Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

1…123124126128129…333

Comments

  • #3752
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If the UK breaks up (and I think what we are watching, is that process) a UI is the only island-stabilising choice there is.
    Unless you think a bloody civil war to the death, won't 'cost' us.

    Pushing a UI down loyalists throat will lead to violence, you know that don't you?


  • #3753
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Pushing a UI down loyalists throat will lead to violence, you know that don't you?

    A democratic vote to set in motion a UI is not pushing anything down anyone's throat. Also, can you tell me what you imagine unionist violence would achieve?


  • #3754
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,538 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There is no mechanism (attractive though it may be) for England to leave the UK though.

    Oh yes there is, a vote in Parliament to dissolve the UK and re-establish Westminster as the English Parliament. England MPs would easily outvote Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs!


  • #3755
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    A democratic vote to set in motion a UI is not pushing anything down anyone's throat. Also, can you tell me what you imagine unionist violence would achieve?

    The same as Provo Republican violence, lots of dead people and a political stalemate. Loyalist violence achieved it aims by not giving into Republican demands for a UI.


  • #3756
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    The same as Provo Republican violence, lots of dead people and a political stalemate.

    A yes vote for a UI would be a yes vote. Can you tell me how unionist violence would reverse that? Do you think it would make the British take them back? I'm testing your reasoning here so take your time.
    Loyalist violence achieved it aims by not giving into Republican demands for a UI.

    That's bullshit.


  • Advertisement
  • #3757
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,538 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    The same as Provo Republican violence, lots of dead people and a political stalemate. Loyalist violence achieved it aims by not giving into Republican demands for a UI.

    Are you saying that 'Loyalists' will fight a UI even if that is the democratic will of the people? if you are, do you think the democratic will of the people should be ignored because of those threats from 'Loyalists'?


  • #3758
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Renting air and naval bases to who?
    Take a wild fcuking guess

    Also, who would replace all the orders for ships Scotland is benefiting from?
    You think all those ships could be built in England instead ?

    Independence based on eu hand outs? That's confidence in your own ability to stand on your own two feet right there.

    "We want independence and we want Germany to pay for it".
    Just pointing out that there isn't much downside even in the worst case scenario.


  • #3759
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So Scotland will have no functioning currency and an economy in tatters, but at least they would take back control?

    Which was what Brexit was.


  • #3760
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Are you saying that 'Loyalists' will fight a UI

    I'm not sure what they'd hope to achieve and who they'd fight. They wouldn't have a hope in hell of keeping the six counties out of a UI. Also Nationalist pro-UI sentiment would harden as they'd feel much safer having Ireland deal with security issues than the British. Also the British would just be thinking 'oh no, the troubles are back' and would be even more determined to get out.

    Unionism is doomed - it's just a matter of time.


  • #3761
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    A yes vote for a UI would be a yes vote. Can you tell me how unionist violence would reverse that? Do you think it would make the British take them back? I'm testing your reasoning here so take your time.

    You are putting the cart before the horse here. A yes vote in the south is highly doubtful never mind in the North. People are well aware of the risks here and will not want to poke the hornets nests, unless we get them onside. There is ways I think to do this, for example making the Queen/King head of state, rejoining the commonwealth but the arm chair Republicans would not stand for that so we would have a stalemate.

    See, it seems for some democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is ironic given the history of the North. We all love hypocrites.

    Also, quite funny that an Irish Republican such as yourself is so concerned about the Democratic mandate. Tell me, did the Provos have a mandate to blow up most of the streets in Northern Ireland and kill women and children? :)

    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    That's bullshit.

    No, its quite true. The rise and effectiveness of loyalist violence made it clear to the Republican leadership that forcing a UI by violence was a non-option. It was clear in the 80's. So we had a stalemate. Don't swallow that Provo propaganda whole.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/who-won-the-war-documentary-1695142-Sep2014/


  • Advertisement
  • #3762
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Are you saying that 'Loyalists' will fight a UI even if that is the democratic will of the people? if you are, do you think the democratic will of the people should be ignored because of those threats from 'Loyalists'?

