Brussels and London debate on the border of Northern Ireland

With just a few weeks left on March 29, the United Kingdom and the European Union are trying to find an agreement that can be, at least partially, satisfactory for both parties. The most relevant issue is that of the border between Eire and Northern Ireland, because it involves both economic and social problems. This last aspect is much feared for stability in the Ulster region long battered by tensions between Catholics and Protestants. A return of the border is considered dangerous for an area in which the problems linked to the relations between the members of the two religious denominations are always considered potentially critical. From the economic point of view the restoration of the border has generated the fear, in the Eurosceptics, of obliging the United Kingdom to stay in a customs union with Brussels, which would, in effect, prevent independent agreements with third countries from London ; this would represent the failure to fulfill one of the main issues, which contributed to the victory of the referendum, for those who wanted to leave the Union. However, the solution reached between the British premier and the president of the European Commission is not definitive and allows to avoid the restoration of the border not in a definitive manner but in time, to give the British nation the opportunity to accept the situation. This temporary solution will come into force at the end of the transitional phase of the exit from Brussels, until the end of 2020 and, above all, pending an agreement between the two parties, which can avoid an English exit without any shared agreement. The perception, that the problem of the Irish border represents the main obstacle for the definition of the question in a total way, is that currently it is the most central topic of the discussion, however, behind this negotiation the split of the political society appears in a continuous way English, which also runs across the two main parties. The profound uncertainty that the British political scene is going through obliges the twenty-seven countries of the Union to try to interpret the situation in London, but with almost certainty, that if this proposal fails too, there would be no other and the road to exit without agreement. the only valid option would remain. It is, however, a solution that is unhappy with both parties, but that harms the United Kingdom the most, where the split is not only political but also social, as the small distance between the two votes in the referendum has shown. This perception has prompted the repetition of the referendum from many quarters, but this hypothesis has never been taken into consideration by the current premier. However, the British parliamentarians are unable to get out of the legislative impasse in which they ended up: cross vetoes due to the belonging of their respective parties, intransigent positions due to the electoral college's duty and other behavior far from the political responsibility that would be necessary contribute to this situation. The lack of effective mediation has done the rest, but what emerges is the absence of common interests, which should be sought and achieved, based on compromises able to guarantee a minimum of common interests, which at otherwise, it is far from secured. What emerges is a political class that is facing the failure of the nation without having the consciousness of what will happen. When the country is literally impoverished by this decision, with the increase in inequality at an exponential level, then the hunt for those responsible will occur, but this will happen without any success, because everything will be marked by a mediocrity of the political class, incapable of assuming their responsibilities, a condition that is too common throughout the continent.