How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

jm08 · 01-03-2021 3:31pm

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

I’m afraid he did use past terrorism. He wheeled that old chestnut out countless times.

So what was the HoC Brexit Committee saying about it the previous year? They are the ones who said it would be a problem a year previous to Varadkar saying it to the Council of Ministers.

What did you expect him to say, ah the lads up in the PSNI and the HoC lads think it will reignite the troubles, but sure we will ignore what they think.

If anyone used anything, it was Arlene claiming that Varadkar was making it up.

Incidentally, what do you think would happen at the Border if a hard one was reinstalled?

downcow · 01-03-2021 10:23pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Wrong again; as you've been (repeatedly) told, jt was actually your PSNI who said there was a risk of violence if there was a land border. The Taoiseach stated that the PSNI had made this prediction (he did not threaten violence....unless you're suggesting he's going to land up with an Armalite himself, or he has connections with Republican Paramilitaries like Arlene and Co sitting down to meetings with Loyalist paramilitaries), nor have I heard any Nationalist party threaten violence.

The only actual threats I've seen were spray painted at Larne Harbour....are you suggesting that Republicans did this?

Also, you seem to keep missing it despite saying you're happy to clarify; who are the Labour and Tory ministers supporting the legal challenge on the NI Protocol? Beyond Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party, which politicians from Britain are involved?

Now you are dancing on the head of a pin. They used the threat of violence. One of the most notorious was when you pm took a copy of a newspaper showing bombings to an Eu dinner.
When you deny that nationalists and your pm used the threat of violence to their advantage, you lose all credibility with me.

downcow · 01-03-2021 10:27pm

jm08 wrote: »

So what was the HoC Brexit Committee saying about it the previous year? They are the ones who said it would be a problem a year previous to Varadkar saying it to the Council of Ministers.

What did you expect him to say, ah the lads up in the PSNI and the HoC lads think it will reignite the troubles, but sure we will ignore what they think.

If anyone used anything, it was Arlene claiming that Varadkar was making it up.

Incidentally, what do you think would happen at the Border if a hard one was reinstalled?

Here we are. The last sentence from jmo8 is classic of what nationalists were doing.
I think loyalists have noticed

jm08 · 01-03-2021 10:33pm

downcow wrote: »

Here we are. The last sentence from jmo8 is classic of what nationalists were doing.
I think loyalists have noticed

What were nationalists doing?

Fionn1952 · 02-03-2021 12:54am

downcow wrote: »

Now you are dancing on the head of a pin. They used the threat of violence. One of the most notorious was when you pm took a copy of a newspaper showing bombings to an Eu dinner.
When you deny that nationalists and your pm used the threat of violence to their advantage, you lose all credibility with me.

Miss the second half of my post again? I must be in double figures requesting clarification on which Tory and Labour Party members are supporters of the legal challenge? You've stated that it had cross party support, and specified both Labour Party and Tory members, as far as I can see, the only cosignatories from Britain are Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party .

I am not stating that there are not other cosignatories to the bill, I don't know. I'm curious and that is why I have asked repeatedly for clarification; you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain, cross party legal challenge and stated you're happy to clarify further, but you have totally dodged answering it for several days now.

Are you just stalling for time hoping you can find a local parish council member of each party who has passingly mentioned it?!

downcow · 02-03-2021 9:41am

jm08 wrote: »

What were nationalists doing?

Using the threat of violence

downcow · 02-03-2021 9:50am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Miss the second half of my post again? I must be in double figures requesting clarification on which Tory and Labour Party members are supporters of the legal challenge? You've stated that it had cross party support, and specified both Labour Party and Tory members, as far as I can see, the only cosignatories from Britain are Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party .

I am not stating that there are not other cosignatories to the bill, I don't know. I'm curious and that is why I have asked repeatedly for clarification; you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain, cross party legal challenge and stated you're happy to clarify further, but you have totally dodged answering it for several days now.

