Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

bilston

What do people think will happen if a hard border is put in place (by whoever).

Will we see protests?

Its not that hard to imagine some kind of sit down protest at the border by those most strongly opposed to it. Who will remove those protestors?

Some have even suggested that Dissident republicans would target any hard border apparatus.

I don't know how likely or unlikely all that is, but I wouldn't rule any of it out.

It is high stakes at play, I think people in Ireland realise that, I'm not convinced Tory Brexiteer politicians have the faintest idea of the actual realities of a hard border.

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The movement of people should not be affected.

Just like old times really. :mad:

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Where was it asked before and where did I said we shouldn't?

All I'm saying is that we are a bit too confident in the situation fixing itself and the EU fighting to the bitter end to get the outcome we want (forcing the UK to make concessions allowing us to be part of to borderless areas).

I think the issue as we see it today could evolve a lot by the time Brexit happens and we need to be prepared.

Strange reading of the obvious self interest of the Irish Govt.

It is in our interest to suggest to the UK that the 'Red Line' that they should care most about is the border (or lack thereof) with our country. It is in our interest to get the UK to agree that if that is indeed the most important of the Red Lines that they should care about, that the reality means that they must stay within the Single Market in order to prevent fundamental change to that.

The politics has not been about forcing concessions, it has been about attempting to shed light on the mutual exclusivity that is the UK's 'Red Lines', and pressurising them to
A - Make a call as to which of them is the 'Reddest'
and
B - Own that decision, and be honest about it.

We're still nowhere near A, and so have a while to go to get to B yet.

A cynic might suggest that if the UK Gov was 'happy' to drop the NI Red Line at the behest of an Independent Trade Policy and a step away from Freedom of Movement, that they might do their level best to make it appear that they tried hard to mitigate the obvious repercussions of such a policy, as to be honest with their electorate might provoke backlash from certain quarters.

Colour me cynical tbh.

charlie14

Bob24 wrote: »

Where was it asked before and where did I said we shouldn't?

All I'm saying is that we are a bit too confident in the situation fixing itself and the EU fighting to the bitter end to get the outcome we want (forcing the UK to make concessions allowing us to be part of to borderless areas).

I think the issue as we see it today could evolve a lot by the time Brexit happens and we need to be prepared.

Perhaps it is just me, but I was getting the impression from your posts you somehow thought we should.


It has nothing to do with being confident or unconfident of a border on the island or not.
It is simply a matter of will the UK honour agreements and commitments they made or not. Magical thinking on borders excluded.

Junkyard Tom

bilston wrote: »

Will we see protests?

Yes.

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA, not a party to it. And although it sounds logical that you can reverse the argument, it is not. The British are the ones changing the status quo. Unilaterally. Not sure why this seems so hard to understamd.

It's not hard to understand. Brexit brings out a type of willful selective comprehension in certain types. JRM is a prime example

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA

The EU is not a co-guarantor of the GFA.

The Irish and British governments are the co-guarantors of the agreement.

Junkyard Tom

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

breatheme

kingbhome wrote: »

If theres a hard border, if one is from the but has been living in the south for a decade will they be able to cross the border back and forth. What will happen if they had children n teh south, will they be able to cross the border with them.

The CTA will probably continue even in the event of a hard border.

Imreoir2

bilston wrote: »

What do people think will happen if a hard border is put in place (by whoever).

Will we see protests?

Its not that hard to imagine some kind of sit down protest at the border by those most strongly opposed to it. Who will remove those protestors?

Some have even suggested that Dissident republicans would target any hard border apparatus.

I don't know how likely or unlikely all that is, but I wouldn't rule any of it out.

It is high stakes at play, I think people in Ireland realise that, I'm not convinced Tory Brexiteer politicians have the faintest idea of the actual realities of a hard border.

People I know in NI are talking about a mass campaign of peaceful civil disobedience.

Imreoir2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

An Irish commentator speaking like that about the UK would be written off as a raving Brit-bashing nationalist.

Water John

The editorial in the Guradian gives a clear view of how its playing and sort of removes the dross that is happening as the edges. How the TM play is to narrow the choice to a binary one, late in the day, for Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-failing-on-two-fronts

joe40

breatheme wrote: »

kingbhome wrote: »

If theres a hard border, if one is from the but has been living in the south for a decade will they be able to cross the border back and forth. What will happen if they had children n teh south, will they be able to cross the border with them.

