The screw is being turned on the DUP

[WolfeTone]

Here is David Cameron annoucing Brexit referendum in 2016.

Prime Minister Announces EU Referendum Date

Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union will be held on 23 June. Read more: http://news.sky.com...

youtu.be

Not one mention of the UK.

All about Britain leaving the EU, not UK.

DUP are playing everyone for a pup.

 

[odyssey06]

Here is David Cameron annoucing Brexit referendum in 2016.
Not one mention of the UK.
All about Britain leaving the EU, not UK.
DUP are playing everyone for a pup.

Think you are reading too much into that... Don't the DUP think they are British rather United Kingdomers?

Britain is the UK. Both Britain and the UK are common terms for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .

United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WolfeTone]

DUP identify as British for sure. But Britain is not the UK, it is a part of the UK. As you have identified, Britain and NI are two separate entities within the UK.
Ive never heard the term 'Britain' used a common reference to NI.
I have heard to NI being reffered as being 'British', ruled by Britain, but that ignores the century old dispute since partition.

In any case, the legislation to hold the referendum is for the UK.

It is more the mindset of those that brought us Brexit that I was thinking of.
NI was never given any consideration by the British political establishment.

 

[odyssey06]

DUP identify as British for sure. But Britain is not the UK, it is a part of the UK. As you have identified, Britain and NI are two separate entities within the UK.
Ive never heard the term 'Britain' used a common reference to NI.
I have heard to NI being reffered as being 'British', ruled by Britain, but that ignores the century old dispute since partition.
In any case, the legislation to hold the referendum is for the UK.
It is more the mindset of those that brought us Brexit that I was thinking of.
NI was never given any consideration by the British political establishment.

Britain = the United Kindgom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That is why the phrase "British government" is used as synonymous with "UK government".
It is also used interchangeably with the island of Great Britain; but just as much interchangeably with the UK.
Look up any dictionary or Wikipedia page for same and you will see it is an everyday common usage.

When we (as in Republic of Ireland) voted in EU referendums like Nice or Lisbon, did we give Northern Ireland much consideration? I don't remember it coming up in the campaigns.

 

[WolfeTone]

Ok, perhaps im splitting hairs. Im just someone who has never recognized NI being synonymous with Britain. Under British rule, yes, but not part of Britain (geographical entity) nor it being British (cultural or political entity)

I will accept that when Cameron spoke only of Britain, and not a mention of UK, that common impression would suggest that he was referring to the whole of UK.

However, considering the absence of any direct reference to NI by Cameron, Farage, Johnson during the campaign, then such disregard in Irish affairs is synonymous with British government treating such affairs as secondary to its own interests.
NI is separate to rest of UK, despite what DUP pine for.

We never gave NI much consideration in EU referenda (except the Shinners) but we had no practical way of implementing the outcome of the referenda in NI.
The British government are able to implement laws and referenda outcomes in NI, which only points to their absolute disregard for Irish interests as secondary to British interests in perpetuity.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

When in 1979 we broke with sterling, did we consider the effect on NI, on people living in border counties? In terms of day to day living this has become the greatest manifestation of partition. Again when we joined the euro did we consider the impact on the all Ireland economy? When we went to the needless (and dangerous) folly of changing road signs to kilometers did we consider its NI and border impacts?
NI is very low down the priorities of Southern politicians and electorate alike. Except when we are indulging in a sectarian or anti Brit waving of the green flag.

 

[odyssey06]

Ok, perhaps im splitting hairs. Im just someone who has never recognized NI being synonymous with Britain. Under British rule, yes, but not part of Britain (geographical entity) nor it being British (cultural or political entity)

I will accept that when Cameron spoke only of Britain, and not a mention of UK, that common impression would suggest that he was referring to the whole of UK.
However, considering the absence of any direct reference to NI by Cameron, Farage, Johnson during the campaign, then such disregard in Irish affairs is synonymous with British government treating such affairs as secondary to its own interests.
NI is separate to rest of UK, despite what DUP pine for.
We never gave NI much consideration in EU referenda (except the Shinners) but we had no practical way of implementing the outcome of the referenda in NI.
The British government are able to implement laws and referenda outcomes in NI, which only points to their absolute disregard for Irish interests as secondary to British interests in perpetuity.

Our decisions in referendums, currency, and in many other respects such as speed limits (noted above) directly and indirectly affected Northern Ireland - and Northern Ireland's population is one quarter of the total population of the island of Ireland. I don't even recall much consideration from the Shinners about those referendums and NI either to be honest, no more than any other ROI party.
The only time I can recall NI impact getting much priority from anyone was the current EU proposal to scrap day light savings time.
We voted for the Lisbon Treaty, which introduced Article 50 under which the UK is leaving the EU.
The likeliest member state at that time to avail of this option being the UK, given that there isn't a chance Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon would have passed a UK public vote.

