Irish Border and Brexit

jimmycrackcorm · 28-07-2017 06:37PM

munsterlegend wrote:

I love the way Unionists think they have some kind of big say in the whole thing! It has a population the size of a suburb in Birmingham. The game has changed lads - this isn't remotely in your control.

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 06:42PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

They only have the walk out option though. And they can only do that once.
The problem won't go away though

munsterlegend · 28-07-2017 06:47PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But they do control what will happen regarding the border because they ultimately hold the power in Westminster.

It's a pity that SF can't see past their abstinence policy to fight for this issue in Westminster.

Or at least resign their seats and encourage people to elect SDLP representatives instead.

The British population will not let Ulster unionists decide what's in the mainland of britians best interests. The north will be given scant regard in any real decisions. The Irish govt together with the EU will ultimately set the agenda re the north.

People who vote SF know what they are getting when voting. No Irish republican should ever take their place in a U.K. Parliament. It's far exaggerated what sf could actually achieve there anyway. The dup will vote Tory no matter what anyway to keep labour out.

oscarBravo · 28-07-2017 06:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

That's not a proposal, though, or even much of a position. When the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becomes an external EU frontier, then we'll be responsible for policing that frontier in the same way that every other EU member state with a land frontier is.

"Being clear that we won't tolerate" something is meaningless rhetoric. It's like the vapid nonsense that some people were coming out with about how "nobody wants a return to the borders of the past" - well, no. Nobody wants that. But we all sometimes have to live with things we don't want.

It seems to me that we'll either have a border, or we leave the EU. The latter would be an act of indescribably stupid self-harm on a scale that would make Brexit look like a stroke of genius, so - as unpleasant as a border is - a border it will be.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 07:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a proposal, though, or even much of a position. When the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becomes an external EU frontier, then we'll be responsible for policing that frontier in the same way that every other EU member state with a land frontier is.

"Being clear that we won't tolerate" something is meaningless rhetoric. It's like the vapid nonsense that some people were coming out with about how "nobody wants a return to the borders of the past" - well, no. Nobody wants that. But we all sometimes have to live with things we don't want.

It seems to me that we'll either have a border, or we leave the EU. The latter would be an act of indescribably stupid self-harm on a scale that would make Brexit look like a stroke of genius, so - as unpleasant as a border is - a border it will be.

I don't think that it is a simple choice between a border and leaving the EU. Nor should our government let it come down to that.
What we need is to have a proper debate on the future culminating in a referendum on the way forward. Everything on the table.

Leaving the EU, special status in the EU, a united Ireland etc etc. All options put before the people and properly and transparently debated. Not the mess that led up to the Brexit vote when a lot seemed to sleepwalk into uninformed and reactionary votes.

murphaph · 28-07-2017 07:49PM

I'll take the hardest of hard borders before I vote for us to leave the EU.

It's crap for border communities I'm sure but for the greater good of the country it has to be so if it has to be so.

I think the biggest problem is regulation, especially around agri food products. The EU is (quite rightly) extremely strict about imports of food products, especially animal derived. It's very hard to see how NI agri food products will be allowed cross the border without inspection unless NI itself is given special status within the EU, something that seems politically extremely unlikely, even if it is obviously in their best economic interests.

The best hope is that Brexit collapses due to other reasons. NI won't be enough.

oscarBravo · 28-07-2017 07:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What we need is to have a proper debate on the future culminating in a referendum on the way forward.

Oh good sweet jebus no. We have enough of a mess caused by one referendum; let's not compound it with another.

We could do with realising that, as special as we are, we're not that special. Lots of member states have external frontiers. Sure, it would be better not to have one, but it wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it if we did.

We've achieved a lot already by making a discussion on the Irish border one of the key issues to be figured out before a future UK/EU relationship can be discussed. That has moved it from "we don't care" to "oh crap I suppose we'd better think of something" on the list of Brexit priorities.

