Interesting tweet but don't agree that it asks the right question(s). Instead of asking how to solve it, it's more realistic to ask why can't you solve it. Implicitly this is already highlighted here and also gives a glimpse why DUP was "stupid" enough campaigning for Brexit. /1
To understand the current impasse between this two neighbours the initial asked question: how could the GFA been done w/o EU is key. It would have required that IRE and UK pool their sovereignty, just to overcome the legal-technical barriers of such an agreement. /2
Key for a sustainable GFA was the non existence of a border infrastructure. It allows to feel Irish & being at home in NI while being in a part of UK. It's a matter of identity & allowed feeling British & Irish at the same time: it wasn't mutually exclusive anymore. /3
This raised other problems however, but I'll come to that later. Point's that in order to create a state where no border's required u need integration of this two distinct political, economical & sociocultural entities. Either in another entity or just these two on their own. /4
If they'd have done it alone, it'd not have been sustainable (if they'd have managed to come to such an agreement): It doesn't need phantasy to guess who'd have been the dominant one in this relationship (just check the conflicts w/ devolved govs or sneering towards IRE). /5
It wouldn't have been conceivable for UK in such an asymmetric power relationship to treat IRE as an equal. It doesn't work (you can see why not having a look on EU-IRE-UK Brexit negotiations). /6
Of course at some time in the distant future there might have been a situation where GFA could have been created without EU (or something similar) but so far nothing appeared. To see this as a likely scenario. /7
EU provided, for one, a framework making it legally possible to have no border. Second, it delegates the power issue away to EU institutions: EU provides a framework forcing its member states to compromise and collaborate and not to compete and play the "brutal" power game. /8
Interestingwise the situation has changed. Through the backing of EU IRE is now the power in the UK-IRE relationship which is part of the grievance onside of Unionists & right wing Conservatives (making it more difficult to swallow what comes in future). /9
Additionally it's the UK side of the Irish isle which might fully destabilise and becomes a security threat - an incentive to desperately seek a solution - while being in an utterly weak (power) position. /10
This creates another problem: since UK changed the foundation of the settlement it will be potentially liable for the outcome. If there is a border, UK mainland - respectively ENG - will be mainly blamed in NI. This weakens the Unionist cause. So far, so predictable. /11
So why did DUP tried to unsettle this settlement by supporting Brexit? Well, for one neither SF nor DUP are massive supporters of the status quo. For them it's a matter of identity: NI is British for DUP and unjust occupied home land for SF. /12
I don't buy the common interpretation of DUP supporting Brexit to stir up more support: For one this statement underestimates the nationalism and anti-EU sentiment. Second, it has been a while that DUP feels uneasy and under pressure. /13
Demographics wasn't it's friend and their specific view on the whole matter got increasingly more unpopular. There might have been the fear of a reunited Ireland in the distant future - however inconceivable this might been for an rational observer. /14
From my perspective the current settlement could have lasted for generations as an imperfect hybrid. I doubt reunification would have been on the agenda anytime soon. Anyway, DUP probably didn't agree on that one. Otherwise, why this "secret" donation in such a quantity? /15
There was a genuine support hoping for victory on DUP side. The idea was probably a more successful Britain on the on side and a more exclusive British identity on the other side'd have, over time, appealed moderates & made them immune against sympathy for IRE reunification. /16
Basic assumption was the same like the one amongst hardline Eurosceptics as @montie or ERG group: EU is weak and divided and can be "motivated" to basically give an SM alike deal without the obligations. Alongside the popular notion that no deal can't be that bad. /17
Hubris might have been the final nail in the coffin ;-). In any case, they didn't foresee the situation and the power as well as the will of EU to maintain the foundation of the deal (no border) while maintaining integrity of SM. /18
What we have now on DUP side are two factions: one which realise that there is a massive problem and hoping that there is somewhat a deal - who would accept anything just to maintain the status quo (no border on either side). /19
And we have the guys who still didn't get that it's not UK who will has its cake and eat it but IRE and EU (Ian Paisley is one of those guys). The question is not how you solve it but how to force UK to concede into an agreement where they are the rule taker & the unequal. /20
You might be interested in this one...
