Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

screamer wrote: »

Well Its pointless explaining to you then isn’t it. Maybe look up the word agreement and action and it should tell you the difference, it’s very basic. I won’t derail “high standard” of the thread getting into a back and forth with you.

That's not how this works. The onus is on you to clarify your statement.

So perhaps for the benefit of us all can you explain what you meant by it.

Balanadan

allthedoyles wrote: »

I know a few Irish businesses that have now sourced suppliers in other EU countries rather than UK.
Products arriving from Rotterdam direct to Waterford.

road_high wrote: »

If anything it’s now the complete opposite- once they reverted to type and started insulting and belittling Ireland that has been it. It’s brought out the green white and gold in the most indifferent Irish nationalists. The pervading attitude I sense is let them jump off that cliff come 31st October or preferably sooner. They can come when they want sensible discussions and if not then so be it, we’ll have to re adjust our trading patterns and lives accordingly. I’ve heard no one talk about dropping the backstop- almost completely the opinion as above.

There was a presenter on Newstalk today saying how the rhetoric from Britain is turning even the most pro-British Irish people (the "West Brits") against them, with even the likes of John Bruton calling them out.

I have a lot of great friends in the UK, and great business relationships too. However, the bile emanating from the UK, and the potential bureaucratic customs/logistics headache looming makes trading with the UK rather unpalatable. A lot of businesses have been doing a lot of work on their supply chains, even if they haven't fully pulled the trigger yet.

In the short-term in the event of a hard Brexit, we will face some economic uncertainty, but in the medium-term I expect we will adapt and re-align our economy and develop trade further with our friends in EUrope.

Strazdas

road_high wrote: »

If anything it’s now the complete opposite- once they reverted to type and started insulting and belittling Ireland that has been it. It’s brought out the green white and gold in the most indifferent Irish nationalists. The pervading attitude I sense is let them jump off that cliff come 31st October or preferably sooner. They can come when they want sensible discussions and if not then so be it, we’ll have to re adjust our trading patterns and lives accordingly. I’ve heard no one talk about dropping the backstop- almost completely the opinion as above.

I'd consider myself a bit of an Anglophile (not a 'West Brit' though), but even I'm thoroughly sick of the Brexiteers at this point and have come around to the idea that they should get the hell off the stage. I've had enough of their arrogance and whinging.

Enzokk

Injuryprone wrote: »

Watching sky news press review this evening, Tom Newton Dunn from the sun said that he is informed that Boris will propose that, for a temporary period, Ireland would follow Britain's rules and regulations rather than the EU's, thus removing the border problem.

I am absolutely gobsmacked.

Water John wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn on Sky News says we'll be into a GE at the end of next month. That's his best reading of it ATM.

I don't know what to make of Tom Newton Dunn, firstly he seems to think like a lot of people that Johnson wants a general election. Why is this, is it because we all assume that he will blink at no-deal and that he really doesn't want it? I am a little scared that all journalists and political commentators has misjudged the situation and Johnson is not looking for an election. But that is my worst case scenario.

As for the proposal that we leave the SM and CU. I think I have heard it all now. The UK voted to leave and blow up their obligations on the GFA, now we must clean it up for them? I am glad they seem to acknowledge that the border is a concern if they propose we leave with them, that is one step forward at least. It gets rid of the arguments that a border would not be needed if they leave the SM and CU. At least we have that.

Firblog wrote: »

Were you gobsmacked when the idea that part of the UK should continue to follow EU rules was proposed?

Perhaps now you know how many in the UK felt when that idea was floated.

You mean the part of the UK that voted to keep following the rules? The majority of people in NI already indicated they prefer to stay in the EU. It is not that much of a stretch to think they would be happy to stay in the SM and CU.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know what to make of Tom Newton Dunn, firstly he seems to think like a lot of people that Johnson wants a general election. Why is this, is it because we all assume that he will blink at no-deal and that he really doesn't want it?

People think that what Johnson really wants, his priority of priorities, is to stay being PM, and all other priorities are subordinated to this.

And, if you accept this, then it's not a difficult leap to concluding that he wants a general election. He has a parliamentary majority of 1, a deeply splintered party and a narrow range of policy options, any of which, when implemented, is going to subject his country and his party to considerable stress. He must, he absolutely must, increase his parliamentary majority quite soon, and the only way to do that is with a general election. And it must be a GE in which the Brexit Party is crushed in the way that UKIP has already been crushed.

