arguing in bad faith by misrepresenting people
Only danny really, but he deserves it. 😄
And yet suddenly it’s all to do with brexit
I'm not sure if you've noticed but perhaps reread the thread title. Current affairs will be discussed in relation to it. To reiterate - no-one has said that the problems are entirely attributable to brexit. This is a notion completely of your own making.
We do agree on one thing though you'll no doubt be pleased to hear - raking over the coals if 2016 or even the last election is utterly futile.
Only danny really, but he deserves it.
I'll take that as a compliment from you.
If you're proud of selective (and I mean heavily selective- I.e. cutting off mid sentence) quoting and then arguing on the basis of that, then you revel in your awesumz. Well done. Veeeeery clever. 👏
On the other hand, I am happy that I can get you backed into a ridiculous, tortuous contortion within about five posts as you try to stick to your usual blather. You will then either:
A) Disappear for a bit until the dust settles.
B) Set up a strawman and fight that instead (and convince a minority that you are 'winning'). Before doing 'A' anyway.
😘
Apparently Johnson himself is in denial about the effects of his brexit deal on NI. so Daz is in good company
I cant see that any negotiations are likely to find a solution to the checks issue, the customs posts are still being built, Johnson is refusing any sort of summit & Frost is unlikely to back down, I can just see loyalist resentment simmering away to inevitibly flare up again in June for the orange order centenary & July for the NIP implementation
^^^
The 'la-la-la' fingers in ears approach from the current holders of some of the most venerated offices on earth (yep, believe it or not we used to be respected and looked up to as a nation) is going to hit a very riot-y brick wall very soon.
With all of Johnson's egotistical shit about carving himself a place in history with the likes of (spaff, spaff) Churchill, you would have thought he wouldn't want to be remembered as the man who reignited a NI civil war after twenty three years of peace - on the basis of a lie....
But then if your backers need their return on investment, then money talks, I guess. 🙄
There is no "money" in NI unlike Scotland which has Financial Services, Whisky, Oil, Tourism on a huge scale, Golf etc etc
Few if any of the Tory elite have any reason to concern themselves with the woes of NI.
Few if any of the Tory elite have any reason to concern themselves with the woes of NI.
The more extreme fringes can find ways to raise the profile of the place, though.
Which is always a worry.
I had a (very) mad idea whilst out on the road bike this afternoon*. What if the NI stuff is by design? What if reunification is the underlying goal? Here's a crazy scenario, The tories allow Scotland to secede, then offer Ireland the option of reunification. The price? Ireland leaving the EU and Scotland not joining to instead join a new north atlantic federation of independent states of the British Isles aligned with the US. The Scottish, Irish, and English nationalists all get what they want, with the support of the US. All it needs is the Loyalists to be thrown under the bus (or bought off). In geopolitical terms over a number of decades it makes quite a lot of sense.
*sorry I think way too much about shit whilst riding up Cragg Vale repeatedly 🙂
then offer Ireland the option of reunification
Well, now we know you never bothered to read the GFA. Or at least never understood it, or what it achieved for everyone in NI.
read the GFA
Are you joking? Life’s way too short for that bollocks. Have you read it?
BTW, did you miss the bit in that last post where I said it was a mad, stupid idea? Lighten up FFS.
Yes I read it. In 2016. Promoted by the old Brexit thread. It’s short, well written, and unusually easy to read for a political or diplomatic document.
I've read the GFA as well. I think it succeeds because of its clarity and brevity, there's little to none of the hedged conditions that let either side abuse it. Here you go -
While brexit may not be "the" reason for the current unrest it's plainly the one that's caused the cup to runneth over. As linked to above, even the "political wings" of the various prescribed organisations are stating that it's not a sectarian issue but one of a feeling, nothing more, that NI is being pushed away from the union.
There were/are four options regarding the status of NI post brexit, one is illegal, two are politically unpalatable and the fourth is a de facto border down the Irish Sea. Brexit dogma and the desire that nothing can be seen as wrong with brexit has led to this. Pure Johnson, failure to understand the problem, failure to read the details, distract and pass the blame.
