Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[m williamson 802]

30 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Ulster as we know it now consists of 6 states  and S. Ireland is sometimes referred to as the free state.

Only by people who don'tknow what they are talking about or alternatively by malignant sectarians.

 

Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal are Ulster counties. All three are in the Republic of Ireland. Players from those counties play rugby for Ulster, which isn't surprising as they are Ulstermen.

The description Free State ended on the 29th of December 1937 and only those wishing to be insulting or those who are completyely ignorant of facts use the term.

[harvey19 541]

47 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Only by people who don'tknow what they are talking about or alternatively by malignant sectarians.

 

Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal are Ulster counties. All three are in the Republic of Ireland. Players from those counties play rugby for Ulster, which isn't surprising as they are Ulstermen.

The description Free State ended on the 29th of December 1937 and only those wishing to be insulting or those who are completyely ignorant of facts use the term.

Well I have heard the phrase used without malice and if you ask people what Ulster comprises of I think they will recognise it as the 6 counties.

The UDR, Ulster Defence Regiment, was a regiment of the British Army and only operated in the 6 counties.

Just read Wikipedia about the different names and saw Northern Ireland had a suggested name of The Kingdom of Ireland.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by harvey19

[m williamson 802]

13 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Well I have heard the phrase used without malice and if you ask people what Ulster comprises of I think they will recognise it as the 6 counties.

 

 

If someone uses a description which is over 85 years out of date to describe a country it is reasonable to ask why they are doing so. Presumably the people that you heard use the term ' without malice ' weren't even born when the title was changed? 

 

Anyone who knows the first thing about Ireland knows that there are four provinces in the country and that there are nine counties in Ulster. When Ireland was partitioned in 1921 it was done in order to provide one particular community with a manufactured majority.  The partition was gerrymandered taking no notice of historical connections and dividing ancient arrangements with no regard for anything other than providing unionists with their own fiefdom. That's what  the Troubles were about.

 

I find it somewhat strange that anyone feels competent  to comment on how things should be handled in a country when they are unaware of basic facts about the country in question.

[harvey19 541]

10 minutes ago, m williamson said:

If someone uses a description which is over 85 years out of date to describe a country it is reasonable to ask why they are doing so. Presumably the people that you heard use the term ' without malice ' weren't even born when the title was changed? 

 

Anyone who knows the first thing about Ireland knows that there are four provinces in the country and that there are nine counties in Ulster. When Ireland was partitioned in 1921 it was done in order to provide one particular community with a manufactured majority.  The partition was gerrymandered taking no notice of historical connections and dividing ancient arrangements with no regard for anything other than providing unionists with their own fiefdom. That's what  the Troubles were about.

 

I find it somewhat strange that anyone feels competent  to comment on how things should be handled in a country when they are unaware of basic facts about the country in question.

My comments about how Brexit was managed were in the context of a border being imposed between parts of the same country which is the United Kingdom of which Northern Ireland is a part of.

The history of the island of Ireland is irrelevant in this context.

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by harvey19

[L00b 441]

21 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

The history of the island of Ireland is irrelevant in this context.

 

In the very context of this discussion about Brexit and the sub-topic of NI/the Protocol…

 

…<speechless>

[m williamson 802]

25 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

My comments about how Brexit was managed were in the context of a border being imposed between parts of the same country which is the United Kingdom of which Northern Ireland is a part of.

The history of the island of Ireland is irrelevant in this context.

 

It is entirely relevant.

The United Kingdom is made up of three countries on the island of Britain and a partitioned part of another country on the island of Ireland, so it's hardly a country in any coventional sense is it?

It's a union, and one which is looking extremely shaky at the moment. The Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998 was designed to bring about the eventual reunification of Ireland.

The intention was that it would take two or even three generations before that could be accomplished peacefully. Brexit has thrown a spanner in the works. Hopefully it won't lead to violence but there is no guarantee that it won't.

I voted remain for a number of pragmatic and economic reasons, I was also fully aware of the potential problems that would arise in Ireland and that was an additional reason for my decision.

Anyone who understood the first thing about Ireland knew the problem. Those who voted leave either didn't know or didn't care. 

[Axe 836]

6 minutes ago, m williamson said:

It is entirely relevant.

The United Kingdom is made up of three countries on the island of Britain and a partitioned part of another country on the island of Ireland, so it's hardly a country in any coventional sense is it?

It's a union, and one which is looking extremely shaky at the moment. The Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998 was designed to bring about the eventual reunification of Ireland.

