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.

Irish Border and Brexit

1…457910…31

Comments

  • #182
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    View wrote: »

    As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

    Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

    Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

    A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.


  • #183
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    View wrote: »

    As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

    Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

    Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

    A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

    That's exactly what I have done.

    Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

    You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

    Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.


  • #184
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    View wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    View wrote: »

    As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

    Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

    Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

    A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

    That's exactly what I have done.

    Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

    You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

    Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.

    Agreed, I see it that way too and by the way, the UK govt has already announced that free movement will end by March 2019. That means, that the Brits will have to work on that Irish border matter one way or another. Without a border, the Brits in GB will see NI as the open backdoor to them via their "backyard" (this is the way they still see NI).

    Still the EU is also bound to work on a bearable and sustainable solution regarding the Irish border to settle it in a way that brings as less complications as possible.


  • #185
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    View wrote: »
    That's exactly what I have done.

    Either we are a democracy, in which case the government must defend the democratic choice of the people - come what may - that we are and remain an EU member, OR, we allow some self-appointed collection of gunmen to override the democratic wishes of the people as the logical consequence of "We'll never accept a border" is that we'll end up being forced out of the EU as we can't or won't maintain EU rules.

    You might prefer the latter option - and I note that you haven't answered the Either/Or question posed about it a few days back - but I, personally, prefer that we don't end up in a situation where we end up as an appendage of the UK and leave the EU because, in effect, the British people have made the decision for us as we allow gunmen to dictate our choices to us.

    Again, I hope it doesn't come to that and that any solution can be as low-key as possible but, unless there is a radical change in London, I believe there is little room to avoid making that either/or choice.

    Nobody is talking about allowing gunmen to dictate anything.

    What we are talking about is avoiding a situation where the gunman comes into the equation at all.

    And that is not going to be done unless we are extremely vocal in pressuring the UK and cajoling our fellow members of the EU (who both don't want a hard border BECAUSE it poses dangers to the peace process) to come up with imaginative solutions to the predicament. And a wall/fence is not one of them.


  • #186
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    It seems that the British government isn't alone in its paradoxical attitude towards the border issue.

    Rather bizarrely, Nigel Dodds of the DUP yesterday got very exercised about Varadkar's statement:
    The North Belfast MP said there had been a series of “inconsistent and incoherent statements” from both men and accused Mr Varadkar of having an “intemperate outburst” after the Taoiseach said the State would not “design a border for Brexiteers”.

    So let me get this straight. The Taoiseach said that the border is a problem of Britain's own making and it was up to Britain to sort it out. And the DUP are complaining that Ireland doesn't want to meddle in Britain's affairs?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    View wrote: »
    As for the "it physically can't be done" claims, I am fairly certain that the following fence, planned for the two North African Spain-Morrocco borders, would deter all bar the most fool-hardy locals:

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=spain+morocco+border&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_0MTvrrPVAhUsI8AKHW1KBbkQ_AUICigC&biw=1024&bih=671#hl=en-gb&tbm=isch&q=spain+morocco+border+diagram&imgrc=vgZtpZBuZegnJM:

    You have a very limited understanding of the politics and geography of the border. Such a fence would cost billions of GBP to build and secure, it would cut through back-gardens, farms and through communities.

    423795.png

    It would most definitely be attacked from both sides. It would essentially be a declaration of war against the border communities - it was only 20 years ago that the British Army had to fly its rubbish out of bases in bandit country - the RUC had no control of the ground. Here's a RUC station in Crossmaglen in the 1990's.

    is21olljon02.jpg


  • #188
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,054 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And a wall/fence is not one of them.

    The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you. But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.

    You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past. It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.

    We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!


  • #189
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,054 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

    So what is your solution then? We have to ensure that NI does not become a backdoor for uncontrolled immigration and the importation of goods in breach of EU standards and trade agreements?


  • #190
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,638 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »

    423795.png

    Interesting map - the border would be almost impossible to police easily without building something like the Berlin wall.

