Current Affairs Irish Border and Brexit

[ToffeeTim]

Also, any agreement which is a short term fix aimed at getting two diametrically opposed groups to form a joint government, is never sustainable in the long term.

The fact they've managed it for almost 20 years is incredible in many ways. Would the Lib/Con coalition last 20 years? Could Boris and Jeremy lead a 20 year coalition? Essentially that's the political system we were given. It was good for a while but it's a failed experiment. We should be moving towards a more normal form of democracy, not allowing the chancers threatening a return to violence to set the agenda. There is only a threat of violence if someone chooses to use violence. Theres no support for that either so let's catch a grip.

 

[tsubaki]

Hoey said this before the vote.

"Nor will Brexit lead to border problems in NI. The Republic will remain outside the Schengen Zone and will thus retain its border controls. This will allow it to prevent Dublin becoming a back-door into the UK. Personal travel between NI and the Republic has always been easy, in or out of the EU, and even during the Troubles there were few difficulties. Even if some documentation of freight trade is required, in the age of the internet this will not involve hold-ups at the border".

Did she ever ask Dublin for its opinion on this matter? No.

Did she tell the British people loud and clear, that it will not be the UK that controls its borders but the Irish Republic? No.

Hoey just arrogantly assumed that Dublin would do as it is told. And as far as, 'in the age of the internet this will not involve hold-ups at the border' that has proved to be a complete farcical thing as Davis has found out.

The continued assault on the Good Friday Agreement will be gaining ground in some circles, in the attempt to railroad over the democratic wishes of the Northern Irish people. Not surprising really.

This is a point I've made before (so please forgive me for repeating it), but whilst the GFA exists it binds the hands of the Republic - and by extension the EU - as much as it does the UK. It is our best option for forcing a sensible Brexit on the EU. That Rees-Mogg, and shamefully Kate Hoey, want to get rid of it says a lot about what they actually want.

 

[electricblue]

Also, any agreement which is a short term fix aimed at getting two diametrically opposed groups to form a joint government, is never sustainable in the long term.

The fact they've managed it for almost 20 years is incredible in many ways. Would the Lib/Con coalition last 20 years? Could Boris and Jeremy lead a 20 year coalition? Essentially that's the political system we were given. It was good for a while but it's a failed experiment. We should be moving towards a more normal form of democracy, not allowing the chancers threatening a return to violence to set the agenda. There is only a threat of violence if someone chooses to use violence. Theres no support for that either so let's catch a grip.

That is scaremongering rubbish.

 

[ToffeeTim]

That is scaremongering rubbish.

Hmm no. It's not. It's just my two pennies as someone living here under a shambolic system where we can't even get a government because two of the most diametrically opposed political parties in the world are expected to rule jointly in an effective manner.

What is scaremongering is the incessant shouting of the left who claim we are incapable of having proper government without violence breaking out all over the place. I'd like to think we're past that nonsense?

 

[electricblue]

Hmm no. It's not. It's just my two pennies as someone living here under a shambolic system where we can't even get a government because two of the most diametrically opposed political parties in the world are expected to rule jointly in an effective manner.

What is scaremongering is the incessant shouting of the left who claim we are incapable of having proper government without violence breaking out all over the place. I'd like to think we're past that nonsense?

You stated that "chancers" were threatening to return to violence. That is a scaremongering lie unless you can provide the evidence. There wouldn't even be talks if that was the slightest bit factual.

 

[ToffeeTim]

You stated that "chancers" were threatening to return to violence. That is a scaremongering lie unless you can provide the evidence. There wouldn't even be talks if that was the slightest bit factual.

No I said the left are saying there is a threat of violence. I said thst after posting that daft tweet by David Lammy MP. There's been similar said recently by Owen Jones, Shaun Woodward, Peter Hain, Alastair Campbell and Barnier.

My point is that sort of scaremongering needs to end as there is no actual threat of violence. People saying there is a threat to score a political point needs to end.

 

[electricblue]

No I said the left are saying there is a threat of violence. I said thst after posting that daft tweet by David Lammy MP. There's been similar said recently by Owen Jones, Shaun Woodward, Peter Hain, Alastair Campbell and Barnier.

My point is that sort of scaremongering needs to end as there is no actual threat of violence. People saying there is a threat to score a political point needs to end.

No you didn't. Poor attempt at backtracking.

Stating "the left are saying there is a threat of violence" is completely different to stating "not allowing the chancers threatening a return to violence to set the agenda".

Your original comment directly implied that republicans/SF are threatening to return to violence if they don't get their way in the current talks process, which is nonsense and scaremongering, and there is no getting out of that.

 

[ToffeeTim]

No you didn't. Poor attempt at backtracking.