You really don’t get very far into that document to see reasons why Brexit has triggered the current violence
I’ve read the GFA as well. I think it succeeds because of its clarity and brevity, there’s little to none of the hedged conditions that let either side abuse it.
Whaaaaa..... OK, try this one:
(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by
agreement between the two parts respectively and without external
impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of
consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a
united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be
achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a
majority of the people of Northern Ireland;
Does this require:
- a majority in a referendum in the North and in a referendum in the South
- as above plus a majority in the island as a whole
- just a majority in the North and a majority in the island as a whole
And does there need to be agreement by referendum not only on the principle of re-unificaiton but also on the terms of the re-unification agreement (as to which similar questions arise, but I think that as a matter of the Irish constitution a referendum in the South would be required on the terms anyhow).
As has been noted above, it is a masterpiece of loose, aspitational wording where the only detail is in the parts about mechanisms for agreeing stuff in the future. Terms so loose don't need to be hedged about with conditions. That is why they are so loose, because there were so many areas where, had the parties tried to go into any detail, they would have got hung up on the exceptions and conditions (for example, the policing can was kicked down the road). So they found a form of words everyone could buy into, and stopped at that, leaving the difficult areas to be resolved later. Some of which were, but some of which remain difficult areas yet to be resolved.
The whole Brexit issue with the agreement is mainly to do with an interpretation of the broad direction implied in the agreement rather than on any detailed terms (it doesn't expressly deal with border customs infrastructure or the free movement of goods, for example).
– a majority in a referendum in the North and in a referendum in the South
This.
Which simple maths tells you also means the following.
– as above plus a majority in the island as a whole
You can't have majority votes in favour both north and south, and then not have a majority in favour across both populations combined. It's not possible.
I wonder if headbanger English Brexiteers would start asking “Why don’t we get a referendum on it?”
I saw a good docco yesterday where it was highlighted that 'power sharing' in NI is often really 'power splitting' so entire portfolios are given to one 'side' or the other. I don't think this was defined 100% in the GFA either, but it has become the adopted MO. There will have been a fair amount of this given the GFA's intent as a broad base for peaceful coexistence rather than a full nuts and bolts plan.
I can see there being an original intention to evolve power splitting into power sharing, but as so often happens, the status quo becomes ossified as no one wants to rock the boat when a feeling of marginally more stability is achieved.
All delicate stuff and requiring the intimate knowledge of grownups and handling with care and statesmanship.
Enter Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. Fibbing, frivolous child.
Khrushchev was once characterised as a petulant child playing with a loaded gun. Johnson is similar only he is playing with a hand grenade.
This.
Which simple maths tells you also means the following.
It is far more complicated than that. Does it imply a single island-wide referendum is needed, or will two separate ones do, where you look at the results of each? If the former, there would have to be a single bilingual ballot paper and some kind of central administration - best not even start down the road of nailing that lot down. But equally, co-ordinating two referenda (would they have to happen at the same time?) would require some organisation. The clause is a finely tuned bodge where republicans can look at it and pretend Ireland is a single entity, whilst unionists can look at it and see that the principle that the North is a separate country is maintained. Difficult detail likely to result in impassable disagreement is simply not addressed, and that runs through the whole thing.
It's very simple: two referendums, one in the North, one in the South, both need majorities, both need to happen at the same time.
I’m not absolutely sure, but I’m fairly certain it would require two separate polls. Could you imagine a, say, 60:40 Yes figure in the RoI dragging a say, 51:49 “No” vote in NI into a United Ireland?
(Just made up figures for illustration.)
This is an internet forum no? Where else can you be called a nazi appeaser/sympathiser for saying we should maybe listen to what millions of brexit voters are telling us?
It’s bad for people who work in the industry, but then the end of WWII was bad for people working in the ethnic cleansing industry
😂
@kelvin I agree "it" is simple as long as "it" does not include the drafting of the agreement, which is what started this - see @whitestone's post above.
