Hacker News Reader

Comment by makomk | Hacker News Reader

May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the Tories have to ally with to get a majority) will never support it. There are other issues with it too, of course, but that's the general gist.

View on HN

No it does not.

It simply requires that the UK ensure that no hard (customs) border is required in Ireland. A key component of the Good Friday Agreement which ended 3 decades of bloodshed on the island of Ireland was that physical border checks between the two states whould be phased out.

All it requires is that the UK accepts that EU customs checks are performed between Britain and Ireland rather than at the Irish border. This option is supported by the Irish government and has popular and business support in Northern Ireland.

I have no idea why the extreme brexiteers find this idea so objectionable? It's a popular in Ireland, North and South; it satisfies the EU (a sponsor of the peace deal) and it allows brexiteers COMPLETE freedom to negotiate any type of future trading relationship they want.

To be fair, "simply" introducing a hard border between parts of your country isn't quite... simply. Which country would do that? In addition, it's a pretty crappy symbol of "getting independence" if you "leave behind" a part of your country to get it, and that's how it's understandably perceived. And May's government relies on the DUP to achieve a majority in parliament, for which this is wholly unacceptable, since it stands for getting closer to the main land and not being one with Ireland. (of course she doesn't have a majority now, but the DUP might very well have broken away long ago if this had been a plan)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_franche_du_pays_de_Gex

There was a custom's border inside France from 1815[0] to 2008, with different treatment for imports/exports from Switzerland to the small part of France beyond that custom's border.

According to that article, you can still buy cars w/o EU import duties in that part of France...

[0]: Yes, as a result of Napoleon's defeat and as part of Geneva joining Switzerland.

> I have no idea why the extreme brexiteers find this idea so objectionable?

Because it's a slippery slope that looks very much like ceding territory. It's not just border checks, but Northern Ireland would be effectively in the EU as far as customs rules and tariffs. Otherwise, you could circumvent the EU tariffs by importing in the UK, moving the goods "internally" to NE then loading them on a truck and unloading somewhere in the rest Ireland.

This differentiated regime would strengthen economic ties with Ireland and weaken those with Britain.

Do you object to the Good Friday Agreement? Because its fundamental principle is that the constitional status of Northern Ireland was a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone.

If the vast majority of people in NI are happy to be part of the EU customs zone and allowing them their wish (in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement) also allows brexiteers to turn the rest of the UK into a Singapore (Reece-Mogg) or a Venezuala (Corbyn) as they see fit without any encumberance from the EU, then what's the problem?

I just don't get it. A year ago, some of the leading voices of the Brexit movement were advocating special customs zones to be set up around the UK, once free for EU competition rules. There were news stories with brexiteers advocating a Tyneside Customs zone, for example. Why is it fine for Tyneside to be have a separate customs zone to the rest of the UK but not Northern Ireland?

The alternative is a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which the UK specifically agreed not to do in the Good Friday Agreement.

A hard border, combined with the overwhelming preference of North Irish to remain in the EU, increases the chance of a successful North Irish referendum for unification with Ireland. If the UK allows such a referendum and Ireland unifies, then the UK is ceding territory anyway. So there's really a no-win scenario assuming that the UK leaves the EU customs union.

If the UK wanted to commit a further violation of the Good Friday Agreement and act to prevent an Irish reunification referendum, or ignore the results of one, the Troubles would very likely start all over again, and the UK would be in no position to negotiate any kind of cease-fire because they would have demonstrated twice over that they can't be trusted in such things.

No, the alternative is not a hard border.

The alternative isnfor the UK and ireland to simply refuse to enforcr a hard border and dare the EU to do it if they are so upset about customs.

What, is the EU going to station troops there, because of trade deals?

Neither Ireland or the UK are interested in enforcing any sort of hard border. It is instead the EU who would become unhappy about broken trade deals.

This seems to be the "magic" solution for all the logical inconsistencies of the brexit position - ignore the problem and pretend it will magically solve itself. Know of any other land borders between different customs regimes which take this approach?

Ireland is part of the EU.

Ireland are not making plans for a hard border, even in the case of no deal.

> What, is the EU going to station troops there, because of trade deals?

Hopefully yes. I don't want to eat some toxic food that nobody checked when it entered the EU.

If this happened then the EU would suffer the negative consequences of stationing troops there.

IE, they would become the target of terrorist attacks. I doubt they would want this to happen to them.

> The alternative isnfor the UK and ireland to simply refuse to enforcr a hard border and dare the EU to do it if they are so upset about customs.

I thought half the point of Brexit was so that the UK could secure it's borders.

And they are just going to leave their biggest land border wide open?

The EU would take legal action against Ireland to make them collect necessary tariffs.

At which point the EU gets the blame.

Ireland would absolutely, under no circumstances, enforce a hard border. They would simply refused to do it.

