,
6 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster Well, it's more complex but it literally is irrelevant how others sees it if Ireland doesn't explicitly agree to that. All HoC & HMG whims/tantrums excluded, it'd not be the landing zone. From an Irish perspective, a time-limit is a delayed landgrab. Not acceptable. /1
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster I can see how some capitals'd love UK to end up there, but it excludes two factors. Other capitals don't agree with that and their electorate is not inclined to accept a softening of this stance (e.g. Germany). In the moment there would be an obvious switch to that position.. /2
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster ... you'd get a massive push back to not give in on a position perceived as illegitimate and populist/nationalist. Brits may not see it like that, but they're unpopular & their treatment of Ireland (at least the stuff known from the last three years) makes them the baddies. /3
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster So even in the very unlikely case HoC would come to a position of WA but just with backstop - EU won't accept it. If necessary you will see Ireland plus other countries vetoing it. UK did too little and too late to be seen as trustworthy to... /4
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster ... the border issue in way that Ireland is fully satisfied. And don't assume that just because Brits assume that Ireland is not entitled to preserve the status quo, that your position is actually seen as legitimate, justified or even as 'I see where you are coming from'. /5
@Mij_Europe @pmdfoster It's none of that. The countries who have the position of softening believe that it would avoid harm to them - not that UK has a acceptable position. I would also argue that too much pundits ignore the principal-agent problem when talking with diplomats. 6/6
