They seem quite focused on achieving a trade deal with the US as a matter of priority, the US have made it clear that agriculture/ food safety standards will have to be lowered for that to happen.
The screw is being turned on the DUP
- Thread starter WolfeTone
- Start date
- Status
They seem quite focused on achieving a trade deal with the US as a matter of priority, the US have made it clear that agriculture/ food safety standards will have to be lowered for that to happen.
Doesn't augur well for the hopes of no border checks. Animal produce from UK, if standards do fall, will be prohibited from EU.
If EU were to prohibit British beef, I would imagine reciprocal measures by UK to prohibit EU beef.
Ensuring, the need for border checks on both sides.
Last edited:
Yep, you know if Trump is getting excited about the prospects of a great trade deal, then it's only likely to change in his favour. Can only get messy.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
So we are going to plunge this country into a No Deal catastrophe because we are afraid of the IRA.
That is a somewhat glib perspective over an issue that has plagued this country since partition.
But perhaps Boris's table tantrums are working on you?
The facts are, there is a deal already agreed. It is the British parliament, and its new government, that are intent on plunging us all into a No Deal catastrophe by reneging on that deal, that its government agreed in good faith.
If the British government wants to re-negotiate a term of that agreement that it put into the agreement, it is incumbent on them to offer an alternative.
So far all alternative offers have been found out to be bogus, hence the pounding of 'No-deal' now.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
The "any tweak to the existing cross border trading arrangements will destroy the peace process and bring back the IRA" is entirely bogus. Not just me saying so. Dan O'Brien and Eoghan Harris of the Sindo have been beating this drum for some time now.
I remember the civil rights movement in NI. The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force. Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border, which were mainly the result of the southern state trying to protect its basket case economy. The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.
I remember the civil rights movement in NI. The banners shouted One Man One Vote. The burning issues were discrimination in housing, in public sector appointments, protestant domination of the main industries, a sectarian police force. Nobody was in the least bit exercised by the long queues at the border, which were mainly the result of the southern state trying to protect its basket case economy. The backstop is bogus but it suits the EU to use it to back the UK into a corner, and we play the patsy to that strategy.
Early Riser
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,643
As someone who also remembers the civil rights marches and who lived along the border, I have to disagree. The marches themselves were about equality of opportunity but lots of people along the border did have an issue with the queues. The fact that they were resigned to them by time did not mean they did not resent them. As many crossings were blocked, people often had to travel several extra miles to go through approved routes. There was tremendous underlying resentment at the petty disruption to daily life - social, recreational, occupational, economic, etc.
The other people who paid attention to the border were smugglers - some for personal use, but many for much more significant activity. What was not there then - at least not widely - was the link between smuggling and organised criminal gangs. This would be much more of a feature of any new border.
Anyway, The Troubles happened unfortunately. There is no turning back the clock to even the civil rights days. After all that turmoil there is no way a significantly large percentage of the nationalist community is going to accept a hard border - not without fierce resentment and alienation, at least. This does not turn them into IRA members. But it does create a context in which IRA activity is viewed with much more understanding and sympathy.
And, except in his own mind, Eoghan Harris is usually wrong in his diagnoses and predictions !
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Ahh Early Riser so you are the kinda gal Leo is referring to when he talks about "people who getup early in the morning"
I take your points. I am going to digress here so regular AAM viewers may wish to switch channels. When I was a young earl I used to travel back and forth from Belfast to Dublin every weekend. It depressed me to travel through pot-holed roads through congested towns like Castlebellingham, Dunleer, Drogheda, Balbriggan and Swords. Why were the northern roads so much better, are prods inherently superior?
These days I do the trip less regularly but I never cease to marvel at the wonders of the M1. And we are now better than the roads in the North. I think at least we got something from the excesses of the Celtic Tiger. Yes, I would be very annoyed if customs blocks were established on the M1. That is not going to happen but even if it did I would not have an urge to resort to violence, and I would not support those who would. So indeed we are right to resist a return to a hard border. We made this case early doors and more power to our diplomatic service we succeeded in making no hard border a key EU objective. But it was hugely cynical to tie this desire to the preservation of the peace process. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise SF for their glorification of IRA resistance and then use that threat as a bargaining counter in the EU/UK negotiations.
I take your points. I am going to digress here so regular AAM viewers may wish to switch channels. When I was a young earl I used to travel back and forth from Belfast to Dublin every weekend. It depressed me to travel through pot-holed roads through congested towns like Castlebellingham, Dunleer, Drogheda, Balbriggan and Swords. Why were the northern roads so much better, are prods inherently superior?
These days I do the trip less regularly but I never cease to marvel at the wonders of the M1. And we are now better than the roads in the North. I think at least we got something from the excesses of the Celtic Tiger. Yes, I would be very annoyed if customs blocks were established on the M1. That is not going to happen but even if it did I would not have an urge to resort to violence, and I would not support those who would. So indeed we are right to resist a return to a hard border. We made this case early doors and more power to our diplomatic service we succeeded in making no hard border a key EU objective. But it was hugely cynical to tie this desire to the preservation of the peace process. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise SF for their glorification of IRA resistance and then use that threat as a bargaining counter in the EU/UK negotiations.
Probably best to dial down the hyperbole. No-one has said the IRA was coming back. But it doesn't take a genius to recognize that any border infrastructure or installations would not be subject to targeting, and anybody operating them, at some point in the future.
Every PSNI security assessment of the last few years has stated the threat from militant republicans is at its highest.
This is somewhat borne out in recent attempts to murder PSNI officers and of course, the tragic murder of Lyra McKee.
The point about the border is, why offer another target, why do something that is symbolically provocative? When there is absolutely no need to do so?