> The alternative isnfor the UK and ireland to simply refuse to enforcr a hard border

But that means Britain effectively has an open border with the EU (which Brexiters don't like, and probably some Remainers don't like in the context of Brexit though they are happy with it with UK a full member of the EU with a say in union policy), or has an internal border between NI and the rest of the UK (which pretty much no one in the UK likes.) The EU has a similar problem with Ireland where the UK has NI.

Which is why this issue is intractable; it internally has no good solution on either side, even before the difficulty of getting agreement between the sides. This is worse on the UK side, because of the interaction with the Good Friday Accords; it's not just abstract political displeasure, it's potentially undermining an internal peace agreement.

> But that means Britain effectively has an open border with the EU

The UK and Ireland do not want a hard border. That is a fact. They aren't going to enforce it.

It is irelevant to point out the consequences, because both sides have stated that they will never ever ever enforce a hard border.

The UK and Ireland would both be perfectly fine with not having a hard border. They have stated as such.

You can call it dumb or say that it undermines the purpose of brexit, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Both Ireland and the UK are willing to accept the consequences of not having a hard border no matter the consequences.

> It is irelevant to point out the consequences

It's pretty relevant, because the UK government doesn't have Parliamentary support for either of the alternatives, given Brexit, to the the thing they say they won't do, and also seems (though surprises are possible) to be likely to prevent Brexit from being derailed even if they can't pass a Brexit deal. So it's quite likely that we’re heading to a Brexit with none of the choices regarding the Irish border being politically viable.

But there is a politically viable choice for the Irish border!

That political choice is "don't do anything about it, and leave it without a hard border". And this is the choice that both the UK and Ireland want to take.

> That political choice is "don't do anything about it, and leave it without a hard border".

That would be (from the UK side) the effective open border with the EU choice.

> And this is the choice that both the UK and Ireland want to take.

No, Brexit with the Irish border as an end-run around Britain’s new EU border is not a choice that has majority Parliamentary support in the UK.

There's lots of political precedent for having a status quo that no one explicitly supports, but no one explicitly supports any realistic alternative to.

For example, the US has, for years, refused to pass any kind of immigration reform, but until recently, also refused to comprehensively enforce the immigration laws already on the books because they were really awful and unfair in places. For another example, neither the People's Republic of China nor the Republic of China (effectively Taiwan) recognize each other, and yet Taiwanese businesses own tons of factories in mainland, PRC-controlled China.

Brexit was sold as "Take back control of our borders" and "Limit Immigration". You're telling me the UK doesn't want border checks?!?

"The alternative is a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which the UK specifically agreed not to do in the Good Friday Agreement."

I don't think that the Good Friday Agreement does say this, I would like a reference if you can provide one.

Here's a summary report from the EU: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/59682...

Because the current government only have a majority due to a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, who would break off that agreement if there was a border between Northern Ireland and RoUK as part of the deal.

Overall to Brexit supports in Britain it doesn’t really matter, it mainly matters politically for the current government. Without the DUP they would effectively be a minority government.

There's a really simple answer to this. You said:

> All it requires is that the UK accepts that EU customs checks are performed between Britain and Ireland ... I have no idea why the extreme brexiteers find this idea so objectionable?

Generally they don't. However the government is only in power with the support of the DUP[0] who see it as THE END OF THE WORLD, and it would be a complete anathema to Ulster loyalists[1], whose are (essentially) half of the Good Friday Agreement.

In short: if they accepted this, the British government would fall and armed conflict could well break out again in Northern Ireland.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_loyalism

The UK is a sovereign country -- how is it possible for them to never be able to do something without someone else's permission?

They can do it but it without any permission, but it would screw them. They want to undo 40+ years of integration in a few years because a small majority voted

It's not possible for anyone to tell you that you can't take a given action.

But it is possible for someone to inform you that if you do take a given action, they will take draconian, but completely legal, measures against you.

I guess it is like leaving any contract or agreement without fulfilling your obligations. You can do it, but there will be consequences.

They are of course able to do that, but that would go against the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees peace in Northern Ireland, and nobody has the balls to do that. Or else the Republic of Ireland would have to leave the EU common market for goods, which too is insane. So that realistically means that the UK cannot terminate the NI backstop solution on its own.

Maybe because most of their commercial exchanges are done with other EU countries.

Apparently the UK is able to leave at any time if only they're willing to accept unfavorable EU terms. If they want a better deal they need to negotiate.

Then what does this sentence mean?

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

It's a (slightly exaggerated) reference to the Irish backstop.

The UK, as a sovereign nation, is party to international agreements which it has signed in the past which commit it to doing various things, many of them intended to be permanent and many unrelated to the EU. One of those is with the Republic of Ireland, over peaceful relations in the UK territory of Northern Ireland. The Irish government and many Northern Irish people regard this agreement, broadly construed, as implying that no new barriers will be set up on the Irish border. Another international agreement, WTO rules, which the EU is signed up to (and the UK also intends to trade under) implies that if the UK and EU adopt different customs regimes they will also be required to actively monitor customs borders between the UK trading bloc and the EU trading bloc. The Irish government (and by an extension EU negotiators representing their interests) regards feasible customs border check regimes as violating the spirit of the Good Friday agreement over security barriers. Therefore unless and until some border solution in line with WTO regulations and acceptable to the Irish government or an adjudicating party is found (or the Republic of Ireland also chooses to leave the EU, which is highly unlikely) Northern Ireland must not become part of a different customs area from the Republic of Ireland and therefore must remain subject to some relevant EU laws.