Leaving the EU, special status in the EU, a united Ireland etc etc. All options put before the people and properly and transparently debated.

The idea of leaving the EU just to avoid a hard border is insane. It's the sort of idea that could only be seriously proposed by someone for whom the border is the only thing in life they care about. It's hard to describe what a colossally bad idea it would be.

Special status in the EU is one of those hand-wavy phrases that doesn't actually mean anything. The EU is governed by its treaties. The treaties don't include "special status" for member states who want all the privileges of membership, but couldn't be bothered enforcing a land frontier. There's literally no reason any other member state would agree to the required treaty changes.

A united Ireland might solve the border problem, but come on: you think the entire history of Northern Ireland is going to be tidily resolved before Brexit day? That's wishful thinking on cloud cuckoo scale.

I don't know what the border is going to look like post-Brexit, but Varadkar got one thing right: it's not our job to come up with a satisfactory solution to a problem created by the Tory party. We're almost certainly going to have to live with a less satisfactory border situation than we currently have, but stamping your little feet and shouting "do not want" isn't going to change that. Sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 08:00PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh good sweet jebus no. We have enough of a mess caused by one referendum; let's not compound it with another.

We could do with realising that, as special as we are, we're not that special. Lots of member states have external frontiers. Sure, it would be better not to have one, but it wouldn't be the end of civilisation as we know it if we did.

We've achieved a lot already by making a discussion on the Irish border one of the key issues to be figured out before a future UK/EU relationship can be discussed. That has moved it from "we don't care" to "oh crap I suppose we'd better think of something" on the list of Brexit priorities.

The idea of leaving the EU just to avoid a hard border is insane. It's the sort of idea that could only be seriously proposed by someone for whom the border is the only thing in life they care about. It's hard to describe what a colossally bad idea it would be.

Special status in the EU is one of those hand-wavy phrases that doesn't actually mean anything. The EU is governed by its treaties. The treaties don't include "special status" for member states who want all the privileges of membership, but couldn't be bothered enforcing a land frontier. There's literally no reason any other member state would agree to the required treaty changes.

A united Ireland might solve the border problem, but come on: you think the entire history of Northern Ireland is going to be tidily resolved before Brexit day? That's wishful thinking on cloud cuckoo scale.

I don't know what the border is going to look like post-Brexit, but Varadkar got one thing right: it's not our job to come up with a satisfactory solution to a problem created by the Tory party. We're almost certainly going to have to live with a less satisfactory border situation than we currently have, but stamping your little feet and shouting "do not want" isn't going to change that. Sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.

So form that your advice is to just sit back and let what happens happen?

We did that before and the north imploded. It seriously has that potential again if you allow a hard border to be established and tell the people living along it and affected by it to 'suck it up'.

I am not suggesting any of the options above, leaving the EU etc. What I am saying is that this must be discussed as a priority in a transparent way and it has to be the majority decision going forward.
Because if it is imposed I would fear for the stability of the island all over again.

Northern Ireland has 'special status' already by dint of the fact that there is a joint international agreement in place to run it.
So some kind of imaginative version of that is not impossible imo. with the border in the Irish sea.
A few people may have to accept that our futures are totally intertwined though.

oscarBravo · 28-07-2017 08:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So form that your advice is to just sit back and let what happens happen?

I'm not giving advice. I'm pointing out that many of the consequences of Brexit are beyond our control, and that sometimes we face difficult choices.

We did that before and the north imploded. It seriously has that potential again if you allow a hard border to be established and tell the people living along it and affected by it to 'suck it up'.

I'm not telling anyone to suck anything up. I'm pointing out that the fact that some people will be negatively affected in a particular way is an inevitable consequence of the stupid decision made by our neighbours to the east in their infinite democratic wisdom. Lots of people will be affected by Brexit in lots of terrible ways. At the end of the day, we'll make the best of the ****ty situation we've been presented with, and some people will suffer worse than others.