The CTA will probably continue even in the event of a hard border.

There are plenty of cross border workers in both direction, it would be inconceivable for that to be hindered.

Charles Babbage

Bob24 wrote: »

The is correct, it is our choice and we are not expected to be forced to do or not do anything. But similarly if the UK wants to leave the EU I cannot see why they should be expected to no do it because we want to be part of both borderless areas.

is this case of only peeing in your own part of the pool?

I am trying to see both sides of the story here. The consequence of what you are saying is that in your opinion the Good Friday agreement committed the UK to never leaving the common market. I don't think it is a reasonable inference to make.

It is reasonable inference that the GFA means that the UK cannot unilaterlally make material changes to the operation of the border, the staying in the Single Market follows from that, unless they want Irish sea checks.

Thargor

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes.

Never heard of that before.

Folkstonian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty scathing view of how Britain sees the EU in the podcast below as told by Dutch author Joris Luyendijk.

"How can you explain that there is such a misconception in Britain about the EU"

Go to 18:10

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

MrMusician18

Water John wrote: »

The editorial in the Guradian gives a clear view of how its playing and sort of removes the dross that is happening as the edges. How the TM play is to narrow the choice to a binary one, late in the day, for Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-brexit-strategy-failing-on-two-fronts

Yes, it looks as if the intention is to present a deal to parliament where the option is accept or chaos.

The question is, can she survive until then, since the strategy is so obvious.

briany

All this talk going on about extending the transition period. I was under the impression that any sort of transition period would only happen if a deal was agreed. If not, it's crash-out time come 29/3/19. Is that still the case?

Gerry T

Bob24 wrote:

The thing is you are making an assumption that because of the Irish border issue the UK should never be allowed to leave the single market without Ireland's agreement to also leave it.

No, because the UK agreed to let the people of NI have a frictionless border with ROI and decide their own faith, then the UK by all rights should ask the people of NI can they (the UK) leave the SM and CU. because they can't leave without first breaking their international treaty regarding the people of NI.
But they will, because their the UK and their history is breaking agreements, doing what they want....their special you know.
As for the UK saying they won't put up a border, childish nonsense, they need to be called out on. No border and no checks, so imports will be tariff free. In that case why would any country bother to agree a free trade agreement with the UK. Under WTO, most favoured nation clause, they then can't have any borders with any country globally. Me thinks the UK is talking bo11ocks...again.

mickoneill31

Folkstonian wrote: »

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

Have you a link to those stats?

J Mysterio

What was Tusk arguing with Selmayr about? Seemed to almost completely lose it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-tusk-video-row-fighting-eu-commission-brussels-martin-selmayr-a8590616.html

Folkstonian

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Folkstonian wrote: »

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

Have you a link to those stats?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html

A google search will bring up lots more articles from similarly reputable sources, go nuts!

J Mysterio

Nice article in the Guardian looking into who and what the DUP really are:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/18/brexits-doom-loop-the-blood-red-lines-that-drive-mays-dup-allies

Bigus

In the comments section in the guardian article liked above about May's two failures Here's a great post to Brexiteers from "Belgian SP " about what EU is

At the core lies the fact that you do not understand the fundamental point of the EU: maintain peace in Europe through better economic integration.

All founding countries and a large majority of countries that joined later know what it means to be 'rule-taker', from Nazi Berlin, USSR Moscow, even London in the case of Ireland. We do not mind accepting rules if we make them ourselves. The EU is far from perfect, it is a project underway, moving slowly, but we understand and feel the goal. And we realize what has already been achieved.

In the UK, you do not. Those 30 miles of sea have prevented that. So you have not understood that the EU was serious about the commitment to the GFA. Because the N.I. conflict was uncomfortably close to war, on EU territory, involving Ireland even when they did not want to be. Getting the DUP on board was an act of monumental insensitivity to what really matters for the EU.

You do not share what the EU means in our hearts. You have not learnt, as did Germany, that extreme power and a feeling of superiority is NOT enough to make it. The EU-rules just irritate you, even some of you realize that they make for a more even playing field benefiting all. So you have started your own war, against the EU.

