Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Cormac Lucey destroyed that argument in the Sunday Times at the weekend.

He basically adopted my view that we should look realistically at the costs and have a mature discussion about them.

Some of the comments included:

"Her (Mary-Lou) party's economic plan is not realistic".

"These (Sinn Fein's) assumptions are questionable"

"This (extract from Sinn Fein's policy) is verbiage masquerading as economic logic"

Basically, he rubbishes Sinn Fein's document on unity in a way that has already been done on here. He also makes clear it will cost money, a lot of money.

Sinn Fein want unification. SF don't own unification.

Cormac is the expert who thinks we should leave the Euro Zone BTW.

breezy1985

blanch152 wrote: »

Cormac Lucey destroyed that argument in the Sunday Times at the weekend.

He basically adopted my view that we should look realistically at the costs and have a mature discussion about them.

Some of the comments included:

"Her (Mary-Lou) party's economic plan is not realistic".

"These (Sinn Fein's) assumptions are questionable"

"This (extract from Sinn Fein's policy) is verbiage masquerading as economic logic"

Basically, he rubbishes Sinn Fein's document on unity in a way that has already been done on here. He also makes clear it will cost money, a lot of money.

You see those kinds of comments all the time about the election manifestos of party's the writer doesn't like.

I would say their isn't a party in the world doesn't have a journalist attacking their economic policies.
I do agree though that it will cost money and I don't believe anyone who claims it won't be a burden in the short term

FrancieBrady

breezy1985 wrote: »

You see those kinds of comments all the time about the election manifestos of party's the writer doesn't like.

I would say their isn't a party in the world doesn't have a journalist attacking their economic policies.
I do agree though that it will cost money and I don't believe anyone who claims it won't be a burden in the short term

Investments cost money.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

The CTA is about travel. In fact during most of the CTA's existence, Ireland and the United Kingdom were not in a customs union and goods were the only things checked at the border, not passports.

The CTA is about more than passports and borders.

Under British law, Irish citizens are 'not Aliens' and are treated the same as British citizens in all matters. This is not true of any other non-British citizens, even citizens of former British colonies.

So, if Shengen was in effect for Ireland (UI) it will not effect those Irish citizens currently residing in the UK, whether they travel to Ireland or not. Also many Irish citizens living in GB are dual nationals of Britain and Ireland, holding one or both passports.

It would be complicated but not a real problem. It would affect those living on mainland Britain more, but not much in truth.

weemcd

If anyone has been keeping an eye on the news today a Lucidtalk poll has shown the DUP face quite a substantial fall in votes for the next election. It would be foolish to take too much from the results of one poll in isolation, with an election more than a year away. But this would be a very worrying headline for any DUP supporters. They've had a terrible run this last 5 years or more and that looks set to continue:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2021/02/01/new-poll-has-sf-largest-party-on-24-dup-19-alliance-18-tuv-on-10/

FrancieBrady

weemcd wrote: »

If anyone has been keeping an eye on the news today a Lucidtalk poll has shown the DUP face quite a substantial fall in votes for the next election. It would be foolish to take too much from the results of one poll in isolation, with an election more than a year away. But this would be a very worrying headline for any DUP supporters. They've had a terrible run this last 5 years or more and that looks set to continue:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2021/02/01/new-poll-has-sf-largest-party-on-24-dup-19-alliance-18-tuv-on-10/

There will have to be a massive u-turn in Brexit for them to rescie anyrhing.
Not sure the current crop can rescue them.

weemcd

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There will have to be a massive u-turn in Brexit for them to rescie anyrhing.
Not sure the current crop can rescue them.

I'll be keeping a very close eye on the census this year running into the election next year.

My prediction would be that the DUP lose a few seats, though fear of Sinn Fein will probably mean they won't lose as much as the poll indicates. I'd imagine Sinn Fein and SDLP will stay largely the same with Alliance having a small gain. I don't know if the TUV can win enough seats to truly disrupt Unionism but who knows.

One thing is for certain Foster is deeply unpopular in general with the public and even her own party. There's probably moves being made today to oust her.

FrancieBrady

weemcd wrote: »

I'll be keeping a very close eye on the census this year running into the election next year.

My prediction would be that the DUP lose a few seats, though fear of Sinn Fein will probably mean they won't lose as much as the poll indicates. I'd imagine Sinn Fein and SDLP will stay largely the same with Alliance having a small gain. I don't know if the TUV can win enough seats to truly disrupt Unionism but who knows.