Are you just stalling for time hoping you can find a local parish council member of each party who has passingly mentioned it?!

The energy you have to follow an answer from me. Lol. Potty you didn’t have similar energy to follow some other posters who won’t answer.

Anyhow. I was ignoring your question primarily because you had done exactly as I had predicted in my post. You have tried to paint it as if I said it would be transformative in the situation, while I specifically said it had the potential but may well achieve nothing.
And you continue in every post about it. Your latest in this post is -
“you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain”.
Tell you what; when you show my where I said anything even close to that, then I will demonstrate it. Is that fair?

Fionn1952 · 02-03-2021 10:42am

downcow wrote: »

The energy you have to follow an answer from me. Lol. Potty you didn’t have similar energy to follow some other posters who won’t answer.

Anyhow. I was ignoring your question primarily because you had done exactly as I had predicted in my post. You have tried to paint it as if I said it would be transformative in the situation, while I specifically said it had the potential but may well achieve nothing.
And you continue in every post about it. Your latest in this post is -
“you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain”.
Tell you what; when you show my where I said anything even close to that, then I will demonstrate it. Is that fair?

I have not, Downcow. I've been very clear that you stated it was a POTENTIAL gamechanger that might go nowhere.

The energy you have put into dodging the question is quite telling.

Why would I put effort into chasing people to answer questions I haven't asked? I'm not the thread police, I'm just asking a question on something YOU stated you'd be happy to clarify, so I'm holding you to your word on that.

But yes, I will show you saying something "pretty close" to that. You stated it was supported by members of the Labour Party and Tory Party and that the support was, 'pretty comprehensive'. I'd consider, 'pretty comprehensive' and, 'widely supported' to have pretty similar meanings. If you're going to dodge the question on the basis of picking out a difference between comprehensive support and wide support, well that would be incredibly telling.

downcow wrote: »

I have no problem clarifying it.
I have no idea whether it will be a game changer or not, but yes, it is a potential gamechanger.

Do you think it is only Kate hoey and Ben habib that are party to the legal action or are you just being disingenuous

In case you don’t know. Among others, the legal action has been signed by
The leaders of all unionist parties in Northern Ireland
The leader of the unionist group on HOC
The First Minster of Northern Ireland
The only living key architect of the Belfast Agreement, Lord Trimble
Members of both Tory and Labour parties

Pretty comprehensive

Pretty comprehensive indeed....all I've asked for is who the members of the Tory and Labour parties are who are party to the legal action, as per your quote above. Furthermore, back when you initially brought the topic up, you very clearly implied significant support in Britain;

downcow wrote: »

I am not being more explicit as I think those involved should announce it, but it will be fronted by cross party MPs on that big island where you say no one cares.

Here you are stating that it will be FRONTED by cross party MPs from Britain (so you've already backtracked from MPs to members of the Party, presumably you tried to sneak this in unnoticed when you realised Kate Hoey wasn't an MP). For a legal challenge to be FRONTED by a cross party support from Britain would suggest pretty bloody wide support to me.

Either way, I'm happy for you to clarify whether or not there are any Labour or Tory MPs party to the legal challenge, whether there are even any party members who are party to the legal challenge, or whether the, 'pretty comprehensive' support is just Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party?

You're fierce rapid to accuse others of dancing on the head of a pin, yet here you are avoiding answering something you stated you'd be happy to clarify based on a semantic argument of the difference between, 'wide' and, 'comprehensive'.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 10:44am

downcow wrote: »

Using the threat of violence

There was 'NO' threat of violence, there was a concern about violence, shared by all parties to the negotiations. That was among other reasons for opting for a sea border, not least being that those who wanted to Brexit would be the ones to actually lose something.

jm08 · 02-03-2021 11:41am

downcow wrote: »

Using the threat of violence

What purpose is the PSNI using the threat of violence for here?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/07/northern-irish-border-terror-target-police-chief-warns-brexit

“Dissident groups see [the border] as an area which is contentious, which will give them a further rallying call to try and engender support,” Harris told MPs. “It is of concern. They have a focus in this. They see it as an opportunity.

