Theresa May’s highly anticipated Mansion House speech on 2nd March was lengthy, lasting some 45 minutes and outlining a 5-point checklist to guide the UK in the Brexit negotiations over the coming months. However, this speech was very much lacking when it came to providing clarity on the UK’s thinking around solutions to the Irish border conundrum.

Some broader aspects of the UK’s position are known. For instance, May reiterated that Northern Ireland would not remain part of the Customs Union or the Single Market post-Brexit. It was also stated in the speech that there would not be any form of a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Furthermore, May reinforced her stance against the idea of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Simply expressing favour towards a soft border, however, is not a solution to the problem. May made reference to the need for “the most advanced IT solutions” to ensure transition across the border would be minimally disruptive post-Brexit.

Specifically, May stated:

I recognise that some of these ideas depend on technology, robust systems to ensure trust and confidence, as well as goodwill – but they are serious and merit consideration by all sides.

In effect, what this speech presented for Northern Ireland was an image of a frictionless border which would satisfy demands on all sides. Dig a little bit deeper with this, and there is nothing to instil confidence that any of the ‘imaginative solutions’ that have been called for previously have been brought to the UK table yet.

This is where the negotiations themselves will (hopefully) begin to bring some clarity, and possibly where May’s reticence in her speech, cautioning that ‘not everybody gets what they want’ in negotiations, could come into play. What is certain is that something, somewhere, will have to give if a ‘no deal’ Brexit is to be avoided.

May’s speech highlighted the need for the UK and Irish Governments, along with the European Commission, to come together in finding solutions. However, the fact that the UK still does not have any discernible internal clarity or ideas of what it envisages as potential practical solutions to the border issue, with just over a year to go before exit, is cause for concern. These negotiations will need to include consideration of what technology is available or could be feasibly designed, and what is financially possible for the UK to implement, as these factors will have a direct impact on the solution reached for the border.

Optimists might see it as constructive ambiguity and as part of a longer term strategy of being able to reach a deal which all sides can sell, but there is little to suggest that this is the reason for the silence on substance at this stage. Either way, the discussion on what form the border will take is inseparable from that on potential practical solutions for achieving this. To simply talk about ‘technology’ as a way of substantiating proposals is not enough.

So, while May’s speech did succeed in offering clarity in some areas, a question mark looms larger than ever over the Irish border issue, and uncertainty for people in Northern Ireland – particularly in the border region – continues for now.