One thing is for certain Foster is deeply unpopular in general with the public and even her own party. There's probably moves being made today to oust her.

Agree on Foster, but is Unionism going to shoot itself in the foot again by electing a Poots or Sammy Wilson to the helm?

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

Cormac Lucey destroyed that argument in the Sunday Times at the weekend.

He basically adopted my view that we should look realistically at the costs and have a mature discussion about them.

Some of the comments included:

"Her (Mary-Lou) party's economic plan is not realistic".

"These (Sinn Fein's) assumptions are questionable"

"This (extract from Sinn Fein's policy) is verbiage masquerading as economic logic"

Basically, he rubbishes Sinn Fein's document on unity in a way that has already been done on here. He also makes clear it will cost money, a lot of money.

Have you ever met Cormac?

Nice chap, but I wouldnt be taking him seriously on most topics

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Agree on Foster, but is Unionism going to shoot itself in the foot again by electing a Poots or Sammy Wilson to the helm?

One can but hope

BonnieSituation

weemcd wrote: »

I'll be keeping a very close eye on the census this year running into the election next year.

My prediction would be that the DUP lose a few seats, though fear of Sinn Fein will probably mean they won't lose as much as the poll indicates. I'd imagine Sinn Fein and SDLP will stay largely the same with Alliance having a small gain. I don't know if the TUV can win enough seats to truly disrupt Unionism but who knows.

One thing is for certain Foster is deeply unpopular in general with the public and even her own party. There's probably moves being made today to oust her.

It's frustrating that they've not postponed it.

2011's census was fascinating as it enabled a proper all Ireland approach when doing analysis. NISRA really should move to a 5 yearly interval. Anyway...

Mr.Nice Guy

If the poll is to be believed, the DUP are losing votes to Alliance and the TUV.

The centenary of NI is coming up in May, and it remains to be seen whether Foster and co. will make a show of offering an inclusive view of the event, so as to try and woo back the Alliance vote, or whether they will try and outfleg everyone else, so as to woo back the TUV vote. My concern would be they may do the latter, and stir up an already tense atmosphere to show how red, white and blue they are. They are on the back foot, and may take the view that the best defence is a good offence. To their base, that's often the case. I worry that could make for an ugly summer and rest of the year.

BonnieSituation

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If the poll is to be believed, the DUP are losing votes to Alliance and the TUV.

The centenary of NI is coming up in May, and it remains to be seen whether Foster and co. will make a show of offering an inclusive view of the event, so as to try and woo back the Alliance vote, or whether they will try and outfleg everyone else, so as to woo back the TUV vote. My concern would be they may do the latter, and stir up an already tense atmosphere to show how red, white and blue they are. They are on the back foot, and may take the view that the best defence is a good offence. To their base, that's often the case. I worry that could make for an ugly summer and rest of the year.

It's the DUP. It'll be the latter.

They are so shorn of political intelligence, it's frightening.

6541

I wonder is the decision to remove custom officials from Larne and Belfast a calculated move by the DUP to assert pressure on the UK government ? Personally I take the threats with a pinch of salt.

If however I am incorrect and it is deemed that the threats are real then Irish Republicans and Nationalists need to be careful as Unionism usually takes its anger out on innocent Catholics. Then to take this to its further conjecture, if these threats are real then loyalist paramilitaries still exists and are a danger to the Catholic community.
This poses a few questions, will the UK government actually protect Catholics from loyalist mobs this summer ?
History has taught us that the UK government has been found wanting in this area before.
Will the Catholic community need a form of IRA for defense this summer ?
Bucks better start training !

Hurrache

6541 wrote: »

I wonder is the decision to remove custom officials from Larne and Belfast a calculated move by the DUP to assert pressure on the UK government ? Personally I take the threats with a pinch of salt.

It does seem like that. I think it was another thread in which I made the point that in a recent meeting with the British government, Brandon Lewis, the unionists had brought in representatives of loyalist paramilitary groups. Ridiculous given that the terrorist groups were supposed to no longer exist yet there they are as blatant as they were in the 90s.

