I think May could accept something where stay in the EEA and customs union, couldn’t she? A threat of ‘this deal or no deal/referendum/general election/no brexit’ combined with ‘future governments can renegotiate’ would probably get it through Parliament. Perhaps May’s party (or May herself) has stymied that approach, but that’s much more of a political choice on their part - as opposed to the thorny issue of NI ending in a different customs regime to either Great Britain or Ireland, which (I agree) is more existential to the parties in power right now.
Or perhaps because no other such deals are even possible? Ireland has a de facto veto on the resulting deal, in the sense that the EU won’t make a deal that Ireland objects to. Ireland won’t agree to any deal that effectively breaks the Good Friday accords, e.g. a hard border between Ireland and NI. The deals the EU can offer May therefore involve either a Brexit so soft it hardly counts as Brexit, or some kind of restrictions between NI and the rest of the UK. Of course May objects to that sort of thing, but that’s hardly the EU’s fault. The problem was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted before the referendum.
The EU wouldn’t permit future governments to renegotiate though. It would be the same circus.
Also as you say she couldn’t remain PM for long enough to force it through (the tories would depose her). Even Labour have promised limits on migration, which the EEA/CU deal doesn’t permit.
After the referendum, the Irish were preparing for a technological “virtual border”:
My understanding is that this was only abandoned after Varadkhar took over.
I have no interest in engaging with Scott directly but I think it is important to be clear that the Irish and EU stance on the NI border only emerged in its current form after the A50 notification.
Magic asterisk/ unicorn solutions are always popular until you actually try to implement them. Maybe you should try describing what the ‘virtual border’ would actually do, and how.
This should serve to demonstrate people understood it would be a problem before the referendum. Engage with it.
I agree - but once again, we’re in no place to argue.
If our politicians have trapped themselves in political red lines of their own making (migration, or ‘global trade deals!’, or ECJ jurisdiction, or whatever others they have come up with), that’s their fault (and possibly our tragedy). The objections you raise - or that Tory rebels would raise as they might depose May - are not existential the way NI is, and should not be a stumbling block to getting out of this terrible position we’re in.
Not sure about Article 50. Certainly EU leaders keep repeating that they would love to have us back and the door is completely open to reverse course. What this would take I have no idea.
I agree about Corbyn and May’s strange monovision on this issue. I do know I am angry my views are excluded by Labour & Conservatives and as I say I dont think I am in an extreme minority either.
You are right though, someone is going to end up angry over this. I have no problem if its Brexitters , not just for spite, as I say its my family. But it just has not worked and I see no way it can work.
If we do stay in (god I hope so) then for sure I am happy to give EU skeptics free range on reforming the EU’s bureaucracy & rules though. I just think thats far more effectively done from within it than outside.
Please don’t equate eurosceptic and brexiteer. I am a eurosceptic but voted remain.
Totally fair. I withdraw the implication.
It was pointed out that the NI border would be a huge problem before the vote (especially due to the way the EU is structured). No one engaged seriously with the issue because no one thought the UK would actually be insane enough to vote Leave.
So it was a huge problem before the referendum, then t wasn’t a huge problem until Jun 2017, then it was a huge problem again. Right, glad we’ve cleared that up.
The news sources I’ve read + the people I follow on Twitter have talked about NI since forever - and pretty much continually. If the news sources you follow haven’t, that’s probably a problem with the news sources you follow.
It was always a huge problem (witness where we are) and it was only ever the case that some people pretended it wasn’t by resorting to fantasy. And the link you provided shows the then-Irish PM saying, repeatedly, that
Ireland would not accept any deal that resulted in a hard border. Engage with that. If you think there’s a ‘technological solution’, then describe what it is and how it works to prevent free movement of the wrong people and avoids the illegal flow of goods. I’ll wait.
I agree it was known it would be an significant issue that would need to be solved in the talks. What I’m saying is that plenty of people, including the Irish PM at the time of the referendum, believed that the huge issue could be solved by technological methods and goodwill on both sides. (There was also a European Parliament report detailing the methods that might be used which was mentioned upthread). Then suddenly in Jun 2017 or shortly after this stopped being the case.
I’d say it was seen as not a huge issue always in the light that obviously the UK would remain in the common market, somehow. Or just NI. Ooops.
The magic, techno solution, huh, never seen it reported as something that could actually work, it was always a bit “and then Harry Potter fixes it”.
Still, I don’t see how the UK can remain in the EU, not unless things get to point where the person on the street comes to the conclusion that leaving is nuts, not just a bit painful, but straight up nuts. Otherwise, you’re going to have x years of “if only we’d left, it wasn’t so bad, we didn’t give it a proper go” and eventually some crisis is going to set it off again…
One more time, describe that solution. Pretend you’re responding to someone else, I don’t care. Say ‘Frank, here’s how that would work.’
Much vitriol here. 😔
out of curiosity, what is everyone’s background and relationship to Brexit?
I ask because I often find understanding
someone’s background helps understand what they are saying, where they’re coming from.
Please note this is not an attempt to denigrate people’s opinions or contributions here.
I’ll go first:
Brit born abroad, moved to UK when I was 14, have military service.
Currently living in Spain.
Mostly euro sceptic and quite patriotic (less so recently haha) but voted remain because I felt the Brexiteers didn’t have a clue or a plan and were peddling fake news and making fake claims and appealing to nostalgia without considering reality.
And certain politicians were playing games with the referendum.
I’m benefitting this very moment from the EU but believe it could and should be reformed.
I also think the NHS and welfare could and should be reformed.
In principle I am in favour of controlled immigration, but I believe EU member states already have plenty of tools to control and manage it, like the earlier mentioned requirement for health insurance.
If you think Magnuski is here to steal your benefits, well I don’t think there’s anything stopping you from saying only residents (health insurance again!) Or citizens can claim. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If he’s here for your job, maybe you ought to be working on making yourself employable?
So, over to you!
It was pretty obvious to those who are critical thinkers outside of Britain as well.
US citizen, Fargo, ND.
I’m looking forward to Brexit because afterwards it won’t be long until we can make England a colony and tax their tea.