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

maccored

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's like a collective meltdown. I'm no SF fan but...ridiculous


https://twitter.com/News_Letter/status/1364672691635163142

Shes right though. Thats the difference

Nqp15hhu

She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.

Fionn1952

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.

And what do you think Arlene's 'crusade' is going to achieve?

I reckon absolutely nothing; as usual the Tories don't give a toss what they think.

FrancieBrady

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.

The Irish Sea border is there because we were not going to suffer unduly because Unionists and The UK wanted to Brexit. There was no 'threat of terrorism'. Nobody with any sense or care for it's people wants to create the circumstances for violence. The only sensible option was the Irish Sea as all it required was Unionism to get over abstract feelings of separations and Unionists wanted Brexit, they should have thought it through and the sacrifices they would have to make. It really is a case of tough, you weren't in the power position nor was the UK

Junkyard Tom

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

The British border in Ireland was created by the threat of internecine terrorism by Unionists and then all out war by the British government. Those were wrongs, morally, that need to be put right.

The British state continues to be a danger to the well-being of our nation as has become patently clear with the threat of physical division of our people having to be negotiated away in the face of Brexit.

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish Sea border is there because we were not going to suffer unduly because Unionists and The UK wanted to Brexit. There was no 'threat of terrorism'. Nobody with any sense or care for it's people wants to create the circumstances for violence. The only sensible option was the Irish Sea as all it required was Unionism to get over abstract feelings of separations and Unionists wanted Brexit, they should have thought it through and the sacrifices they would have to make. It really is a case of tough, you weren't in the power position nor was the UK

Hypothetically, had the trade/practicalities/business links been such that the Brexit negotiations settled on the solution that Donegal and Louth would form part of the Northern Ireland block for single market and administration purposes, and businesses in the other 24 counties of Eire would have to trade with those two counties as if they were external to Eire and the EU, would you have been OK with that ? No abstract feeling of separation would arise ?

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's like a collective meltdown. I'm no SF fan but...ridiculous


https://twitter.com/News_Letter/status/1364672691635163142

Ah yes, Nelson "Loyalists are just using violence because they learned it from Republicans" McCausland.

This Loyalist meltdown is the best.

Natterjack from Kerry

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British border in Ireland was created by the threat of internecine terrorism by Unionists and then all out war by the British government. Those were wrongs, morally, that need to be put right.

They do not need to be put right. The former may well be true, but it was put right by partition as the compromise all round. The republic needs to accept the deal it made. Republicans in the north need to accept their lot - it really is time now.

maccored

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.

they are asking boris, and the dup to stick by what was agreed. The ‘unionist people’ voted for exactly what they now have.

Why do you pretend otherwise? This sort of claptrap might have got by in the Unionist controlled 6 counties but it wont work against the EU.

Plus its obvious even britian are sick of the dup’s bull****

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Hypothetically, had the trade/practicalities/business links been such that the Brexit negotiations settled on the solution that Donegal and Louth would form part of the Northern Ireland block for single market and administration purposes, and businesses in the other 24 counties of Eire would have to trade with those two counties as if they were external to Eire and the EU, would you have been OK with that ? No abstract feeling of separation would arise ?

You do realise that the UK caused this by deciding to leave the EU? So the onus is on them to come up with the solutions. Though they been somewhat wanting in that regard since 2016.

Come on now. Do better.

Kermit.de.frog

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You do realise that the UK caused this by deciding to leave the EU? So the onus is on them to come up with the solutions. Though they been somewhat wanting in that regard since 2016.

Come on now. Do better.

I think it's fairly obvious you're not dealing with someone from Kerry there, probably not from the north (maybe a unionist) and most likely in GB.

Could be wrong, but that's my inkling. "Eire".

Fionn1952

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious you're not dealing with someone from Kerry there, probably not from the north (maybe a unionist) and most likely in GB.

That poster from Kerry? You've two hopes, Bob and No.

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody I know in SF is involved in criminality.

Possibly a technically true statement. But firstly, you dont know everyone in SF. And secondly, would you also say that of those you do know is SF, while not involved in criminality, they have also not been involved in criminality in the past ? Or have they ?

jm08

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.

They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.

I think you will find that Ireland always wins the PR war when it comes to Britain. Michael Portillo made a documentary called ''Hawks & Doves'' which dealt with Irish independence from the British point of view. One of the things he said that really pissed off Lloyd George and Churchill around that time is how no matter what atrocity the IRA committed (such as the assissinations of British spies which resulted in the first Bloody Sunday) that Britain always got the blame and the US in particular was always on Ireland's side.

edit: Bearing in mind that 20 of the US Presidents who were of Irish descent were actually Ulster-Scots.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1364691658877640717

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish Sea border is there because we were not going to suffer unduly because Unionists and The UK wanted to Brexit. There was no 'threat of terrorism'. Nobody with any sense or care for it's people wants to create the circumstances for violence. The only sensible option was the Irish Sea as all it required was Unionism to get over abstract feelings of separations and Unionists wanted Brexit, they should have thought it through and the sacrifices they would have to make. It really is a case of tough, you weren't in the power position nor was the UK

There most definitely was a “threat of terrorism”. The entire argument against a land border was that it would rekindle terrorism - terrorism that was supposedly eliminated, in favour of peaceful politics, by the GFA.

And supposedly is the really important bit there because if it were truly eliminated, no one would have been taking about a “threat of terrorism” if a land border were created a quarter of a century after the GFA was signed.

Kermit.de.frog

View wrote: »

There most definitely was a “threat of terrorism”. The entire argument against a land border was that it would rekindle terrorism - terrorism that was supposedly eliminated, in favour of peaceful politics, by the GFA.

And supposedly is the really important bit there because if it were truly eliminated, no one would have been taking about a “threat of terrorism” if a land border were created a quarter of a century after the GFA was signed.

You can't have it both ways.

In my view the cold hard truth is you accept the possibility of some thuggery with an Irish sea border.

Or you accept a greater magnitude of trouble with a land border.

Britain chose the former.

Both are repulsive - but one is less than the other.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

There most definitely was a “threat of terrorism”. The entire argument against a land border was that it would rekindle terrorism - terrorism that was supposedly eliminated, in favour of peaceful politics, by the GFA.

And supposedly is the really important bit there because if it were truly eliminated, no one would have been taking about a “threat of terrorism” if a land border were created a quarter of a century after the GFA was signed.

Will you stop with the Unionist bull**** of 'threat'. Nobody threatened violence. We saw the possibility of a land border stoking friction again and other problems relating to trade and movement and said no.

Our voice was heard, we had more power and the more powerful argument and more powerful allies in the EU and then you had Britain, who wanted other things more than abstract Unionist feelings of belonging. Unionism lost, simple as. Strategic blunder.

Fionn1952

View wrote: »

There most definitely was a “threat of terrorism”. The entire argument against a land border was that it would rekindle terrorism - terrorism that was supposedly eliminated, in favour of peaceful politics, by the GFA.

And supposedly is the really important bit there because if it were truly eliminated, no one would have been taking about a “threat of terrorism” if a land border were created a quarter of a century after the GFA was signed.

Putting the logistics aside, putting the silly Goodies and Baddies approach aside....even if we accept that the threat of violence is the primary reason the sea border makes sense (it isn't, basical logistics is, but let's go along with the silly premise), which border infrastructure would be easier for a terrorist to interfere with?

That's ignoring the fact that the existence of a sea border is more democratic than the proposed land border, the fact that it would be infinitely more complex and expensive to control.....and that it is essentially logistically unmanageable to have several hundred crossing points versus a handful.

Regardless of one's politics, one of those borders is a lot more natural and inherently easier to enfore for managing Britain's choice to leave the EU.....but aye, let's blame that on the RA and all.....sure everyone knows Brexit was a Republican plot...

Nqp15hhu

An Irish Sea Border is undemocratic. It was never voted on.

Fenzi

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

An Irish Sea Border is undemocratic. It was never voted on.

Would you be decrying about the lack of a vote if we had a land border?

Junkyard Tom

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

An Irish Sea Border is undemocratic. It was never voted on.

It is democratic it was voted for in the House of Commons and passed.

The reason this is an issue at all is because the north is not Britain and is not on the same footing as GB. The British government must consider both traditions in the north and that is precisely what has, albiet with encouragement, happened.

Unionists have always had an à la carte relationship with democracy in their little ethno-statelet (its creation against the will of the Irish people, gerrymandering, one-man-one vote, sinking the Sunningdale Agreement, opposition to the GFA, opposing Language rights, marriage equality, abortion, Brexit and so on).

Time for big boy trousers.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

I think you will find that Ireland always wins the PR war when it comes to Britain. Michael Portillo made a documentary called ''Hawks & Doves'' which dealt with Irish independence from the British point of view. One of the things he said that really pissed off Lloyd George and Churchill around that time is how no matter what atrocity the IRA committed (such as the assissinations of British spies which resulted in the first Bloody Sunday) that Britain always got the blame and the US in particular was always on Ireland's side.

edit: Bearing in mind that 20 of the US Presidents who were of Irish descent were actually Ulster-Scots.

Interesting post amongst the multitude of UK bad Ireland good usual stuff.
Constantly playing the victim will work to a point.The ira learned this when they had to disband and decommission when ordered to by the US.
Affection for one's ancestral origins do go a long way although generally,imo Ireland's and the UK's interests don't clash so the US doesn't have to make any major choices between the two.
This is probably the first time I've seen anyone of a republican disposition acknowledge the atrocities committed by the ira which resulted in the original bloody sunday.

teabag1993

RobMc59 wrote: »

Interesting post amongst the multitude of UK bad Ireland good usual stuff.
Constantly playing the victim will work to a point.The ira learned this when they had to disband and decommission when ordered to by the US.
Affection for one's ancestral origins do go a long way although generally,imo Ireland's and the UK's interests don't clash so the US doesn't have to make any major choices between the two.
This is probably the first time I've seen anyone of a republican disposition acknowledge the atrocities committed by the ira which resulted in the original bloody sunday.

My great-great uncle (I think that's right) was one of the spies working for the British who was killed by Michael Collins' Squad on that day. Alternatively, I also have ancestors who fought for independence, so there's only a little bit of turncoat blood in me.

But, I digress.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It is democratic it was voted for in the House of Commons and passed.

The reason this is an issue at all is because the north is not Britain and is not on the same footing as GB. The British government must consider both traditions in the north and that is precisely what has, albiet with encouragement, happened.

Unionists have always had an à la carte relationship with democracy in their little ethno-statelet (its creation against the will of the Irish people, gerrymandering, one-man-one vote, sinking the Sunningdale Agreement, opposition to the GFA, opposing Language rights, marriage equality, abortion, Brexit and so on).

Time for big boy trousers.

Of course it was democratic. I don't think some Unionists understand what a democracy is. This is a situation like they will find themselves in if a majority vote for a UI - I.E. go with the majority vote without being the slightest bit 'un-peaceful'.

Brexit was decided on in the exact same way and they spent 4 years ramming it down peoples throats that the UK as whole decided on Brexit. Well, the UK also decided on the Brexit deal too.

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It is democratic it was voted for in the House of Commons and passed.

The reason this is an issue at all is because the north is not Britain and is not on the same footing as GB. The British government must consider both traditions in the north and that is precisely what has, albiet with encouragement, happened.

Unionists have always had an à la carte relationship with democracy in their little ethno-statelet (its creation against the will of the Irish people, gerrymandering, one-man-one vote, sinking the Sunningdale Agreement, opposition to the GFA, opposing Language rights, marriage equality, abortion, Brexit and so on).

Time for big boy trousers.

All well and good Tom but a bit of graffiti on a wall and brussels and co are reaching for their Billy Connelly incontinence pants.Whats going to happen if something like that happens again?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

All well and good Tom but a bit of graffiti on a wall and brussels and co are reaching for their Billy Connelly incontinence pants.Whats going to happen if something like that happens again?

What 'happened' this time Rob? Gove sent home with his tail between his legs, from what I can see.

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'happened' this time Rob? Gove sent home with his tail between his legs, from what I can see.

Along with an assurance that Britain would indeed fully implement the NI protocol, and the NI protocol would be part of any future trade deals the UK make.


He sure showed them!

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Interesting post amongst the multitude of UK bad Ireland good usual stuff.
Constantly playing the victim will work to a point.The ira learned this when they had to disband and decommission when ordered to by the US.
Affection for one's ancestral origins do go a long way although generally,imo Ireland's and the UK's interests don't clash so the US doesn't have to make any major choices between the two.
,This is probably the first time I've seen anyone of a republican disposition acknowledge the atrocities committed by the ira which resulted in the original bloody sunday.

You will really go out if your way to condone the murder of children at a football match by the State won't you?

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Along with an assurance that Britain would indeed fully implement the NI protocol, and the NI protocol would be part of any future trade deals the UK make.


He sure showed them!

I honestly cannot figure out Rob on this one. And he is being less than forthcoming on what he means. He is trying to paint this as a victory when it is yet another example of the British folding a tent and going home.