing more than Ireland dropping the backstop.

Your point seems to rely on the idea that leaving would be fine if not for this complication, whereas I believe leaving is catastrophic even in the best of circumstances, mostly because of existing trade deals around the world evaporating. I don't think the EU is using this to strengthen the blow, I think they're doing it to support a member.

I'm not suggesting it is an overt strategy on the part of the EU. If Ireland dropped the backstop, the EU would immediately drop it, but there would be no public complaint by the EU. But while Ireland is insisting on it, the EU can use it as a means of discouraging other member states from leaving (we've had posters express this same sentiment on this forum). As an aside, Hogan, the commissioner from Ireland said that he had never seen anything like the support Ireland has got from the EU.

On the second point, no I think leaving will tend to be worse than staying in from an economic point of view particularly in the short term, though I do respect their right to leave. But my point does not depend on that. My point is simply that if you advocate a particular strategy, you must also be able to specify failure criteria.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not suggesting it is an overt strategy on the part of the EU. If Ireland dropped the backstop, the EU would immediately drop it, but there would be no public complaint by the EU. But while Ireland is insisting on it, the EU can use it as a means of discouraging other member states from leaving (we've had posters express this same sentiment on this forum). As an aside, Hogan, the commissioner from Ireland said that he had never seen anything like the support Ireland has got from the EU.

On the second point, no I think leaving will tend to be worse than staying in from an economic point of view particularly in the short term, though I do respect their right to leave. But my point does not depend on that. My point is simply that if you advocate a particular strategy, you must also be able to specify failure criteria.

I still disagree. The NI situation being the sticking point makes leaving the EU more palatable to other countries' populations who don't have that same issue.

The whole thing is falling apart, not because of leaving the EU, but because of a specific history and border.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I still disagree. The NI situation being the sticking point makes leaving the EU more palatable to other countries' populations who don't have that same issue.

The whole thing is falling apart, not because of leaving the EU, but because of a specific history and border.

On the first point, I think there will always be something in addition to simply leaving the EU that can be used. Brexit sets a precedent. Something that is not intrinsic to leaving the EU, in this case a treaty between member states is being used. It means that anything can be used in future. If Spain, for example, wanted to leave but a particular region wanted to stay, that could be used. There are no rules.

On the second point, maybe so. But Ireland is still pursuing a particular strategy (advocated by many on here) and that strategy requires criteria by which failure (not merely success) can be judged.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

On the first point, I think there will always be something in addition to simply leaving the EU that can be used. Brexit sets a precedent. Something that is not intrinsic to leaving the EU, in this case a treaty between member states is being used. It means that anything can be used in future. If Spain, for example, wanted to leave but a particular region wanted to stay, that could be used. There are no rules.

On the second point, maybe so. But Ireland is still pursuing a particular strategy (advocated by many on here) and that strategy requires criteria by which failure (not merely success) can be judged.

The concerns aren't concocted though. They're real things affecting real people. A country's sovereign right to leave doesn't mean it should be easy, and for some countries, it will be extremely difficult and complicated. Few more so than the UK dealing with Northern Ireland.

So yes, you can argue that there will always being be "something", but that doesn't negate the validity of that something.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

The concerns aren't concocted though. They're real things affecting real people. A country's sovereign right to leave doesn't mean it should be easy, and for some countries, it will be extremely difficult and complicated. Few more so than the UK dealing with Northern Ireland.

So yes, you can argue that there will always being be "something", but that doesn't negate the validity of that something.

Even if I'm wrong on the idea that the EU is using the backstop issue for its own purposes (and I don't think I am), I'm still interested in knowing the answer to my other question of those who advocate the current strategy. As fash pointed out, Spain is still waiting for Gibraltar for the last 400 years. The average Spaniard is not paying a price for this so they can probably wait another 400 years.

But how do we know if we have the wrong strategy bearing in mind that we pay a price for each year the strategy continues?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Even if I'm wrong on the idea that the EU is using the backstop issue for its own purposes (and I don't think I am), I'm still interested in knowing the answer to my other question of those who advocate the current strategy. As fash pointed out, Spain is still waiting for Gibraltar for the last 400 years. The average Spaniard is not paying a price for this so they can probably wait another 400 years.

But how do we know if we have the wrong strategy bearing in mind that we pay a price for each year the strategy continues?

We can't. But most agree that forcing the issue while we have leverage is the best strategy.

I am fully behind Ireland's insistence on a backstop, simply because the alternative is the UK signing a trade deal with a country like the US guaranteeing a permanent border because of different standards.

This conversation can be hashed out a million times a million different ways. The underlying issue however never changes. Temporary is better than permanent.

It is inconvenient that our world's trade works this way, but Brexit isn't going to change that. Allowing the UK the room to simply do what it likes isn't in Ireland's best interests, even if the short-term is supremely difficult.