Belfast Disturbances

Sunny Disposition

If Edwin Poots does become leader it's another quite large boost for nationalism. Most protestants are very reasonable people and don't think much of homophobia or this other nonsense about the earth being a few thousand years old. If the DUP moves to the right I think the next FM will be from Sinn Fein. How can they be mad enough to think Poots is a good choice?

circadian

downcow wrote: »

I think you mean ‘accused’ and I scuppered the accusation with facts

No you didn't.

Sunny Disposition

I think Downcow is paid by SF to awaken the hardcore republican in southerners. Works hard at it.

VinLieger

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think Downcow is paid by SF to awaken the hardcore republican in southerners. Works hard at it.

Indeed, i thanked a post by Francie today, might be a first

Fionn1952

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed, i thanked a post by Francie today, might be a first

We'll have half the SF thread come along shouting tiocfaidh ár lá any minute...

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My recollection is that you said how you now support the DUP. So you support them but have no time for them?

Link please? I think you are talking nonsense or else I was on drugs that day

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

My position has zero credibility? You are still trying to argue that Leo Varadkar, the Leader of Fine Gael, somehow has the ability to dole out threats on behalf of the IRA and other republican terrorist organisations.

I said he was using the threat of violence and I have posted the evidence. This is now getting tiresome

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed, i thanked a post by Francie today, might be a first

Ah here!

Marco23d

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think Downcow is paid by SF to awaken the hardcore republican in southerners. Works hard at it.

There's a hardcore republican in us all, even downcow.

briany

downcow wrote: »

I said he was using the threat of violence and I have posted the evidence. This is now getting tiresome

It wasn't incorrect of Varadkar to point out that a hardening of the Irish border could lead to political destabilisation and renewed dissident violence. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of pretty recent Irish history could look at the situation being presented to us in the early days of Brexit negotiation and arrive at the same conclusion. It wasn't something particularly mooted by the British government because their priority was to get the Brexit being pushed for by the ERG. Someone sensible had to step up and say, yes, this is potential consequence and we should do what we can to avoid it.

It's particularly important to note that when Varadkar raised these concerns, it went as far as wanting no border in Ireland. It didn't go as far as wanting an internal UK border between GB and NI. That came later, but if the UK government had softened its position on the CU, it wouldn't have been needed, but that was a red line for the UK government. Hence, it forced priorities to be chosen, and the Irish government's priority is - no border in Ireland.

So now we are at the situation where a border must go somewhere and we cannot have a situation where both communities are equally happy anymore, unless the UK government softens its position on the CU. The UK government started the border mess by voting for Brexit, it wasn't Varadkar's idea to vote of that, and its up to the UK government to solve it.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

I said he was using the threat of violence and I have posted the evidence. This is now getting tiresome

No he wasn't, he was warning of the likelihood of violence against any border outposts like you would warn a drunk trying to get into his car and drive that its a bad idea because the odds are high he would crash and injure himself as well as others.

downcow

briany wrote: »

It wasn't incorrect of Varadkar to point out that a hardening of the Irish border could lead to political destabilisation and renewed dissident violence. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of pretty recent Irish history could look at the situation being presented to us in the early days of Brexit negotiation and arrive at the same conclusion. It wasn't something particularly mooted by the British government because their priority was to get the Brexit being pushed for by the ERG. Someone sensible had to step up and say, yes, this is potential consequence and we should do what we can to avoid it.

It's particularly important to note that when Varadkar raised these concerns, it went as far as wanting no border in Ireland. It didn't go as far as wanting an internal UK border between GB and NI. That came later, but if the UK government had softened its position on the CU, it wouldn't have been needed, but that was a red line for the UK government. Hence, it forced priorities to be chosen, and the Irish government's priority is - no border in Ireland.

So now we are at the situation where a border must go somewhere and we cannot have a situation where both communities are equally happy anymore, unless the UK government softens its position on the CU. The UK government started the border mess by voting for Brexit, it wasn't Varadkar's idea to vote of that, and its up to the UK government to solve it.

I am afraid this does not have credibility.
If he was simply making everyone aware of the risk of destabilisation and potential violence, then he would have also referred to the dangers of placing checks internally in UK.
He didn’t and he wasn’t

This is so plane for you all to see , that your denials are really tiresome now

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am afraid this does not have credibility.
If he was simply making everyone aware of the risk of destabilisation and potential violence, then he would have also referred to the dangers of placing checks internally in UK.
He didn’t and he wasn’t

This is so plane for you all to see , that your denials are really tiresome now

He was responding to your guys ideas for managing the border.

