Irish Border and Brexit

steddyeddy

I think that sort of denial in the face of shared experiences on this island will defeat unionism. Even unionist papers like the Belfast Telegraph say unionism is very slow to adapt.

View

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

View wrote: »

As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM:

You have a very limited understanding of the politics and geography of the border. Such a fence would cost billions of GBP to build and secure, it would cut through back-gardens, farms and through communities.

Please, spare us the nonsense about the border being somehow unique in international frontiers and people having a "limited understanding" of it.

Do you really imagine that no other border has curves & wobbles on them? Or that they are all straight lines with roads neatly connecting the communities along the borders?

Many borders don't just have curves & wobbles but actual exclaves where part of one country is completely surrounded by another. And, they still have to cope with dealing with an international border and they don't just go "It can't be done". Instead they make it work.

And, whether we like it or not, that is what we will have to face up to unless London has a sudden change of heart about its future relations with the EU.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It would most definitely be attacked from both sides. It would essentially be a declaration of war against the border communities

Any attacks would be a declaration of war
against the democratic decisions of both Ireland and the UK by the border communities. That would result in an increasingly "hard security" situation on the border just as it would were people to launch violent attacks on the border/security at our airports or sea ports. I'll leave it you to figure out which communities would be the ones to inflict damage on themselves in such a scenario.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

Please, spare us the nonsense about the border being somehow unique in international frontiers and people having a "limited understanding" of it.

Do you really imagine that no other border has curves & wobbles on them? Or that they are all straight lines with roads neatly connecting the communities along the borders?

Many borders don't just have curves & wobbles but actual exclaves where part of one country is completely surrounded by another. And, they still have to cope with dealing with an international border and they don't just go "It can't be done". Instead they make it work.

And, whether we like it or not, that is what we will have to face up to unless London has a sudden change of heart about its future relations with the EU.

The border never worked here, why would it now?

Any attacks would be a declaration of war
against the democratic decisions of both Ireland and the UK by the border communities. That would result in an increasingly "hard security" situation on the border just as it would were people to launch violent attacks on the border/security at our airports or sea ports. I'll leave it you to figure out which communities would be the ones to inflict damage on themselves in such a scenario.

Yeh that's great. So do you think the border region would be the only area to react?
You would be looking at the whole place going up in flames again very quickly.

oscarBravo

View wrote: »

Many borders don't just have curves & wobbles but actual exclaves where part of one country is completely surrounded by another.

The wackiest example I've seen:



That's the eastern part of the UAE, with an exclave of Oman in it - and an exclave of the UAE within the Omani exclave. I have no idea how it came about.

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

Do you really imagine that no other border has curves & wobbles on them?

No.

Or that they are all straight lines with roads neatly connecting the communities along the borders?

No.

The heavily fortified border like the Spanish one in north Africa you were using as an example of how a border would work displays your naivety - it is very different in too many ways to go through.

Any attacks would be a declaration of war

Putting a hard border through communities, between families, in difficult terrain where there'd be huge opposition on both sides would be a de facto declaration of war, nobody wants that except the foolhardy and the extremist. I doubt the British would have the stomach for a fortified border too after what they experienced here the last time they tried.

jm08

I think the border in Ireland is regarded as being difficult with something like 300 crossing points. Compare that to the 250 crossing points in the 6,000 km EU Eastern Border.*

Most national boundaries have natural boundaries - either a river, mountain, lake etc. The Irish border boundaries were devised differently.


*Info supplied from a Prof. Dougan lecture.

First Up

oscarBravo wrote:

That's the eastern part of the UAE, with an exclave of Oman in it - and an exclave of the UAE within the Omani exclave. I have no idea how it came about.

Tribal.

There are similarly weird enclaves dotted around the former Soviet Union. Take a look at Armenia/Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabach.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

The wackiest example I've seen:

That's the eastern part of the UAE, with an exclave of Oman in it - and an exclave of the UAE within the Omani exclave. I have no idea how it came about.

Check out Baarle Nassau for a really wacky example. Probably the wackiest on earth.

But the Baarle Nassau example doesn't compare with the relatively straight NI border because there is no recent history of conflict surrounding it.

Let's be honest. If the British army still had watch towers along the border the IRA would be using drones to attack them from a safe distance. A camera set up on a pole will be no different, but even easier to disable for these criminals.

