Taking the Heat out of an argument about N.I.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allsorts
  • Start date Start date
joinerjohn1 said:
Not at all DA, just pointing out what you wrote there. ;););)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Flip.

I get my info from numerous sources, including credible and respected experts who were involved. You get yours from Farage and Johnson.

Only in your mind could you see a comparison.
 
Who’s this respected europhile MP then DA ( or perhaps he/ she is only respected in your mind simply because they are a europhile ? )
 
Deleted member 11267 said:
Far from it,he also voted for the Iraq war,how could you commend any one for that donnie.Unless you are also a warmonger.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, for the same reasons as Blair did.

But I won't take moral guidance from someone who refers to immigrants as 'excrement'.
 
Allsorts said:
At the risk of going down a long dark path, dare I ask what particular aspect of our current loss of sovereignty causes you most anguish?
Click to expand...
Which part of respecting other countries laws and customs do you see as a loss of Sovereignty? At the end of the day, a manufacturer supplying electrical goods to the US market, would be ill advised to only make them capable of operating using a mains voltage frequency of 50 Hz. If we want to supply electrical goods to that market, they have to operate on 60 Hz. Where has the manufacturer suffered a “ loss of Sovereignty?”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Allsorts said:
Are you testing me, or are you not keeping up with the news?

The history of the Irish border is one riddled with challenge, security risks and patrols. Not forgetting smuggling and drive-by shootings.

The removal of border controls has allowed the numerous cross-points along that border to achieve near normality. Communities on both sides are free to virtually ignore that borderline, and live unaffected lives.

If NI will no longer be in the EU, then clearly something is going to have to change. That carries a genuine risk to peace and security.

You know this. You've heard this. This comes as no surprise to you. If you need confirmation, read the link I posted.

Who will be involved in this violence? I'd imagine that the groups most itching to get back to where they were before would be Republican paramilitaries. But certainly not exclusively.

Do you have a solution that has seemingly defeated those in charge of the Brexit negotiations?
Click to expand...

The border was always open on many roads anyhow. Even during the troubles.

Yes, I agree, although unlikely we have violence, it obviously would be some Republican groups who would wish to start.
 
Allsorts said:
Semantics, Heat.

So 'Dissident' essentially means "person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state". Only those on the Republican side are opposing official policy? The paras and terrorists on the Loyalist side are - what? - following official policy?

Have you read The Shankhill Butchers? What are they?

Use whatever term you want, Heat, but there are terrorists on both sides. One side has an arguably legitimate motive, and can claim to be fighting a 'war', however cowardly and repulsive it is in practice.
Click to expand...

Your views on this seem to have some striking resemblances to your views on Israel/Palestine, a conflict about which you are equally ignorant. Anyway, you still haven't answered Heat's last question.
 
Heat said:
The border was always open on many roads anyhow. Even during the troubles.

Yes, I agree, although unlikely we have violence, it obviously would be some Republican groups who would wish to start.
Click to expand...
DA would think that if violence did start, then the Loyalist defending themselves , were themselves terrorist or dissidents.
 
Heat said:
The border was always open on many roads anyhow. Even during the troubles.
Click to expand...

There is an implication by remainer politicians, and Allsorts, that there was a hard border prior to the troubles and it was the EU who made it open, which is absolute tosh.
My understanding is that there are something like 300 roads that cross the border, a number of farms and houses are literally dissected by this theoretical border. During the troubles, concrete blocks were hastily dropped on a number of roads and the few main roads had roadblocks, so still open to anyone with a landrover.
It would be impossible for the EU to implement a hard border, and there is no logical reason, other than spite/mischief making that they would even try.

Talking of spite and mischief making, Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach aint helping matters or indeed Ango/Irish relations, which when you think about it is pretty dumb if you look at Irelands trade figures, I believe something like 80% of their exports are to the UK.

Oi tink they might be backing the wrong horse, and as the son of an inveterate Dublin gambling man, I know all about backing donkeys.
 
Allsorts said:
Semantics, Heat.

So 'Dissident' essentially means "person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state". Only those on the Republican side are opposing official policy? The paras and terrorists on the Loyalist side are - what? - following official policy?

Have you read The Shankhill Butchers? What are they?

Use whatever term you want, Heat, but there are terrorists on both sides. One side has an arguably legitimate motive, and can claim to be fighting a 'war', however cowardly and repulsive it is in practice.
Click to expand...

But by “Dissident” on the subject of threat to violence, we both really mean those involved in violence.

The Loyalist/Unionist side are of various opinions and definitely not in support of everything of official policy. But they are not even close to violence. The Dissident Republican violence has not raised any response from Loyalists.

