Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Do we truly live in a democracy?

Yes, we do.

Do we live in a perfect democracy? No, we don't.

Could our democracy be improved? Yes, it could.

But, do we truly live in a democracy? Yes, we do.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

But, do we truly live in a democracy? Yes, we do.

Good argument but I'd somewhat disagree, what I believe we have is a somewhat dysfunctional form of plutocracy but operators under the guise of democracy, this is becoming more clearly obvious over time. I'd completely agree with yanis varoufakis on this one, i.e. democracy is a fragile flower which is easily trampled upon

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Good argument but I'd somewhat disagree, what I believe we have is a somewhat dysfunctional form of plutocracy but operators under the guise of democracy, this is becoming more clearly obvious over time. I'd completely agree with yanis varoufakis on this one, i.e. democracy is a fragile flower which is easily trampled upon

Well, perhaps. But in the present context the issue is not how perfect or pure is our democracy, but can the Brexit decision be democratically reversed? And the answer is, yes, there are several mechanisms by which this could be done, and those mechanisms are at least as democratic as the mechanism by which the Brexit decision was made in the first place. And those who attempt to prevent recourse to those mechanisms with the objective of preventing the Brexit decision from being reversed are not defending democracy; they are suppressing it.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

Well, perhaps. But in the present context the issue is not how perfect or pure is our democracy, but can the Brexit decision be democratically reversed? And the answer is, yes, there are several mechanisms by which this could be done, and those mechanisms are at least as democratic as the mechanism by which the Brexit decision was made in the first place. And those who attempt to prevent recourse to those mechanisms with the objective of preventing the Brexit decision from being reversed are not defending democracy; they are suppressing it.

It's a difficult one to unravel, but my gut is saying, a rerun of this referendum, and possibly all referendums is highly undemocratic, we must remember our own past experiences regarding such matters. I think people such as varoufakis are correct on this one, accept this democratic vote, and go down the Norway style agreement to try solve this complex issue, or risk damaging your democratic system further by having a rerun.

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's a difficult one to unravel, but my gut is saying, a rerun of this referendum, and possibly all referendums is highly undemocratic, we must remember our own past experiences regarding such matters. I think people such as varoufakis are correct on this one, accept this democratic vote, and go down the Norway style agreement to try solve this complex issue, or risk damaging your democratic system further by having a rerun.

I disagree strongly (but with respect). If you rerun a referendum and you get a different outcome, you haven't damaged your democracy; you have reinforced it. You damage your democracy by refusing to rerun a referendum because you fear that you would get a different outcome, which you don't want.

Referendums are not magic - they're just one more tool in the toolbox of democracy; a way of making a decision democratically. Sometimes you choose that particular tool where there's a legal requirement to do so (e.g. when we amend the Irish Constitution); sometimes you choose them when you think it would be politically desirable to secure a specific mandate for a specific course of action (which is the usual reason for holding them in the UK).

What a referendum does not do, and what we should not want it to do, is to kick a particular question to the boundary of democracy, so to speak, so that it is now beyond democratic review, modification or reversal. You'd be arguing for a situation in which, if Parliament thinks that Brexit is going to damage the country, and this view has come to command majority public support in the country, nothing can be done. Parliament cannot reverse Brexit because it is bound by the mandate of the 2016 referendum, and cannot call another referendum to afford the people to set a new mandate because of this unwritten rule. (And you'd be be arguing that this was the outcome of a purely advisory referendum!) Why even would anybody think it was a remotely good idea to have such a rule?

Politically, a referendum can have the result of settling a question in a decisive way for a significant period of time, and a government might choose to call a referendum (or a lobby group might call for one) with the hope of achieving this outcome. But a referendum won't necessarily do that. It may, if e.g. the referendum vote is in favour of a clear and specific policy, so that everybody understands what will ensue, and if the majority of victory is substantial. But the Brexit referendum fails both these tests. It demonstrably hasn't settled much in the UK and, while Brexiters may regret this, they are not entitled to feel short-changed. The fault lies partly at their own door, for their failure to articulate a clear, realistic and consistent vision of the Brexit that they were seeking.

blinding

I love leave voters and I love the democracy that allowed them to have their say .

The Rape of Lucretia

If in favour of a rerun though, at what point do you stop having referenda? If the loosing side can always forxe a rerun by making enough noise, then the point of referenda is lost.