That means a tech solution is a waste of time. A hard border is inevitable IMO. Total mistake but still inevitable due to the UK's unilateral withdrawal from the EU, which underpins the GFA.

Cookie_Monster

oscarBravo wrote: »

The wackiest example I've seen:



That's the eastern part of the UAE, with an exclave of Oman in it - and an exclave of the UAE within the Omani exclave. I have no idea how it came about.

Properly enforced too. There's a 4wd track through a section of there that I've been on, armed soldiers at the border point it crosses, passport required, the works.

FrancieBrady

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Properly enforced too. There's a 4wd track through a section of there that I've been on, armed soldiers at the border point it crosses, passport required, the works.

ANd what will happen here if it becomes fortified is that the two communities will again be at loggerheads. Because it will very quickly become about partition again. It is already (if you listen to the talk) about that.

View

View wrote: »

I have already stated that my preference would be for a low-key border such as one on the Finland-Russia border where for most of its length it looks like the sort of 2m security fence you'd see in many industrial estates, rising to a more serious 3m with extra security cameras etc at known security black spots. Implemented properly it should be only marginally more inconvenient than the M50 is for many people in Dublin who if they want to get from pt A to pt B on opposite sites of the motorway have to get in their cars and drive to get to a bridge to cross-over the motorway to make a journey that would be a lot simpler were there no motorway in the way and they could drive or walk directly between them.

As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so. It would be up to our government to ensure that happens on the border with NI should - as seems increasingly likely - the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. That may not be your or my preference but it is the reality we need to face up to and plan for.

As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM:

From a logistical point of view it could be done. Politically it's impossible. No nationalist anywhere on this island would accept it.

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

The wackiest example I've seen:.

Bangladesh and India was insane.

Dahala Khagrabari (#51) was an Indian enclave belonging to the District of Cooch Behar in the State of West Bengal. This was a piece of India within Bangladesh, within India, within Bangladesh

Like inception except the people involved were for practical purposes stateless because of visa complications and lack of services.

They swapped the enclaves a few years ago.

Here the CTA and reciprocal arrangements , and some EU addons, means there aren't the same sort of problems , you don't need a visa you can't get without leaving your enclave to go to a hospital that won't accept you because you don't have the right documentation or passport

paul2013

So are you all looking for a hard border then? I know plenty of nationalist and unionist won't be happy with this scenario. Travel into the North and you will see Irish registered cars registered to people in the North and the refuse to pay the pound to the queens highway,

Junkyard Tom

paul2013 wrote: »

So are you all looking for a hard border then?

I haven't heard/read of anyone who wants a hard border except people whose views I take with a large pinch of salt. Having said that I believe there's an element within unionism that would welcome a hard border and see Brexit as an opportunity to reverse the 'soft unification' of Ireland.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You have a very limited understanding of the politics and geography of the border. Such a fence would cost billions of GBP to build and secure, it would cut through back-gardens, farms and through communities.

I've driven through this section before getting to Monaghan from Cavan, and I can tell you the idea of a hard border here is as ridiculous as Junkyard Tom suggests. The only way you know you've crossed the border is that the colours of the lines on the side of the road change from yellow to white, and you have one 60 miles per hour speed limit. The DUP never got around to putting a "Welcome to Northern Ireland" sign here.

Had a chance to pick up an Irish Times on a flight back to London this morning. There's an interesting article with a new and different approach to the border. One that the DUP mightn't like. But it suggests having an overlapping customs area with controls on either side of Ireland in mainland Britain and in continental Europe. The solution proposed seems to recognise the special position of Ireland given it's past history.

This requires flexibility from the European Union. An off the shelf solution won't work for Brexit. New thinking is required for a new reality.

Talk of re-unification is too early. If there was evidence that a majority would support it I would encourage a referendum. Personally, I don't support a united Ireland. The status quo is easier to maintain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

paul2013 wrote: »

So are you all looking for a hard border then? I know plenty of nationalist and unionist won't be happy with this scenario. Travel into the North and you will see Irish registered cars registered to people in the North and the refuse to pay the pound to the queens highway,

Haven't seen that happen on a large scale. I live here and I know for a fact if you try to circumvent the rules on either side (unless you have an address in the jurisdiction and actually live there for the required time) the customs will not be long letting you know. I know many who have tried it.

