The Irish protocol.

If myself and my wife start at 9am amd now work in different timezones I'm waking her up an hour earlier than she needs to and getting home when she's still in work. Not to mention kids activities etc. It's a complete pain in the ar$e and regardless of pedantics over the word 'commute' it changes your entire day, which is the main point.

Most couples start work at different times

Speaking as a scientist I have never heard such a crazy idea as changing the time zone between two countries on the same longitude to satisfy some people's political ideology.

In fairness (and leaving blanch's alleged political ideology aside), the case for changing the time zone is to keep us in consistent synchronisation with the rest of the EU all year round, if they go ahead with the plan of no longer changing the clock. Thus maintaining the current system that we are always 1 hour difference with certain EU countries, always 2 hours differences with others, and always level with Portugal.

If we aren't able to veto it (and it does appear likely to be a qualified majority vote), then which is scientifically better in your opinion. a) a different time zone to UK/NI for 5 months of the year or b) our offset against the rest of the EU changing twice a year. Because it's one or the other.

I never said it would quadruple. I said it adds an hour to my morning commute, which it does.

I also said it was my opinion of hell. My workday syncs with my wife's, an hour change to our current setup due to our jobs moving into different timezones would be a nightmare (for us). I'm sure there's plenty like us but as you say, there could also be setups were it could be great for some people.

But on the other hand you could get home before you'd even left work in the evening.😉

Derren Brown could learn a thing or two about misdirection and mind control from Boris Johnson. Notwithstanding the fact that the U.K. are on the brink of breaking one of the most important peace treaties since the Second World War but with a simple slight of hand people are more interested in the possible time difference between north and south of the border. At the end of the day it will be irrelevant what time it is when we are witnessing the start of the Troubles 2.0.

Ireland is noway near big enough to justify it being in two timezones.

I think the EU as the ones who are proposing the change rather than the UK should have to give way here. The UK had to give way with the NIP as they were the instigators of brexit but now it is the EU who are rocking the apple cart with their proposals. We should be allowed opt out.

If we did stay on summer time it would mean kids would be cycling to school when it's dark during the winter. That is not good from a safety piont either.

Pretty embarrassing to see Charlie Flanagan whinging to the EU about trying to halt finishing these silly hour changes

Most people in Ireland and the EU are ready to stop them, Ireland joined the EU for economic reasons, the North is in the same economic zone as Ireland and the EU, therefore the North, no doubt, would opt to be on the same time zone of the rest of the country and the EU

If a few silly loyalists insist it is a different time, then so be it

Article 2

"It is the birthright and entitlement of everyone born on the island of Ireland which includes its islands and seas to be part of the Irish nation"

The UK's a state. Whether you regard the people of the UK as constituting a nation, or several nations, is a matter of debate and, to some extent, a matter of controversy (and not just in NI; ask them in Scotland whether the Scots are a nation, or just a subset of a UK nation). Precisely because it's a matter of controversy touching on national identity, any consideration of issues in Northern Ireland which requires people to commit to one view or the other on this question is pretty certainly going nowhere. We have to accommodate divergent views on this.

The GFA does this by recognising both views and affirming their validity. It's true that, as already pointed out, the GFA acknowledges the Irish government's undertaking (since fulfilled) to amend the Constitution to affirm "the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland . . . to be part of the Irish nation". But it also directly affirms "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose". So NI people have a dual birthright - to Irishness and to Britishness. Not only that, but the GFA affirms that these birthrights are fully compatible with one another - you can be Irish and British.

How does the question of nation map onto the question of statehood? The fundamental principle of political nationalism (not in the sense of Irish nationalism, and not in the sense of fascism-masquerading-as-nationalism, but in the sense of classic political nationalism) is that a nation is entitled to self-determination and is the appropriate community to erect a state for its self-government. That's a bit of a problem, because how can NI be a part of a unified Irish state with the rest of the Irish nation, and also part of a unified British state embracing the rest of the British nation? Any kind of joint sovereignty/condominium/joint authority would be more likely to effectively make it part of neither, rather than part of both.

The GFA attempts to square this circle (a) by affirming NI's right to make a collective choice to be part of either the Irish or the British state, as a majority wishes, and (b) to provide a structure for government within NI which seeks to afford equal recognition, equal respect, equal esteem to both national identities.

