Why does the EU insist on the backstop when it is clear in a no deal scenario they still intend to keep an open border?Did Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar say that “no deal”, there won't be a hard border between the Irelands?Is there a clear statement from the DUP on their position on the post-Brexit border with Ireland?How can the Northern Ireland backstop take effect if there is “no deal”?Could the UK “take Ireland hostage?”What did Theresa May mean by: the EU wants a backstop to the backstop?If the NI border is the major sticking point in the Brexit negotiations, why are both sides willing to risk no-deal?How do Brexiteers interpret Trump's insistence on a wall?What does it mean to “leave the backstop”?A vote on the Brexit backstopThe backstop in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) BillDid Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar say that “no deal”, there won't be a hard border between the Irelands?

Why does the EU insist on the backstop when it is clear in a no deal scenario they still intend to keep an open border?

Combinations of multiple lists

Took a trip to a parallel universe, need help deciphering

What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?

Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets

Blender 2.8 I can't see vertices, edges or faces in edit mode

Were any external disk drives stacked vertically?

Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?

What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?

Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?

Brothers & sisters

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension

Watching something be written to a file live with tail

Neighboring nodes in the network

How to model explosives?

SSH "lag" in LAN on some machines, mixed distros

AES: Why is it a good practice to use only the first 16bytes of a hash for encryption?

Twin primes whose sum is a cube

prove that the matrix A is diagonalizable

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

UK: Is there precedent for the governments e-petition site changing the direction of a government decision?

Why is the 'in' operator throwing an error with a string literal instead of logging false?

Is it canonical bit space?



Why does the EU insist on the backstop when it is clear in a no deal scenario they still intend to keep an open border?


Did Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar say that “no deal”, there won't be a hard border between the Irelands?Is there a clear statement from the DUP on their position on the post-Brexit border with Ireland?How can the Northern Ireland backstop take effect if there is “no deal”?Could the UK “take Ireland hostage?”What did Theresa May mean by: the EU wants a backstop to the backstop?If the NI border is the major sticking point in the Brexit negotiations, why are both sides willing to risk no-deal?How do Brexiteers interpret Trump's insistence on a wall?What does it mean to “leave the backstop”?A vote on the Brexit backstopThe backstop in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) BillDid Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar say that “no deal”, there won't be a hard border between the Irelands?













4















The controversial backstop is seen by the hard-line Brexiteers as a trap by the EU to keep Northern Ireland permanently in a customs union without an option to get out if the UK wanted. In a no deal scenario, both the Irish PM and the EU presidents have said there would still be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.



So why do they insist on having it in the withdrawal agreement?










share|improve this question









New contributor




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




















  • The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago











  • I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago







  • 3





    The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

    – gabriele
    5 hours ago







  • 1





    @gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

    – Toby
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago
















4















The controversial backstop is seen by the hard-line Brexiteers as a trap by the EU to keep Northern Ireland permanently in a customs union without an option to get out if the UK wanted. In a no deal scenario, both the Irish PM and the EU presidents have said there would still be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.



So why do they insist on having it in the withdrawal agreement?










share|improve this question









New contributor




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




















  • The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago











  • I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago







  • 3





    The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

    – gabriele
    5 hours ago







  • 1





    @gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

    – Toby
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago














4












4








4








The controversial backstop is seen by the hard-line Brexiteers as a trap by the EU to keep Northern Ireland permanently in a customs union without an option to get out if the UK wanted. In a no deal scenario, both the Irish PM and the EU presidents have said there would still be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.



So why do they insist on having it in the withdrawal agreement?










share|improve this question









New contributor




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












The controversial backstop is seen by the hard-line Brexiteers as a trap by the EU to keep Northern Ireland permanently in a customs union without an option to get out if the UK wanted. In a no deal scenario, both the Irish PM and the EU presidents have said there would still be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.