Jim2007

paul2013 wrote: »

So are you all looking for a hard border then? I know plenty of nationalist and unionist won't be happy with this scenario.

It is being to look very much like that is what happens regardless of what we do.

paul2013 wrote: »

Travel into the North and you will see Irish registered cars registered to people in the North and the refuse to pay the pound to the queens highway

Do the same on the Swiss/German/French/Italian borders here and you'll see exactly the same thing. And with the same style attitude especially in the Alsace and the Alto Adige.

paul2013

I'm from the Midlands in Ireland and I used to work up there and when i couldn't get a job in the South. Let me tell you if the North of Ireland becomes isolated from the rest of Ireland. The GFA is going to be tore up and the past will return to haunt Ireland once more.... Thank you David Cameron and Theresa May and your Conservatives lawmakers and bullies in government.

oscarBravo

paul2013 wrote: »

So are you all looking for a hard border then?

Nobody's looking for a hard border. I don't understand how so many people can't seem to figure out the difference between wanting something and having to live with it.

It seems to cut both ways: the Brexit cheerleaders keep telling us that nobody wants a hard border, as if that's enough to magically prevent one; and anyone on here who points out that a hard border may be unavoidable is accused of wanting one.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's an interesting article with a new and different approach to the border. One that the DUP mightn't like.

I don't think much of it myself at first glance. It seems to require that the Republic of Ireland become a seriously semi-detached member of the single market.

Jim2007

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think much of it myself at first glance. It seems to require that the Republic of Ireland become a seriously semi-detached member of the single market.

Stopped have way into it - nonsense is the only word I have for it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody's looking for a hard border. I don't understand how so many people can't seem to figure out the difference between wanting something and having to live with it.

It seems to cut both ways: the Brexit cheerleaders keep telling us that nobody wants a hard border, as if that's enough to magically prevent one; and anyone on here who points out that a hard border may be unavoidable is accused of wanting one.

The problem isn't with those who point out it may be unavoidable it is with those who are resigned to it.
Or those who will meekly accept what the bigger power wants without objection. That is one of the reasons we went up in flames before - the failure of our government to stand up and be counted in some practical way for it's own people.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem isn't with those who point out it may be unavoidable it is with those who are resigned to it.

It's not a question of resignation; it's a question of weighing up the alternatives and deciding which is the least worst.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you answered: if it came to a stark choice between a hard border and leaving the EU, which would you choose?

I don't want a hard border. But I most certainly don't want to leave the EU. Given the choice, I don't have to hesitate in picking one.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a question of resignation; it's a question of weighing up the alternatives and deciding which is the least worst.

And it is those who have made their minds up about the alternatives at this early stage who should be shouted down.
There is too much at stake not to be imaginative and novel.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you answered: if it came to a stark choice between a hard border and leaving the EU, which would you choose?

I don't want a hard border. But I most certainly don't want to leave the EU. Given the choice, I don't have to hesitate in picking one.

I would leave the EU to avoid another outbreak of the conflict. But I have no doubt that if the will is there, a way around can be found.
No question about that.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is too much at stake not to be imaginative and novel.

The problem is that nothing "imaginative" or "novel" is being proposed; all we're seeing are hand-waving "musha we'll think of something" non-proposals.

Like the Irish Sea border, for example: the party that currently holds the balance of power in Westminster is implacably opposed to the idea. But you seem comfortable waving that objection away as a non-issue.

I would leave the EU to avoid another outbreak of the conflict.

I quite simply can't get my head around such willingness to capitulate to the threat of terrorism and to completely destroy the entire country's economic future in the process.

But I have no doubt that if the will is there, a way around can be found.
No question about that.

Yeah, that'll be the hand-waving I was talking about. So far the closest thing I've seen to a concrete proposal was earlier in the thread, which involved Ireland becoming a semi-detached entrance hall to the EU - no thanks.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would leave the EU to avoid another outbreak of the conflict.

There is absolutely no way that we are going to allow a couple of gunmen to dictate to us how to run our country. You are talking about one of the most pro EU states in the EU, you can expect that any attempt to do so will be met with extreme force.

Chips Lovell

The issue is that we can't force the British government to do something it doesn't want to do. We've already made it quite clear that we thought the UK leaving the EU was a bad idea.

