New answers tagged

19

The answer to this question dates back to 2019. Theresa May's government rejected the current solution, a border in the Irish Sea, and instead proposed a "backstop" that would keep the entire UK aligned with EU rules until a better solution could be found. That proposal was soundly rejected by the UK Parliament, with both Tory and opposition MPs ...


3

I think Ambassador Almeida was echoing Vice President Maroš Šefčovič in using the "upside down and inside out" soundbite - he used the same language in a press statement the day before (June 30th), where he unveiled a list of 'practical solutions' proposed to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol. Turning to the second part of our package: ...


2

I see Boris Johnson has been making a talking point out of cancer treatments: Thirty medicines are no longer available in Northern Ireland because of rules enforced at the border with the Republic of Ireland following Brexit, the Prime Minister has said. Speaking at the recent G7 summit, Boris Johnson reportedly said that the medicines and one innovative ...


4

The government is concerned about the Protocol's requirements (Article 7) that manufactured goods placed on the market in Northern Ireland (including medicines) comply with both EU and UK regulations - even if they are only to be consumed within NI. In fact, it argues that because medicines are so tightly controlled and regulated, there would be little risk ...


33

The problem is the Brexit Trilemma. From Wikipedia: Following the Brexit referendum, the first May government decided that not only should the United Kingdom leave the European Union but also that it should leave the European Union Customs Union and the European Single Market. This meant that a customs and regulatory border would arise between the UK and ...


21

The argument appears to boil down to: the situation under the current Protocol is unsustainable, the British government feels that it would be entitled to invoke Article 16 of the Protocol, allowing it to unilaterally take action, but would prefer to proceed bilaterally with the EU to come to an agreement which both sides can be satisfied with. The ...


59

Brexit recreated/uncovered problems which the EU membership of Ireland and the UK had allowed to recede. If there are no hard borders, then people and goods can travel from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland (NI), from there to the Republic of Ireland (RoI), and from there to the rest of the EU. The Brexiteers wanted to "take back control" of ...


4

Not leaving the U.K. carries no dead loss transition costs and hasn't had any catastrophic negative consequences so far. Inertia is powerful and you shouldn't fix what isn't seriously broken. Not leaving the U.K. avoids unnecessary political conflict over shared resources (from national football and Olympic stars, to offshore oil and gas rights, to national ...


5

One argument that has been made is that Scotland would lose some access to the UK market, which is a major one for its economy. There seems to be some truth in that, as we have seen that Northern Ireland, which is part of the EU's economic area with a border down the Irish Sea separating it from the rest of the UK, has not been able to retain unfettered ...


8

While the UK was still in the EU, an independent Scotland remaining in the EU would also enjoy unfettered access to the rump UK market through the EU single market framework. In that scenario, it would get the best of both worlds: access to the UK market and access to the rest of the EU single market (and increased autonomy/sovereignty on other matters). ...


-2

EU membership or not would be an argument hotly debated by the media, but far less important among the voters. People realised that the exit of the UK from the EU is more a formal than actual. The UK still has a lot of agreements binding it to the EU and the change for Scotland from the UK to the EU would have little economic impact.


Top 50 recent answers are included