What would have happened if he suggested the solution was a border in the Irish Sea?

That was your guys idea...time youse owned it. Nobody's fault but your own.

All we were concerned about was not having a hard border on the island.

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

No he wasn't, he was warning of the likelihood of violence against any border outposts like you would warn a drunk trying to get into his car and drive that its a bad idea because the odds are high he would crash and injure himself as well as others.

If there was two drunks getting into two cars One about to drive through a busy nationalist town and one about to drive through a busy unionist town, and Leo only warned the one about to drive through the nationalist town, then would there be any credibility in saying his sole interest was in saving as many lives as possible.
Guys you are in a cul de sac on this one

briany

downcow wrote: »

I am afraid this does not have credibility.
If he was simply making everyone aware of the risk of destabilisation and potential violence, then he would have also referred to the dangers of placing checks internally in UK.
He didn’t and he wasn’t

This is so plane for you all to see , that your denials are really tiresome now

As I said in my previous post, if you read it fully, when Varadkar pointed out that violence could return due to a hardening of the Irish border, he wasn't advocating for a sea border between NI and GB. That little idea was something worked out with the UK governments of May and Johnson. And anybody could tell that this would also be problematic as well. The unavoidable consequence of Brexit, given the red lines involved is that no matter where the border goes, in or around Ireland, one side is going to feel aggrieved, but in the face of that reality - that we cannot have it both ways, priorities must be chosen, and the Irish government's priority is clear - no border in Ireland.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

If there was two drunks getting into two cars One about to drive through a busy nationalist town and one about to drive through a busy unionist town, and Leo only warned the one about to drive through the nationalist town, then would there be any credibility in saying his sole interest was in saving as many lives as possible.
Guys you are in a cul de sac on this one

What are you talking about? When he warned of the dangers of the hard border he never mentioned that one should be put in the sea instead, in fact I don't think the idea of the sea border was even being discussed at that stage as his comments were made in October 2018 when the Backstop was still the only solution on the table so why would he be warning about something that nobody had ever suggested?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

What are you talking about? When he warned of the dangers of the hard border he never mentioned that one should be put in the sea instead, in fact I don't think the idea of the sea border was even being discussed at that stage as his comments were made in October 2018 when the Backstop was still the only solution on the table so why would he be warning about something that nobody had ever suggested?

He's been told this since he started going on about it.

The Irish Sea border was their idea.

I reckon Boris's intelligence services told him that Loyalists were a beaten docket and would not be able to mount a significant campaign of violence and he decided to shaft them.

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He's been told this since he started going on about it.

The Irish Sea border was their idea.

I reckon Boris's intelligence services told him that Loyalists were a beaten docket and would not be able to mount a significant campaign of violence and he decided to shaft them.

I don't think it's as simple as deciding to 'shaft' anyone. There was also the time the American politician Nancy Pelosi put it up to ERG mouthpiece Mark Francois and backed the Irish government's position on the Irish border, leaving Francois fairly flummoxed if reports are anything to go by. That was compounded by the last US election, where Republicans did not win the presidency, Congress, or the Senate, and putting the question of an economic partnership with the USA, in lieu of one with EU, decidedly in question.

This is not to mention looking at the situation and deciding, in simple logistical terms, that the Irish sea border would simply be easier to manage.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

I don't think it's as simple as deciding to 'shaft' anyone. There was also the time the American politician Nancy Pelosi put it up to ERG mouthpiece Mark Francois and backed the Irish government's position on the Irish border, leaving Francois fairly flummoxed if reports are anything to go by. That was compounded by the last US election, where Republicans did not win the presidency, Congress, or the Senate, and putting the question of an economic partnership with the USA, in lieu of one with EU, decidedly in question.

This is not to mention looking at the situation and deciding, in simple logistical terms, that the Irish sea border would simply be easier to manage.

Yes, but to make it happen he had to completely ignore Unionists, which would be shafting them in my book, especially when he said several times, he would never do it...even to their party conference in Belfast.

Junkyard Tom

The division of our country was a huge act of violence against the Irish people which was engineered by the threat of Unionist terrorism and British war. We have every right to resist hate-driven attempts to have the border re-hardened in an effort to reverse the stitching together of our nation.

There is an element within Unionism that would like nothing less than a heavily militarised 500km border wall running through Ulster, they look wistfully at Israel and think 'if only we could have it like that'. Remember, it's not all that long ago that prominent Unionists were calling for air strikes on Dundalk and gloating over no-warning bombs ripping through shoppers on the streets of Dublin.

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but to make it happen he had to completely ignore Unionists, which would be shafting them in my book, especially when he said several times, he would never do it...even to their party conference in Belfast.

He's also said to Unionists that the Irish sea border would not be a problem and that there would be no restrictions on trade. Look, Johnson was faced with an intractable problem in terms of getting his Brexit done and keeping NI sweet, and invariably one community was going to end up feeling like their wishes had been overlooked, but 'shafted', in this context, is a word that I don't really think helps lower the temperature.

Five Eighth

Unionists have their heads buried in the sand. They just don't want to face up to the historical fact that Tories don't give a jot about them nor Northern Ireland. The reality is that when push came to shove and the pressure was on the Tories 'to get Brexit done', Tory backbenchers (including the so called friends of the DUP - the ERG) kicked and started to turn on the DUP by asking how come the DUP tail is wagging the Tory dog? It is the Tories who traded a line down the Irish sea for a trade deal with the EU.

firemansam4

downcow wrote: »

Here you go https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newsletter.co.uk/news/leo-varadkar-references-ira-customs-post-bombing-highlight-importance-border-issue-241100%3famp
And he wasn’t honest enough to explain that The story was from 1972, when nine people were killed and six injured after a premature bomb explosion.

I know my consistency pisses people off on here. But I have no problem whether you say Leo was using the threat of violence or not, but please be consistent as the unionist politicians have learnt from him and are starting to do the same

And apologies for daring to be a Brit on your ‘Irish’ forum It would be much easier for you if it was a republican echo chamber

I would hazard a guess that there are many on this thread who do not consider themselves republican (myself included) who are just calling you out on your BS posts.

Now for a start there is nothing in that link that shows Leo made any threats of any sort.
He legitimately pointed out concerns of past violence in relation to the border.

The border has always been a huge contentious part of the troubles for many years and there was nothing wrong with him pointing that out.

You trying to make out that he in some way was threatening violence is ludicrous, although I have to say it is consistant with your posting style on these threads from what I have seen so far.

Now if you want to blame someone for not pointing out potential issues with a border in the Irish sea then you should be looking at your own glorious leader of the UK Boris Johnson who signed off on the brexit deal.

Brexit is entirely of the UK's own making with the full support of the DUP. The Irish government were perfectly entitled to protect its own interests as a consequence of brexit and pointing out the potential risks of violence at the border was perfectly legitimate.
It was up to the government in the UK to stand up for Unionist interests but unfortunately they decided to sell you down the river instead.

batman75

It doesn't bode well for the intellectual merit/abilities of the DUP as a party that they supported Brexit. Also that they trusted Boris Johnson a known compulsive liar and fantasist. Brexit coming to pass was logically going to require a border between the mainland (UK) and the island of Ireland whether that be sea or land.
The past year has been sobering for the DUP. They have turfed out Foster without any apparent unified candidate to take over. Their bloodlust may well instigate a split.
In terms of Belfast disturbances I think the customs border is just a cover for loyalist paramilitaries to send kids out onto the street to cause mayhem. I'm amazed the media is peddling the nonsense that the disturbances are driven by political developments.

RandomViewer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was responding to your guys ideas for managing the border.

What would have happened if he suggested the solution was a border in the Irish Sea?

That was your guys idea...time youse owned it. Nobody's fault but your own.

All we were concerned about was not having a hard border on the island.

Unionists have never been responsible for anything ever, Sammy Wilson still doesn't know who makes the toast in the morning but he's sure it's not him

downcow

firemansam4 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that there are many on this thread who do not consider themselves republican (myself included) who are just calling you out on your BS posts.

Now for a start there is nothing in that link that shows Leo made any threats of any sort.
He legitimately pointed out concerns of past violence in relation to the border.

The border has always been a huge contentious part of the troubles for many years and there was nothing wrong with him pointing that out.

You trying to make out that he in some way was threatening violence is ludicrous, although I have to say it is consistant with your posting style on these threads from what I have seen so far.

Now if you want to blame someone for not pointing out potential issues with a border in the Irish sea then you should be looking at your own glorious leader of the UK Boris Johnson who signed off on the brexit deal.

Brexit is entirely of the UK's own making with the full support of the DUP. The Irish government were perfectly entitled to protect its own interests as a consequence of brexit and pointing out the potential risks of violence at the border was perfectly legitimate.
It was up to the government in the UK to stand up for Unionist interests but unfortunately they decided to sell you down the river instead.

The blinkers being displayed time and again are incredible.
Read your own post again, particularly the last sentence.
You are confirming exactly what I am saying.
You expected Leo to stand up for one side and unionist politicians to stand up for the other.
And let’s examine what ‘stand up for ‘ means. If trouble kicks off by Ira over the Irish border it is mainly unionists/brits who will be the target of the terrorists, if trouble kicks off from uff over Irish Sea checks then it is Irish who will be the terrorists targets.

So in using (or highlighting, if you prefer) the potential of trouble from an Irish border but not doing same re internal U.K. border, Leo is clearly not motivated by saving Irish lives but rather is cynically using the threat of violence to get what he wants.

Why I say this is tiresome is that it is so blatantly obvious to us all here.
I would appreciate if a nationalist on here would break confluence and confirm the obvious. But that will take balls

downcow

batman75 wrote: »

It doesn't bode well for the intellectual merit/abilities of the DUP as a party that they supported Brexit. Also that they trusted Boris Johnson a known compulsive liar and fantasist. Brexit coming to pass was logically going to require a border between the mainland (UK) and the island of Ireland whether that be sea or land.
The past year has been sobering for the DUP. They have turfed out Foster without any apparent unified candidate to take over. Their bloodlust may well instigate a split.
In terms of Belfast disturbances I think the customs border is just a cover for loyalist paramilitaries to send kids out onto the street to cause mayhem. I'm amazed the media is peddling the nonsense that the disturbances are driven by political developments.

That post started off so well and right on the button. It deteriorated a bit in the middle and just got plain silly at the end.

But yes I agree with all your points on the dup

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

If trouble kicks off from uff over Irish Sea checks then it is Irish who will be the terrorists targets.

Did you just threaten us?

FrancieBrady

What did I say?

That downcow would just blithely ignore the posts pointing out that it was not us who suggested an Irish Sea border it was his government. Who were also proposing arrangements at the land border and were told that was not going to happen, ever.

Off they went, had a re-think and it was Boris who suggested the Irish Sea arrangement. That was acceptable to us and the rest of the EU.

firemansam4

downcow wrote: »

The blinkers being displayed time and again are incredible.
Read your own post again, particularly the last sentence.
You are confirming exactly what I am saying.
You expected Leo to stand up for one side and unionist politicians to stand up for the other.
And let’s examine what ‘stand up for ‘ means. If trouble kicks off by Ira over the Irish border it is mainly unionists/brits who will be the target of the terrorists, if trouble kicks off from uff over Irish Sea checks then it is Irish who will be the terrorists targets.

So in using (or highlighting, if you prefer) the potential of trouble from an Irish border but not doing same re internal U.K. border, Leo is clearly not motivated by saving Irish lives but rather is cynically using the threat of violence to get what he wants.

Why I say this is tiresome is that it is so blatantly obvious to us all here.
I would appreciate if a nationalist on here would break confluence and confirm the obvious. But that will take balls

The only blinkers being displayed here are by you, that and an absolute distorted version of reality.

Lets just put this plainly so you understand...

The Irish border was always a source of violence and trouble.
There was never an Irish sea border before, and to be fair it doesn't even compare, a few custom checks at ports compared to actual infrastructure and checks throughout a very long land border?

It is just something being used now by Unionists to stir up some sort of trouble to get your own way.

You still neglect to mention the fact that it was the British government who signed up to this on your behalf, your anger should really be directed in that direction. The Irish government will always be looking after its own interests here first and foremost I dont know how you can expect everything else.

Do you know there is a saying that if everyone else seems to be the problem then maybe it is not them but actually you that is the problem really.
You seem to be on a one man mission to argue your irrational case on behalf of unionists, and would argue black is white at this stage.