The first one was clear : leave the EU. Having one to confirm with the people that that is really what they meant undermines democracy not strengthens it. The idea of having ons to approve whatever leave deal is arrived at, is equally ludicrous.

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

I love leave voters and I love the democracy that allowed them to have their say .

They did undoubtedly give the wrong answer. But that is the flaw of democracy. If your democracy allows for the ignorant and the deluded to influence the outcome, then you must accept that outcome.
The leave negotiations are so tortured, because it is the wrong decision. And no good deal is possible. Effectively, the UK voted to have a bad deal, but many of them didnt realise, and still dont, that reality.

Peregrinus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If in favour of a rerun though, at what point do you stop having referenda? If the loosing side can always forxe a rerun by making enough noise, then the point of referenda is lost.

A rerun is a political decision. There's no point in a rerun, obviously, unless you expect a different outcome, and a government/parliament won't have a rerun unless they do expect a different outcome. That's why a decisive majority the first time round is one of the things that is likely to mean the first referendum can be conclusive.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The first one was clear : leave the EU. Having one to confirm with the people that that is really what they meant undermines democracy not strengthens it. The idea of having ons to approve whatever leave deal is arrived at, is equally ludicrous.

It's not remotely ludicrous. The terms of leaving which will be available to the UK were certainly not known in 2016, and it is nonsense to suggest that people voted for them. Indeed, even the terms of leaving which the government would seek weren't known in 2016; the government was still arguing with itself about this last month in a most unedifying fashion, and if they didn't know what what kind of Brexit they would seek it is stupid to suggest that the voters did.

It's entirely possible that, when people know more about what kind of Brexit is actually available, they may change their minds about whether they want it. The more different the reality turns out to be from the rosy picture painted by the leave campaign, the more likely it is that people will change their mind. People change there minds all the time, so it is ludicrous, to borrow your own word, to suggest that The People cannot. And it's positively antidemocratic to suggest that, if they have have or might have changed their minds, they should not be given a chance to say so.

blinding

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They did undoubtedly give the wrong answer. But that is the flaw of democracy. If your democracy allows for the ignorant and the deluded to influence the outcome, then you must accept that outcome.
The leave negotiations are so tortured, because it is the wrong decision. And no good deal is possible. Effectively, the UK voted to have a bad deal, but many of them didnt realise, and still dont, that reality.

They voted to leave the Eu .

Their Own Sovereignty , Control of their own Laws , Control of their own Borders . Continuing control of their Own Currency .

There was a time the people of Ireland were willing to fight for that .

Respect the right of another Country to do so even when the Irish have surrendered all that .

Countries must decide this stuff for itself or else it is not a Country . The british made their choice in the referendum followed by the General election where 84% of voters voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Democracy in action .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

They voted to leave the Eu .

Their Own Sovereignty , Control of their own Laws , Control of their own Borders . Continuing control of their Own Currency .

There was a time the people of Ireland were willing to fight for that .

Respect the right of another Country to do so even when the Irish have surrendered all that .

Countries must decide this stuff for itself or else it is not a Country . The british made their choice in the referendum followed by the General election where 84% of voters voted for parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Democracy in action .

You aren't respecting it though, you are cheerleading it.

I respect their decision just as much as I respect the desire of those to avoid the destruction of ordinary lives this is going to bring.

The former (their decision) was based on gut hate for the EU and very littel fact and detail while the latter is based on the very bright lights of an oncoming train laden with harsh realities (that we have already seen biting).

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You aren't respecting it though, you are cheerleading it.

I respect their decision just as much as I respect the desire of those to avoid the destruction of ordinary lives this is going to bring.

The former (their decision) was based on gut hate for the EU and very littel fact and detail while the latter is based on the very bright lights of an oncoming train laden with harsh realities (that we have already seen biting).

Sure if ya are going to look at it like that then the 26 counties should have stayed in the British Empire .

When People democratically decide they want to run their own country then they should be allowed to do so .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

Sure if ya are going to look at it like that then the 26 counties should have stayed in the British Empire .

When People democratically decide they want to run their own country then they should be allowed to do so .

Absolutely no problem with that and never had. Because they do run their own country in the same way as any other democracy.

As a member of the EU I reject them having any of the benefits of the EU though unless they accept the same terms as anyone else.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely no problem with that and never had. Because they do run their own country in the same way as any other democracy.

