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

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well like everything in Unionism, they;re only against it til they're not.
So I guess we can use that as a guide.

While I won't speak for your average Unionist, Political Unionism at least has certainly leaned towards, 'NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, wait....how much will you pay?!"

https://twitter.com/TadhgHickey/status/1364864367121022977

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TadhgHickey/status/1364864367121022977

It's funny and all, but not a 3rd time!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116403928&postcount=5900

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116403919&postcount=5899

I see Ben, who we discussed the other day, funnily enough, has gotten himself in some hot water with an outrageous tweet. The editor of the Newsletter has resigned it is being rumoured online...anyone hear anything?

Eu8R-MAXAAEaEVm?format=jpg&name=large

Natterjack from Kerry

No.

Who is Pastor Jimberoo?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Who is Pastor Jimberoo?

A parody Twitter account, who apparently went to the same school as young Ben (not too many Provos attended that particular school...)

I certainly didn't think it was serious enough to lead to Ben's resignation, though as far as journalists go, while surprised I won't shed too many tears if it turns out to be true. He's brass necked out a lot worse than this though, so I would be VERY surprised.

EDIT: I do see he hasn't Tweeted in two days, which is unusual for him

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A parody Twitter account, who apparently went to the same school as young Ben (not too many Provos attended that particular school...)

I certainly didn't think it was serious enough to lead to Ben's resignation, though as far as journalists go, while surprised I won't shed too many tears if it turns out to be true. He's brass necked out a lot worse than this though, so I would be VERY surprised.

EDIT: I do see he hasn't Tweeted in two days, which is unusual for him

I saw this...but may be spoofing. I think the Pastor's crime in Ben's eyes was challenging Stephen Nolan's bias.

https://twitter.com/BorderSeaIrish/status/1364928087662723076

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I saw this...but may be spoofing. I think the Pastor's crime in Ben's eyes was challenging Stephen Nolan's bias.

https://twitter.com/BorderSeaIrish/status/1364928087662723076

That is what it spawned from alright, but it led to certain challenges regarding his right to anonymity and then escalated to the Provo Jimberoo nonsense, which as a fellow alumnus of the same secondary, he would be well aware isn't the case.

I'd be incredibly surprised if it was serious enough to lead to a resignation unless Jimberoo is much better connected that I suspected: there aren't very many people regularly reading The Newsletter who'd be too upset at calling anyone who could be perceived as attacking Loyalism a Provo.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That is what it spawned from alright, but it led to certain challenges regarding his right to anonymity and then escalated to the Provo Jimberoo nonsense, which as a fellow alumnus of the same secondary, he would be well aware isn't the case.

I'd be incredibly surprised if it was serious enough to lead to a resignation unless Jimberoo is much better connected that I suspected: there aren't very many people regularly reading The Newsletter who'd be too upset at calling anyone who could be perceived as attacking Loyalism a Provo.

No word today...Ben still silent on Twitter. Lying low I'd say, letting it blow over.

The pastor has relaunched his account anyhow:

https://twitter.com/PastorJimberoo3

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The pastor has relaunched his account anyhow:

https://twitter.com/PastorJimberoo3

And apparently it was confirmed on the Nolan Show this morning that Lowry has not resigned. That's also heard second hand though as I would watch paint dry before putting Nolan on.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

As unfortunate as it may be, often with legal advice you get what you pay for.

Can we just clarify that this was indeed the big news you were boasting about a few days ago, and that your idea of cross party support was indeed Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party?

Hahaha. I can’t be bothered scrolling back, but I even specifically told you that I was being clear in the post that I was writing in such a way so as you couldn’t say later that I had claimed it was big stuff that was going to change the world. And haha you just done it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has asked the strategic geniuses in Unionism what happens if they win. Anyone prepared to tell us in the Unionist camp?

