Because the campaign was absolutely appalling, and a textbook example of how not to do these things.
The referendum was brought forward by a government which did not wish to leave the European Union, had no concrete plan or proposal about how to do this or what leaving would look like or how it would play out in practice, and refused to do any thinking or planning for what would happen in the event of a “Leave” vote on the grounds that that would be defeatist. (Of all 28 member states, the one whose government did the least contingency planning for Brexit was the UK.) Those who did favour leaving were not in government and would have no responsibility for implementing a decision to leave, and could therefore promise or project whatever they liked.
Furthermore, the referendum was about whether the UK should leave the European Union. There was no question on the ballot paper about whether the UK should also leave the European Economic Area or the European Customs Union, both of which are larger than the EU. If the UK remained in the EEA and the Customs Union the Irish border would be unaffected. It was only after the referendum result was known that the UK government adopted the position that leaving the Union must also mean leaving the EEA and the Customs Union, and it was the latter decisions which really brought the Irish border question into focus.
Yes, I am aware that the United Kingdom and Ireland have a troubled past. But it appears to be the past at this point. Terrorists haven’t been crossing the border while it’s been open. Why would they suddenly decide to do so if border security was raised?
Because they - and not just they - would resent the imposition of controls on movement and goods.
The partition of Ireland is one of the factors that contributes to the problem. The more intrusive, expensive, restrictive, overt, invasive, etc that partition is, the more reaction you can expect.
Because, as the current mess displays, referendums are not about litigating - or only if it’s a matter of securing a public demonstration of approval for something already substantially litigated: which the design of this particular referendum didn’t. In 1975, the terms of what voters were being asked to approve in relation to Europe were known. In 2016, the idiot Cameron didn’t ask for public approval of his (non)deal with the other EU members, he phrased it terms of leaving altogether. Ask a silly question…
I’m sure the point was made in the campaign in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere in the UK it was another example of what all parties in Ireland have always complained of - being the afterthought while the rest of the UK is attending to something else.
They have, actually, but currently are so few in number as to have been contained by the police and security forces without too much trouble. But once a physical border and all its attendant annoyances exist, there are convenient targets and a handy recruiting tool for them, with no guarantee that the situation would be controllable or containable.
Even if the Irish border had been raised in the referendum Leave would have simply kneejerked ‘scaremongering!’ and the idiot public would have believed them.
The Troubles are still within living memory of lots of people. There are probably hundreds of people alive today who lost family members or friends. Not to mention those who may have blood on their hands. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry about reopening (not so old) wounds.
Well immigration control was clearly a major focus of the referendum–and you can’t control immigration if you are a member of the European Economic Area. Likewise it is hard to reconcile “taking back control”/regaining national sovereignty with remaining in the European Economic Area.
To make that clearer, it hasn’t even been twenty years since people were killed in an IRA bombing. This isn’t some ancient history that a handful of old people had experience with.
The UK was a founding member of the EFTA before joining the EU years later. It would make a certain amount of sense that leaving the EU would mean going back to the EFTA.
Don’t believe they can, though. My understanding (admittedly weak) is that once May started the 2 year clock, that there is no provision for stopping it.
I am curious about what happens if there is no agreement on the exit conditions.
It could be stopped by all the other EU countries agreeing to do so. Realpolitik, if nothing else, although Article 50 does set out the criteria for an extension to the two-year period.
The UK exits, and then has to trade on WTO terms not just with the EU, but with all the countries that the EU has trade agreements with that the UK doesn’t (the UK doesn’t have any significant trade deals in it’s own right). If this happens, expect to learn a lot about tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.
Sorry, meant to add the UK/RoI border becomes a hard customs border, never mind the freedom of movement implications. The Brexiteers, as with so many other things, didn’t spend a moment considering this.
Sure. In a rational and sensible debate about the implications for the UK of leaving the EU, this issue would certainly have been canvassed.
But that wasn’t the kind of debate they had. The government which put the referendum to the people did not favour leaving and offered no plan for leaving that could be discussed and debated. The leaver advocates had no responsibility for implementing any decision to leave and saw no political advantage in getting specific, teasing out the implications of leaving and the questions that would have to be addressed.
Plus, on the specific question of the Irish border, the British public are heartily sick of Irish affairs and any attempt to frame the refernedum in terms of what it would mean for Ireland would go down like a ratw sandwich with the electorate at large. So all they were offered was a few platitudes.
I said before, this train wreck of a referendum is going to be held up for years to come as an Awful Example of how not to form public policy.
Original poster here. After doing some more reading, I think one option (while politically deeply unpalatable) is not entirely unworkable.
Northern Ireland must remain in a de facto customs union with the EU. A customs border, with EU and UK personnel working together, needs to appear at airports and seaports for when people and goods cross the Irish Sea.
British and Irish citizens need to start showing an ID to cross the Irish Sea. (Everyone else must show a passport.)
As for the customs procedures, the more the UK can cooperate with the EU and accept EU regulations, the more porous the border can be.
Will it be awkward to set up an intra-UK border? Yes. Will it outrage the Ulster Unionists, thus jeopardizing the Tory government and the peace agreement? Yes. Might it be a step toward the UK losing Northern Ireland? Yes.
But logistically, the Irish Sea is already a border. People and goods already come to a halt before boarding planes and ships to cross it.
Curious what other posters - especially those of you in the British Isles - think of this option.
You’ve answered your own question, and therefore shown why it would be a total non-starter.
One further twist: to the Unionists it wouldn’t be a case of the UK leaving Northern Ireland, as of the rest of the UK forcing Northern Ireland out. Northern Ireland isn’t part of the UK because the rest of us want to hang on to territory come what may, but because that’s what the people there voted for. We have a formula in the peace process by which the rest of the Ireland formally acquiesced in that, and by which there is a peaceful route to change if everyone involved agrees.
For the rest of us to upset the apple-cart in the way you propose would simply raise all the issues of 1912 and what followed all over again. This government would simply be in no position to, nor is there any conceivable government that would propose such a thing.
Even if there is a UK-EU deal the UK has got to set up separate trade agreements with all these other countries as well. Suggestions have been made to simply more or less copy the EU deals with those countries.