Irish Border and Brexit

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as expected, the refusal to look at what is being said in a pragmatic way.

I am talking about persuading (by incentive) the Unionist community to look seriously at their futures. AHEAD OF A DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENT TO UNIFY in a referendum...no force.
There will always be a rump of belligerence even if the majority can reach an agreement.

Try again there Oscar. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried if the alternative is people actually dying and the growth of community conflict again.

This is a Pollyanna idea.

(1) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she needs the DUP

(2) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she can't pony up the money for your incentive.

(3) The Irish electorate won't be interested in higher taxes to incentivise the unionists.

(4) The implicit threat of Republican violence inherent in the idea is absolutely repugnant to 99% of the population of these islands

(5) Nobody needs to pay a single bit of attention to SF because they won't take their seats in Westminister, they won't compromise to form a government in the North and they chickened out of forming a government in the South.

(6) Why can't we deal with the rump of republican belligerence in the same way you suggest we deal with the rump of unionist belligerence?

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We all know the unionists would love nothing more than a hard border.

Not all unionists want a hard border. There are many unionist farmers along the border about to be decimated by Brexit. In a far more crippling way than British farmers.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

Not all unionists want a hard border. There are many unionist farmers along the border about to be decimated by Brexit. In a far more crippling way than British farmers.

Northern Irish farmers will be decimated by losing their EU subsidies, no matter what sort of border there is.

The Golden Miller

It's interesting to see certain posters defiantly claim that we won't shirk to the threat of violence and let a few gunmen decide our future. Funnily enough, many of the same posters have protested the idea of a united Ireland based on the threat of loyalist violence. Whenever it suits the agenda I suppose

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.

We can't get people to pay for water never mind take on the bill for the North... It is much harder sell fairy tales to Irish voters and there is no evidence of much support for it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a Pollyanna idea.

(1) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she needs the DUP
They could be gone next week. And that situation will not last forever.
(2) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she can't pony up the money for your incentive.
She seems well able to find money when needed.
(3) The Irish electorate won't be interested in higher taxes to incentivise the unionists.
Nobody knows this.
(4) The implicit of Republican violence inherent in the idea is absolutely repugnant to 99% of the population of these islands
Yes, stand idly by and watch people die and bravely condemn from the high moral ground. Worked wonders before:rolleyes:
(5) Nobody needs to pay a single bit of attention to SF because they won't take their seats in Westminister, they won't compromise to form a government in the North and they chickened out of forming a government in the South.
who mentioned paying attention to SF in particular? Everyone needs to sit equally around the table...and listen to each other.
(6) Why can't we deal with the rump of republican belligerence in the same way you suggest we deal with the rump of unionist belligerence?
Eh...because a community in conflict is not a 'rump'.
The rump of dissident activity is being curtailed ATM. A hard border will drag the communities back into conflict. The EU, and the British and Irish govs recognise that and those living in real, not fantasy worlds.

.....

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border.

That'll be the hand-waving I was talking about. It's not a proposal; it's not a plan; it's not a strategy. It's demanding that someone do something.

Well, bravo. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's interesting to see certain posters defiantly claim that we won't shirk to the threat of violence and let a few gunmen decide our future. Funnily enough, many of the same posters have protested the idea of a united Ireland based on the threat of loyalist violence. Whenever it suits the agenda I suppose

You're not at all troubled by the double standards of suggesting that we should go so far as to leave the EU to avoid Republican violence, while dismissing the possibility of Loyalist violence as a mere inconvenience and well worth enduring?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That'll be the hand-waving I was talking about. It's not a proposal; it's not a plan; it's not a strategy. It's demanding that someone do something.

Well, bravo. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

Well, as the architects of the GFA might say, it's a darn sight better than sitting on your hands because you are too lazy to think and more people die.


BTW it won't be a plan until people (all of them) recognise their responsibilities and act on them.

The Golden Miller

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not at all troubled by the double standards of suggesting that we should go so far as to leave the EU to avoid Republican violence, while dismissing the possibility of Loyalist violence as a mere inconvenience and well worth enduring?