And losing it. It is not a war, the EU is not your enemy. The enemy is inside you. The democratic deficit of the EU is not the problem, the democratic deficit in the UK is. The EU is not on the verge of desintegrating, the UK is. The EU is aware of the tensions created when areas are economically left behind and tries to handle this, the UK government imposes austerity selectively targeted the poorer areas. Foreigners ain't the problem, the British class society is. EU-politicians and 'un-elected' Eurocrats are not the problem, your Eton bred elitist 'leaders' are.

All of that is becoming blindingly obvious. The general superiority of the EU-negotiators over the UK shambles is clear, but of course contributes to more jingoism. May is inadequate, but, face it, she is the best the Tories can offer and they are in power, no alternative in sight. Labour cannot formulate a strategy either and the only reasonable parties are too small.

You are basically fighting your own demons.

murphaph

bilston wrote: »

What do people think will happen if a hard border is put in place (by whoever).

Will we see protests?

Its not that hard to imagine some kind of sit down protest at the border by those most strongly opposed to it. Who will remove those protestors?

Some have even suggested that Dissident republicans would target any hard border apparatus.

I don't know how likely or unlikely all that is, but I wouldn't rule any of it out.

It is high stakes at play, I think people in Ireland realise that, I'm not convinced Tory Brexiteer politicians have the faintest idea of the actual realities of a hard border.

Personally I think there won't be time to build a single checkpoint in Ireland before the same hard border in Calais causes the world's longest traffic jam in Kent and sees the UK back at the negotiation table asking for a deal, any deal.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I think there won't be time to build a single checkpoint in Ireland before the same hard border in Calais causes the world's longest traffic jam in Kent and sees the UK back at the negotiation table asking for a deal, any deal.

I think that's a part of the Irish government's strategy, to be honest. They hope that before they have to do much by way of border control, the UK will have cracked and come back to the table.

Rhineshark

Bob24 wrote: »

With a hard Brexit which commitment towards us would the UK be breaking? They never said they want to reintroduce a border.

The is correct, it is our choice and we are not expected to do anything. But similarly if the UK wants to leave the EU I cannot see why they should be expected to no do it because we want to be part of both borderless areas.

I am trying to see both sides of the story here. The consequence of what you are saying is that in your opinion the Good Friday agreement committed the UK to never leaving the common market. I don't think it is a reasonable inference to make.

The GFA meant that, due to the UK and Ireland sharing a tariff free area, because and entirely due to being in the EU market, the two countries could come to compromise on and with NI. Part of that was cross-border initiatives and that entailed RoI opening parts of its economy, helping to support a region that the UK has to heavily subsidise. That also posed a risk to the Irish economy but it was done in good faith in the agreement.

The least the UK could do was not take out the lynchpin the whole arrangement by leaving the CU/SM the whole thing was rendered possible by, risking peace in the north and thus our border and utterly screwing the all-island agricultural market and other cross-border arrangements, especially in medical care and specialisation.

So yes, the essential issue is that it really doesn't matter if they are not aiming to break an agreement with another country or force a hard border across the island again, that is the outcome of their daft vote without the concession required to prevent it. It is a serious threat here due to our acting in good faith on the very agreement a hard Brexit will render impossible to implement. By any reasonable measure that is breaking the agreement.


Borders is not an "EU demand", it is an essential part of how world trade works. In the medium run neither RoI nor the UK can get around responsibility for ensuring the border and the delineation of customs zones between the two countries.

brickster69

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except the EU are a co-guatantor to the GFA

The EU is not a co-guarantor of the GFA.

The Irish and British governments are the co-guarantors of the agreement.

I do not know where people get the idea that the EU is a guarantor for the GFA. It is recognized by the EU as an international treaty, as well as the UN.
Fault lies with both the UK and Irish Governments whose responsibility it is to uphold it. Allowing SF and the DUP 13 months to negotiate was crazy. It should of been the two guarantors, and no one else !
Unless the backstop is time limited someone is going to be breaking this treaty that's for certain now.
Rees Mogg questioned Verhofstadt on this.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Unless the backstop is time limited someone is going to be breaking this treaty that's for certain now.

How do you see the GFA being broken by a non-time-limited backstop?

Rhineshark

brickster69 wrote: »

I do not know where people get the idea that the EU is a guarantor for the GFA. It is recognized by the EU as an international treaty, as well as the UN.
Fault lies with both the UK and Irish Governments whose responsibility it is to uphold it. Allowing SF and the DUP 13 months to negotiate was crazy. It should of been the two guarantors, and no one else !
Unless the backstop is time limited someone is going to be breaking this treaty that's for certain now.
Rees Mogg questioned Verhofstadt on this.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

If the backstop is time-limited the GFA can no longer operate assuming the UK doesn't stay closely enough within EU structures to render it unnecessary. Which they show no real sign of wanting to do.