“Infrastructure on the border – that would be an obvious place for dissident groups to rally around and also to attack. It is highly foreseeable that dissident groups would seek to take action and that would include [against] buildings.”

How does that differ to what Leo Varadkar said?

By the way, its interesting to see that Rees-Mogg or Sammy Wilson took no part in the parliamentary visit to Northern Ireland. Neither want solutions.

maccored · 02-03-2021 12:40pm

downcow wrote: »

Using the threat of violence

the GFA removed the border. putting it back would be a pretty stupid idea. You dont need a massive brain to figure that out

briany · 02-03-2021 12:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was 'NO' threat of violence, there was a concern about violence, shared by all parties to the negotiations. That was among other reasons for opting for a sea border, not least being that those who wanted to Brexit would be the ones to actually lose something.

I was listening to a clip from the Pat Kenny show talking about the potential for Loyalist violence now that the sea border is in place, and one of the talking points was, "If Leo Varadkar can threaten violence over a land border, then why can't we threaten violence over a sea one?"

There are problems with this logic. Firstly, a threat tends to come from a person who holds the power to follow through on it, and Leo Varadkar, as far as I know has no known connections to Republican paramilitaries, such that he could direct them.

Secondly, it seems that Loyalist paramilitary groups need to perceive a threat of violence in order to give their own aspirations toward violence a moral justification, through equivalence, so it doesn't matter the language used, they're dead set on perceiving any concern about violence around a land border as a threat.

To be fair, I would hear concerns about violence over a sea border sympathetically enough. I would have much preferred a return to the status quo pre-2016. But, that wasn't to be, and that has meant a harder border had to go somewhere, and be it on land or sea, it was going to p*ss off someone and cause heaps of red tape.

Given the way NI voted in the Brexit referendum, and given the support among MLAs for a backstop, and given NI business leaders' apparent enthusiasm around the arrangement, I would believe that between the two choices, there is more of a mandate for the sea border at this point. And you know what? That could change in the future, and if that's through the democratic method put in place, I'll say, 'fair enough'. Until then, I don't know what to tell ye.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 1:04pm

briany wrote: »

I was listening to a clip from the Pat Kenny show talking about the potential for Loyalist violence now that the sea border is in place, and one of the talking points was, "If Leo Varadkar can threaten violence over a land border, then why can't we threaten violence over a sea one?"

There are problems with this logic. Firstly, a threat tends to come from a person who holds the power to follow through on it, and Leo Varadkar, as far as I know has no known connections to Republican paramilitaries, such that he could direct them.

Secondly, it seems that Loyalist paramilitary groups need to perceive a threat of violence in order to give their own aspirations toward violence a moral justification, through equivalence, so it doesn't matter the language used, they're dead set on perceiving any concern about violence around a land border as a threat.

To be fair, I would hear concerns about violence over a sea border sympathetically enough. I would have much preferred a return to the status quo pre-2016. But, that wasn't to be, and that has meant a harder border had to go somewhere, and be it on land or sea, it was going to p*ss off someone and cause heaps of red tape.

Given the way NI voted in the Brexit referendum, and given the support among MLAs for a backstop, and given NI business leaders' apparent enthusiasm around the arrangement, I would believe that between the two choices, there is more of a mandate for the sea border at this point. And you know what? That could change in the future, and if that's through the democratic method put in place, I'll say, 'fair enough'. Until then, I don't know what to tell ye.

I have no issues with a democratic mandate. There isn't one here though.

If a majority of the north wish to change the status quo (be that the electorate or in the Executive) then things should change.

It's ok asking for change, but change to what?

briany · 02-03-2021 1:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no issues with a democratic mandate. There isn't one here though.