I'm not the one claiming anything on this topic. Just found it interesting that certain posters (which didn't include you as this thread is the first I've seen you on) will pompously shout about not letting Republican gunmen decide our future, while are quite happy to let loyalist gunmen decide our future

oscarBravo

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm not the one claiming anything on this topic. Just found it interesting that certain posters (which didn't include you as this thread is the first I've seen you on) will pompously shout about not letting Republican gunmen decide our future, while are quite happy to let loyalist gunmen decide our future

Fair enough, I guess. I'm equally bemused at the idea that there's no price to high to pay to ensure continued peace and stability in Northern Ireland... unless it's Loyalists carrying out the violence, in which case meh, be grand.

Chips Lovell

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

What is about to happen is the cyclical problem of partition is about to come around again. Simple as that.

There is the prospect of division and death - again.
We will have the thumping of chests and the politics of condemnation again and if some had their way (and probably will) after years of conflict and death and division they will sit down and thrash out a deal, they should have made at the start and off we'll go again.

Maybe, just maybe, enough will say, why not remove the 'problem'.

paul2013

Was talking to my boss just now and he was giving out about Northern Ireland and being united to them when we are paying for projects for them and they throw back in our face by having bonfires.

murphaph

Far too simplistic given there are a million+ unionists who do not vanish with unity. You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

It's far too soon to be talking about a UI as if it's around the corner.

Brexit has brought it closer IMO but it's still decades away and pushing it would be irresponsible. Planning for it would not be, but we'll have to make do with whatever is thrown at us in the short to medium term.

There will be no UI without buy in from a majority of the unionists. It could never be satisfactory and the RoI won't take it on unless it looks like it's got a good chance of succeeding.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Far too simplistic given there are a million+ unionists who do not vanish with unity. You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

It's far too soon to be talking about a UI as if it's around the corner.

Brexit has brought it closer IMO but it's still decades away and pushing it would be irresponsible. Planning for it would not be, but we'll have to make do with whatever is thrown at us in the short to medium term.

There will be no UI without buy in from a majority of the unionists. It could never be satisfactory and the RoI won't take it on unless it looks like it's got a good chance of succeeding.

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

It's closer because Brexit will ruin the economy up there. That's the only reason it's closer. That "needs" to happen first.

It would be better all round if the UK had never embarked on this folly of course.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

For what, exactly?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

I really wish there was some way of conveying to you how bizarre your worldview appears to someone who doesn't share it.

Try to imagine a unionist who was completely convinced that the only way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland was for the Republic to be abandoned and for the whole island to be reunited as part of the United Kingdom. Sure, those pesky dissidents would kick off, but once they realised that it was a lost cause, they'd back down and quietly resign themselves to their fate.

Try to imagine what it would take for this putative unionist to talk you out of your desire for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic. Ask yourself what it would take to convince you to rejoin the UK.

This is what you would blithely have us believe is the answer to Northern Ireland's problems: talk unionists out of unionism. Sure, with enough pressure, they'll have to come around, right?

If you couldn't be talked into joining the United Kingdom, can't you see that it's the absolute acme of arrogance to assume that unionists can be persuaded - in advance of the Brexit deadline!! - to simply abandon their core identity?

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

What you are effectively suggesting is that we ignore such a border. That's hardly an option. There are various pieces of territory, too numerous to mention, that have a special economic relationship with the EU, e.g. to mention just a few, Samnaun in Switzerland, Greenland and the Isle of Man. The solution probably lies in studying these various models.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really wish there was some way of conveying to you how bizarre your worldview appears to someone who doesn't share it.

Try to imagine a unionist who was completely convinced that the only way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland was for the Republic to be abandoned and for the whole island to be reunited as part of the United Kingdom. Sure, those pesky dissidents would kick off, but once they realised that it was a lost cause, they'd back down and quietly resign themselves to their fate.

Try to imagine what it would take for this putative unionist to talk you out of your desire for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic. Ask yourself what it would take to convince you to rejoin the UK.

This is what you would blithely have us believe is the answer to Northern Ireland's problems: talk unionists out of unionism. Sure, with enough pressure, they'll have to come around, right?

If you couldn't be talked into joining the United Kingdom, can't you see that it's the absolute acme of arrogance to assume that unionists can be persuaded - in advance of the Brexit deadline!! - to simply abandon their core identity?

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

What you are effectively suggesting is that we ignore such a border. That's hardly an option. There are various pieces of territory, too numerous to mention, that have a special economic relationship with the EU, e.g. to mention just a few, Samnaun in Switzerland, Greenland and the Isle of Man. The solution probably lies in studying these various models.

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

blanch152

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

Agreed.

It is quite unnerving to watch both sides of this debate put their parochial concerns about a small corner of a small island ahead of the important issue of the future of the continent.

If the EU falls apart, what matter the future of Northern Ireland?

Hopefully, the modern progressive European view of the world prevails over both parochial visions.

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

A UI is an option when and only when it becomes clear that a majority north and south want it. The head in the sand school of politics holds that enough unionists voted remain to carry same in NI, therefore those same unionists will vote for UI. They will in my eye. To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up. If those people ever reach a pro-UI position they will do so of their own accord and not because of any prodding or hard-sell by nationalists or republicans, or anything that has a whiff of coercion. The less talk there is about a UI at this time the better, by politicians or others.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

He wasn't saying that joining the UK is on the table.

He was asking you to consider what it would take to persuade you of the merits of rejoining the UK as a proxy for what you need to offer to persuade unionists to join the UK.

Your response of immediate rejection of his suggestion as bizarre says a lot more about the realities of your position on a united Ireland than anything else any of us could put forward.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

So the head of the PSNI quoted earlier is wrong?

There is 'no possibility' for conflict if you establish a hard border. That is just dangerous ignorance luckily not shared by both governments and the EU who recognise and have voiced their concerns.

*Please stop trying to make the thread a platform for your tired anti SF stuff.

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

A UI is an option when and only when it becomes clear that a majority north and south want it. The head in the sand school of politics holds that enough unionists voted remain to carry same in NI, therefore those same unionists will vote for UI. They will in my eye. To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up. If those people ever reach a pro-UI position they will do so of their own accord and not because of any prodding or hard-sell by nationalists or republicans, or anything that has a whiff of coercion. The less talk there is about a UI at this time the better, by politicians or others.

You clearly missed the bit about incentivising it and reaching a consensus on it as per the GFA. Nobody is talking about 'forcing' anything.

It has to be fully discussed as an alternative is the point, if there is no other alternative.

And please, the DUP/unionists will have to discuss it properly sooner or later. Why are they allowed a pass on this..oh yes...they might get violent. :rolleyes:

Junkyard Tom

feargale wrote: »

To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up

Most unionists will not vote for a UI but that's not how the GFA is laid down, +50% is the requirement. You'll get the usual spoofers who'll whine about getting unionists on board but that's a red herring, an excuse for them to try to discredit or postpone a pro-UI vote. You'll also hear the spoofers I've mentioned above bring up the threat of unionist terrorism in the event of a UI (to what ends?).

There is always going to be an element within unionism who'll be looking for someone to shoot if a UI was voted for but that rump would remain even if we managed to get 60% of Unionists on board.

When Nationalists found themselves on the wrong side of the border in a sectarian state that didn't want them they didn't suddenly kick off, it took 50 years of Unionist misrule before a conflict broke out. 21st Century unionists would find themselves in much more favourable circumstances than Nationalists of the first half-century of the unionist/orange statelet.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed.

It is quite unnerving to watch both sides of this debate put their parochial concerns about a small corner of a small island ahead of the important issue of the future of the continent.

If the EU falls apart, what matter the future of Northern Ireland?

Hopefully, the modern progressive European view of the world prevails over both parochial visions.

Is that the 'view' that wants it's people to live in peace? Without conflict, which is what we are discussing here.

Are we in the south going to turn a blind eye again?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the head of the PSNI quoted earlier is wrong?