As an aside, I'm unimpressed with the constant threat that if certain people don't get their way, they'll resort to violence. Every citizen of the EU will be negatively affected in some way by Brexit; some more seriously than others. It's only on this island that the darkly muttered threat of terrorism is put forward as a reason why everyone else should bend over backwards to minimise the impact on us.

I am not suggesting any of the options above, leaving the EU etc. What I am saying is that this must be discussed as a priority in a transparent way and it has to be the majority decision going forward.

It would be more helpful to start a serious conversation about how we can minimise the impact of the border, rather than petulantly demanding that we be treated as if we're extra special.

Because if it is imposed I would fear for the stability of the island all over again.

That'll be the darkly-muttered threat of violence again. Can you imagine the outrage if Remainers were demanding that the Brexit negotiations be approached in a particular way if the British government and/or the EU wanted to avoid the threat of terrorism?

Northern Ireland has 'special status' already by dint of the fact that there is a joint international agreement in place to run it.

There was a joint international agreement in place between the UK and 27 other member states. Things change.

So some kind of imaginative version of that is not impossible imo. with the border in the Irish sea.

Maybe. We won't get to dictate it, though.

A few people may have to accept that our futures are totally intertwined though.

...or else?

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 08:52PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not giving advice. I'm pointing out that many of the consequences of Brexit are beyond our control, and that sometimes we face difficult choices.

And choosing to be proactive in our own future is also possible.

I'm not telling anyone to suck anything up.

Well, imo yes you are. Your whole point centres around, dismissing any action we take with - sure everyone is affected we just have to get on with how it affects us. As this next bit illustrates.

I'm pointing out that the fact that some people will be negatively affected in a particular way is an inevitable consequence of the stupid decision made by our neighbours to the east in their infinite democratic wisdom. Lots of people will be affected by Brexit in lots of terrible ways. At the end of the day, we'll make the best of the ****ty situation we've been presented with, and some people will suffer worse than others.

As an aside, I'm unimpressed with the constant threat that if certain people don't get their way, they'll resort to violence. Every citizen of the EU will be negatively affected in some way by Brexit; some more seriously than others. It's only on this island that the darkly muttered threat of terrorism is put forward as a reason why everyone else should bend over backwards to minimise the impact on us.

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

It would be more helpful to start a serious conversation about how we can minimise the impact of the border, rather than petulantly demanding that we be treated as if we're extra special. That'll be the darkly-muttered threat of violence again. Can you imagine the outrage if Remainers were demanding that the Brexit negotiations be approached in a particular way if the British government and/or the EU wanted to avoid the threat of terrorism? There was a joint international agreement in place between the UK and 27 other member states. Things change. Maybe. We won't get to dictate it, though. ...or else?

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

oscarBravo · 28-07-2017 09:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And choosing to be proactive in our own future is also possible.

Being proactive is all very well, but it helps to be realistic about what's possible.

Well, imo yes you are. Your whole point centres around, dismissing any action we take with - sure everyone is affected we just have to get on with how it affects us.

Then you're wilfully misreading my point.

Businesses exporting to the UK - from anywhere in the EU - will be badly impacted by Brexit. EU nationals living in the UK are likely to find themselves in a worse situation. British expats in other EU countries will probably face some nasty consequences. Remain voters in the UK will be removed against their will from a Union they wanted to stay in.

All of these parties have valid grievances. All of them will make their case, or have their case made on their behalf, as part of the exit negotiations. The outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for all of them, and all of them are going to have to live with the ultimate consequences.

Now, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't state their case - but none of them has a god-given right to have their situation prioritised over and above everyone else's, and there's no possible way to make everyone happy.

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

Oh, I fully realise that there are people who believe that murder is a valid way to express political dissatisfaction, just as there are people who out of one side of their mouth will decry such violence, while out of the other they'll loudly proclaim that we'd better give the terrorists what they want or else.

