Are you sure ?

As for delaying tactics, just nonsense but, this should have been thought about and dealt with 2 years ago and not left until the last minute.
Notwistanding the fact that Mrs May has signed her name to the "backstop" but now realises that this is going to cause her downfall and alienate either part of the Tory part or, her new best friends in The DUP.

The phrase "falling on her sword" springs to mind, poor Teresa

It's actually Cameron's sword, he must have left it behind when the vote on EU membership went rather unexpectedly and he did one. Not that it matters of course.

Boris Johnson's batty pater made a typically Johnson-esque intervention, saying on some TV show that "if the Irish want to shoot each other, they'll shoot each other."

The apple does not fall far from the inbred, xenophobic, politically myopic tree.

That is fair enough every is entitled to their opinion, I don't agree but I still don't see why a border leads directly to bloodshed?

It may not BUT, if we do go back to a hard border and The Irish start bombing each other, it will be too late.
This is something that should have been debated long ago and a strategy sorted out in advance of negotiations and it really doesn't help that The Tory majority is only kept in tact.

There should have been a cross party Brexit group to help forge the best future for the country, with those involved (from all parties) committed to getting the job done.
Instead, we've had a fractured Tory party, muddling through and compromising to keep their own party in government and we look like ending up with the worst deal possible.
The one sure thing is that very few people voted for what we are likely to end up with.

So let's get away from the notion that a border triggers mass killing - that's a deflection.

Whoever was negotiating would have come up against the same issues - the EU cannot be seen to giving the UK and easy ride or a deal that would encourage other nations to leave. The best would have been to make a clean break, no break up monies unless a trade deal was agreed to.

Labour have shown they would have simply kept us in EU by the back door i.e. pay in the monies no influence for a trade deal.

What people wanted was: Own law making, some control of immigration and not paying billions in to cess-pit of corruption and over influence of bureaucrats who are beholden to Germany and France. That is most likely what they are going to get.

Already have it.

Already have it if we choose.

Xenophobic rubbish.

Sad but true - the dishonest rhetoric of irresponsible morons like Nigel Farage has become the new reality.

One first point - so if we wanted to offer inducements to companies to base themselves here e.g. Apple and Ireland we couldn't do that if we were part of the EU. We want to change the rules on fishing in our waters?

Point two - wrong again

Point three - why should we pay in to support other nations who don't - that was a big element in the vote - e.g. the red bus - the c£10bn we pay in is not Xenophobic rubbish its a fact

Regarding the £10 billion net that we contribute to the EU, do you not think that there have been annual benefits to heavily offset this figure, possibly wipe it out completely.
Business is built on stability (although we havent been too stable - or strong - since the referendum and IF we do manage to achieve some cheaper goods from elsewhere (post Brexit), we risk having additional duty applied to certain manufactured goods, should we try to sell items, incorporating these goods, back into the EU.
There COULD be some benefits if these items were for domestic consumption or used as components in manufactured goods sold outside the EU.

For manufacturing, there are huge concerns regarding export (post Brexit). Apart from the uncertainty, any additional costs, either as direct raw material increases or additional cost in moving goods would be extremely damaging to their prosperity.

We are still all relying on hope to prosper beyond our life in the EU and it still remains the biggest gamble for the UK economy in the last 100 years.

I posted this on the old thread but it deserves repetition.

Someone who used to help conduct checks on Irish border crossings in his youth told me this.

Firstly you need (at a minimum) 2 serving members of the police, then you need a 4 man 'brick' of soldiers (at a minimum) to protect these police. Times that by two because if you have police and army personnel from one country on one side of the border, they'll more than likely be replicated by Garda and Irish Army on the other.

It takes between 10 and 20 minutes to check a vehicle for contraband and sort out customs and excise, check the identity (of everyone) in the vehicle... and these people will not be best pleased. Check for illegal immigrants. Check documentation regarding goods. Check for hidden compartments containing contraband/people... queues form, big queues and there are over 200 public roads and a heck of a lot more 'hidden' tracks the provos and INLA used for smuggling... mainly diesel.

Why do you need armed men at all?, I hear you asking. Well these border checkpoints/customs points will be deeply unpopular and a spark to tinder to dissident republicans who have been itching for an excuse to dig up the Armalites and Semtex. Border checks imposed by a power they don't recognise at a border they don't recognise will provide it. Boris' numberplate recognition devices will last about 10 minutes.

Then, after half a dozen border police have been shot and a few posts and or personnel have been blown to smithereens, politicians will poke holes in the air and the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) will be sent in to provide a deterrent to naughtiness - or 'a target rich environment' for the gunmen.

The locals, who have been moving back and forth freely since the GFA won’t really appreciate you stopping them travelling through a border that a substantial amount don't recognise it and you're going to have your work cut out getting these people onside.

There is bound to be some form of 'atrocity/accident' as a nervous 18 year old 'Tom' blows away a family as perhaps a women late for a doctor's appointment drives through a checkpoint... and Belfast and Derry go up in flames again, more troops are sent in... a few weeks later a bomb goes off in Manchester/London... Birmingham

And the loving madness starts off all over again... just because some extreme Thatcherite Tories want a 'Singapore of the North'.

A bigger gamble than two world wars - come on let's get real here

Business is built on growth and enterprise - if you stand still you are going backwards - to grow business needs to find new markets and new ways of doing business. Not being part of the EU hasn't negatively impacted American companies such as Apple who don't seem to struggle getting product manufactured in the Far East into Europe. Perhaps its just their enterprise that enables them to prosper rather than where they are based.

Jackanory - Anyone doing business in Ireland is subject to paramilitary activity now - having a border isn't going to change that. Just because they have a border doesn't mean they are going to stop one and all on the off chance they might be carrying a bit of Charlie - let's have an adult discussion here

Ok smart guy but, we didn't have too much choice in the World Wars.

I do love how you totally ignore the trade that currently takes place, which whilst it may not be the mega brand that is Apple, it's far more important to the UK economy.
Of course,we all await with interest to see what Mercedes and BMW do with their EU produced cars, which they will still be looking to hawk in the UK, although these are premium priced motors anyway and some may "enjoy" having to pay more for the "exclusive" car on their drive.

Utter cobblers.