Vrftsjtryk

This is a follow-up to this question about what hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border. It appears that hard-Brexiteers are mostly happy to leave this question for the DUP and Ireland to sort it out, and they are ok with keeping it a soft border. They see it as a technical issue rather than a crucial aspect of their plan.

What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit. Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future:

• Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border. Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.


• While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.

First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?

Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?

Optional related question: this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?

Note: for the purpose of this question, let's assume that a border is "soft" if people are generally allowed to drive through it on major roads without stopping (as is the case currently on the Irish border). As far as I'm aware, there is no similar case on any EU external border, except with countries which have agreements with the EU to allow for the free movement of people, for instance Switzerland (please correct me if I'm wrong).

What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.

The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.

To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.

Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.

It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.

Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.

It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.

Ireland has an independent visa policy, and there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.

Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.

If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.

While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.

Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.

First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?

Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.

Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?

For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.

With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.

in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?

Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.

If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?

Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.

Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.

Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?

Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.

this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?

No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.

This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said

The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.

The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.

Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.

Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.

The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Island that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)

The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.

As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Island there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.

First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?

As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.

Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?

Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.

This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.

Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.