Talk:Irish backstop

Hello there, Anyone interested in the NI Protocol will read that certain actors insist 'on this backstop because they consider that an open border on the island of Ireland is an essential element of the Good Friday Agreement'. (quote taken from para headed 'Reaction').

So, the reader will learn, the proposition that 'an open border on the island of Ireland is an essential element of the Good Friday Agreement', is a matter of opinion, one subject i.e. open, to interpretation.

So, I respectfully suggest that, as all British political parties hold this proposition to be true (and implicitly self evident) and as nobody is recorded as arguing to the contrary, i.e. that an open border is NOT an essential element of the agreement, then the wording might be altered or amended to remove the impression that said actors insist, when in fact 'recognise' might better describe the situation. Thank you. M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.55.16 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Subjectivity challenges are always welcome, thank you for your polite expression of it. As you will see, this statement (about implied dependence} is supported by three distinct citations but it is true that not all Members of (the UK) Parliament agree with Ireland's analysis. There is a lot more on this question at Brexit and the Irish border. The relevant detailed statements in the body are as follows.

Both the UK and the EU have prioritised avoidance of a 'hard border' as one of the three most important areas to resolve in order to reach a Withdrawal Agreement.^[1] The Irish government, in particular, is insisting on this backstop because they consider that an open border on the island of Ireland is an essential element of the Good Friday Agreement.^[2][3][4]

Does that satisfy your concerns about neutral point of view? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John, I hope I am responding to you in the correct box here. You absolutely answered my concern, how the subjective aspect I identified is in fact of common currency and that any subjective rendering was merely an honest and verbatim import from third party sources, and while I never doubted the integrity of the import, the subjective aspect of the currency remains an issue, but not for this page as said, and I suppose, if I was of the party who opposed the backstop I too would emphasise that while the backstop is an essential element of the Agreement, those who insist upon this are indeed marshalling 'a fact' in support of their subjective point of view. So, nolo contendre, and thank you kindly for your comprehensive response. Martin. P.s. Do alert me if I have responded in the wrong box, please. This editing business is all new to me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.55.16 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the GFA did not envisage the UK leaving so it says nothing about it. To the 'literalists', it is irrelevant and is just coat-trailing; to the 'spiritists', it is absolutely relevant and a mandatory element of any withdrawal agreement and future free trade agreement. So subjectivity is inevitable and thus either view can reasonably be asserted as fact (despite being contradictory!)

Wikipedia tries hard to avoid taking sides and to limit itself to reporting the statements of reliable sources: these should reflect the balance of mainstream opinions (but not fringe views). This self-assessment is frequently challenged!

(Yes, your response was done correctly, I indented it so that the the sequence of 'who said what to whom and when', is clear. But that is a nicety. If you are taken by Wikipedia and would like to improve other articles or indeed contribute new ones, then please register yourself [you may use a pseudonym as I do, if you prefer) and someone will welcome you with some tips on how to get started). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly will register, John. Everyman (sic) begins life as a literalist and becomes a spiritist, I think, carrying other literalists with him/her in the process. Thank you again. Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.55.16 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a recent addition that said that the backstop would be contrary to the principle of parallel consent, because this is editor opinion and not supported by the citation given. See also WP:NOTFORUM. We already have the position of the Irish government that a hard border would break the GFA and the (recent) position of the British government that the backstop would break it. I think it would be asking for trouble but if we are to cover this aspect then it needs a dedicated section rather than little snipes in other sections. It would need proper citations. The GFA says that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland may not be changed without the parallel consent of both communities in NI. I have read (but don't have citations) that the nationalist position is that the Brexit decision itself purports to change that constitutional status without their consent and that a hard border does so in a very obvious way. Likewise the Unionist position is that to treat NI in anyway differently from (say) East Anglia would equally purport to change that status. Quis separabit (Who would separate [us]).

It's a minefield. If anybody really wants to tackle it, then I suggest a draft here first to try to get consensus for a WP:NPOV version. Good luck with that! --Red King (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it might be easier to use 'constitutional status' in its normal usage for Northern Ireland to be 'part of the United Kingdom' and the structures of government that run Northern Ireland. Theres even the 'Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973' and amendments to point in the right direction. That would avoid the perils of doing your own research and saying the 'customs processes' or not at the border are some sort of constitutional arrangement. The GFA of course barely mentions the border and its processes. Okerefalls (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector, on September 9, 2019, shows ″Violation Possible 41.9%″.

• https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-negotiator-idUKKCN1PO2IE - 41.9%. So needs to quickly rephrase or article may be deleted (see WP:COPYVIO).

PS. Everybody may also enjoy Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and use Earwig's Copyvio Detector – that searches the web for copyvio on the page using Google and the links present on the page. PoetVeches (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@PoetVeches:, please be more specific. The Reuters article is very short and consists essentially of two quotations from M. Barnier, which are also quoted here. There is no copyvio that I can see, but simply that both quote the same speech. I suggest that this detection is a false positive. --Red King (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Red King:If you say with this Earwig's Copyvio Detector is everything OK, and there are high copyvio percents just because quotations, it is just good. PoetVeches (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)