If a majority of the north wish to change the status quo (be that the electorate or in the Executive) then things should change.

It's ok asking for change, but change to what?

If the Executive votes to rescind the NI protocol, then it will follow, perhaps not immediately, that EU-UK border infrastructure will be implemented on the land crossing between NI and RoI. That'll be the change.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 1:14pm

briany wrote: »

If the Executive votes to rescind the NI protocol, then it will follow, perhaps not immediately, that EU-UK border infrastructure will be implemented on the land crossing between NI and RoI. That'll be the change.

No, we will maintain that isn't acceptable.

This is an internal UK issue, if the Protocol goes then the WA goes and it will be up to the UK to offer a solution or we revert to No Deal.

Silly, if Unionists are thinking getting rid of the Protocol means the EU fold their tent and give in on a hard border in ireland.

downcow · 02-03-2021 1:18pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I have not, Downcow. I've been very clear that you stated it was a POTENTIAL gamechanger that might go nowhere.

The energy you have put into dodging the question is quite telling.

Why would I put effort into chasing people to answer questions I haven't asked? I'm not the thread police, I'm just asking a question on something YOU stated you'd be happy to clarify, so I'm holding you to your word on that.

But yes, I will show you saying something "pretty close" to that. You stated it was supported by members of the Labour Party and Tory Party and that the support was, 'pretty comprehensive'. I'd consider, 'pretty comprehensive' and, 'widely supported' to have pretty similar meanings. If you're going to dodge the question on the basis of picking out a difference between comprehensive support and wide support, well that would be incredibly telling.

Pretty comprehensive indeed....all I've asked for is who the members of the Tory and Labour parties are who are party to the legal action, as per your quote above. Furthermore, back when you initially brought the topic up, you very clearly implied significant support in Britain;

Here you are stating that it will be FRONTED by cross party MPs from Britain (so you've already backtracked from MPs to members of the Party, presumably you tried to sneak this in unnoticed when you realised Kate Hoey wasn't an MP). For a legal challenge to be FRONTED by a cross party support from Britain would suggest pretty bloody wide support to me.

Either way, I'm happy for you to clarify whether or not there are any Labour or Tory MPs party to the legal challenge, whether there are even any party members who are party to the legal challenge, or whether the, 'pretty comprehensive' support is just Kate Hoey and a bloke from the Brexit Party?

You're fierce rapid to accuse others of dancing on the head of a pin, yet here you are avoiding answering something you stated you'd be happy to clarify based on a semantic argument of the difference between, 'wide' and, 'comprehensive'.

So you'll never catch me not having the balls to address a previous post.
You are correct in that I thought Kate Hoey was still a member of the Labour Party (but talk about dancing on the head of a pin). I also was not sure which party Ben Habib belonged to ( he was a major tory donator).
But that said, you are correct, that it does not have the breadth of support that I was lead to believe when I was told it was happening - That said, it has much greater support from unionist parties that I was lead to believe.

But I still believe terms you use like "you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain" totally misrepresent my post on the subject - but hey, I am used to that

In short, give yourself a big pat on the back; that's one up for you - I don't often make errors or not be entirely factual on here, so I understand your need for tiny victories when i make a slip

briany · 02-03-2021 1:43pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, we will maintain that isn't acceptable.

This is an internal UK issue, if the Protocol goes then the WA goes and it will be up to the UK to offer a solution or we revert to No Deal.

Silly, if Unionists are thinking getting rid of the Protocol means the EU fold their tent and give in on a hard border in ireland.

We will maintain that any hardening of the current RoI-NI crossing is not ideal and certainly all possible avenues will be looked into in order to avoid that eventuality, and we'll be working with our friends and partners in Belfast and in London to see that the GFA is maintained, etc.