I doubt you'd be arguing that we should give Loyalist terrorists what they want just in case they get violent, so it's disingenuous - to put it kindly - to argue that our political choices should be informed by the threat of Republican terrorism.

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

One party to that agreement has decided that internal Tory politics take priority over international agreements. That's ****ty for border communities, but not necessarily ****tier than for everyone else affected.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 09:46PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Being proactive is all very well, but it helps to be realistic about what's possible. Then you're wilfully misreading my point.

Businesses exporting to the UK - from anywhere in the EU - will be badly impacted by Brexit. EU nationals living in the UK are likely to find themselves in a worse situation. British expats in other EU countries will probably face some nasty consequences. Remain voters in the UK will be removed against their will from a Union they wanted to stay in.

All of these parties have valid grievances. All of them will make their case, or have their case made on their behalf, as part of the exit negotiations. The outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for all of them, and all of them are going to have to live with the ultimate consequences.

Now, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't state their case - but none of them has a god-given right to have their situation prioritised over and above everyone else's, and there's no possible way to make everyone happy. Oh, I fully realise that there are people who believe that murder is a valid way to express political dissatisfaction, just as there are people who out of one side of their mouth will decry such violence, while out of the other they'll loudly proclaim that we'd better give the terrorists what they want or else.

I doubt you'd be arguing that we should give Loyalist terrorists what they want just in case they get violent, so it's disingenuous - to put it kindly - to argue that our political choices should be informed by the threat of Republican terrorism. One party to that agreement has decided that internal Tory politics take priority over international agreements. That's ****ty for border communities, but not necessarily ****tier than for everyone else affected.

glad you got that all off your chest.
Have you any practical ideas other than suck it up we are not as important as we think we are?

Are Coveney and Varadkar wrong? Is the No Border campaign wrong?
What do you suggest be done?

View · 28-07-2017 09:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are a 'special case'. Unless you can show another region that has an international agreement keeping the peace over partition.

We are hardly a 'special case'. Virtually every land border in the EU is governed by international agreements drawn up either in the aftermath WWII or the early 90s - in reality our border is actually one of the older ones.

Jayop · 28-07-2017 09:58PM

Irishweather wrote: »

So Undemocratically force a United Ireland on the people of Northern Ireland? No thanks!

We'll decide that for ourselves.

How the hell is that a united Ireland? And tbh it was the Unionists that forced this potential scenario by biting off their nose to spite their face. Not for the first time either.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 10:05PM

View wrote: »

We are hardly a 'special case'. Virtually every land border in the EU is governed by international agreements drawn up either in the aftermath WWII or the early 90s - in reality our border is actually one of the older ones.

Our agreement is twenty or so years old and ended almost 40 years of conflict and it got rid of the hard militarised border as one of it's clauses.
Now we are faced with a potential return of that hard border and somehow it is 'darkly sinister' and a 'threat' to be concerned that the violence might return too.

Sometimes you couldn't write this wee country.

Junkyard Tom · 28-07-2017 10:45PM

A simple fact is that hard border installations will inevitably attract the attention of dissidents. A couple of CCTV pylons get felled via blowtorch. There are calls for increased security, perhaps PSNI cars get stationed near CCTV installations. Pot-shots are taken by someone with a grudge and a long-range rifle. Unionists call for military back-up. SF say British troops on the ground unacceptable. Relations sour.

Now we can wring our hands and moan about the threat of terrorism all we want but if anyone is naive enough to think that a hard border doesn't at the very least risk trouble, they're fooling themselves - this shit has been going on for hundreds of years.

The British/Westminster/Whitehall know this and the Irish government know this. Perhaps that's why Leo said 'let's see your proposals' because he's been advised that no responsibility for future trouble should fall on the Irish government.

blanch152 · 28-07-2017 10:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am completely unimpressed that those who have lived on an island riven by conflict around partition can be so cozy and lazy of thought not to see that the re-imposition of a hard border could and probably will provoke a return to violent objection to it.