Being a sovereign country means the possibility of reneging upon prior commitments, but it doesn't mean these agreements don't exist or that parties won't insist you honour [their interpretation of] them when offering new agreements

It a misrepresentation of what is referred to the "backstop" aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement (incorrectly called the "Brexit Deal" in the header above).

The "backstop" stipulates that any future trading relationship does not violate terms of the Irish peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement - specifically that there would be no physical checks at the border in Ireland.

Currently the border is virtually invisible because the UK and Ireland are EU members and in the same customs zone.

If, in the future, the UK decides it would prefer to leave the Customs Union (you can be in the customs union but not in the EU), then this would require a special arrangement for Ireland - probably requiring customs checking to be done between Northern Ireland and Britain instead of between north and south in Ireland.

For some people (and I don't know why - see my comment above), this is absolutely objectionable even though this arrangement would enjoy popular support in both parts of Ireland. If you're not prepared to accept this arrangement, then the UK would be stuck in the EU's customs union.

Of course if you want to leave the customs union (otherwise what's the point of brexit), then you have to accept the special arrangement for Northern Ireland or basically renege on the terms of Irish peace agreement.

Unionist hate it because it would set a precedent for one part of the UK to be treated differently to the other countries. If a hard border in the Irish Sea is ok for Northern Ireland, why not a border at Carlyle? Unionists stamp their feet and tout in indivisibleness of the UK, SNP/Plaid Cymru use the special treatment of NI to demonstrate how Westminster isn’t providing the best government for their countries.

The Unionists most relevant here are the Northern Irish ones, not the Scots or English. For most Brits, the idea of Northern Ireland having a special status is essentially baked into the idea of the integrity of UK anyway, and the government would have probably seen some quirky customs exceptions over there in a transition deal as an acceptable price to pay for having a Brexit agreement if they didn't depend on DUP votes to stay in power. But Irish unionists passionately hate the idea of an Irish Sea customs border for the same basic reason Irish republicans hate the idea of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: it's a symbolic split from a nation they consider themselves to be part of and whose identity a lot of blood has been shed over in living memory.

Sure, customs checks at ferry and airports to the UK mainland would entail considerably fewer practical delays, smuggling opportunities and security issues than customs checks between a village and its nearest supermarket on the Irish border, but unionists can legitimately argue an Irish Sea border violates their understanding of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. Though it'd also be perfectly fair to ask their politicians who all backed Brexit what did you expect to happen?

They are a sovereign country, but they are an island, not a ship, they cannot weigh anchor and set sails. They may wish for the US to be a closer partner than the EU but it will remain a long flight and 5 timezones away.

It's the opposite: of course they can leave, but they don't want to lose all the benefits they had before leaving. Unfortunately for them there's little benefit for the people they are leaving to really offer them anything.

At least in a divorce you tend to split things (I'll keep the bed and you can have the dresser). In this case it's someone walking out the door but saying "hey, could you let me still come by for dinner?"

I understand that. I was responding to:

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

If the UK signs the deal. Of course binding yourself by treaty to some future action does not negate your sovereignty. It's an expression of your sovereignty!

Of course, reneging on a treaty does wonders for the country's future credibility!

Probably the least of their problems at this point.

They are sovereign, as article 50 proves. Unfortunately, they want something from the EU. Actually a lot. And so they need to offer something in return.

That's the big joke of Brexit. Boris Johnson fantasizing about dozens of trade deals ready to be signed when the UK exits. How many are there now? Zero.

Because the UK isn't in a position as strong as Brexiteers fantasized. Ostensibly they are all for negotiating deals in the national interest, but when the other side has interests, too, that's somehow unfair and they should "go whistle".

Brexiteers are looking for handouts, not real negotiations.

I hate to break it to you but Britain is "offering little" because they actually have more negotiating power.

I disagree, but that wasn't my point, anyway.

My point was that you cannot invite real interest-driven negotiations and then complain about red lines the other side draws in the sand.

It's either a real negotiation or an agreement between friends.

The latter would have been preferable, but all the hatred towards the EU side made that an immediate non-starter.

Right. I see what you're saying and I agree.

By first agreeing to such terms.

They can probably still leave as a sovereign entity, in the same way I can technically ignore my loans that I initially agreed to pay back. There will be consequences.

The Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty between the UK & Ireland makes NI a slightly special place anyway. People born there can choose Irish or British citizenship. "Treating NI special" is part of the UK's treaty obligations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com