So why do they insist on having it in the withdrawal agreement?







united-kingdom brexit northern-ireland republic-of-ireland






share|improve this question









New contributor




Toby 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




Toby 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








edited 1 hour ago









chirlu

4,03241628




4,03241628






New contributor




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









asked 6 hours ago









Toby Toby

271




271




New contributor




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





New contributor





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






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












  • The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago











  • I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago







  • 3





    The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

    – gabriele
    5 hours ago







  • 1





    @gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

    – Toby
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago


















  • The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago











  • I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago







  • 3





    The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

    – gabriele
    5 hours ago







  • 1





    @gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

    – Toby
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

    – Time4Tea
    5 hours ago

















The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago





The Irish backstop makes little sense to me either. Even if you take the opposite view that a no-deal Brexit would make a hard border more likely, that just makes the backstop demand seem even more illogical, because if the UK will not accept it and crashes out, then it increases the chances of the outcome it is intended to prevent.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago













I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago






I think part of it is that, at this point, the EU can't be seen to lose face by compromising, because it will make them look weak.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago





3




3





The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

– gabriele
5 hours ago






The UK and the EU agreed to the idea of backstop, which basically is a legal guarantee of the verbal agreement you mentioned of not putting back an hard border. The problem is that for political reasons the DUP opposes the idea. So the backstop is controversial for internal political reason of the UK government (see Brexit: what is the UK's backstop proposal?). A legal agreement is better than a verbal agreement, because an actual law has a real power that a verbal agreement lacks.

– gabriele
5 hours ago





1




1





@gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

– Toby
5 hours ago





@gabriele it's not only the DUP...The Hard brexiteers oppose it too simply because they believe it's a template for a permanent customs union and that even though the intention is to avoid a hard border, this can be solved by alternative arrangements. Thing is in a no deal scenario, the UK has said it wont return to hard, same as EU&NI even though that should be the proper thing to do. So, if in a no deal scenario, the border can still be invisible or at least there will be a genuine attempt at making it invisible from both sides, why must it be there?

– Toby
5 hours ago




2




2





I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago






I think, as @gabriele said, the EU and Ireland want a legal guarantee of no hard border, not just a verbal agreement and good intentions. However, many on the UK side see it as a possible legal trap. As I said, given the level of opposition to it in the UK, it seems to merely be increasing the risk of what the EU/Ireland (supposedly) want to avoid.

– Time4Tea
5 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














For the EU, keeping a border open even if it should be closed from a strictly legal and commercial point of view will impose costs. These might include the import of non-certified products into the internal market, illegal immigration, and more. So they would rather keep the border open under conditions which permit it, i.e. with a "somewhat hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.



I understand why the latter option would be unacceptable from an Ulster Unionist viewpoint, but from an EU viewpoint it solves lots of problems -- the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open, but the land on the other side of the open border follows common market regulations.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    4 hours ago












  • This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

    – Toby
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

    – Alex Hayward
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago


















1














O.m. is correct, but in a more prosaic representation, relative to no-deal, the backstop pushes the single-market border from the interior of Ireland to the Irish Sea. This is not entirely correct, because the whole UK would be in a more limited customs union with the EU as well. So there's basically a "double pushback" that spreads out the pain of dealing with the customs checks (some get pushed to the Irish Sea, some get pushed even further to the whole UK). With no-deal, all those checks have to be performed somewhere in Ireland (even if not right at the border), where they incur a higher cost for EU, mostly in terms of risks for stirring violence or at least more nationalism in Ireland etc.



Of course the EU needs to hang some carrot for the UK to buy this (as the UK would incur a cost) or at least a stick (worse economic outcome for no-deal). So some of the rest of the Agreement does the carrot part, but it's besides the point of your question, which is limited to EU's motivation for the backstop.




As for "hellbent" that has more to do with EU showing solidarity with Ireland, negotiating tactics, a German sensitivity to borders and Troubles etc.




Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, was speaking as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, said MPs who were planning to vote against Theresa May’s deal needed to stop their “wishful thinking” that the EU would reopen Brexit negotiations.



“Some people call us stubborn, but the truth is avoiding a hard border in Ireland is a fundamental concern for the EU, a union that more than anything else serves one purpose – to build and maintain peace in Europe,” said Maas. [...]



