Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

listermint

captainspeed wrote: »

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

To what end though. If the UK handed back the north they wouldn't take it back afterwards.

johnnyskeleton

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, that's not the one you referenced:



You make a point of "calling me out" on what you believe are my lies, and are extremely precise in what you challenge. If I had said RTE were part of the poll, you would slaughter me on it. I will let it go because I am not that type, but you might want to lay off a bit. If you define comprehensive as being north and south, my point stands.

Mod note:

Please keep things civil and avoid overly personal comments. Please discuss the issues instead.

FrancieBrady

captainspeed wrote: »

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

I personally cannot see a scenario where a big enough, smart enough section of unionism/loyalism return to the gun and succeed in undermining the process. Yes, violent reaction is possible but it will be localised, unfocused and essentially unarmed.
Again and again we have seen this, the Never Never explosion of anger, whipped up by those on the comfy seats (mainly the DUP) and then the inevitable climbdown.
Unionism, with no achievable goal, would essentially be pragmatic.

What is interesting is, what happens now? Will we see a period of 'meek Unionism', where moderates will realise that 'hey this isn't too bad' or will we see the DUP dig its heels in over Arlene and try to whip up more sectarianism in a futile effort to restore their supremacy for a short while in what is an inexorable process - losing the majority permanently.

On the subject of the south's opinion, I don't think that a FF supporter would ever vote against a unification motion and I really don't think a FG leader could actively campaign against one either, they may not like it, but they could not actively discourage it. Same with their voters. A vote in favour in the south would always get by, come the day, imo.

A Little Pony

Consonata wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

The only useful figure in that one is "Do you want to see a United Ireland in your lifetime".

Which is:
Yes: 30%
No: 43%
Don't Know: 27%

Asking if you want a United Ireland now when there hasn't been any real substantial campaign for one in recent years, will cut into the 30% figure greatly since a lot of people would want to go for the status quo rather than risk it in an economically turbulent time.

That may change when there is actual demonstrable positives for a United Ireland, getting out of the blow-back of Brexit being a major one.
People seem to think that since there isn't a lot of positivity for a United Ireland in the north at the moment, that that won't change over time.

____________________________________________________________________________

Remember there is a key difference between:

"Do you support a United Ireland?"

and

"Will you vote yes in the unification referendum on x date?"

That is what the Sinn Fein is all about.
I question Sinn Fein regarding the red line of Arlene Foster. I think they will back down on it because while I was certain she would be forced to stand down from pressure within, it doesn't seem to be happening. So Sinn Fein will have to make a decision, back down on it or direct rule is coming. 

I don't think Sinn Fein will be able to dictate who the leader of Unionism is and certainly the Unionist electorate after the election will just galvanize from the result for future elections, so I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

captainspeed wrote: »

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

I personally cannot see a scenario where a big enough, smart enough section of unionism/loyalism return to the gun and succeed in undermining the process. Yes, violent reaction is possible but it will be localised, unfocused and essentially unarmed.
Again and again we have seen this, the Never Never explosion of anger, whipped up by those on the comfy seats (mainly the DUP) and then the inevitable climbdown.
Unionism, with no achievable goal, would essentially be pragmatic.

What is interesting is, what happens now? Will we see a period of 'meek Unionism', where moderates will realise that 'hey this isn't too bad' or will we see the DUP dig its heels in over Arlene and try to whip up more sectarianism in a futile effort to restore their supremacy for a short while in what is an inexorable process - losing the majority permanently.

On the subject of the south's opinion, I don't think that a FF supporter would ever vote against a unification motion and I really don't think a FG leader could actively campaign against one either, they may not like it, but they could not actively discourage it. Same with their voters. A vote in favour in the south would always get by, come the day, imo.

Anyone who thinks either side disarmed is naive. Thousands of guns in hiding.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what the Sinn Fein is all about.
I question Sinn Fein regarding the red line of Arlene Foster. I think they will back down on it because while I was certain she would be forced to stand down from pressure within, it doesn't seem to be happening. So Sinn Fein will have to make a decision, back down on it or direct rule is coming. 

I don't think Sinn Fein will be able to dictate who the leader of Unionism is and certainly the Unionist electorate after the election will just galvanize from the result for future elections, so I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

Direct rule atm plays into SF's hands if you look at it in strictly political advantage terms.
It doesn't for the DUP, because if London uses it to heap more cuts on an absent executive then the DUP stand accused. The 'blame SF for the collapse of the executive' ploy failed miserably/spectacularly whatever way you look at it.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what the Sinn Fein is all about.
I question Sinn Fein regarding the red line of Arlene Foster. I think they will back down on it because while I was certain she would be forced to stand down from pressure within, it doesn't seem to be happening. So Sinn Fein will have to make a decision, back down on it or direct rule is coming. 