As a member of the EU I reject them having any of the benefits of the EU though unless they accept the same terms as anyone else.

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

The 26 Counties makes this all very messy . If the Eu genuinely has the good interests of the 26 Counties at heart its hard to see how it can give Britain a bad deal .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

The 26 Counties makes this all very messy . If the Eu genuinely has the good interests of the 26 Counties at heart its hard to see how it can give Britain a bad deal .

We'll get over it. The pay off is not being in any way dependent on the UK which has started to devour itself just as it tried to devour anywhere with assets before.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'll get over it. The pay off is not being in any way dependent on the UK which has started to devour itself just as it tried to devour anywhere with assets before.

I hope the Eu does not lose focus on the 26 counties , 6 months , 12 months , 18 months , etc down the line .

A Bad deal for Britain can only be a bad deal for the 26 Counties . Why would the Eu do this ?

The Rape of Lucretia

blinding wrote: »

There is one problem with this . If Britain gets a bad deal then it will be very bad for the 26 counties . So why would the Eu do this to the 26 Counties ?

It isnt 'doing' this to the 26. There are only bad deals for the UK, and only bad outcomes for Ireland. Nothing is better than the UK being in the EU. Only the have the cake and eat it contradiction, of the UK leaving the club yet retaining full membership rights would not impact the 26 negatively. And that is not going to happen because it would collapze the eu, and we would be even worse off.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It isnt 'doing' this to the 26. There are only bad deals for the UK, and only bad outcomes for Ireland. Nothing is better than the UK being in the EU. Only the have the cake and eat it contradiction, of the UK leaving the club yet retaining full membership rights would not impact the 26 negatively. And that is not going to happen because it would collapze the eu, and we would be even worse off.

Exactly. Blinding is hoping that the UK can threaten the EU by using us.
They now know that they can't and have come face to face with the reality of that.

Blinding needs to catch up with the state of play.

blinding

What would you do if the Eu tries to put the squeeze on you . Squeeze the bit of the Eu that will hurt the most of course in return .

Hopefully the Eu continues to keep the 26 Counties in its mind in the longer term . It could carelessly forget the 26 Counties .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

What would you do if the Eu tries to put the squeeze on you . Squeeze the bit of the Eu that will hurt the most of course in return .

Hopefully the Eu continues to keep the 26 Counties in its mind in the longer term . It could carelessly forget the 26 Counties .

Squeeze what? And to what end?

The have squeezed and have had to let go.

You keep theorising about this but dry up when asked for any detail.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Squeeze what? And to what end?

The have squeezed and have had to let go.

You keep theorising about this but dry up when asked for any detail.

The Eu gives Britain a bad deal and Ireland returns the serve particularly to Ireland . Britain could tie up a lot of Irish trade in British bureaucracy . Not just the trade to Britain but also the trade that goes through Britain .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

The Eu gives Britain a bad deal and Ireland returns the serve particularly to Ireland . Britain could tie up a lot of Irish trade in British bureaucracy . Not just the trade to Britain but also the trade that goes through Britain .

And then what?

We realise that trade will suffer, but that we can overcome.

What else can they do?

Once Britain is out, no amount of squeezing Ireland is going to help them.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And then what?

We realise that trade will suffer, but that we can overcome.

What else can they do?

Once Britain is out, no amount of squeezing Ireland is going to help them.

One assumes that the Eu will not allow a bad deal for the 26 Counties . Why would it do this to part of the Eu .

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

One assumes that the Eu will not allow a bad deal for the 26 Counties . Why would it do this to part of the Eu .

The EU will suffer, some areas of it, more than others. It is a union, it will use it's entire resources to cope with that.

It isn't the EU's fault if a 'bad deal' ensues. There is a good deal for everyone on the table that mitigates the worst of the damage, but the UK so far, refuses to take it.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

Sure if ya are going to look at it like that then the 26 counties should have stayed in the British Empire .

When People democratically decide they want to run their own country then they should be allowed to do so .

Yes. And if they want to run their country by having it remain in, or rejoin, the EU, they should be allowed to do so.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

I hope the Eu does not lose focus on the 26 counties , 6 months , 12 months , 18 months , etc down the line .

A Bad deal for Britain can only be a bad deal for the 26 Counties . Why would the Eu do this ?

