Belfast Disturbances

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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.

Well maybe you will tell us more. My understanding is that the British government fairly consistently stated that they would not establish a hard border.
You are just making stuff up now

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Francie if you want to enjoy your lunch, then have it before you read about the polls on some other threads lol not a good day for United irelanders

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well maybe you will tell us more. My understanding is that the British government fairly consistently stated that they would not establish a hard border.
You are just making stuff up now

:D The British said lots of things that were bull****...why I remember both Theresa May and Boris in Belfast promising they were not selling Unionism out...but they did, again and again.

Time to accept that downcow?

Junkyard Tom

Don't forget lads, DC considers himself a moderate unionist. A United Ireland will be a rescue mission of people sick-and-tired of having to put up with unionism in north.

briany

If NI Unionism wants to save itself, a high priority has to be washing the awful stink of Christian fundamentalism off of itself. It's not just constitutional change that Unionists object to, but also apparently many social reforms which are popular elsewhere on these islands, such as same-sex marriage.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Well maybe you will tell us more. My understanding is that the British government fairly consistently stated that they would not establish a hard border.
You are just making stuff up now

All of the original British proposals came down imaginary nonsense which meant that under WTO rules a hard border would be necessary in order to protect their trade area. Talk of non-existent technology performing the customs duties was idiotic.
Whilst the Brits never said outright that they would erect a hard border their proposals were so shallow that a hard border is what would have happened: no ifs or buts.
The EU side reminded them that a hard border between the UK and the EU would lead to vandalism which would mean that they need to be policed and the eventual escalation would require the army and the peace process would be over.
The British government faffing about with proposals about drones and such like meant that a hard border would be inevitable. This was down to the simple fact that the British government did not consider NI and the border when creating their Brexit proposals. It was the EU that kept asking them what they intended to do with the UK's only land border all the while the UK government were talking about taking back control.
Do you seriously not remember any of this or are you just out to waste all of our time?

downcow

briany wrote: »

If NI Unionism wants to save itself, a high priority has to be washing the awful stink of Christian fundamentalism off of itself. It's not just constitutional change that Unionists object to, but also apparently many social reforms which are popular elsewhere on these islands, such as same-sex marriage.

What makes you think unionists object to same-sex marriage??

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

All of the original British proposals came down imaginary nonsense which meant that under WTO rules a hard border would be necessary in order to protect their trade area. Talk of non-existent technology performing the customs duties was idiotic.
Whilst the Brits never said outright that they would erect a hard border their proposals were so shallow that a hard border is what would have happened: no ifs or buts.
The EU side reminded them that a hard border between the UK and the EU would lead to vandalism which would mean that they need to be policed and the eventual escalation would require the army and the peace process would be over.
The British government faffing about with proposals about drones and such like meant that a hard border would be inevitable. This was down to the simple fact that the British government did not consider NI and the border when creating their Brexit proposals. It was the EU that kept asking them what they intended to do with the UK's only land border all the while the UK government were talking about taking back control.
Do you seriously not remember any of this or are you just out to waste all of our time?

You are missing the point. Posters were saying that Leo didn’t highlight the threat of violence by checks on Irish Sea because apparently he didn’t and still doesn’t think there will be checks. They are implying that had he known that then he wouldn’t have ONLY held up photos of a 1972 muderous attack by the Ira, but rather would also have held up photos of the Dublin bombs.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

You are missing the point. Posters were saying that Leo didn’t highlight the threat of violence by checks on Irish Sea because apparently he didn’t and still doesn’t think there will be checks. They are implying that had he known that then he wouldn’t have ONLY held up photos of a 1972 muderous attack by the Ira, but rather would also have held up photos of the Dublin bombs.

Would you stop with this stupid line of questioning?
You are the one suggesting that Leo aka the EU should have warned the UK of the risks of checks at the ports. Firstly, a border down the Irish sea was not on the table at that time.
Secondly, there have been checks at the NI ports since whenever and the DUP were in favour of them. You may recall Ian Paisley's comment about Irish cows!
Lastly it was on the EU to protect its border with the UK. It was not on the EU to dictate how the UK implements internal checks outside of any agreement proposals.

Anyhow, I suspect you'll continue with this ridiculous line as long as you can because you've an agenda to hold onto, despite all facts to the contrary going against your view!

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

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

Again: huh???

