The terminology on the border needs to change

But there is a much more important thing that needs to be established as a result of that drama – the principle that the UK government does not need to offer any more assurances to the EU than it has already done at this stage.

It has already shown goodwill, by agreeing in outline to pay the large divorce bill that the EU has deemed appropriate. 
But on the other major contentious issue, the Irish border, London had already stated – back in August – a determination to have as seamless an Irish border as possible.

Therefore, Arlene Foster was right yesterday, when pressed by RTE about avoiding a ‘hard’ border, to keep emphasising that there is a border already.

The reason this distinction is important is that when people, including Dublin and the EU in tandem, demand there be no hard border they are often seeming to issue a subtle demand there be, insofar as is possible, no land border at all.

On Monday evening, the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said: “We do not want a border in the Irish Sea, any more than we want a border between Newry and Dundalk or Letterkenny and Derry.”

His generous tone is welcome, but it is misleading because his words imply there can be no border anywhere, when in fact there is of course a border – a land border – that is not about to move.

The unreality of that statement was ironic coming from Dublin, which had in August dismissed the UK for making unrealistic assurances about avoiding a hard border.

From a unionist perspective, perhaps the language needs to change to something such as: “Transition at the border must be as seamless and hidden as is legally and humanly possible.”

Everyone is agreed on that point, and the details will become much easier to work out if and when the UK and EU thrash out a free trade agreement, as is more likely to happen in the absence of veiled threats from Brussels.