But if the last few years of talk of 'amazing technology' that can invisibly monitor a trading frontier have shown us anything, it's that the UK government is full of hot air on the whole issue, and sort of don't really care. They'd waffle on in the scenario where consent is not granted and all parties would come to the conclusion that a border has to go on the land. Everybody would be too fed up with the whole thing to argue much more about it, and say to themselves, 'ah, it's only a few extra checks on things'. Whether or not this is true, those in the negotiating room would just shrug and get on with it.

lurleen lumpkin · 02-03-2021 1:49pm

downcow wrote: »

So you'll never catch me not having the balls to address a previous post.
You are correct in that I thought Kate Hoey was still a member of the Labour Party (but talk about dancing on the head of a pin). I also was not sure which party Ben Habib belonged to ( he was a major tory donator).
But that said, you are correct, that it does not have the breadth of support that I was lead to believe when I was told it was happening - That said, it has much greater support from unionist parties that I was lead to believe.

But I still believe terms you use like "you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain" totally misrepresent my post on the subject - but hey, I am used to that

In short, give yourself a big pat on the back; that's one up for you - I don't often make errors or not be entirely factual on here, so I understand your need for tiny victories when i make a slip

Humblebrag check.
Backhanded compliment check.

Just missing a 'yes but look what the IRA did this day 30 years ago' for the full card.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 1:53pm

briany wrote: »

We will maintain that any hardening of the current RoI-NI crossing is not ideal and certainly all possible avenues will be looked into in order to avoid that eventuality, and we'll be working with our friends and partners in Belfast and in London to see that the GFA is maintained, etc.

But if the last few years of talk of 'amazing technology' that can invisibly monitor a trading frontier have shown us anything, it's that the UK government is full of hot air on the whole issue, and sort of don't really care. They'd waffle on in the scenario where consent is not granted and all parties would come to the conclusion that a border has to go on the land. Everybody would be too fed up with the whole thing to argue much more about it, and say to themselves, 'ah, it's only a few extra checks on things'. Whether or not this is true, those in the negotiating room would just shrug and get on with it.

That's rubbish to be honest.

The UK would immediately be in a weaker position if Unionists pull the rug from under them. They have to go back to the drawing table so to speak and come up with alternatives that will work THEN present them to the EU.
Much more likely if it is an Executive decision that a UK PM/SoS holds a poll to see what the people want to do.

There are no 'petitions of concern' in this consent vote BTW. Which is why I don't think the Unionist much vaunted legal case has a chance in hell of success. The decision to opt for the WA and the Protocol is a 'UK government' one ultimately, taken in the interests of the UK.
The Unionists are about to run up against the excuse they used for insisting on Brexit...the wider UK wanted to do it etc.

jm08 · 02-03-2021 2:19pm

briany wrote: »

We will maintain that any hardening of the current RoI-NI crossing is not ideal and certainly all possible avenues will be looked into in order to avoid that eventuality, and we'll be working with our friends and partners in Belfast and in London to see that the GFA is maintained, etc.

But if the last few years of talk of 'amazing technology' that can invisibly monitor a trading frontier have shown us anything, it's that the UK government is full of hot air on the whole issue, and sort of don't really care. They'd waffle on in the scenario where consent is not granted and all parties would come to the conclusion that a border has to go on the land. Everybody would be too fed up with the whole thing to argue much more about it, and say to themselves, 'ah, it's only a few extra checks on things'. Whether or not this is true, those in the negotiating room would just shrug and get on with it.

More like the border would be at GB ports rather than NI ports.

briany · 02-03-2021 2:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's rubbish to be honest.

The UK would immediately be in a weaker position if Unionists pull the rug from under them. They have to go back to the drawing table so to speak and come up with alternatives that will work THEN present them to the EU.
Much more likely if it is an Executive decision that a UK PM/SoS holds a poll to see what the people want to do.

There are no 'petitions of concern' in this consent vote BTW. Which is why I don't think the Unionist much vaunted legal case has a chance in hell of success. The decision to opt for the WA and the Protocol is a 'UK government' one ultimately, taken in the interests of the UK.
The Unionists are about to run up against the excuse they used for insisting on Brexit...the wider UK wanted to do it etc.