The reports of threats haven't come from the PSNI either, it's all seems to be coming from local government, so basically the lad sitting across from a DUP member telling them what they're going to do.
https://twitter.com/acatherwoodnews/status/1356524901755195393

BRANDON Lewis has been asked to explain why high-ranking Northern Ireland Office (NIO) staff are meeting representatives of loyalist paramilitary groups.

SDLP MP Claire Hanna said the NIO's engagement contrasted with the secretary of state’s refusal so far to meet Stormont ministers in relation to funding victims' payments.

Alliance MLA Stewart Dickson said the British government officials were "giving credibility to organisations that should have long since exited the stage".

The remarks came after it emerged that loyalist representatives held a 90-minute virtual meeting with the NIO to discuss the Irish Sea border and its implications for the union.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/01/25/news/brandon-lewis-asked-to-explain-nio-meeting-with-loyalist-paramilitary-representatives-2197052/

mariaalice

It will come eventually financed by the EU but not overtly it will be grants and the like and not anytime soon.

Seth Brundle

I'm confused.
The loyalists have been involved in NIO meetings accompanied by the DUP.
The loyalist thugs are threatening the port staff at Larne to the point that the port has now closed.

So, as predicted, the DUP and the terrorist buddies are against the sea border and they have now forced the closure of a main point between NI & GB.
So what exactly are they expecting to happen now?
Do they think that the London govt (who threw them under a bus to get what they wanted) will change their policy and look to renegotiate with the EU (which won't happen anyway).
Do they seriously think that goods won't now simply travel from the Republic/EU into NI (which will further push the uniting of the island)?
Or what exactly is their strategy?

FrancieBrady

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm confused.
The loyalists have been involved in NIO meetings accompanied by the DUP.
The loyalist thugs are threatening the port staff at Larne to the point that the port has now closed.

So, as predicted, the DUP and the terrorist buddies are against the sea border and they have now forced the closure of a main point between NI & GB.
So what exactly are they expecting to happen now?
Do they think that the London govt (who threw them under a bus to get what they wanted) will change their policy and look to renegotiate with the EU (which won't happen anyway).
Do they seriously think that goods won't now simply travel from the Republic/EU into NI (which will further push the uniting of the island)?
Or what exactly is their strategy?

So much for them taking advantage of the 'special status' that NI now has. Can't imagine too many businesses pushing the button on setting up in NI at the moment.

Kermit.de.frog

If, for arguments sake, the north returned to violence over all this I honestly cannot see the UK having the stomach pondering another 30 years of unrest.

They did in the past but my incling today is they'd be more likely just to tell NI "it's time to go".

I just don't see them going through that again.

It and the trouble will be landed on our lap.

View

The whole argument for the special NI protocol and against a land border was to offset the threat of violence in NI.

The upshot was the so called sea border between GB and NI. Now though, that sea border solution has resulted in a threat of violence in NI with the effective collapse of the sea border solution with officials being withdrawn from doing customs/health checks.

This would appear to indicate that the special NI protocol has failed, could well be reopened and the question for the U.K. government will be where do they want their customs/health checks and resulting threats of violence.

If so, any new solutions are only likely to inflame one or another side in NI.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

The whole argument for the special NI protocol and against a land border was to offset the threat of violence in NI.

No it wasn't. The border is not capable of being monitored is the principal reason for the Protocol. Remember all the promising of hi- tech solutions?

Seth Brundle

View wrote: »

The whole argument for the special NI protocol and against a land border was to offset the threat of violence in NI.

The upshot was the so called sea border between GB and NI. Now though, that sea border solution has resulted in a threat of violence in NI with the effective collapse of the sea border solution with officials being withdrawn from doing customs/health checks.

This would appear to indicate that the special NI protocol has failed, could well be reopened and the question for the U.K. government will be where do they want their customs/health checks and resulting threats of violence.

If so, any new solutions are only likely to inflame one or another side in NI.

...but the DUP wanted their Brexit and managed to get it.
May offered them something more favourable that what they now have but they chose to vote against that.
As the phrase goes: "you make your bed, you lie in it".

As for threats of violence, this is loyalists effectively knocking on the door of a united Ireland. If they keep it up, they will completely close down NI ports to Britain bringing Dublin even closer to them.

Lastly, the NI protocol will not be reopened. It was agreed between the UK and the EU just over a month ago - the ink is barely dry, FFS.
There's not a hope in hell of both sides agreeing to the DUP stamping their bigoted feet, especially now that they appear to be working in partnership with terrorists.

breatheme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No it wasn't. The border is not capable of being monitored is the principal reason for the Protocol. Remember all the promising of hi- tech solutions?