“During the Brexit negotiations, all 27 member states agreed on a common position and stood by it. This unity includes full solidarity with Ireland. We insisted, and still do: a hard border dividing the Irish island is unacceptable." [...] said Maas in a speech to Irish ambassadors in Dublin on Tuesday.




Basically the backstop guarantees a softer border in Ireland compared to no-deal.



Not everyone in Europe was happy with this, Poland in particular raised the idea of a "5-year limited backstop" back in January; Czaputowicz, their foreign minister said:




“Obviously, that would be less beneficial for Ireland than an indefinite backstop, but much better than a no deal Brexit which is unavoidably coming our way”.



According to what Czaputowicz underlined during his comments, the EU has become hostage to Ireland’s government position in the negotiations. “The Irish also gave a pretext to treat the British harshly. Arguably, they thought the UK would at some point agree to an indefinite backstop,” but this did not happen. “Now we have a game of chicken with two cars heading towards each other,” added Czaputowicz, who said this will inevitably mean a process that will lead to a hard border.




but they went back in line quickly after they were disavowed by Germany, Ireland (of course) and the by Brussels. Which as we now now has a contingency plan for the border that isn't that hard, but still riskier (for the EU) than the backstop would be.



The dominant idea in the EU, as expressed by the Irish foreign minister:




“I made it very clear that putting a time limit on an insurance mechanism, which is what the backstop is, effectively means that it’s not a backstop at all. I don’t think that reflects EU thinking in relation to the withdrawal agreement.”




I guess that you look at it from the German perspective, in which the backstop equals peace (at least declaratively), "peace for 5 years" sounds silly. Of course "peace forever or war now" is also not a great slogan. But this is probably where the game of chicken comes in play; the more drastic terminology you use to frame the problem, the more likely it is for the no-deal to seem out of the question.



And this is actually not too far from the actual game of chicken, in which a strategy is




Pre-commitment



One tactic in the game is for one party to signal their intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good strategy.







share|improve this answer

























  • succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

    – Toby
    23 mins ago











  • @Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

    – Fizz
    11 mins ago












  • interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

    – Toby
    1 min 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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
);



);






Toby 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%2f40254%2fwhy-does-the-eu-insist-on-the-backstop-when-it-is-clear-in-a-no-deal-scenario-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6














For the EU, keeping a border open even if it should be closed from a strictly legal and commercial point of view will impose costs. These might include the import of non-certified products into the internal market, illegal immigration, and more. So they would rather keep the border open under conditions which permit it, i.e. with a "somewhat hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.



I understand why the latter option would be unacceptable from an Ulster Unionist viewpoint, but from an EU viewpoint it solves lots of problems -- the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open, but the land on the other side of the open border follows common market regulations.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    4 hours ago












  • This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

    – Toby
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

    – Alex Hayward
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago















6














For the EU, keeping a border open even if it should be closed from a strictly legal and commercial point of view will impose costs. These might include the import of non-certified products into the internal market, illegal immigration, and more. So they would rather keep the border open under conditions which permit it, i.e. with a "somewhat hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.



I understand why the latter option would be unacceptable from an Ulster Unionist viewpoint, but from an EU viewpoint it solves lots of problems -- the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open, but the land on the other side of the open border follows common market regulations.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    4 hours ago












  • This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

    – Toby
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

    – Alex Hayward
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago













6












6








6







For the EU, keeping a border open even if it should be closed from a strictly legal and commercial point of view will impose costs. These might include the import of non-certified products into the internal market, illegal immigration, and more. So they would rather keep the border open under conditions which permit it, i.e. with a "somewhat hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.



I understand why the latter option would be unacceptable from an Ulster Unionist viewpoint, but from an EU viewpoint it solves lots of problems -- the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open, but the land on the other side of the open border follows common market regulations.






share|improve this answer













For the EU, keeping a border open even if it should be closed from a strictly legal and commercial point of view will impose costs. These might include the import of non-certified products into the internal market, illegal immigration, and more. So they would rather keep the border open under conditions which permit it, i.e. with a "somewhat hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.



I understand why the latter option would be unacceptable from an Ulster Unionist viewpoint, but from an EU viewpoint it solves lots of problems -- the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open, but the land on the other side of the open border follows common market regulations.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 5 hours ago









o.m.o.m.

