Kermit.de.frog wrote: » It's like a collective meltdown. I'm no SF fan but...ridiculoushttps://twitter.com/News_Letter/status/1364672691635163142
Nqp15hhu wrote: » She’s not right though. The EU and other external influencers have hopped on to the bandwagon sympathising with Northern Irish nationalism. They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents. They don’t listen to or engage with Unionist people. They are one sided.
Nqp15hhu wrote: » They used the Irish Terrorism as an excuse for an Irish Sea border but are closed off to Unionist equivalents.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The Irish Sea border is there because we were not going to suffer unduly because Unionists and The UK wanted to Brexit. There was no 'threat of terrorism'. Nobody with any sense or care for it's people wants to create the circumstances for violence. The only sensible option was the Irish Sea as all it required was Unionism to get over abstract feelings of separations and Unionists wanted Brexit, they should have thought it through and the sacrifices they would have to make. It really is a case of tough, you weren't in the power position nor was the UK
Junkyard Tom wrote: » The British border in Ireland was created by the threat of internecine terrorism by Unionists and then all out war by the British government. Those were wrongs, morally, that need to be put right.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » Hypothetically, had the trade/practicalities/business links been such that the Brexit negotiations settled on the solution that Donegal and Louth would form part of the Northern Ireland block for single market and administration purposes, and businesses in the other 24 counties of Eire would have to trade with those two counties as if they were external to Eire and the EU, would you have been OK with that ? No abstract feeling of separation would arise ?
BonnieSituation wrote: » You do realise that the UK caused this by deciding to leave the EU? So the onus is on them to come up with the solutions. Though they been somewhat wanting in that regard since 2016. Come on now. Do better.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I think it's fairly obvious you're not dealing with someone from Kerry there, probably not from the north (maybe a unionist) and most likely in GB.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody I know in SF is involved in criminality.
View wrote: » There most definitely was a “threat of terrorism”. The entire argument against a land border was that it would rekindle terrorism - terrorism that was supposedly eliminated, in favour of peaceful politics, by the GFA. And supposedly is the really important bit there because if it were truly eliminated, no one would have been taking about a “threat of terrorism” if a land border were created a quarter of a century after the GFA was signed.
Nqp15hhu wrote: » An Irish Sea Border is undemocratic. It was never voted on.
jm08 wrote: » I think you will find that Ireland always wins the PR war when it comes to Britain. Michael Portillo made a documentary called ''Hawks & Doves'' which dealt with Irish independence from the British point of view. One of the things he said that really pissed off Lloyd George and Churchill around that time is how no matter what atrocity the IRA committed (such as the assissinations of British spies which resulted in the first Bloody Sunday) that Britain always got the blame and the US in particular was always on Ireland's side. edit: Bearing in mind that 20 of the US Presidents who were of Irish descent were actually Ulster-Scots.
RobMc59 wrote: » Interesting post amongst the multitude of UK bad Ireland good usual stuff. Constantly playing the victim will work to a point.The ira learned this when they had to disband and decommission when ordered to by the US. Affection for one's ancestral origins do go a long way although generally,imo Ireland's and the UK's interests don't clash so the US doesn't have to make any major choices between the two. This is probably the first time I've seen anyone of a republican disposition acknowledge the atrocities committed by the ira which resulted in the original bloody sunday.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » It is democratic it was voted for in the House of Commons and passed. The reason this is an issue at all is because the north is not Britain and is not on the same footing as GB. The British government must consider both traditions in the north and that is precisely what has, albiet with encouragement, happened. Unionists have always had an à la carte relationship with democracy in their little ethno-statelet (its creation against the will of the Irish people, gerrymandering, one-man-one vote, sinking the Sunningdale Agreement, opposition to the GFA, opposing Language rights, marriage equality, abortion, Brexit and so on). Time for big boy trousers.
RobMc59 wrote: » All well and good Tom but a bit of graffiti on a wall and brussels and co are reaching for their Billy Connelly incontinence pants.Whats going to happen if something like that happens again?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What 'happened' this time Rob? Gove sent home with his tail between his legs, from what I can see.
RobMc59 wrote: » Interesting post amongst the multitude of UK bad Ireland good usual stuff. Constantly playing the victim will work to a point.The ira learned this when they had to disband and decommission when ordered to by the US. Affection for one's ancestral origins do go a long way although generally,imo Ireland's and the UK's interests don't clash so the US doesn't have to make any major choices between the two. ,This is probably the first time I've seen anyone of a republican disposition acknowledge the atrocities committed by the ira which resulted in the original bloody sunday.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Along with an assurance that Britain would indeed fully implement the NI protocol, and the NI protocol would be part of any future trade deals the UK make. He sure showed them!