Do you mean that the IRA haven't gone away, despite everything we have been told?

Because starting up a new terrorist organisation from scratch would be very very difficult.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 10:55PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you mean that the IRA haven't gone away, despite everything we have been told?

Because starting up a new terrorist organisation from scratch would be very very difficult.

As I said, sometimes you couldn't write it.

Not interested blanch.

View · 28-07-2017 10:56PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Our agreement is twenty or so years old and ended almost 40 years of conflict and it got rid of the hard militarised border as one of it's clauses.

It did but so what? That's SUPPOSED to be ancient history at this stage. It was supposed to bring about a peaceful democratic process, not one which is subject to ongoing approval from any shadowy group of gunmen.

Also, and it wasn't 40 years of conflict.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now we are faced with a potential return of that hard border and somehow it is 'darkly sinister' and a 'threat' to be concerned that the violence might return too.

Sometimes you couldn't write this wee country.

First we never had a hard border. It would have been a lot harder to have had cross border smuggling and "the troubles" if we had a normal international 2-3m high border police style security fence along the border.

Second, all that is irrelevant now. Rather the situation we now have is one that concerns the future - a future in which, unless there is a sudden change in London, will probably see the UK and Ireland/the EU heading on increasingly divergent paths. As such, it seems we will face an "either/or" situation with there being no option for a "both/and" one. We can like that or dislike it all we want but that doesn't alter that it seems it will happen, and we need to face up to it and plan for a worst-case scenario even if We can like that or dislike it all we want but that doesn't alter that it seems it will happen and that we need to plan for a worst-case scenario even if we hope for a change in attitude in London and a resulting better-case scenario.

Junkyard Tom · 28-07-2017 11:07PM

View wrote: »

First we never had a hard border.

Because in practical terms it's impossible.

FrancieBrady · 28-07-2017 11:10PM

View wrote: »

It did but so what? That's SUPPOSED to be ancient history at this stage. It was supposed to bring about a peaceful democratic process, not one which is subject to ongoing approval from any shadowy group of gunmen.

Also, and it wasn't 40 years of conflict.

Depends what you classify as conflict.

I don't really care if you lulled yourself into some nirvana or not. The fact is that a hard border will raise tensions and will bring the issue of partition back to the fore.
I don't have to be a 'frothing at the mouth terrorist' to be concerned about that or to look to the two governments not to stand idly by...again...and let it happen.

Would anyone let the Germans build up their military might and invade Poland and appease them again for instance?

First we never had a hard border. It would have been a lot harder to have had cross border smuggling and "the troubles" if we had a 2-3m high border police style security fence along the

Ah, so when people talk about a 'hard border' they are talking about a 2-3 mt high fence? Who knew.

steddyeddy · 28-07-2017 11:30PM

The simple fact is that a hard border contravenes the Good Friday Agreement. It's perfectly acceptable to say a border would be unacceptable. The EU seem to agree. The fact is that this will need to be slrted before any trade agreements are in place.

oscarBravo · 29-07-2017 12:05AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

glad you got that all off your chest.
Have you any practical ideas other than suck it up we are not as important as we think we are?

Well, your suggestion is to "refuse to operate" a border, so if it's all the same to you, I don't think I'll subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a "practical idea".

Are Coveney and Varadkar wrong? Is the No Border campaign wrong?

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm suggesting that you get used to the idea that you might not get what you want.

I get it: not having a border on this island is a concept of such earth-shattering importance to you that you suggested we seriously consider the possibility of leaving the EU over it. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that we are one of twenty eight countries trying to negotiate the least calamitous outcome to a ridiculous situation caused unilaterally by just one of those countries, and beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands.

What do you suggest be done?

I don't know. I can't see a simple way out of it. Like everything stemming from the insanity of Brexit, I can only see a world where literally everyone is worse off.

