How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Fionn1952

The Nal wrote: »

Its a no from me. A state in irreversible decline, a failed state.

A moniker that could've easily been applied to Ireland at various points in our history.

I'd disagree on irreversible decline though, and I would imagine there aren't very many people with the experience to compare NI pre-'98 to now who would agree with it.

Brendan Bendar

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We owe it to our fellow countrymen/women to rescue them from 'NI' when they vote for for Ireland to be United, it's the moral thing to do.

And do what with the almost 50% who don’t want to be rescued.

And do what with the huge amount of Government jobs that will be lost

And do what with the inevitable fallout which will pervade for years after

And do what to replace the 50 billion the uk govt sends over yearly.



Hello:cool:

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

And do what with the almost 50% who don’t want to be rescued.

And do what with the huge amount of Government jobs that will be lost

And do what with the inevitable fallout which will pervade for years after

And do what to replace the 50 billion the uk govt sends over yearly.



Hello:cool:

What's your solution here Brendi, give into Unionism and allow them to dismantle the Protocol?

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's your solution here Brendi, give into Unionism and allow them to dismantle the Protocol?

It’s not looking for a United Ireland, Mr B.

Far more sense than that.

The Nal

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A moniker that could've easily been applied to Ireland at various points in our history.

I'd disagree on irreversible decline though, and I would imagine there aren't very many people with the experience to compare NI pre-'98 to now who would agree with it.

Its a long long road ahead to any sort of stability. Decades.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

It’s not looking for a United Ireland, Mr B.

Far more sense than that.

So what is your solution Brendi? Needs to be an island wide one now.

Tell the people how to proceed - the politics of possible Brendi, not the politics of 'can't' are required or we jeopardise our place in the EU as a full member.

Junkyard Tom

The Nal wrote: »

Its a long long road ahead to any sort of stability. Decades.

A rejection of a UI in the south would be one of the most destabilising events in our history. Try thinking it through.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jim Allister could do with getting his collar felt too. Straying very close to incitement.

Listen to Nolan this morning. Colm Eastwood started same nonsense as you and Nolan dismantled his argument. He challenged him about how he had been saying for two years that a border on the island of Ireland would lead to violence. Eastwood even repeated, during his clumsy answer, that it was just a political reality that there would be violence if there was an Irish border. Nolan said to him “how is what you are saying any different from unionist politicians raising concerns about violence as an outcome of a border between ni and gb?” He had no answer.
The hypocrisy on this issue is incredible. Or maybe you can tell us the difference ?

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

Listen to Nolan

Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's your solution here Brendi, give into Unionism and allow them to dismantle the Protocol?

I told you the solution a year ago. No checks on island. Share the checks in a fair manner between Stranraer and Cherbourg. Just a wee bit of a desire to make it work and a tiny bit of compromise and we wouldn’t be here.

downcow

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

Have you ever listened to him?

Junkyard Tom

DC has taken the DUP position. The DUP voted with the Tories on every measure that engineered a hard Brexit, they knew a border had to go somewhere, now they're crying over it being in the Irish Sea and not where it would be unworkable on the 500km non-border with 300 crossings and thousands and thousands of movements back-and-fort daily of people, animals and goods daily.

What DC wants is to watch people on the border suffer because of the DUPs stupidity.

This guy considers himself a 'moderate' Unionist. This is why people think a United Ireland is the only way to bring this shit to an end.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Listen to Nolan this morning. Colm Eastwood started same nonsense as you and Nolan dismantled his argument. He challenged him about how he had been saying for two years that a border on the island of Ireland would lead to violence. Eastwood even repeated, during his clumsy answer, that it was just a political reality that there would be violence if there was an Irish border. Nolan said to him “how is what you are saying any different from unionist politicians raising concerns about violence as an outcome of a border between ni and gb?” He had no answer.
The hypocrisy on this issue is incredible. Or maybe you can tell us the difference ?

What hypocrisy?

Violence as the result of a hard land border was just one of the issues with it.

Basically, Unionism is fermenting violence here because they cannot get their favourite ready meals in M&S. All other issues they have are 'abstract notional' ones.

A sea border is the only solution to the problem created by those who wished to Brexit.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I told you the solution a year ago. No checks on island. Share the checks in a fair manner between Stranraer and Cherbourg. Just a wee bit of a desire to make it work and a tiny bit of compromise and we wouldn’t be here.