If they insist on going ahead with that and leaving the single market, then we're going to have a border, whether they like it or not. One is the consequence of the other.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

I quite simply can't get my head around such willingness to capitulate to the threat of terrorism and to completely destroy the entire country's economic future in the process.

We've already completely destroyed our economic future by entering the Euro - it directly led to the conditions which made our economic crisis far worse than it would have been - and then locked us into using austerity as a 'solution' to the crisis (which made it significantly worse, turning it into a full Lost Decade) - we'll be feeling the effects of it for decades still, and EU policies mandate the same failed 'recovery' policies in future crises.

The EU in its current form is guaranteed to NOT provide us with our best economic future - to achieve a better economic future in the long run, requires changing our relationship with the EU in the long term - not permanently ending it or our membership - and there's a fair chance that, if a hard border comes about, we'll have another big reason to consider changing this relationship.

ancapailldorcha

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

We've already completely destroyed our economic future by entering the Euro - it directly led to the conditions which made our economic crisis far worse than it would have been - and then locked us into using austerity as a 'solution' to the crisis (which made it significantly worse, turning it into a full Lost Decade) - we'll be feeling the effects of it for decades still, and EU policies mandate the same failed 'recovery' policies in future crises.

The EU in its current form is guaranteed to NOT provide us with our best economic future - to achieve a better economic future in the long run, requires changing our relationship with the EU in the long term - not permanently ending it or our membership.

Mod: Back on topic please. If you wish to discuss the Euro, please start a new thread.

murphaph

If it comes down to a choice between a hard border (we're not talking about fences here, but checks on the crossings) and leaving the EU I'd say "bring on those customs men".

There is simply no way we'd allow a small group of criminals to decide the economic and political fate of the republic. The EU would assist us in combating this criminality I'm quite sure and the UK would be combating it on their side.

A border would be most unwelcome but even more unwelcome would be any return to criminal activity along it.

The EU has to have an external border, otherwise it simply couldn't function. to be honest Brexit and a hardened border should be manna from heaven for any nationalist with more than 2 brain cells. The north is going to suffer economically worse than GB or the RoI and GB is not going to be able to keep up existing subsidies, let alone replace the missing CAP and lost trade with the republic.

The North's economy is heading for the dustbin under Brexit. Ours is going to be damaged BUT we have a huge market and trade agreements through the EU with most major economies in the world. We at least have the means to dig ourselves out of the hole the UK has dug for us. NI has no such luxury and IMO (as someone who does not actually see any good reason for a UI) believe a UI will now come in my lifetime, all down to Brexit and the border.

KyussBeeshop

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which will probably lead to a United Ireland at some point.

I think the Irish see the issue of troubles in the north, as being a 'little' more nuanced, than just being a matter of 'criminals/terrorists' holding us to ransom...

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which will probably lead to a United Ireland at some point.

I think the Irish see the issue of troubles in the north, as being a 'little' more nuanced, than just being a matter of 'criminals/terrorists' holding us to ransom...

I think we can see it as a little more nuanced than the rather bizarre idea that a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland was achieved solely by terrorism.

It's an unfortunate tendency in certain quarters to argue that, just because violence was a factor in achieving an outcome, that that outcome could only possibly have been achieved through violence. It's the ultimate expression of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

In fact, as instances of that logical fallacy go, it's probably one of the most harmful. The problem with believing that a past political settlement could only have been achieved through terrorism is that it permits - in fact, encourages - the belief that future political settlements can only be achieved through terrorism.

KyussBeeshop

Except nobody argued that - you're attributing views to people that they did not express again.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Except nobody argued that - you're attributing views to people that they did not express again.

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement...

.

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which will probably lead to a United Ireland at some point.

Nope not even close. If they had had their way, they'd have their United Ireland by now. And it will not happen unless we all agree. But after 100 years and every passing generation I'd say it is actually less likely.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

Indeed - not containing any of the views you draw from it in the previous post.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is one of the reasons we went up in flames before - the failure of our government to stand up and be counted in some practical way for it's own people.

But it is standing up for it's own people and what they want! We're one of if not the most pro EU states in the union and our government reflects that. To our mind we've settled how the north will be handled. And I suspect SF have dropped their opposition to the EU simply because they know if they force the issue they will loose.

