NI Dec 22 Assembly Election

It may be tedious to you but there is extreme anger in my community that someone who knows nothing of the suffering at the hands of the Ira would hold up pictures of murderous actions of the Ira to progress his case. It’s simply disgusting. I actually don’t understand why you guys don’t get it.

can you imagine if a British politician had held up photos of Bloody Sunday and said that if there are forced checks within the Uk then ‘there is a real risk of violence’. You guys seem emotionally disconnected from what happened here. It should never be used for negotiating purposes

You're being less than honest here, downcow.

What Varadkar actually said was that there is a real risk of a return to violence in Ireland if a hard border returns.

But what you said in post #563 is that "the roi side are telling them [the EU] that if they do that [agree changes to the Protocol] then the Irish will become violent and restart the terrorist campaign".

Every single element of what you said about that is untrue.

In particular, Varadkar's statement was made long before the Protocol was conceived of. Neither Varadkar nor anyone else has ever that the EU agreeing changes to the Protocol risks a return to violence. You do the unionist cause no service by propagating lies like this.

We both know what the real problem here is; the Westminster political establishment, and in particular that part of it currently in power, rates the strength of the union, the health of the GFA and peace process, and the wishes, interests and welfare of Northern Ireland as all being less important that an ideologically pure hard Brexit. That, and that alone, is the reason why NI has the Protocol. Neither the EU nor IRL nor Varadkar are in any way responsible for this positioning by the Westminster political establishment. (Thought the DUP, for whom you still intend to vote, have enthusiastically supported it.)

This is a problem for unionism. One of the distinctive features of the union between GB and NI is that, most of the time, NI has next to no influence in it. NI has an insignificantly small number number of MPs in the Westminster Parliament, and never has any representatives in the Westminster Government. The parties that always form that government do not have, and largely do not seek, any political representation in or mandate from NI.

This isn't normally a problem. The British-identifying people of NI have effectively no say in the formation of, say, UK defence policy, or UK fiscal policy or whatever. But they don't greatly mind this; they are happy to be subject to common UK governance, policies, etc precisely because these things are common to the UK as a whole. And this is fine; it's not greatly different from, say, the people of Achill Island being subject to the policies, governance, etc of IRL even though they are too small in number to have any influence over them.

Where the wheels start to come off, however, is when UK law and/or policy with respect to the union itself is repugnant to unionists. This highlights an internal contraction in unionism — on the one hand, commitment to being subject to UK policies over which you have no influence or control precisely because they are UK policies; on the other hand, UK policies which evidence nothing but disdain and disregard for you. Obviously, in this situation, something has to give.

This obsession with Varadkar, this parading around Dublin with coffins, this misrepresentation of and blatant lying about Varadkar's comments — they are all part of an effort to distract attention from this contradiction within unionism. (Perhaps, indeed, to distract unionists' own attention. It may not be us you are trying to fool here, but yourself.)

Unionism deserves better. A confident unionism, with a degree of self-belief, would not accept disdain and disregard from Westminster. It would call out the UK government's policies that required the Protocol and demand that they be changed. It would not look to the EU and IRL to do this for them. And it certainly would not engage in an absurd and hopeless campaign of lies and distraction to try and bully the EU and IRL to do this for them.

Why don't unionists call for Westminster to modify policies which cause such harm to NI? Because they expect Westminster to say "no" — they understand that Westminister despises them. And they don't want to hear that said out loud. So they're like an abused spouse, publicly supporting and defending the spouse that abuses them and blaming the bruises and the blood on something, or someone, else.

It won't work — it can't. The only person who can stop hitting you is the person who is hitting you. If you're not prepared to leave the relationship — and unionists, by definition, are not — then the only course open to you is to change the relationship. What do you need to do to get the Westminster establishment to treat you with minimal respect? Identify that, and do it. The toadying and enabling that's going on now is the opposite of what unionism needs.

In the first place, downcow, in post #563 you weren't saying something that was being misunderstood; you were saying something that was untrue. It would be good to have an acknowledgement of that. Neither Varadkar nor IRL have ever opposed changes to the NI Protocol on the basis that they would lead to a return to violence.

"What do you think you PM was trying to achieve by saying the above and also showing pictures of the Ira murdering six people in Northern Ireland?"

I think he was trying to point out that undermining the peace settlement by Brexiting on terms that would require a hard border between NI and IRL would create a real risk of the collapse of that settlement and the return of violence. I think he was entirely right to perceive that risk and I think he was entirely right to point it out.

"What do you think unionists are trying to achieve by repeating the above statement exactly and also showing pictures of the Uvf murdering people in the Rep of Ireland?"

I have previously said to you that if people perceive that the NI Protocol undermines the peace settlement and risks a return to violence, they are right to point to that risk. I have never objected to anyone doing this.

What I have a problem with is people who apparently perceive and point out this risk and and yet do nothing to avert it, but rather act so as to intensify it. They refuse to challenge the policies, positions and attitudes of the UK government that have given rise to the Protocol or to call on the UK to take action to facilitate agreement on measures to alleviate or remove the protocol; instead they seek to inflame community tensions (and so risk the peace settlement) by presenting the UK's position and actions as having been dictated by the EU, IRL or by Irish republicans. They point to the risk to the peace settlement as something emanating from the EU/IRLm when in fact it is in fact emanating from the UK government. They not only fail to call for the UK to make the shift it needs to make; they actively and vocally support the UK in the positions that led to the Protocol.

They do this because they are scared to confront, or even to acknowledge, unionism's serious internal weakness, which is (to put it simply) that GB doesn't value the union between GB and NI.

In many ways you can see this as paralleling David Cameron's decision to try and deal with internal splits in the Tory party by jeopardising his country's interests in the EU. Certain Unionists are trying to paper over the internal contradiction in unionism by sacrificing NI's interests and risking the peace settlement. By not confronting the UK's role in this they make themselves complicit in it. It is shameful.

I appreciate that you are taking a different view on unionists saying there could be violence here if a hard border is created in the Irish. You are being much less hypocritical than many on here on that subject.

what do you think of sf and SDLP refusing to meet with the other parties today?

Nonsense. It was a meeting held by the British government to update British parties on their negotiations the EU. I would/will be ludicrous to have an opposition mp from an EU country present.

that aside the reason was (ironically) was due to protocols.

protocol (a different one) says that a British minister cannot officially meet a leader of the opposition of a foreign state prior to meeting the leader of the government of that state.

surely you would be consistent and not be wanting a protocol ignored

Actually you are not correct.

Protocol means that a British minister cannot officially meet a opposition politician from a foreign state prior to meeting their counterpart from that state.

The Foreign Secretary needed to meet The Minister for Foreign Affairs before he could meet McDonald.

There is no obligation to meet Leo first, as is your implication.

Since you ask . . .

I think it's a strikingly stupid move by the UK government. The "diplomatic protocol' explanation they offer is deeply unconvincing, and I suspect was cobbled together in a panic after the thing started to attract attention.

SF should, however, go to the meeting, in which event the SDLP would go too.

The whole thing is handbags at ten paces. Nobody comes out of it with much credit, but I'd apportion the bulk of the blame to the UK government for making this stupid mistake and for not correcting it immediately it became obvious that it was a stupid mistake.

Meh. I think you're drawing a very long bow there. Other interpretations are possible. Such as, SF object to the UK government dictating, or attempting to dictate, who will represent SF.

If there were a functioning executive, Michelle O'Neill would be First Minister. That's a position SF would obviously be very happy for her to hold, and it carries very much more executive authority, and would attract very much more public attention, than the role of SF representative at a meeting with James Cleverly. As I understand it, it's a briefing meeting, for the exchange of information; no decisions will be taken. It's absurd to suggest that they trust her to represent SF and its NI leader and as First Minister of NI, but they don't trust her to represent SF at a one-off briefing.

Please acknowledge that for a good while now you've claimed in multiple threads including now this one that what Leo Varadkar was doing was threatening violence if a hard border was returned to. Nobody has misunderstood you at any point on this matter and you've been called out repeatedly for making what was an absurd conclusion to a perfectly correct observation by Varadkar.

If your finally back tracking and willing to admit you were wrong then do it properly instead of trying to simply rug sweep such a ridiculous argument.

I wonder what Michelle thinks? She's more than capable of representing SF without Mary Lou holding her hand.

Given previous speculation as to who exactly makes decisions in SF, it doesn't look well.

I would imagine the 'party leader' (And MLMD is registered as PL north and south) would make the decisions.

MLMD is the registered leader of the party, north and south.

You could be right Francie, going by the sinn fein website - she's just an ordinary MLA essentially.

But ask anyone reasonably interested in politics in NI and they'd observe that she's seen & heard very regularly as the on the ground leader of SF in NI and was put in that position back in 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38715524

So either she is the leader of SF up north or there's some sort of three card trick at play? Maybe she's leader up north when it suits and not when it suits? All very confusing.

I don’t think he was threatening he would be violent. He was reminding everyone that republicans would be violent if the Irish didn’t get their way. A bit like how Paisley used to operate.

i honestly can’t believe that some of you think that he believes he had some insight into the republican threat that no one else had and so his sole intent was to be very charitable with the info.

that is what you think, isn’t it?

I can’t believe what I’m hearing from mary Lou. she says that no one can decide who represents sf at meetings.

you really couldn’t make it up, from the party and person who brought down stormont and said they were not going back until DUP changed their leader in stormont. 3 years of ‘you must remove Arlene or we will sulk’