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

Rule breaking and exceptionalism are not the same thing.

Peregrinus

Rhineshark wrote: »

If the backstop is time-limited the GFA can no longer operate assuming the UK doesn't stay closely enough within EU structures to render it unnecessary. Which they show no real sign of wanting to do.

(A) Did you perhaps mean to say "If the backstop is NOT time-limited . . ."?

(B) In what way will the GFA be unable to operate if the backstop takes effect?

(I'm not implying that you're wrong; I'm just trying to tease out exactly what we're talking about here.)

20silkcut

Gerry T wrote: »

No, because the UK agreed to let the people of NI have a frictionless border with ROI and decide their own faith, then the UK by all rights should ask the people of NI can they (the UK) leave the SM and CU. because they can't leave without first breaking their international treaty regarding the people of NI.
But they will, because their the UK and their history is breaking agreements, doing what they want....their special you know.
As for the UK saying they won't put up a border, childish nonsense, they need to be called out on. No border and no checks, so imports will be tariff free. In that case why would any country bother to agree a free trade agreement with the UK. Under WTO, most favoured nation clause, they then can't have any borders with any country globally. Me thinks the UK is talking bo11ocks...again.

Yes When it comes to borders and tariffs and checks etc I’m a bit green. They are after all something that’s supposed to be in the past.
But if as many brexiteers suggest the UK do nothing at the Irish border what does that mean? Does that mean there is still free movement of people, EU citizens, from anywhere in the 27 countries can cross the border at Armagh or Fermanagh and they are in the UK and can head straight to London or Manchester or wherever unimpeded.
Likewise a lorry load of beef from Ireland can head north and cross the border where the brexiteers say there will be no tariffs and checks and that’s it that beef is in the UK ready to sell.
What is the point of brexit if the UK are not doing checks at the Irish border?

Hermy

J Mysterio wrote: »

What was Tusk arguing with Selmayr about? Seemed to almost completely lose it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-tusk-video-row-fighting-eu-commission-brussels-martin-selmayr-a8590616.html

I'm not sure it's that bad. It's certainly heated but I don't sense conflict. I think it's more like a coach at a halftime team talk getting himself wound up as he dishes out the tactics for the second half.

I get like that myself sometimes - arms waving, voice raised - even when I'm agreeing with people.:o

MrMusician18

Rhineshark wrote: »

The GFA meant that, due to the UK and Ireland sharing a tariff free area, because and entirely due to being in the EU market, the two countries could come to compromise on and with NI. Part of that was cross-border initiatives and that entailed RoI opening parts of its economy, helping to support a region that the UK has to heavily subsidise. That also posed a risk to the Irish economy but it was done in good faith in the agreement.

The least the UK could do was not take out the lynchpin the whole arrangement by leaving the CU/SM the whole thing was rendered possible by, risking peace in the north and thus our border and utterly screwing the all-island agricultural market and other cross-border arrangements, especially in medical care and specialisation.

So yes, the essential issue is that it really doesn't matter if they are not aiming to break an agreement with another country or force a hard border across the island again, that is the outcome of their daft vote without the concession required to prevent it. It is a serious threat here due to our acting in good faith on the very agreement a hard Brexit will render impossible to implement. By any reasonable measure that is breaking the agreement.


Borders is not an "EU demand", it is an essential part of how world trade works. In the medium run neither RoI nor the UK can get around responsibility for ensuring the border and the delineation of customs zones between the two countries.

I'm not aware of any commercial markets opened up as a result of/attributable to the GFA. You'll need to clarify that.

MrMusician18

Hermy wrote: »

I'm not sure it's that bad. It's certainly heated but I don't sense conflict. I think it's more like a coach at a halftime team talk getting himself wound up as he dishes out the tactics for the second half.

I get like that myself sometimes - arms waving, voice raised - even when I'm agreeing with people.:o

They were not agreeing in that discussion whatever it was about. The body language definitely looks like Tusk is putting Selmayr in his place.

I imagine there is always some tension between the commission presidency and the council presidency, even when there is a united front presented to the public.

