Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WE’RE JUST ABOUT three months away from 29 March, which is the legal deadline by which the UK must leave the European Union.
For the past two years, the UK has been hammering out the terms and conditions for leaving the economic, customs, trade and immigration agreement they have with the 27 other member states through being part of the European Union.
Although the EU and UK negotiating teams, the 27 EU leaders, and UK Prime Minister Theresa May have agreed to support the Brexit deal, there has been a growing backlash against the deal due to concerns that the backstop could lead to the UK being permanently locked into an indefinite customs deal, or Northern Ireland being carved off from Great Britain.
Unless there’s a dramatic change (of which we haven’t been short), the UK will be out of the European Union by 30 March 2019, deal or no deal.
Both sides have agreed that a no-deal scenario is the worst outcome for everyone, but since June this year, it’s become an increasingly likely outcome. Here’s why that is, and why the deal on the table looks so unfavourable.
It’s a worst-of-both-worlds Brexit
The proposal for a deal that they’ve achieved has been described as “Frankenstein’s monster”: a creation made partly through a bizarre experiment to see how far it could go, and captivates the attention of onlookers, agape at how things unfold as time goes on.
The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, which only sets out the terms upon which the UK leaves the European Union, is seen as being too closely aligned to the EU by Brexiteers.
The deal cuts off the free movement of people, which means that the UK wouldn’t be allowed access to the Single Market; disputes about EU law would go before the European Court of Justice; and the issue of fisheries, which has been called the UK’s strongest hand, is the only issue for which there has been no agreement.
Last week, Theresa May postponed the crucial House of Commons vote MPs have on her Brexit deal when it looked as though as many as 100 Tories would vote against her.
Two days later, 117 MPs voted to say they had no confidence in her as Tory leader.
Then there are the MPs who oppose Brexit altogether. They are starting to think that if they reject the deal in the House of Commons vote, their chances of getting a second referendum are higher.
Since the postponed vote, the UK media have been reporting that there are secret preparations for a second referendum, despite Theresa May’s public declarations that holding a second vote would do “irreparable damage” to the integrity British politics.
EU-UK tensions have soared
A breakdown in goodwill and trust between the UK and EU has also contributed to the Brexit deal stalemate we’re in now. There’s a lack of trust from both sides, whether justified or not, as is evidenced by the row over the backstop.
But that row has been going on for some time now.
After David Davis resigned as Brexit Secretary in July this year and Dominic Raab took his place, it seemed as though negotiations were put on firmer ground.
There were reports of chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier getting on better with Raab, press conferences together seemed warmer than with Davies.
But in the run up to the Salzburg summit, things took a turn. That’s something both sides do agree on.
Speaking to the Telegraph’s Brexit Podcast this month, Dominic Raab, said that he had been given political assurances that the backstop would be time limited, but that EU and UK officials began leading negotiations in the lead up to the Salzburg summit.
When we got to September in the lead up to the Salzburg summit, [negotiations] frayed a little bit, because we were being led much more by officials. And there’s a huge role for officials… but I think as we got close to the Salzburg summit, and certainly after as we addressed and approached the October Council, I think it was very clear to me that we needed a political closure to this deal. We didn’t have that and I think it probably accounts for the failure at Salzburg.
The summit at Salzburg was organised to discuss the Irish backstop (which hadn’t been agreed then), but ended up with EU leaders criticising Theresa May’s Chequers plan in a move that reportedly “blindsided” the Prime Minister, and culminated in her firing back with a statement from 10 Downing Street, saying that she expected to be treated with respect.
“The EU have played a good game,” Raab said on the podcast. “We haven’t been tough enough or clear enough. We could have won this backstop argument, even as late as July.”
At the time of the summit, EU Council President Donald Tusk said something similar: “The UK stance presented just before and during the Salzburg meeting was surprisingly tough, and in fact uncompromising.”
What’s at the heart of Brexit?
On 23 June 2016, what did the 51% of people who voted for Brexit actually vote for?
Was it increased sovereignty by limiting the rules and regulations of the EU, to limit immigration, or to “take back control” of its waters? Was it all three?