I mean, sure: the idea of an Irish Sea border is an attractive one, from the tunnel vision perspective of someone for whom there is literally nothing more important in the world than the question of a border on this island. From that particular perspective, the barriers and obstacles to such a solution are mere bagatelles to be hand-waved away.

But I guess as long as whatever solution we arrive at appeases terrorists, it'll be fine. As long as they are the right terrorists.

ED E · 29-07-2017 12:16AM

EU: EU border must be maintained.
Leinster House: We don't want to pay for a hard border, nor deal with the knock on impact
Westminster: We don't want to pay for a hard border, Feck NI if it tanks their economy
Small players:
- SF: Rubs hands together
- Unionists: Ye will in your arse create a sea border

€€€€s and ££££s are king.

Cost of the trouble from Unionists w/ Sea Border vs Cost of actual border - Whichever is cheaper will win out.

FrancieBrady · 29-07-2017 12:19AM

You

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, your suggestion is to "refuse to operate" a border, so if it's all the same to you, I don't think I'll subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a "practical idea". I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm suggesting that you get used to the idea that you might not get what you want.

I get it: not having a border on this island is a concept of such earth-shattering importance to you that you suggested we seriously consider the possibility of leaving the EU over it. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that we are one of twenty eight countries trying to negotiate the least calamitous outcome to a ridiculous situation caused unilaterally by just one of those countries, and beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands. I don't know. I can't see a simple way out of it. Like everything stemming from the insanity of Brexit, I can only see a world where literally everyone is worse off.

I mean, sure: the idea of an Irish Sea border is an attractive one, from the tunnel vision perspective of someone for whom there is literally nothing more important in the world than the question of a border on this island. From that particular perspective, the barriers and obstacles to such a solution are mere bagatelles to be hand-waved away.

But I guess as long as whatever solution we arrive at appeases terrorists, it'll be fine. As long as they are the right terrorists.

Could you possibly write a post that is not about trying to have a go at how you perceive me? That would be good.

shaunr68 · 29-07-2017 12:29AM

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post. Sure you might see a sign saying welcome to the EU but that's it. It's seamless and you drive from one country to the other. This is something that is not and will not be an issue and all the fuss is agenda driven.

Junkyard Tom · 29-07-2017 12:30AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands.

How many of these thousands of issues have the potential to destabilise a fairly fragile peace in a disputed territory that has emerged from a brutal conflict relatively recently? That's a rhetorical question, no need to try to come up with an answer.

Your glibness is unusual, to say the least.

gitzy16v · 29-07-2017 12:41AM

Dont often jump in these threads but have to say bringing back a hard border is madness,sure we only got rid of the last one after years of trouble.

Id rather side with the UK on this issue than Germany or Brussles.

I think ourselves and the UK know a hell of a lot more about our situation than any politicians in the EU.

FrancieBrady · 29-07-2017 12:43AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How many of these thousands of issues have the potential to destabilise a fairly fragile peace in a disputed territory that has emerged from a brutal conflict relatively recently? That's a rhetorical question, no need to try to come up with an answer.

Your glibness is unusual, to say the least.

It is just crazy stuff. You mention the possibility of reigniting something that has reignited time and time again on this island and you are a 'dark sinister force' and you are issuing 'threats'???

Glib is not the word to be honest. Wholly irresponsible would be mine.

Junkyard Tom · 29-07-2017 12:52AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Dont often jump in these threads but have to say bringing back a hard border is madness,sure we only got rid of the last one after years of trouble.

Id rather side with the UK on this issue than Germany or Brussles.

I think ourselves and the UK know a hell of a lot more about our situation than any politicians in the EU.

The British will understand that a contentious border in Ireland is in not in their interests most of all considering its potential negative consequences. The north is still an enormous sink-hole for HM's Treasury.

Also, the EU is a project that has its heritage in the prevention of conflict so hopefully its main players understand that preventing outbreak of violence, as a result of a spat within the Tory Party that got out of control, doesn't damage the EU 'brand'.

Irish Border and Brexit

Comments