I actually don’t know. I had the same question. Can boris just ignore it. Quite possibly

Natterjack from Kerry

It would depend on the nature of the judgement. While Johnson is as big a chancer as you will get, the UK is still very much a strongly democratic country, with an independent legal structure, and enough decent people who will demand the rule of law. Boris, Gove, Rees Moog et al were firmly put back in their box in their attempt to prorogue parliament. They did not get away with the bluff and bulldoze approach. So bluster alone may not suffice. But again, it depends on the detail of the judgement if it went that way. I feel there are some grounds alright, which may be acknowledged by the court, but considered weaker than the overall position of the UK.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody has asked the strategic geniuses in Unionism what happens if they win. Anyone prepared to tell us in the Unionist camp?

In the unlikely event they won all the judges can do is ask the government to find a "remedy". They can't get rid of the protocol even if they won. That's not how it works.

Tyrone212

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

Northern Ireland is not yours. You should respect our wishes here and stop trying to take hold of something that doesn’t belong to you, just to one up against the United Kingdom.

The irony LOL

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In the unlikely event they won all the judges can do is ask the government to find a "remedy". They can't get rid of the protocol even if they won. That's not how it works.

That's what I would have thought, they'll succeed in plunging the 'motherland' into even more crisis.

Be gas if they precipitated a referendum here over it. Could see Boris doing it too.

Junkyard Tom

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In the unlikely event they won all the judges can do is ask the government to find a "remedy". They can't get rid of the protocol even if they won. That's not how it works.

You can't amend an international agreement with internal legislation. They'd have to back to the EU in an even weaker position than before they left.

downcow wrote: »

Hahaha. I can’t be bothered scrolling back, but I even specifically told you that I was being clear in the post that I was writing in such a way so as you couldn’t say later that I had claimed it was big stuff that was going to change the world. And haha you just done it.

I said big news Downcow, nothing about changing the world.

Your tone clearly implied that should it pass, it would be an interesting development, though you did caveat it with the, 'it might go nowhere', which is fair enough. I'd call interesting developments big news, but realistically it isn't a particularly significant part of my question. You also said it COULD be a gamechanger, so to me calling it big news seems reasonable.

To save your scrolling, your post was

downcow wrote: »

Watch this space. There will be an interesting development around the protocol in the coming days.
....and it won’t be a guy with a paintbrush this time

And here is where you said it could be a gamechanger;

downcow wrote: »

The developments I refer to coming up may also achieve nothing or it could be a gamechanger. As people on here say about a referendum, we only need to get lucky once.

I am not being more explicit as I think those involved should announce it, but it will be fronted by cross party MPs on that big island where you say no one cares.

And let me emphasise again so as you don’t misinterpret it, it my achieve nothing. It may end up another lost battle, but what is key is who wins the war.

So I'll ask the question again, and to avoid deflection into semantics about the significance of the term, 'big news', I'll rephrase: was this indeed the development you were discussing a few days ago, and is the cross party support from Britain you referenced essentially just Kate Hoey and a member of the Brexit Party?

BonnieSituation

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You can't amend an international agreement with internal legislation. They'd have to back to the EU in an even weaker position than before they left.

Never stopped them trying before.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You can't amend an international agreement with internal legislation. They'd have to back to the EU in an even weaker position than before they left.

And that would take them back to 'no deal' territory. The British are gonna love those who want to maintain the Union with them, for that.

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And that would take them back to 'no deal' territory. The British are gonna love those who want to maintain the Union with them, for that.

unionism only cares for itself and no-one else. It wants to live in the old days when it ruled over its catholic subjects. see, thats why they thought brexit was great - they thought they were going back to the old days. never dawned on them that the rest of the world has sussed them at this stage

BonnieSituation

The Old Lady going back to her roots:

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/a-unionist-history-of-northern-ireland-1.4488587?mode=amp

I reckon we'll be seeing quite an uptick in articles and discussion about how benign and misunderstood Unionism was.

Pass me the bucket.

https://twitter.com/DavidYoungPA/status/1365351988582637577

Is this not an illegal act?

lurleen lumpkin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is this not an illegal act?

Decided on during the meeting with illegal organisations.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavidYoungPA/status/1365351988582637577

Is this not an illegal act?

DUP have gone rogue...this should be fun.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

DUP have gone rogue...this should be fun.

More popcorn Francie