I don't think Sinn Fein will be able to dictate who the leader of Unionism is and certainly the Unionist electorate after the election will just galvanize from the result for future elections, so I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

Direct rule atm plays into SF's hands if you look at it in strictly political advantage terms.
It doesn't for the DUP, because if London uses it to heap more cuts on an absent executive then the DUP stand accused. The 'blame SF for the collapse of the executive' ploy failed miserably/spectacularly whatever way you look at it.

The other way around. The DUP will just say Sinn Fein tried to play hardball with the democratically elected leader of Unionism and they didn't cave in to more concessions. Sinn Fein will not win on this one.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks either side disarmed is naive. Thousands of guns in hiding.

You need more than guns. You need smarts, and a goal and you need a core of people behind you. Unionism in the main doesn't have the stomach for it. Proved over and over again.
Plenty of shouting and wrecking their own neighbourhoods but nothing destabilising.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks either side disarmed is naive. Thousands of guns in hiding.

You need more than guns. You need smarts, and a goal and you need a core of people behind you. Unionism in the main doesn't have the stomach for it. Proved over and over again.
Plenty of shouting and wrecking their own neighbourhoods but nothing destabilising.

I don't think a shortage of volunteers would be an issue but we are getting into the slight hypothetical here.

A Little Pony

[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Northern Ireland could face second election, says Brokenshire[/font]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-39218555

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Northern Ireland could face second election, says Brokenshire[/font]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-39218555

No he didn't.

But in his letter, Mr Brokenshire wrote that he was "not contemplating any other outcome but a resumption of devolved government as soon as possible".

Did you read the whole piece?

A Little Pony

Sam Russell wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Northern Ireland could face second election, says Brokenshire[/font]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-39218555

No he didn't.  

But in his letter, Mr Brokenshire wrote that he was "not contemplating any other outcome but a resumption of devolved government as soon as possible".

Did you read the whole piece?

That is what the BBC headline is.

LuckyLloyd

A Little Pony wrote: »

People on here have said Stormont wouldn't be used. Economically the ROI could not afford the burden on the backs of the Irish people, never mind the other social issues.

As a Northern Unionist, how does it feel to be incapable as a jurisdiction of standing on your own two feet economically? For it to be a point of discussion about whether a State can afford you? That would personally demoralise me and rob me of any civic or national pride.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what the Sinn Fein is all about.
I question Sinn Fein regarding the red line of Arlene Foster. I think they will back down on it because while I was certain she would be forced to stand down from pressure within, it doesn't seem to be happening. So Sinn Fein will have to make a decision, back down on it or direct rule is coming. 

I don't think Sinn Fein will be able to dictate who the leader of Unionism is and certainly the Unionist electorate after the election will just galvanize from the result for future elections, so I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

This doesn't seem to be in any way relevent to the post you were replying to.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't think a shortage of volunteers would be an issue but we are getting into the slight hypothetical here.

I think 'hypothetical' is the wrong word given the spectre of unification underlies everything official unionism has been doing since the GFA.
The reason? Because they cannot admit to themselves that by agreeing to withdraw the British have stated clearly how they view the relationship. It isn't immutable, nor has it any standing in 'rights'.
If a majority vote in favour they will withdraw.

That is also why Arlene cannot give an inch on recognition of Dublin and all the other stuff. They do not want a border poll because a poll will lead to discussion and Britain spelling it out and more importantly, NOT taking a position either way.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

the democratically elected leader of Unionism and they didn't cave in to more concessions.

Poor UUP never get a look in.

A Little Pony

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

People on here have said Stormont wouldn't be used. Economically the ROI could not afford the burden on the backs of the Irish people, never mind the other social issues.

As a Northern Unionist, how does it feel to be incapable as a jurisdiction of standing on your own two feet economically? For it to be a point of discussion about whether a State can afford you? That would personally demoralise me and rob me of any civic or national pride.

Demoralise yourself to sleep if you want. Doesn't bother me at all. Northern Ireland manages itself very well all things considered. We are a small state with just 1.8 million people.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I don't think a shortage of volunteers would be an issue but we are getting into the slight hypothetical here.

I think 'hypothetical' is the wrong word given the spectre of unification underlies everything official unionism has been doing since the GFA.
The reason? Because they cannot admit to themselves that by agreeing to withdraw the British have stated clearly how they view the relationship. It isn't immutable, nor has it any standing in 'rights'.
If a majority vote in favour they will withdraw.