11k22046




11k22046







  • 2





    See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    4 hours ago












  • This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

    – Toby
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

    – Alex Hayward
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago












  • 2





    See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    4 hours ago












  • This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

    – Toby
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

    – Alex Hayward
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago







2




2





See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago






See also: Brexit: Good Friday Agreement 'hard to protect' in a no deal, which is based on an interview with Varadkar, where the latter puts forward that livestock controls would likely need to occur at the border itself. Contrary to the premise behind the question, it is not at all clear that the border would stay open on the EU side.

– Denis de Bernardy
4 hours ago














This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

– Toby
4 hours ago





This is an excellent answer.... I dont know if it would be open either but it is stated by both the UK PM and Irish PM that they wont build a hard border in the event of a no deal. Infact Varadkar said it again today alongside Merkel

– Toby
4 hours ago




2




2





Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

– Alex Hayward
2 hours ago





Illegal migration is not a big issue for the EU outside of Ireland as there are immigration controls between them. It's also not such a big issue inside the common travel area as Irish and UK citizens are free to live anywhere in the UK and Ireland, there is visa cooperation between the UK and Ireland and UK/EU citizens are likely to have visa-free visits to the EU/UK anyway. For these reasons it shouldn't be a much bigger issue than it is now. Conversely, VAT may be a substantial issue where it currently isn't (as well as non-certified products and tariff evasion).

– Alex Hayward
2 hours ago




1




1





Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

– JonathanReez
1 hour ago





Illegal migration is not an issue at all, not in the slightest. UK citizens have freedom of movement in Ireland regardless of EU treaties. And you cannot use Ireland as a way to get into the EU visa-free for as long as it remains outside the Schengen area.

– JonathanReez
1 hour ago











1














O.m. is correct, but in a more prosaic representation, relative to no-deal, the backstop pushes the single-market border from the interior of Ireland to the Irish Sea. This is not entirely correct, because the whole UK would be in a more limited customs union with the EU as well. So there's basically a "double pushback" that spreads out the pain of dealing with the customs checks (some get pushed to the Irish Sea, some get pushed even further to the whole UK). With no-deal, all those checks have to be performed somewhere in Ireland (even if not right at the border), where they incur a higher cost for EU, mostly in terms of risks for stirring violence or at least more nationalism in Ireland etc.



Of course the EU needs to hang some carrot for the UK to buy this (as the UK would incur a cost) or at least a stick (worse economic outcome for no-deal). So some of the rest of the Agreement does the carrot part, but it's besides the point of your question, which is limited to EU's motivation for the backstop.




As for "hellbent" that has more to do with EU showing solidarity with Ireland, negotiating tactics, a German sensitivity to borders and Troubles etc.




Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, was speaking as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, said MPs who were planning to vote against Theresa May’s deal needed to stop their “wishful thinking” that the EU would reopen Brexit negotiations.



“Some people call us stubborn, but the truth is avoiding a hard border in Ireland is a fundamental concern for the EU, a union that more than anything else serves one purpose – to build and maintain peace in Europe,” said Maas. [...]



“During the Brexit negotiations, all 27 member states agreed on a common position and stood by it. This unity includes full solidarity with Ireland. We insisted, and still do: a hard border dividing the Irish island is unacceptable." [...] said Maas in a speech to Irish ambassadors in Dublin on Tuesday.




Basically the backstop guarantees a softer border in Ireland compared to no-deal.



Not everyone in Europe was happy with this, Poland in particular raised the idea of a "5-year limited backstop" back in January; Czaputowicz, their foreign minister said:




“Obviously, that would be less beneficial for Ireland than an indefinite backstop, but much better than a no deal Brexit which is unavoidably coming our way”.



According to what Czaputowicz underlined during his comments, the EU has become hostage to Ireland’s government position in the negotiations. “The Irish also gave a pretext to treat the British harshly. Arguably, they thought the UK would at some point agree to an indefinite backstop,” but this did not happen. “Now we have a game of chicken with two cars heading towards each other,” added Czaputowicz, who said this will inevitably mean a process that will lead to a hard border.




but they went back in line quickly after they were disavowed by Germany, Ireland (of course) and the by Brussels. Which as we now now has a contingency plan for the border that isn't that hard, but still riskier (for the EU) than the backstop would be.