What's ridiculous? Quick history lesson: at the time the Brexit negotiations started, the Tory party were in government, kept there by a confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP. The ERG were (still are) a highly influential sect within the Tory party. So the ERG+DUP were, to all intents and purposes, the British government and quite rightly, equivalent to the Irish government of the day.

And that British government laid out hard red lines that would have required a hard border between NI and the Republic.

When the DUP was exorcised from the corridors of power in Westminster, the new British government decided not to pursue such a hopeless course and (despite Johnson's promises to the DUP) put a softer border in the Irish Sea.

A British solution to a British problem created by successive British governments, as elected by British voters.

UDAWINNER

downcow wrote: »

What makes you think unionists object to same-sex marriage??

Name a unionist who openly supports it and still has a political job

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

The British. With the enthusiastic support of the DUP.

Can you provide any evidence of your claims?

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence of your claims?

British stated goals from the withdrawal agreement;

No freedom of movement
No single market
No border on the island of Ireland.

I presume you're not going to be obtuse enough to dispute this, so I'm moving on without a source.

Any suggestions for how all of the above can be achieved without a border in the Irish Sea?

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

British stated goals from the withdrawal agreement;

No freedom of movement
No single market
No border on the island of Ireland.

I presume you're not going to be obtuse enough to dispute this, so I'm moving on without a source.

Any suggestions for how all of the above can be achieved without a border in the Irish Sea?

If you can't provide a source which indicates the UK have suggested a hard border please don't bluster and waffle.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you can't provide a source which indicates the UK have suggested a hard border please don't bluster and waffle.

I'll post what I like, thanks very much Rob.

https://www.cer.eu/insights/theresa-mays-irish-trilemma

The trilemma caused by Brexit; an exit from the single market and customs union, no hard border with Ireland, and an all-UK approach to Brexit. Pick two

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55411621.amp

Your prime minister at the time set her stall out, committing HEAVILY to the first of those, leaving one of the latter two to be abandoned.

So when the first was prioritised and your government said NO PRIME MINISTER COULD COUNTENANCE the separation of NI from the Union in any way, that leaves only one option.

Fast forward to the backstop.

Your prime minister at the time then tried to weasel the DUP back on side by trying to abandon the commitments they made in the backstop, going back to the trilemma above, we're back to one option; a hard border in Ireland.

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/its-pretty-obvious-ireland-will-have-hard-border-in-no-deal-brexit-scenario-eu-37736909.html

Obviously, given the British government can be trusted about as far as you could throw them, it is no surprise that they went back on their word to NI Unionists when put back in their box by the US.



Steve Aiken of the UUP certainly believed the hard border in Ireland was a desired outcome among the DUP, and he could hardly be described as a Republican sympathiser

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-dup-ultras-want-hard-border-for-electoral-gain-mla-1.3810309%3fmode=amp


In fact the ERG within the Tory Party are STILL trying to dismantle the protocol (despite voting for it), which would inevitably result in a hard border in Ireland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/brexit-tory-mps-call-on-pm-to-scrap-northern-ireland-protocol-a-year-after-they-voted-for-it-12228787


So apart from suggestions of magic, sunshine and rainbows, at every possible opportunity the British pursued a course that would make a hard border in Ireland inevitable until knocked back by the grown ups in the room.

Given your carry on in the actual Brexit threads, I suspect another heaping dose of bad faith arguments from you, our resident Remain supporter who just so happens to spout every hard Brexiter cliche going.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'll post what I like, thanks very much Rob.

https://www.cer.eu/insights/theresa-mays-irish-trilemma

The trilemma caused by Brexit; an exit from the single market and customs union, no hard border with Ireland, and an all-UK approach to Brexit. Pick two

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55411621.amp

Your prime minister at the time set her stall out, committing HEAVILY to the first of those, leaving one of the latter two to be abandoned.

So when the first was prioritised and your government said NO PRIME MINISTER COULD COUNTENANCE the separation of NI from the Union in any way, that leaves only one option.

Fast forward to the backstop.

Your prime minister at the time then tried to weasel the DUP back on side by trying to abandon the commitments they made in the backstop, going back to the trilemma above, we're back to one option; a hard border in Ireland.

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/its-pretty-obvious-ireland-will-have-hard-border-in-no-deal-brexit-scenario-eu-37736909.html

Obviously, given the British government can be trusted about as far as you could throw them, it is no surprise that they went back on their word to NI Unionists when put back in their box by the US.



Steve Aiken of the UUP certainly believed the hard border in Ireland was a desired outcome among the DUP, and he could hardly be described as a Republican sympathiser

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-dup-ultras-want-hard-border-for-electoral-gain-mla-1.3810309%3fmode=amp


In fact the ERG within the Tory Party are STILL trying to dismantle the protocol (despite voting for it), which would inevitably result in a hard border in Ireland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/brexit-tory-mps-call-on-pm-to-scrap-northern-ireland-protocol-a-year-after-they-voted-for-it-12228787


So apart from suggestions of magic, sunshine and rainbows, at every possible opportunity the British pursued a course that would make a hard border in Ireland inevitable until knocked back by the grown ups in the room.

Given your carry on in the actual Brexit threads, I suspect another heaping dose of bad faith arguments from you, our resident Remain supporter who just so happens to spout every hard Brexiter cliche going.

I asked CelticRambler for evidence regarding the UK stating it wants a hard border and you took it upon yourself to spring into action like the white knight.To compound the absurdity of such a claim,in a rambling waffling post you haven't provided any evidence except a few tabloid type headlines.Pretty poor show fionn tbh.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I asked CelticRambler for evidence regarding the UK stating it wants a hard border and you took it upon yourself to spring into action like the white knight.To compound the absurdity of such a claim,in a rambling waffling post you haven't provided any evidence except a few tabloid type headlines.Pretty poor show fionn tbh.

Sorry....are you suggesting that unless the British government made a direct statement to that effect that no evidence will suffice?!?

Most people with an ounce of intellect and integrity understand the old adage that actions speak louder than words holds true. You've been given multiple reports, from a broad range of sources (both Irish and British) demonstrating that Britain actively pursued a course of action that would inevitably lead to a hard border in Ireland, and you want to act the eejit and say unless they made a direct statement to that effect, we should ignore their actual actions?!

Given your conduct any time Brexit is being discussed, why am I completely unsurprised that you want to play silly buggers instead of discussing it in good faith?

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I asked CelticRambler for evidence regarding the UK stating it wants a hard border and you took it upon yourself to spring into action like the white knight.

Has downcow hacked your account, Rob? This level of petty "show me the words" argument is a far cry from the standard of contributions you used to make on the Brexit thread. All that I would add to Fionn1952's comprehensive response is that Brexit in and of itself was a statement that the UK wanted a "hard" border with the EU - one with customs control points, cameras, guards, vehicle inspection areas and lorry parks, just like every other country that's not in the EU.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Has downcow hacked your account, Rob? This level of petty "show me the words" argument is a far cry from the standard of contributions you used to make on the Brexit thread. All that I would add to Fionn1952's comprehensive response is that Brexit in and of itself was a statement that the UK wanted a "hard" border with the EU - one with customs control points, cameras, guards, vehicle inspection areas and lorry parks, just like every other country that's not in the EU.

I'd say that the actions of the UK were crafted in an attempt to apply pressure on the EU but disagree that the UK actually wanted a hard border.This is all part of political 'display'imo for the likes of the ERG.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say that the actions of the UK were crafted in an attempt to apply pressure on the EU but disagree that the UK actually wanted a hard border.This is all part of political 'display'imo for the likes of the ERG.

I wouldn't actually disagree entirely with this; I don't actually think the UK actively WANTED a hard border....I suspect (as usual) the UK government didn't particularly give a toss, and the situation over here was so far down their list of priorities that they didn't really consider it. The goals they pursued just happened to make it a necessity (until they were put on the naughty step).

As Dom Cummings said, he didn't care if NI fell into the f*cking sea.....he wasn't alone with that.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I wouldn't actually disagree entirely with this; I don't actually think the UK actively WANTED a hard border....I suspect (as usual) the UK government didn't particularly give a toss, and the situation over here was so far down their list of priorities that they didn't really consider it. The goals they pursued just happened to make it a necessity (until they were put on the naughty step).

As Dom Cummings said, he didn't care if NI fell into the f*cking sea.....he wasn't alone with that.

I'd agree that how the situation might affect Ireland was overlooked by the UK but take that further to suggest it was also initially overlooked by the EU who then realised(before the UK)the significance of the NI/Ireland situation in the event of brexit and how it can be used as leverage.Any possibility that the UK could use this as leverage was quashed by the US making it clear that was unacceptable.

Penfailed

downcow wrote: »

What makes you think unionists object to same-sex marriage??

Maybe it's the fact that unionist politicians have been trying to block it for ages?

Penfailed

downcow wrote: »

You are missing the point. Posters were saying that Leo didn’t highlight the threat of violence by checks on Irish Sea because apparently he didn’t and still doesn’t think there will be checks. They are implying that had he known that then he wouldn’t have ONLY held up photos of a 1972 muderous attack by the Ira, but rather would also have held up photos of the Dublin bombs.

People aren't missing the point. You're making a completely different point to deflect.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd agree that how the situation might affect Ireland was overlooked by the UK but take that further to suggest it was also initially overlooked by the EU who then realised(before the UK)the significance of the NI/Ireland situation in the event of brexit and how it can be used as leverage.Any possibility that the UK could use this as leverage was quashed by the US making it clear that was unacceptable.

.....The EU didn't decide to pursue Brexit, Rob. Responsibility for foreseeing potential issues and outcomes lies with the party making the decision to change the status quo.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

suggest it was also initially overlooked by the EU who then realised(before the UK)the significance of the NI/Ireland situation in the event of brexit and how it can be used as leverage.

What's your starting point for the term "initially" ? Because the Irish government put it on the EU's agenda in 2015. A year before the referendum.

I think this displays the huge difference between the EU/RoI's approach to international politics and that of the UK: we listen to what's going on in the world, then imagine and plan for all possible outcomes, bearing in mind the likely ripple effects. The UK government (at least in its three previous incarnations) doesn't listen, doesn't think, doesn't plan - only reacts (and then often too late).

The "Belfast disturbances" are one more manifestation of this - they were entirely predictable, and predicted. The Irish government and the EU tried to open the Tory eyes to the problem they were creating, and offer constructive solutions. The Tories didn't listen, bumbled on with no plan, signed a bare-minimum agreement without reading it and now talk about trying to "sandpaper" the agreement into some kind of acceptable shape.

downcow

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Name a unionist who openly supports it and still has a political job

That is just a silly question as there are lots.

Anyhow, the point made was about unionists, not unionist politicians. Can you tell me what evidence you have that all unionists oppose same-sex marriage??

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

That is just a silly question as there are lots.

And yet you failed to answer the question.....

downcow wrote: »

Anyhow, the point made was about unionists, not unionist politicians. Can you tell me what evidence you have that all unionists oppose same-sex marriage??

Maybe that they vote for politicians who oppose same-sex marriage? Even if they don't openly oppose it simply voting for a politician who does openly oppose it means they don't care about equal rights for all which is a pretty small minded bigoted position.

UDAWINNER

downcow wrote: »

That is just a silly question as there are lots.

Anyhow, the point made was about unionists, not unionist politicians. Can you tell me what evidence you have that all unionists oppose same-sex marriage??

Well they didn't support a ban on coversion therapy, join the dots. Remember Paul Berry, was dropped very quickly
Answer the question if you can

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd agree that how the situation might affect Ireland was overlooked by the UK but take that further to suggest it was also initially overlooked by the EU who then realised(before the UK)the significance of the NI/Ireland situation in the event of brexit and how it can be used as leverage.Any possibility that the UK could use this as leverage was quashed by the US making it clear that was unacceptable.

I would disagree with your assertion that the EU overlooked NI simply because the government and Dept of Foreign Affairs held a presentation to their counterparts within the EU prior to the Brexit vote. The core theme of the presentation was how as a country you cannot trust the UK. The reception was one of shock but it did prepare the EU for the politically immature nonsense that was to come.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I would disagree with your assertion that the EU overlooked NI simply because the government and Dept of Foreign Affairs held a presentation to their counterparts within the EU prior to the Brexit vote. The core theme of the presentation was how as a country you cannot trust the UK. The reception was one of shock but it did prepare the EU for the politically immature nonsense that was to come.

I'm not trying to defend the UK government or brexit Seth . I'm pointing out,imo the UK and EU didn't initially recognise the importance of the Irish border in all of this.The penny dropped first with the EU and eventually with the UK,especially when the US made it crystal clear that even the mention of conditions which might result in a hard border would be unacceptable(even if only used as a bargaining tool).