That is also why Arlene cannot give an inch on recognition of Dublin and all the other stuff. They do not want a border poll because a poll will lead to discussion and Britain spelling it out and more importantly, NOT taking a position either way.

Dublin does not have a mandate here in Ulster. So I doubt very much why Arlene Foster should listen to them. Regarding the bit in bold, well duh. I mean that is pretty obvious isn't it.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

Dublin does not have a mandate here in Ulster. So I doubt very much why Arlene Foster should listen to them. Regarding the bit in bold, well duh. I mean that is pretty obvious isn't it.

So you are quite happy to have a hard border and all the economic hardship that follows, not to mention screwing the southern counties.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Dublin does not have a mandate here in Ulster. So I doubt very much why Arlene Foster should listen to them. Regarding the bit in bold, well duh. I mean that is pretty obvious isn't it.

My father was alive as recently as the 90's and he would have been utterly and profoundly shocked at the developments in the North where he was from. Also in the south. For a FG Taoiseach to publically voice that a unified island was probably a wise move would have him spinning in his grave.

A short time has passed since these things seemed impossible. What will the situation be in 5 yrs or 10? Who knows, but one thing is certain, they will change, there are too many more and more powerful people who want them to change.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Dublin does not have a mandate here in Ulster. So I doubt very much why Arlene Foster should listen to them. Regarding the bit in bold, well duh. I mean that is pretty obvious isn't it.

My father was alive as recently as the 90's and he would have been utterly and profoundly shocked at the developments in the North where he was from. Also in the south. For a FG Taoiseach to publically voice that a unified island was probably a wise move would have him spinning in his grave.

A short time has passed since these things seemed impossible. What will the situation be in 5 yrs or 10? Who knows, but one thing is certain, they will change, there are too many more and more powerful people who want them to change.

Want what to change? The people in the South couldn't give a toss about Northern Ireland Francine. Southerners are into partition more than me.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Want what to change? The people in the South couldn't give a toss about Northern Ireland Francine. Southerners are into partition more than me.

You keep coming out with these contentions based on nothing but wishful thinking.

Esel

A Little Pony wrote: »

Want what to change? The people in the South couldn't give a toss about Northern Ireland Francine. Southerners are into partition more than me.

The people in the rest of the UK probably don't give a toss either.

A Little Pony

Esel wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Want what to change? The people in the South couldn't give a toss about Northern Ireland Francine. Southerners are into partition more than me.

The people in the rest of the UK probably don't give a toss either.

That is the general consensus I seem to get from both the ROI and England. Generally both populations don't give a toss about NI.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what the BBC headline is.

It might be the headline but not the content.

A Little Pony

Sam Russell wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what the BBC headline is.

It might be the headline but not the content.

Do you think the executive will get up and running again or is Direct rule coming? What is your view?

FrancieBrady

The DUP won't be going back to the electorate with Arlene as leader (they are a lot of things but as a collective they are not that stupid) and SF won't go into the executive so I think you will see Arlene either go or step aside. And you will see a period of meek unionism.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

Do you think the executive will get up and running again or is Direct rule coming? What is your view?

I do not have a view as I live in Dublin and do not vote there.

However, I did read the BBC report and found the headline misleading, and assumed you had not read beyond the large print.

However, I do think Brexit will be a total disaster for NI and AF should hang her head in shame for promoting it. Just thinking of the amount of EU money fed into NI would have any NI politician fighting to keep the gravy flowing.

Leonard Hofstadter

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is the general consensus I seem to get from both the ROI and England. Generally both populations don't give a toss about NI.

That's about right. The sooner the unionists realise that the 'mainland' actually doesn't care about the North, the better. They really don't, if I want to find out what's going on in NI, I'd be better off reading one of the Irish papers. Then, on the rare occasions one of the 'mainland' newspapers does say something about the North, it's clear they don't understand the dynamics of the place (hardly surprising as most English people consider anyone from Ireland, North or South, to be 'Irish' and sometimes when I tell them I'm from Ireland, they'll say 'Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland' - which says it all for their level of knowledge and interest in NI not to mention south of the border, really).

As for the Republic, yeah, the North doesn't enter our thought process too much these days, most people secretly are quite happy for it to be Britain's problem and we only think about it superficially (because it not politically correct to say you don't care south of the border even though it's the truth for many), but we mightn't be long changing our minds if things we thought were very much in the past suddenly reappeared, such as border patrols, you would find that our interest in the North might become very real and our opinions on having a united Ireland would move more explicitly in favour of it - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have any sort of border on such a small island and where so many people north of it identify first and foremost as Irish and avail of the common travel area and whatnot.