The EU isn't doing this. The EU is pressing for a good deal for the 26 counties. It's the UK that's holding out.

The Rape of Lucretia

zapitastas wrote: »

The only ones that would advocate for that would be you and an insane homeless fella called mad Mickey that lives down on the boardwalk

Dont be so cocky. Sinn Fein getting the ball rolling on it now with the start of 'nudge' change, flying the kite on the 26 rejoining the Commonwealth.
Mary Lou included : "The debate has to have the capacity to put everything on the table and then the business of debate and discussion in a reflective way, not a divisive way,” she said.
A journey of a thousand paces begins with one step.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Dont be so cocky. Sinn Fein getting the ball rolling on it now with the start of 'nudge' change, flying the kite on the 26 rejoining the Commonwealth.
Mary Lou included : "The debate has to have the capacity to put everything on the table and then the business of debate and discussion in a reflective way, not a divisive way,” she said.
A journey of a thousand paces begins with one step.

Sure, there will be those who will try to place it on the table, and there is nothing to stop them.

Then it has to gather wide support. This is were it gets binned and we move on to discuss practical options.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure, there will be those who will try to place it on the table, and there is nothing to stop them.

Then it has to gather wide support. This is were it gets binned and we move on to discuss practical options.

Sinn Fein is not an insignificant segment of the discussion either north or south.
Many havent seen it yet, but its with these type of acorn plantings of ideas, that grow slowly to become a standard part of the political lanscape.
Joining the commonwealth would be a step in the direction of rejoining tge UK. Apart from ditching Brexit completely, no other outcome is as good for the six. So only reasonable that the only all island party should be floating ideas in that direction. Like German reunification, it would test the mettle of the south's true commitment to its northern cousins and foot the bill.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sinn Fein is not an insignificant segment of the discussion either north or south.
Many havent seen it yet, but its with these type of acorn plantings of ideas, that grow slowly to become a standard part of the political lanscape.
Joining the commonwealth would be a step in the direction of rejoining tge UK. Apart from ditching Brexit completely, no other outcome is as good for the six. So only reasonable that the only all island party should be floating ideas in that direction. Like German reunification, it would test the mettle of the south's true commitment to its northern cousins and foot the bill.

Everything 'needs' to be discussed.
But those ideas with no support will wither on the vine. And judging by the almost non existent support for the idea of joining the commomwealth, it will die quicker than most ideas.
Nobody who has any care for Irish people would suggest a closer alliance with an entity that has shown itself willing (as recently as this month) to carelessly harm us.

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody who has any care for Irish people would suggest a closer alliance with an entity that has shown itself willing (as recently as this month) to carelessly harm us.

Well I'm afraid with that attitude you don't get your United Ireland because you have lost any moderate Unionists who might be persuaded.

It had never really occurred to me before, but reading a lot of the comments on here have made me realise that a United Ireland could easily become a hostile place for Unionists.

Check out today's Boards classsic thread "why are Nordies so nuts"

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Well I'm afraid with that attitude you don't get your United Ireland because you have lost any moderate Unionists who might be persuaded.

It had never really occurred to me before, but reading a lot of the comments on here have made me realise that a United Ireland could easily become a hostile place for Unionists.

Unionists are smelling the coffee too Bilston.
You would have to be blind not to now see that Whitehall, and the British people care very little about what happens here. They will trample over the 'loyal' citizens of the north if it gets them a better deal.

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Check out today's Boards classsic thread "why are Nordies so nuts"

Making any assessment of the mood of a country based on a 'boards' thread is foolhardy not to mention self serving.

swampgas

bilston wrote: »

Well I'm afraid with that attitude you don't get your United Ireland because you have lost any moderate Unionists who might be persuaded.

Ireland is part of the EU, has benefitted greatly from membership, and is unlikely to disengage from the EU in any meaningful way in the short to medium term.

A United Ireland would have to mean the 6 counties move into the EU.

Closer union with the UK was never an easy sell, a closer union with Brexit Britain is pretty much unthinkable.

It had never really occurred to me before, but reading a lot of the comments on here have made me realise that a United Ireland could easily become a hostile place for Unionists.

How hostile or not a United Ireland would be to unionists would (IMO) very much depend on the attitude of unionists.

How would anyone even know you were a unionist in a united Ireland? Would you go around wearing a sash?