The most accurate answer is we’re not sure, but we can take a good guess, and that’s what MPs have been doing. The problem here arises when we hear MPs say that this Brexit deal doesn’t represent what people voted for – although that may be true, it’s not clear what the UK electorate did vote for on 23 June.
But let’s take the examples above as the most commonly cited reasons for Brexit.
On sovereignty, the UK will gain more control over who enters its country, who fishes in its waters, and what laws it enforces as a result of Brexit (if Brexiteers succeed in pushing for an alternative deal).
There are losses attached to that: pulling out of the free movement of people commitment means they lose access to the lucrative Single Market, which is why so many multinationals have been looking to move their headquarters to other European capitals, including Dublin. So they get sovereignty, but at a cost.
Since the Brexit vote, immigration from EU countries has fallen dramatically; but simultaneously risen from non-EU countries. If the Brexit vote is to be interpreted as a desire to limit immigration, it wasn’t clear on who it wants to refuse entry to: skilled workers from the EU; people with British heritage; people from former colonies; asylum seekers fleeing war?
Finally, fishermen have expressed concern around where they would export their catches in the event of a no-deal Brexit, as the UK would be potentially cut off from the 27 countries it currently exports to.
The EU has said that it would only allow seafood exports from the UK to be tariff- and quota-free if there was an agreement, similar to its arrangement with Norway, that EU fishing fleets can continue to fish in British waters. Brexiteers would be against that arrangement.
Added to the internal struggles within each of those issues, is the separate issue for what Brexit means for Northern Ireland. The backstop is meant to ensure there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland because of Brexit.
But in order to do that, it means the UK has to follow EU rules very closely, or else Northern Ireland needs to follow a different set of customs rules and regulations than Great Britain.
Because of the confusion over what is at the heart of Brexit, it’s difficult for UK politicians to prioritise what they’re willing to compromise on.
And if no compromise is possible from the unhappy Brexiteer MPs, then it’s difficult to see how a Brexit deal can be agreed in the short timeframe left.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
We had a few people over from America meeting a few of our work colleagues in Cork, the visitors had already arrived in Cork City the night before before the meeting. One of the visitors was black and when they met with our colleagues the group of three were not in great form. They didn’t have to be asked what was wrong as they came straight out and said they have been all over the world and have never been subjected to the racial abuse they received in Cork. Our people were a bit surprised and asked for some example of what happened them. The black person gave one example and said they were in a bar the night before and when he looked for drinks the barman said “what do you want, boy”. This little Corkism was enough to cause upset and after a bust of laughter all was explained and peace restored.
I remember I use to be an open minded non-racist…but then I moved to London, it’s funny how re-location can alter your opinions…for example I’m not fond of Nigerians and just so happens their black, does that make me racist? I think they’ve a bad and or aggressive attitude maybe due to their strict upbringing (not all)….the debates very VERY long!!!! Why should we have to like other countries when we against everything they stand for…why should we just accept? I’m not in anyway neo nazi and I’m totally against EDL!!! It’s all about the right approach.
Ben
When you generalise and attribute characteristics to a group of people who come from a particular country or region,
That, my friend, is racism
did’nt our Gov do that with the travellers??!!!
Well…guess I’m a racist then cause I don’t particularly like Australia’s either for minor reasons…(1) their loud (2) drunkards and (3) annoying accents, hope I can sleep tonight.
Well, xenophobia :p
No Dave, it is not racist to generalise, that is the most idiotic idea to ever come from as human. The fact is some cultures are not compatible, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture and societal norms. What is normal behaviour for a Nigerian may not be normal for an Irish person and vice versa, recognising this difference is not racism. The fact is culture is a generalist attribute of nations, this can not be denied it is a fact. So go educate yourself before you call people racist you absolute tool.
Dave
I’m an Italian man living here few years, and a part from some smart comments like ” spaghetti, la mamma” etc.. I can say that Irish are just not racists.
In support to Ben it is strange how the vision about the black can be altered here in Ireland.
That happened to myself I must admit. And keep in mind that back home I was ready to go and volunteer for a project in Burkina Faso.