Off you go and get your mate Boris to propose some solutions...oh wait, he sold you out.
You want Brexit, YOU need to come up with workable solutions and to find somebody to look for them. Not moan and spit and ferment violence.

Sam Russell

downcow wrote: »

I told you the solution a year ago. No checks on island. Share the checks in a fair manner between Stranraer and Cherbourg. Just a wee bit of a desire to make it work and a tiny bit of compromise and we wouldn’t be here.

It would be simpler to close (temporally) the imports into Larne and Belfast for goods requiring inspection, and route them through Dublin. That is where 60% of goods were routed prior to Jan 2021. Reopen them when the confidence in the customs procedure warrants it. Alternatively, do inspections on the GB side.

When the 'teething problems' are sorted, revert to the normal routings. A lot of UK companies (most) have no experience with customs entries or required documentation. When they are up to speed, then there will be no extra problems as inspections for SPS existed in Larne prior to Jan 2021. Leaving the SM has major implications for GB supply chains, and was pointed out to deaf ears in the UK Gov.

There are two problems -
1. Incorrect or missing documentation. Experience will correct that.

2. New procedures affecting supply chains that make alternative routing better. Sourcing goods for NI might be cheaper and more available from south of the border that bringing identical or similar goods from GB.

It will get much worse if this is not sorted quickly.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

DC has taken the DUP position. The DUP voted with the Tories on every measure that engineered a hard Brexit, they knew a border had to go somewhere, now they're crying over it being in the Irish Sea and not where it would be unworkable on the 500km non-border with 300 crossings and thousands and thousands of movements back-and-fort daily of people, animals and goods daily.

What DC wants is to watch people on the border suffer because of the DUPs stupidity.

This guy considers himself a 'moderate' Unionist. This is why people think a United Ireland is the only way to bring this shit to an end.

Just like Unionism has taken the wrong option politically since the Anglo Irish Agreement, I think they are doing it spectacularly here again.

I can see this being moved to a poll of the people situation...'what do you want' which will effectively be a border poll.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Listen to Nolan this morning. Colm Eastwood started same nonsense as you and Nolan dismantled his argument. He challenged him about how he had been saying for two years that a border on the island of Ireland would lead to violence. Eastwood even repeated, during his clumsy answer, that it was just a political reality that there would be violence if there was an Irish border. Nolan said to him “how is what you are saying any different from unionist politicians raising concerns about violence as an outcome of a border between ni and gb?” He had no answer.
The hypocrisy on this issue is incredible. Or maybe you can tell us the difference ?

I don't and won't listen to Nolan, so I couldn't comment with any sort of confidence on what Eastwood had to say, but taking your post at face value, there is a significant difference.

According to your post, Colm Eastwood was raising concerns about violence in the event of a hard border between NI and RoI.

Jim Allister has been actively inflaming the situation. His choice of language is very telling. Describing it as a betrayal and calling for withdrawal and for Unionism to fight back absolutely isn't the same as just raising concerns.

Somewhere akin to the difference between telling you that if you walk through certain parts of West Belfast draped in a Union Flag, you can expect a reaction, and standing in Sandy Row shouting at everyone to look at the fella walking with an Irish Tricolour over his shoulders and saying we need to do something about it (and then afterwards condemning any violence despite your actions having directly led to it, and probably blaming the IRA somewhere along the line).

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I don't and won't listen to Nolan, so I couldn't comment with any sort of confidence on what Eastwood had to say, but taking your post at face value, there is a significant difference.

According to your post, Colm Eastwood was raising concerns about violence in the event of a hard border between NI and RoI.

Jim Allister has been actively inflaming the situation. His choice of language is very telling. Describing it as a betrayal and calling for withdrawal and for Unionism to fight back absolutely isn't the same as just raising concerns.

Somewhere akin to the difference between telling you that if you walk through certain parts of West Belfast draped in a Union Flag, you can expect a reaction, and standing in Sandy Row shouting at everyone to look at the fella walking with an Irish Tricolour over his shoulders and saying we need to do something about it (and then afterwards condemning any violence despite your actions having directly led to it, and probably blaming the IRA somewhere along the line).

