Irish Border and Brexit

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which will probably lead to a United Ireland at some point.

I think the Irish see the issue of troubles in the north, as being a 'little' more nuanced, than just being a matter of 'criminals/terrorists' holding us to ransom...

I think we can see it as a little more nuanced than the rather bizarre idea that a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland was achieved solely by terrorism.

It's an unfortunate tendency in certain quarters to argue that, just because violence was a factor in achieving an outcome, that that outcome could only possibly have been achieved through violence. It's the ultimate expression of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

In fact, as instances of that logical fallacy go, it's probably one of the most harmful. The problem with believing that a past political settlement could only have been achieved through terrorism is that it permits - in fact, encourages - the belief that future political settlements can only be achieved through terrorism.

KyussBeeshop

Except nobody argued that - you're attributing views to people that they did not express again.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Except nobody argued that - you're attributing views to people that they did not express again.

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement...

.

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

These criminals/terrorists already have decided our future economic/political fate - they brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which will probably lead to a United Ireland at some point.

Nope not even close. If they had had their way, they'd have their United Ireland by now. And it will not happen unless we all agree. But after 100 years and every passing generation I'd say it is actually less likely.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

Indeed - not containing any of the views you draw from it in the previous post.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is one of the reasons we went up in flames before - the failure of our government to stand up and be counted in some practical way for it's own people.

But it is standing up for it's own people and what they want! We're one of if not the most pro EU states in the union and our government reflects that. To our mind we've settled how the north will be handled. And I suspect SF have dropped their opposition to the EU simply because they know if they force the issue they will loose.

Jim2007

I'm just back from a quick trip to Lörrach, in Germany, picked up a bit of shopping while I was over there... did not see any customs or border police in either direction...

And it as just hit me: we don't have a customs union with the EU, we have some bilateral agreements and are in Schengen, but that is it. so we only do customs checks on the border and the main focus is on goods trucks, they'll pull over the odd car from time to time but is not at all common. And of course locals cross back and forth for work, farming, healthcare etc all the time.

There is no reason why the EU could not operate an external border with NI on the same lines. Ignore passport checks, do customs checks on goods and let the Brits do immigration control where ever they like!

murphaph

Yeah that's what I fully expect too. I had a pal living in Lörrach who worked in Basel. Visited them a few times (Milka factory....mmmmm) and crossed over the border into CH unimpeded, though they were checking trucks as Jim mentions. I expect this is pretty much what the border will look like in Ireland too....but there are many more crossings I believe, probably due to geography (Alps, Lake Constance forming natural barriers). I still don't currently see an alternative though. There will be lots of smuggling. It's not possible to police such a porous border comprehensively.

I recall crossing into CH from IT (I guess before they joined Schengen) and this involved a proper border crossing with passport checks, must have been around 1998.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would leave the EU to avoid another outbreak of the conflict.

That would just bring us under the influence of Britain much more than currently. I would choose to stay in the EU expecting that the imposition of a border coupled with a severely damaged economy would tip the electorate in the northeast over the 50% +1.

In an ideal world I'd have all sorts of guarantees negotiated into not vetoing a border - like full EU involement in post-unification economic aid and security assistance, you know, the kind of conditions that would make that pro-UI vote easier in the first place.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That would just bring us under the influence of Britain much more than currently. I would choose to stay in the EU expecting that the imposition of a border coupled with a severely damaged economy would tip the electorate in the northeast over the 50% +1.

In an ideal world I'd have all sorts of guarantees negotiated into not vetoing a border - like full EU involement in post-unification economic aid and security assistance, you know, the kind of conditions that would make that pro-UI vote easier in the first place.

I don't think it will EVER come to a choice.

What we need to do is keep the highest level of pressure on to get the EU and Britain to act on their recognition of the dangers.

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.
Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell. As history has taught us.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing this is the point where you tell us that Republican terrorists pose an existential threat, while Loyalist terrorists can be ignored completely.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell.

Took longer than I expected, but there it is. We have to do whatever it takes, all the way up to leaving the EU, to head off the threat of Republican violence; but if Loyalists kick off, fcuk 'em.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Took longer than I expected, but there it is. We have to do whatever it takes, all the way up to leaving the EU, to head off the threat of Republican violence; but if Loyalists kick off, fcuk 'em.

And as expected, the refusal to look at what is being said in a pragmatic way.

I am talking about persuading (by incentive) the Unionist community to look seriously at their futures. AHEAD OF A DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENT TO UNIFY in a referendum...no force.
There will always be a rump of belligerence even if the majority can reach an agreement.

Try again there Oscar. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried if the alternative is people actually dying and the growth of community conflict again.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried...

...why what shouldn't be tried?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...why what shouldn't be tried?

It is the post that you totally misinterpreted.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is the post that you totally misinterpreted.

Ah. That clears it right up.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah. That clears it right up.

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

OK, I was hoping you would be able to identify some fairly obvious irony, but I'll drag your point out of you since you're determined not to make it plainly.

What should be tried? Keeping pressure on? What makes you think we're not? Or unification? In which case... wat?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I was hoping you would be able to identify some fairly obvious irony, but I'll drag your point out of you since you're determined not to make it plainly.

What should be tried? Keeping pressure on? What makes you think we're not? Or unification? In which case... wat?

I don't see what your problem is. I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border. A problem - the threat to the peace process - they have all recognised.
Allowing the north of Ireland to go up in flames because of some high moral ground 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' rubbish, is not solving the problem. As we painfully know from our own history.

What we need to do is keep the highest level of pressure on to get the EU and Britain to act on their recognition of the dangers.

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.Give me a small bit of unionist violence (which is all unionism will be able to manage if it faces both British and Irish and EU will) over the re-emergence of inter community conflict that no amount of government intervention will quell. As history has taught us.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote:

That's good. So another alternative to be explored by the Irish and Uk governments and the EU (who stridently don't want a hard border) before we opt for a hard border.

We all know the unionists would love nothing more than a hard border.

Nody

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see what your problem is. I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border. A problem - the threat to the peace process - they have all recognised.
Allowing the north of Ireland to go up in flames because of some high moral ground 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' rubbish, is not solving the problem. As we painfully know from our own history.

Expect to see Gibraltar join Spain before NI joins Ireland.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as expected, the refusal to look at what is being said in a pragmatic way.

I am talking about persuading (by incentive) the Unionist community to look seriously at their futures. AHEAD OF A DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENT TO UNIFY in a referendum...no force.
There will always be a rump of belligerence even if the majority can reach an agreement.

Try again there Oscar. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't be tried if the alternative is people actually dying and the growth of community conflict again.

This is a Pollyanna idea.

(1) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she needs the DUP

(2) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she can't pony up the money for your incentive.

(3) The Irish electorate won't be interested in higher taxes to incentivise the unionists.

(4) The implicit threat of Republican violence inherent in the idea is absolutely repugnant to 99% of the population of these islands

(5) Nobody needs to pay a single bit of attention to SF because they won't take their seats in Westminister, they won't compromise to form a government in the North and they chickened out of forming a government in the South.

(6) Why can't we deal with the rump of republican belligerence in the same way you suggest we deal with the rump of unionist belligerence?

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We all know the unionists would love nothing more than a hard border.

Not all unionists want a hard border. There are many unionist farmers along the border about to be decimated by Brexit. In a far more crippling way than British farmers.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

Not all unionists want a hard border. There are many unionist farmers along the border about to be decimated by Brexit. In a far more crippling way than British farmers.

Northern Irish farmers will be decimated by losing their EU subsidies, no matter what sort of border there is.

The Golden Miller

It's interesting to see certain posters defiantly claim that we won't shirk to the threat of violence and let a few gunmen decide our future. Funnily enough, many of the same posters have protested the idea of a united Ireland based on the threat of loyalist violence. Whenever it suits the agenda I suppose

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I think that if unification is an option then it has to be on the agenda and it has to be incentivised.

We can't get people to pay for water never mind take on the bill for the North... It is much harder sell fairy tales to Irish voters and there is no evidence of much support for it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a Pollyanna idea.

(1) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she needs the DUP
They could be gone next week. And that situation will not last forever.
(2) Theresa May will want nothing to do with this because she can't pony up the money for your incentive.
She seems well able to find money when needed.
(3) The Irish electorate won't be interested in higher taxes to incentivise the unionists.
Nobody knows this.
(4) The implicit of Republican violence inherent in the idea is absolutely repugnant to 99% of the population of these islands
Yes, stand idly by and watch people die and bravely condemn from the high moral ground. Worked wonders before:rolleyes:
(5) Nobody needs to pay a single bit of attention to SF because they won't take their seats in Westminister, they won't compromise to form a government in the North and they chickened out of forming a government in the South.
who mentioned paying attention to SF in particular? Everyone needs to sit equally around the table...and listen to each other.
(6) Why can't we deal with the rump of republican belligerence in the same way you suggest we deal with the rump of unionist belligerence?
Eh...because a community in conflict is not a 'rump'.
The rump of dissident activity is being curtailed ATM. A hard border will drag the communities back into conflict. The EU, and the British and Irish govs recognise that and those living in real, not fantasy worlds.

.....

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I outlined what could be tried, a concerted effort by the Irish and British government and the EU to solve the problem raised by a hard border.

That'll be the hand-waving I was talking about. It's not a proposal; it's not a plan; it's not a strategy. It's demanding that someone do something.

Well, bravo. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's interesting to see certain posters defiantly claim that we won't shirk to the threat of violence and let a few gunmen decide our future. Funnily enough, many of the same posters have protested the idea of a united Ireland based on the threat of loyalist violence. Whenever it suits the agenda I suppose

You're not at all troubled by the double standards of suggesting that we should go so far as to leave the EU to avoid Republican violence, while dismissing the possibility of Loyalist violence as a mere inconvenience and well worth enduring?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That'll be the hand-waving I was talking about. It's not a proposal; it's not a plan; it's not a strategy. It's demanding that someone do something.

Well, bravo. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

Well, as the architects of the GFA might say, it's a darn sight better than sitting on your hands because you are too lazy to think and more people die.


BTW it won't be a plan until people (all of them) recognise their responsibilities and act on them.

The Golden Miller

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not at all troubled by the double standards of suggesting that we should go so far as to leave the EU to avoid Republican violence, while dismissing the possibility of Loyalist violence as a mere inconvenience and well worth enduring?

I'm not the one claiming anything on this topic. Just found it interesting that certain posters (which didn't include you as this thread is the first I've seen you on) will pompously shout about not letting Republican gunmen decide our future, while are quite happy to let loyalist gunmen decide our future

oscarBravo

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm not the one claiming anything on this topic. Just found it interesting that certain posters (which didn't include you as this thread is the first I've seen you on) will pompously shout about not letting Republican gunmen decide our future, while are quite happy to let loyalist gunmen decide our future

Fair enough, I guess. I'm equally bemused at the idea that there's no price to high to pay to ensure continued peace and stability in Northern Ireland... unless it's Loyalists carrying out the violence, in which case meh, be grand.