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists are smelling the coffee too Bilston.
You would have to be blind not to now see that Whitehall, and the British people care very little about what happens here. They will trample over the 'loyal' citizens of the north if it gets them a better deal.

Very possible, but the spite towards Britain and Unionists displayed by some doesn't engender confidence in me that a United Ireland will work either.

I say that as an anti Brexit 30 something middle class, middle of the road Unionist who dislikes the Orange Order and DUP and is exactly the sort of person you need to target if you want a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Very possible, but the spite towards Britain and Unionists displayed by some doesn't engender confidence in me that a United Ireland will work either.

I say that as an anti Brexit 30 something middle class, middle of the road Unionist who dislikes the Orange Order and DUP and is exactly the sort of person you need to target if you want a United Ireland.

'Spite', is generally earned.

You need to be honest with yourself too. Had it not been for the luck of the DUP getting into a power broking position you unionists would be dealing with a sea border.
May would have agreed back in December and it would now be enshrined in law.

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

Very possible, but the spite towards Britain and Unionists displayed by some doesn't engender confidence in me that a United Ireland will work either.

I say that as an anti Brexit 30 something middle class, middle of the road Unionist who dislikes the Orange Order and DUP and is exactly the sort of person you need to target if you want a United Ireland.

'Spite', is generally earned.

You need to be honest with yourself too. Had it not been for the luck of the DUP getting into a power broking position you unionists would be dealing with a sea border.
May would have agreed back in December and it would now be enshrined in law.

If May had a bigger majority it is more likely the UK wouldn't be leaving the Customs Union as she could have gone for a softer Brexit.

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

If May had a bigger majority it is more likely the UK wouldn't be leaving the Customs Union as she could have gone for a softer Brexit.

Let's deal with realities here and never mind the sidestepping.

You would be constitutionally separated from Britain had it not been for the luck of the DUP being in a power broking position.

I.E. Unionists would have been sold out. That is a fact. May had agreed to it.

Taytoland

Except it would never have passed in Parliament whatsoever but then you knew that.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Except it would never have passed in Parliament whatsoever but then you knew that.

The point is, she sold out unionism. They sold you out signing the GFA (according to you, yourselves) as well. And will sell you out again if the deal suits them.

Yet, the hat remains doffed and the knee bent. You need to start being honest with yourselves here.

blinding

When Brexit goes ahead how important will the 26 Counties be to the Eu . Will Juncker be able to find it on a map when his Sciatica is playing up .

Seriously how interested are the Eu going to be in the 26 counties .

Maybe after awhile when we get the 6 counties back and a good heap of Unionists then the Eu may do the old thumbs in the ears and fingers over the eyes .

I see Mary Lou is on for joining the Commonwealth . Jeez the Eu might throw a strop over that . Some Empires can be ratty about that sort of stuff !

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Except it would never have passed in Parliament whatsoever but then you knew that.

The point is, she sold out unionism. They sold you out signing the GFA (according to you, yourselves) as well. And will sell you out again if the deal suits them.

Yet, the hat remains doffed and the knee bent. You need to start being honest with yourselves here.

She's trying to sell out the country as she hates the country. I have known this for longer than most people in the mainstream media.

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

When Brexit goes ahead how important will the 26 Counties be to the Eu . Will Juncker be able to find it on a map when his Sciatica is playing up .

Seriously how interested are the Eu going to be in the 26 counties .

Maybe after awhile when we get the 6 counties back and a good heap of Unionists then the Eu may do the old thumbs in the ears and fingers over the eyes .

I see Mary Lou is on for joining the Commonwealth . Jeez the Eu might throw a strop over that . Some Empires can be ratty about that sort of stuff !

We are the EU blinding. When will you get that into your head?

We expect no favours and have to make sure our voice is heard. And at the moment it is being heard and has brought fantastic pressure on the UK.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

She's trying to sell out the country as she hates the country. I have known this for longer than most people in the mainstream media.

You will have us believe she is doing this 'sell out' single handedly.

What fools you are to be listening to and hitching wagons to the like of Rees Mogg while he feathers his very comfy nest by backing against Britain while leading the fleg wavers over an economic cliff.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

She's trying to sell out the country as she hates the country. I have known this for longer than most people in the mainstream media.

You will have us believe she is doing this 'sell out' single handedly.

