Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Because as the UK are no longer members of the EU, the UK can choose to diverge from EU standards. Whether they do or not, they COULD. To protect ourselves, this means either the UK need to agree to maintain the same standards as the EU (an option the UK have rejected), or we have to check things entering our market to ensure they don't carry a risk.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Even within the EU there's been restrictions on meat produce trade, like the ban on pork exports from Sardinia because of an African Swine Flu outbreak.

political analyst wrote: »

Indeed. But why are businesses in Britain and in NI getting hung-up over a few pages of documentation that they have to fill in?

Presumably, the owners of these businesses can read and write and are computer-literate, aren't they?

That would probably be better addressed to those complaining about it. One obvious reason would be the cost of implementing new processes and documentation, both financial and time cost.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you calling out each and every death in Yemen? If not, why are you defending the Saudis?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a strawman. The DUP get elected by an unrepresentative voting system so that, in Westminster they end up as the main NI party.

This is maddening.

I understand that provenance and history can play a part in people's viewpoints and perceptions about almost anything and Lord knows Ireland is pockmarked because of these viewpoints and sins of the father, but the basic point that Yagan was making, stands and did not deserve the dismissive pile on to which they have been subjected to.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So silence equating to defence only applies to Unionists. Seems unfair to hold one demographic to a higher standard than others. That's what's disingenuous.

What does this even mean?

We are constantly reminded that SF voters are voting for terrorists. Just yesterday the Tánaiste made ridiculous assertions about their political cohort, for no other reason than to score cheap political points amongst the SF-haters and Partitonists out there. It was a bizarre interjection and completely backfired.

DUP-voters absolutely deserve to be held accountable for their actions. They put the party in a position to be the arch-spokespersons for unionism.

It's all well and good that you might say to yourself, that you vote for the DUP to keep out a Shinner but you have to reconcile that with the fact that almost in 100% of cases when you give your vote to a DUP politician to keep out a Shinner you are likely to be voting for a homophobic, sexist, sectarian race-baiter. That to me is fair game and worthy of pointing out.

Choices are being made by Unionists to put them in that position. There are other options available.

I have often posted across a certain NI thread elsewhere on boards about how in the event of a Border Poll, the Southern Partitionists will have to reconcile the fact that they will be standing side-by-side with the very same people. That's an individual's right of course, but when that's pointed out they of course take umbrage at the thought of it.

It's not for Nationalism to be softly softly about the pickle Unionists might feel they're in while voting for Sammy Wilson or Gregory Campbell.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just yesterday the Tánaiste made ridiculous assertions about their political cohort, for no other reason than to score cheap political points amongst the SF-haters and Partitonists out there.

It's absolutely galling that the Tánaiste would bring sectarianism into the politics of our secular democracy while not calling out the DUP for their opposition to the peace process.

I'm sure there's some law in our constitution against TDs stoking sectarian politics in the Dail.

The Tánaiste's binary world view would have us believe that Irish protestants only vote for British unionist parties, which is a diminution of the protestant contribution our nation and especially to the spirit of 1798.

Edit to add that it has become undeniable that the Tánaiste's understanding of his nation is superficial and his politics more style than substance.

eire4 wrote: »

It was cheap political point scoring no question about it. Sad really as it demeans his integrity.
As for not calling out the DUP well those of a revisionist bent many of whom reside or have resided in Fine Gael have long been turning a blind eye to the behaviour of unionists and loyalist while at the same time lambasting Republicans.

I remember hearing Gareth Fitzgerald relating how he only heard about Ireland becoming a republic on the doorstep of a house he was canvassing. He said one minute he was canvassing for Fine Gael as the "commonwealth party" only to be hear secondhand that we were out of it!

I have little doubt that the end of partition via ballot or a USSR style dissolution of the UK will be as challenging for FG as will be for northern Ireland unionists.

10000maniacs wrote: »

There are nearly always exceptions to every scenario, apart from the fact that that I cannot recall a single Catholic ever having been a member of the DUP.
I personally think Sinn Fein are a much more progressive and outward looking party than the DUP.
Sure, I am well aware I am comparing apples to oranges here. But it's just my gut feeling.

Ceann amháin.

10000maniacs wrote: »

Touché. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Interestingly, he's a gaeilgeoir who has voted left-wing and republican in the past. The common ground is anti-gay and anti-abortion stances.

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/jewish-community-and-cricketers-latest-to-be-hit-by-ni-protocol-rules-3158723?r=9537





If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

The lack of kosher meat products available to the Jewish community in NI is the latest in a long line of tenuous excuses for the DUP's faux hysterics regarding Article 16. And whipping up faux loyalist paramilitary unrest was yet another despicable and reckless action recently.

This thread was originally in after hours people were having a good discussion but after 2 days and 11 pages one of the mods came to the conclusion that it doesn't belong in after hours.

I seen on sky news last night how the current UK PM has been breaking a long standing policy of claiming there is no strategic interest in Northern Ireland but this PM has made it clear that that couldn't be further from the truth.

It got me wondering what exactly is the strategic interest in Northern Ireland?

I always believed until the last year or two that the UK had no interest in Northern Ireland and would get rid of it the first chance they got but I was mainly thinking economically and not about the wider picture that there are probably tons of strategic and beneficial reasons to keeping Northern Ireland.

It's mainly propaganda from the troubles to prevent terrorism why a lot of us believe there is no strategic interest in Northern Ireland.

Terry136 wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could believe it wouldn't especially when it would be backed by all main political parties and there is practically no one in the republic strongly opposed to a United Ireland .

the most opposition you hear to a United Ireland in the republic is "oh well is it the right time... Can we afford it".

Thing is a United Ireland is not relevant to most people North or South so asking someone randomly out of the blue if they would vote for a United Ireland might not be the same answer after months of debate and a concerted campaign supported and backed by every single political party in the republic of Ireland.

In the context of Brexit, many people in the Republic might see a connection to Europe as increasingly more important than a UI. Regarding your criteria for opposition to a UI, as well as right time and cost, many people in the Republic would also want to know what a million Unionists think about it.

Terry136 wrote: »

I don't think they would, a United Ireland would likely pass here no matter what.

A poll in 2015 found that people in the Republic had very flighty commitments to a UI. For instance, 73% were in favour of a UI if they paid less tax. If they paid more tax, only 31% were in favour of a UI. I also wonder how people in the Republic would vote if they were told that Unionism was very against a UI.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've read various reports to this effect over the years. I think the prospects of buoying NI's dysfunctional economy and incorporating Unionists into a unified Ireland is going to be off putting to a lot of people.

Agreed. The idea of a UI is nice but has many potential pitfalls. My only concern now the UK is out of the EU, and it's probably not realistic, is that Unionism begins to dominate again in NI. If it suited the Tories politically to change the system to suit Unionism again, then they would do it in a heartbeat. However, I trust that the EU and US would use economic incentives to twist arms should that arise.