Belfast Disturbances

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

Did you just threaten us?

This my highlight why our discussions are so tiresome. Your prejudice is so strong that you cant even read a post without putting an absurd slant on it.

Just to be open with you, I have reported it which I rarely do.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

This my highlight why our discussions are so tiresome. Your prejudice is so strong that you cant even read a post without putting an absurd slant on it.

Just to be open with you, I have reported it which I rarely do.

You can't see it or you refuse to see it?

If what Leo warned about was a 'threat' then you talking about Loyalist violence is a 'threat'.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

I am not ignoring it. It is just irrelevant to the discussion on Leo’s motives. I am happy to have a discussion on Boris’s motives but I don’t think we will be as far apart as I won’t adopt the blinkered view many here are with regard to Leo’s motives

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am not ignoring it. It is just irrelevant to the discussion on Leo’s motives. I am happy to have a discussion on Boris’s motives but I don’t think we will be as far apart as I won’t adopt the blinkered view many here are with regard to Leo’s motives

There was no Irish Sea proposal on the table when Leo made his comments. There was a proposal for a land border on the table. He pointed out 'possible violence' as PART of our rejection of that idea. We had the power and convinced the rest of the EU to reject that proposal.
The British went back to the drawing board and came up with the Irish Sea alternative, which he had told you guys he would never do.
Everyone knew that it wasn't ideal, that there was ALWAYS going to be downsides to Brexit for northern Ireland and that Unionists/Loyalists would be angry because they were the ones shafted. (they were warned about this BTW)

That was assessed by all sides to be the ONLY solution, it still is the only solution. The border is in place and it's staying.

downcow

firemansam4 wrote: »

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.

I am simply challenging the view that Leo did not use the threat of violence (or highlighting it if you prefer) to support his cause.

I am not condemning him for doing it nor am I saying he shouldn’t stick up for Roi. Of course he should, that’s his country. This is though now crystal clear that that was his motive for taking the photo of a 1972 murderous ira attack to the EU dinner. A smart move, but cynical and nothing to do with preventing murderous attacks.

Can we at least agree that.

If Arlene took a photo of the aftermath of the horrible Dublin bombings and held it up at the next all Ireland meeting to highlight the dangers of not minimising the checks in the Irish Sea, I would be extremely uncomfortable about what message she was sending - and would you not be complaining on here that she was using the threat of violence??

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am simply challenging the view that Leo did not use the threat of violence (or highlighting it if you prefer) to support his cause.

I am not condemning him for doing it nor am I saying he shouldn’t stick up for Roi. Of course he should, that’s his country. This is though now crystal clear that that was his motive for taking the photo of a 1972 murderous ira attack to the EU dinner. A smart move, but cynical and nothing to do with preventing murderous attacks.

Can we at least agree that.

If Arlene to a photo of the aftermath of the horrible Dublin bombings and held it up at the next all Ireland meeting to highlight the dangers of not minimising the checks in the Irish Sea, I would be extremely uncomfortable about what message she was sending - and would you not be complaining on here that she was using the threat of violence??

I would be certain the prospect of violence after an Irish Sea border was assessed. There was certainly plenty of media comment on it.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

If Arlene took a photo of the aftermath of the horrible Dublin bombings and held it up at the next all Ireland meeting to highlight the dangers of not minimising the checks in the Irish Sea,

This is the main reason we need a United Ireland as a strategic imperative. Unionism has always had the threat of British-backed terrorism over us and that threat gets neutered in a United Ireland.

briany

downcow wrote: »

If Arlene took a photo of the aftermath of the horrible Dublin bombings and held it up at the next all Ireland meeting to highlight the dangers of not minimising the checks in the Irish Sea, I would be extremely uncomfortable about what message she was sending - and would you not be complaining on here that she was using the threat of violence??

Leo: If border infrastructure goes up between RoI and NI, I'm concerned that Republican dissidents will target it. Here's a photo from when they last did it.

Arlene: If border infrastructure goes up between NI and GB, I'm concerned that Loyalist dissidents will target Dublin. Here's a photo of that.

Hrm...

I think the problem you have here is that in the case of Leo, it's concern over dissidents directly attacking the thing they object to, whereas in the case of Arlene, it's dissidents attacking something unrelated to the thing they don't like, and that would raise the question of why show pictures of the Dublin bombing when literally any photograph of any Loyalist bombing during the Troubles would be as applicable?

CelticRambler

firemansam4 wrote: »

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?

I'm not sure if there's a typo in there or what, but there has been an "Irish Sea border" between GB and every part of the island of Ireland for the last ten thousand years.

In more recent times, there has been an Irish Sea border between GB and NI, complete with infrastructure and identity checks, which never attracted much attention or dispute from the Unionist community.

From the signing of the GFA until the end of the Brexit transition period, there was a harder border between NI and GB than between NI and the Republic, including passport checks, x-ray scanning of personal belongings, veterinary import controls, etc and all the infrastructure to go with it.

In all that time, the Unionists never said a word, never complained about the unfairness of those border controls, never threatened violence against the people who operated those border posts. That is why, if you were sitting in a room in Dublin or London or Brussels, it made perfect sense to put the Brexit border in the Irish Sea - even for a simpleton like Johnson.

A British decision for the British people.

FrancieBrady

I think the reason Loyalism is meeting in the upstairs rooms of pubs and cannot muster anything but wreck your own neighbourhood violence from kids is that Unionism and Loyalism knows what happens if they go too far, the British government says...'ok, let's see what the NI people think?' and calls a Border Poll.
Do you want to go with the UK or stay in the EU with Ireland?

Unionists/Loyalists do not want that question asked.

CelticRambler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionism and Loyalism knows what happens if they go too far, the British government says...'ok, let's see what the NI people think?' and calls a Border Poll.
Do you want to go with the UK or stay in the EU with Ireland?

Unionists/Loyalists do not want that question asked.

Oh, I dunno. I mean the last time the Tories asked a "stay or leave" question of the British people, the Unionists/Loyalists got exactly the answer they wanted ... didn't they? :pac:

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

This my highlight why our discussions are so tiresome. Your prejudice is so strong that you cant even read a post without putting an absurd slant on it.

Just to be open with you, I have reported it which I rarely do.

LOL that just sailed right over your head didn't it?

downcow

briany wrote: »

Leo: If border infrastructure goes up between RoI and NI, I'm concerned that Republican dissidents will target it. Here's a photo from when they last did it.

Arlene: If border infrastructure goes up between NI and GB, I'm concerned that Loyalist dissidents will target Dublin. Here's a photo of that.

Hrm...

I think the problem you have here is that in the case of Leo, it's concern over dissidents directly attacking the thing they object to, whereas in the case of Arlene, it's dissidents attacking something unrelated to the thing they don't like, and that would raise the question of why show pictures of the Dublin bombing when literally any photograph of any Loyalist bombing during the Troubles would be as applicable?

You are saying Leo showed photo from last time they were attacked So they were left alone for 30 years of later existence?

But anyho this is all pedantic sand nonsense
It’s clear to everyone the reality.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You are saying Leo showed photo from last time they were attacked So they were left alone for 30 years of later existence?

But anyho this is all pedantic sand nonsense
It’s clear to everyone the reality.

Still hiding from the fact that there was no sea border proposal on the table when Leo made his comments and that it was Westminster's proposal.


I see Ben Lowry asking what is the point of Unionism if the border stays in the Irish Sea in the Newsletter.

Squeaky bum time when people like him are losing faith.

FrancieBrady

5 people.

https://twitter.com/Kscott_94/status/1388479700918493184

Sunny Disposition

Tbh the impact of a sea border will not be nearly as inconvenient as a hard north-south border. Clue is in the name, crossing the sea is by definition somewhat complex, there are far more people travelling between the north and south each day than between Britain and NI. If there has to be a border it is unquestionably in the right place.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still hiding from the fact that there was no sea border proposal on the table when Leo made his comments and that it was Westminster's proposal.
.

So who was seriously proposing a hard border in Ireland when he said it. ?

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

So who was seriously proposing a hard border in Ireland when he said it. ?

The British. With the enthusiastic support of the DUP.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

So who was seriously proposing a hard border in Ireland when he said it. ?

Anyone at that time who was pushing for either a hard brexit or opposed the backstop without a viable replacement was de facto also proposing a hard border. Just because they and likely you don't want to admit that basic fact doesn't make it any less true.

How about you now fill us in on why Leo should have been warning against a nonexistent plan for a sea border that nobody at the time had ever suggested? Should he also have been warning about Alien violence if they put the border in space? Or maybe violence from the lizard people if the border was put underground?

downcow

CelticRambler wrote: »

The British. With the enthusiastic support of the DUP.

So there we go. Same old same old republican hypocrisy. You know I could give the same meaningless answer to the question Francie is harping in about.

......while Francie scars google to find a answer that doesn’t hang himself, like yours does
lol

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

Anyone at that time who was pushing for either a hard brexit or opposed the backstop without a viable replacement was de facto also proposing a hard border. Just because they and likely you don't want to admit that basic fact doesn't make it any less true.

How about you now fill us in on why Leo should have been warning against a nonexistent plan for a sea border that nobody at the time had ever suggested? Should he also have been warning about Alien violence if they put the border in space? Or maybe violence from the lizard people if the border was put underground?

Hypocritical ditto again.
I could change a few words in your first paragraph and give Francie that meaningless answer. - unless of course you think checks in the Irish Sea were not inevitable if there were no checks at border.

Guys, Leo is proven guilty as charged, no matter how yous duck and dive

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

unless of course you think checks in the Irish Sea were not inevitable if there were no checks at border.

I think it was called the backstop?

Fionn1952

VinLieger wrote: »

I think it was called the backstop?

Or several other stopping points along the Brexit ladder which wouldn't have required EU/UK checks.

Penfailed

downcow wrote: »

Guys, Leo is proven guilty as charged, no matter how yous duck and dive

Guilty of what?

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

So there we go. Same old same old republican hypocrisy.

Huh?

You asked who was proposing a hard border with the Republic. The factual answer to that question is "the British". There's no hypocrisy about it. The Brexit favoured by the ERG and the DUP required a hard border between NI and RoI.

The government of the Republic of Ireland felt that was unreasonable, and the other 26 member states of the EU, along with the US, agreed and came up with a counter proposal. Ultimately, the ERG-become-Johnsonian-government decided that the EU-US solution was easier to live with than the hard border even now favoured by the DUP.

I thought you said a while ago that you only concern yourself with facts?

briany

VinLieger wrote: »

Anyone at that time who was pushing for either a hard brexit or opposed the backstop without a viable replacement was de facto also proposing a hard border. Just because they and likely you don't want to admit that basic fact doesn't make it any less true.

How about you now fill us in on why Leo should have been warning against a nonexistent plan for a sea border that nobody at the time had ever suggested? Should he also have been warning about Alien violence if they put the border in space? Or maybe violence from the lizard people if the border was put underground?

The original plan by no-deal advocates was that the UK would not erect border infrastructure. The hope was that they could get away with breaching international protocol for a while, and hope that the EU played it by the book, making Ireland erect border infrastructure. At this point the UK government could go, "Ah, what a pity. Well, it's only fair we do the same on our side. Pity about the GFA, but what can you do?", and slowly, over time, establish enough economic links with the EU through side deals to make things normal enough without ever needing the big deal that would have put the question of the border back on the table.

Lashes28

Penfailed wrote: »

Guilty of what?

Showing evidence that the last time there was border checks it caused violence on both sides of the border,which downcow seems to be more upset and obsessing over,rather than the fact Boris is guilty of settling on Northern Ireland getting the short straw.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

So who was seriously proposing a hard border in Ireland when he said it. ?

Are you seriously asking this question? :rolleyes:
This is a fundamental basic in the history of Brexit and is seriously question your knowledge of Brexit if you are unaware of this important part.

downcow

CelticRambler wrote: »

Huh?

You asked who was proposing a hard border with the Republic. The factual answer to that question is "the British". There's no hypocrisy about it. The Brexit favoured by the ERG and the DUP required a hard border between NI and RoI.

The government of the Republic of Ireland felt that was unreasonable, and the other 26 member states of the EU, along with the US, agreed and came up with a counter proposal. Ultimately, the ERG-become-Johnsonian-government decided that the EU-US solution was easier to live with than the hard border even now favoured by the DUP.

I thought you said a while ago that you only concern yourself with facts?

Let’s compare the erg and the dup with the Irish government. Wise up. Even I think that’s rediculous

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So there we go. Same old same old republican hypocrisy. You know I could give the same meaningless answer to the question Francie is harping in about.

......while Francie scars google to find a answer that doesn’t hang himself, like yours does
lol

Francie was at a funeral this morning. But I see you got your empathic answer and are still denying and hiding.

Exactly the same hiding from the truth and answers that the DUP have been hiding from and has resulted in the end of Arlene and the lurch to the right and the lunacy of Poots and Wells rather than face the truth. Bring it on.