Esel

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is the general consensus I seem to get from both the ROI and England. Generally both populations don't give a toss about NI.

It's not just about Engerland...

A Little Pony

captainspeed wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is the general consensus I seem to get from both the ROI and England. Generally both populations don't give a toss about NI.

That's about right. The sooner the unionists realise that the 'mainland' actually doesn't care about the North, the better. They really don't, if I want to find out what's going on in NI, I'd be better off reading one of the Irish papers. Then, on the rare occasions one of the 'mainland' newspapers does say something about the North, it's clear they don't understand the dynamics of the place (hardly surprising as most English people consider anyone from Ireland, North or South, to be 'Irish' and sometimes when I tell them I'm from Ireland, they'll say 'Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland' - which says it all for their level of knowledge and interest in NI not to mention south of the border, really).

As for the Republic, yeah, the North doesn't enter our thought process too much these days, most people secretly are quite happy for it to be Britain's problem and we only think about it superficially (because it not politically correct to say you don't care south of the border even though it's the truth for many), but we mightn't be long changing our minds if things we thought were very much in the past suddenly reappeared, such as border patrols, you would find that our interest in the North might become very real and our opinions on having a united Ireland would move more explicitly in favour of it - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have any sort of border on such a small island and where so many people north of it identify first and foremost as Irish and avail of the common travel area and whatnot.

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

There has to be a border.
What form it will take is the issue.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

It isn't whether it will happen, its where it will happen. There has to be a customs point somewhere between the UK and Ireland, its just a question of whether it will be at Dublin (never), at the actual border, or at Belfast.

Sam Russell

Consonata wrote: »

It isn't whether it will happen, its where it will happen. There has to be a customs point somewhere between the UK and Ireland, its just a question of whether it will be at Dublin (never), at the actual border, or at Belfast.

Or the Irish Sea.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

I've seen that bizarre sentiment expressed before, as if not wanting something means it can't happen.

Not many people want to pay taxes, but...

Mr.Micro

A Little Pony wrote: »

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

If part of the Brexit was to control its borders, against whatever, let's say migrants. Why then would the UK not bother with border between north and south?

A Little Pony

Mr.Micro wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

A border isn't going to happen. Neither Westminster or the Dail wants it.

If part of the Brexit was to control its borders, against whatever, let's say migrants. Why then would the UK not bother with border between north and south?

When I say border, I mean in the context of some proper wall or something similar. I don't see that happening.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

When I say border, I mean in the context of some proper wall or something similar. I don't see that happening.

When other people say "border", they use the term as it's generally understood. It's easier to have intelligent conversations that way.

Outside of Donald Trump's fevered imagination, a border doesn't require a wall.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

When other people say "border", they use the term as it's generally understood. It's easier to have intelligent conversations that way.

Outside of Donald Trump's fevered imagination, a border doesn't require a wall.

I am beginning to think that it is all part of a curious unionist deathwish. Do as much as possible to stoke division again,(Arlene and her Brexit strategy and election campaign) including the creation of a renewed physical border, in the hope they can then point the finger claiming 'look we told you, we are the victims' when it provokes conflict.

I am more serious about that guess at their strategy than you might think!

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

When I say border, I mean in the context of some proper wall or something similar. I don't see that happening.

Do you not see customs checks happening on the border?

blanch152

Consonata wrote: »

Do you not see customs checks happening on the border?

It is not clear at this point in time that there will be customs checks.

http://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0310/858609-eu-leaders-to-discuss-plans-to-mark-treaty-of-rome/


"The British prime minister said in her Lancaster House speech in London on 17 January that Britain would seek an "associative" relationship with the EU customs union.

She, and cabinet ministers, have also said repeatedly that they want the "closest possible" relationship with the EU's single market.

However, London has not clarified what that will mean, or how it would work."


Depending on what this means, we may or may not have customs checks. While both sides have set out some initial principles, we are only at the circling each other stage before real negotiations begin.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not clear at this point in time that there will be customs checks.

http://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0310/858609-eu-leaders-to-discuss-plans-to-mark-treaty-of-rome/


"The British prime minister said in her Lancaster House speech in London on 17 January that Britain would seek an "associative" relationship with the EU customs union.

She, and cabinet ministers, have also said repeatedly that they want the "closest possible" relationship with the EU's single market.

However, London has not clarified what that will mean, or how it would work."


Depending on what this means, we may or may not have customs checks. While both sides have set out some initial principles, we are only at the circling each other stage before real negotiations begin.

So what does that mean in actual fact?