There is 'no possibility' for conflict if you establish a hard border. That is just dangerous ignorance luckily not shared by both governments and the EU who recognise and have voiced their concerns.

*Please stop trying to make the thread a platform for your tired anti SF stuff.

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

You've got to ask yourself why are Unionists so against an Irish Language Act if such a small thing. Millions were squandered on the renewable heating incentive scheme, yet a 50,000K grant was withdrawn that helped young protestants from deprived areas go to the Donegal gaeltacht to learn Irish and something of their Irish cultural heritage.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

Its not in the interests of either main parties in Northern Ireland to say that. If Sinn Fein said there would be, it would be seen as a threat. The DUP want a border between NI & ROI.

Jim2007

jm08 wrote: »

You've got to ask yourself why are Unionists so against an Irish Language Act if such a small thing.

By the same token, why are SF so adamant that they need. It is not as if it is widely spoke... Two parties arguing over a dead language!

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly missed the bit about incentivising it and reaching a consensus on it as per the GFA. Nobody is talking about 'forcing' anything.

It has to be fully discussed as an alternative is the point, if there is no other alternative.

And please, the DUP/unionists will have to discuss it properly sooner or later. Why are they allowed a pass on this..oh yes...they might get violent. :rolleyes:

Can you not see your own contradictions?

Incentivising? You're going the wrong way about that if you keep banging on about it.

P.S. And I only speak of getting their backs up in the context of your need to persuade them.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

Maybe you should take a read of it. You want to pressure unionists into a premature UI long before they're ready for it and during a tense enough time as it is for the republic. There is nowhere near a majority in favour of a UI in NI at this time. You'll have to let Brexit wreak it's havoc first before a UI becomes perhaps a little more attractive.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

Would you take say 5 years of violence if it was going to achieve a UI?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

Surly it stands to logic,if you put a hard border with police and customs on it

Your giving dissident standing targets to shoot at??
There ambition is to make the north ungovernable/hostile in the short term


There'll be no soldiers to protect them,as SF won't ever agree to it
All it'll take is one young lad to be killed in a shoot out (and it will happen eventually) to cause absolute political turmoil,and the ranks to dwell on dissident??

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

There's nothing in the GFA explicitly prohibiting rejoining the U.K., just as there was nothing in it prohibiting the U.K. from leaving the EU, which they've gone ahead and voted to do.

FrancieBrady

Here is the scenario as I see it. I can actually see the start of this happening here, right now.

You will have protests about a hard border, with ordinary people from the communities directly affected. They will get more strident as we proceed towards a border.
The border is established and customs people are sent there.

Dissidents take advantage and attack a customs post (see our own history for examples of this)
We have the usual round of condemnations from the usual people who express their horror and shock (even though they knew this would likely happen)
Authorities are forced to fortify the posts and all the seeds are sown. Nationalists are enflamed and protests rise. The border is now NOT about the UK and the EU but a manifestation of the cyclical problem on this island.

Unionists allying themselves with Britain attack nationalists (see history again) and we start the whole sorry spiral again.

*We may skip the callous sending of customs people to their deaths or injury and fortify from the start. Accelerating the process.

I am interested in what others think will happen.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's nothing in the GFA explicitly prohibiting rejoining the U.K., just as there was nothing in it prohibiting the U.K. from leaving the EU, which they've gone ahead and voted to do.

Well tbh, I think this is for a new thread and perhaps a new party proposing it. Otherwise it is just a deflection.

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Can you not see your own contradictions?

Incentivising? You're going the wrong way about that if you keep banging on about it.

P.S. And I only speak of getting their backs up in the context of your need to persuade them.

There is no contradiction. This was always supposed to come to this. A discussion of a UI and a border poll.

I am not interested in saving the DUP blushes on this, because the consequences threatens us all.
There are those who think those who identify as Irish should capitulate to unionist footdragging because they are either too lazy, closet unionists or who cannot swallow any achievement by nationalists.
They should be sidelined for the greater good too.