I don't think it's rubbish because the UK government has prior form on all this. They'll come back with proposals, alright, but they'll be markedly similar to what was being proposed before the WA was struck, i.e. checks away from the border and trusted traders schemes.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 2:28pm

briany wrote: »

I don't think it's rubbish because the UK government has prior form on all this. They'll come back with proposals, alright, but they'll be markedly similar to what was being proposed before the WA was struck, i.e. checks away from the border and trusted traders schemes.

And the answer will be no for the EU.

So Unionists should be (if thinking strategically) thinking about what happens if we reach stalemate on a solution. They may not like the answer if they think about it.

Fionn1952 · 02-03-2021 3:35pm

downcow wrote: »

So you'll never catch me not having the balls to address a previous post.
You are correct in that I thought Kate Hoey was still a member of the Labour Party (but talk about dancing on the head of a pin). I also was not sure which party Ben Habib belonged to ( he was a major tory donator).
But that said, you are correct, that it does not have the breadth of support that I was lead to believe when I was told it was happening - That said, it has much greater support from unionist parties that I was lead to believe.

But I still believe terms you use like "you boasted this as a widely supported in Britain" totally misrepresent my post on the subject - but hey, I am used to that

In short, give yourself a big pat on the back; that's one up for you - I don't often make errors or not be entirely factual on here, so I understand your need for tiny victories when i make a slip

Only took a week, Downcow. Despite your pomp and smugness, that's twice in as many topics between us you've had to retract and apologise for a statement you've erroneously made, so perhaps not as uncommon as you think.

That said, I fully accept your apology and your clarification that the legal challenge only has fringe support at best from a known agitator in Jamie Bryson's social circle and an absolute nobody.

Kermit.de.frog · 02-03-2021 7:35pm

If I were unionist i'd have handened my divorce papers to London by now. :mad:

Don't let them treat you like this.

Walk away.

downcow · 02-03-2021 8:34pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If I were unionist i'd have handened my divorce papers to London by now. :mad:

Don't let them treat you like this.

Walk away.

Haha classic. The suitor who fancies us suggests we should divorce our current partner. Haha. Couldn’t make it up. We are not in love with you. UK may not be perfect but we are committed.

downcow · 02-03-2021 8:42pm

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

Humblebrag check.
Backhanded compliment check.

Just missing a 'yes but look what the IRA did this day 30 years ago' for the full card.

Thanks for asking. There you go!
Every day is a proud day for republican heros.
They just snuffed our a few lives today

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1366729736974655500

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1366811616709382145

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1366658208874528769

Feisar · 02-03-2021 8:43pm

downcow wrote: »

Haha classic. The suitor who fancies us suggests we should divorce our current partner. Haha. Couldn’t make it up. We are not in love with you. UK may not be perfect but we are committed.

We're not yer suitor, we're yer mother. Never forget that.

Kermit.de.frog · 02-03-2021 8:45pm

We don't love you either but they are divorcing you. A line down the corner of the house. Shocking.

downcow · 02-03-2021 8:46pm

Feisar wrote: »

We're not yer suitor, we're yer mother. Never forget that.

Patronising stuff. But it is good to know how our neighbours sees us. So much for equals!

downcow · 02-03-2021 8:48pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We don't love you either but they are divorcing you. A line down the corner of the house. Shocking.

You are right, because if you loved us you would want what was best for us. You just want us to be with you for your own satisfaction

Fionn1952 · 02-03-2021 8:58pm

This metaphor is creepy all round, folks. Really creepy.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 8:59pm

Looks like they've gone down another cul-de-sac. Reverse gear incoming.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/reversal-looms-for-dups-block-on-building-permanent-irish-sea-border-checkpoints-3151040

Feisar · 02-03-2021 9:08pm

downcow wrote: »

Patronising stuff. But it is good to know how our neighbours sees us. So much for equals!