How do you monitor what is crossing from one jurisdiction to another? This isn't rocket science, you either have a duty to monitor it or not.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

"The British prime minister said in her Lancaster House speech in London on 17 January that Britain would seek an "associative" relationship with the EU customs union.

She, and cabinet ministers, have also said repeatedly that they want the "closest possible" relationship with the EU's single market.

However, London has not clarified what that will mean, or how it would work."

That's just a restatement of the "we don't want a hard border" rhetoric. It doesn't matter what they want; what matters is what they can negotiate. If they're outside the customs union, then logically there will be a border.

A Little Pony

oscarBravo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

When I say border, I mean in the context of some proper wall or something similar. I don't see that happening.

When other people say "border", they use the term as it's generally understood. It's easier to have intelligent conversations that way.

Outside of Donald Trump's fevered imagination, a border doesn't require a wall.

Not always the case Oscar, sorry to tell you mate.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just a restatement of the "we don't want a hard border" rhetoric. It doesn't matter what they want; what matters is what they can negotiate. If they're outside the customs union, then logically there will be a border.

I don't disagree with you except to point out that there has been a lot of posturing and very little negotiations. Who knows what will come out of it? Perhaps a new associate membership? Perhaps the UK will back down and accept a Switzerland or Norway outcome? Perhaps a Turkey outcome?

While the EU doesn't need the UK as much as the UK needs the EU, it isn't a one-way negotiation.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not always the case Oscar, sorry to tell you mate.

Don't be sorry, just be clear. Sure, some borders require a wall, but in this context, it's pretty well understood what a border means, and literally nobody but you is talking about walls.

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't disagree with you except to point out that there has been a lot of posturing and very little negotiations. Who knows what will come out of it? Perhaps a new associate membership? Perhaps the UK will back down and accept a Switzerland or Norway outcome? Perhaps a Turkey outcome?

While the EU doesn't need the UK as much as the UK needs the EU, it isn't a one-way negotiation.

No argument. If the UK climbs down and decides to pay the price of being a part of the customs union, then there's no need for a hard border.

The problem is that people keep reciting the mantra that "nobody wants a hard border" as if it's anything other than a platitude. The question of whether or not we get a hard border is almost completely unrelated to the question of whether or not anybody wants one.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

No argument. If the UK climbs down and decides to pay the price of being a part of the customs union, then there's no need for a hard border.

The problem is that people keep reciting the mantra that "nobody wants a hard border" as if it's anything other than a platitude. The question of whether or not we get a hard border is almost completely unrelated to the question of whether or not anybody wants one.

You are absolutely right, the possibility of a hard border with customs and passport controls is real. If negotiations break down and either side digs in, that possibility becomes more real.

On the other hand, I don't think either side really wants that outcome. Someone will have to back down to avoid a hard border. Given the closeness of the vote in the UK, I believe that ultimately they will back down, but it is by no means certain, especially given the current era of populism.

Consonata

blanch152 wrote: »

You are absolutely right, the possibility of a hard border with customs and passport controls is real. If negotiations break down and either side digs in, that possibility becomes more real.

On the other hand, I don't think either side really wants that outcome. Someone will have to back down to avoid a hard border. Given the closeness of the vote in the UK, I believe that ultimately they will back down, but it is by no means certain, especially given the current era of populism.

There is no way the UK will be a part of the customs union without accepting the 4 freedoms, and immigration control has been a red line issue, so it will never happen.

A hard border is coming, either that or unification.

Sam Russell

Consonata wrote: »

There is no way the UK will be a part of the customs union without accepting the 4 freedoms, and immigration control has been a red line issue, so it will never happen.

A hard border is coming, either that or unification.

Could 'unification' be possible with NI retaining Stormont as an assembly and NI becoming an autonomous region within Ireland, with the Stormont Assembly retaining all they currently control with Dublin being responsible for all currently controlled by Westminster.

Obviously, finance would be a contentious issue that might be ameliorated by contributions from UK and EU. Clearly a lot of adjustments would be needed.

Just an idea.

Consonata

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could 'unification' be possible with NI retaining Stormont as an assembly and NI becoming an autonomous region within Ireland, with the Stormont Assembly retaining all they currently control with Dublin being responsible for all currently controlled by Westminster.

Obviously, finance would be a contentious issue that might be ameliorated by contributions from UK and EU. Clearly a lot of adjustments would be needed.

Just an idea.

I think that is an inevitability honestly. To even have a hope of getting the unionists on side they need fair representation with Stormont staying. Now that raises other questions, maybe the whole country should be federalized as a result. i.e Cork, Dublin, Galway and Belfast all have devolved assemblies. Cut down massively on the amount of county councilors and focus those representatives on pooling their resources on regional issues.