Northern Ireland 2125?

Question Ive always wondered about.

2125 is a long way in the future. If the Union were to break down during this time i.e. Scottish independence; would the Scots-Ulster population want to be part of independent Scotland or independent England/Wales?

Leo is NOT a STILL active paramilitary group endorsed as stakeholders in NI almost 30 years after the GFA

So why when a STILL active paramilitary group endorsed as stakeholders in NI almost 30 years after the GFA issue threats are you talking about Leo.

Appalling morally and an appalling attempt at excusing this.
The UDA and the UFV are represented on the LCC, whom Unionists want to be stakeholders in NI.
They are STILL active as paramilitary groups and issued these threats as recognised by everyone except you, who is looking to handwave it away.

Why?

Hold on a second: did they use any code words used by a group from the troubles, or were there just three young lads in the photo masquerading as UVF? 

That is an attempt to excuse. By trying to suggest that these are not the people who Unionists want as stakeholders. STILL active paramilitaries issuing threats 30 years after the GFA.

Go do some serious thinking about this behaviour. Done with your nonsense again.

You have claimed here alot of times that the only reason there is a border in the irish sea is because LV threatened violance if there was a hard border in Ireland.

Now you're saying he just warned of the real threat from para-militaries should there be a hard border? Then what problem do you have of LV educating EU ministers of a real threat to descion they would make?

Its hypocrisy to say some people can warn of real threats and that all it is while if others warn of real threats then they're inciting violence.

So all LV did was warn of a threat of para-militaries should there have been a hard border and all you're doing is warning of paramilitaries should irish signs be implemented and neither of you can be infered of inciting violence.

I better take note of this post no. so i can reference it when in a few weeks you're back to the narrative LV implemented the hard border when in reality as you now are accepting it was just london.

Where did i say LV was in British government? I said the British government wrote the protocol that delivered the irish sea border and not LV.

You have claimed it was LV threat of inciting violence should there be a hard border that caused the protocol but today you have rolled back on that and claim and say just because someone warns of a real threat of violence doesn't mean theyre inciting violence.

But if you claim you can warn of a threat of violence without inciting violence but others cant then you're a hypocrite. You just can't accept that london threw unionists under the bus regarding the protocol so have to come up with this hypocritical view that LV was inciting violence when he warned like many on both sides of the real threat of violence should there be a hard border.

This is painful and absurd now.

The PSNI are treating the threats as coming from the UDA and UVF, STILL active paramilitary groups who Unionists want to be stakeholders.

Éirigí are a registered political party. They are attached to a paramilitary group which are a problem.

I don't see anyone calling for them to be stakeholders.

The PSNI are treating the threats as coming from the UDA and UVF, STILL active paramilitary groups who Unionists want to be stakeholders not 3 men in what is probably a photo from their library.

Painful!

I'll let you figure out their 'active' level from the information we have:

Loyalist paramilitaries are planning an arson campaign to prevent Irish language signage from being displayed on Belfast City Council buildings and vehicles.

In a briefing to Sunday Life yesterday, representatives of both the UVF and UDA warned of future violence, saying: “Loyalists will embark on a campaign of burning any council vans or centres displaying Irish language signage in order to make the Belfast City Council policy unworkable.

”The sinister threats come after a majority of councillors in City Hall endorsed a new draft Irish language policy that contains pledges to adopt dual signage at its facilities and bilingual logos.

Unionist councillors have objected to the plan, as have loyalist paramilitaries, with the latter threatening a campaign of violence to make it “unworkable”.

Sunday Life understands that several council depots in unionist areas of Belfast where vehicles are stored will be targeted if Irish signage appears on the premises.

“They will be burned to the ground,” said a UVF source.

“This isn’t something anyone in the loyalist community wants to see happen, but it will happen if the Irish language is forced upon us.

“Many of the staff in these facilities are from a unionist background and they are also opposed to wearing uniforms or working in buildings with Irish language signs.

”UVF and UDA leaders say at the moment there is no plan to target leisure centres as they are seen as key community facilities, however, they have warned that could change.

“The council and the PSNI should not underestimate how real this threat is,” said a UDA source. ​“It’ll be down to councillors now to work out how best to deal with this and reach a compromise.”

The PSNI is also understood to be aware of the UVF and UDA threats and has been briefed about possible violence.