Northern Ireland has 2.5% of the total population of the UK. It got the level of regard in the campaign that % warranted, I expect.
As much as a US state of same % population gets in a Presidential election. It is not a separate secondary interest, it is a subsidiary secondary interest.
Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK and was treated as such, just as Wales was; and Scotland would have been had it not been for its recent referendum. If NI had 2.5% of the population of a united Ireland, it would be treated exactly the same.

 

[Purple]

When we (as in Republic of Ireland) voted in EU referendums like Nice or Lisbon, did we give Northern Ireland much consideration? I don't remember it coming up in the campaigns.

Just as Northern Ireland is not part of Britain this is not the Republic of Ireland, it is just "Ireland"or, if you are speaking in Irish Éire (not Eire, that's a slightly misspelled lake).

 

[Purple]

I don't want a united Ireland.

The price would be too high both socially and economically.

I don't want their hate and bigotry and homophobia and racism. I don't want their basket case economy and under education and welfare mindset. I don't want to be bound to the past, looking backward to justify tribalism and divisiveness.

If Unionist want a future, want their traditions respected and safeguarded, then their best chance is within a united Ireland which is structured to respect those traditions. If they want that then they have to move into the 21st century, or even the latter part of the 20th century. Until then I want no part of them.

It is a tragedy that so many moderate Unionists and Nationalists are prisoners to the extremes within their own communities (communities is the word used for tribes when the people involved are white) but we can't fix that, we can only make it worse.

 

[odyssey06]

Just as Northern Ireland is not part of Britain this is not the Republic of Ireland, it is just "Ireland"or, if you are speaking in Irish Éire (not Eire, that's a slightly misspelled lake).

Most times I will say Ireland but in the context of this thread I needed some more descriptive way to mean not the entire island of Ireland, but rather than political entity representing the 6 counties. I must remember to use Éire but fadas annoy me!

 

[Purple]

Most times I will say Ireland but in the context of this thread I needed some more descriptive way to mean not the entire island of Ireland, but rather than political entity representing the 6 counties. I must remember to use Éire but fadas annoy me!

People who speak Irish and project a sense of superiority, as if they are more Irish than those who can't speak the language fluently; they really annoy me. That's just tribalism too.

 

[WolfeTone]

When in 1979 we broke with sterling, did we consider the effect on NI, on people living in border counties?

I don't know, did we consider the effect on NI? Is there a point here?
Is there any consideration for a political establishment making rules where it has no jurisdiction, compared with a political establishment making rules where it does have jurisdiction?

When we went to the needless (and dangerous) folly of changing road signs to kilometers did we consider its NI and border impacts?

Needless, perhaps. Dangerous!...you are kidding right?

NI is very low down the priorities of Southern politicians and electorate alike.

The partitionists would have loved nothing more than for republicans to stand down, bend the knee and accept their lot in the UK.
The partitionists would have loved nothing more than a two state solution so that they could get on with more menial affairs such as voting on road signs and currency usage, and not be interrupted with such fundamental constitutional issues over human rights, voting rights or cross-border bodies.

The partitionists failed. Since 1998, and the GFA, the partitionists have been sidelined. Politically, NI, is now no longer a crude territorial claim, it is political imperative to unite all the people of Ireland and a constitutional requirement for any and every Irish government. It cannot be deflected anymore.
NI may be "low down" the list of priorities for Southern electorate on many things, like road signs for instance, but on constitutional matters it resonates deeply.
Leo is no hardline republican. But Leo is, and with good reason, someone who understands what it is like for a community to have to campaign for justice and equality.
So all Leo is doing is standing by and standing over what was achieved in the GFA - an opportunity to end the conflict in Ireland once and for all.

 

[WolfeTone]

Our decisions in referendums, currency, and in many other respects such as speed limits (noted above) directly and indirectly affected Northern Ireland

Yes, and will continue to do so.
The issue at hand is the decision taken by UK to leave EU (absolutely their right) and the impact, directly and indirectly on Ireland as a whole, and on the prospect of a hard border and, most likely, such a border invoking violence.
When we changed our road signs, it had no effect. When we changed to euros, it did not invoke violence.
But if the UK is set about taking control of its own trade rules and regulations outside of the EU, then in all likelihood customs posts and checks will have to be placed along the border. Such customs posts and checks will invoke some to use violence.
The extent, or impact of any return to violence is unknown. It may have little effect, today. But in 10yrs, it could be wholly different.
The point being, that throughout its existence (with exception of last 20yrs), the border in Ireland has been synonymous with violence, sectarianism and division.
It is for these reasons that the Irish government is taking the stand it is taking.

 

[odyssey06]

Yes, and will continue to do so.
The issue at hand is the decision taken by UK to leave EU (absolutely their right) and the impact, directly and indirectly on Ireland as a whole, and on the prospect of a hard border and, most likely, such a border invoking violence.
When we changed our road signs, it had no effect. When we changed to euros, it did not invoke violence.
But if the UK is set about taking control of its own trade rules and regulations outside of the EU, then in all likelihood customs posts and checks will have to be placed along the border. Such customs posts and checks will invoke some to use violence.
The extent, or impact of any return to violence is unknown. It may have little effect, today. But in 10yrs, it could be wholly different.
The point being, that throughout its existence (with exception of last 20yrs), the border in Ireland has been synonymous with violence, sectarianism and division.
It is for these reasons that the Irish government is taking the stand it is taking.

