It's the opposite: of course they can leave, but they don't want to lose all the benefits they had before leaving. Unfortunately for them there's little benefit for the people they are leaving to really offer them anything.

At least in a divorce you tend to split things (I'll keep the bed and you can have the dresser). In this case it's someone walking out the door but saying "hey, could you let me still come by for dinner?"

I understand that. I was responding to:

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

If the UK signs the deal. Of course binding yourself by treaty to some future action does not negate your sovereignty. It's an expression of your sovereignty!

Of course, reneging on a treaty does wonders for the country's future credibility!

Probably the least of their problems at this point.

They are sovereign, as article 50 proves. Unfortunately, they want something from the EU. Actually a lot. And so they need to offer something in return.

That's the big joke of Brexit. Boris Johnson fantasizing about dozens of trade deals ready to be signed when the UK exits. How many are there now? Zero.

Because the UK isn't in a position as strong as Brexiteers fantasized. Ostensibly they are all for negotiating deals in the national interest, but when the other side has interests, too, that's somehow unfair and they should "go whistle".

Brexiteers are looking for handouts, not real negotiations.

I hate to break it to you but Britain is "offering little" because they actually have more negotiating power.

I disagree, but that wasn't my point, anyway.

My point was that you cannot invite real interest-driven negotiations and then complain about red lines the other side draws in the sand.

It's either a real negotiation or an agreement between friends.

The latter would have been preferable, but all the hatred towards the EU side made that an immediate non-starter.

Right. I see what you're saying and I agree.

> This is absurd. Given that you're a German you're obviously not following this very closely, so why on earth you're throwing uninformed comments around in public is inexplicable.

Could you please leave stuff like this out of comments? On Hacker News you just make your point without gratuitous antagonism.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This isn't terribly promising. Since you've broken the guidelines a lot in the past, we'll ban the account if it continues.

It's not possible for anyone to tell you that you can't take a given action.

But it is possible for someone to inform you that if you do take a given action, they will take draconian, but completely legal, measures against you.

Apparently the UK is able to leave at any time if only they're willing to accept unfavorable EU terms. If they want a better deal they need to negotiate.

Then what does this sentence mean?

> May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission

It's a (slightly exaggerated) reference to the Irish backstop.

The UK, as a sovereign nation, is party to international agreements which it has signed in the past which commit it to doing various things, many of them intended to be permanent and many unrelated to the EU. One of those is with the Republic of Ireland, over peaceful relations in the UK territory of Northern Ireland. The Irish government and many Northern Irish people regard this agreement, broadly construed, as implying that no new barriers will be set up on the Irish border. Another international agreement, WTO rules, which the EU is signed up to (and the UK also intends to trade under) implies that if the UK and EU adopt different customs regimes they will also be required to actively monitor customs borders between the UK trading bloc and the EU trading bloc. The Irish government (and by an extension EU negotiators representing their interests) regards feasible customs border check regimes as violating the spirit of the Good Friday agreement over security barriers. Therefore unless and until some border solution in line with WTO regulations and acceptable to the Irish government or an adjudicating party is found (or the Republic of Ireland also chooses to leave the EU, which is highly unlikely) Northern Ireland must not become part of a different customs area from the Republic of Ireland and therefore must remain subject to some relevant EU laws.

Being a sovereign country means the possibility of reneging upon prior commitments, but it doesn't mean these agreements don't exist or that parties won't insist you honour [their interpretation of] them when offering new agreements

It a misrepresentation of what is referred to the "backstop" aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement (incorrectly called the "Brexit Deal" in the header above).

The "backstop" stipulates that any future trading relationship does not violate terms of the Irish peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement - specifically that there would be no physical checks at the border in Ireland.

Currently the border is virtually invisible because the UK and Ireland are EU members and in the same customs zone.

If, in the future, the UK decides it would prefer to leave the Customs Union (you can be in the customs union but not in the EU), then this would require a special arrangement for Ireland - probably requiring customs checking to be done between Northern Ireland and Britain instead of between north and south in Ireland.

For some people (and I don't know why - see my comment above), this is absolutely objectionable even though this arrangement would enjoy popular support in both parts of Ireland. If you're not prepared to accept this arrangement, then the UK would be stuck in the EU's customs union.

Of course if you want to leave the customs union (otherwise what's the point of brexit), then you have to accept the special arrangement for Northern Ireland or basically renege on the terms of Irish peace agreement.

Unionist hate it because it would set a precedent for one part of the UK to be treated differently to the other countries. If a hard border in the Irish Sea is ok for Northern Ireland, why not a border at Carlyle? Unionists stamp their feet and tout in indivisibleness of the UK, SNP/Plaid Cymru use the special treatment of NI to demonstrate how Westminster isn’t providing the best government for their countries.

The Unionists most relevant here are the Northern Irish ones, not the Scots or English. For most Brits, the idea of Northern Ireland having a special status is essentially baked into the idea of the integrity of UK anyway, and the government would have probably seen some quirky customs exceptions over there in a transition deal as an acceptable price to pay for having a Brexit agreement if they didn't depend on DUP votes to stay in power. But Irish unionists passionately hate the idea of an Irish Sea customs border for the same basic reason Irish republicans hate the idea of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: it's a symbolic split from a nation they consider themselves to be part of and whose identity a lot of blood has been shed over in living memory.

Sure, customs checks at ferry and airports to the UK mainland would entail considerably fewer practical delays, smuggling opportunities and security issues than customs checks between a village and its nearest supermarket on the Irish border, but unionists can legitimately argue an Irish Sea border violates their understanding of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. Though it'd also be perfectly fair to ask their politicians who all backed Brexit what did you expect to happen?

They are of course able to do that, but that would go against the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees peace in Northern Ireland, and nobody has the balls to do that. Or else the Republic of Ireland would have to leave the EU common market for goods, which too is insane. So that realistically means that the UK cannot terminate the NI backstop solution on its own.

I guess it is like leaving any contract or agreement without fulfilling your obligations. You can do it, but there will be consequences.

They are a sovereign country, but they are an island, not a ship, they cannot weigh anchor and set sails. They may wish for the US to be a closer partner than the EU but it will remain a long flight and 5 timezones away.

Maybe because most of their commercial exchanges are done with other EU countries.

By first agreeing to such terms.

They can probably still leave as a sovereign entity, in the same way I can technically ignore my loans that I initially agreed to pay back. There will be consequences.

They can do it but it without any permission, but it would screw them. They want to undo 40+ years of integration in a few years because a small majority voted

If you have no idea how it actually works, then free not to say anything.