The need for a majority is only mentioned in the context of the North. For the rest, what is required is "consent" of the people. Does this difference of language imply a different mechanism for obtaining consent? If not, what is the point of the final part of that paragraph? (Note how the final part uses the contentious phrase "Northern Ireland" whereas the rest talks simply about "the North" and "the South" - the form of words republicans prefer.) I assume the final words were insisted on by the unionist side because of concern about the interpretation of "consent" in the rest of the paragraph. There is also the point about agreement on the principle vs consent to the text of tbe unification agreement, which is left completely open. To argue that the Agreement is "well written" and "easy to read" is absurd, its tortuous drafting is clearly the result of negotiation and is often far from clear.
It is clear as to what it offers “both sides” in NI. If it’s woolier as to how consent is sought from those south of the border… politically that is utterly irrelevant. They would use a referendum though, and the result would be a forgone conclusion.
People have tried to flesh out a detailed path, if you really are interested: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/elections-and-referendums/working-group-unification-referendums-island-ireland
kelvin
Full MemberIt’s very simple: two referendums, one in the North, one in the South, both need majorities, both need to happen at the same time.
Mmm. Seems logical to me to have the "will the republic let the north join them" referendum first tbh. Either one is dependent on the other but that's probably the less murdery/explosioney one.
It was written in to be “concurrent” to discourage the bigger party from seeming to push hard for unification by calling a referendum without or ahead of NI doing the same. It is one of many smart concessions made to make the GFA work for “both sides” in NI, to make them feel empowered rather than pushed and pulled by either of their bigger neighbours on both sides of the Irish Sea.
I can definitely see the sense of that, but, that doesn't really feel it reflects the real situation today- rather than push or pull, the republic's side of things is opening or closing a door, while the north's decision is to go through it or not. It has to work for both sides but it doesn't mean it is the same for both sides.
But going through all the upheaval of deciding whether or not to go through the door, then discovering it's locked, seems like a new sort of Bad Juju.
then discovering it’s locked,
I see the logic of what you’re saying too, and of course, one can never say never, but the chances of the RoI voting against are small. The agency of reunification belongs with the citizens of NI. While the Irish constitution was changed as a result of the referendum on the 1998 agreement (by a huge majority), it still contains a watered down aspiration towards a UI. I’m sure the odd dissenter would campaign against a UI in the RoI, but any Taoiseach, member of the the governing party or member of the second party of government, which would be Fíne Gael or Fianna Fáil, that turned down the opportunity for reunification and campaigned against it might as well emigrate to...I dunno...the Antarctic might be far enough. 😀
In short, I’d imagine the door is always open, subject to confirmation, but it’s the decision of NI citizens whether to walk through.
I listened to a good podcast about “preparing” for a border poll a few weeks ago on the Irish Times politics podcast feed. It was an interesting discussion. I’ll see if I can dig it out.
I have friends and business acquaintances both North and South, most regardless of religion or politics think UI is just a matter of time which may be accelerated slightly by Brexit.
At the moment NI feels poor when you are there and seems to have fallen behind the UK development wise over the last 20 years, i dont know why?
The South feels better but drift from Dublin and the likes of Cork it doesn't feel a lot different.
As a North East of England resident i have watched a similar stagnation around the Tyne Wear and Tees not so much a decline more a quiet abandonment. I think Rishi underpinned this at the budget.
Folks in NI need a better home than what is currently being provided and a UI might provide that as part of the EU
Sadly for us North Eastern folk we have no where to go.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56741000
we can employ people from all around the world," Sir James told the BBC."
Apart from a huge workforce right on our doorstep.
Another article pretending that the Pfizer vaccine doesn’t exist as well. It would be nice to believe that news just doesn’t travel to Singapore, but the reality is he’s just a self serving bullshiter, isn’t he.
From Dyson:
"We've got our freedom, we can make trade agreements with other countries outside Europe [and] we can employ people from all around the world,” Sir James told the BBC.
Which of those did our EU membership prevent? Since we left the EU we signed over 60 ‘continuity’ agreements. How could we have continued trade agreements with countries outside of Europe when Dyson claims we couldn’t have had them to begin with?
