The UK wanted to leave the EU and the common market. That means a border. That much has always been clear. That's basically the whole point of the common market.

The UK also doesn't want a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but that's stricly an issue between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. Obviously as Ireland is a member and the EU is a constructive and diplomatically open entity, it was more than ready to negociate. Actually, multiple solutions have been proposed and at least one was tentivaly accepted before being reneged by the UK government.

I mean at some point in a negociation if the weak party can't come to its sense, you have to stop wasting everyone's time and tell them to get lost which is more or less what's happening with the UK.

The UK would have had to breach or at least seriously jeopardize the GFA to do so. An agreement they willingly signed up to. The UK brought that upon themselves.

This is, probably unwittingly, making my point.

Brexit in no way breaches the GFA. Threatening a return to violence in Ireland over Brexit is what I mean by "making things difficult".

The Troubles were not about sausage shipments between Belfast and Dublin.

:)

England just have to live up to their obligations and accept a sea border between England and Northern Ireland.

In fact, they signed up for exactly that not even 2 years ago.

It seems, though, that they were just kicking the can down the road and never really had intentions to live up to their side of the deal.

Global Britain! Yeah, right...

Brexit doesn't, but the GFA was only possible because of the seamless border between the two countries. That lack-of-a-border can only exist if NI remains in the customs union. The rUK can only have a seamless border with NI if it's either in the customs union, or neither are. The UK decided the rUK didn't want to be in it. So now there's a border in the Irish sea.

> Threatening a return to violence in Ireland over Brexit is what I mean by "making things difficult".

Recognizing that putting in jeopardy an international agreement that brought an end to the troubles might incite violence, is not the same thing as threatening violence. It's common sense.

> The Troubles were not about sausage shipments between Belfast and Dublin.

You're right, they were an ethno-nationalist conflict, during which the British government sanctioned the murder of its own citizens, and now continues to protect those murderers from prosecution.

> You're right, they were an ethno-nationalist conflict, during which the British government sanctioned the murder of its own citizens, and now continues to protect those murderers from prosecution.

Bit early for the drink, no?

No need for an ad hominem. Which part of that sentence do you take issue with?

HN won't let me reply to you messe!

Can you point to the line or lines in the GFA which would have been breached by Brexit?

Instauring a border between Ulster and Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_and_the_Irish_border#Go...

Ulster is not synonymous with Northern Ireland as counties Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan are very much part of Ireland.

You're being intentionally obtuse now. If you can't see why an open border is vital for the continued peace, and why removing it would place tension on a peace that took decades to achieve, then you've already made up your mind.

I suppose I should have expected it when you blamed the EU for the self-inflicted woes of Brexit.

I'm not in any way slow to understand, not in this case anyway.

> If you can't see why an open border is vital for the continued peace, and why removing it would place tension on a peace that took decades to achieve, then you've already made up your mind.

I didn't say that, and I'm not even going to engage your straw man.

And I did not blame the EU for Brexit woes, I made a pretty basic statement of fact that would probably cover any negotiation, one which was intended only to signal compromise -- hence why the UK did not leave entirely -- not woe or blame.