Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

There is serious whataboutery going on here.
I am simply stating what i understand as facts.
ie
1)to all intense and purpose the troubles are over and the current generation will not lend its support to another murderous sectarian campaign
2) The UK voted out (regions swung both ways)
3) the vote was close both overall and in the regions and therefore we need to work hard to respect both
4) another referendum would be ridiculous. As ridiculous as it would have been for the anti GFA people to call for a new referendum eg at the time we were all watching murderers being released two years in which my have swung it the other way in the North
5) i believe most people, brexiteers included, would accept some sensible additional checks at the Irish Sea - but we need to see some compromise of sharing some checking maybe at NI border and even some at ROI France border. Current ROI position reeks of arrogace and is winding people up
6)NI cannot be in a situation where they are separated from UK with EU making the rules and no democratic representation.
Is any of that inaccurate or unreasonable?

erm, no, they're not all facts.
1) the troubles are over and we have peace. Change the existing circumstances and this could all change. This possibly is what is causeing the crap currently happening in Derry. Is it worth it?
2) the UK voted out. Two countries in the UK did not. There is a large amount of resentment from this which in all likleihood will cause the UK to break up (Scotland and/or NI may look to leave)
3) how is exiting the EU (possibly with no deal) respecting those who want to remain?
4) why would another referendum be ridiculous? The last one was won by all accounts unfairly so surely in the interests of democracy another impartial informed one would be good?
5) there are already checks in the Irish sea so no change there. Why should there be checks via ROI/France border - feck off and have your own Brexit but don't make things even worse for me! In terms of NI, why should NI face extra checks because the British government fecked up?
6) Why not have NI closer to EU than UK - it would be in tehri interests financially? As for your dig at ROI - what have we done to wind people up? The fact that London has shown not togive a toss about NI should be your concern but you deliberately look for fault with Dublin

Silent Running

With all the talk of taking no deal off the table, my mind drifts back to the bad old days of "no deal is better than a bad deal". Something you no longer hear.

The House of Commons has deemed the only deal on the table to be a bad deal, so why is there not a greater push to leave with no deal? That slogan couldn't have been a lie, could it? If so, it would join all the lies told to the electorate over this whole sorry saga.

The vote was to leave or not to leave. They voted leave. No talk of deals or red lines or Brino. They just want out.

So just go!

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

It's why, when May trash talks the backstop, she talks about its potential impact on our Union if Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the UK.

It is different, inasmuch as it has a land border with an EU country and that border is currently not in operation.

Only an eyes closed ideologist could pretend it is otherwise. Different situations require different solutions. That's how adults behave.

FrancieBrady

Silent Running wrote: »

With all the talk of taking no deal off the table, my mind drifts back to the bad old days of "no deal is better than a bad deal". Something you no longer hear.

The House of Commons has deemed the only deal on the table to be a bad deal, so why is there not a greater push to leave with no deal? That slogan couldn't have been a lie, could it? If so, it would join all the lies told to the electorate over this whole sorry saga.

The vote was to leave or not to leave. They voted leave. No talk of deals or red lines or Brino. They just want out.

So just go!

One word - fear.

The bottom line is that they (UK) are afraid and always were, to leave the EU without a crutch, i.e. a deal that favours them.

Harsh reality dawned ages ago, that is why that slogan has disappeared.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

There is serious whataboutery going on here.
I am simply stating what i understand as facts.
ie
1)to all INTENTS and purpose the troubles are over and the current generation will not lend its support to another murderous sectarian campaign

FYPFY

Also this is untrue there are plenty of disaffected youths in NI who have no real memory of the troubles that would be willing to stir up trouble again at the behest of the few old curmudgeons on both sides that still believe in their sides "cause"

downcow wrote: »

2) The UK voted out (regions swung both ways)

Nobody has once disagreed with this

downcow wrote: »

3) the vote was close both overall and in the regions and therefore we need to work hard to respect both

Except the regions who voted remain arent being respected, especially the scottish who were promised if the voted to remain in their Indy ref they would also get to stay in the EU

downcow wrote: »

