galway_blow_in
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,992
Who is this " Simon Varadkar"?
Sounds like a fantasy charecter some obnoxious British tabloid journalist would come up with.
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.
Short of us rejoining the UK removing the backstop would mean a Brexit with a hard border. How would that help?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
It would buy us time Purple. If we really thought border checks in November would precipitate a new Troubles we would be morally bound to seek that two year transition in which negotiations would take place with the aim to prevent the backstop ever being needed. Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.Short of us rejoining the UK removing the backstop would mean a Brexit with a hard border. How would that help?
Customs checks are commonplace the world over
Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.
Unfortunately that is correct. Nationalism still has a significant morally bankrupt underbelly prepared to kill and maim on the least affront to their political sensibilities. Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities. Certainly the M1 will remain free of obstruction, unless of course republicans chose to close it as they often did with the Belfast/Dublin train line.It is the prospect of a permanent and fixed customs posts that is at issue. Anything resembling such will most likely, and the people operating it, come under attack.
Don't get you there, Wolfie. It is their choice whether to apply checks at the RoI/NI interface*, they are fully in control.The whole premise of Brexit is to "take back control" and introduce customs and immigration checks. So how can Brexit be both "taking back control" and "under no circumstances" applying checks on UK/EU border?
I agree that it's posturing. The real issue is East West trade. That's why the UK's proposal that the backstop be UK wide and not just about NI was a great thing for us. All that being said that East West trade is very important and a very real issue and our government should use every resource they have to ensure free trade is maintained. At the moment that means using the Backstop as leverage.It would buy us time Purple. If we really thought border checks in November would precipitate a new Troubles we would be morally bound to seek that two year transition in which negotiations would take place with the aim to prevent the backstop ever being needed. Remember the EU keep telling us it is only an insurance policy, unlikely ever to be needed.
My point is that the risk to the peace process is at best greatly overblown and probably bogus. Notice that the DUP do not talk of the risk of violent resistance if their hated sea border is implemented. Similarly there was never any talk of the risk of violence around the issues in the Scottish referendum nor indeed around Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will. It is time Irish nationalism finally grew up and fumigated itself of the whiff of gelignite.
The British say that a trade deal with EU will be the easiest in the world. Im inclined to agree, my guess is that an UK/EU free trade deal will look something almost identical to all arrangements that are in place today. So it is wonder what is the fuss over the backstop at all.
It will never be needed.
Highly unlikely, but in the off-remote-chance it is, no harm in having it there for NI.
A form of wording, that permits NI/GB trade as UK trade is all that is required from the British side and im sure the WA can re-open.
NI can have best of both worlds.
Yea, as long as they keep avoiding reality because that pesky reality says differently.Don't get you there, Wolfie. It is their choice whether to apply checks at the RoI/NI interface*, they are fully in control.
Brexit weakens the link between all of the UK and the mainland.The opposition to the backstop stems from unionist fear about a weakening of the link with the mainland
Stating that Varadkar did not threaten violence is not a semantic point. Claiming that he did his hyperbole.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.
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.
leo varadker is equally as bad in shamelessly playing the green card
Brexit weakens the link between all of the UK and the mainland.
Stating that Varadkar did not threaten violence is not a semantic point. Claiming that he did his hyperbole.
I am not a SF supporter. But if they were being deeply cynical in pursuit of their goal of a united Ireland they would probably just sit back and say "bring this border on". That they do not so is (I'm guessing) probably down to some combination of real abhorrence of a possible return to violence and concern that any such border would undermine their credibility to the advantage of what are loosely described as dissident republican groups.
I am not aware of anyone having recourse to an appeal to the UN Charter of Human Rights. Hyperbole again? But the reference to custom checks seems to suggest that this relates to a trade issue between two separate countries. Even as such, this would be highly disruptive for people along the border where cross border trade is simply integrated into every day life.
But it is much more than a trade issue. The NI state is largely comprised of people with two different identities - British and Irish (acknowledging but omitting the nuances within these, and omitting the smaller third group who identify as neither). The GFR agreement was negotiated in the context of EU membership. Arguably its greatest architect, John Hume, always emphased the EU dimension. Constitutionally the GFR maintained the constitutional status of NI within the UK as valued by those with a British identity, but the invisible border is of of a symbolic counterweight to this for those of a nationalist identity (along with other provisions of the agreement around power-sharing, equality and the prospect of a border poll). The re-installation of a border will be seen as a provocative and hostile act by at least a section of the nationalist population - a not insignificant section.
I think it was a miscalculation for Varadkar to speak about a united Ireland recently - even if he was not advocating for it. I don't think it was of any value - even from an electioneering point of view.
But once the Brexit issue is settled one way or another the Irish government will need to go about establishing a forum on the future of Ireland. A border poll is inevitable within the next 10 years. Unlike the Brexit referendum in the UK, there should be at some sort of clear understanding beforehand of what people might be voting for - what would a united Ireland look like constitutionally and administratively and what would be the stages in its establishment. What the outcome of sich a referendum might be I don't know. But how Brexit pans out will be a factor.
Mainland = European mainland.Mainland = Wales + Scotland + England
notice I didn't say "border", in keeping with the internet era I refer to interface, as the tariffs will mostly be collected over the internet in offices in Dublin, London, Brussels or wherever.
Notice that the DUP do not talk of the risk of violent resistance if their hated sea border is implemented.
Nationalism still has a significant morally bankrupt underbelly prepared to kill and maim on the least affront to their political sensibilities. Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities.
Well, if I was a customs NI officer, I think my first port of call would be the offices of Wolfe Tone Builders Merchants, though Continuity RUC would probably get there before me. I certainly wouldn't challenge you at the actual border, Jayz people have been murdered by nationalists in the past for less.Yeah, and is particularly useful for international global trade.
But why would I, as a builders merchant in Newry charge tarrifs on goods destined for Dundalk if I knew there was never going to be any checks "under any circumstances" as I cross the border?
Yes I have heard this somewhat contrived argument that the GFA, despite not mentioning the border, is fundamentally opposed to customs checks. I am not going to argue that there is not some truth in all this identity stuff but I do hope it is being exaggerated. As I outlined before there were some glaring injustices which led to 25 years of Troubles and over 3,000 deaths. I don't think we have made much progress if the affront to identity wrought by customs checks would likely precipitate a similar catastrophe.But it is much more than a trade issue. The NI state is largely comprised of people with two different identities - British and Irish (acknowledging but omitting the nuances within these, and omitting the smaller third group who identify as neither). The GFR agreement was negotiated in the context of EU membership. Arguably its greatest architect, John Hume, always emphased the EU dimension. Constitutionally the GFR maintained the constitutional status of NI within the UK as valued by those with a British identity, but the invisible border is of of a symbolic counterweight to this for those of a nationalist identity (along with other provisions of the agreement around power-sharing, equality and the prospect of a border poll). The re-installation of a border will be seen as a provocative and hostile act by at least a section of the nationalist population - a not insignificant section.
Hence, there will be no significant infrastructure which might offend those sensibilities. Certainly the M1 will remain free of obstruction,