I was taking the piss, chill out.

Equals says yer man who’s “side” ran an apartheid state, LOL.

downcow · 02-03-2021 9:12pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Looks like they've gone down another cul-de-sac. Reverse gear incoming.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/reversal-looms-for-dups-block-on-building-permanent-irish-sea-border-checkpoints-3151040

Francie quoting the Newsletter. The world definitely is couped ðŸ˜‚

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 9:30pm

downcow wrote: »

Francie quoting the Newsletter. The world definitely is couped ��

It would be hard even for the Newsletter to spin the fact he is about to be smacked on the arse and told to do his job and what he was told.

RobMc59 · 02-03-2021 10:47pm

downcow wrote: »

Patronising stuff. But it is good to know how our neighbours sees us. So much for equals!

It seems not all NI's neighbours think the same as this link suggests.

"Police Scotland concerned about 'loyalist sentiment' as result of Brexit | The Scotsman" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/police-scotland-concerned-about-loyalist-sentiment-as-result-of-brexit-3150733?amp

BonnieSituation · 02-03-2021 11:09pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

It seems not all NI's neighbours think the same as this link suggests.

"Police Scotland concerned about 'loyalist sentiment' as result of Brexit | The Scotsman" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/police-scotland-concerned-about-loyalist-sentiment-as-result-of-brexit-3150733?amp

Should Police Scotland not be concerned? Is that what you are saying?

RobMc59 · 02-03-2021 11:20pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Should Police Scotland not be concerned? Is that what you are saying?

Yes,the thought of a bunch of angry Scots is a cause for concern for everyone.

FrancieBrady · 02-03-2021 11:28pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Yes,the thought of a bunch of angry Scots is a cause for concern for everyone.

They're angry in Tuvalu too.

Fionn1952 · 03-03-2021 1:00am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They're angry in Tuvalu too.

A few in the Vatican outraged by it too apparently...

downcow · 03-03-2021 7:01am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Stop answering questions with questions.

Just answer the question straight up. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes

What's stopping you attending your local MPs constituency office to make representations?

For those of you who have struggled to understand why unionists would be unable to use their local MPs constituency office in South Down due to it being named after two local sectarian murderers, maybe this will help.
He (Chris Hazard MP) has now tweeted his support for China and in particular his solidarity with President Xi.
Here is Amnesty International's Patrick Corrigan tweeted response "#Solidarity with the Uighur and Kazakh Muslims of Xinjiang, a million of whom have been put in mass internment camps for 're-education' at Xi’s direction."
Maybe he will put his name up on the office as well. The president Xi SF Advice Centre. It would be very fitting

A leopard doesn’t change its spots. It’s not that long since SF/IRA were re-educating people in dark rooms in Belfast and forests along the border.

Fionn1952 · 03-03-2021 10:10am

downcow wrote: »

For those of you who have struggled to understand why unionists would be unable to use their local MPs constituency office in South Down due to it being named after two local sectarian murderers, maybe this will help.
He (Chris Hazard MP) has now tweeted his support for China and in particular his solidarity with President Xi.
Here is Amnesty International's Patrick Corrigan tweeted response "#Solidarity with the Uighur and Kazakh Muslims of Xinjiang, a million of whom have been put in mass internment camps for 're-education' at Xi’s direction."
Maybe he will put his name up on the office as well. The president Xi SF Advice Centre. It would be very fitting

A leopard doesn’t change its spots. It’s not that long since SF/IRA were re-educating people in dark rooms in Belfast and forests along the border.

Not quite, Downcow. He tweeted regarding China's efforts to end absolute poverty (this is recognised by the UN, certainly room for debate on the matter, but too off topic to address in this thread). That being said even without your exaggeration, the tweet made me feel very uncomfortable. He does seem to praise Xi's efforts in the tweet, but one without your agenda would most likely read his #solidarity with regards to ending poverty rather than solidarity with Xi. Looking at his Twitter, he seems to have a track record of tweeting in solidarity of the people of various places.