What fools you are to be listening to and hitching wagons to the like of Rees Mogg while he feathers his very comfy nest by backing against Britain while leading the fleg wavers over an economic cliff.

Make no mistake I'm fully aware we have plenty of traitors in the United Kingdom.

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are the EU blinding. When will you get that into your head?

We expect no favours and have to make sure our voice is heard. And at the moment it is being heard and has brought fantastic pressure on the UK.

Some Parts are more important than other parts . When it suited Angela she made a decision directly against the wishes of other parts of the Eu . The Germans and the French will do what suits Germany and France most . If you think that the 26 counties on the far side of Britain will be their primary concern then you are deluding yourself .Some Irish people have been wrong about the British Empire ( in believing that Ireland was an integral part of it ) and the Catholic Church ( in thinking that the good of the Irish people was primary in the Catholic church ) . We have been down these roads before and we have been very badly let down by outside institutions .

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sinn Fein is not an insignificant segment of the discussion either north or south.
Many havent seen it yet, but its with these type of acorn plantings of ideas, that grow slowly to become a standard part of the political lanscape.
Joining the commonwealth would be a step in the direction of rejoining tge UK. Apart from ditching Brexit completely, no other outcome is as good for the six. So only reasonable that the only all island party should be floating ideas in that direction. Like German reunification, it would test the mettle of the south's true commitment to its northern cousins and foot the bill.

So, you're suggesting the 26 should capitulate to Unionists by rejoining the Commonwealth?
Good luck with that!


Mary-Lou can float whatever ideas she likes - it's a free Country - but that doesn't mean that Ireland is suddenly going to bow the knee to Unionism, and go against our own interests in so doing.


As far as I'm concerned, Unionists are quite welcome, as equals.
As overlords who dictate policy? No, thanks.

bilston wrote: »

Very possible, but the spite towards Britain and Unionists displayed by some doesn't engender confidence in me that a United Ireland will work either.

I say that as an anti Brexit 30 something middle class, middle of the road Unionist who dislikes the Orange Order and DUP and is exactly the sort of person you need to target if you want a United Ireland.

Yet, you are exactly the type of person who would be welcomed with open arms here.


There's a huge difference between being accepting of Unionism, and willing to live alongside Unionists as equals, and being accepting of the brand of Unionism that believes Unionists are superior to Nationalists, and that the Irish people should give up their right to self-determnation just because some Unionists think they have a god-given right to make our decisions for us, in return for the privilege of their Company.


Don't mistake the two attitudes, they are very different - and can be found in most people, of any Nationality, or Creed.


The same attitude had a significant effect on the Brexit vote in England, for example.

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

If May had a bigger majority it is more likely the UK wouldn't be leaving the Customs Union as she could have gone for a softer Brexit.

Let's deal with realities here and never mind the sidestepping.

You would be constitutionally separated from Britain had it not been for the luck of the DUP being in a power broking position.

I.E. Unionists would have been sold out. That is a fact. May had agreed to it.

I'm not sidestepping anything.

I'm not sure any hypothetical scenario can be described as a fact.

Junkyard Tom

Mary-Lou and SF can fuck off if they think we're going to be pressed into the British 'Commonwealth' as a sop to Unionists. We can accommodate Unionists somehow on such matters but we will not be going backwards. I'm now pro-Brexit because it will further distance us economically from our unpredictable former coloniser.

I'd also like to see Ireland, post-Unification, get fully behind EU/European defence and drop the pretence of non-alignment/neutrality. The north of the country would be strategically valuable for EU naval defence and they could, in the future, use a nice big naval base in Derry to police the north Atlantic. It would also have the effect of locking-down a United Ireland in the long term.

Taytoland

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Mary-Lou and SF can fuck off if they think we're going to be pressed into the British 'Commonwealth' as a sop to Unionists. We can accommodate Unionists somehow on such matters but we will not be going backwards. I'm now pro-Brexit because it will further distance us economically from our unpredictable former coloniser.  

I'd also like to see Ireland, post-Unification, get fully behind EU/European defence and drop the pretence of non-alignment/neutrality. The north of the country would be strategically valuable for EU naval defence and they could, in the future, use a nice big naval base in Derry to police the north Atlantic. It would also have the effect of locking-down a United Ireland in the long term.

Don't worry most Unionists aren't that stupid to listen to middle class moron Mary Lou McDonald.