nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Irish protocol.

downcow

The protocol will be challenged next week in the british high courts.
I am interested in what you guys believe is an appropriate way forward if it is declared illegal, as I have a haunch it will.
Is it appropriate to continue down an illegal road or will it be time for a rethink?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BonnieSituation

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It's just keeping the pot boiling, and I don't blame the ones taking the case, even though they probably know they've little chance.
Sure, all this is frustrating for nationalists, but it's genuinely very hard to be an Ulster Protestant now. Over the years they've been hounded and killed by the IRA, often had issues with their government in the UK and the whole thing is based on a historic injustice to Catholics. And now their wee country, the strongest manifestation of Ulster Protestant identity, is being nudged out of existence.
I'm sorry, but it's not surprising unionism is acting the way it is. Of course they should accept change, but no one can be surprised that some find it hard.

They could also act like adults and voice those concerns and avoid all this hub bub. But no, they're wedded to the tried and tested failure that is the belligerence that they know and love.

[Deleted User]

It's just keeping the pot boiling, and I don't blame the ones taking the case, even though they probably know they've little chance.
Sure, all this is frustrating for nationalists, but it's genuinely very hard to be an Ulster Protestant now. Over the years they've been hounded and killed by the IRA, often had issues with their government in the UK and the whole thing is based on a historic injustice to Catholics. And now their wee country, the strongest manifestation of Ulster Protestant identity, is being nudged out of existence.
I'm sorry, but it's not surprising unionism is acting the way it is. Of course they should accept change, but no one can be surprised that some find it hard.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

We don't have to speculate about whether Brexit would have received consent in NI. It was voted on. It didn't receive consent. It went ahead anyway, in an unneccessarily hard form that would maximise injury to Northern Ireland.

It is the level of self delusion among them. Surely at some point a barrister would point out the anomaly in their argument.

Scratch that, I know that they know...it is just blatant deluding of their supporters that is going on. Sinister stuff.

Peregrinus

We don't have to speculate about whether Brexit would have received consent in NI. It was voted on. It didn't receive consent. It went ahead anyway, in an unneccessarily hard form that would maximise injury to Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Habib, Hoey and Allister are writing this morning in The Newsletter and trying to reargue the case.

There is a fabulous passage of no self awareness in their moaning:

The other eye-catching ruling made by the Honourable Justice was that retrospective democratic approval of part only (much of it will never be put to a vote) of the Protocol by Stormont in 2024 does not cut across the requirement in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or the Belfast Agreement for prior cross community consent to constitutional changes. In this, and indeed in other parts of his judgement, he is fundamentally wrong.

We all know the protocol would never have been approved in advance – there is no way it would ever have achieved cross community consent.

How can they not realise that if the Judge is wrong then Brexit would never have received consent either plus other constitutional change since the GFA.

fash

downcow wrote: »

There is nothing contradictory in accepting the will of Parliament but working and agitating to change that will. It would be a sad democracy if we just had to lie down and accept every decision of our government

You still haven’t addressed if you believe there should be similar halfway house approach if there is ever a close UI vote?

the half way house is a United Ireland where unionists are granted equal rights to everyone else.
A "hard brexit" style United Ireland would involve expropriation and expulsion. A half way house is what is being offered.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

There is nothing contradictory in accepting the will of Parliament but working and agitating to change that will. It would be a sad democracy if we just had to lie down and accept every decision of our government

There is nothing contradictory in accepting the will of the people expressed in a referendum but working and agititating to change that will. It would be a sad democracy if we just had to lie down and accept every referendum result. But such considerations don't seen to have prevented you from drinking the hard brexit kool-aid and claiming that democratic principles required it.

downcow wrote: »

You still haven’t addressed if you believe there should be similar halfway house approach if there is ever a close UI vote?

I'm sorry, did you put a question of that kind to me? I'm afraid I missed it. Can you link to it, or just repeat it?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I thought that’s what you meant but many here are claiming that Roi etc did not use threat of violence as a way to stop an Irish border and people get annoyed when it is done the other way around ie people say an Irish Sea border is the answer - that’s a statement the shows zero care for peace on this island.

They didn't use a threat.

There was a world of difference between the terrorist threats Poots invented and 'warning' that a hard border might bring a return to violence.

'Making a threat' and warning/being worried are two different things.

Maybe you should test that in a court of law.

You didn't want Brexit, and we (Ireland) did not want a hard border as the price of Brexit.
The Brexiters lost that battle...surely a Remainer should be glad about that?

BluePlanet

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I thought that’s what you meant but many here are claiming that Roi etc did not use threat of violence as a way to stop an Irish border and people get annoyed when it is done the other way around ie people say an Irish Sea border is the answer - that’s a statement the shows zero care for peace on this island.

Infairness there is an actual history of Republican attacks on border infrastructure, and a lack of such attacks on the same infrastructure from Loyalists.
Seems totally reasonable to raise that prospect when discussing the possibility of border infastructure.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Yeah I thought that’s what you meant but many here are claiming that Roi etc did not use threat of violence as a way to stop an Irish border and people get annoyed when it is done the other way around ie people say an Irish Sea border is the answer - that’s a statement the shows zero care for peace on this island.

