Show Hide image

The Irish border question shows the government is living in a Brexit fantasy world

It cannot be overstated enough that, collectively, Conservative MPs have ruled out all real world options.

How do you solve a problem like the Irish border? It's the question that Brexiteers can't avoid tackling.

Bluntly, if you have divergence on goods, agriculture and many other regulatory areas you have to have some form of customs checks. And while those checks might largely be done via camera or – let's give the Brexiteers the benefit of the doubt – new technologies like drones or old ones like Zeppelins, the nature of customs checks is that you have to have customs officials who will have to go out and enforce those rules.

For all that those in Westminster talk about the conflict in Northern Ireland as a “finished” issue, there are still occasional acts of terrorist violence. On the border, signs are regularly defaced, and occasionally shot at. Whichever customs apparatus is put on the border, it will come under attack: whether from a drunken idiot throwing a brick or letting off a shot, or a deliberate attack. And so, at some point, will customs officials.

Then it's a question of what you do next. Do you send someone to protect the cameras or the officials? Are they armed? Are they local? What happens when those people are attacked? Although the ending of the customs frontier – when the customs union came into force in 1992 – did not end the militarized frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and restoring it won't bring it back overnight, it does mean re-opening that wound.

The Conservatives have said they don't want a hard border, and neither does the EU27. (More importantly, it is unlikely that any Irish government will be able to avoid vetoing any deal that creates a hard border.)  There are several ways to avoid a customs frontier on the island of Ireland. The bare minimum, one that the Guardian reveals will be set out in the EU27's negotiating objectives, is for Northern Ireland to remain de facto in the single market and customs union and for the border to move to the Irish Sea. That is unacceptable to the bulk of Conservative MPs and, of course, to the DUP. If you want to avoid a new border in the Irish Sea, then the rest of the United Kingdom has to follow Northern Ireland in remaining in large parts of the single market and the customs union. That is unacceptable to a large number of Conservative MPs too.

The government likes to accuse Jeremy Corbyn of living in a fantasy world, but it really cannot be overstated enough that, collectively, Conservative MPs have ruled out all of the real world options: they don't want a hard border, they don't want a unique customs and regulatory arrangement for Northern Ireland, they don't want customs and regulatory alignment for the whole of the United Kingdom, and they certainly don't want to remain in the EU.

It comes back to the big problem of Brexit: the governing party wants it very badly in theory, but recoils from it in practice, preferring to live in a series of fantasies. They – and unfortunately everyone else who lives in this country – may be on course for a very painful awakening when the Article 50 clocks reaches zero.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman and the PSA's Journalist of the Year. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

Show Hide image

How Martin Lewis’s battle with Facebook could shake online advertising to its core

The consumer advocate is furious that his face is being used to sell scams. 

Facebook simply cannot catch a break – not that many people will feel at that sorry for it. This month the company is in the middle of dealing with the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, while also trying to make its service compliant with strict new EU data protection rules.

And now it’s having to deal with a lawsuit that could, in theory at least, threaten its entire business model. The challenge comes from consumer advocate and financial talking head Martin Lewis – no stranger to publicity – who is suing over the issue of his image in Facebook adverts linked to financial scams.

Adverts for these scams are one of the major sources of fake news across the internet, and Lewis is far from the only person to see his likeness used in them. The adverts are for an extremely high-risk and under-regulated form of trading known as “binary options”, which have seen numerous reports of people losing their life savings.

The extremely high-risk product, though, is often advertised as virtually (or entirely) risk-free, thanks to some formula devised by an expert – often accompanied by a convincing fake write-up by a trusted news network, such as the BBC or CNN. One such site even created a video faking an endorsement from the physicist Stephen Hawking to sell its services.

Lewis, then, has picked a good villain: he has every right to be angry that his image is being used to sell such scams, and a good case to make that it could be damaging to his reputation. He argues that despite the volume of adverts uploaded to Facebook, given their reputation for facial recognition and other technologies, they should easily be able to stop these adverts appearing at all.

This is where Lewis’s argument becomes somewhat simplistic: no level of facial recognition would let Facebook automatically fix the problem of placing adverts. Yes, Lewis may not lend his image to sell any financial product, but what if he was the keynote speaker at a conference? Or if a news outlet did an interview with him and wanted to promote it to help it attract views (a practice some outlets actually do)?

In the case of other public figures it gets trickier still: an environmental group may wish to use a picture of an oil company CEO as part of a Facebook advert, or campaign groups may wish to use pictures of politicians. Preventing all of this would effectively create a huge new right over use of likeness, to the detriment of free speech and free debate.

And yet Facebook’s current response – that it removes any misleading adverts if they are reported to it by users – feels lacklustre to the point of inadequacy. This becomes especially true given the strange plot twist following the publication of stories about Lewis’s legal challenge. In a tweet thanking outlets for the coverage, Lewis alleged that similar adverts were now appearing next to the articles in question, including on Sky News and the Guardian, asking them to “rectify this immediately”.

This highlights a huge issue for any site mainly or partially reliant on advertising – including this one – where many if not most of the adverts you see are determined by algorithm with no prior control or sight by any staff (editorial or commercial) before they’re seen by the public.

Sites can try to rule out adverts for certain types of product or services, or based on certain keywords, but such rules are patchy. The result is often that on numerous high quality journalism sites, the adverts can push dubious products, if not outright scams. At their most harmless, these are very low quality, ad-stuffed, celebrity listicles (‘18 celebrities you never realised were gay’). But then there are questionable sites offering help with PPI refunds – which can be got for far lower fees through official channels – and binary option scams.

Editors can and do try to get such adverts removed when their users alert them, but this needs to be done on an ad-by-ad basis and can be time-consuming. Oddly, thanks to the ad networks upon which they rely, news outlets find themselves facing the same problem as their oft-time rival Facebook

As a result, the high-quality media which is currently railing against, and trying to fight back against, fake news often finds itself at least partially funded by that self-same fake news.

If successful – and it’s likely to be a very long shot – Martin Lewis’s lawsuit could find that it radically breaks and reshapes the way not just Facebook advertising, but all online advertising. That would be a huge, perhaps existential, risk to many sites which rely on it. But given the threats posed by the current business model of the internet, many could be forgiven for feeling the risk might be one worth taking.

James Ball is an award-winning freelance journalist who has previously worked at the Guardian and Buzzfeed. He tweets @jamesrbuk