First Up wrote: » I get the feeling that some people's (negative) vision of "the EU" is a big building in Brussels. If they thought of it as cooperation between the people, governments and industries of 27 countries, they might be better able to understand what its about.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Apparently there are going to be "blitz-like" tv ads in Britain in the new year preparing public for no deal including telling people not to book flights abroad from April 1st.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Or they believed what their institutions and senior politicians told them, ie that the NHS would be better funded, that decline in the deprived parts of the UK was down to free movement of people and that our laws were being made in Brussels. You're on a Political forum which is tightly moderated. This isn't a way most people choose to spend their time so it can be fairly argued that you are politically engaged to a degree beyond the average voter. I see where you're coming from but attempts to "otherise" the 17.4 million Leave voters of all stripes aren't going to do any good in the long run.
downcow wrote: » Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Anyone who got BBCNI should remember the morning news pretty much every day starting with "A man has been injured in a paramilitary-style attack in..." unless there had been a bombing in the last few days.
Jim2007 wrote: » And we need a solution that actually works, that is the primary objective here. And in that respect it is far easier to put a couple of warships into Belfast Lough than to police the NI border. The is why it is the favoured option for the EU side including the EU parliament.
downcow wrote: » I have got away behind on posts but anyway this one confuses me. I don’t think there’ll be any issue in Belfast lough. If republicans get pissed off they will be attacking northern targets from south and if loyalists get pissed off they will be attacking southern targets from north. So there is only one border would be affected by conflict. Personally I don’t think there will be any conflict worth mentioning no matter who gets pissed off the world has moved on and we can see up north the dissidents can’t scratch themselves but the authorities know given the level of technology. Forget the gfa/peace argument it’s a none starter. The ira were extremely sophisticated and decades of experience and they were defeated. There is no way a few republicans or loyalists are any significant threat.
Deleted User wrote: » Anyone who got BBCNI should remember the morning news pretty much every day starting with "A man has been injured in a paramilitary-style attack in..." unless there had been a bombing in the last few days.
On the border beat in in County Armagh - policing is not like anywhere else in the UK. When I accompanied Sgt Sam Hoey on a drive around his area - we were in a convoy of four armoured cars. ... "The reason why we can't cross the border is because we're carrying firearms," Sgt Hoey tells me. ... He is employing 102 extra officers between now and the end of this financial year, which is close to the date when the UK is leaving the EU.
EdgeCase wrote: » Well many of the problems they will have aren't going to be able to be solved by the army unless they're planning to just invade Europe and sieze other people's drugs and food. At this stage, nothing would surprise me.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » No Deal may have major implications for security along the border and in NI.
EdgeCase wrote: » Undoubtedly, but is sending the British army back into Northern Ireland to secure the border really a viable option?! It didn't ever work well in the 20th century. I don't really see how it will work in the 21st.
foxyladyxx wrote: » Army on standby .. for what exactly?
catrionanic wrote: » What? I am from Belfast and couldn't disagree more. The threat is very real indeed.
downcow wrote: » So what are you saying? Which side should we wind up? Where should the passports be checked? Irish Sea or Irish border? Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans ��
downcow wrote: » Guys can I reassure you the NI troubles are over. End off. No threat to south and no threat to NI. There is no stomache for it and those that are interested are being tracked in such a way that they can’t move. When was the last troubles killing (I know there is some drugs stuff. Indeed the most recent up here was exported from your little fued in Dublin). Maybe a decade ago
downcow wrote: » Forget the gfa/peace argument it’s a none starter. The ira were extremely sophisticated and decades of experience and they were defeated. There is no way a few republicans or loyalists are any significant threat.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Frankly, if they thought about it as the USA-lite (which it is in essence, with exception of federal taxation and military issues) they'd probably achieve the same goal.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » In the last month the Dissident Republicans and UDA have been activehttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46247606https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46362679[/url
downcow wrote: » Or could the English Channel be a more sensitive place to do it? Don’t expect anyone to suggest Channel as that might upset a few old cork republicans ��
CelticRambler wrote: » Yeah ... you might want to revise you history of The Troubles. The IRA were never "defeated". Sinn Féin negotiated on their behalf with the British (and Irish) government to move their fight into the political arena rather than the (para)military theatre. Things were going quite well, including an IRA ceasefire when the negotiations hit a wall. The Tory Party found itself somewhat dependent on the DUP for support in Westminster. Every other party to the negotiations (Irish Govt, the US, the EU observers, and Sinn Féin/IRA) told the Tory-DUP alliance that they were being thick eejits and should continue continue with the negotiations according to the already agreed terms. (Does any of this sound familiar?) They refused, and the IRA decided to remind them of what not having a ceasefire looked like: The Docklands bombing quickly brought the Tories to their senses, talks resumed and the GFA was born. At no point in the process was the IRA defeated, and in case you missed it, their Chief of Staff ran as a Presidential candidate in Ireland a few years back, and subsequently had dinner with the Queen in Buckingham Palace at her invitation. That kind of peaceful co-existence of two previously sworn enemies is one of the many benefits of EU membership; unfortunately, the devil's alliance of the Tories and the DUP has come back to haunt Britain once again. PS - you may recall that the previous occasion on which the Tories and the DUP got into bed together was to introduce something called the Poll Tax. That worked out splendidly, didn't it?
downcow wrote: » I guess you don’t really believe that. The troubles ended because the ira were so incredibly infiltrated. Stakeknife, Maginnis (your presidential candidate), etc, etc. They were defeated and the the loyalists turned up the volume with their disgraceful sectarian campaign which more than matched the ira sectarian campaign. Support in both communities deminished. I won’t happen again. Not possible.