But when it comes to Nigerians we are naturally thinking at a possible scam. Also most of their approach in terms of manners it come across like rude and sometimes aggressive.
Having say that, the new generations are getting integrated into the culture and maybe in 20 years time we will drinking pints with them in the pub and the culture difference will disappear.
But at the moment there is a difference and is just not compatible. Except of course for those very few cases where they accept this culture and traditions.
If you want to call me racist you’re more than welcome but this is what it is.
Gianni
Well said Gianni, pay no attention to the idiots calling everyone ‘racist’ that is the oldest trick in the book to stifle or prevent debate on the subject. When these half wits call people racist it just demonstrates that they have no argument.
Tom this is the oxford dictionary of racism – I’d say that’s educating enough….Definition of racism in English
racism
Pronunciation: /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
Translate racism | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
a programme to combat racism
Dave, I don’t need you to Google the word racism in order define it for me, I’m well aware of its definition. Still, my point stands, it is not racist to generalise based on cultural norms, it is racist to generalise based on colour of skin or race alone. Do ya get it now?
There is nothing racist about recognising that some cultures clash with western or Irish ideals and norms. It is a fact.
But Ben, they can spell.
Forgot to mention the cultural thing in my post..but your 100% right with comparability.
Fantastic point Gianni say it how it is.
* you’re
Ben
Two small stories about Nigerians.
First: a Nigerian woman was parking on Dawson Street at 4.00pm so I explained to her about the clearway system. She looked straight through me and walked off, leaving her car on the clearway.
A taxi ride from Dublin Airport. The taxi driver (Nigerian) and I spent the journey setting Ireland’s problems to rights and roundly condemning the useless politicians in Leinster House.
Two sides of the same Nigerian coin.
Some are Ben , some are not
Know all Australians now do you
That’s petty in my opinion, I hate grammar nazi’s..I am fully aware of the their, there and there’re differences! I just wrote as I thought….! Ya clown.
Haha good man Dave biting…Jesus I was being vague with my opinions…I like nice people in all aspects of life, be it Australians, Nigerians, Dubs etc etc.
Ben all your doing is making a fool of yourself
The fourth article on The Journal about racism and immigrants rights in the space of a week, what the hell is going on? Is the Journal trying to push an agenda or is it a personal crusade by the editor of The Journal? Why did you delete this comment? Is censorship the norm for The Journal now? Losing all credibility fast.
Dave, we all know what racism means at this stage. History in different countries, tragic events and being actual the recent death of a great man and his fight against apartheid.
But believe me this just a culture difference clash, two extremes trying to find a middle way.
It all goes down to get the time to be fully integrated with the culture…but this a “new” phenomenon for Ireland and I’m sure that eventually the difference will be smoother and smoother until it disappears.
Please give us a deal of adjustments and stop using the word Racism so easily.
An Italian
But you’re judging a whole countries people on the few that you have met, or heard about.
Do you know all the people you comment on? Have you done exhaustive studies to back up your wild generalisations?
Everybody is different
The only thing you can generalise about is people who generalise are idiots
Dave,
You have to be able to look at the bigger picture. No offence but you sound to me the antiracism knight more than an open minded person that is capable to see things from above.
Culture differences are a fact! Hope you agree with me.
Of course there are cases of nice people despite of their nationalities. But we’re talking about characteristics that identify people, their customs and traditions that are linked to their country.
I’ve been in Nigeria myself and let me tell you…..you wouldn’t go around Lagos screaming I’m not racist!
As European we have an history of colonies, crusades etc. etc….
But the integration of such an extreme culture difference takes time.
Example: you can take a Nigerian in London working for a bank in canary wolf and we wouldn’t have this conversation.
Again Dave….culture differences are a fact and it takes time to adjust them specially when they are so far from each other.
On a funny side if this difference wouldn’t exist we would probably be eating spaghetti or tapas instead of drinking cold pints around “traditional” Irish pubs!
Don’t call this being racist mate!
If you use generalised prejudices to make statements about anybody based on where they are from,
You
Are
Racist
have your say