There have been border checks before, so yes, we are capable. Maybe not efficiently, but it's certainly "possible" (in a strict sense of the word).


But an open border is a cornerstone of the peace agreement, so that's why it was so prioritised.

Retr0gamer

View wrote: »

The whole argument for the special NI protocol and against a land border was to offset the threat of violence in NI.

The upshot was the so called sea border between GB and NI. Now though, that sea border solution has resulted in a threat of violence in NI with the effective collapse of the sea border solution with officials being withdrawn from doing customs/health checks.

This would appear to indicate that the special NI protocol has failed, could well be reopened and the question for the U.K. government will be where do they want their customs/health checks and resulting threats of violence.

If so, any new solutions are only likely to inflame one or another side in NI.

It hasn't really failed. Removed the paramilitary thugs that have the backing of the DUP and you don't get customs officials being threatened with violence.

This is just a DUP domestic terrorism .They could call the dogs off and let due process resume if they wanted to.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No it wasn't. The border is not capable of being monitored is the principal reason for the Protocol. Remember all the promising of hi- tech solutions?

Incorrect. A hard land border - a solution that is used on most borders around the world - it is relatively straightforward to monitor.

The argument against it was that the threat of violence, so the solution to avoid it was the sea border which has resulted in the threat of violence, thus rendering the original argument void.

View

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...but the DUP wanted their Brexit and managed to get it.
May offered them something more favourable that what they now have but they chose to vote against that.
As the phrase goes: "you make your bed, you lie in it".

As for threats of violence, this is loyalists effectively knocking on the door of a united Ireland. If they keep it up, they will completely close down NI ports to Britain bringing Dublin even closer to them.

Lastly, the NI protocol will not be reopened. It was agreed between the UK and the EU just over a month ago - the ink is barely dry, FFS.
There's not a hope in hell of both sides agreeing to the DUP stamping their bigoted feet, especially now that they appear to be working in partnership with terrorists.

If the NI protocol proves unworkable, it would have to be rewritten.

Customs/health checks are supposed to happen at the ports but are now suspended. That means goods are presumably now entering NI unchecked and which could be trundled over the border into Ireland/the EU. And, like it or not, if the checks aren’t done at the NI ports, then they will have to be done on the land border.

If not, then it is almost certain that all that freight now being sent direct to France will face health/border checks because France will protect the integrity of the single market even if we refuse to do so.

View

breatheme wrote: »

There have been border checks before, so yes, we are capable. Maybe not efficiently, but it's certainly "possible" (in a strict sense of the word).


But an open border is a cornerstone of the peace agreement, so that's why it was so prioritised.

There is no mention of an open border in the GFA, so it isn’t a cornerstone. There are only four mentions of the word “border” in the document and three of them are references to “cross-border” institutions.

Seth Brundle

View wrote: »

Incorrect. A hard land border - a solution that is used on most borders around the world - it is relatively straightforward to monitor.

The argument against it was that the threat of violence, so the solution to avoid it was the sea border which has resulted in the threat of violence, thus rendering the original argument void.

A hard land border which allows the free movement of people but allows for checks of goods is not going to be feasible or practical when you have about 300 crossing points. Westminster proposed various technological solutions which either would never work or had not yet been invented. The reality was, it won't work.
This meant that if the UK did not change their red lines then they would force the imposition of a hard border which in turn would have broken the GFA (by knowingly assisting a return to violence). They knew that if they broke an international agreement, then they would be in trouble. So to protect their vision for a better empire, unicorns and greater soverignty, they have created a border in the Irish Sea thereby pushing NI further towards a UI.

FrancieBrady

DUP committing political suicide trying to stem the flow to the more extreme.

https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/1356652274307760131

breezy1985

View wrote: »

Incorrect. A hard land border - a solution that is used on most borders around the world - it is relatively straightforward to monitor.

The argument against it was that the threat of violence, so the solution to avoid it was the sea border which has resulted in the threat of violence, thus rendering the original argument void.

It's not impossible but a lot of the more successful land borders impassible geographic features. One of the border options available in 1921 took this into account and was rejected in favour of using the existing county borders. Very few of these more successful borders I know of cross through the middle of a tube towns or farmers fields