Peregrinus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They were not agreeing in that discussion whatever it was about. The body language definitely looks like Tusk is putting Selmayr in his place.

I imagine there is always some tension between the commission presidency and the council presidency, even when there is a united front presented to the public.

No, I'm with Hermy. Tusk is making a heated point, but it's not necessarily a heated point against Selmayr.

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any commercial markets opened up as a result of/attributable to the GFA. You'll need to clarify that.

Perhaps things like the all-ireland electricity market?

Rhineshark

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any commercial markets opened up as a result of/attributable to the GFA. You'll need to clarify that.

Also the all-island agricultural zone. And agreements regarding medical care that lead to NI specialising in some things and RoI in others rather than duplicating efforts.

Per, I think you misunderstood me, but rushing off to work so will clarify later! Backstop not the problem, backstop unilaterally ending with no need for an alternative the sane problem as No Deal, just delayed enough for the UK to focus on stuff they actually care about.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I'm with Hermy. Tusk is making a heated point, but it's not necessarily a heated point against Selmayr.

Is this where they have gotten to. Desperately trying to see conflict within the opposing camp?
They all end up laughing...probably a discussion about some pub Tusk doesn't want to go to.

pauldla

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this where they have gotten to. Desperately trying to see conflict within the opposing camp?
They all end up laughing...probably a discussion about some pub Tusk doesn't want to go to.

"How can Strongbow on ze tap be inferior to Strongbow from ze bottle! In Poland even ze wino's will not say this. You are crazy! Anyway, we should go to the Bleeding Horse.'

Hermy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They all end up laughing...

The cynic in me would wonder though if that was because Jean-Claude reminded them that they were on camera and that they better laugh.:)

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

The cynic in me would wonder though if that was because Jean-Claude reminded them that they were on camera and that they better laugh.:)

No, J-C reminded them they were on camera and they all laughed about how the brexiter press would spin the footage as evidence of the EU splintering in the face of stern British resolution and honest-to-God Anglo-Saxon fortitude.

BonnieSituation

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

Ah now!

The poor Brits!

FrancieBrady

Hermy wrote: »

The cynic in me would wonder though if that was because Jean-Claude reminded them that they were on camera and that they better laugh.:)

They are eavesdropping on conversations in bars as Merkel and others relax and now this. Ridiculous.
I have a German client (I know Tusk is Polish) who is exactly like Tusk, he is one of the most disconcerting men I know, he gets right in your face when telling a story or is explaining things, gesticulating wildly and is very theatrical. People watching us would probably think I am getting a bollicking too but it is more likely to be about Weiss Beir or that Danish muck.

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

I'm not aware of any commercial markets opened up as a result of/attributable to the GFA. You'll need to clarify that.

The GFA included the open (i.e non existent) border which facilitates trade flows between businesses. This helped build the specialisations and economies of scale that continental EU countries enjoy and which have been key to economic growth in the US.

Scale matters and the logic behind the Single Market recognises that. We have enjoyed a mini version of that in the border region. It allowed Ireland to see some of the benefits of Schengen without being in Schengen.

BonnieSituation

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nice article in the Guardian looking into who and what the DUP really are:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/18/brexits-doom-loop-the-blood-red-lines-that-drive-mays-dup-allies

Wherever the DUP are commented upon in the British press it really is a case of "Where have you been and Welcome to our world!"

lawred2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wherever the DUP are commented upon in the British press it really is a case of "Where have you been and Welcome to our world!"

Yeah was thinking the same. A rather pathetic article. Unashamed 'look what I've learned about these lads'. Another one wearing ignorance as a badge of honour.

They only bother to 'learn' about Northern Ireland when there's a chance it might affect them..

Hurrache

I had a look at the video, based on the headline and comments I was expecting, I dunno, something resembling how it's being painted.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The GFA included the open (i.e non existent) border which facilitates trade flows between businesses. This helped build the specialisations and economies of scale that continental EU countries enjoy and which have been key to economic growth in the US.

No, the border was already open before the GFA was negotiated and signed. The open border is a consequenc of the Customs Union and the Single Market, and it has been in place since the early 90s. Security controls on the border were dismantled as a result of the ceasefires and general de-escalation of violence. And of course there have been no migration contols on the border since shortly after the Second World War.

The open border, in short, isn't a consequence of the GFA; it's (part of) the context within which the GFA was negotiated, and which made the GFA possible.