It was an incredibly ill advised, ignorant post which is worth criticising, so I don't see why the need to exaggerate or put spin on it; it is already pretty unpleasant.

In general, it would be better to provide a link to the tweet along with your commentary, I've done so below.

https://twitter.com/ChrisHazzardSF/status/1365605269493923843?s=19

I've no idea what his play is here...is it just generic support of anything left wing?

FrancieBrady · 03-03-2021 11:01am

Just for balance, the Irish News now reporting on Lyons trip up another cul-de-sac.

https://twitter.com/irish_news/status/1367034085017870337

FrancieBrady · 03-03-2021 11:32am

What could possibly be the reason for this?

https://twitter.com/DannyDonnelly1/status/1367044312874307585

One wonders how close to the truth this comment is?:

They know 1 empty shelf in a Poundshop won't sway them

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 11:36am

Nothing to see. That's why.

downcow · 04-03-2021 9:10am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nothing to see. That's why.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/loyalist-paramilitary-groups-withdraw-support-for-belfast-agreement-1.4500982?mode=amp

This was inevitable since Roi encouraged Eu to tear up the gfa.
I appreciate the LCCs desire for non violence but unfortunately the unionist community has watched Roi pm use the threat of republican violence work for them.

The one thing I agree 100% with them is that the unionist community should be clear that the gfa no longer has its support due to the breaches by Roi I say that as someone who took serious abuse from within my community for voting yes to it 20 years ago. I, like david Trimble, feel betrayed by Roi

#edit. I have reflected on this and what is interesting for me is that my anger is absolutely not against the ordinary nationalist people in NI, the EU or the UK, rather it is fair and square against the Roi. They are the ones manipulated the Eu etc with the threats of violence (and of course the Sf leadership)

grayzer75 · 04-03-2021 10:02am

downcow wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/loyalist-paramilitary-groups-withdraw-support-for-belfast-agreement-1.4500982?mode=amp

This was inevitable since Roi encouraged Eu to tear up the gfa.
I appreciate the LCCs desire for non violence but unfortunately the unionist community has watched Roi pm use the threat of republican violence work for them.

The one thing I agree 100% with them is that the unionist community should be clear that the gfa no longer has its support due to the breaches by Roi I say that as someone who took serious abuse from within my community for voting yes to it 20 years ago. I, like david Trimble, feel betrayed by Roi

#edit. I have reflected on this and what is interesting for me is that my anger is absolutely not against the ordinary nationalist people in NI, the EU or the UK, rather it is fair and square against the Roi. They are the ones manipulated the Eu etc with the threats of violence (and of course the Sf leadership)

Yeah it's the ROI's fault that Boris shafted the DUP in the negotiations and stuck a border down the sea - if only people could have seen it coming, oh wait.......... The DUP were gloating when they were backing Boris but were the only ones not to realise that Boris or his mates couldn't give a flying f**k about the north. But as you say it's the ROI's fault for protecting the majority on the island :rolleyes:

Loyalists are upset due to the disruption of their drug network with extra checks at the ports. All their 'members' will have to stump up more cash in weekly dues to keep the boys at the top in their cushy lifestyles.

Annd9 · 04-03-2021 10:03am

Ah yes the country who warned and warned that Brexit has no good outcomes for NI is solely to blame for the current situation ..... Hilarious !

bocaman · 04-03-2021 10:17am

Now the UDA and other assorted loyalist terrorist have withdrawn their support for the GFA. I wonder who's using the threat of violence now?

BonnieSituation · 04-03-2021 10:25am

bocaman wrote: »

Now the UDA and other assorted loyalist terrorist have withdrawn their support for the GFA. I wonder who's using the threat of violence now?

Republicans of course, because this is where loyalists learned violence from.

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Comments