The Irish protocol.

It's everybody else's fault but Arlene's and Unionism's.

What?

The right of a people to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, and has been for a long time. It was already established by the First World War, when the Allies cited it as a ground for opposing the actions of the Central Powers, and of course it was fundamental in the post-war settlement that emerged - the reestablishment of independent Poland, the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire into separate nation-states, etc. In the course of the twentieth century it underpinned the dismantling of the colonial system, and it's constantly invoked today with reference to current international problems, such as the Palestinian question. It's explicitly stated in the UN Charter and a variety of other multilateral treaties and UN resolutions.

The thing is, while it's beyond argument that a people has a right in international law to self-determination, what's less clear is what is meant by "a people". At one end of the spectrum, the Polish nation is obviously a people; at the other end, the residents of 26 Acacia Avenue obviously are not. But where do you draw the line? There has been a strong tendency to equate a people with a nation; a historically-rooted community sharing common ethnic, linguistic, cultural, etc bonds and associated with a particular country. But multinational states obviously are reluctant to accept this; they are more inclined to say that a "people" is defined by political status; if you are governed by a foreign country and have limited or no participation in the politics of that country, you are a people with a right of self-determination, but if you participate fully along with other communities you are not. So in the case of France, for instance, the populations of France's various colonial possessions would on this view be peoples with a right of self-determination, but the population of Brittany, not so much. Or, consider Spain's position on Catalonia.

What exactly is meant by "people" has been an issue pretty much from the get-go; back in 1919 Dáil Éireann sent a delegation to the Paris Peace Conference seeking support for Ireland's exercise of the right of self-determination; they didn't get very far, because they were seeking independence from one of the victors in that war, rather than from one of the vanquished. And yet just a couple of years later the exercise of that right - albeit in a qualified form - was accepted by the UK, and an independent Irish state was established.

And you could ask the same question about Scotland today. In 2014 the UK conceded to Scotland the right to conduct an independence referendum and accepted that it would be bound by the outcome; that fairly clearly seems to treat the Scots as a people with a right of self-determination. But now the UK's position is that the Scots can only have an independence referendum if Westminster graciously concedes it to them; they have no right to such a thing and, by implication, they are not a people with a right to self-determination.

And that's where to situate the Good Friday Agreement. It's an international legal instrument that affirms the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own international political status; it affirms that they are a people with a right to self-determination. This is now beyond argument.

This is a little bit awkward for people who want to assert that there is one unified, indivisible Britain with one equal British nationality for all. The GFA affirms that the UK contains within it at least one people with a right to self-determination, a right which - as just pointed out - at least some commentators associate with national identity. It bolsters the view that the UK is a multinational state, and it lends at least indirect support to advocates of Scottish independence - how can the UK concede that NI is a people with a right of self-determination, and yet refuse to recognise that Scotland is too? And it fatally undermines the line that NI is "as British as Finchley" (though, to be fair, that's not a line that anyone has used very much in recent decades).

(Worth pointing out that it's similarly awkward for people who want to assert that there is one, unified, indivisible Ireland with one equal Irish nationality for all.)

Ohhh do you need to have the difference between someone warning of the potential for violence and threatening violence explained to you again?

Did i ever suggest they did? Your straw men are becoming desperate now downcow

Typical dumbass unionist, disagree with the protocol that they negotiated so lets burn a bus. Really shows their lack of intelligence and why they are so easily led.

That is the same as faking threats of violence against officials?

Ok. Think we have reached peak absurdity.

Absolute nonsense and yet another attempt to cover Unionist blushes.

Loyalists burn a bus.....and Blanch lands straight in with the attempt to steer the conversation to 'both sides.....' As predictable as it is insufferable.

Who made all these "threats" of violence, veiled or otherwise in fairness? I don't remember it and I probably have taken an unhealthy interest in the saga of Brexit.

I'm considering here either of the 2 political sides in NI [not paramilitaries], or the Irish, EU, UK politicians involved.

I don't recall it.

NI seems unstable, politics there is a long way from normality despite how much time has passed since the violence ended. I think Brexit means change is inevitable for NI and someone will not be happy whatever the final result here. Many people of all stripes have predicted impact of the UKs Glorious Brexit project on it would be political instability which could end up in violence from some quarter that is displeased with the outcome. That is not threatening violence. By default (no NI protocol or similar), the people most likely to be discomfited and angered are Nationalists in NI (and people living near the border on either side).

When was this?

A scenario that shows up the utter redundancy of this argument from blanch and yourself.

If the Taoiseach held up a printout of the conversation here, where you said that you 'could not guarantee your peacefulness' and then showed photos of protest marches with people setting themselves alight, that would be the Taoiseach's assessment of what might happen and we know that dissidents HAVE threatened to attach a hard border if one is re-imposed. It was not a threat, the threat came from those making them. That is a dutiful and responsible thing to consider before implementing any agreement or directive.

If there was a threat of violence from loyalists (which there was) then the onus and duty was on those who signed the Protocol on their side to consider that. They clearly didn't see the threat as significant and so far they have been right, with little to no crowds on the streets protesting and sporadic mindless violence from what was predominately youths.

The most serious threat was manufacturer by a Unionist Minister who became a party leader before having to fall on his sword as Unionists basically argued amongst themselves and threatened briefly to disrupt Dublin.