    Eh, There was no democratic mandate for the PIRA. Yet, they laughed a campaign of violence on this Island for over 30 years to try and achieve a UI.
    Why are you so surprised the Loyalists would not do the same? Because its an inconvienient truth now the shoe is on the other foot?


  • #3763
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,538 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Eh, There was no democratic mandate for the PIRA

    That is not what I asked


  • #3764
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Are you saying that 'Loyalists' will fight a UI even if that is the democratic will of the people? if you are, do you think the democratic will of the people should be ignored because of those threats from 'Loyalists'?

    Wouldn't surprise me. Loyalists get violent if a Catholic moves into the area.


  • #3765
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    That is not what I asked

    Yet, you are a supporter of the PIRA. So why one rule for them and another rule for Loyalists.

    The PIRA fought a war when they had zero mandate from the people, yet now people like you are concerned about a democratic mandate.

    That is the trouble with extremists, too easy to poke holes in their arguments. :)


  • #3766
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    You are putting the cart before the horse here. A yes vote in the south is highly doubtful never mind in the North. People are well aware of the risks here and will not want to poke the hornets nests, unless we get them onside. There is ways I think to do this, for example making the Queen/King head of state, rejoining the commonwealth but the arm chair Republicans would not stand for that so we would have a stalemate.

    See, it seems for some democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is ironic given the history of the North. We all love hypocrites.

    Also, quite funny that an Irish Republican such as yourself is so concerned about the Democratic mandate. Tell me, did the Provos have a mandate to blow up most of the streets in Northern Ireland and kill women and children? :)




    No, its quite true. The rise and effectiveness of loyalist violence made it clear to the Republican leadership that forcing a UI by violence was a non-option. It was clear in the 80's. So we had a stalemate. Don't swallow that Provo propaganda whole.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/who-won-the-war-documentary-1695142-Sep2014/

    Quite bluntly, most loyalists are knuckle draggers. Getting them onside would mean converting to their sectarian brand of Protestantism and kicking anyone non white out of Ireland.

    Loyalist violence led to NI being partitioned, the army being called in and Dublin being bombed. So in all honesty who gives a feck what they want.


  • #3767
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,538 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Yet, you are a supporter of the PIRA. So why one rule for them and another rule for Loyalists.

    The PIRA fought a war when they had zero mandate from the people, yet now people like you are concerned about a democratic mandate.

    That is the trouble with extremists, too easy to poke holes in their arguments. :)

    My views of the IRA are irrelevant, you are dancing on a pinhead to not answer 'Yes' to both of my questions, this tells me everything


  • #3768
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    A yes vote in the south is highly doubtful never mind in the North.

    We were discussing a post yes-vote scenario. Focus.
    People are well aware of the risks here and will not want to poke the hornets nests, unless we get them onside.

    Oh you see we don't need them onside and indeed there's no point in even trying. At the height of the troubles those against a UI in the south numbered 16% of those polled. The last time I checked that was down down to 8%. A pro-UI vote in the south is a given.
    There is ways I think to do this, for example making the Queen/King head of state, rejoining the commonwealth but the arm chair Republicans would not stand for that so we would have a stalemate.

    Those things would be discussed in the event of the gears beginning to turn towards a UI. I'm fairly confident a large majority of the electorate would be steadfastly against having Mrs Windsor as our head of State. Very confident.
    See, it seems for some democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is ironic given the history of the North. We all love hypocrites.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The north wasn't a functioning democracy when unionists started the troubles. In fact the NICRA was seeking equal civil and political rights within UK jurisdiction not a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it. Not that seeking a UI would have been an excuse for security force brutality and murder.
    The rise and effectiveness of loyalist violence made it clear to the Republican leadership that forcing a UI by violence was a non-option.

    That just exposes how misinformed you are. Unionist murder-gangs only ever acted as a recruitment agency for the Provos - they killed more of each other than they did PIRA and had no impact on their campaign.


  • #3769
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    You are putting the cart before the horse here. A yes vote in the south is highly doubtful never mind in the North. People are well aware of the risks here and will not want to poke the hornets nests, unless we get them onside. There is ways I think to do this, for example making the Queen/King head of state, rejoining the commonwealth but the arm chair Republicans would not stand for that so we would have a stalemate.