The intention was that it would take two or even three generations before that could be accomplished peacefully. Brexit has thrown a spanner in the works. Hopefully it won't lead to violence but there is no guarantee that it won't.

I voted remain for a number of pragmatic and economic reasons, I was also fully aware of the potential problems that would arise in Ireland and that was an additional reason for my decision.

Anyone who understood the first thing about Ireland knew the problem. Those who voted leave either didn't know or didn't care. 

No it was not.  It was to bring about peace.  If the majority of the electorate do not want a reunification of Ireland it will not happen.

[m williamson 802]

13 minutes ago, Axe said:

No it was not.  It was to bring about peace.  If the majority of the electorate do not want a reunification of Ireland it will not happen.

Then why were the DUP so dead set against it? 

 

They didn't sign it and didn't agree with it because they understood what it meant.

Britain wants rid of the place and that is entirely understandable. As Lord Palmerston said a country has no permanent allies and no permanent enemies only permanent interests. It is no longer in Britains interest to retain the area.

Britain went on record as stating that it no longer had any selfish, strategic or economic reasons to retain NI and the electorate will be the ones to decide.

Britain also knew how the demographics were playing out https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/07/30/news/new-figures-suggest-no-unionist-majority-in-any-of-the-north-s-six-counties-2403573/ That report is two years old.

 

Britain agreed a 50%+1 majority was enough to decide the result of a border poll and also agreed to border polls being held at continuing intervals until such time as reunification wins. 

There is only one way that can end. It was supposed to happen well in the future, Brexit may change that.

 

The mechanism to bring about a political solution to partition didn't exist until the Good Friday Agreement was signed, it does now.

The GFA is an International Peace Agreement registered at the UN and the USA have a vested interest in it being upheld.

[Axe 836]

16 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Then why were the DUP so dead set against it? 

 

They didn't sign it and didn't agree with it because they understood what it meant.

Britain wants rid of the place and that is entirely understandable. As Lord Palmerston said a country has no permanent allies and no permanent enemies only permanent interests. It is no longer in Britains interest to retain the area.

Britain went on record as stating that it no longer had any selfish, strategic or economic reasons to retain NI and the electorate will be the ones to decide.

Britain also knew how the demographics were playing out https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/07/30/news/new-figures-suggest-no-unionist-majority-in-any-of-the-north-s-six-counties-2403573/ That report is two years old.

 

Britain agreed a 50%+1 majority was enough to decide the result of a border poll and also agreed to border polls being held at continuing intervals until such time as reunification wins. 

There is only one way that can end. It was supposed to happen well in the future, Brexit may change that.

 

The mechanism to bring about a political solution to partition didn't exist until the Good Friday Agreement was signed, it does now.

The GFA is an International Peace Agreement registered at the UN and the USA have a vested interest in it being upheld.

Because of the murdering IRA terrorists.  There was mistrust.

 

[m williamson 802]

11 minutes ago, Axe said:

Because of the murdering IRA terrorists.  There was mistrust.

 

Ian Paisley was responsible for inciting people to commit violence whilst taking great care to avoid any involvement himself.

 

Martin McGuinness at least had the courage to confront his enemies, and more importantly the eventual wisdom to make peace and help to bring about some form of reconciliation.

 

No side came out of that Troubles period covered in glory, the British security forces had a number of murderers among their ranks, very few of whom ever paid for their crimes.

[Axe 836]

15 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Ian Paisley was responsible for inciting people to commit violence whilst taking great care to avoid any involvement himself.

 

Martin McGuinness at least had the courage to confront his enemies, and more importantly the eventual wisdom to make peace and help to bring about some form of reconciliation.

 

No side came out of that Troubles period covered in glory, the British security forces had a number of murderers among their ranks, very few of whom ever paid for their crimes.

You have outed yourself as a terrorist sympathiser.

[m williamson 802]

4 minutes ago, Axe said:

You have outed yourself as a terrorist sympathiser.

You have outed yourself as someone incapable of discussion without ad hominem when you are unable to make a sensible reply.

 

Point out one inaccuracy in my last post. Did Paisley incite violence without taking part himself? Yes or No.

 

Did McGuinness not take part in PIRA actions before becoming a major part of the peace process? Yes or No.

 

Did certain members of the British forces collude with ' loyalist ' terrorists to murder innocent civilians and did they not also murder unarmed civilians themselves? Yes or No.

 

Facts are facts, whining and name calling because they don't suit your particular prejudices does not alter the fact that they are true.