So it's all about positioning himself to win an early general election.

I think his strategy is basically this:

1. Demand EU compromise.

2. If EU compromises, hail this as great victory, make deal, go for immediate general election campaigning as the man who made the EU compromise and implemented brexit.

3. If EU doesn't compromise, go for no deal brexit on 31 October, immediately followed by general election campaigning as the man who stood up for Britain when it counted and implemented brexit.

Either way, Brexit will have been implemented so the Brexit party, which currently has just one policy, will then have none at all. He hopes this will be basis for collapse in its vote.

2 is probably his preferred outcome but, realistically, he is probably smart enough to know that 3 is the more likely outcome. But he obviously reckons, or at least hopes, that he can pull off a GE victory in that scenario. It will be crucial to hold the GE immediately so that vaunted blitz spirit is hopefully still carrying people through the short-term national disruption of no-deal Brexit, and the medium- and long-term national impotence, decline and depression hasn't yet manifested itself.

fash

Firblog wrote: »

Were you gobsmacked when the idea that part of the UK should continue to follow EU rules was proposed?

Perhaps now you know how many in the UK felt when that idea was floated.

The UK which promised that "trust us, we've a secret plan in this here bag that will solve everything, but we can't show it to you yet- so we are happy to accept the backstop".
The UK which professes to want more than anything that there is no hard border reimposed?
The same UK which ignores the "Will Of The People (of NI) ™" to remain in the EU and under the EU rules and to have the backstop?
The same UK which solely undertook this silly enterprise and so is solely responsible for the consequences of its decision?
That UK?
I would suggest that those who voted remain have been vindicated. Those who voted for brexit should either accept they've been conned and seek a new referendum or have known and accepted the consequences of their decision. They certainly have no right to feel in any way aggrieved.

road_high

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd consider myself a bit of an Anglophile (not a 'West Brit' though), but even I'm thoroughly sick of the Brexiteers at this point and have come around to the idea that they should get the hell off the stage. I've had enough of their arrogance and whinging.

I sense that’s the general feeling around Europe. They’ve poured petrol on and scorched any goodwill or soft feelings that were there. The whole licking up to Trump charade is also viewed as childish nonsense that hasn’t gone down well at all for various reasons.

upupup

Tell me how wrote: »

Watched both Sky News at 9 and BBC News at ten.

Both of them opened the news about Tusks response to Boris's letter with an introduction of what the backstop actually is with graphics to illustrate it.

It's like they've only realized now it needs to be understood.

I watch sky news too and I have noticed a change in what they are saying and the way they say things in the past few weeks.The leave people are more intelligent and the crazy brexiteers who used to spout complete lies are very few now.They often have a leave and remain person talking in their press review and last night when i switched on late it took me a while to figure out which person was the leaver....I think the sky owners have woken up and can see the cliff edge ahead.
They have also mentioned the possibility of ditching the dup as an option and that was never spoke about before.

Valhallapt

upupup wrote: »

I watch sky news too and I have noticed a change in what they are saying and the way they say things in the past few weeks.The leave people are more intelligent and the crazy brexiteers who used to spout complete lies are very few now.They often have a leave and remain person talking in their press review and last night when i switched on late it took me a while to figure out which person was the leaver....I think the sky owners have woken up and can see the cliff edge ahead.
They have also mentioned the possibility of ditching the dup as an option and that was never spoke about before.

Yea I noticed a change in tone too, have heard option to go back to a NI only option being floated a few times too. For many they a realizing there is now a binary choice, a no deal or a NI only backstop.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

So it's all about positioning himself to win an early general election.

I think his strategy is basically this:

1. Demand EU compromise.

2. If EU compromises, hail this as great victory, make deal, go for immediate general election campaigning as the man who made the EU compromise and implemented brexit.

3. If EU doesn't compromise, go for no deal brexit on 31 October, immediately followed by general election campaigning as the man who stood up for Britain when it counted and implemented brexit.

