Northern Ireland 2125?

That was a statement of fact, NOT a condoning of the act.

If bombing the docklands was wrong so too is this.

Dissidents are NOT sitting at the table talking to politicians almost 30 years AFTER an agreement.

Government papers revealing what these groups were up to under the noses of and with the support of Unionist politicians.

These STILL ACTIVE groups are still issuing threats and Unionist politicians want them as stakeholders in anything going forward.

If that is the best you can do to handwave away, then you haven't much.


Here's you go to man when it suits you, Gerry Fitt:

On April 7, West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt referred to claims that the IRA was responsible for the recent explosions.

"But that is not so and there is no one here or anywhere else who can point the finger of accusation at the IRA," he said.

“But what we do know is that the explosions early in 1969, in March and April, were the work of the illegal Ulster Volunteer Force, an extreme right wing unionist organisation with which, to my mind—although he has publicly said that he had nothing to do with it—the Rev. Ian Paisley has a close connection."

According to Hansard, Mr Fitt added the explosions were caused “with the intention of bringing about the downfall of the Northern Ireland Government and particularly of Captain O’Neill”.

British military intelligence agreed with Mr Fitt, who was a staunch opponent of the Provisionals.

“The latest wave of explosions and the failure by the security forces to apprehend those responsible, continue to give cause for concern,” an intelligence summary states.

“The facts would suggest that they are primarily the work of an extreme Protestant organisation intent on inflaming the sectarian issue and on causing the downfall of the present N. Ireland Government…”

You are by your deflection and excusing, condoning the LATEST threats from STILL active paramilitary organisation almost 30 years after the GFA was agreed.

STILL active paramilitary groups Unionist politicians want to be stakeholders.

A

More excusing and condoning.

I asked a question. You yet again refuse to answer.

When Leo V. was warning of border customs infrastructure being attacked if is was erected after Brexit, did he specify who would be doing the attacking on it? It would have still got burnt down if it was burnt down by the hundreds of republicans the Republic refused to extradite during the troubles, or by a few new "lads" of a different generation.

When the Presbyterian church in Drum Co. Monaghan was attacked and partly burnt in 1999, was it ever found out who done it - the younger generation or the older one who did such things during the troubles? Or does it really matter?

"stuff I imagine Varadkar did"??? Are you disputing the links I provided you with? 

Again I ask you : are the people making the threats now ( to burn property with Irish language signage on it ) the same people as who were involved during the troubles? I doubt it.

The same link posted three times on the same page

Maybe post it again in case someone missed it 👍🏻

I never condoned violence, or handwaved it away. I would imagine the threats are real. If they are made by a new younger generation, or by those active during the troubles, I do not know. If I had to guess, I would say a new generation. For one thing, older people are often generally fatter than those in the photo / different posture. But thats just my own hunch.

When the Presbyterian church in Drum Co. Monaghan was attacked and partly burnt in 1999, was it ever found out who done it - the younger generation or the older one who did such things during the troubles? Or does it really matter? Incidentally did Heather H ever dare condemn it? Or was she afraid to?

Good to hear this 'artificial' blocking mechanism being called out.

The former Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has accused the Irish government of putting up an "artificial barrier" to a referendum on a united Ireland.

Varadkar said Dublin needed to begin planning for a border poll.

He claimed the current Taoiseach Micheál Martin was not prepared to push forward with that work until there was "total reconciliation" across the island - something which his predecessor said may never be possible.

"This is where I differ with Micheál Martin," said Leo Varadkar.

"There will always be people who are not reconciled for one reason or another but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it," he told the BBC's new Borderland podcast.

"I don't think we should put up an artificial barrier towards a border poll."

Meanwhile Varadkar added that he does agree with Martin that "it is not yet the right time to set a date for a border poll".

Heather Humphreys and Jim Gavin (before his exit) are using this 'kick to touch' in their campaigns. At the very least the remaining candidate should be asked what they mean by this and when they see the goal being reached.

I think it is Shaun, not Sean. And Nolan has just allowed Shaun Woodward to completely misrepresent the test for calling a border poll. Woodward said a BP may be called if there is ‘evidence’ people want a border poll, and it is NOT that people would vote for a United Ireland. He is completely wrong. Sch 1 para 2.

He was correct. The courts have qualified that clause in the GFA.

The SoS cannot be constrained.

The Court commented that the discretion to direct the holding of a border poll under Schedule 1 is unqualified. It said that Schedule 1 paragraph 1 does not specify any matter which should be taken into account or any matter which should be left out of account. The exercise of discretion must be preceded by the respondent’s assessment of the prevailing circumstances which have and will change over time. It said the discretion must be exercised honestly and based upon the respondent’s assessment of whether directing the holding of a border poll is in the public interest which assessment involves political judgment.

…

The Court said the assessment involves an evaluative judgment as to a likely outcome.

It considered this would be essentially a political judgment to be performed by the respondent, a politician who is to form an assessment as to the political views of others: The political judgment as to the likely outcome of a border poll is not a simple empirical judgment driven solely by opinion poll evidence.

It is also not a simple judgment based purely on perceived religion. The judgment depends on what are the prevailing circumstances at any given time.

For instance a likely outcome may involve an evaluation as to whether there are other factors which will impact on voting intentions crossing traditional party or perceived religious lines and if so as to their impact.

Instances of such factors are changes in social attitudes North and South, relative economic prosperity North and South, the taxation structures North and South, the outcome of Brexit and the nature of future trading relations e between both parts of Ireland which in turn depends on any agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”

The Court noted that the NIA contains no express duty to publish a policy as to how the respondent should assess whether there is an obligation to direct the holding of a border poll. It agreed with the trial judge that the Secretary of State must honestly reflect on the evidence available to see whether it leads to the conclusion that the majority would be likely to vote in favour of a united Ireland.

Also that the respondent must act honestly and with rigorous impartially in the context that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone to exercise their right of self-determination.

*bolding mine

Summary of judgment - In re Raymond McCord (Border Poll).pdf

Obviously a B.P. would be very divisive and not in the public interest.

Not according to the former (has put the Unionist twitterati in a bit of a dither this morning) SoS who if still in office would call one in the next few years because he thinks it is now right.

Missing the point again.

In his opinion there is enough evidence there to require a BP.

The winds of change are coming exactly as I saw them coming.

Language and positions are shifting.
If you think the comments from a former recent Irish PM and a former recent SoS carry no weight then that is just you with the head firmly in the sand.

The SDLP too sniff the change.

Leo is making terrorist threats.
Woodward is an odd ball

I can see it's pointless. Take care again Francis, mind that sand, gets everywhere.