People get annoyed when loyalist threaten others with violence?

Are you for real?

---

On the "ROI [sic]...threat of violence", can you point to this threat please?

You always bring this up. But you've yet to show us an example of this threat.

I must have missed it, so I'd appreciate you backing this up finally. Thank you.

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not just that you accept the Brexit vote, downcow. You also seem to support the subsequent decision, not required by the referendum result and never put to the voters, to pursue a hard Brexit which would maximise harm to Northern Ireland. You'll have to admit that's an odd stance for someone from Northern Ireland who was initially leaning towards Remain. It may be that you're of the view that, if there has to be a Brexit, it should be a hard Brexit, but you can't pretend that democratic principles compel you to that view, since they clearly don't; if anything, they lean the other way. You must have other reasons for holding this view.

By contrast, the Withdrawal Agreement (with NIP) was put to the voters, in a general election manifesto, and was ringingly endorsed both overall in the UK, where the Tories secured a massive majority, and in particular in NI, where pro-WA parties comfortably outpolled anti-WA parties. As a democrat, shouldn't you completely accept that vote? If not, why not?

Finally, you have repeatedly asserted that the NIP was imposed on the UK and you have blamed Ireland and/or the EU for this. Yet this is clearly nonsense; The EU, with Ireland's full support, negotiated and signed a version of the WA which didn't include the NIP and, as we've already discussed in this thread, that version was very much more in Ireland's interests than the version we have. The reason it didn't go ahead was because not because of any scheming by Ireland or bullying by the EU; it was because the ERG rejected it, and insisted on the UK negotiating the WA we now have, with the NIP, which they supported. It's clear that responsibility for this lies in Westminster, not in Dublin or Brussels, but you're in deep denial about that. Again, this is not a denial that is in any way a manifestation of democratic convictions; it looks like something quite atavistic.

In short, your account of the attitudes you hold, and the reasons you hold them, doesn't really seem that persuasive.

There is nothing contradictory in accepting the will of Parliament but working and agitating to change that will. It would be a sad democracy if we just had to lie down and accept every decision of our government

You still haven’t addressed if you believe there should be similar halfway house approach if there is ever a close UI vote?

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

She wants a hard border in Ireland. It's not that difficult to understand.

Yeah I thought that’s what you meant but many here are claiming that Roi etc did not use threat of violence as a way to stop an Irish border and people get annoyed when it is done the other way around ie people say an Irish Sea border is the answer - that’s a statement the shows zero care for peace on this island.

downcow

bilbot79 wrote: »

The DUP/TUV are a bit like religious zealots who have outsourced their thinking to an ancient text in the strictest sense because it suits their ideology. Kind of like when a jihadi claims a war is justified in the Quran.

You would think they would have a better grasp of the idea that the centuries old Act of Union can be superseded by modern legislation.

By Jim Allister's logic, the new testament would be superseded by the old testament and God would be vengeful not forgiving

They probably thinks it is lol (and I’m not really joking)

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

I was busy supporting our wonderful football team at the euros, but had I have been at home I would have voted no by a shade.
My people voted yes so as a democrat I completely accept that vote.
What’s not ok about that?

It's not just that you accept the Brexit vote, downcow. You also seem to support the subsequent decision, not required by the referendum result and never put to the voters, to pursue a hard Brexit which would maximise harm to Northern Ireland. You'll have to admit that's an odd stance for someone from Northern Ireland who was initially leaning towards Remain. It may be that you're of the view that, if there has to be a Brexit, it should be a hard Brexit, but you can't pretend that democratic principles compel you to that view, since they clearly don't; if anything, they lean the other way. You must have other reasons for holding this view.

By contrast, the Withdrawal Agreement (with NIP) was put to the voters, in a general election manifesto, and was ringingly endorsed both overall in the UK, where the Tories secured a massive majority, and in particular in NI, where pro-WA parties comfortably outpolled anti-WA parties. As a democrat, shouldn't you completely accept that vote? If not, why not?

Finally, you have repeatedly asserted that the NIP was imposed on the UK and you have blamed Ireland and/or the EU for this. Yet this is clearly nonsense; The EU, with Ireland's full support, negotiated and signed a version of the WA which didn't include the NIP and, as we've already discussed in this thread, that version was very much more in Ireland's interests than the version we have. The reason it didn't go ahead was because not because of any scheming by Ireland or bullying by the EU; it was because the ERG rejected it, and insisted on the UK negotiating the WA we now have, with the NIP, which they supported. It's clear that responsibility for this lies in Westminster, not in Dublin or Brussels, but you're in deep denial about that. Again, this is not a denial that is in any way a manifestation of democratic convictions; it looks like something quite atavistic.

In short, your account of the attitudes you hold, and the reasons you hold them, doesn't really seem that persuasive.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Explain what you mean?

She wants a hard border in Ireland. It's not that difficult to understand.

