Probably... he also almost certainly stayed dead but don't tell then that!did the protestant J*sus not die on Good Friday as well??
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol
"Arguably"? I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status was "arguably" the wish or not of the people of NI that it would have been put to a ref. There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they (the minority of unionists who voted Remain) would, like London, certainly not vote to be split off from the UK and into the EU.Arguably not, considering they rejected Brexit outright. There is no doubt about that.
By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise. Play your strongest card - the threat of republican violence.Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.
Absolutely, no argument there. Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.If Simon Vradakar were using the spectre of republican violence to prevent a land border, then unionism is using the spectre of loyalist violence to usurp the sea border in equal fashion.
Ever read Macbeth? He was promised by the witches that he would never be killed by man "of woman born". He was killed by Macduff who was a cesarean birth. So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify. The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof. A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.There is no constitutional change to NI.
This is downright incorrect. Even before 1979 when both parts of Ireland used "sterling" it is true that the Southern punt was merely backed by the sterling reserves of our Central Bank but the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England. (As an aside this is one reason why Brexit will ensure that Scotland will never vote for independence for the foreseeable future.)NI is a separate entity to GB under the 'United' Kingdom. It has separate laws, on many things, not least on trade. Sunday hours for example, different in NI to say England or Scotland.
They even use a different version of the Sterling currency.
Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing. Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border. There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol. The greater threat of violence won the day.They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over. The reality is different, they just have different customs arrangements (arguably more favourable). The paperwork is causing some issues but they can be worked out Im sure.
I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status
There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they (the minority of unionists who voted Remain)
So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify.
the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England.
Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them.There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?
You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise.
Yep, I agree with you there.Absolutely, no argument there. Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.
See above ref Brixit.So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify. The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof. A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.
Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing. Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border. There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol. The greater threat of violence won the day.
Yep, the Peace Process kind of stopped when the chuckle brothers left the stage. The two hags in charge now are doing their respective tribes no service. It's hard to know which one to dislike more.23 years after it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.
23yrs later... demand for an early vote?
True, but Loyalism is defined by what it isn't, not what it is. They are on the losing side no matter what the outcome. The only question is whether the Nationalist manage to end up on the losing side with them.Collins is of course not alone in cowering to the threats of loyalist violence. He would front and centre in condemning Republican violence and supporting all measures for the rule of law. But when it comes to loyalist violence, everybody should tip-toe around the sensitivities of 'loyalism' and be 'mindful of idle chatter about a United Ireland'.
Excellent point but we all know that Loyalism isn't about loyalism, it's just a word used to define a tribal identity. One of the many things they have in common with Nationalists.Just to query that term 'loyalism'. The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament endorsed it, and Her Majesty the Queen gave it Royal Ascent.
Exactly who/what are these people 'loyal' too?
The should show their loyalty to the British Crown by submitting to the will of the British Crown. That is their position, they are subjects. They are subservient, willingly so, to a higher authority.
We know what they thought about it. There are graveyards full of corpses to remind us.Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.
They have their knickers in a twist because the 'Motherland' doesn't care about them and just wishes they would go away.They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over.
How so?An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements.
I'm struggling to see this point. At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs. It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol. (see #13)Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them.
I am aware of the history of early 20th century Ireland. In the 21st century Leo played the Green card more forcibly than CJH himself, so much so that some commentators mistakenly thought he was cosying up to Mary Lou.You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?
NI is in the UK??? That's the whole point.How so?
It was the UK that left the EU.
The Good Friday Agreement is a Constitutional Document and it ties NI law to the ECJ. Brexit, and the move away from recognising the jurisdiction of the ECJ changed the constitutional position of NI.I'm struggling to see this point. At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs. It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol.
As far as I'm aware, yes (thankfully... they broke it; they bought it).NI is in the UK??? That's the whole point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?