@Bearbehind
The initial assumption at the time of the referendum was that the UK would remain in the CU and SM as the pre-referendum rhetoric was strongly suggestive of this. The threat to the GFA and the border became apparent once Teresa May started to introduce her red lines.
Brussels has never declared it is impossible to avoid a hard border. They have insisted a hard border must not happen.
This has been robustly refuted by the majority of those actually responsible for that treaty - Bullshit. Trimble certainly has rowed in but his claims have been disputed by pretty much everyone. No other person involved in the GFA has suggested there is not a problem.
An article here states: Former Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble - now a member of the House of Lords - has also entered the fray with an open letter to Mrs May making the audacious claim that any fears of Northern Ireland being affected by a no-deal Brexit are "groundless".
This is despite the fact that the Confederation of British Industry has warned that such a scenario would have a "devastating" impact on the North, shrinking the economy by almost €6bn over 15 years. He goes on to assure Mrs May that in his view, Border "infrastructure is no longer needed since modern electronic procedures can do the job".
Like everyone else who has suggested an electronic solution for the frontier, he has no suggestions on how this mysterious technology would actually work.
His comments provoked a sharp rebuke from his fellow peer Baroness Nuala O'Loan who said he was talking "rubbish". The former police ombudsman for the North accused Mr Trimble of acting irresponsibly. That's putting it in rather parliamentary language.
The spectacle of a man who won a Nobel Prize for his commitment to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement being so blasé is incredible to witness. The genuine concerns of people as diverse as industry leaders, farmers and ordinary citizens who live along the Border are real and should be taken seriously rather than dismissed glibly.
The head of British HMRC and his counterpart in Ireland have both said there is no need for any additional physical infrastructure on the border.
Can you please provide aa link to this as the only links I can find suggest this is unicorn territory. Jim Harra, the deputy chief executive, said max fac would mean the need for customs controls but that those controls could be operated without physical infrastructure at the border.
He admitted that presents "a design challenge. If you look around the world, even the most technologically advanced customs borders generally involve some kind of infrastructure."
Two leading customs experts have told the Commons Select Committee on NI that we can rely on existing technology, trusted trader schemes and behind-border checks.
Again, please post a link. Nobody has yet provided any detail on these so called technological solutions. Any one who knows anything about technology is sceptical, at best.
Thus it is clear that the Irish border has been deliberately weaponised by Brussels and Varadker, and unfortunately May was not canny enough to see this.
This is simply paranoia.
The reality is that the Irish border issue and Backstop is pushing the UK towards a No-Deal exit, and if this happens Ireland's economy will be trashed. Varadker has belatedly realised that this may actually happen and has had to concede he may have to soften his stance.
Again, please provide a link. Varadkar has remained consistent in his and Ireland's position.