4) another referendum would be ridiculous. As ridiculous as it would have been for the anti GFA people to call for a new referendum eg at the time we were all watching murderers being released two years in which my have swung it the other way in the North

Another referendum for either remain or the deal on the table, would be completely sensible and in fact was suggested by many arch bexiteers well before the refgerendum, Mogg being the prime example

downcow wrote: »

5) i believe most people, brexiteers included, would accept some sensible additional checks at the Irish Sea - but we need to see some compromise of sharing some checking maybe at NI border and even some at ROI France border. Current ROI position reeks of arrogace and is winding people up

Why does the ROI need to compromise our sovereignty we aren't the ones leaving? If our position reeks of arrogance it might be because for the first time in our history we have the upperhand and we know it, its not our fault that you A - don't like it and B - didn't realise this is how things would work even though the rest of the world and its mother had worked this out prior to the referendum.

The referendum was ran on many points a prime one being securing the UK's borders and now when its suggested you should be responsible for securing your one and only land border you say its somebody else's problem?

downcow wrote: »

6)NI cannot be in a situation where they are separated from UK with EU making the rules and no democratic representation.
Is any of that inaccurate or unreasonable?

NI are already seperated from the UK on numerous issues ie abortion and gay marriage so this argument is invalid

Zubeneschamali

Silent Running wrote: »

With all the talk of taking no deal off the table, my mind drifts back to the bad old days of "no deal is better than a bad deal".

It was obvious at the time that May meant that slogan only as a bluff for bargaining purposes, and she has admitted this more openly recently - that she doesn't want No Deal but is keeping it on the table to help her own Deal get agreed.


Unfortunately, a lot of people less well informed than May took her at her word, and believe No Deal really is better than a bad deal. Her deal is bad, so No Deal must be better. This is sometimes what happens when you use crazy talk to bluff - crazy becomes normalized, and people start to think the crazy thing is possible, even ordinary. Just get on with it!

downcow

Skelet0n wrote: »

2 soldiers killed, 2 wounded, 2 civilians wounded.
1 PSNI officer.
MI5 informant.
5 car bombs in one day.
1 PSNI officer leg amputated after bomb under his car.
1 prison officer.
1 Garda detective.

They’re the ones listed. That’s just on the republican side.

You are being a little disingenuous. I said 2 prison officers and it turns out to be 1 prison officer and 1 psni. I have no idea who the 2 soldiers are that you are referring to. I missed the IRA/British agent who the IRA (who don't exist of course) shot for collusion. And I hadn't intended including those killed by terrorism in ROI in last decade (you seem to have missed a few there)
So what part of my estimate of 3 troubles related deaths in NI in last decade was not true.
Don't worry you don't need to apologise, rather just accept my point that to all intense and purpose the troubles are over. By the way there were about 6 psni officer killed in car accidents during the same period - just to put it in perspective

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

FYPFY

Another referendum for either remain or the deal on the table, would be completely sensible and in fact was suggested by many arch bexiteers well before the refgerendum, Mogg being the prime example

So i guess you reckon we should have had a rerun of the gfa referendum when we found out there had been secret deals and lies eg Gerry Kelly and 200 other republicans had recieved secret letters to get them over the line from Tony Blair. Ironically putting their own freedom well ahead of their beloved unification

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's why, when May trash talks the backstop, she talks about its potential impact on our Union if Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the UK.

But isn't Northern Ireland treated differently in terms of legislation relating to issues like abortion, gay marriage, libel, employment law and corporation tax?