Stating "the left are saying there is a threat of violence" is completely different to stating "not allowing the chancers threatening a return to violence to set the agenda".

Your original comment directly implied that republicans/SF are threatening to return to violence if they don't get their way in the current talks process, which is nonsense and scaremongering, and there is no getting out of that.

Hmm no. It's not. It's just my two pennies as someone living here under a shambolic system where we can't even get a government because two of the most diametrically opposed political parties in the world are expected to rule jointly in an effective manner.

What is scaremongering is the incessant shouting of the left who claim we are incapable of having proper government without violence breaking out all over the place. I'd like to think we're past that nonsense?

"Incessant shouting of the left."

I couldn't have been more clearer I said it was them. They are the ones talking up threats that ain't there.

 

[electricblue]

"Incessant shouting of the left."

I couldn't have been more clearer I said it was them. They are the ones talking up threats that ain't there.

Again that was not your original statement, which to repeat was "not allowing the chancers threatening a return to violence to set the agenda". It is quite clear what that implies.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Hmm no. It's not. It's just my two pennies as someone living here under a shambolic system where we can't even get a government because two of the most diametrically opposed political parties in the world are expected to rule jointly in an effective manner.

Okay so what are you advocating? I absolutely accept the current set-up is far from ideal but it is massively better than either the unionist one part state that was in place for most of the 20th century. That was a political system that was roundly derided as probably the most perverse and undemocratic in the so-called free western world.

Or are you suggesting direct rule from London again? If so I don't see how that works with the principles of the GFA.

A power-sharing agreement between London and Dublin would hardly be sustainable beyond the short term either.

Remember there appeared at least the semblance of normal government with Paisley and McGuinness. As far as I can see a lot of the current issue rests at Arrrlene's door and her lack of standing within her party. From recent reports it appears that she and the lead negotiators had agreed a draft for reinstating government only for her party to throw it out.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Okay so what are you advocating? I absolutely accept the current set-up is far from ideal but it is massively better than either the unionist one part state that was in place for most of the 20th century. That was a political system that was roundly derided as probably the most perverse and undemocratic in the so-called free western world.

Or are you suggesting direct rule from London again? If so I don't see how that works with the principles of the GFA.

A power-sharing agreement between London and Dublin would hardly be sustainable beyond the short term either.

Remember there appeared at least the semblance of normal government with Paisley and McGuinness. As far as I can see a lot of the current issue rests at Arrrlene's door and her lack of standing within her party. From recent reports it appears that she and the lead negotiators had agreed a draft for reinstating government only for her party to throw it out.

Direct rule for a short period until there is better leadership of sf and dup I think. Paisley and Mcguiness done a decent job despite the stick they get. These 2 Foster and O Neill are dreadful.

I'll be doing all I can do personally by voting for others in the meantime.

 

[MarkK1988]

will be interesting if Sinn Fein end up getting their referendum, i think the whole of Ireland should be allowed to choose as well as it would affect them. that wont happen though

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Direct rule for a short period until there is better leadership of sf and dup I think. Paisley and Mcguiness done a decent job despite the stick they get. These 2 Foster and O Neill are dreadful.

I'll be doing all I can do personally by voting for others in the meantime.

Is that right though?

Say hypothetically you agree that the DUP are now the ones dragging their heels. Surely it is wrong and inconsistent with the GFA that a unionist party can effectively force through direct rule?

As an aside I wonder whether direct rule is a tactic to allow abortion rights, gay equality terms and an Irish Language act to progress and give the DUP an excuse to say "nothing to do with us". I'm actually reading Gordon Brown's autobiography now and his take on the Irish Language act being a key negotiating point for Sinn Fein many years ago is quite telling in my opinion.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Is that right though?

Say hypothetically you agree that the DUP are now the ones dragging their heels. Surely it is wrong and inconsistent with the GFA that a unionist party can effectively force through direct rule?

As an aside I wonder whether direct rule is a tactic to allow abortion rights, gay equality terms and an Irish Language act to progress and give the DUP an excuse to say "nothing to do with us". I'm actually reading Gordon Brown's autobiography now and his take on the Irish Language act being a key negotiating point for Sinn Fein many years ago is quite telling in my opinion.

I think both leaders are woeful. Just my perception, it may be wrong.

 

[Ruairi77]

will be interesting if Sinn Fein end up getting their referendum, i think the whole of Ireland should be allowed to choose as well as it would affect them. that wont happen though

might happen in stages.
Until Brexit, theres no way the north would vote for reunification. Now, with EU membership on the line, I dont know. Either way, if they voted for reunification, I'd imagine the Republic would have to vote to decide what to do.