Accurate analysis. I would add however, that a GE after b-day 3 would be a mistake for him and I don't think he'll do it. Firstly because it's no longer Schroedinger's brexit and the cat is out of the box. And it's a dead cat. That's reality and Johnson doesn't do reality. Secondly, all focus in the press will move to what's actually happening as a result of brexit; elections are always held on Thursdays, so it's either going to be on the 31st or a week later. The 31st doesn't fit your scenario, so it would have to be the 7th November. That would be disastrous imo. And finally, as you say, he wants to remain PM, so he has to have a plan B in case he doesn't get a majority, and that would involve coalition talks which would have to be held with the Schroedinger's brexit box still closed.


I'm calling it for 17th October. Colours firmly nailed.

johnnyskeleton

Tell me how wrote: »

This one might well be deleted by a Mod but I think it serves to show how they are so confused about what the EU is that they don't know just what the hell it was responsible for.

Incredible juxtaposition.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1163930751575965696?s=19

Well its apposite because if thats the mood of their country, then it sets out a blueprint for all the fantasric changes that they can now make in the fresh air of Brexit. A new British Freedom Act can include the following provisions:

1. Chips can be served in newspaper
2. Prawn Coctail crips are protected with consititutional status
3. All pubs must sell at least one cask ale
4. The VAR is illegal
5. The Queen gets a thrid birthday which is a national holiday
6. All schools must require boys to wear an old timey blazer and cap
7. It is illegal to object to a neighbour having a Union flag in their garden
8. Greengrocers must wear brown aprons
9. Bananas can have any degree of curvature
10. Ban on foxhunting repealed
Etc etc

Basically, a wish list of every inconsequential thing that people want and which isnt prohibited by EU law and be passed in a new law saying "now we are free we can do all these things".

Or they can do it peacemeal. On the same day that the Guardian reports 5 pensioners have died due to lack of chemo chemicals, the Prime Minister can announce that they have finally changed the law to allow any tubed meat product to be called a sausage, regardless of what kind of animal was used tk make it.

murphaph

Balanadan wrote: »

There was a presenter on Newstalk today saying how the rhetoric from Britain is turning even the most pro-British Irish people (the "West Brits") against them, with even the likes of John Bruton calling them out.

I have a lot of great friends in the UK, and great business relationships too. However, the bile emanating from the UK, and the potential bureaucratic customs/logistics headache looming makes trading with the UK rather unpalatable. A lot of businesses have been doing a lot of work on their supply chains, even if they haven't fully pulled the trigger yet.

In the short-term in the event of a hard Brexit, we will face some economic uncertainty, but in the medium-term I expect we will adapt and re-align our economy and develop trade further with our friends in EUrope.

We have a huge amount of human capital in Ireland that can help us here. We saw immigration from virtually all of the EU member states and these people have had children who are bilingual. They are a massive asset to us now as we cast our gaze more intently at EU26 markets. SMEs should be state supported in hiring and training EU26 native language speakers in selling and supporting their wares. We've been relatively lazy and have not taken full advantage of the SM, yet.

johnnyskeleton

prawnsambo wrote: »

And finally, as you say, he wants to remain PM, so he has to have a plan B in case he doesn't get a majority, and that would involve coalition talks which would have to be held with the Schroedinger's brexit box still closed.

Does he want to remain PM? Or does he want to remain Tory leader and criticise Lavour for every brexit disaster for the first 2-3 years and then come herocially back to power asserting that he wouldve made a success of Brexit had he been in charge

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Accurate analysis. I would add however, that a GE after b-day 3 would be a mistake for him and I don't think he'll do it. Firstly because it's no longer Schroedinger's brexit and the cat is out of the box. And it's a dead cat. That's reality and Johnson doesn't do reality. Secondly, all focus in the press will move to what's actually happening as a result of brexit; elections are always held on Thursdays, so it's either going to be on the 31st or a week later. The 31st doesn't fit your scenario, so it would have to be the 7th November. That would be disastrous imo. And finally, as you say, he wants to remain PM, so he has to have a plan B in case he doesn't get a majority, and that would involve coalition talks which would have to be held with the Schroedinger's brexit box still closed.

I'm calling it for 17th October. Colours firmly nailed.

An election for just before B-day carries a huge risk. Since Brexit hasn't actually happened, the Faragistas could (correctly) point out that should there be a change of government, it could still be delayed, averted or refashioned into a craven surrender BRINO, and voters concerneda about this possiblity should register their views by voting for the hardest, Brexitiest party they can find. Which, by an amazing coincidence, is the Brexit Party.