Sir James said the reason he had to move Dyson out to Asia was because Dyson's British suppliers "didn't want to expand with us".
British business refuse to expand and make more money?? I wonder how many British suppliers he actually uses?
Someone up there had it spot on, he is a massive bullshitter.
He's a self-serving twonk!
And like that other renowned self-serving twonk, Boris Johnson, he seems to deliver a different message depending on his audience, sometimes in complete contradiction to the last thing he said
Someone up there had it spot on, he is a massive bullshitter.
And a country member.
I saw a good docco yesterday where it was highlighted that ‘power sharing’ in NI is often really ‘power splitting’ so entire portfolios are given to one ‘side’ or the other. I don’t think this was defined 100% in the GFA either, but it has become the adopted MO. There will have been a fair amount of this given the GFA’s intent as a broad base for peaceful coexistence rather than a full nuts and bolts plan.
I recall reading an article back during the days of the 2010-2015 Conservative/LibDem coalition that stated this is a common way of handling coalitions. It allows the parties in the coalition to point to the achievements in the portfolios they managed and say "that was us" when campaigning. The article was arguing that because the two parties in the Westminster coalition did not do this, the LibDems were struggling to highlight their achievements and policies, while still getting blamed for their failures.
Back to NI...
“Need another month sir, Prince Philip’s dog ate my homework...”
https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1382243987143196673?s=21
I recall reading an article back during the days of the 2010-2015 Conservative/LibDem coalition that stated this is a common way of handling coalitions. It allows the parties in the coalition to point to the achievements in the portfolios they managed and say “that was us” when campaigning. The article was arguing that because the two parties in the Westminster coalition did not do this, the LibDems were struggling to highlight their achievements and policies, while still getting blamed for their failures.
Indeed, but the splitting off of complete portfolios means there will be divergence and conflict if the power sharing parties choose to, er, diverge and conflict...
Also, should some act of previously unthinkable nobheadishness occur (I.e. Brexit) some of those portfolios will assume greater or lesser emotive and political power. What Brexit is doing, on all levels, is disrupting the arrived at MO for keeping tensions in NI to a minimum.
Back to NI…
“Need another month sir, Prince Philip’s dog ate my homework…”
Doesn't make much difference does it?
The problem doesn't go away just because the fat, shambling oaf kicks the problem into the long grass. Unless this is just a ploy to try to get past marching season.
All that results is the same problem a bit later and all the other parties considerably more pissed off.
Well done Leavers!
🇬🇧🍑💩🤦♂️
🇪🇺💰🥂😂
🇬🇧🍑💩🤦♂️
🇪🇺💰🥂😂
Surely the EU/ Europeans in general doesn’t/don’t laugh, celebrate or do well out of Brexit? Those emojis just remind me of more of the same ‘them vs us’ (‘champagne elite’ vs ‘hard done-by/screwed-over Brits) divisive rhetoric that helped fuel the leave campaign ☹️ ?
Those emojis just look more of the same them vs us divisive rhetoric that helped fuel the leave campaign
I only do it in the hope of winding up any of the Brexiteers on here.
They are apt, though, when you take the UK companies that are setting up EU subsidiaries - extra red tape and bullshit caused by UK leads to jobs created in the EU which leads to (potentially) stalled job creation in the UK. If I was looking at taking on extra UK staff, but suddenly had to employ some EU workers and rent premises etc, I would probably think about canning my 'aspirational' UK people investment...
I'll try a bit of a different tack. How's this:
🇬🇧🍑💩🤦♂️
🇪🇺👉🇬🇧🙄
??
I only do it in the hope of winding up any of the Brexiteers on here.
Except they could just as easily have served as Leave propaganda. Heads up - I showed them Mrs P (without accompanying context of your post) and she thought the (emojigram?) was in support of Leave!!!
What I was saying the other day...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/14/belfast-riots-brexit-good-friday-peace-deal
Pretty much the same thing as everyone else?
Edit: while telling everyone they were saying something different.
