Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Moggy told the unionists today if they want to get rid of the protocol they need to win a majority in the assembly next year. That shouldn't be any problem if the place is falling down around everyone's ears as they claim.
downcow wrote: » People can vote for the tories at every election they wish. They just chose not to. You could argue similar for Scotland.
briany wrote: » Correct. To any Loyalists contemplating violence, I'd respectfully suggest that their time be better invested thinking of snappy slogans to be printed on campaign leaflets.
Sunny Disposition wrote: » It’s only 11 years since there was a Scottish prime minister though. Would there not being a chance of having one from NI not be seen as a problem?
downcow wrote: » Who said loyalists are contemplating violence? The only organisations that have threatened violence to this stage are the nationalist parties and the Roi pm. It worked quite well for them and yes you would anticipate loyalists would learn from their successful use of the threats of violence, but I am not aware of any groups on the loyalist side replicating it yet
Nqp15hhu wrote: » And yet Leo Vardkar used the IRA’s past influence to erect the Irish Sea Border. Biased much.
“When Leo Varadkar talked about the possibility of dissident violence along the border, if there were any border infrastructure piece, I thought that was wrong. I said so at the time. Because you can’t use the threat of violence to achieve something. And that unfortunately now has set a precedent where people from loyalism are looking at that, and they’re saying ‘hold on a second, he used that in that particular way, so now we’re going to use that’. “That’s wrong. That is not the way forward.”
Nqp15hhu wrote: » I’m afraid he did use past terrorism. He wheeled that old chestnut out countless times.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Wrong again; as you've been (repeatedly) told, jt was actually your PSNI who said there was a risk of violence if there was a land border. The Taoiseach stated that the PSNI had made this prediction (he did not threaten violence....unless you're suggesting he's going to land up with an Armalite himself, or he has connections with Republican Paramilitaries like Arlene and Co sitting down to meetings with Loyalist paramilitaries), nor have I heard any Nationalist party threaten violence. The only actual threats I've seen were spray painted at Larne Harbour....are you suggesting that Republicans did this? Also, you seem to keep missing it despite saying you're happy to clarify; who are the Labour and Tory ministers supporting the legal challenge on the NI Protocol? Beyond Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party, which politicians from Britain are involved?
jm08 wrote: » So what was the HoC Brexit Committee saying about it the previous year? They are the ones who said it would be a problem a year previous to Varadkar saying it to the Council of Ministers. What did you expect him to say, ah the lads up in the PSNI and the HoC lads think it will reignite the troubles, but sure we will ignore what they think. If anyone used anything, it was Arlene claiming that Varadkar was making it up. Incidentally, what do you think would happen at the Border if a hard one was reinstalled?
downcow wrote: » Here we are. The last sentence from jmo8 is classic of what nationalists were doing. I think loyalists have noticed
downcow wrote: » Now you are dancing on the head of a pin. They used the threat of violence. One of the most notorious was when you pm took a copy of a newspaper showing bombings to an Eu dinner. When you deny that nationalists and your pm used the threat of violence to their advantage, you lose all credibility with me.
jm08 wrote: » What were nationalists doing?
Fionn1952 wrote: » Miss the second half of my post again? I must be in double figures requesting clarification on which Tory and Labour Party members are supporters of the legal challenge? You've stated that it had cross party support, and specified both Labour Party and Tory members, as far as I can see, the only cosignatories from Britain are Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party . I am not stating that there are not other cosignatories to the bill, I don't know. I'm curious and that is why I have asked repeatedly for clarification; you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain, cross party legal challenge and stated you're happy to clarify further, but you have totally dodged answering it for several days now. Are you just stalling for time hoping you can find a local parish council member of each party who has passingly mentioned it?!
downcow wrote: » The energy you have to follow an answer from me. Lol. Potty you didn’t have similar energy to follow some other posters who won’t answer. Anyhow. I was ignoring your question primarily because you had done exactly as I had predicted in my post. You have tried to paint it as if I said it would be transformative in the situation, while I specifically said it had the potential but may well achieve nothing. And you continue in every post about it. Your latest in this post is - “you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain”. Tell you what; when you show my where I said anything even close to that, then I will demonstrate it. Is that fair?
downcow wrote: » I have no problem clarifying it. I have no idea whether it will be a game changer or not, but yes, it is a potential gamechanger. Do you think it is only Kate hoey and Ben habib that are party to the legal action or are you just being disingenuous In case you don’t know. Among others, the legal action has been signed by The leaders of all unionist parties in Northern Ireland The leader of the unionist group on HOC The First Minster of Northern Ireland The only living key architect of the Belfast Agreement, Lord Trimble Members of both Tory and Labour parties Pretty comprehensive
downcow wrote: » 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.
downcow wrote: » Using the threat of violence
“Dissident groups see [the border] as an area which is contentious, which will give them a further rallying call to try and engender support,” Harris told MPs. “It is of concern. They have a focus in this. They see it as an opportunity. “Infrastructure on the border – that would be an obvious place for dissident groups to rally around and also to attack. It is highly foreseeable that dissident groups would seek to take action and that would include [against] buildings.”
FrancieBrady wrote: » There was 'NO' threat of violence, there was a concern about violence, shared by all parties to the negotiations. That was among other reasons for opting for a sea border, not least being that those who wanted to Brexit would be the ones to actually lose something.
briany wrote: » I was listening to a clip from the Pat Kenny show talking about the potential for Loyalist violence now that the sea border is in place, and one of the talking points was, "If Leo Varadkar can threaten violence over a land border, then why can't we threaten violence over a sea one?" There are problems with this logic. Firstly, a threat tends to come from a person who holds the power to follow through on it, and Leo Varadkar, as far as I know has no known connections to Republican paramilitaries, such that he could direct them. Secondly, it seems that Loyalist paramilitary groups need to perceive a threat of violence in order to give their own aspirations toward violence a moral justification, through equivalence, so it doesn't matter the language used, they're dead set on perceiving any concern about violence around a land border as a threat. To be fair, I would hear concerns about violence over a sea border sympathetically enough. I would have much preferred a return to the status quo pre-2016. But, that wasn't to be, and that has meant a harder border had to go somewhere, and be it on land or sea, it was going to p*ss off someone and cause heaps of red tape. Given the way NI voted in the Brexit referendum, and given the support among MLAs for a backstop, and given NI business leaders' apparent enthusiasm around the arrangement, I would believe that between the two choices, there is more of a mandate for the sea border at this point. And you know what? That could change in the future, and if that's through the democratic method put in place, I'll say, 'fair enough'. Until then, I don't know what to tell ye.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I have no issues with a democratic mandate. There isn't one here though. If a majority of the north wish to change the status quo (be that the electorate or in the Executive) then things should change. It's ok asking for change, but change to what?
briany wrote: » If the Executive votes to rescind the NI protocol, then it will follow, perhaps not immediately, that EU-UK border infrastructure will be implemented on the land crossing between NI and RoI. That'll be the change.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I have not, Downcow. I've been very clear that you stated it was a POTENTIAL gamechanger that might go nowhere. The energy you have put into dodging the question is quite telling. Why would I put effort into chasing people to answer questions I haven't asked? I'm not the thread police, I'm just asking a question on something YOU stated you'd be happy to clarify, so I'm holding you to your word on that. But yes, I will show you saying something "pretty close" to that. You stated it was supported by members of the Labour Party and Tory Party and that the support was, 'pretty comprehensive'. I'd consider, 'pretty comprehensive' and, 'widely supported' to have pretty similar meanings. If you're going to dodge the question on the basis of picking out a difference between comprehensive support and wide support, well that would be incredibly telling. Pretty comprehensive indeed....all I've asked for is who the members of the Tory and Labour parties are who are party to the legal action, as per your quote above. Furthermore, back when you initially brought the topic up, you very clearly implied significant support in Britain; Here you are stating that it will be FRONTED by cross party MPs from Britain (so you've already backtracked from MPs to members of the Party, presumably you tried to sneak this in unnoticed when you realised Kate Hoey wasn't an MP). For a legal challenge to be FRONTED by a cross party support from Britain would suggest pretty bloody wide support to me. Either way, I'm happy for you to clarify whether or not there are any Labour or Tory MPs party to the legal challenge, whether there are even any party members who are party to the legal challenge, or whether the, 'pretty comprehensive' support is just Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party? You're fierce rapid to accuse others of dancing on the head of a pin, yet here you are avoiding answering something you stated you'd be happy to clarify based on a semantic argument of the difference between, 'wide' and, 'comprehensive'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, we will maintain that isn't acceptable. This is an internal UK issue, if the Protocol goes then the WA goes and it will be up to the UK to offer a solution or we revert to No Deal. Silly, if Unionists are thinking getting rid of the Protocol means the EU fold their tent and give in on a hard border in ireland.
downcow wrote: » So you'll never catch me not having the balls to address a previous post. You are correct in that I thought Kate Hoey was still a member of the Labour Party (but talk about dancing on the head of a pin). I also was not sure which party Ben Habib belonged to ( he was a major tory donator). But that said, you are correct, that it does not have the breadth of support that I was lead to believe when I was told it was happening - That said, it has much greater support from unionist parties that I was lead to believe. But I still believe terms you use like "you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain" totally misrepresent my post on the subject - but hey, I am used to that In short, give yourself a big pat on the back; that's one up for you - I don't often make errors or not be entirely factual on here, so I understand your need for tiny victories when i make a slip
briany wrote: » We will maintain that any hardening of the current RoI-NI crossing is not ideal and certainly all possible avenues will be looked into in order to avoid that eventuality, and we'll be working with our friends and partners in Belfast and in London to see that the GFA is maintained, etc. But if the last few years of talk of 'amazing technology' that can invisibly monitor a trading frontier have shown us anything, it's that the UK government is full of hot air on the whole issue, and sort of don't really care. They'd waffle on in the scenario where consent is not granted and all parties would come to the conclusion that a border has to go on the land. Everybody would be too fed up with the whole thing to argue much more about it, and say to themselves, 'ah, it's only a few extra checks on things'. Whether or not this is true, those in the negotiating room would just shrug and get on with it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