Hurrache

Some of you may have seen this, but this is a great thread. Someone went through all the EU rules 'foisted' upon the UK (as the UK voted against them) and outlined what each rule was for
.
https://twitter.com/mac_puck/status/1087360379691380736

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So i guess you reckon we should have had a rerun of the gfa referendum when we found out there had been secret deals and lies eg Gerry Kelly and 200 other republicans had recieved secret letters to get them over the line from Tony Blair. Ironically putting their own freedom well ahead of their beloved unification

If it was evident that a significant number of people wanted a re-run, of course you have to grant a voice to the people. It's called democracy.
BTW, we were aware deals had been done on prisoners and legacy issues. Loyalists benefited from that too. One of them, a convicted killer, went on to try and assassinate Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness at Stormont after benefiting from the deal. Nobody, that I know of, called for a re-run after that.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

So i guess you reckon we should have had a rerun of the gfa referendum when we found out there had been secret deals

Opponents of the GFA are free to call for a re-run anytime they like. They won't get one because support for the GFA has gone up, not down, it'd be a waste of time.


A new referendum is not anti-democratic. If a majority still wants to Leave, they can simply vote Leave again. If a majority now wants to Remain, denying the Will of the People 2019 to railroad through the Will of the People 2016 is what is anti-democratic.


(And colossally damaging economically, politically and socially, but those are separate issues.)

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

There is serious whataboutery going on here.
I am simply stating what i understand as facts.
ie
1)to all intense and purpose the troubles are over and the current generation will not lend its support to another murderous sectarian campaign
2) The UK voted out (regions swung both ways)
3) the vote was close both overall and in the regions and therefore we need to work hard to respect both
4) another referendum would be ridiculous. As ridiculous as it would have been for the anti GFA people to call for a new referendum eg at the time we were all watching murderers being released two years in which my have swung it the other way in the North
5) i believe most people, brexiteers included, would accept some sensible additional checks at the Irish Sea - but we need to see some compromise of sharing some checking maybe at NI border and even some at ROI France border. Current ROI position reeks of arrogace and is winding people up
6)NI cannot be in a situation where they are separated from UK with EU making the rules and no democratic representation.
Is any of that inaccurate or unreasonable?

also just to point out some differences in your perspective...

downcow wrote: »

A backstop in the Irish Sea has never been offered. That would solve dup concerns immediately I believe

downcow wrote: »

�� well I was neutral and hence didn’t vote. Couldn’t be sure which way to go. If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote leave as I feel the eu and Eire have fairly disgracefully used our hard earned peace as a bargaining chip to make brexit so painfull that UK won’t leave. I have one solution thought Agree a backstop in the Irish see exactly the same as border backstop with same conditions for removal. I think the majority could wear that. What you think?

downcow wrote: »

Exactly my point. If they say exactly the same about the Irish Sea then we are all happy. ie not border in Irish Sea. Which, they no is equally important under gfa. But they really don’t give a toss about gfa or they would be staring this clearly.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

You are being a little disingenuous. I said 2 prison officers and it turns out to be 1 prison officer and 1 psni. I have no idea who the 2 soldiers are that you are referring to. I missed the IRA/British agent who the IRA (who don't exist of course) shot for collusion. And I hadn't intended including those killed by terrorism in ROI in last decade (you seem to have missed a few there)
So what part of my estimate of 3 troubles related deaths in NI in last decade was not true.
Don't worry you don't need to apologise, rather just accept my point that to all intense and purpose the troubles are over. By the way there were about 6 psni officer killed in car accidents during the same period - just to put it in perspective

The link I posted shows all those killed or inured in attacks by terrorist groups, there's many many more than those few you're taking issue with.

Here it is again
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&search=northern%20ireland&count=100

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

'upperhand' The lady doth protest too much, me thinks lol

Yeah cus the UK's has been winning bigly all over the negotiations for the last 2 years and hasn't been made look like fools again and again..... and again

10000maniacs

downcow wrote: »

The thing we are angry about is that many of us took a big step and voted for gfa for peace and now we see roi supported by Europe using it for their own agenda
.

How was that a big step? You talk about the GFA like you were you were doing the world a favour by voting yes and you regret it now. You are not owed the removal of the backstop because you voted yes in the GFA.
Maybe you should have read the terms of the GFA before voting for it.
And maybe you should have read the terms of the GFA before voting for Brexit.

