What is most interesting about this piece by Dr Graham Gudgin on @BrexitCentral is how virtually identical it is to every other pro-Brexit piece on the Irish border.
Here's a brief thread noting some of these common features.
1/
brexitcentral.com/dublin-needs-t…
Here's a brief thread noting some of these common features.
1/
brexitcentral.com/dublin-needs-t…
The border as battleground:
"The Irish border thus remains the key battleground in the war of attrition that is the UK-EU Brexit talks."
This has the effect of asserting that if UK moves on red lines here it loses the Brexit war.
Thus raising the stakes & raising tensions.
2/
"The Irish border thus remains the key battleground in the war of attrition that is the UK-EU Brexit talks."
This has the effect of asserting that if UK moves on red lines here it loses the Brexit war.
Thus raising the stakes & raising tensions.
2/
It blames the change of Taoiseach from Kenny to Varadkar for "hard stance from the Irish govt that has soured UK-Irish relations".
It sees Irish intentions as barely disguised irredentism.
Yet lays all responsibility for progress on Irish govt accepting "practical solutions".
3/
It sees Irish intentions as barely disguised irredentism.
Yet lays all responsibility for progress on Irish govt accepting "practical solutions".
3/
It claims technology holds the solution.
It lauds Karlsson's Smart Border 2.0 report.
It says EU's "dismissal of technological options is being used for wider political purposes."
It assumes a hard border is determined by whether there is physical infrastructure at the border.
4/
It lauds Karlsson's Smart Border 2.0 report.
It says EU's "dismissal of technological options is being used for wider political purposes."
It assumes a hard border is determined by whether there is physical infrastructure at the border.
4/
It places a lot of faith in customs "intelligence".
It appears not to be overly familiar with customs procedures.
Nor with the systems that already exist. E.g. Says inspections of animal products coming into NI from GB could be used as a "fallback", but this already happens.
5/
It appears not to be overly familiar with customs procedures.
Nor with the systems that already exist. E.g. Says inspections of animal products coming into NI from GB could be used as a "fallback", but this already happens.
5/
This, then, isn't a negotiation but a zero-sum faceoff:
"We are now in a situation of irresistible forces & immovable objects. One side will have to back down & this clearly cannot be the UK, wh has the firmest of red lines"
But Winner Takes All = anathema to post-1998 Agmt NI
7/
"We are now in a situation of irresistible forces & immovable objects. One side will have to back down & this clearly cannot be the UK, wh has the firmest of red lines"
But Winner Takes All = anathema to post-1998 Agmt NI
7/
