Sir, – John Lloyd's article states that one of the reasons for the Brexit vote was "a political system that is faceless, unresponsive and unaccountable, where decisions are made by people hundreds of miles away" ("Why Fintan O'Toole has got Brexit all wrong", Opinion & Analysis, January 23rd).
However, the Scots voted massively to remain while they are further away than the English from Brussels.
It is very often forgotten that decisions in the EU are either taken in the European Parliament, which is directly elected, or through the European Council (that is the heads of government and ministers of the EU countries), and where the vast majority of decisions are taken on a unanimous basis.
That is to say that the UK government agrees with these decisions.
Of course, it is easy and simplistic to blame all one’s ills on Brussels when we do not want to accept our own decisions. – Yours, etc,
MALACHI O’SULLIVAN,
Limoges,
France.
Sir, – We are being told that the backstop is unlikely to be needed if there is a Brexit agreement, and unlikely to be of any use if there us no agreement. Our demanding it is likely to come at some diplomatic cost, and maintaining our demands in the current crisis may derail negotiations.
An amicable agreement seems the best way to avoid an Irish border yet we seem to be committed to a strategy which reduces the chances of getting any agreement.
Perhaps the idea is to try to force a second referendum, but if so that is too much like interfering with another jurisdiction to be a worthy strategy.
Perhaps we think we can dictate the game because we hold all the cards; in that case let’s hope it doesn’t turn out that the game isn’t poker but chess and that we are a pawn that is soon to be sacrificed. – Yours, etc,
COLIN WALSH,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
A chara, – When listening to politicians in the DUP and the life-long Eurosceptics on the Tory right, one would be forgiven for thinking that the current parliamentary paralysis in the UK concerning the backstop in the concluded withdrawal agreement was down to Irish intransigence.
They dismissively suggest that the problem of customs checks on the Border could be solved by technology which has yet to be invented.
Indeed, were it so straight forward, advanced economies such as Norway and Sweden would already be employing such devices to solve the same problem of customs checks across different customs territories.
Yet those Eurosceptics believe that this technology will all magically appear prior to the end of the two-year implementation period.
Indeed, if they are so confident that such technology could be devised by then, why is the backstop a concern at all?
Similarly they argue that the UK will be locked in terminally to the EU via the backstop, while they fail to give regard to the arbitration panel and independent adjudicator to facilitate dispute resolution.
In fact, were Northern Ireland to fall into the backstop it would give its economy a unique competitive advantage in trade with the EU, and the EU would be loath politically or legally to allow such a scenario to be anything other than temporary. Even if such a situation were to be facilitated long term, it would not be a precedent as Greenland is currently outside the EU yet still remains part of the kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member state.
However ,it’s hard not to conclude that the real reason behind the DUP and Tory Eurosceptics problem with the backstop is not the issue with the border, but with how the current withdrawal agreement forces the UK to consider its responsibilities to the Belfast Agreement when negotiating the post-withdrawal future trade deal with the EU.
Given the fact that the DUP never voted for the Belfast agreement along with the historic attitudes of the Tory right to Irish citizens both North and South, it’s not cynical to conclude that the Irish Government and the EU are correct to resist changes to the backstop as an insurance policy.
Finally, it’s quite evident that the UK government will not be ready with all the necessary legislation, the technology needed for the required customs checks, the trade agreements with third-party countries, and certainly not the impact, politically and economically, from an exit on WTO terms at the end of March.
Indeed the British prime minister’s current negotiating strategy seems to be fixated on preventing a split in the Tory party and is loath to facilitate a Jeremy Corbyn-led government or another referendum.
I strongly urge the Irish Government to hold the line. – Is mise,
ERIC CREAN,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – A number of pro-European MPs have described the “shameless hypocrisy” of leading Brexiteers, not least businessman Sir James Dyson. The Brexit advocate has called for Britain to “walk away” from the EU while he relocates his HQ to Singapore. But let’s not get too carried away by this latest contretemps. After all, his exit may create a vacuum, leaving the door open for a Europhile product innovator to clean up closer to home. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL CULLEN,
Sandycove,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Sir James Dyson’s timing sucks. – Yours, etc,
RONAN McDERMOTT,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – To show reasonableness and flexibility, why doesn’t the Irish Government accept a time limit on the backstop – on the condition that exiting it will automatically trigger a vote on Irish unity? – Yours, etc,
TERRY PATTISON,
Glenageary,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.