"The United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement"

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

6)NI cannot be in a situation where they are separated from UK with EU making the rules and no democratic representation.
Is any of that inaccurate or unreasonable?

I am sure that if the UK were to propose that NI stayed within the confines of the single market and customs union permanently due to the GFA but as a condition to it they needed representation to ensure their voice is heard that it would certainly be listened to by the EU. Has this ever been offered as a choice from the UK side?

It would certainly make sense that if you are in the CU and SM that you have to have some representation. Also, it would be in the interest of Irish MEPs to have the interests of NI when new rules and regulations are debated in the EU Parliament. We are, after all, one economy in many aspects so even if NI would not have direct representation of MEPs due to Brexit I have no doubt that MEPs in Ireland would have the interests of the whole island in their minds when it comes to their representation at the EU.

The same cannot be said historically of Westminster when it comes to looking after Ireland or even Northern Ireland. That is however a discussion for another topic altogether.

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

I agree with you but it would have been very wrong to have rerun the GFA referendum before it was implimented. I agree same for EU. ther day after its implimented people can and no doubt will begin a campaign for a referendum and they are entitled to it

If it's any consolation, I don't believe there will be another referendum. (a) because it will take a long time to prepare and that time isn't available any more and (b) because it will not solve the problem the first one was supposed to fix; namely the split in the Tory party.

FreudianSlippers

downcow wrote: »

5) i believe most people, brexiteers included, would accept some sensible additional checks at the Irish Sea - but we need to see some compromise of sharing some checking maybe at NI border and even some at ROI France border. Current ROI position reeks of arrogace and is winding people up

Huh?

Firstly, the DUP are against that idea.
Secondly, there can't be checks between Ireland and France.

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

It was extremely difficulty for most unionists. We had suffered a 30 year sectarian campaign against us and just when the terrorists were running out of energy and support we were asked to let them save face by giving them an honourable way out. Enough of us done it to get it through. Not pleasant finding out that grinning Tony Blair had done them a deal behind everyones back. Replicate that to your gansters in Dublin and how you would feel if you had reduced their sentences etc in return for them stopping killing you because they didn't like your identity/religion existing on this Island and then finding out you priminsiter had done them other deals and lied to you about it

And brexit deals with all that how?

What benefits to NI do you see from Brexit?

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

7. So important question becomes, what is May’s Plan C? If she secures the assent of the DUP but not of the ERG, the deal will be voted down again, and at that point May has to decide whether she will hew towards crash-out Brexit, or opt for revoking Art 50 or trying for a second referendum. From here point of view these are all appalling options; but she will just has to choose which is the least appalling.

The vast majority of the Commons would vote for her deal over a crash out exit.
Believing this it is not in her interest to offer alternatives to these two options.
She has been in the Conservative party since her teens. She will not split the party by any softening.
I believe the Commons understand this. Extending A50 will not be enough.
The Commons needs to take the default off the table and give a real choice between the Negotiated deal or no Brexit.
This could mean a final defeat for May's deal with an amendment for an A50 extension for a referendum.
It could also mean that May will get the numbers as there will be only one Brexit available.

Leroy42

Downcow, why are you trying to revisit the GFA and the troubles? What purpose does it have in relation to Brexit?

You didn't like it, we get it. But the majority in NI accepted it. It, despite having some serious issues, has brought stability, peace, cooperation and a normality to NI. It is a model of how to solve what appears to be an intractable problem for the rest of the world.

So, back to Brexit. What benefits are coming to NI from Brexit?

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

So, back to Brexit. What benefits are coming to NI from Brexit?

The benefits are all airy fairy nebulous things. I would be interested to hear a unionist, spell out in factual terms, what they would be for northern Ireland specifically.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Take the Republican-Unionist violence stuff elsewhere please. It's well off topic.

downcow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Downcow, why are you trying to revisit the GFA and the troubles? What purpose does it have in relation to Brexit?

You didn't like it, we get it. But the majority in NI accepted it. It, despite having some serious issues, has brought stability, peace, cooperation and a normality to NI. It is a model of how to solve what appears to be an intractable problem for the rest of the world.