Allister, Bryson and The DUP etc doing the Donald Trump. The idea that these guys are 'leaders' about to take another blow as this sabre rattling blows back in their face.

Brendan Bendar

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A rejection of a UI in the south would be one of the most destabilising events in our history. Try thinking it through.

Not in the South it wouldn’t......

“We dodged a bullet there, lads, literally and metaphorically “

would be the response.

grayzer75

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Not in the South it wouldn’t......

“We dodged a bullet there, lads, literally and metaphorically “

would be the response.

It's gonna happen Brendi.

Junkyard Tom

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Not in the South it wouldn’t......

You didn't think it through.

Brendan Bendar

grayzer75 wrote: »

It's gonna happen Brendi.

The Brenner will be boxed up before it does, long long way to go.

grayzer75

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The Brenner will be boxed up before it does, long long way to go.

The vote will happen in the next decade.

FrancieBrady

grayzer75 wrote: »

It's gonna happen Brendi.

Brendi advocates what partitionists have always done...turn and look the other way.

Sadly not an option anymore. We are as involved here as Jim Allister is.

bilbot79

downcow wrote: »

Haha. What twisting. You are out of touch if you think it’s only the last few days. Their has been serious pressure on politicians from the people for some time.

As for checks, many have been in place for decades, so cool heads are needed.

I think there has been a movement to the TUV position that the protocol can be 'disrupted'. The threats to port workers are part of that. It'll probably end up with checks done at mainland UK.
I fully understand unionist feeling on the matter but I don't think sabotage is the right way to deal with it. The options for me are resurrecting Theresa mays deal, reversing Brexit or living with the protocol. You can't go threatening people doing their jobs on this.

Any descent into untoward behaviour will be harshly judged in mainland UK and will serve to strengthen opinion there that hardline unionists are unreasonable crazy people who think the earth was invented 6000 years ago. A united ireland or otherwise will be achieved by those who maintain the moral high ground and lost by those who allow themselves to get drawn into the old northern Irish tit for tat violence. Threats and intimidation of good workers making a living leaves nothing for Republicans to do but turn the other cheek and wait. Unionists need to be clever, peaceful and different than the days of old.

FrancieBrady

bilbot79 wrote: »

I think there has been a movement to the TUV position that the protocol can be 'disrupted'. The threats to port workers are part of that. It'll probably end up with checks done at mainland UK.
I fully understand unionist feeling on the matter but I don't think sabotage is the right way to deal with it. The options for me are resurrecting Theresa mays deal, reversing Brexit or living with the protocol. You can't go threatening people doing their jobs on this.

Any descent into untoward behaviour will be harshly judged in mainland UK and will serve to strengthen opinion there that hardline unionists are unreasonable crazy people who think the earth was invented 6000 years ago. A united ireland or otherwise will be achieved by those who maintain the moral high ground and lost by those who allow themselves to get drawn into the old northern Irish tit for tat violence. Threats and intimidation of good workers making a living leaves nothing for Republicans to do but turn the other cheek and wait. Unionists need to be clever, peaceful and different than the days of old.

Anyone expecting the belligerent end of Unionism to make the savvy political decision on this need only look to the recent past. Pushing themselves out of the Union into isolation.

froog

reunification would lead to violence. there is no two ways about it and as such it is a bad idea.

grayzer75

froog wrote: »

reunification would lead to violence. there is no two ways about it and as such it is a bad idea.

There's a fair chance a vote in Scotland could trigger the break up of the UK prior to a reunification vote here. So it'll be just a natural progression that unionists will have to accept and get on with it or leave.

Fionn1952

froog wrote: »

reunification would lead to violence. there is no two ways about it and as such it is a bad idea.

Rejecting Unification should a majority wish for it would lead to violence, there is no two ways about it and as such it is a bad idea.

Rejecting democracy isn't the answer for those who support continued partition, making the Union more attractive so that it continues to be democratically supported is.

McMurphy

Struggling to think of a comparison of anything in history that comes even close to the predicament the unionists (DUP flavoured type) found themselves in after literally being kingmakers.

They have hastened the very things they feared the most with their own intransigence and "loyalty"

Short sightedness got them in the fix they're in now, the rocked the apple cart, etc etc.

You'd nearly feel sorry for them.

*Nearly*