    I wonder if this case will get anywhere:
    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-peace-process/

    or this one:
    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-dup-deal/

    .


  • #191
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you. But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.
    It is not me proposing a wall/fence, that is somebody else.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104238564&postcount=181
    You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past. It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.

    We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!
    Good man.
    Now what do you do if the lid does come off again? The politics of condemnation? Excellent.
    Jim2007 wrote: »
    So what is your solution then? We have to ensure that NI does not become a backdoor for uncontrolled immigration and the importation of goods in breach of EU standards and trade agreements?

    I don't know why I have to come up with solutions.
    But before I would establish a hard border I would look at controlling immigration at ports and airports and goods with the (much talked about) frictionless electronic border.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    swampgas wrote: »
    Interesting map - the border would be almost impossible to police easily without building something like the Berlin wall.

    I wonder if this case will get anywhere:
    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-peace-process/

    or this one:
    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-dup-deal/

    .

    I said it before. The border in Ireland never worked. And it never will.


  • #193
    6541
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,998 ✭✭✭6541


    This is going to be a great opportunity for smugglers of all kinds. Anything that has value will be smuggled either North to South or vice versa. If anyone thinks differently then they are plain wrong. No amount of security will stop it.


  • #194
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,054 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I said it before. The border in Ireland never worked. And it never will.

    I guess we are going to see...


  • #195
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    I guess we are going to see...

    We know it won't work even if it is militarised and roads are cratered. Anyone who wants/or is concerned enough only need to listen and look very closely at how there is already tension mounting over it, in communities and politically.

    It will work at what it has always done, divide communities and enflame.


  • #196
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And a wall/fence is not one of them.

    The only one talking about a wall or a fence is you.  But you can fully expect that border posts will have to be operated, passports will be inspected and surveillance will be carried out as at any other EU border.

    You can also expect that any kind of republican nonsense along that border will be seen in a very different light to the past.  It would represent a direct assault on the democratic decision of the people of Ireland as expressed in various referenda over the years and will be treaty much harsher than the past.  

    We have no intention of letting a couple of gunmen dictate the destiny of the nation!

    Normally, that would be the case, but there´s also a Chance that the EU, UK and Republic of Ireland find an Agreement to establish an exception from this rules in the Special case that the Island of Ireland has in regards to the GFA. It´d be up to the Brits to secure their ports and airports in order to have a stronger border control which they´re going to build up anyway for GB. Therefore, I do find the idea with the Irish Sea being the EU border between Ireland and the UK very reasonable and feasible. It has lesser costs and it´ll be as much effective if not even more so than to reestablish border posts along the NI border to the Republic. In other words, the Brits would just have to secure their "door to their backyard" from mainland Britain and that should suffice. 

    In order to "keep the promise" the UK govt is going to tighten their border control anyway and this applies not just for ports along the Channel, it also applies for every UK Airport and logically, they´ll do the same in regards to any port along the coast of GB.  It´s just the whining of the DUP that they fear to be "cut off" from their beloved UK govt which wouldn´t be the case anyway, cos one might expect that the Brits will still Keep the regulations set up with Ireland in 1922 which provides extra entrance to the UK for Irish citizens and this can be adopted for NI residents as well.

    I hard border mustn´t happen if other Solutions are worked out. But with politicians like those in the present UK govt and the useful idiots of the DUP as the "tiny majority keeper" one has to reckon with failure rather than with rational solutions. Therefore, I understand your point and agree with it in its reasoning, but I also think that FrancieBrady has a point too when talking about putting pressure on the all the govts involved in this to respect the special case of Irelands inner-Island border and to work on and find a solution that prevents such a hard border. The EU has already acknowledged that Ireland is a special case in regards to the EU´s borders and understandably, both the Irish govt and the EU-Commission are right in saying that this is a problem for the Brits in the first place and they have to come up with reasonable solutions that bear this special case in mind and carry that with it. 