    The pathway to a United Ireland is laid out in the good friday agreement. it's fairly clear and all sides agreed it. The old Bogeyman of loyalists wrecking the place if they don't get their way will hold very little weight. Only worked the first time because the british government had no faith in own their army to tow the line. Gonna need to find yourself another comfort blanket my fren, I suggest looking into the "economic basket case" it seems to be very reassuring in some circles


  • #3770
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Quite bluntly, most loyalists are knuckle draggers. Getting them onside would mean converting to their sectarian brand of Protestantism and kicking anyone non white out of Ireland.

    Loyalist violence led to NI being partitioned, the army being called in and Dublin being bombed. So in all honesty who gives a feck what they want.

    You are entitled to your opinion of course but that is the same closed mindedness that people viewed Irish Republicans with back in the 70's and 80's. That ended well didn't it?

    'Jaw jaw is better than war war'


  • #3771
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    My views of the IRA are irrelevant, you are dancing on a pinhead to not answer 'Yes' to both of my questions, this tells me everything

    Oh, its very relevant as you are holding the loyalists to a higher standard than you own Republican brothers. That says a lot about the dishonest debate you are trying to have here.

    Why today are you concerned about the democratic mandate when in the past you had no concerns before. It just shows you up to be a fanatic.


  • Advertisement
  • #3772
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    closed mindedness

    He's correct. There is no point in trying to mollycoddle unionists into being pro-UI because it would be as fruitless as attempting to make atheists of the Taliban. The days of appeasing unionist 'fears' (fear of equality) are over.


  • #3773
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Bambi wrote: »
    The pathway to a United Ireland is laid out in the good friday agreement. it's fairly clear and all sides agreed it. The old Bogeyman of loyalists wrecking the place if they don't get their way will hold very little weight. Only worked the first time because the british government had no faith in own their army to tow the line. Gonna need to find yourself another comfort blanket my fren, I suggest looking into the "economic basket case" it seems to be very reassuring in some circles

    There is a democratic process laid out in the Good Friday agreement for sure. Yet, not one poll ever has shown majority support for it.

    When the taxpayers in the south will be told how much more they will have to pay, they too will shy away from it.

    If you want to actually debate it then do so with the recognition that we will have to offer something in return to the Unionists. The idea that a UI vote will just happen, and that everyone will be represented in the Dail as like now and live happily ever after, is foolish. Perhaps we can have some sort of federalisation based on the provinces, perhaps rejoining the commonwealth or ditching the president in favour of the monarchy. I don't know, but perhaps it may be time to ask Unionists, what do you want in return for a UI. It could be just as easy as having links with the monarchy.


  • #3774
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    He's correct. There is no point in trying to mollycoddle unionists into being pro-UI because it would be as fruitless as attempting to make atheists of the Taliban. The days of appeasing unionist 'fears' (fear of equality) are over.

    Not every Unionist out there is some sort of 1980's Paisley bogeyman much as you like to say otherwise. You are filled with hate I must say.


  • #3775
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    you are holding the loyalists to a higher standard than ... Republican(s)

    Republicans held themselves to a higher standard, thankfully. See here.
    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Not every Unionist out there is some sort of 1980's Paisley bogeyman much as you like to say otherwise.

    Strawman - I've never made that claim. In fact in the event of a UI I'd imagine more moderate unionists would feel empowered, step up, and the knuckle-dragger anti-Irish DUP types would become irrelevant.
    You are filled with hate I must say.

    Why are you trying to make this personal? I hate nobody.


  • #3776
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Take a wild fcuking guess


    You think all those ships could be built in England instead ?


    Just pointing out that there isn't much downside even in the worst case scenario.

    Why rent the most sensitive naval base in a foreign country?

    Tyneside, Portsmouth and Barrow could easily build them. Do you really think English tax payers would want to see billions of their money spent abroad?


  • #3777
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Which was what Brexit was.

    Exactly, I find the irony somewhat delicious.