We all know the problem with Brexit, or at least with hard Brexit. The offence/imposition/burden/whatever you want on the minority community of not being within the state corresponding to their national identity was minimised by the fact of both states being EU members. This was the context within which the GFA was negotiated, and was part of what made the GFA compromises an acceptable, workable solution. Hard Brexit therefore undermines the GFA. It makes little difference whether it is undermined through ignorance or through malice - either way, it's done.

The result is that (at least) one community in NI must now find that the GFA settlement works less satisfactorily for them than it did before.

This is wholly the fault of the British government and of the unconstrained unilateral choices which it has made, and still makes. Nobody in Northern Ireland is to blame for it (except those who supported the British government making those choices). Nobody in Ireland is to blame for it. Nobody in the EU is to blame for it.

The NI Protocol, it seems to me, is the least bad solution to the problem thus created. Better solutions are obviously possible, but they are ruled out by the position and attitudes of the British government. If we take the British government's positions as a parameter within which the problem must be addressed, then I don't see a better viable way of addressing it than the NI Protocol.

If British people in NI are unhappy about the Protocol, they don't need to persuade me of that. I completely understand that they are unhappy, and why they are unhappy. But there's only two ways to address their unhappiness.

1. Persuade the British government to alter its Brexit position. The best opportunities for doing this were, I think, squandered. Such is the disregard and disdain that the current British government feels for the people of NI, getting them to change their Brexit stance now for NI's benefit is unlikely. So this is perhaps more of a theoretical option than a practically available one. Still, I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying.
2. Prove me wrong, and devise a practical solution with the parameters set by the British government's position that improves the lot of the British people of NI without making matters worse for the Irish people of NI than they already are.

It was the British government who decided to conduct the referendum in the first place.

It was also the British government who decided to conduct it on a non-binding basis (so that illegalities couldn't be challenged in the courts) but also decided that, despite not being bound by the outcome, they would regard themselves as bound by the simple majority outcome without regard to the wishes and interests of the constituent parts of the UK.

It was also the British government that decided, well after the referendum, that "Brexit" would mean a hard Brexit that would require a border on one side of NI or the other.

And there lies the answer to your question. The UK could have chosen, with complete integrity, to pursue a form of Brexit that would not require a hard border on any side of Northern Ireland. That would give the people of the UK what they voted for, since they never voted - nor were they allowed to vote - for any particular model of Brexit in preference to any other.

In the 2016 referendum - as no doubt you recall - the question on the ballot paper was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The permitted responses (tick one only!) were:

1) Remain a member of the European Union

2) Leave the European Union

Given the result of the referendum, any course of action which led to the UK no longer being listed on the Wikipedia page entitled "List of Member States of the European Union" would discharge the mandate conferred the referendum. So they could easily have adopted "mustn't result in a hard border on either side of NI" as a criterion in framing the form of Brexit they pursued, and sought e.g. a Norway-style relationship with the EU, customs union membership, things of that kind.

The referendum result did not mandate a form of Brexit that would result in an NI border over any other form. If the UK had wanted a mandate for such a Brexit, they could of course have sought one, either by framing the 2016 question more specifically, or by conducting a second referendum once they had worked out what it was they wanted. (As I recall that was suggested to them quite forcefully, but they seemed very averse to the idea.)

(The closest they ever came to a seeking or getting mandate for a particular form of Brexit was in 2019, when the Tory party campaigned in the general election on a manifesto of implementing the Withdrawal Agreement (inc NI Protocol) that they had just negotiated. And of course they got an 80-seat majority in that election, which in UK terms is considered a pretty resounding mandate to implement the manifesto of the lucky winner. So if it's a question of 'giving the UK people what they voted for", well, the NI Protocol, as negotiated and signed, is part of that package. So maybe this "give the people the Brexit they voted for" argument is one that people who are unhappy about the Protocol should think twice before advancing. Just sayin'.)

Interestingly that poll said that desire to remain in the UK doesnt equate to desire to vote unionist. I take that as a sign that NI, in the UK but with the protocol is a nice place to be and the protocol does not lead to a UI. Unionists are losing their shirts over something that really isn't an issue for their constitutional preferences

What is clear is that Unionist politicians and belligerent unionists (not ordinary unionists) are playing the Pied Piper tune once again and leading their people up a hill without their permission, and to a place they clearly do not want to go. There is the distinct possibility that they lose the room altogether.