Dan is looking to the economic impact, which is fair enough. But he is shallow when it comes to the political impact. As for Harris, I respect that he is considered somewhat an intellectual, but his bitterness toward anything SF support is his Achilles heel. Since his own IRA/Communist days floundered, he has been prepared to sell out every principle he ever had if he considered it to do damage to the Provos.
Yes, so what?
I may not be old enough to remember the civil rights movement, but im conscious of the impact the border has had on the psyche of this country.
Im aware of how British law was usurped through the threat of violence from UVF and to the behest of a Unionist minority to create the border in the first place. The concept of exclusively peaceful and democratic means were discarded by the British.
WWI was the lamentable excuse for suspending the Home Rule parliament, a parliament to be led by John Redmond who advocated for and encouraged the lives of Irish nationalists to join the war effort with Britain as an act of loyalty to the British crown.
That betrayal resonated profoundly paving the way for the Rising and subsequent war for independence.
Im aware of the nasty Civil war that followed the introduction of partition that would divide a generation of Irish people, families and communities against one another.
Im aware of the futile, but fatal IRA 'border' campaign in the late 1950's pre-dating the Civil rights movement.
Im aware of the Troubles and the sectarian murder campaign carried out by the IRA along the border against Protestants.
Im aware of resistance of local communities to border crossings being closed, blocked off or destroyed by British Army inflicting undue hardship on the economies of rural communities.
Must have been a phenomenon. Nobody put out by long queues! The were probably just happy to get there stash of smuggled goods across!
Last edited:
Early Riser
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,643
But it is not a threat - it is an indication of a significant risk. If there was a proposal to cancel all Garda speedchecks and breathalysers for the next year in order to divert resources elsewhere I would say say there is a real risk of a sharp rise in road deaths. I am not thereby threatening to get plastered and speed up the M1.
The Government pointing out the reals risks of violence after the establishment of a hard border is not threatening violence but pointing out a reality. Disaffection and disruption fester. Small confrontations can easily escalate. Tolerance levels in the community change - not overnight but incrementally. Like you, I would not support a return to violence either - the same way I wouldn't drive plastered down the M1 in the absence of checks. But there are those who will - in both scenarios.
This is totally disingenuous. Nobody is using IRA violence as a bargaining chip. That, if anything, is the extreme outcome of any hardening of the border.
In the meantime, the prospect of any return to Stormont will vanish. SF may as well pack up and call it day if they are to administer anything remotely resembling a British border in Ireland.
As much as that may please some, it will create a vacuum.
galway_blow_in
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,992
You lost any credibility by referencing eoghan Harris
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I’m trying to understand this, seems as if it might make sense but it is late at night, I will address tomorrow.
we have been very critical of boris johnson and the brexiteers for their nationalistic little england narrative. However we are guilty of the exact same jingoism with regard to the backstop and this talk of a united ireland, its actually leo varadker and not sinn fein that is most guilty of this now. Leo Varadker has departed from the traditional even handed approach to northern ireland of previous taoiseach. Enda Kenny or bertie ahern would never have indulged in such talk especially at such a delicate time.
Boris johnson has been accused of blatant electioneering over the last few days, leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card
Leo has shown his inexperience on a number of occasions but talking about a united Ireland is hardly playing to the FG base; they are the people who put the border there in the first place.
I couldn't disagree more. The concept of a United Ireland is written into the internationally binding GFA. It is also a constitutional requirement of any Irish government to unite all the people of Ireland.
That the political dynamics of Irish/British relations have altered on foot of Brexit is every reason to start a discussion on a UI - even if it is to rule it out for a generation.
Who is afraid of dialogue? Who is afraid of the democratic process?
Brexit no-deal (no-plan) however is another kettle of fish. The British parliament may have rejected the WA, but in no way does Boris's unelected government reflect the views of that parliament. Some are leave with no-deal, no-plan, others are leave but not without a deal, others are staunchly remain in EU. The 'United' Kingdom is a set of four countries, two have voted to Leave, two have voted to Remain. By virtue of England's larger population, two countries that voted Remain are being pulled out of EU against their will.
Britain by all means should leave the EU. That is their prerogative. But without a plan, a backstop for NI is pragmatic and reasonable.
And if not, the prospect of a UI should be open for discussion.
Last edited:
galway_blow_in
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,992
The Irish government has always been far too docile with regards Northern Ireland.
I don't particularly care for Leo Varadkar but he has my full support on the backstop issue.
The brexiteers have a decision to make, cut loose the Ulster unionists or no brexit at all, Northern Ireland can remain in the customs Union and the problem is solved
The central plank of the brexiteers goal is immigration control, that's a joke if you have no border between here and Northern Ireland regardless of what Borris says.
The UK - EU border needs to be in the Irish Sea, economically difficult for us but better than a hard border
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Not sure I get the "plastered speeding up the M1" bit; I always suspect that the resort to analogy is a sign that the original is unconvincing. But I accept the semantic point. It is not a threat in the sense that (unlike SF) Simon Varadkar would not actually support or encourage violent resistance to customs checks. But they are big time using the "risk" of such a return to violence as a bargaining counter. This is deeply cynical, I almost prefer the more honest direct threat from SF.
They are not doing Ireland any favours here. Customs checks are commonplace the world over and there is nothing in the UN charter of human rights condemning them. Yet we have everyone from Pelossi to Barnier thinking we risk a return to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths just because nationalist sensibilities on the border issue are ruffled.
If Simon Varadkar really believe in the enormity of the risk (I don't and they probably don't) they would do anything at all to prevent a No Deal Brexit in October, even if it meant that yellow top would have a lap of honour.
- Status