[Deleted User]

BluePlanet wrote: »

I'm glad in a way, that she said that.
I've thought all along that was the goal.
Try and force the EU (RoI) to stand up a border and perform the checks, as this would be like rubbing salt into the wounds of them'uns.

Nevermind that it would be unsustainable to allow unchecked goods to flow from RoI into NI, as other WTO members will kick up.

If they had got a hard border in Ireland, it would have hastened a United Ireland, that’s very clear. But unionism seems to think it’s still 1920, Protestant leaders are not prepared for minority status, they’re acting like they’re on far stronger ground than they are.
Another way of looking at it is that a hard border might have been a Godsend for SF, it’d have made partition a very pressing issue, on both sides.

bilbot79

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Unionists, by taking this case have effectively undermined and weakened the Act of Union. They've made the highest court (in NI now, but next in the UK proper) to declare the Act of Union is repealed by newer treaties.

The DUP/TUV are a bit like religious zealots who have outsourced their thinking to an ancient text in the strictest sense because it suits their ideology. Kind of like when a jihadi claims a war is justified in the Quran.

You would think they would have a better grasp of the idea that the centuries old Act of Union can be superseded by modern legislation.

By Jim Allister's logic, the new testament would be superseded by the old testament and God would be vengeful not forgiving

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Kate Hoey is still doing her best to disrupt peace in NI...

https://twitter.com/CatharineHoey/status/1410504224530702339

Explain what you mean?

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No but you proudly support it and those in the DUP who championed it despite the wishes of the NI electorate! You are also a strong opponent to the "get out of jail" policy that is the NIP and like your DUP heroes blame everyone but those actually responsible for any perceived negatives :rolleyes:
I'm not sure if anyone here actually believes you to be honest!

I was busy supporting our wonderful football team at the euros, but had I have been at home I would have voted no by a shade.
My people voted yes so as a democrat I completely accept that vote.
What’s not ok about that?

BluePlanet

I'm glad in a way, that she said that.
I've thought all along that was the goal.
Try and force the EU (RoI) to stand up a border and perform the checks, as this would be like rubbing salt into the wounds of them'uns.

Nevermind that it would be unsustainable to allow unchecked goods to flow from RoI into NI, as other WTO members will kick up.

BonnieSituation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Kate Hoey is still doing her best to disrupt peace in NI...

https://twitter.com/CatharineHoey/status/1410504224530702339

When you see the comments under that tweet you realise that she has next to no support.

I'd be all for an approach of ignorance and pats on the head for her and her ilk.

Seth Brundle

Kate Hoey is still doing her best to disrupt peace in NI...

https://twitter.com/CatharineHoey/status/1410504224530702339

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

I didn’t vote for brexit

You didn't vote against it either, if I recall correctly, because you were more interested in going to a football match. And you did vote for a Brexit-supporting DUP candidate in the last elections, didn't you?

So by what you have done, and what you have failed to do, you are partially responsible for the creation of the NIP and all that that implies.

Granadino

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's the mood in the Unionist community after yesterday's judgement?

Siege mentality, same as always.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I didn’t vote for brexit

What's the mood in the Unionist community after yesterday's judgement?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

I didn’t vote for brexit

No but you proudly support it and those in the DUP who championed it despite the wishes of the NI electorate! You are also a strong opponent to the "get out of jail" policy that is the NIP and like your DUP heroes blame everyone but those actually responsible for any perceived negatives :rolleyes:
I'm not sure if anyone here actually believes you to be honest!

downcow

fash wrote: »

I agree brexit means brexit- it inevitably meant borders and that border inevitably had to go into the Irish sea- so what is your problem? This is exactly what you voted for.

I didn’t vote for brexit

Peregrinus

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh but not yet, the Appeal! :rolleyes:

Oh, there'll be an appeal. Hoey was reported as saying, before judgment was handed down, that either way there would likely be an appeal. And, since it was handed down, both McAllister and Habib have said there will be an appeal. As Habib is the moneybags behind the whole thing - the crowdfunding effort was not a resounding success - if he is willing to throw good money after bad then I see no obstacle to an appeal.

And, really, you don't start this kind of case unless you're willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Had McAllister, etc, won in the High Court the government would certainly have appealed, so they would have needed to go to the Supreme Court to win their point conclusively.

I think in a constitutional case of this significance, they can appeal directly to the Supreme Court - i.e. they won't have to take the usual route through the Court of Appeal first.

But it's not a great position from which to appeal on. They lost on literally every point in the High Court. It's a bit of a hill to climb. Donaldson (not a party to the case himself) has resorted to claiming that the case establishes important principles (a bit like Labour's "but we won the argument!" vindication of their election defeat in 2019) but, even there, he is asserting that the court established principles which, in its judgment, the court explicitly does not establish. None of the plaintiffs or their supporters are likely to say so, but this judgment will have been a severe disappointment for them.

BluePlanet

The Unionists, by taking this case have effectively undermined and weakened the Act of Union. They've made the highest court (in NI now, but next in the UK proper) to declare the Act of Union is repealed by newer treaties.

FrancieBrady

They are not taking it well. Seems the British judiciary are now the enemy too.

https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1410232900822446082