Interesting Links for 15-09-2018

[andrewducker]

An excellent summary of how badly the Brexit negotiations are going

(tags: uk NorthernIreland Europe doom viaFrancescaElston )

Beluga whales adopt lost narwhal in St. Lawrence River

(tags: whales )

Advocates hold birthday party for 30-year-old Boston gas leak

(tags: gas )

Dietary fiber reduces brain inflammation during aging

(tags: diet brain inflammation )

Scientists reveal drumming helps schoolchildren diagnosed with autism

(tags: music autism children drums )

Keep them guessing, keep them gaming: Uncertain rewards motivate consumers to make repeat purchases

(tags: psychology addiction )

Afghan father who sought refuge in UK shot dead by Taliban after being deported by Home Office

(tags: uk Afghanistan immigration OhForFucksSake )

The body in charge of ensuring the EU referendum was fair gave out the wrong advice and helped Vote Leave. This isn’t democracy

(tags: referendum UK Europe fraud OhForFucksSake )

BBC Question Time⁩ producer & person responsible for audience/panel selection revealed to be a member of British far right fascist organizations.

(tags: bbc racism politics tv OhForFucksSake )

Divorce law: Plans to overhaul archaic laws revealed

(tags: UK law divorce )

The UK's approach to negotiating with the EU continues to be...not good

(tags: uk europe fail )

Comments

[calimac]

"I'm confused as to why you think the EU is ordering the UK to do anything."

I explained that in my original question: "It'd require domestic customs stations in the territory of the UK, a country which will not be part of the EU and over which it consequently will have no authority."

And therefore these customs stations would have to be established and their rules enforced by the UK.

If the EU is only suggesting this and is inviting a UK response, then the order is conditional - "if we don't come up with a better idea." But the whole purpose of a backstop, which this is, is "if we don't come up with a better idea." And since it's perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't a Brexit negotiator that there is no better idea, the conditionality by which this EU suggestion becomes an order will be operative.

[edrith.co.uk]

I've read the Good Friday Agreement. It doesn't require there to be no hard border.

One might consider no hard border to be desirable or important to help preserve peace. And of course the EU can insist on this as a condition of a deal if it wishes to. But legally speaking, there is no requirement in the Good Friday Agreement that there be no hard border.

[calimac]

Since I had the impression that it was a violation, derived from everything I'd ever read on the topic, I did some research to resolve this contradiction. And found unanimous agreement that, while it doesn't technically violate the letter of the agreement, it's a complete and egregious violation of its spirit and to be avoided at all costs. Which is a lot stronger than anything you say. For instance here ("Any undermining of the operation of the CTA challenges a principal objective of the GFA, that the importance of the land border should be minimised") and here ("So yes, a hard Border would be, and be seen as, a total betrayal of the Good Friday Agreement") and here ("One key to the entire arrangement was the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that the European Union guaranteed").

[edrith.co.uk]

Whether something is a violation of the spirit is subjective - international law also usually goes on the letter, not the spirit, so the fact that it isn't a technical violation. And agreement on how much of a breach it is is far from unanimous. I've avoided hard Brexiteer sources (Carswell, Hannan, etc.) but this briefing for the European Parliament refers to no hard border being 'a desired feature' and this briefing for the UK Parliament is similar.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI%282017%29583116_EN.pdf

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gag0JHUGRnQJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8042/CBP-8042.pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b#8
(PS: How did you embed links in your text when replying?)

The key question is what is meant by a hard border. Putting up concrete walls and border guards would clearly do a lot of damage to peace; a system which had no checks for cars, but required lorries to cross on major crossings and checked 3% of them would be far less, and a bit of personal smuggling a la the old 'booze cruise' might well be a price worth paying. Ruling them all out equally under the phrasing 'no hard border' makes an eventual deal less likely which would be worse for everyone.