Jim2007

I'm just back from a quick trip to Lörrach, in Germany, picked up a bit of shopping while I was over there... did not see any customs or border police in either direction...

And it as just hit me: we don't have a customs union with the EU, we have some bilateral agreements and are in Schengen, but that is it. so we only do customs checks on the border and the main focus is on goods trucks, they'll pull over the odd car from time to time but is not at all common. And of course locals cross back and forth for work, farming, healthcare etc all the time.

There is no reason why the EU could not operate an external border with NI on the same lines. Ignore passport checks, do customs checks on goods and let the Brits do immigration control where ever they like!

murphaph

Yeah that's what I fully expect too. I had a pal living in Lörrach who worked in Basel. Visited them a few times (Milka factory....mmmmm) and crossed over the border into CH unimpeded, though they were checking trucks as Jim mentions. I expect this is pretty much what the border will look like in Ireland too....but there are many more crossings I believe, probably due to geography (Alps, Lake Constance forming natural barriers). I still don't currently see an alternative though. There will be lots of smuggling. It's not possible to police such a porous border comprehensively.

I recall crossing into CH from IT (I guess before they joined Schengen) and this involved a proper border crossing with passport checks, must have been around 1998.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would leave the EU to avoid another outbreak of the conflict.

That would just bring us under the influence of Britain much more than currently. I would choose to stay in the EU expecting that the imposition of a border coupled with a severely damaged economy would tip the electorate in the northeast over the 50% +1.

In an ideal world I'd have all sorts of guarantees negotiated into not vetoing a border - like full EU involement in post-unification economic aid and security assistance, you know, the kind of conditions that would make that pro-UI vote easier in the first place.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That would just bring us under the influence of Britain much more than currently. I would choose to stay in the EU expecting that the imposition of a border coupled with a severely damaged economy would tip the electorate in the northeast over the 50% +1.

In an ideal world I'd have all sorts of guarantees negotiated into not vetoing a border - like full EU involement in post-unification economic aid and security assistance, you know, the kind of conditions that would make that pro-UI vote easier in the first place.

I don't think it will EVER come to a choice.

What we need to do is keep the highest level of pressure on to get the EU and Britain to act on their recognition of the dangers.

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.
Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell. As history has taught us.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell.

Took longer than I expected, but there it is. We have to do whatever it takes, all the way up to leaving the EU, to head off the threat of Republican violence; but if Loyalists kick off, fcuk 'em.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Took longer than I expected, but there it is. We have to do whatever it takes, all the way up to leaving the EU, to head off the threat of Republican violence; but if Loyalists kick off, fcuk 'em.

And as expected, the refusal to look at what is being said in a pragmatic way.

I am talking about persuading (by incentive) the Unionist community to look seriously at their futures. AHEAD OF A DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENT TO UNIFY in a referendum...no force.
There will always be a rump of belligerence even if the majority can reach an agreement.

Try again there Oscar. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried if the alternative is people actually dying and the growth of community conflict again.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried...

...why what shouldn't be tried?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...why what shouldn't be tried?

It is the post that you totally misinterpreted.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is the post that you totally misinterpreted.

Ah. That clears it right up.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah. That clears it right up.

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

OK, I was hoping you would be able to identify some fairly obvious irony, but I'll drag your point out of you since you're determined not to make it plainly.

What should be tried? Keeping pressure on? What makes you think we're not? Or unification? In which case... wat?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I was hoping you would be able to identify some fairly obvious irony, but I'll drag your point out of you since you're determined not to make it plainly.

What should be tried? Keeping pressure on? What makes you think we're not? Or unification? In which case... wat?

I don't see what your problem is. I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border. A problem - the threat to the peace process - they have all recognised.
Allowing the north of Ireland to go up in flames because of some high moral ground 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' rubbish, is not solving the problem. As we painfully know from our own history.

What we need to do is keep the highest level of pressure on to get the EU and Britain to act on their recognition of the dangers.

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell. As history has taught us.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote:

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

We all know the unionists would love nothing more than a hard border.

Nody

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see what your problem is. I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border. A problem - the threat to the peace process - they have all recognised.
Allowing the north of Ireland to go up in flames because of some high moral ground 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' rubbish, is not solving the problem. As we painfully know from our own history.

Expect to see Gibraltar join Spain before NI joins Ireland.