Re: Pointless
> (No deal) And that should have been held out for.
Perhap May and Johnson were both frightened of having targets put on their backs (for life), which is why they both were prepared to sacrifice sovreignty for their protocols.
> Not particularly. And unless the EU wants to explicitly state they are going to violate the GFA
Many Brexiteers have pointed out that a hard border doesn't violate the GFA, (not illegal) and as far as I can tell this is one thing that was true. But what they missed was that whether true or not, a hard border will wreck the peace. Just legally.
> wouldnt be questioned. But the EU would have caved anyway.
I don't see why they would. The logical preference (ignoring the peace treaty) would be a hard border between the UK and RoI. However the RoI would not agree any deal that did that. So the EU's choice was similar to the later Johnson Protocol. May managed to make them back down to allow GB to be in the customs union (similar to Turkey). Though it was backing down to a ridiculous situation for the UK. (Why would you leave the EU but not the CU? Like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater, if you wanted the UK to make independent trade deals).
They said they wouldn't renegotiate, but of course they made it quite clear they would rewind to what they originally wanted, and that is what Johnson went for with his protocol (thought he did get the EU to allow the UK to manage its internal border, which they probably regret now).
It wouldn't be the EU where the bombs would be going off, nor its leaders with targets on their backs.
But basically they did what the Republic wanted. No deal or no Irish border. Johnson backed down. (Which I'll be astounded if he doesn't do again.)
> Sounds like a plan, and also why the EU would fold on the subject. Because the UK wouldnt be
> putting up the hard border, so it would be the EU in the crosshairs because the EU's actions would
> be the problem. That is why EU observers ran when there were threats over the UK/NI border.
> As I keep saying- not our problem.
No it wouldn't. The border would be a controlled border into the EU, the other direction would be open (if the UK stuck to it). And the EU would be unlikely to be in the crosshairs, because those that want a unified Ireland aren't stupid. The civil war would be on UK soil.
> The economic benefit of leaving the EU being the result.
A massive benefit for the EU, (they get to keep a huge chunk of what the GB thought of as its economy, but is actually single market economy that happened to reside in GB).
Twice the hit of Covid, I heard. Permanent too.
> And NI wasnt willing to have UK/NI trade barriers put up either.
NI didn't want to leave the EU.
> So go on tell me why its ok for a
> border between UK/NI and not EU/ROI. They are the ones who wanted a border because
> we left a voluntary union.
The union was to remove borders. And if the RoI obviously didn't want it.They might have preferred it to a hard Irish border (or they might not) But they certainly would not agree to an exit deal with them having a hard border anywhere.
Anyway, the Tories don't care about the Union. All they care about is England (and if Wales cares to tag along they'll keep 'em.) They agreed to a trade deal that was scarecly any better than not bothering for many, mnay industries. So why didn't they just go the whole hog and crash out?
All for optics. The papers call it a fantastic deal, and by the time anyone notices how bad it it, it's far too late.
> You call it shite but it really does seem to be ripping holes through your piss poor arguments.
> That your entire answer to the quoted line is 'whatever' leaves a lot lacking in your ability
> to respond. Yet your trying to call me troll. Idjit
There are no piss poor argument only your lack of comprehension.