The Shankill Butchers were a very long time ago in the troubles - over four decades. Their crimes are the much the same as any sectarian murderers, - evil and without reason and often random.
I would never vote for sectarian terrorists.
 
joinerjohn1 said:
DA would think that if violence did start, then the Loyalist defending themselves , were themselves terrorist or dissidents.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think he is putting it that way.
I prefer to target those that would threaten violence, rather than say others will be equally guilty if later they got involved.
I don’t think violence is a real possibility, thankfully
 
fillyboy said:
There is an implication by remainer politicians, and Allsorts, that there was a hard border prior to the troubles and it was the EU who made it open, which is absolute tosh.
My understanding is that there are something like 300 roads that cross the border, a number of farms and houses are literally dissected by this theoretical border. During the troubles, concrete blocks were hastily dropped on a number of roads and the few main roads had roadblocks, so still open to anyone with a landrover.
It would be impossible for the EU to implement a hard border, and there is no logical reason, other than spite/mischief making that they would even try.

Talking of spite and mischief making, Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach aint helping matters or indeed Ango/Irish relations, which when you think about it is pretty dumb if you look at Irelands trade figures, I believe something like 80% of their exports are to the UK.

Oi tink they might be backing the wrong horse, and as the son of an inveterate Dublin gambling man, I know all about backing donkeys.
Click to expand...

Spot on! And as to the border, it wasn’t sealed and the media never did investigative journalism on that.

I think the Irish could well find themselves trying to keep trade with U.K.
 
I know I argue with Allsorts on some of his points, but credit where credit is due on this, -

Allsorts said,
[What I would - personally - LOVE to see in NI and across the rest of the UK is a complete removal of selective education. No more 'Catholic', CofE, Islamic, Jewish schools. BANNED. If you are a young human being, then go to a school that caters for young human beings.

Get that complete carp out off their minds. See the 'others' as they truly are - other human beings. Good and bad. Just because each individual is 'good' or 'bad'. Mix with them from a young age.]
 
Heat said:
I know I argue with Allsorts on some of his points, but credit where credit is due on this, -

Allsorts said,
[What I would - personally - LOVE to see in NI and across the rest of the UK is a complete removal of selective education. No more 'Catholic', CofE, Islamic, Jewish schools. BANNED. If you are a young human being, then go to a school that caters for young human beings.

Get that complete carp out off their minds. See the 'others' as they truly are - other human beings. Good and bad. Just because each individual is 'good' or 'bad'. Mix with them from a young age.]
Click to expand...
Thing is, if DA were an MP and mooted this idea , he'd immediately be accused of racism or bigotry.
 
Heat said:
But by “Dissident” on the subject of threat to violence, we both really mean those involved in violence.

The Loyalist/Unionist side are of various opinions and definitely not in support of everything of official policy. But they are not even close to violence. The Dissident Republican violence has not raised any response from Loyalists.

The Shankill Butchers were a very long time ago in the troubles - over four decades. Their crimes are the much the same as any sectarian murderers, - evil and without reason and often random.
I would never vote for sectarian terrorists.
Click to expand...

I can agree with all that, Heat. By 'dissident' I do mean those who act outwith authority, in particular with violence.

And, yes, the vast majority of terrorist attacks, killings and bombings were carried out by the Republican side. This is no surprise since they were the group at 'war' with Britain. So let's not forget the few hundred killings directly carried out by British troops. Or the possible (very likely - almost certain) collusion between the Army and various Loyalist (cough - 'dissident') groups which assisted with many hundreds more killings of Republicans.

So, 'dissident' Loyalist groups have also been responsible for many executions and bombings.

There are folk on both sides who deeply regret the GFA and are ready to return to violence.

I presume this is all stuff you agree with?

Yes, the Shankhill Butchers may have been particularly extreme in that their killings were particularly and deliberately heinous, but to suggest they were carried out simply from the point of 'evil' (what does that mean?) and for no reason (the 'reason' was simple - their victims were Catholic) and at random (no, they were Catholic) is evasive at best.

Mind you, there was plenty torturing on the Republican side too. What is more evil; a bullet in the back of the head, or hammering out a mouthful of teeth, or electric shocks? All pretty heinous.

Anyhoo, we digress.

Let's draw this kicking and screaming back to the actual issue; will Brexit - in particular a 'Hard' one - risk a backward step in the advances that have been made, and will it even risk a return to violence?

You say 'no'.
Filly thinks the border issue is a manipulation of the Europhiles.
I suggest that there are enough folk in these provinces ready for an excuse to return to violence and to take advantage of any friction that may arise as a result of Brexit.
Further to that, Sinn Fein (and Republicans in general) are pro-EU whereas the DUP (et al) are strongly Leave.
Further to that, the single most comprehensive investigation in to this situation has warned of the very possibility of a return to violence (amongst many other very negative consequences). A return to violence would not be 'because' of Brexit as such, but because of the long-standing intense hatred between the groups and the deep suspicions that remain; they are ready for any friction to give them an excuse to get back to their 'fob'. Which is no surprise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top