nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Tokyo

Mod:

Continuation of the How long before Irish reunification? thread.

Please note that all mod warnings, actions and threadbans from the previous thread carry across to here.

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
blanch152
Randy Archer
Natterjack from Kerry
littlevillage

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

grayzer75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brexit will affect Britain first, and then it cannot help have an effect on northern Ireland. We are a month in and the damage already is way ahead of what I expected it to be. The full effect hasn't even been reached yet.

Brexit will also hit the republic too, the stockpiled warehouses are starting to run empty and importing from the UK is still a sh*tshow e.g. we were taking a load of dumplings in through Dublin port last weekend and it took 9 hours and 78 emails to get them through - the systems are way too clunky and the UK exporters still aren't up to speed.

FrancieBrady

grayzer75 wrote: »

Brexit will also hit the republic too, the stockpiled warehouses are starting to run empty and importing from the UK is still a sh*tshow e.g. we were taking a load of dumplings in through Dublin port last weekend and it took 9 hours and 78 emails to get them through - the systems are way too clunky and the UK exporters still aren't up to speed.

Oh of course, never ever denied Brexit would cause issues for us. It is a ****show for everyone sadly.

Five Eighth

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Does that make any sense to any one ?

"...In 1914, despite a royal proclamation prohibiting arms importation into Ireland, Fred Crawford, gunrunner for the Ulster Volunteer Force was commissioned to buy 20,000 rifles and two million rounds of ammunition in Hamburg. They were landed at Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee on the night of April 24th-25th and were then distributed unimpeded to UVF units throughout Ulster." - piece extracted from an article written by Diarmuid Ferriter 'Same Old Orange Card, Same Old Mistakes' published in The Irish Times. 5th February 2021. p10.

Arming a militia. Who controlled the militia??? Open a history book.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They stoked up a big huff about the Protocol...Edwin Poots pretended there was a terrorist threat. Arlene talked the talk and asked people to sign a petition...the petition has reached the grand total of 135,000 concerned people across the UK (and Tuvalu )

Judge for yourself what is going on.

Lol. I had never heard of tavalu in my life until I saw it on this thread.
I was scrolling tiktok tonight and I came accross the ‘10 most Protestant countries in the world’. Yes lol, you’ve guessed it. At number one is Tuvalu at 94% haha. I wonder does that explain anything

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Lol. I had never heard of tavalu in my life until I saw it on this thread.
I was scrolling tiktok tonight and I came accross the ‘10 most Protestant countries in the world’. Yes lol, you’ve guessed it. At number one is Tuvalu at 94% haha. I wonder does that explain anything

How does that explain Poots actions?

Kermit.de.frog

Good to see the UK government is committed to the proper implementation of the protocol

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1359994548743794688

Et-q5-kXUAgHNrb?format=jpg&name=small

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How does that explain Poots actions?

You need to lighten up and get a sense of humour Francie. It has nothing to do with Poots.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You need to lighten up and get a sense of humour Francie. It has nothing to do with Poots.

It has nothing to do with anything much on this thread including the point I made.

So where does Unionism go now downcow? Looks like Gove was waffling in his letter and is going to toe the EU line.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has nothing to do with anything much on this thread including the point I made.

So where does Unionism go now downcow? Looks like Gove was waffling in his letter and is going to toe the EU line.

You need to try and remove your hate for unionism out of the equation.
The issues caused by the protocol are affecting unionists, nationalists and others equally. The only additional issue for unionists is the diminution of sovereignty.
The only additional issue for rampant republicans is that that very diminution of sovereignty will decreases further the number of people who would vote for a United ireland.

So you may try to paint the current situation as a victory for nationalism, but nothing could be further from the truth.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You need to try and remove your hate for unionism out of the equation.
The issues caused by the protocol are affecting unionists, nationalists and others equally. The only additional issue for unionists is the diminution of sovereignty.
The only additional issue for rampant republicans is that that very diminution of sovereignty will decreases further the number of people who would vote for a United ireland.

So you may try to paint the current situation as a victory for nationalism, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn't 'paint' anything...I asked you, where now for Unionism? As it seems Gove was full of bluster and has sold you out again.

*Nationalists weren't complaining about the Protocol, they were complaining about issues caused by the Protocol, which seem to be the UK's government fault in the first place as they haven't used mechaisms within the Protocol.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has nothing to do with anything much on this thread including the point I made.

So where does Unionism go now downcow? Looks like Gove was waffling in his letter and is going to toe the EU line.

I am not quite sure Francie, but a guy you hold in high esteem (Peter Robinson), and you can rarely mention border polls with referring to how he has his finger on the pulse. Has spoke out this morning.
He said this today about Roi and nationalists,
“ I am never sure if they are deliberately trying to inflame the situation; deaf to the impact of their sanctimonious diktats, or so bent on appropriating Northern Ireland that they really don’t care”
And he went on to say the only way to get rid of the protocol is to bring down Stormont.