The deeper integration within the EU, and distancing from the UK on issues of major economic purpose such as currency, and a hundred other decisions like speed limits, trade rules and regulations, is what has complicated the withdrawal process. Granted, we stayed outside Schengen for this reason which is why we might still be able to retain common travel agreement, although that was as much about travel between the two islands as within Ireland.
If the UK had left the EU at Maastricht, it would have been a completely different and simpler process, far less likely to result in the deadlock we see today.
If our absolute priority was zero prospect of a border on both sides, well neither the Irish nor UK government acted like that in their major decisions (except Shengen).

And even if it does mean customs checks on commercial vehicles going across the border, there's no real reason why in 2019 it should mean violence unless people want a return to it. There is now power sharing basis in the North (if on hiatus), parity of esteem, civil rights etc etc the situation with 1957 or 1977 is totally different.
If it's all about the border, well the line was still on the map when Britain was in the EU, the border was there, and for the last 20 years it's been a peace, or maybe it was just a truce. We'll see.
And most times the only way you'd notice that border line was those speed limits signs. Were any blown up?

 

[WolfeTone]

The deeper integration within the EU, and distancing from the UK on issues of major economic purpose such as currency, and a hundred other decisions like speed limits, trade rules and regulations, is what has complicated the withdrawal process.

None of which, or that im aware of, invoked a violent reaction.

If our absolute priority was zero prospect of a border on both sides, well neither the Irish nor UK government acted like that in their major decisions

Your talking about decisions taken at a time when there was a hard border. A conflict was ensuing.
And aside from the activities of paramilitaries, there was an unresolved political dispute between Ireland and Britain over the territory of NI.
The border was in place, and it required protection of British Army. That security border remained in place on the British side despite the advent of the SM, while customs posts were removed on Irish side.

there's no real reason why in 2019 it should mean violence unless people want a return to it.

Some people, a relatively small section of people, are prepared and preparing for violent attacks against security.
This is the often repeated assessment of the PSNI. It is evident in the form of attacks on PSNI resulting in deaths of PSNI officers, attempted murders and the death of Lyra McKee.
Its not a question of a return to violence, as it is a question of a return to escalating violence.
Why take the risk, when a simple NI only backstop can resolve the matter?

And most times the only way you'd notice that border line was those speed limits signs. Were any blown up?

Speed limits dont adversely interfere with the lives of people living in border communities.
Stop vehicles, looking for ID, searching cars, vans etc do.
It builds resentment, it puts people as targets.
And for the relatively small factions that are prepared to use violence it provides an opportunity to do just that.

 

[Purple]

Why take the risk, when a simple NI only backstop can resolve the matter?

The DUP would see the streets red with blood before they give an inch on the Britishness of Northern Ireland.
"Never!... never!... never!..." as the Reverend used to say.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I don't know, did we consider the effect on NI? Is there a point here?

Well yeah. It is the point we have been discussing in the last few posts, how much consideration do we really give to NI when making big changes that affect them?

Needless, perhaps. Dangerous!...you are kidding right?

Why then the warnings that speed limits are in kph? Do we really want Billy living on the Down side of the border thinking he can drive at 120 mph? On a more serious note, the decision to enter the euro was entirely political on our part. We ignored completely the damaging impact it would have on the all island economy and on the trade with our biggest trading partner. And we nearly, nearly went down the financial plug hole following the euro induced credit binge (but let's not digress).

NI may be "low down" the list of priorities for Southern electorate on many things, like road signs for instance, but on constitutional matters it resonates deeply.

On constitutional matters it is the only issue. I doubt it resonates more than will there be tax cuts in October.

So all Leo is doing is standing by and standing over what was achieved in the GFA - an opportunity to end the conflict in Ireland once and for all.

Ask the friends of Lyra McKee about the GFA ending conflict once and for all. Won't happen as long as their are hardline republicans in our midst, which leads to my next point:

And for the relatively small factions that are prepared to use violence it provides an opportunity to do just that.

These factions will be with us for a long time yet. Why are we letting them wag the dog? Leo is now prepared to plunge us into a No Deal economic catastrophe and increased opportunities for the factions, just because he was afraid of the factions in the first place. Coudn't make it up

 

[Purple]

Leo is now prepared to plunge us into a No Deal economic catastrophe and increased opportunities for the factions, just because he was afraid of the factions in the first place. Coudn't make it up

What do you suggest he does?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

What do you suggest he does?

5 year time limit. That will really get the DUP and the Mad Brexiteers hopping mad, but if the card is played shrewdly at the right moment Boris and Jeremy might find it very difficult not to agree together to proceed with this amended version of Theresa's WA.

 

[Purple]

So what happens after 5 years? What will have changed?