So, back to Brexit. What benefits are coming to NI from Brexit?

This is ironic. You can look back and you will find i have not riased the troubles. my issue is that the gfa and a threrat of conflict is being used very disingenuously by ROI and EU to keep UK in EU.
You may not agree with me but do not misrepresent what i am saying. I supported the GFA and still do but detest the cherry picking and misrepresentation of what is in it.
And i am the one saying that we are not threatened with violence in the North we are comfortable and confident that our culture is starting to find room to exist on this island

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

This is ironic. You can look back and you will find i have not riased the troubles. my issue is that the gfa and a threrat of conflict is being used very disingenuously by ROI and EU to keep UK in EU.
You may not agree with me but do not misrepresent what i am saying. I supported the GFA and still do but detest the cherry picking and misrepresentation of what is in it.
And i am the one saying that we are not threatened with violence in the North we are comfortable and confident that our culture is starting to find room to exist on this island

Grand, glad we can move on so.

So what are the benefits that you see from Brexit to NI?

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Yes lots of mis information floatinf about on this.
There has never be an amnesty. there was an early release scheme. Sorry let me correct myself - obviously there was an amnesty for 200 key IRA members but that was a sectret deal done with Tony Blair in dark rooms https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11342495/Tony-Blair-On-The-Run-letters-to-IRA-members-vital-for-Northern-Ireland-peace.html this only applied to republicans and the public and indeed the GB police when an IRA member was tried for the Hyde Park bombings and he produced his secret letter in court and the judge had to let him go.
I can understand your disbelief at how it could be done secretly and only given to one side

Thanks for the link, although I am not sure if those letters are amnesty letters as you are describing them. They are letters, according to the link you have provided, that confirm that at the moment they were not wanted but that if new evidence was found that they would be prosecuted.

Former Prime Minister Mr Blair began the peace process scheme in 2000.

It saw 95 of the so-called letters of comfort issued by the Government to suspects linked by intelligence to almost 300 murders.

They told people they were not wanted at that time, but did not rule out future prosecutions if new evidence became available.

downcow wrote: »

Are you suggesting the IRA didnt target civilians and simply because they were protestant. I doubt someone has fed you a very romantic view of a dirty sectarian campaign

You are quick to say that others are rewriting history but you should be careful that you aren't doing the same. Both sides targeted civilians and both sides were killing innocent people. There is nothing that will be gained by only pointing at the other side and playing the victim.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The benefits are all airy fairy nebulous things. I would be interested to hear a unionist, spell out in factual terms, what they would be for northern Ireland specifically.

I have stated from early on that is was nuetral and didn't vote. So i don't think the benifits of in or out are dramatically different. Some pros and cons. I am OK with either option if we do it as UK as a whole.
If UK goes out on a fairly hard Brexit then I think we are benifitted in going also because we are so closely connected in every way and finacially supported by them. Any fear of leaving the EU can be multiplied many times when we consider leaving UK, economically, culturally,etc
does that help?

MrMusician18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

His boss is singing from a different hymn sheet though and, given his boss is President of the European Council (Donald Tusk), I'll take the Polish views from the horse's mouth.

His boss isn't Donald Tusk, it's Mateusz Morawiecki

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have stated from early on that is was nuetral and didn't vote. So i don't think the benifits of in or out are dramatically different. Some pros and cons. I am OK with either option if we do it as UK as a whole.
If UK goes out on a fairly hard Brexit then I think we are benifitted in going also because we are so closely connected in every way and finacially supported by them. Any fear of leaving the EU can be multiplied many times when we consider leaving UK, economically, culturally,etc
does that help?

Considering you started with a self serving lie, (which allows you to sidestep when it suits you) No, that didn't help at all.
Nebulous and airy fairy benefits it still is, coming from Unionist Brexiteer family.
Perhaps you might begin dealing/countering factually with the concerns raised by the agricultural sector of your own community and proceed to the concerns of your own business community?