I don’t agree. I think that is premature. But he’s the guy you think knows best in the unionist community

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

I am not quite sure Francie, but a guy you hold in high esteem (Peter Robinson), and you can rarely mention border polls with referring to how he has his finger on the pulse. Has spoke out this morning.
He said this today about Roi and nationalists,
“ I am never sure if they are deliberately trying to inflame the situation; deaf to the impact of their sanctimonious diktats, or so bent on appropriating Northern Ireland that they really don’t care”
And he went on to say the only way to get rid of the protocol is to bring down Stormont.

I don’t agree. I think that is premature. But he’s the guy you think knows best in the unionist community

Why do they want to get rid of the protocol? A more difficult Brexit could lead to a UI. If Unionists go along with the protocol there is zero chance of a UI.

maestroamado

downcow wrote: »

I am not quite sure Francie, but a guy you hold in high esteem (Peter Robinson), and you can rarely mention border polls with referring to how he has his finger on the pulse. Has spoke out this morning.
He said this today about Roi and nationalists,
“ I am never sure if they are deliberately trying to inflame the situation; deaf to the impact of their sanctimonious diktats, or so bent on appropriating Northern Ireland that they really don’t care”
And he went on to say the only way to get rid of the protocol is to bring down Stormont.

I don’t agree. I think that is premature. But he’s the guy you think knows best in the unionist community

I am alsom an admirer of Peter Robinson.
He had the courage to stand in front of his own people and tell them marching down Garvaghy Road was wrong.
For this reason alone i would listen to what he has to say.
I have not heard his name mentioned for several years.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I am not quite sure Francie, but a guy you hold in high esteem (Peter Robinson), and you can rarely mention border polls with referring to how he has his finger on the pulse. Has spoke out this morning.
He said this today about Roi and nationalists,
“ I am never sure if they are deliberately trying to inflame the situation; deaf to the impact of their sanctimonious diktats, or so bent on appropriating Northern Ireland that they really don’t care”
And he went on to say the only way to get rid of the protocol is to bring down Stormont.

I don’t agree. I think that is premature. But he’s the guy you think knows best in the unionist community

I just finished reading that article...all of it . And he doesn't say the only way forward is to bring down Stormont. He also talks of the option of a single voice for Unionism and voting it down.

I'd reject your 'finger on the pulse' assessment of Peter,(he seems to have finally lost the plot in that article) while pointing at Dublin and whinging about them being mean, he utterly fails to mention the activity of his own party in causing this entire mess. Dublin is this, that and the other, the PM is not trustworthy but NO mention of the DUP's part in the piece.

He mentions the possibility of violence but fails to mention that his own party is faking threats to peace. In effect they are the 'terrorists'.

Yeh, if Peter has his 'finger on the pulse'. I am afraid the pulse is rather weak.

trashcan

I read the article too. I had to laugh at Peter Robinson complaining about “politicians from the Republic proclaiming that the arrangement they and their EU mates imposed..”. No Peter, arrangements that were willing signed up to by the UK Government, they were not “imposed” by anyone. If unionists don’t like the protocol, (and we get it, they don’t ) why are they not directing their ire at Boris & co for agreeing to t ? But no, better to point the finger at Dublin, as always. It’s all a conspiracy with the dastardly EU complicit.

I’d also be curious to know how he thinks collapsing Stormont is going to result in the protocol being dropped. London quite happily let Stormont sit idle for what, three years ? What makes anyone think they wouldn’t do so again rather than go back to the EU and try to reopen an agreement that they barely got over the line in the first place.

downcow

jh79 wrote: »

Why do they want to get rid of the protocol? A more difficult Brexit could lead to a UI. If Unionists go along with the protocol there is zero chance of a UI.

Yeah I think that is very astute and true. Many unionist are struggling with the perceived separation from GB caused by checks at Larne.
Personally I think this will all be sorted out and the protocol will remain. And yes there will be no reason for anyone other than diehard romantic republicans to vote for destabilising everything through a UI

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I just finished reading that article...all of it . And he doesn't say the only way forward is to bring down Stormont. He also talks of the option of a single voice for Unionism and voting it down.

I'd reject your 'finger on the pulse' assessment of Peter,(he seems to have finally lost the plot in that article) while pointing at Dublin and whinging about them being mean, he utterly fails to mention the activity of his own party in causing this entire mess. Dublin is this, that and the other, the PM is not trustworthy but NO mention of the DUP's part in the piece.

He mentions the possibility of violence but fails to mention that his own party is faking threats to peace. In effect they are the 'terrorists'.

Yeh, if Peter has his 'finger on the pulse'. I am afraid the pulse is rather weak.

I absolutely do not think he has his finger on the pulse. I have no time for him. You are the one goes on about how astute he is in calling for unionists to discuss a border pole.

View

jh79 wrote: »

Why do they want to get rid of the protocol? A more difficult Brexit could lead to a UI. If Unionists go along with the protocol there is zero chance of a UI.

Probably because the overwhelming majority of NI’s trade goes to/from the rest of the U.K. and only a much smaller minority goes to Ireland/the EU. From memory, I think the ratio was circa 3:1. Hence the “sea border” causes far more problems for NI trade-wise than a land border would.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I absolutely do not think he has his finger on the pulse. I have no time for him. You are the one goes on about how astute he is in calling for unionists to discuss a border pole.

I can safely say, I never used the words 'astute' and 'Peter Robinson' in the same sentence.

What do you think Unionism has to do to take advantage of one of his suggestions, speak as one voice?

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

Probably because the overwhelming majority of NI’s trade goes to/from the rest of the U.K.

That's disputed as I believe it disregards SMEs. It would also disregard goods movement back-and-forth across the (non-existent) border.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I just finished reading that article...all of it . And he doesn't say the only way forward is to bring down Stormont. He also talks of the option of a single voice for Unionism and voting it down.

I'd reject your 'finger on the pulse' assessment of Peter,(he seems to have finally lost the plot in that article) while pointing at Dublin and whinging about them being mean, he utterly fails to mention the activity of his own party in causing this entire mess. Dublin is this, that and the other, the PM is not trustworthy but NO mention of the DUP's part in the piece.

He mentions the possibility of violence but fails to mention that his own party is faking threats to peace. In effect they are the 'terrorists'.

Yeh, if Peter has his 'finger on the pulse'. I am afraid the pulse is rather weak.

trashcan wrote: »

I read the article too. I had to laugh at Peter Robinson complaining about “politicians from the Republic proclaiming that the arrangement they and their EU mates imposed..”. No Peter, arrangements that were willing signed up to by the UK Government, they were not “imposed” by anyone. If unionists don’t like the protocol, (and we get it, they don’t ) why are they not directing their ire at Boris & co for agreeing to t ? But no, better to point the finger at Dublin, as always. It’s all a conspiracy with the dastardly EU complicit.

I’d also be curious to know how he thinks collapsing Stormont is going to result in the protocol being dropped. London quite happily let Stormont sit idle for what, three years ? What makes anyone think they wouldn’t do so again rather than go back to the EU and try to reopen an agreement that they barely got over the line in the first place.

Why is EVERYTHING imposed upon Unionists? Have they ever taken a decision in their lives?

Is it not time for them to stick on the big boy pants?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why is EVERYTHING imposed upon Unionists? Have they ever taken a decision in their lives?

Is it not time for them to stick on the big boy pants?

That's what I was asking downcow...what do they need to do to speak as one voice.

BonnieSituation

Who knows? As an Irish Nationalist I'm not really in the business helping them out.

I mean, they normally learn so much from Republicans as per Nelson McCausland. Maybe they can pay more attention.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can safely say, I never used the words 'astute' and 'Peter Robinson' in the same sentence.

What do you think Unionism has to do to take advantage of one of his suggestions, speak as one voice?

Francie you are extremely disingenuous. I am not scrolling back to ensure I used exactly the words you used.
You know what you have said again and again on this forum about peter Robinson and your admiration for his enlightened commentary.
You can’t have it both ways. I disagree with you and peter on a border poll and I disagree with him again on this.
But you want your cake and eat it

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What do you think Unionism has to do to take advantage of one of his suggestions, speak as one voice?

Another silly comment/question. Do you mean on this issue or in general.
I can’t remember any Democratic group of people speaking with one voice on anything whether tories, labour, uup etc. And that’s healthy.
I do know of a few Undemocratic groups who outwardly talk in one voice eg The Workers Party of Korea, the Communist Party of China, Sinn Fein, DUP, etc.

So please protect us from unquestioning unity

mikyjimy

sooner the better

View

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's disputed as I believe it disregards SMEs. It would also disregard goods movement back-and-forth across the (non-existent) border.

It’s based on official statistics and includes all “exports” - be they to Ireland/the EU or the rest of the U.K.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Another silly comment/question. Do you mean on this issue or in general.
I can’t remember any Democratic group of people speaking with one voice on anything whether tories, labour, uup etc. And that’s healthy.
I do know of a few Undemocratic groups who outwardly talk in one voice eg The Workers Party of Korea, the Communist Party of China, Sinn Fein, DUP, etc.

So please protect us from unquestioning unity

SF and the DUP are political parties. One represents some nationalists the other some Unionists.

So you think should continue as they are?

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's what I was asking downcow...what do they need to do to speak as one voice.

Which is an extraordinary question, and displays a very blinkered and selfish perspective. Wanting unionists to speak as one voice might suit you, but betrays your reductionist view that unionists are all the same, should speak as one, simplify their message for you rather than comprise a spectrum of unionist opinions and aims. Extraordinary.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Which is an extraordinary question, and displays a very blinkered and selfish perspective. Wanting unionists to speak as one voice might suit you, but betrays your reductionist view that unionists are all the same, should speak as one, simplify their message for you rather than comprise a spectrum of unionist opinions and aims. Extraordinary.

Not me that said it Jack...it was one of Peter Robinson's suggestions to which he laid out, what would happen if Unionism (which is a political ideology BTW, not a party) cannot find a united front.