    This border subject shows just again how useless the DUP really is, not just being unfit for government in NI, but also unfit for acting the "Junior Partner" in a UK govt too. I hope that many more people are beginning to realise that and think twice before giving them their vote in any upcoming election again. One might think that the UUP might be the more rational representative party for the Unionists in NI, but I don´t hold them in high esteem either.


  • #197
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    View wrote: »

    As I have also said before the people on both sides of the border do not have vetoes over the democratic decisions of their respective governments. Obviously if some of them start causing trouble, security - and all the associated hassle - would have to be stepped up. That's what happens around the world. Equally obviously if you increase security enough the border would be secured. If you go into the average border crossing or fence area be it a land, sea or airport one and start smashing the place up and/or using potentially lethal force to do so, the security services will respond and they will use whatever force is necessary to do so.

    Pretend you are in government - take your pick of either. Assume that you are a 'responsible' government and play out what happens next after the last bit above.

    Because many of us are and a 'fence' or any physical manifestation of a hard border has dramatic implications if you play it out and take the history of this island into account.

    A responsible person would exhaust many other versions before doing what you propose.

    This article has some reference to your post:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566
    No voice
    The Irish Government has done a remarkable job in ensuring that the North is among the top priorities for the remaining 27 members of the EU. But there is no voice of the people of the North at a time when uniquely it could be amplified at the top of the European Union as never before.
    Sinn Féin supported “remain”. And now it is, for reasons which can only be described as impenetrably obscurantist and unintelligible, placing abstractions above the concerns of the people it purports to represent.
    It is losing a once in a lifetime opportunity to set the Agenda.
    Seán Donlon is former secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs

    Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.


  • #198
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    This article has some reference to your post:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



    Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

    I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

    And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
    were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
    He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

    Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?


  • #199
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Thomas__ wrote: »
    This article has some reference to your post:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



    Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

    I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

    And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
    were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
    He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

    Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?

    By listening to the people of the north you´ve got the problem that there are various and different voices and to choose from them and that means to which one should listen more is an hard ordeal. One thing in dealing with this matter in the Republic is, that politicians from the establishment were most comfortable to rather neglect the NI issue and give lip-service to the aim of a UI when demanded to suit it.

    One really has to spend much time and do much reading to understand the complexity and the obstacles that lie in there in NI politics. The UK govt together with the Republic and the USA took efforts to bring about the GFA and by that to stop the killings (which ceased on a greater scale but didn´t end because of the terror attacks by the dissos, retaliation murder among some radical factions on both sides of the divide and other crime acts). Since it became more peaceful in NI and the GFA worked, it wasn´t much of an issue neither to London nor to Dublin and the Americans have withdrawn from it long ago. With this nutter in the WH one can rather expect the USA to be absent in further talks and that leaves the matter to the UK, the Republic and the EU to deal with.

    It is an undeniable fact that SF has always been the championing part for a UI among all parties on the Island of Ireland, but what comes more to the fore in recent time, since the DUP is the "majority keeper" in the Commons, that by being exposed to a wider political stage, people can see for themselves what sort of a party the DUP and her leaders really are. SF can surely take advantage out of that for herself. The Argument in this linked article regarding SF taking her seats in the Commons remains rather questionable in regards to what they really could achieve if they would do so. Unless SF would find herself in a coalition with all the non-Tory parties on the centre-left to left in the Commons and by that being part of a government led by Labour, I see Little effect but just the ability to protest in the Commons for SF being there. It doesn´t matter cos Corbyn has refused to go into coalition with any Party in the Commons and it is because of that that Mrs May has this tiny majority with the backing of the DUP. That´s rather silly from the Opposition to not taking that Chance to bring her down because either way, when Mrs May is overthrown by her own party in the Commons within the next couple of months to come, it won´t be the case that a new GE will be held. She will simply be replaced by another Tory and it is just when the Tories will go to get rid of the DUP backing that they might risk a new GE and they go into such an untertaking not earlier as they trust in polls that have a substantial prospect of regaining a majority like that Cameron achieved and securing themselves to rule without coalition partners or the backing of a minority party like the DUP. These are the reasons for why I also see Mr Corbyn as an arrogant and silly politician who doesn´t have the guts and the ability to become PM because a majority for himself to rule without coalition partners was the main aim for himself and the fact that he´s also a Brexiteer doesn´t make much of a difference for the voter who wants to have that Brexit.

    The perception of NI politics in the Republic of Ireland and GB is still that of an superficial and reluctant nature. It´s like nobody wants them but every part has - in one way or another - deal with it. It´s quite there where a change has to be made in order to handle this in a way that leads to a better understanding and more progress. I´m afraid that can´t be done while the old faces up there are still running their parties and a new face turns out to be a complete failure. But frankly, there´s nothing better to expect from the DUP at all, as they are the political arm of the most bigotted organisation in the whole of the Island of Ireland which is the Orange Order.


  • #200
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Thomas__ wrote: »
    This article has some reference to your post:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-missing-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-set-the-agenda-1.3172566



    Mr Donlon is certainly right in his opinion and points out important aspects, not just in regards of SF and their need to make some changes on their stances.

    I can't take seriously somebody who fundamentally misunderstands (and I think he willfully misunderstands) what the whole issue around the Irish language is.

    And somebody who will laud the achievements of Gerry Fitt and Seamus Mallon(whose attempts ended in abject failure) and fail to mention that SF
    were a primary part of the greatest achievement in the north - the GFA.
    He paints a picture that also airbrushes out the foot dragging, bigotry and supremacy of the DUP (which is what has brought us here).

    Maybe if the political concensus he was a part of started listening (really listening) to the people of the north that would be a bigger achievement?
    Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

    How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

    Complete doublethink.


  • #201
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,638 ✭✭✭swampgas


    The border used to be between Ireland and the UK, and nobody else really cared.

    That's going to change: it's looking like it's going to be an EU - Third Country land border.

    Ireland and the UK are not the only ones involved. If Ireland want to be seen as serious members of the EU, and hold up their side of the EU border policing arrangements, then there is no way that Ireland can throw their hands in the air and say it's the UK's problem.

    Theresa May recently repeated that freedom of movement will end. That means controlling the way people cross the border, because they will be crossing in and out of the EU. The UK also look like they won't have any FTA in place when Brexit kicks in. That means controlling goods and food and livestock and everything else that's regulated, because it will be an import/export issue for the EU.

    The implications for border communities, for the GFA and for NI itself are almost secondary here. All hell might break loose but that won't change the fundamental fact that the UK is proposing to dramatically change the status of its border with Ireland, from an internal EU border with few controls to an external border which will by its very nature require much stricter levels of control.

    There is no way to square the circle, if the border becomes an EU frontier then it must be operated as such.

    IMO there are only three likely outcomes:
    - UK abandons Brexit, and border issue no longer arises
    - NI changes its status, (in some fudge I can barely begin to imagine) so that border controls with Ireland have much less impact
    - The border is heavily controlled, with all of the fallout that will bring with it.

    The second possibility would require a major shift in thinking in NI and the UK. Given the current political impasse and general paralysis in NI right now, I don't hold much hope for any breakthrough there.

    If Ireland wanted to be fully prepared for all eventualities, it would start the ground work for border control points along the border right now. And add the cost to the Brexit bill.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    6541
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,998 ✭✭✭6541


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

    How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

    Complete doublethink.

    Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.

    All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.


  • #203
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    swampgas wrote: »
    The border used to be between Ireland and the UK, and nobody else really cared.

    That's going to change: it's looking like it's going to be an EU - Third Country land border.

    Ireland and the UK are not the only ones involved. If Ireland want to be seen as serious members of the EU, and hold up their side of the EU border policing arrangements, then there is no way that Ireland can throw their hands in the air and say it's the UK's problem.

    Theresa May recently repeated that freedom of movement will end. That means controlling the way people cross the border, because they will be crossing in and out of the EU.  The UK also look like they won't have any FTA in place when Brexit kicks in.  That means controlling goods and food and livestock and everything else that's regulated, because it will be an import/export issue for the EU.

    The implications for border communities, for the GFA and for NI itself are almost secondary here.  All hell might break loose but that won't change the fundamental fact that the UK is proposing to dramatically change the status of its border with Ireland, from an internal EU border with few controls to an external border which will by its very nature require much stricter levels of control.

    There is no way to square the circle, if the border becomes an EU frontier then it must be operated as such.

    IMO there are only three likely outcomes:
    - UK abandons Brexit, and border issue no longer arises
    - NI changes its status, (in some fudge I can barely begin to imagine) so that border controls with Ireland have much less impact
    - The border is heavily controlled, with all of the fallout that will bring with it.

    The second possibility would require a major shift in thinking in NI and the UK. Given the current political impasse and general paralysis in NI right now, I don't hold much hope for any breakthrough there.

    If Ireland wanted to be fully prepared for all eventualities, it would start the ground work for border control points along the border right now.  And add the cost to the Brexit bill.

    By that present "pay moral" of the UK govt, you might rather forget about that. The Brits are about to leave and they are to facilitate and pay for their border points or even better, abandon NI and set it free for re-unification with the Republic. That would save them lots of money, but will shift the problems of NI to the Republic. For a selfish UK govt, this would be a double win situation. Considering that the DUP would also lose their seats in the Commons and by that reducing the whole number of MPs altogether, it might be a perfect way to get rid of the DUP´s backing of this present UK govt. But that would still leave the hung parliament in the current status and the way out of that would be a snap GE in GB, without NI anymore.


  • #204
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    6541 wrote: »
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

    How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

    Complete doublethink.

    Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.

    All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
    But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?

    Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?

    Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?

    Does  Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?

    No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.

    Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].

    That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.


  • #205
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?

    Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?

    Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?

    Does  Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?

    No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.

    Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].

    That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.

    Ask yourself why the people of northern Ireland have not got:

    A previously agreed Irish language act.
    The full range of LGBT rights
    Same Sex Marraige
    A range of rights available to women every where else on these islands.
    Etc.

    It isn't because SF or any party other than the DUP have not been representing them.

    A point Mr Donlon singularly failed to make.


  • #206
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    6541 wrote: »
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

    How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

    Complete doublethink.

    Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.

    All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
    But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?

    Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?

    Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?

    Does  Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?

    No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.

    Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].

    That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.

    There´s certainly a difference between the job of an MP for his constituency and that of a chief of national government. Therefore I don´t get along with your comparision re Mrs Merkel who has a bigger responsibility as head of the national government than say any mere member of the Bundestag. MPs or TDs are not just elected by the electorate of their constituency, they are of course in the first place, but their job extends the way they take up higher responsibility by becoming a member of the government cabinet and in that capacity, they have to follow up the direction given by the government. There are also other aspects that contravene the work of a mere MP or TD for his / her constituency and that is the ruling of the party one belongs to. This may or may not often lead to conflict with the demands from his constituency and that of the party for which he was elected too. Different matter for Independent TDs, who got elected on their own efforts and bear no allegiance to any political party. 

    For those who vote for SF in UK GEs, it doesn´t matter much that they don´t take their seats in the Commons, but it matters to them that with every vote for SF, there is one vote lost for the Unionists. Besides, I really doubt that many in the Commons would care about what SF MPs would say if they would take their seats, as long as they would be just a few in compare to the whole House. I´ve watched enough debates in the HoC to know that, respectively anticipate such behaviour by the other parties towards SF. Before this deal between the Tories and the DUP, the DUP was present, but what they said didn´t matter much at all. It´s the fact that NI with her MPs is just a minority which can be ignored when there is no hung parliament. Why should that be any different in case of SF MPs? It would only make a difference if SF would be part of a left-wing coalition govt, but as long as Mr Corbyn is living up to his pip-dreams, no chance in the HoC to take over from the present govt without having a new snap GE.  

