downcow wrote: » That won’t be happening. U.K. is a democratic country. When we hold a referendum we try to have a little bit of integrity with the decision. I did not vote to leave but I respect that the majority of my nation did vote to leave. What you describe is not leaving.
Larbre34 wrote: » What the UK did was a farce. And internationally it has turned itself into an utter joke. The most egregious bit of mis-governance by a major world democracy of modern times.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Hark, do I hear a Unionist gloating about how 'democratic' they are???? That cheered up my porridge no end.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Are you feeling cheerful because of downcow's hypocrisy of the unionist history of using gerrymandering to maintain an unfair dominance over NI or are you feeling cheerful because of downcow's hypocrisy to democracy that the unionists are rejoicing over a economically damaging referendum when it was rejected by their electorate or are you feeling cheerful because of downcow's hypocrisy over the DUP's covert advertising of a pro-Brexit stance outside of their constituency in an apparent attempt to subvert the democratic process or are you feeling cheerful over one of the many many other forms of hyprocrisy from the unionist side when it comes to democracy? I'm just curious to know will the likes of downcow be as respectful of democracy when a eventual border poll gives a result that the unionists aren't happy with.
Larbre34 wrote: » It certainly is. And if they try their nonsense in Dublin also, I daresay they'll be sent home with something to remember their trip by.
Sunny Disposition wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/loyalists-plan-dublin-protest-over-protocol-40584328.html Unionism is starting to look very thuggish, read Bryson's comments.
Castlekeeper wrote: » Language appears to be important, which might be why the term Brexit was used rather than UKexit (or some other "UK" based variant).
Larbre34 wrote: » I don't think Martin is undermining it, it's just a bit of good cop, bad cop. Martin wants to keep the cross border institutions going above all else, but Government policy isn't ambiguous on the protocol.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You can see Unionists on here 'setting up a win' on the Protocol. Jamie has already climbed down from the 'Protocol must go' stance to 'significant changes'. The EU will get the British to use the easements within the Protocol and these guys will be on their keyboards claiming a win and Never Never Never will once again become Never Never Never ...ah shure go on. And they will be also be claiming the success of the Protocol as their own in due course, no doubt.
Sunny Disposition wrote: » It's genuinely a bit depressing, they don't feel they can get anywhere through politics, so coming down to Dublin to start trouble is the next best thing.
Madeleine Birchfield wrote: » I'd imagine when a United Ireland actually happens the unionists would eventually somehow spin it as a victory for their side while still being extremely antagonistic towards everybody else.
Larbre34 wrote: » They just want to drive to Dublin and start a fight. And that's what they'll get one suspects.
Madeleine Birchfield wrote: » Considering that the Irish Protocal was heavily pushed by Boris Johnson in order to get Brexit done as soon as possible, wouldn't it be more effective for the unionists to protest in London, as opposed to Dublin? After all, it is Westminster rather than Sinn Fein that ended up enacting most of the other changes in Northern Ireland that unionists dislike, such as gay marriage, aborrion rights, and the Irish language act.
fash wrote: » Downcow, I'm sure you agree that those who agitated for a change to the status quo (unionist Brexiters) are the ones who reasonably ought to pay any price that must be paid for brexit? And that those who rejected the change to the status quo because of its consequences should pay the least price - or no price at all?
Peregrinus wrote: » If Brexiters seriously think that a referendum is like a soccer game, well, that would explain why the implementation of Brexit has been such a shambolic parade of ineptitude, incompetence and folly for the past five years. Any course of action which results in the UK no longer appearing on the Wikipedia page "List of Member States of the European Union" honours the referendum outcome because that is, literally, the only question that the people were - then or later - permitted to express a view on. If you want to argue that this form of Brexit rather than that form is "more true to the Brexit result" - and it was Downcow who introduced this notion in to the conversation - then you have to be prepared to draw inferences from the detailed results of the referendum, and the first thing you note is the narrow margin of victory overall, and the fact that two out of the four constituent parts of the UK rejected Brexit on any terms. That gives you some pretty strong clues as to what kind of Brexit is best calculated to secure the broadest possible assent from the people. Seriously, if you're claiming to be looking for a Brexit which is "more true to the Brexit result", and at the same time arguing that these facts of the referendum result are irrelevant - well, you're not well positioned to be throwing accusations of hypocrisy at others. Just sayin'.
downcow wrote: » Would you apply the same thinking to a 52:48 UI vote. Just sayin’
downcow wrote: » Unionist brexiteeers did not influence the vote. The margin was much greater.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Bryson and his ilk are sending kids hoping there is violence. I hope they don't get their wish and there is a huge and jovial welcome for them on the streets. There should be bunting and flags put out. It would properly scunder Bryson anyhow.