The dominant idea in the EU, as expressed by the Irish foreign minister:




“I made it very clear that putting a time limit on an insurance mechanism, which is what the backstop is, effectively means that it’s not a backstop at all. I don’t think that reflects EU thinking in relation to the withdrawal agreement.”




I guess that you look at it from the German perspective, in which the backstop equals peace (at least declaratively), "peace for 5 years" sounds silly. Of course "peace forever or war now" is also not a great slogan. But this is probably where the game of chicken comes in play; the more drastic terminology you use to frame the problem, the more likely it is for the no-deal to seem out of the question.



And this is actually not too far from the actual game of chicken, in which a strategy is




Pre-commitment



One tactic in the game is for one party to signal their intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good strategy.







share|improve this answer

























  • succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

    – Toby
    23 mins ago











  • @Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

    – Fizz
    11 mins ago












  • interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

    – Toby
    1 min ago















1














O.m. is correct, but in a more prosaic representation, relative to no-deal, the backstop pushes the single-market border from the interior of Ireland to the Irish Sea. This is not entirely correct, because the whole UK would be in a more limited customs union with the EU as well. So there's basically a "double pushback" that spreads out the pain of dealing with the customs checks (some get pushed to the Irish Sea, some get pushed even further to the whole UK). With no-deal, all those checks have to be performed somewhere in Ireland (even if not right at the border), where they incur a higher cost for EU, mostly in terms of risks for stirring violence or at least more nationalism in Ireland etc.



Of course the EU needs to hang some carrot for the UK to buy this (as the UK would incur a cost) or at least a stick (worse economic outcome for no-deal). So some of the rest of the Agreement does the carrot part, but it's besides the point of your question, which is limited to EU's motivation for the backstop.




As for "hellbent" that has more to do with EU showing solidarity with Ireland, negotiating tactics, a German sensitivity to borders and Troubles etc.




Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, was speaking as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, said MPs who were planning to vote against Theresa May’s deal needed to stop their “wishful thinking” that the EU would reopen Brexit negotiations.



“Some people call us stubborn, but the truth is avoiding a hard border in Ireland is a fundamental concern for the EU, a union that more than anything else serves one purpose – to build and maintain peace in Europe,” said Maas. [...]



“During the Brexit negotiations, all 27 member states agreed on a common position and stood by it. This unity includes full solidarity with Ireland. We insisted, and still do: a hard border dividing the Irish island is unacceptable." [...] said Maas in a speech to Irish ambassadors in Dublin on Tuesday.




Basically the backstop guarantees a softer border in Ireland compared to no-deal.



Not everyone in Europe was happy with this, Poland in particular raised the idea of a "5-year limited backstop" back in January; Czaputowicz, their foreign minister said:




“Obviously, that would be less beneficial for Ireland than an indefinite backstop, but much better than a no deal Brexit which is unavoidably coming our way”.



According to what Czaputowicz underlined during his comments, the EU has become hostage to Ireland’s government position in the negotiations. “The Irish also gave a pretext to treat the British harshly. Arguably, they thought the UK would at some point agree to an indefinite backstop,” but this did not happen. “Now we have a game of chicken with two cars heading towards each other,” added Czaputowicz, who said this will inevitably mean a process that will lead to a hard border.




but they went back in line quickly after they were disavowed by Germany, Ireland (of course) and the by Brussels. Which as we now now has a contingency plan for the border that isn't that hard, but still riskier (for the EU) than the backstop would be.



The dominant idea in the EU, as expressed by the Irish foreign minister:




“I made it very clear that putting a time limit on an insurance mechanism, which is what the backstop is, effectively means that it’s not a backstop at all. I don’t think that reflects EU thinking in relation to the withdrawal agreement.”




I guess that you look at it from the German perspective, in which the backstop equals peace (at least declaratively), "peace for 5 years" sounds silly. Of course "peace forever or war now" is also not a great slogan. But this is probably where the game of chicken comes in play; the more drastic terminology you use to frame the problem, the more likely it is for the no-deal to seem out of the question.



And this is actually not too far from the actual game of chicken, in which a strategy is




Pre-commitment



One tactic in the game is for one party to signal their intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good strategy.







share|improve this answer

























  • succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

    – Toby
    23 mins ago











  • @Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

    – Fizz
    11 mins ago












  • interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

    – Toby
    1 min ago













1












1








1







O.m. is correct, but in a more prosaic representation, relative to no-deal, the backstop pushes the single-market border from the interior of Ireland to the Irish Sea. This is not entirely correct, because the whole UK would be in a more limited customs union with the EU as well. So there's basically a "double pushback" that spreads out the pain of dealing with the customs checks (some get pushed to the Irish Sea, some get pushed even further to the whole UK). With no-deal, all those checks have to be performed somewhere in Ireland (even if not right at the border), where they incur a higher cost for EU, mostly in terms of risks for stirring violence or at least more nationalism in Ireland etc.



Of course the EU needs to hang some carrot for the UK to buy this (as the UK would incur a cost) or at least a stick (worse economic outcome for no-deal). So some of the rest of the Agreement does the carrot part, but it's besides the point of your question, which is limited to EU's motivation for the backstop.




As for "hellbent" that has more to do with EU showing solidarity with Ireland, negotiating tactics, a German sensitivity to borders and Troubles etc.




Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, was speaking as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, said MPs who were planning to vote against Theresa May’s deal needed to stop their “wishful thinking” that the EU would reopen Brexit negotiations.



“Some people call us stubborn, but the truth is avoiding a hard border in Ireland is a fundamental concern for the EU, a union that more than anything else serves one purpose – to build and maintain peace in Europe,” said Maas. [...]



“During the Brexit negotiations, all 27 member states agreed on a common position and stood by it. This unity includes full solidarity with Ireland. We insisted, and still do: a hard border dividing the Irish island is unacceptable." [...] said Maas in a speech to Irish ambassadors in Dublin on Tuesday.




Basically the backstop guarantees a softer border in Ireland compared to no-deal.



Not everyone in Europe was happy with this, Poland in particular raised the idea of a "5-year limited backstop" back in January; Czaputowicz, their foreign minister said:




“Obviously, that would be less beneficial for Ireland than an indefinite backstop, but much better than a no deal Brexit which is unavoidably coming our way”.



According to what Czaputowicz underlined during his comments, the EU has become hostage to Ireland’s government position in the negotiations. “The Irish also gave a pretext to treat the British harshly. Arguably, they thought the UK would at some point agree to an indefinite backstop,” but this did not happen. “Now we have a game of chicken with two cars heading towards each other,” added Czaputowicz, who said this will inevitably mean a process that will lead to a hard border.




but they went back in line quickly after they were disavowed by Germany, Ireland (of course) and the by Brussels. Which as we now now has a contingency plan for the border that isn't that hard, but still riskier (for the EU) than the backstop would be.



The dominant idea in the EU, as expressed by the Irish foreign minister:




“I made it very clear that putting a time limit on an insurance mechanism, which is what the backstop is, effectively means that it’s not a backstop at all. I don’t think that reflects EU thinking in relation to the withdrawal agreement.”




I guess that you look at it from the German perspective, in which the backstop equals peace (at least declaratively), "peace for 5 years" sounds silly. Of course "peace forever or war now" is also not a great slogan. But this is probably where the game of chicken comes in play; the more drastic terminology you use to frame the problem, the more likely it is for the no-deal to seem out of the question.



And this is actually not too far from the actual game of chicken, in which a strategy is




Pre-commitment



One tactic in the game is for one party to signal their intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good strategy.







share|improve this answer















O.m. is correct, but in a more prosaic representation, relative to no-deal, the backstop pushes the single-market border from the interior of Ireland to the Irish Sea. This is not entirely correct, because the whole UK would be in a more limited customs union with the EU as well. So there's basically a "double pushback" that spreads out the pain of dealing with the customs checks (some get pushed to the Irish Sea, some get pushed even further to the whole UK). With no-deal, all those checks have to be performed somewhere in Ireland (even if not right at the border), where they incur a higher cost for EU, mostly in terms of risks for stirring violence or at least more nationalism in Ireland etc.



Of course the EU needs to hang some carrot for the UK to buy this (as the UK would incur a cost) or at least a stick (worse economic outcome for no-deal). So some of the rest of the Agreement does the carrot part, but it's besides the point of your question, which is limited to EU's motivation for the backstop.




As for "hellbent" that has more to do with EU showing solidarity with Ireland, negotiating tactics, a German sensitivity to borders and Troubles etc.




Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, was speaking as Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, said MPs who were planning to vote against Theresa May’s deal needed to stop their “wishful thinking” that the EU would reopen Brexit negotiations.



“Some people call us stubborn, but the truth is avoiding a hard border in Ireland is a fundamental concern for the EU, a union that more than anything else serves one purpose – to build and maintain peace in Europe,” said Maas. [...]



“During the Brexit negotiations, all 27 member states agreed on a common position and stood by it. This unity includes full solidarity with Ireland. We insisted, and still do: a hard border dividing the Irish island is unacceptable." [...] said Maas in a speech to Irish ambassadors in Dublin on Tuesday.




Basically the backstop guarantees a softer border in Ireland compared to no-deal.



Not everyone in Europe was happy with this, Poland in particular raised the idea of a "5-year limited backstop" back in January; Czaputowicz, their foreign minister said:




“Obviously, that would be less beneficial for Ireland than an indefinite backstop, but much better than a no deal Brexit which is unavoidably coming our way”.



According to what Czaputowicz underlined during his comments, the EU has become hostage to Ireland’s government position in the negotiations. “The Irish also gave a pretext to treat the British harshly. Arguably, they thought the UK would at some point agree to an indefinite backstop,” but this did not happen. “Now we have a game of chicken with two cars heading towards each other,” added Czaputowicz, who said this will inevitably mean a process that will lead to a hard border.




but they went back in line quickly after they were disavowed by Germany, Ireland (of course) and the by Brussels. Which as we now now has a contingency plan for the border that isn't that hard, but still riskier (for the EU) than the backstop would be.



The dominant idea in the EU, as expressed by the Irish foreign minister:




“I made it very clear that putting a time limit on an insurance mechanism, which is what the backstop is, effectively means that it’s not a backstop at all. I don’t think that reflects EU thinking in relation to the withdrawal agreement.”




I guess that you look at it from the German perspective, in which the backstop equals peace (at least declaratively), "peace for 5 years" sounds silly. Of course "peace forever or war now" is also not a great slogan. But this is probably where the game of chicken comes in play; the more drastic terminology you use to frame the problem, the more likely it is for the no-deal to seem out of the question.



And this is actually not too far from the actual game of chicken, in which a strategy is




Pre-commitment



One tactic in the game is for one party to signal their intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good strategy.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









FizzFizz

13.5k23286




13.5k23286












  • succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

    – Toby
    23 mins ago











  • @Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

    – Fizz
    11 mins ago












  • interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

    – Toby
    1 min ago

















  • succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

    – Toby
    23 mins ago











  • @Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

    – Fizz
    11 mins ago












  • interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

    – Toby
    1 min ago
















succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

– Toby
23 mins ago





succintly put..I get the play now....If I were the UK I must insist on a time limit backstop....EU has to concede that otherwise it may be better to be in a perpetual No deal scenario and let things shape out from there. It's ridiculous the EU seems to just want to bully the UK

– Toby
23 mins ago













@Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

– Fizz
11 mins ago






@Toby: That is correct only if you assume the UK has nothing to gain from the backstop. But that's not certain. Just like in the (theoretical) game of chicken, both sides (UK and Ireland+EU) may lose something if the Troubles come back. The losses might not be same for both sides though.

– Fizz
11 mins ago














interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

– Toby
1 min ago





interesting perspective...didn't think of it that way. I think you maybe right.

– Toby
1 min ago










Toby is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Toby is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Toby is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Toby is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40254%2fwhy-does-the-eu-insist-on-the-backstop-when-it-is-clear-in-a-no-deal-scenario-th%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

名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar