Arlene, Edwin, her replacement and his replacement as leader of the DUP

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Protocol goes then it is up to the British to come up with a solution again or the Trade Deal collapses.

...and NI will be far far far worse off.
Poots, Trimble and all those seeking to remove the NIP are actively seeking to damage the position of NI! :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and NI will be far far far worse off.
Poots, Trimble and all those seeking to remove the NIP are actively seeking to damage the position of NI! :rolleyes:

Jim Allister's solution last night was for the relevant minister to refuse to implement the workings of the Protocol and resigning if forced to implement it. He said if it was him, he would supply a line of MLA's to fill the post and keep resigning until they remove the Protocol.

This ^ is the leadership alternative that belligerent Unionism has been reduced to.

realdanbreen

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wonder what prompted them to single out that particular dance style for opprobium. Do they have a position on twerking? Grinding? Dabbing?

I take it Lap dancing is a no no .

breezy1985

What have they got against line dancing. I thought presbyterians are pro contraception ?

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jim Allister's solution last night was for the relevant minister to refuse to implement the workings of the Protocol and resigning if forced to implement it. He said if it was him, he would supply a line of MLA's to fill the post and keep resigning until they remove the Protocol.

This ^ is the leadership alternative that belligerent Unionism has been reduced to.

The zoom call camera doesn't do Jim any favours. Before he just sounded crazy now he looks it! As for Stephen Nolan I thought he over egged the cone of silence around the DUP. None of the main parties north or south hold party elections in public, why should they. I think Donaldson will edge it because even the evangelical wing of the party don't believe in the creationist nonsense that poots expouses.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

The zoom call camera doesn't do Jim any favours. Before he just sounded crazy now he looks it! As for Stephen Nolan I thought he over egged the cone of silence around the DUP. None of the main parties north or south hold party elections in public, why should they. I think Donaldson will edge it because even the evangelical wing of the party don't believe in the creationist nonsense that poots expouses.

Agree...when Nolan is the prime 'journalist' on TV and Radio platforms I wouldn't blame anyone for avoiding and ignoring his toxic brand.

New leader depends on what the DUP fear most, The Alliance or the TUV.

AdrianG08

Its going to be fascinating, I actually fully expected Poots to succeed Foster with no opposition.

The fact Donaldson (who would actually be a steady enough hand) threw his hat into the ring makes things interesting as he is shrewd and wouldn't have done so unless he fancied his chances.

He is definately more moderate (i'd argue hes even more moderate in his beliefs than Foster, he is church of ireland). But I struggle to see how he will appease the hardliners, because although he talks a good game, he is no hard liner.

Poots would, although his game is to be seen to be making a stand but he knows theres a degree of inevitability to the protocol.

Unionism has really backed itself into a corner, a return to the old "Never" guff won't do them any favours, but neither will being seen as appeasers to the big bad republican agenda.

Loving Jamie Bryson repeating his few stock phrases over and over, "the violence rewarding protocol", it obviously got some traction first, now hes on dutch radio and the like spouting rubbish, whilst trying to juggle his voice of working mans Unionism with legal advocacy which seems to be his buzz at the minute.

Its such a strange place, it really is. They should compromise and go out on their own, nobody is allowed be Irish of British, simply Norn Iron.

realdanbreen

AdrianG08 wrote: »

Its going to be fascinating, I actually fully expected Poots to succeed Foster with no opposition.

The fact Donaldson (who would actually be a steady enough hand) threw his hat into the ring makes things interesting as he is shrewd and wouldn't have done so unless he fancied his chances.

He is definately more moderate (i'd argue hes even more moderate in his beliefs than Foster, he is church of ireland). But I struggle to see how he will appease the hardliners, because although he talks a good game, he is no hard liner.

Poots would, although his game is to be seen to be making a stand but he knows theres a degree of inevitability to the protocol.

Unionism has really backed itself into a corner, a return to the old "Never" guff won't do them any favours, but neither will being seen as appeasers to the big bad republican agenda.

Loving Jamie Bryson repeating his few stock phrases over and over, "the violence rewarding protocol", it obviously got some traction first, now hes on dutch radio and the like spouting rubbish, whilst trying to juggle his voice of working mans Unionism with legal advocacy which seems to be his buzz at the minute.

Its such a strange place, it really is. They should compromise and go out on their own, nobody is allowed be Irish of British, simply Norn Iron.

Funnily enough a real NI state is what I have seen as the best solution for some time. It would require, but would get from EU,USA, UK, massive funding for a period but it would be totally autonomous. It would also in time rid itself of its sectarian divide which lets face will be there to stay in a united Ireland or a continuation of British rule.

blanch152

realdanbreen wrote: »

Funnily enough a real NI state is what I have seen as the best solution for some time. It would require, but would get from EU,USA, UK, massive funding for a period but it would be totally autonomous. It would also in time rid itself of its sectarian divide which lets face will be there to stay in a united Ireland or a continuation of British rule.

A real NI state, member of the EU (bigger than Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia), while also retaining membership of the Commonwealth, creating an all-island economy, but retaining independence, with EU oversight of human rights and equality, would be a workable solution.

realdanbreen

blanch152 wrote: »

A real NI state, member of the EU (bigger than Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia), while also retaining membership of the Commonwealth, creating an all-island economy, but retaining independence, with EU oversight of human rights and equality, would be a workable solution.

Absolutely. It could be the new Monaco, minus the good weather.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A real NI state, member of the EU (bigger than Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia and Latvia), while also retaining membership of the Commonwealth, creating an all-island economy, but retaining independence, with EU oversight of human rights and equality, would be a workable solution.

....that can't and never will be able to govern itself, as 100 years of partition has tragically proved over and over again.

Drawing board thata way >>>>

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

....that can't and never will be able to govern itself, as 100 years of partition has tragically proved over and over again.

Drawing board thata way >>>>

But a new independent state would not have partition or union on the agenda. Unfortunately I don't see too many parties or politicians up there with that kind of vision. The entrenched and vested interests, on both sides, will see to it that nothing will change.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

But a new independent state would not have partition or union on the agenda. Unfortunately I don't see too many parties or politicians up there with that kind of vision. The entrenched and vested interests, on both sides, will see to it that nothing will change.

So, you impose an independent state, (and it would have to be 'imposed' as nobody is looking for one politically) and 'Unionists' and those who want to end partition would just go along with it and live happily ever after? Come on Dan. :rolleyes:

AdrianG08

realdanbreen wrote: »

But a new independent state would not have partition or union on the agenda. Unfortunately I don't see too many parties or politicians up there with that kind of vision. The entrenched and vested interests, on both sides, will see to it that nothing will change.

And don't forget conflict/sectarian politics gets alot of people paid

This leadership race reminds me of the tagline from Alien Vs Predator.

"Whoever wins, we lose"

mehico

realdanbreen wrote: »

But a new independent state would not have partition or union on the agenda. Unfortunately I don't see too many parties or politicians up there with that kind of vision. The entrenched and vested interests, on both sides, will see to it that nothing will change.

Apart from a small cohort in a few loyalist groupings and some posters on Boards, I am not aware of any meaningful support advocating for this idea in the mainstream or in political circles.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, you impose an independent state, (and it would have to be 'imposed' as nobody is looking for one politically) and 'Unionists' and those who want to end partition would just go along with it and live happily ever after? Come on Dan. :rolleyes:

An imposed British occupation of the North has not worked, has it? So what makes you think that an imposed " United Ireland " which is what the bones of a million unionists would regard it as , would work. But like I say vested interests and party politics will not countenance any meaningful change.

realdanbreen

mehico wrote: »

Apart from a small cohort in a few loyalist groupings and some posters on Boards, I am not aware of any meaningful support advocating for this idea in the mainstream or in political circles.

Were you expecting some member of SF to voice the opinion that a united ireland might not be a workable idea or someone in the DUP to propose that the north leave the union?

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

An imposed British occupation of the North has not worked, has it? So what makes you think that an imposed " United Ireland " which is what the bones of a million unionists would regard it as , would work. But like I say vested interests and party politics will not countenance any meaningful change.

Do you realise that an independent NI separates Unionists from their Union?

Nobody is advocating the 'imposition' of a UI.

The tortured and tragic path to the GFA agreed that the majority decision has to be respected and that consent is the only way forward.

The kicking and screaming of partitionists and Unionists when it looks like that may happen is reneging on that agreement. And the construction of a veto for Unionists is also reneging and duplicitous.

Nationalists have allowed democracy take it's course since the GFA...it's now time for those who rush to the high moral ground muttering about 'democracy' all the time to live by their creed.

mehico

realdanbreen wrote: »

Were you expecting some member of SF to voice the opinion that a united ireland might not be a workable idea or someone in the DUP to propose that the north leave the union?

Not at all.

Fionn1952

realdanbreen wrote: »

Were you expecting some member of SF to voice the opinion that a united ireland might not be a workable idea or someone in the DUP to propose that the north leave the union?

Don't you think if there was a significant desire among the populace for the idea that someone would've cropped up to represent them and had some sort of noteworthy support?

The idea has been floated and soundly rejected by the electorate. I can't think of a single person back home who would advocate the idea, it seems to be solely in the wheelhouse of a small section of absolutely hardline Loyalists and a few supposedly well meaning folk who were happy to agree to the GFA, but as discussions pick up around it are starting to panic.

The same folk who keep coming up with these ideas in a panic also seem to regularly smugly assure everyone that it isn't happening any time soon, so why the panic among such a self assured crowd, I don't know. That's probably the Shinners fault too.

blanch152

realdanbreen wrote: »

But a new independent state would not have partition or union on the agenda. Unfortunately I don't see too many parties or politicians up there with that kind of vision. The entrenched and vested interests, on both sides, will see to it that nothing will change.

My hope is that this is the endgame of the Alliance staying neutral on the constitutional issue. It is where normal young people in the North are going, aside from the headbanger extremists.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Don't you think if there was a significant desire among the populace for the idea that someone would've cropped up to represent them and had some sort of noteworthy support?

The idea has been floated and soundly rejected by the electorate. I can't think of a single person back home who would advocate the idea, it seems to be solely in the wheelhouse of a small section of absolutely hardline Loyalists and a few supposedly well meaning folk who were happy to agree to the GFA, but as discussions pick up around it are starting to panic.

The same folk who keep coming up with these ideas in a panic also seem to regularly smugly assure everyone that it isn't happening any time soon, so why the panic among such a self assured crowd, I don't know. That's probably the Shinners fault too.

If you talk to a young person from Northern Ireland living abroad, it is nearly 100% their position, as they see themselves as neither Irish nor British. Many left Northern Ireland because they were sick and tired of the old dated rhetoric from the old men and women of hate politics.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you realise that an independent NI separates Unionists from their Union?

Nobody is advocating the 'imposition' of a UI.

The tortured and tragic path to the GFA agreed that the majority decision has to be respected and that consent is the only way forward.

The kicking and screaming of partitionists and Unionists when it looks like that may happen is reneging on that agreement. And the construction of a veto for Unionists is also reneging and duplicitous.

Nationalists have allowed democracy take it's course since the GFA...it's now time for those who rush to the high moral ground muttering about 'democracy' all the time to live by their creed.

Amazing how it's now just an acceptable thing to sign up to agreements and then break them when they no longer suit your side. Becoming a quintessentially British thing these days.

The GFA has an agreed route and path to a UI and should it happen then it should be respected. Alas the unionists look at the likes of Bojo ignoring all agreements and rules and seem to want to take a leaf from his book here.

If only NI could move more middle ground and away from the extremes - doesn't seem likely any time soon.

I kinda hope that the DUP going off on a mad one post Arlene will help this happen. Wil;l have to wait and see though

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you realise that an independent NI separates Unionists from their Union?

Nobody is advocating the 'imposition' of a UI.

The tortured and tragic path to the GFA agreed that the majority decision has to be respected and that consent is the only way forward.

The kicking and screaming of partitionists and Unionists when it looks like that may happen is reneging on that agreement. And the construction of a veto for Unionists is also reneging and duplicitous.

Nationalists have allowed democracy take it's course since the GFA...it's now time for those who rush to the high moral ground muttering about 'democracy' all the time to live by their creed.

I'm sure you will agree that the result of a border poll should it favour a United Ireland will be marginal. Can you then accept that the 47% or whatever who lose are unlikely to peacefully merge into a UI. The same applies if the poll favours remaining in the union, just years and years continued division. Like I say any DUP or Sf member who proposed ditching decades old failed policies would swiftly find themselves on the ( at best) political scrapheap.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

If you talk to a young person from Northern Ireland living abroad, it is nearly 100% their position, as they see themselves as neither Irish nor British. Many left Northern Ireland because they were sick and tired of the old dated rhetoric from the old men and women of hate politics.

Are you genuinely trying to assert that almost 100% of young people from NI living abroad support an independent NI? Christ almighty, Blanch. The assertions you'll make (without evidence) are ridiculous; between this and your claim that Alliance support NI independence, it is verging on parody.

For the record, I left NI because I was sick and tired of the old rhetoric of hate politics. I know many who did the same, across many parts of the world. I know many people who consider themselves Northern Irish, some primarily, some exclusively, some (like myself) secondarily. The only people I've ever met who support NI independence come from a hardline Loyalist position, it is NOT and never has been the position held by moderates.

I don't understand the logic behind the blatant mistruth that is your repeated attempts to rebrand Ulster Separatism as a moderate position when absolutely anyone with even the most shallow of exposure to NI knows that just isn't true.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm sure you will agree that the result of a border poll should it favour a United Ireland will be marginal. Can you then accept that the 47% or whatever who lose are unlikely to peacefully merge into a UI. The same applies if the poll favours remaining in the union, just years and years continued division. Like I say any DUP or Sf member who proposed ditching decades old failed policies would swiftly find themselves on the ( at best) political scrapheap.

Dan...deal with this. You are proposing separating Unionists from the Union in an 'independent NI'.

Their position would be no more secure in a IND NI as at any time a majority could still elect to join a UI

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you realise that an independent NI separates Unionists from their Union?
obody is advocating the 'imposition' of a UI.

ed.

I figured that alright. However I also know, as do you if you are to be honest, that an independent NI is a lot more appealing to Unionists and many Nationalists to be honest than a united Ireland is.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

I figured that alright. However I also know, as do you if you are to be honest, that an independent NI is a lot more appealing to Unionists and many Nationalists to be honest than a united Ireland is.

If it was to any significant number, like partitionism, it would have found a political voice to speak for it.

It hasn't, work that out.

BonnieSituation

realdanbreen wrote: »

An imposed British occupation of the North has not worked, has it? So what makes you think that an imposed " United Ireland " which is what the bones of a million unionists would regard it as , would work. But like I say vested interests and party politics will not countenance any meaningful change.

Imposed United Ireland?

As partitionists are always ar pains to shout about "CONSENT", surely then this works both ways?

A UI can only come about by strictly democratic means. Nothing will be imposed, no matter how hard partitionists and belligerent loyalists bleat about it.

An independent NI is not on the agenda and is in direct contravention of the GFA. You know, that document that a majority of the people of Ireland voted for in 2 referenda in 1998. You're not against democracy surely?