  • #3778
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    We're were discussing a post yes-vote scenario. Focus.

    Might as well be discussing aliens arriving on earth and its aftermath so. As I said, putting the cart before the horse.

    Oh you see we don't need them onside and indeed there's no point in even trying. At the height of the troubles those against a UI in the south numbered 16% of those polled. The last time I checked that was down down to 8%. A pro-UI vote in the south is a given.

    Not at all. Those polls are all nostalgic and sentimental. A UI will cost 10's of billions. Have you seen the protests when it comes to water charges? Are we going to ask the Irish tax payer to pay thousands more per year for a UI. That will be the nitty gritty of the argument. It will be a much more close run thing.


    Those things would be discussed in the event of the gears beginning to turn towards a UI. I'm fairly confident a large majority of the electorate would be steadfastly against having Mrs Windsor as our head of State. Very confident.

    Perhaps, but it would be a good olive branch to the Unionists and if Loyalists can be convinced likewise, I think people would be wise enough of the choice. Offer an olive branch to the Unionists and live on peace on this Island. Or stick a UI down their throat and risk a few decades of violence. Remember this is all decades to come and the younger generation really do not give much of two ****s about Queen or President. The old Republicans will all be dead at this stage and the whole West Brit nonsense will not hold much sway either.


    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The north wasn't a functioning democracy when unionists started the troubles. In fact the NICRA was seeking equal civil and political rights within UK jurisdiction not a UI when they were beaten and murdered for it. Not that seeking a UI would have been an excuse for security force brutality and murder.

    So why isn't John Hume deputy head of the assembly? Because the PIRA took a legitimate grievance when it comes to things like equal rights, to jobs and housing and launched a campaign of violence on both islands. Tell me what does the NICRA have to do with planting bombs in London, Birmingham and Warrington? Very little.

    I will certainly not stand and say that the pre troubles NI was a paradise for catholics. It certainly was not. Yet, I will not give the Provos a free pass when it comes to all the maiming and killing they did for a UI, all done with no mandate as well. Which comes to my point. People like yourself are quick to say that Loyalists will have no mandate when it comes to violent opposition against a UI. True, yet the Provos did the exact same thing and people like yourself are very quite about that little factoid.




    That just exposes how misinformed you are. Unionist murder-gangs only ever acted as a recruitment agency for the Provos - they killed more of each other than they did PIRA and had no impact on their campaign.

    Say what? Loyalists had zero impact on the Provos and their campaign of violence? Really? You are going against every single thing I have read in relation to NI including people like Peter Taylor.

    In fact they were so effective that many think it was one of the reasons why the Provos sued for peace in the 90's, as Loyalists through some collusion with the British were killing loads of Republicans.


  • #3779
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    As a complete aside.....I'm away for a bit

    Was at a hostel....and talking to two young wans...just pure shte talk etc and they were saying to us,they are going travelling Europe for a bit

    But not England (they just say England to include Scotland. ..but not Wales :confused: )
    Anywhoo....the reason they cited was brexit and fears for safety going there


    Just an antidote mind of two people....


  • #3780
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Republicans held themselves to a higher standard, thankfully. See here.
    Wasn't Larry Murphy sold out by his own leadership?
    Strawman - I've never made that claim. In fact in the event of a UI I'd imagine more moderate unionists would feel empowered, step up, and the knuckle-dragger anti-Irish DUP types would become irrelevant.

    Then why not empower the moderates by talking to them rather then just dismissing their objections to a UI as mere knuckle draggers.

    Why are you trying to make this personal? I hate nobody.
    You hate Unionists, that is clear from your posts.


  • Advertisement
  • #3781
    youreadthat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 760 ✭✭✭youreadthat


    For all the talk of Scotland needing the EU because it's desperate for immigration, despite being in the EU; Scotland's population has barely changed in 80 years. People just don't want to move there, it's far from any hubs, makes London look tropical, and socially is no more welcoming or liberal than England as proven in numerous polls despite SNP propaganda. Slicing itself off from 60 million people on the same small landmass who share culture, language and currency would be a disaster for Scotland.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement