Irish Border and Brexit

Chips Lovell · 08-08-2017 08:57PM

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 09:05PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

What is about to happen is the cyclical problem of partition is about to come around again. Simple as that.

There is the prospect of division and death - again.
We will have the thumping of chests and the politics of condemnation again and if some had their way (and probably will) after years of conflict and death and division they will sit down and thrash out a deal, they should have made at the start and off we'll go again.

Maybe, just maybe, enough will say, why not remove the 'problem'.

paul2013 · 08-08-2017 09:30PM

Was talking to my boss just now and he was giving out about Northern Ireland and being united to them when we are paying for projects for them and they throw back in our face by having bonfires.

murphaph · 08-08-2017 09:36PM

Far too simplistic given there are a million+ unionists who do not vanish with unity. You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

It's far too soon to be talking about a UI as if it's around the corner.

Brexit has brought it closer IMO but it's still decades away and pushing it would be irresponsible. Planning for it would not be, but we'll have to make do with whatever is thrown at us in the short to medium term.

There will be no UI without buy in from a majority of the unionists. It could never be satisfactory and the RoI won't take it on unless it looks like it's got a good chance of succeeding.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 09:42PM

murphaph wrote: »

Far too simplistic given there are a million+ unionists who do not vanish with unity. You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

It's far too soon to be talking about a UI as if it's around the corner.

Brexit has brought it closer IMO but it's still decades away and pushing it would be irresponsible. Planning for it would not be, but we'll have to make do with whatever is thrown at us in the short to medium term.

There will be no UI without buy in from a majority of the unionists. It could never be satisfactory and the RoI won't take it on unless it looks like it's got a good chance of succeeding.

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

murphaph · 08-08-2017 09:56PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

It's closer because Brexit will ruin the economy up there. That's the only reason it's closer. That "needs" to happen first.

It would be better all round if the UK had never embarked on this folly of course.

Junkyard Tom · 08-08-2017 10:04PM

murphaph wrote: »

You could have loyalists bombing Dublin again.

For what, exactly?

oscarBravo · 08-08-2017 10:49PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it is closer or worth planning for, why not under the auspices of the 3 get the discussion of the realities out there? Could unionists refuse all 3 discussing their future? I don't think those that identify as Irish would stay away.

That could stall any decline into the spiral that a hard border will cause.

I really wish there was some way of conveying to you how bizarre your worldview appears to someone who doesn't share it.

Try to imagine a unionist who was completely convinced that the only way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland was for the Republic to be abandoned and for the whole island to be reunited as part of the United Kingdom. Sure, those pesky dissidents would kick off, but once they realised that it was a lost cause, they'd back down and quietly resign themselves to their fate.

Try to imagine what it would take for this putative unionist to talk you out of your desire for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic. Ask yourself what it would take to convince you to rejoin the UK.

This is what you would blithely have us believe is the answer to Northern Ireland's problems: talk unionists out of unionism. Sure, with enough pressure, they'll have to come around, right?

If you couldn't be talked into joining the United Kingdom, can't you see that it's the absolute acme of arrogance to assume that unionists can be persuaded - in advance of the Brexit deadline!! - to simply abandon their core identity?

feargale · 08-08-2017 10:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

What you are effectively suggesting is that we ignore such a border. That's hardly an option. There are various pieces of territory, too numerous to mention, that have a special economic relationship with the EU, e.g. to mention just a few, Samnaun in Switzerland, Greenland and the Isle of Man. The solution probably lies in studying these various models.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 11:00PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really wish there was some way of conveying to you how bizarre your worldview appears to someone who doesn't share it.

Try to imagine a unionist who was completely convinced that the only way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland was for the Republic to be abandoned and for the whole island to be reunited as part of the United Kingdom. Sure, those pesky dissidents would kick off, but once they realised that it was a lost cause, they'd back down and quietly resign themselves to their fate.

Try to imagine what it would take for this putative unionist to talk you out of your desire for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic. Ask yourself what it would take to convince you to rejoin the UK.

This is what you would blithely have us believe is the answer to Northern Ireland's problems: talk unionists out of unionism. Sure, with enough pressure, they'll have to come around, right?

If you couldn't be talked into joining the United Kingdom, can't you see that it's the absolute acme of arrogance to assume that unionists can be persuaded - in advance of the Brexit deadline!! - to simply abandon their core identity?

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 11:05PM

feargale wrote: »

What you are effectively suggesting is that we ignore such a border. That's hardly an option. There are various pieces of territory, too numerous to mention, that have a special economic relationship with the EU, e.g. to mention just a few, Samnaun in Switzerland, Greenland and the Isle of Man. The solution probably lies in studying these various models.

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

blanch152 · 08-08-2017 11:13PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The whole border issue is complicated by the fact that it's being used as yet another proxy in neverending crapfight that is Northern Irish politics. The unionists are mad for Brexit because they think it'll throw up a fence around Northern Ireland. The Nationalists see it as potential leverage to get a vote on a united Ireland. Cross border trade, membership of the EU are only secondary concerns.

Agreed.

It is quite unnerving to watch both sides of this debate put their parochial concerns about a small corner of a small island ahead of the important issue of the future of the continent.

If the EU falls apart, what matter the future of Northern Ireland?

Hopefully, the modern progressive European view of the world prevails over both parochial visions.

feargale · 08-08-2017 11:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

A UI is an option when and only when it becomes clear that a majority north and south want it. The head in the sand school of politics holds that enough unionists voted remain to carry same in NI, therefore those same unionists will vote for UI. They will in my eye. To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up. If those people ever reach a pro-UI position they will do so of their own accord and not because of any prodding or hard-sell by nationalists or republicans, or anything that has a whiff of coercion. The less talk there is about a UI at this time the better, by politicians or others.

blanch152 · 08-08-2017 11:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

He wasn't saying that joining the UK is on the table.

He was asking you to consider what it would take to persuade you of the merits of rejoining the UK as a proxy for what you need to offer to persuade unionists to join the UK.

Your response of immediate rejection of his suggestion as bizarre says a lot more about the realities of your position on a united Ireland than anything else any of us could put forward.

blanch152 · 08-08-2017 11:21PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 11:29PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

So the head of the PSNI quoted earlier is wrong?

There is 'no possibility' for conflict if you establish a hard border. That is just dangerous ignorance luckily not shared by both governments and the EU who recognise and have voiced their concerns.

*Please stop trying to make the thread a platform for your tired anti SF stuff.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 11:35PM

feargale wrote: »

A UI is an option when and only when it becomes clear that a majority north and south want it. The head in the sand school of politics holds that enough unionists voted remain to carry same in NI, therefore those same unionists will vote for UI. They will in my eye. To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up. If those people ever reach a pro-UI position they will do so of their own accord and not because of any prodding or hard-sell by nationalists or republicans, or anything that has a whiff of coercion. The less talk there is about a UI at this time the better, by politicians or others.

You clearly missed the bit about incentivising it and reaching a consensus on it as per the GFA. Nobody is talking about 'forcing' anything.

It has to be fully discussed as an alternative is the point, if there is no other alternative.

And please, the DUP/unionists will have to discuss it properly sooner or later. Why are they allowed a pass on this..oh yes...they might get violent. :rolleyes:

Junkyard Tom · 08-08-2017 11:38PM

feargale wrote: »

To push the UI agenda at this juncture will only get their backs up

Most unionists will not vote for a UI but that's not how the GFA is laid down, +50% is the requirement. You'll get the usual spoofers who'll whine about getting unionists on board but that's a red herring, an excuse for them to try to discredit or postpone a pro-UI vote. You'll also hear the spoofers I've mentioned above bring up the threat of unionist terrorism in the event of a UI (to what ends?).

There is always going to be an element within unionism who'll be looking for someone to shoot if a UI was voted for but that rump would remain even if we managed to get 60% of Unionists on board.

When Nationalists found themselves on the wrong side of the border in a sectarian state that didn't want them they didn't suddenly kick off, it took 50 years of Unionist misrule before a conflict broke out. 21st Century unionists would find themselves in much more favourable circumstances than Nationalists of the first half-century of the unionist/orange statelet.

FrancieBrady · 08-08-2017 11:39PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed.

It is quite unnerving to watch both sides of this debate put their parochial concerns about a small corner of a small island ahead of the important issue of the future of the continent.

If the EU falls apart, what matter the future of Northern Ireland?

Hopefully, the modern progressive European view of the world prevails over both parochial visions.

Is that the 'view' that wants it's people to live in peace? Without conflict, which is what we are discussing here.

Are we in the south going to turn a blind eye again?

blanch152 · 08-08-2017 11:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the head of the PSNI quoted earlier is wrong?

There is 'no possibility' for conflict if you establish a hard border. That is just dangerous ignorance luckily not shared by both governments and the EU who recognise and have voiced their concerns.

*Please stop trying to make the thread a platform for your tired anti SF stuff.

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

jm08 · 09-08-2017 12:20AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The word of 2017 is not the world of 1969.

A bizarre demand for an Irish Languages Act for something that 0.078% (or something like it) of the population speak daily is not a human rights issue comparable to anything from the 1960s.

The societal tolerance of terrorist violence is far far lower than it was back then. There is no possibility of creating an environment for conflict.

You've got to ask yourself why are Unionists so against an Irish Language Act if such a small thing. Millions were squandered on the renewable heating incentive scheme, yet a 50,000K grant was withdrawn that helped young protestants from deprived areas go to the Donegal gaeltacht to learn Irish and something of their Irish cultural heritage.

jm08 · 09-08-2017 12:23AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

Its not in the interests of either main parties in Northern Ireland to say that. If Sinn Fein said there would be, it would be seen as a threat. The DUP want a border between NI & ROI.

Jim2007 · 09-08-2017 01:38AM

jm08 wrote: »

You've got to ask yourself why are Unionists so against an Irish Language Act if such a small thing.

By the same token, why are SF so adamant that they need. It is not as if it is widely spoke... Two parties arguing over a dead language!

feargale · 09-08-2017 03:09AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly missed the bit about incentivising it and reaching a consensus on it as per the GFA. Nobody is talking about 'forcing' anything.

It has to be fully discussed as an alternative is the point, if there is no other alternative.

And please, the DUP/unionists will have to discuss it properly sooner or later. Why are they allowed a pass on this..oh yes...they might get violent. :rolleyes:

Can you not see your own contradictions?

Incentivising? You're going the wrong way about that if you keep banging on about it.

P.S. And I only speak of getting their backs up in the context of your need to persuade them.

murphaph · 09-08-2017 04:47AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

Maybe you should take a read of it. You want to pressure unionists into a premature UI long before they're ready for it and during a tense enough time as it is for the republic. There is nowhere near a majority in favour of a UI in NI at this time. You'll have to let Brexit wreak it's havoc first before a UI becomes perhaps a little more attractive.

murphaph · 09-08-2017 04:50AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that if it can offer an alternative. I want to avoid creating the environment for conflict.
I am not so sure everyone cares enough about that.

Would you take say 5 years of violence if it was going to achieve a UI?

tomwaterford · 09-08-2017 05:28AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't heard a single politician refer to a threat of returning violence if a hard border is imposed.

Surly it stands to logic,if you put a hard border with police and customs on it

Your giving dissident standing targets to shoot at??
There ambition is to make the north ungovernable/hostile in the short term

There'll be no soldiers to protect them,as SF won't ever agree to it
All it'll take is one young lad to be killed in a shoot out (and it will happen eventually) to cause absolute political turmoil,and the ranks to dwell on dissident??

Chips Lovell · 09-08-2017 06:10AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the problem on the island. Which is quite bizarre actually.
Joining the UK is not on the table. A UI is. Read the GFA.

There's nothing in the GFA explicitly prohibiting rejoining the U.K., just as there was nothing in it prohibiting the U.K. from leaving the EU, which they've gone ahead and voted to do.

FrancieBrady · 09-08-2017 07:48AM

Here is the scenario as I see it. I can actually see the start of this happening here, right now.

You will have protests about a hard border, with ordinary people from the communities directly affected. They will get more strident as we proceed towards a border.
The border is established and customs people are sent there.

Dissidents take advantage and attack a customs post (see our own history for examples of this)
We have the usual round of condemnations from the usual people who express their horror and shock (even though they knew this would likely happen)
Authorities are forced to fortify the posts and all the seeds are sown. Nationalists are enflamed and protests rise. The border is now NOT about the UK and the EU but a manifestation of the cyclical problem on this island.

Unionists allying themselves with Britain attack nationalists (see history again) and we start the whole sorry spiral again.

*We may skip the callous sending of customs people to their deaths or injury and fortify from the start. Accelerating the process.

I am interested in what others think will happen.

FrancieBrady · 09-08-2017 07:49AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's nothing in the GFA explicitly prohibiting rejoining the U.K., just as there was nothing in it prohibiting the U.K. from leaving the EU, which they've gone ahead and voted to do.

Well tbh, I think this is for a new thread and perhaps a new party proposing it. Otherwise it is just a deflection.

Irish Border and Brexit

Comments