Boris cannot win a majority without crushing, absolutely crushing, the Brexit party. He has to keep them to 2%, 3% of the national vote; any more than that, and increasing numbers of seats the Tories need to win start to slip to Labour or the Lib Dems.

And any election held at a time when Brexit still hasn't happened is not likely to crush the Brexit Party.

So just after Brexit looks like the time to me. I appreciate that that means polling in the middle of no-deal disruption, but Boris will be hoping (a) it won't be quite the Mad Max-apocalypse that some have predicted, and he can make that look like a positive, and (b) Spirit of the Blitz, stiff upper lip, dig for victory, don't let the Hun sap your morale, etc, etc. Not a safe bet by any means, but better odds that most of the other available bets can give him.

PS: An election doesn't have to be held on a Thursday; it has just been the practice since the 1930s. There's chatter on the twittersphere that he might try to hold it on Friday 1st November.

prawnsambo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does he want to remain PM? Or does he want to remain Tory leader and criticise Lavour for every brexit disaster for the first 2-3 years and then come herocially back to power asserting that he wouldve made a success of Brexit had he been in charge

Oh I think PM. Opposition leader is a pointless job. And never forget that Corbyn wants to build his utopia on the ashes of brexit. Re-nationalisation being top of the wish list. Johnson's backers would be apoplectic - the likes of Bamford spring to mind. They're not paying him for soundbites in the HoC.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Boris cannot win a majority without crushing, absolutely crushing, the Brexit party. He has to keep them to 2%, 3% of the national vote; any more than that, and increasing numbers of seats the Tories need to win start to slip to Labour or the Lib Dems.

Johnson has been busy stealing the BP's clothes. Even Farage seems to accept that, if this interview on Sky Oz is to be believed.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does he want to remain PM? Or does he want to remain Tory leader and criticise Lavour for every brexit disaster for the first 2-3 years and then come herocially back to power asserting that he wouldve made a success of Brexit had he been in charge

If Johnson leads the Tories out of power he doesn't get to lead them into the next election. No UK Prime Minister who has lost an election has survived for long enough to win another election since Harold Wilson, who acheived this in 1974; no Tory Prime Minister has done it since Winston Churchill in 1951.

JPF82

I am pro EU because I am aware of how it has helped our own country. While it has flaws, I do believe in the overall idea of the EU.

However, I do have somewhat of a query that maybe the better informed could answer. I see neither the EU or Britain blinking in the coming weeks. So it's a hard Brexit. Britain say they won't impose a border in the north. Fine, but isn't it core to the EU that we (the EU) have a border between us and jurisdictions outside of the EU? See the earlier tweet linked on here about the border between Poland and the Ukraine.

Would the EU not then require a border to Northern Island? Very poor for optics with the public here if they do, but a hard Brexit surely means a hard border? I know the GFA influences it, but the integrity of the EU market has to be maintained

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Boris cannot win a majority without crushing, absolutely crushing, the Brexit party. He has to keep them to 2%, 3% of the national vote; any more than that, and increasing numbers of seats the Tories need to win start to slip to Labour or the Lib Dems.

And any election held at a time when Brexit still hasn't happened is not likely to crush the Brexit Party.

So just after Brexit looks like the time to me. I appreciate that that means polling in the middle of no-deal disruption, but Boris will be hoping (a) it won't be quite the Mad Max-apocalypse that some have predicted, and he can make that look like a positive, and (b) Spirit of the Blitz, stiff upper lip, dig for victory, don't let the Hun sap your morale, etc, etc. Not a safe bet by any means, but better odds that most of the other available bets can give him.

PS: An election doesn't have to be held on a Thursday; it has just been the practice since the 1930s. There's chatter on the twittersphere that he might try to hold it on Friday 1st November.

I appreciate that they can move the election date around, but doing so may have unforeseen effects on turnout. It's an added risk that can't be quantified as it hasn't been done in almost a century. And going back to the BP: Apart from what Farage has floated, the UKIP experience tells us that the British electorate doesn't seem to see that cohort as a serious Westminster party - always do well in Europe, but never win more than a single seat in the HoC - Farage has tried seven times.

But what I see Johnson doing at the moment is taking all the hard brexiter talking points and running with them as if they are gospel. It's like their greatest hits parade and they're beiing sung by the PM. If that doesn't win them all over (and Farage seems to be accepting that it has), nothing will.

And then there's the 'reluctant no-dealer' schtick that he's putting out there as well. "Our friends in Europe", "I want a good deal" etc. which is aimed at the waverers, soft brexiters and battle weary remainers. As long as the cat stays in the box, these cohorts can see what they want to see in Johnson's rhetoric. Once it's out, they're gone with the wind.

Dytalus

JPF82 wrote: »

I am pro EU because I am aware of how it has helped our own country. While it has flaws, I do believe in the overall idea of the EU.

However, I do have somewhat of a query that maybe the better informed could answer. I see neither the EU or Britain blinking in the coming weeks. So it's a hard Brexit. Britain say they won't impose a border in the north. Fine, but isn't it core to the EU that we (the EU) have a border between us and jurisdictions outside of the EU? See the earlier tweet linked on here about the border between Poland and the Ukraine.

Would the EU not then require a border to Northern Island? Very poor for optics with the public here if they do, but a hard Brexit surely means a hard border? I know the GFA influences it, but the integrity of the EU market has to be maintained

It is core to any nation that they impose border controls between their markets and others. The EU only comes into it because Ireland (as in, the Republic) is part of the EU's Single Market instead of standing isolated. If Ireland were not in the EU, we would still need a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without joining in a customs union with the UK.

If the UK refuses to put in its own border controls between the Republic and NI, then any nation that they trade with can kick up a fuss that their goods are coming in and getting checked/tariffed whereas any goods crossing from Ireland into the UK aren't. The EU putting up border controls on its side of the NI/RoI border doesn't mean the UK can wash their hands of it - they still would need border controls on their side.

We're hardly going to do their customs checks for them. The only difference comes down to who does it first - Ireland, or the UK.

prawnsambo

JPF82 wrote: »

Would the EU not then require a border to Northern Island? Very poor for optics with the public here if they do, but a hard Brexit surely means a hard border? I know the GFA influences it, but the integrity of the EU market has to be maintained

My own interpretation is that there will be a de facto border in the Irish Sea. 70% of NI exports to the UK go through Dublin port. Which is already set up for all the checks etc. that are needed. The EU will ask the UK government to respect that de facto situation and institute similar checks at Larne. If the UK refuse, then it will be accepted that there may be some 'leakage' but the risk will be finite and manageable. This loose situation with NI still de facto in the EU will probably only last for a short period before the UK come back to the table and a more formal arrangement is reached.

Leroy42

Firblog wrote: »

Were you gobsmacked when the idea that part of the UK should continue to follow EU rules was proposed?

Perhaps now you know how many in the UK felt when that idea was floated.

Maybe they should have thought about that before they voted in a referendum? They knew what they were voting for, so we are continually told, so one must assume they knew that this was always going to be the case.

Peregrinus

JPF82 wrote: »

I am pro EU because I am aware of how it has helped our own country. While it has flaws, I do believe in the overall idea of the EU.

However, I do have somewhat of a query that maybe the better informed could answer. I see neither the EU or Britain blinking in the coming weeks. So it's a hard Brexit. Britain say they won't impose a border in the north. Fine, but isn't it core to the EU that we (the EU) have a border between us and jurisdictions outside of the EU? See the earlier tweet linked on here about the border between Poland and the Ukraine.

Would the EU not then require a border to Northern Island? Very poor for optics with the public here if they do, but a hard Brexit surely means a hard border? I know the GFA influences it, but the integrity of the EU market has to be maintained

The truth is that in a no-deal Brexit both the UK and the EU need to control the UK/EU border, including in NI.

Yes, the UK says it won't impose a border in the north, or it says things that, if read quickly and while you are a bit distracted, you might think mean that. But white man speak with forked tongue; if they're serious about running their own tariff and regulatory regimes then they can't just unilaterally abandon control of their borders, or even of a chunk of their borders.

Both sides will need to erect border controls; neither will wish to do it first. Both will hang back, hoping that other developments will change the situation, bring the UK back to the table, somehow a deal will be worked out. But if that doesn't happen fairly soon then controls will start to be applied. It'll be piecemeal, with one side adopting some measure and saying "hopefully this will be temporary", then the other saying "well, because of this, we now have to do that, but it's their fault", then the first side moving again, and so forth.

The EU has more to lose through an uncontrolled border, plus the UK will in the early days have bigger and more pressing problems, so it will probably be the EU that will move first. But, in the absence of a deal, both sides will operate border controls.

storker

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does he want to remain PM? Or does he want to remain Tory leader and criticise Lavour for every brexit disaster for the first 2-3 years and then come herocially back to power asserting that he wouldve made a success of Brexit had he been in charge

Stay PM is my bet. I remember Mary Harney saying "Your worst day in government is still better than your best day in opposition". I don't see why that...er...principle wouldn't apply just as much in Westminster as it does in Kildare Street.

johnnyskeleton

storker wrote: »

Stay PM is my bet. I remember Mary Harney saying "Your worst day in government is still better than your best day in opposition". I don't see why that...er...principle wouldn't apply just as much in Westminster as it does in Kildare Street.

Well, because Johnson is all bluster and no substance. He excells as the hurler from the ditch, and is completely unsuited to any role of actual responsibility

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

I appreciate that they can move the election date around, but doing so may have unforeseen effects on turnout. It's an added risk that can't be quantified as it hasn't been done in almost a century. And going back to the BP: Apart from what Farage has floated, the UKIP experience tells us that the British electorate doesn't seem to see that cohort as a serious Westminster party - always do well in Europe, but never win more than a single seat in the HoC - Farage has tried seven times.

They don't have to win any seats at all in order to cost the Tories the election; by taking Tory votes they can deliver seats to Labour and the Lib Dems (as just happened in the Brecon & Radnorshire By-Election). Current opinion polls put them in the 10%-15% range, which is not impossible in an actual election; UKIP got 12.5% in 2015. And if they attract that level of votes in a general election, modelling suggests that could net them zero seats or possibly 1 seat, but could cost the Tories 30-50 seats.

Leroy42

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, because Johnson is all bluster and no substance. He excells as the hurler from the ditch, and is completely unsuited to any role of actual responsibility

Which was clearly shown by his letter to Tusk.

Imagine, the leader of the Brexit movement, who undermined TM from every angle throughout her PM time, finally gets into the hotseat and has nothing of substance to offer.

No new idea, no plan, no solution. "Ah, go on, let us have what we want" seems to be the sum total of his idea.

This is after a ref campaign, 3 years post that and a 6 week leadership campaign.

54and56

prawnsambo wrote: »

Accurate analysis. I would add however, that a GE after b-day 3 would be a mistake for him and I don't think he'll do it. Firstly because it's no longer Schroedinger's brexit and the cat is out of the box. And it's a dead cat. That's reality and Johnson doesn't do reality. Secondly, all focus in the press will move to what's actually happening as a result of brexit; elections are always held on Thursdays, so it's either going to be on the 31st or a week later. The 31st doesn't fit your scenario, so it would have to be the 7th November. That would be disastrous imo. And finally, as you say, he wants to remain PM, so he has to have a plan B in case he doesn't get a majority, and that would involve coalition talks which would have to be held with the Schroedinger's brexit box still closed.


I'm calling it for 17th October. Colours firmly nailed.

Actually, having a GE on B day Oct 31st could be a master stroke. It would be the moment of peak Brexit optimisim for Brexiteers before the hard realities of a no deal kick in.

lola85

PropJoe10 wrote: »

What has good old Miriam been saying? Woman is insufferable.

The government needs to back down and accept Britain won’t accept the backstop.

It’s time to drop it.

She’s is unbelievable.

Berserker

JPF82 wrote: »

However, I do have somewhat of a query that maybe the better informed could answer. I see neither the EU or Britain blinking in the coming weeks. So it's a hard Brexit. Britain say they won't impose a border in the north. Fine, but isn't it core to the EU that we (the EU) have a border between us and jurisdictions outside of the EU? See the earlier tweet linked on here about the border between Poland and the Ukraine.

Would the EU not then require a border to Northern Island? Very poor for optics with the public here if they do, but a hard Brexit surely means a hard border? I know the GFA influences it, but the integrity of the EU market has to be maintained

The UK has said that it will not build a hard border on the island of Ireland. Case closed on that front. The EU views the matter differently and they will want to see a physical border on the island once Brexit becomes a reality. Ireland will be told to build and man that border. If they refuse to do so, they will be punished by the EU.