As we have seen, it is not particularly difficult to get some unionist backs up. But it is really only insecure politicians playing to a minority gallery. Most unionists are pragmatists in my experience. The much threatened armageddon (the rhetoric that gets the DUP elected) over many things has never materialised.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

By the same token, why are SF so adamant that they need. It is not as if it is widely spoke... Two parties arguing over a dead language!

Its not just Sinn Fein though that supports an Irish Language Act. The SDLP also do along with all the political parties in the Republic. Its all about pariety of esteem. Both Scotland & Wales have minority language acts - in fact, the Welsh language has seen a resurgence over the last 20/30 years where Welsh people are proud to speak the language.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Its not just Sinn Fein though that supports an Irish Language Act. The SDLP also do along with all the political parties in the Republic. Its all about pariety of esteem. Both Scotland & Wales have minority language acts - in fact, the Welsh language has seen a resurgence over the last 20/30 years where Welsh people are proud to speak the language.

Indeed. It is a silly if not ridiculous argument to suggest an Act is only for those who 'speak' the language.

I don't want to live like a celt but I want everything we have of them to be thoroughly preserved for future generations. An Irish language act will actually increase the number speaking it, thereby enriching an already rich Irish culture. I am proud that I can partly speak it and understand it and can interact with parts of my history.
I know that embarasses some, but then that is how it died out as the main language, our ancestors were made to feel embarrassed to speak it. it became a sign of the 'savage Irishman or woman'.
That inferiority has hung around to this day obviously.

Charles Babbage

Jim2007 wrote: »

By the same token, why are SF so adamant that they need. It is not as if it is widely spoke... Two parties arguing over a dead language!

I wonder if that 'death' has anything to do with colonial discrimination?

Chips Lovell

Folks,
This thread isn't about the Language Act. There's the Stormont negotiations thread for that. This is about the Border 'n' Brexit.

Red_Wake

Mods, move this to another thread if inappropriate, but given the possibility of Brexit causing violence again, I think it's relevant.

A man shot [four times] in Derry[for our nationalist friends]/Londonderry[for our unionist friends].

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/man-shot-four-times-in-brutal-and-horrific-attack-36014354.html ;

Unclear which paramilitary force carried it out.

Is this an early warning of the potential consequences of Brexit?

Charles Babbage

The GFA reflected a process which reflected that there were two communities in the North and that it should be not just be run for the benefit of unionists alone. Certain arrangements were codified in the agreement, but above all the concept of consensus and seeking agreement on things.
Brexit has so far been run entirely in contravention of these principles. Any increase in difficulty in crossing the border for any person, vehicle or animal is entirely against the entire process sine the mid 80s which gas brought peace. It is rather disturbing that some here advocating this just as a form of Shinner baiting, despite the adverse consequences both for the economy and peace.

murphaph

Nobody is advocating a hard border.

We are saying that as an EU member we have certain obligations when it comes to external EU borders (and yes, we already have one-our sea border). We may simply have no alternative to manning the border in some shape or form. The alternative could be to leave the EU. I doubt many would support that to maintain an open border with a failing economy (the UK).

The UK side will probably not stick customs men on the border because certain criminals would attempt to murder them. They'll come up with some fudge I believe that will involve spot checks on flights and ferries landing in GB from NI. There will be a token "high tech" effort made to secure their customs border but smuggling will be rife and essentially uncontrolled from the UK side. Again, more customs spot checks on NI ferries can be expected.

Jim2007

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It is rather disturbing that some here advocating this just as a form of Shinner baiting, despite the adverse consequences both for the economy and peace.

It is not about SF or republicanism for that mater. It is about dealing with the an unpleasant reality. But there is no doubt in my mind that if people are forced to choose been the EU and a loss of economic well being plus paying of the North, they will choose the EU. And where do you go then????

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is not about SF or republicanism for that mater. It is about dealing with the an unpleasant reality. But there is no doubt in my mind that if people are forced to choose been the EU and a loss of economic well being plus paying of the North, they will choose the EU. And where do you go then????

We have been sidetracked by the usual petulance that follows anyone who mentions unification.
The point is that we should be dealing with a range of alternatives before going anywhere near a hard border.