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

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
25
down vote

favorite
1












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



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



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










share|improve this question







New contributor




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















  • 3




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














up vote
25
down vote

favorite
1












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



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



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










share|improve this question







New contributor




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















  • 3




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












up vote
25
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
25
down vote

favorite
1






1





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



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



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










share|improve this question







New contributor




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











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



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



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







united-kingdom european-union brexit treaty






share|improve this question







New contributor




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











share|improve this question







New contributor




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









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




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









asked yesterday









Jimmy Breck-McKye

22625




22625




New contributor




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





New contributor





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






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







  • 3




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












  • 3




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







3




3




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




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










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
47
down vote













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



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






share|improve this answer








New contributor




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













  • 11




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







  • 54




    @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
    – Harry Johnston
    yesterday






  • 19




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







  • 32




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







  • 8




    @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
    – WS2
    yesterday

















up vote
26
down vote













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



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



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



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






share|improve this answer
















  • 22




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











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






  • 9




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






  • 3




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











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


















up vote
24
down vote













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



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






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




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






  • 1




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










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










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






  • 5




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


















up vote
8
down vote














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




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



Backstop



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



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



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



Hard Borders



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



The BBC report




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




Keeping agreements



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



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



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



Unilateral withdrawal



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



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



The Irish Times puts it thus:




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



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




Vienna convention




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







share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    4
    down vote













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






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2




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

















    up vote
    3
    down vote













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






    share|improve this answer





























      up vote
      3
      down vote













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



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



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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




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

















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

















      up vote
      2
      down vote













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






      share|improve this answer




















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










      Your Answer








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

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

      else
      createEditor();

      );

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



      );






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









       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















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

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      8 Answers
      8






      active

      oldest

      votes








      8 Answers
      8






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      47
      down vote













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



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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




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













      • 11




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







      • 54




        @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
        – Harry Johnston
        yesterday






      • 19




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







      • 32




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







      • 8




        @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
        – WS2
        yesterday














      up vote
      47
      down vote













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



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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




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













      • 11




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







      • 54




        @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
        – Harry Johnston
        yesterday






      • 19




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







      • 32




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







      • 8




        @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
        – WS2
        yesterday












      up vote
      47
      down vote










      up vote
      47
      down vote









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



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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




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









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



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







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




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









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




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









      answered yesterday









      stuart10

      50114




      50114




      New contributor




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





      New contributor





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






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







      • 11




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







      • 54




        @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
        – Harry Johnston
        yesterday






      • 19




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







      • 32




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







      • 8




        @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
        – WS2
        yesterday












      • 11




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







      • 54




        @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
        – Harry Johnston
        yesterday






      • 19




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







      • 32




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







      • 8




        @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
        – WS2
        yesterday







      11




      11




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





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





      54




      54




      @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
      – Harry Johnston
      yesterday




      @alephzero, the Irish border is a real problem, not something the EU made up just to be difficult.
      – Harry Johnston
      yesterday




      19




      19




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





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





      32




      32




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





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





      8




      8




      @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
      – WS2
      yesterday




      @Schwern Was it you or your spell-checker? The word I think you wanted was "tenets".
      – WS2
      yesterday










      up vote
      26
      down vote













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



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



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



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






      share|improve this answer
















      • 22




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











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






      • 9




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






      • 3




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











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















      up vote
      26
      down vote













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



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



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



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






      share|improve this answer
















      • 22




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











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






      • 9




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






      • 3




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











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













      up vote
      26
      down vote










      up vote
      26
      down vote









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



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



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



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






      share|improve this answer












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



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



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



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







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Agent_L

      54929




      54929







      • 22




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











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






      • 9




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






      • 3




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











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













      • 22




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











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






      • 9




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






      • 3




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











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








      22




      22




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





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













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




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




      9




      9




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




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




      3




      3




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





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













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





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











      up vote
      24
      down vote













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



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






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




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






      • 1




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










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










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






      • 5




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















      up vote
      24
      down vote













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



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






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




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






      • 1




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










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










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






      • 5




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













      up vote
      24
      down vote










      up vote
      24
      down vote









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



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






      share|improve this answer












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



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







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Jontia

      2,0901120




      2,0901120







      • 1




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






      • 1




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










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










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






      • 5




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













      • 1




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






      • 1




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










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










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






      • 5




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








      1




      1




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




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




      1




      1




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




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












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




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












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




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




      5




      5




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





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











      up vote
      8
      down vote














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




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



      Backstop



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



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



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



      Hard Borders



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



      The BBC report




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




      Keeping agreements



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



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



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



      Unilateral withdrawal



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



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



      The Irish Times puts it thus:




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



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




      Vienna convention




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







      share|improve this answer


























        up vote
        8
        down vote














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




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



        Backstop



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



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



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



        Hard Borders



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



        The BBC report




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




        Keeping agreements



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



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



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



        Unilateral withdrawal



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



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



        The Irish Times puts it thus:




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



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




        Vienna convention




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







        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          8
          down vote










          up vote
          8
          down vote










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




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



          Backstop



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



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



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



          Hard Borders



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



          The BBC report




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




          Keeping agreements



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



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



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



          Unilateral withdrawal



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



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



          The Irish Times puts it thus:




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



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




          Vienna convention




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







          share|improve this answer















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




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



          Backstop



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



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



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



          Hard Borders



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



          The BBC report




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




          Keeping agreements



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



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



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



          Unilateral withdrawal



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



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



          The Irish Times puts it thus:




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



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




          Vienna convention




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








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          RedGrittyBrick

          3,6361721




          3,6361721




















              up vote
              4
              down vote













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






              share|improve this answer


















              • 2




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














              up vote
              4
              down vote













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






              share|improve this answer


















              • 2




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












              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









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






              share|improve this answer














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







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 14 hours ago

























              answered 18 hours ago









              user

              5,28121126




              5,28121126







              • 2




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












              • 2




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







              2




              2




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




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










              up vote
              3
              down vote













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






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                3
                down vote













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






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









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






                  share|improve this answer














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







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 19 hours ago

























                  answered 19 hours ago









                  Relaxed

                  16.1k3455




                  16.1k3455




















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













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



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



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






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




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

















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














                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













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



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



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






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




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

















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












                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote









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



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



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






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




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









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



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



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







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




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









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




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









                      answered 13 hours ago









                      Doctor Jones

                      1312




                      1312




                      New contributor




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





                      New contributor





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






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











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
















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















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




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










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













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






                      share|improve this answer




















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














                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













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






                      share|improve this answer




















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












                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









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






                      share|improve this answer












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







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 15 hours ago









                      Mike Scott

                      82637




                      82637











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
















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















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




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










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









                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


















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












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











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













                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














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

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown






                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?