    As for the main part of your post, I do understand the point you´re making, it´s just that it doesn´t make a change to the present situation which is indeed a mess created by the Brexiteers, cos they misled the electorate and they lied to them without a blush.


  • #207
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    6541 wrote: »
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Surely an electorate that consistently vote in abstentionist party, don't really care about being listened to?

    How come the parties which they vote in[admittedly, as you say on the proviso they will not represent their electorate] get off scot free from helping them, but the government of another jurisdiction[country, imo] are obligated to stick up for them?

    Complete doublethink.

    Not really in the scheme of things, like you have to call a spade a spade. Half the population ethnically and culturally are Irish living in a state that they have feck all affiliation to, the other section are ethnically and culturally low land Socts who basically want a state exclusively for themselves and never the twain shall meet.

    All existing parties in the southern state come from civil war parties and Northern Ireland was only ever a temporary solution. It is absolutely right and proper that the Irish government supports its ethnically Irish people in Northern Ireland. Britian has made it clear that they are no longer co-guarantors of the GFA by going into government with the DUP. The onus now is on the Irish Government to seek the best arrangements for all of its Ethnic Irish people north and south.
    But at no point are the politicians they actually elected supposed to argue their case?

    Does Michelle O'Neill argue for the welfare of the people of Roscommon in Stormont?

    Does Micheal Healy Rae argue on behalf of Sligo in the Dail?

    Does  Angela Merkel bring up the water problems in Navan in the Reichstag?

    No, because these issues do not concern their constituents, and they trust the politicians elected by the constituents affected by such issues to advocate on their constituents behalf, rather than sacrifice the welfare of those they represent on the altar of their quixotic beliefs.

    Ultimately, the only politicians that are answerable to an electorate are the ones they elect - yet in NI they don't expect their own elected politicians to represent them, but a series of parties they don't vote for[and will claim have failed them historically].

    That was the point I'm making, nothing to do with the NI electorate having no personal affiliation or affection for the UK.

    There´s certainly a difference between the job of an MP for his constituency and that of a chief of national government. Therefore I don´t get along with your comparision re Mrs Merkel who has a bigger responsibility as head of the national government than say any mere member of the Bundestag. MPs or TDs are not just elected by the electorate of their constituency, they are of course in the first place, but their job extends the way they take up higher responsibility by becoming a member of the government cabinet and in that capacity, they have to follow up the direction given by the government. There are also other aspects that contravene the work of a mere MP or TD for his / her constituency and that is the ruling of the party one belongs to. This may or may not often lead to conflict with the demands from his constituency and that of the party for which he was elected too. Different matter for Independent TDs, who got elected on their own efforts and bear no allegiance to any political party. 

    For those who vote for SF in UK GEs, it doesn´t matter much that they don´t take their seats in the Commons, but it matters to them that with every vote for SF, there is one vote lost for the Unionists. Besides, I really doubt that many in the Commons would care about what SF MPs would say if they would take their seats, as long as they would be just a few in compare to the whole House. I´ve watched enough debates in the HoC to know that, respectively anticipate such behaviour by the other parties towards SF. Before this deal between the Tories and the DUP, the DUP was present, but what they said didn´t matter much at all. It´s the fact that NI with her MPs is just a minority which can be ignored when there is no hung parliament. Why should that be any different in case of SF MPs? It would only make a difference if SF would be part of a left-wing coalition govt, but as long as Mr Corbyn is living up to his pip-dreams, no chance in the HoC to take over from the present govt without having a new snap GE.  

    As for the main part of your post, I do understand the point you´re making, it´s just that it doesn´t make a change to the present situation which is indeed a mess created by the Brexiteers, cos they misled the electorate and they lied to them without a blush.

    That's fair, for all my criticism of SF, they in no way contributed or instigated Brexit.

    But that in no way excuses them from participating them from the debate. As a party on both sides of the border, they are in a unique position to the needs of all, and find common ground on which agreement can be built. Instead they'll lambast both sides for not finding a perfect solution, while contributing nothing themselves.

    Were they not to abstain, the slight majority the Tories command [with DUP confidence and supply] would be even more tenuous within the HoC. I fully expect some Tories to refuse to back a Brexit deal[the number would vary on how good/bad the deal is], and SF taking their seats would make a collapse of Brexit all the more likely, whether or not they are listened to in the day to day voting which occurs in the HoC.

    In a hung parliament, a small party can make a lot of headway for their own goals - the DUP have proven that, regardless of any of our opinions on their views.


  • #208
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    That's fair, for all my criticism of SF, they in no way contributed or instigated Brexit.

    But that in no way excuses them from participating them from the debate. As a party on both sides of the border, they are in a unique position to the needs of all, and find common ground on which agreement can be built. Instead they'll lambast both sides for not finding a perfect solution, while contributing nothing themselves.

    Were they not to abstain, the slight majority the Tories command [with DUP confidence and supply] would be even more tenuous within the HoC. I fully expect some Tories to refuse to back a Brexit deal[the number would vary on how good/bad the deal is], and SF taking their seats would make a collapse of Brexit all the more likely, whether or not they are listened to in the day to day voting which occurs in the HoC.

    In a hung parliament, a small party can make a lot of headway for their own goals - the DUP have proven that, regardless of any of our opinions on their views.

    Whatever you think of it 'abstensionism' is not going to be cast aside over a single issue.

    If you look at the status of those who identify as Irish in northern Ireland 40 years ago and look at them now, you cannot say that their status has not dramatically improved.

    When you accept that, then look at who, those who identify as Irish, consistently reward (with their votes) for that.

    I don't in all honestly think you have a case based on that.


  • #209
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    FrancieBrady wrote:
    Whatever you think of it 'abstensionism' is not going to be cast aside over a single issue.

    I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.

    I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.


  • #210
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,641 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.

    I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.

    They could probably do plenty of talking but other than that I don't see any great advantage. They have done pretty well in elections so their electorate are clearly happy with the policy.

    Absentionism as an ideal/policy is pretty clear and isn't just about giving two fingers to the UK. So it is not going to be dropped easily.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    I'd say most people would respect SF position regarding Westminster. But its in Westminster where the decision on the Irish border will be made. If its a soft Brexit or it doesn't happen the border won't be an issue. If its a hard brexit the border becomes an issue. But its up to the UK to decide what it wants. If SF took its position in Westminster would have a large amount of leverage given the infighting in Labour and the conservatives plus how finely balanced things are anyway.

    I respect SF position regarding Westminster but the party has to acknowledge its giving up any serious practical influence it has over Brexit.

    They could probably do plenty of talking but other than that I don't see any great advantage. They have done pretty well in elections so their electorate are clearly happy with the policy.

    Absentionism as an ideal/policy is pretty clear and isn't just about giving two fingers to the UK. So it is not going to be dropped easily.

    In fact it´ll never be dropped cos SF will never take the oath of allegiance to the British Monarch which is the main and core reason for the Abesentionism from Westminster. The late Martin McGuinness and SF P Gerry Adams have come to terms with the British State and the Queen, but they won´t go any step further that would touch the oath of allegiance. No way. There is a real chance that in due course of a hard Brexit, the UK will fall apart in a short time afterwards and this would open the door towards a UI, whether the Unionists and Loyalists in NI like it or not, they´ll be left with this only chance to come into the Republic of Ireland, cos I really have doubts that an Independent Scotland would like to incorporate NI and NI can´t stay on her own feet which is a fact, proved by the annual subsidies it receives from Westminster.


Advertisement