UK General Election 2024 (or 25)

[Archangel]

They will target Dublin. Eire won’t be able to deal with it by themselves and the UK will do its best not to get involved. Will become an EU problem which they won’t be able to deal with either. I served in Belfast from 1990 to 1993. Trust me, there all nuts. But I did Marry one.

So if Loyalists target Dublin what do you think the IRA will do, nothing?. It will escalate and it will be very much the UKs problem, as Ireland usually makes sure of

[Archery1969]

I agree 100% with all that. There is another scenario on the horizon and that's a referendum on a united Ireland if there is a perception that the result could be a 'yes'. I think that is recognised within the Good Friday Agreement. And from what I've read that possibility is getting closer. Although Lord knows what the unionist paramilitaries would do in that event.

They will target Dublin. Eire won’t be able to deal with it by themselves and the UK will do its best not to get involved. Will become an EU problem which they won’t be able to deal with either. I served in Belfast from 1990 to 1993. Trust me, there all nuts. But I did Marry one.

Did you detect a difference between Nationalist and Unionist? I mean both factions were involved in violence but were the strategies/mentalities the same? (Obviously an off-thread question but I've been watching with dismay The Troubles and with hope for the Good Friday Agreement for around 50 years, so an authentic voice would be very interesting).

No difference Greenmark but it wasn’t so much to do with a United Ireland or NI staying part of Uk. Was more to do with protection rackets, smuggling and money. Some of the commanders on both sides seem to be very well off but getting the average person to do their fighting. It seemed to me that some on both sides were brain washed to the extent to was rather worrying that someone could fall for either argument hook line and sinker.

One thing I am very sure about is if one day their is a United Ireland then there is going to be a few million or so very pissed off people, some of which have guns. Maybe they will just hand them over and accept the situation. But I very much doubt it.

[Archery1969]

They will target Dublin. Eire won’t be able to deal with it by themselves and the UK will do its best not to get involved. Will become an EU problem which they won’t be able to deal with either. I served in Belfast from 1990 to 1993. Trust me, there all nuts. But I did Marry one.

So if Loyalists target Dublin what do you think the IRA will do, nothing?. It will escalate and it will be very much the UKs problem, as Ireland usually makes sure of

As long as no bombs go off on the UK mainland then I doubt the UK will do very much.

For as long as I can remember, if they wanted to take out the commanders on both sides they could. But it would be very politically correct.

Thatcher even put plans together for the security services plus SAS to go across the border in Eire and take several out altogether. I believe the USA put pressure on her not to do that.

To this day the whereabouts of 4 IRA commanders is well known.

[Archangel]

As long as no bombs go off on the UK mainland then I doubt the UK will do very much.

For as long as I can remember, if they wanted to take out the commanders on both sides they could. But it would be very politically correct.

Thatcher even put plans together for the security services plus SAS to go across the border in Eire and take several out altogether. I believe the USA put pressure on her not to do that.

To this day the whereabouts of 4 IRA commanders is well known.

I grew up in the Republic in the eighties so I am all too familiar with the complex history of the troubles. Its often over simplified in Britain, like most things seem to be

[greenmark]

They will target Dublin. Eire won’t be able to deal with it by themselves and the UK will do its best not to get involved. Will become an EU problem which they won’t be able to deal with either. I served in Belfast from 1990 to 1993. Trust me, there all nuts. But I did Marry one.

Did you detect a difference between Nationalist and Unionist? I mean both factions were involved in violence but were the strategies/mentalities the same? (Obviously an off-thread question but I've been watching with dismay The Troubles and with hope for the Good Friday Agreement for around 50 years, so an authentic voice would be very interesting).

No difference Greenmark but it wasn’t so much to do with a United Ireland or NI staying part of Uk. Was more to do with protection rackets, smuggling and money. Some of the commanders on both sides seem to be very well off but getting the average person to do their fighting. It seemed to me that some on both sides were brain washed to the extent to was rather worrying that someone could fall for either argument hook line and sinker.

One thing I am very sure about is if one day their is a United Ireland then there is going to be a few million or so very pissed off people, some of which have guns. Maybe they will just hand them over and accept the situation. But I very much doubt it.

Thanks for that. It fits in with what I've read. Criminality was/is definitely hiding behind "just causes". I've read that the IRA had a cross-border fuel smuggling business that funded their activities and Unionist para's were really involved in some pretty nasty stuff too.
But as Archangel has alluded to, this conflict is very deep-seated. We should be grateful for the courage of the likes of Trimble, Mowlam, Adams and just hope it all holds together. I believe the BBC have interviewed Adams to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. But it doesn't look like they are releasing it in full which is a shame.

[Archery1969]

Did you detect a difference between Nationalist and Unionist? I mean both factions were involved in violence but were the strategies/mentalities the same? (Obviously an off-thread question but I've been watching with dismay The Troubles and with hope for the Good Friday Agreement for around 50 years, so an authentic voice would be very interesting).

No difference Greenmark but it wasn’t so much to do with a United Ireland or NI staying part of Uk. Was more to do with protection rackets, smuggling and money. Some of the commanders on both sides seem to be very well off but getting the average person to do their fighting. It seemed to me that some on both sides were brain washed to the extent to was rather worrying that someone could fall for either argument hook line and sinker.

One thing I am very sure about is if one day their is a United Ireland then there is going to be a few million or so very pissed off people, some of which have guns. Maybe they will just hand them over and accept the situation. But I very much doubt it.

Thanks for that. It fits in with what I've read. Criminality was/is definitely hiding behind "just causes". I've read that the IRA had a cross-border fuel smuggling business that funded their activities and Unionist para's were really involved in some pretty nasty stuff too.
But as Archangel has alluded to, this conflict is very deep-seated. We should be grateful for the courage of the likes of Trimble, Mowlam, Adams and just hope it all holds together. I believe the BBC have interviewed Adams to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. But it doesn't look like they are releasing it in full which is a shame.

+1

Illegal booze, cigs and gambling was huge over there during the 70s, 80s, 90s etc. Not picking on them as I am sure it was big over here too. And probably still is.

One thing I did find alarming was the amount of guns and ammunition that went missing from the armoury every month. We would obviously report it but there was very little follow up from military or civilian police. I was interviewed twice as guarded the armoury many times, found it odd that while making a statement that nothing was written down or recorded on tape. On both occasions I was asked just 3 questions. Rather pathetic given Browning pistols, SLRs and Sterling sub machine guns were unaccounted for. Ammunition go missing happened daily.

I am not accusing anyone of doing something but the whole chapter was rather strange to say the least.

[Crazyskier]

Celebrating leaving the EU only to join the Indo Pacific trade deal is like storming out of the Ritz, only to stumble into a Wetherspoons .......

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

[greenmark]

Celebrating leaving the EU only to join the Indo Pacific trade deal is like storming out of the Ritz, only to stumble into a Wetherspoons .......

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

No you don't have to look at the "benefits and drawbacks in the round". You look at the actuality of the outcome. And as I've said that's done and dusted. We need to move on and make the best of this. It still could be great, but it's not looking so great at the moment. My barometers are GDP, FTSE and my investments. And they are all s**t and have been since 2016.

[Crazyskier]

Celebrating leaving the EU only to join the Indo Pacific trade deal is like storming out of the Ritz, only to stumble into a Wetherspoons .......

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

No you don't have to look at the "benefits and drawbacks in the round". You look at the actuality of the outcome. And as I've said that's done and dusted. We need to move on and make the best of this. It still could be great, but it's not looking so great at the moment. My barometers are GDP, FTSE and my investments. And they are all s**t and have been since 2016.

We don't disagree, I think. The 'actuality of the outcome' is that we are now able to push forward with radical and fundamental changes to many policies that were foremost in the minds of voters at the point we decided to leave the EU, but WITHOUT interference of the damned ECHR. Long term that has to be a good thing for inflation, growth, GDP and all other financial metrics, in my considered opinion.

CS

[Michael5482]

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

No you don't have to look at the "benefits and drawbacks in the round". You look at the actuality of the outcome. And as I've said that's done and dusted. We need to move on and make the best of this. It still could be great, but it's not looking so great at the moment. My barometers are GDP, FTSE and my investments. And they are all s**t and have been since 2016.

We don't disagree, I think. The 'actuality of the outcome' is that we are now able to push forward with radical and fundamental changes to many policies that were foremost in the minds of voters at the point we decided to leave the EU, but WITHOUT interference of the damned ECHR. Long term that has to be a good thing for inflation, growth, GDP and all other financial metrics, in my considered opinion.

CS

You keep mentioning the ECHR, it's an international treaty which the UK is still a part of, for one leaving the ECHR would breach The Good Friday agreement (I thought I'd throw that in as there's a discussion on NI) . I'm sorry to disappoint you but the UK won't be leaving the ECHR any time soon.

Why would you want to leave the ECHR and let our government do whatever it wants on disability, the work place, equality etc etc (the list is endless when it comes to human rights) without reprisal.

[Archangel]

Celebrating leaving the EU only to join the Indo Pacific trade deal is like storming out of the Ritz, only to stumble into a Wetherspoons .......

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

Well, well, well, here we have another Brexit supporter with their head in the sand. It's amazing how many people seem to think that the reasons for leaving the EU were all about something other than trade. I hate to burst your bubble, but the facts simply don't support your argument.

According to a study by the UK Trade Policy Observatory, the economic costs of Brexit are estimated to be much larger than any benefits that may be gained. This is due to the loss of access to the EU's single market, which is the largest trading bloc in the world. In fact, the study estimates that Brexit could cost the UK economy up to 4% of GDP in the long run.

Furthermore, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry found that over 60% of its members believed that Brexit would have a negative impact on their businesses, and only 5% thought it would have a positive impact.

So, while it's true that there were many factors that influenced the decision to leave the EU, to suggest that trade was way down the list of reasons is simply not supported by the evidence. And to ignore the economic costs and benefits of Brexit is not only narrow-minded, but also downright foolish.

[greenmark]

Celebrating leaving the EU only to join the Indo Pacific trade deal is like storming out of the Ritz, only to stumble into a Wetherspoons .......

The reasons that we DEMOCRATICALLY decided to leave the EU are many and varied; with trade being way down the list of reasons for many of those who voted either way on the issue.

To take one single element and ignore all of the many others that were considered far more important, is narrow-minded in the extreme. You have to look at the benefits and drawbacks (and yes, I agree there are some) in the round as the majority of those who voted on the issue did.

CS

Well, well, well, here we have another Brexit supporter with their head in the sand. It's amazing how many people seem to think that the reasons for leaving the EU were all about something other than trade. I hate to burst your bubble, but the facts simply don't support your argument.

According to a study by the UK Trade Policy Observatory, the economic costs of Brexit are estimated to be much larger than any benefits that may be gained. This is due to the loss of access to the EU's single market, which is the largest trading bloc in the world. In fact, the study estimates that Brexit could cost the UK economy up to 4% of GDP in the long run.

Furthermore, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry found that over 60% of its members believed that Brexit would have a negative impact on their businesses, and only 5% thought it would have a positive impact.

So, while it's true that there were many factors that influenced the decision to leave the EU, to suggest that trade was way down the list of reasons is simply not supported by the evidence. And to ignore the economic costs and benefits of Brexit is not only narrow-minded, but also downright foolish.

Agreed. But we are where we are. It's dead simple. Griping and finger-pointing is not going to help.
Ignore the Brexiters concepts of "Taking control" and "opportunity". It matters not a jot. We are here now and need to be British and make the best of what we've got.
And yes some will say that some have made a lot of money from Brexit, but I couldn't care less.
66 million in a democracy should arrive at the right decisions eventually.
Roll on next year!

[firlandsfarm]

Its funny, it was initially the remainers who were the angry ones (or remoaners) as they were called. Now its the Brexiteers who are full of rage. Why ? Becuase they have slowly realised they were lied to all along about the benefits of leaving the EU. It was going to be great for the economy, oh wait, except it isnt. It was going to lead to less migration, oh wait, except it hasnt.

My advice, get angry at the people who convinced you to vote for something that wasnt what you were sold, instead of getting angry at those who tried to warn you !

I'm not full of rage ... more Remoaner lies. Why can't you accept the wisdom of the crowd was to leave and back that decision?

[greenmark]

Its funny, it was initially the remainers who were the angry ones (or remoaners) as they were called. Now its the Brexiteers who are full of rage. Why ? Becuase they have slowly realised they were lied to all along about the benefits of leaving the EU. It was going to be great for the economy, oh wait, except it isnt. It was going to lead to less migration, oh wait, except it hasnt.

My advice, get angry at the people who convinced you to vote for something that wasnt what you were sold, instead of getting angry at those who tried to warn you !

I'm not full of rage ... more Remoaner lies. Why can't you accept the wisdom of the crowd was to leave and back that decision?

I personally do. It's the only way. To obstruct and sulk is utterly pointless. Let's get together and make the current situation work.

[firlandsfarm]

Breaking News "Random Bloke on Internet solves NI problem at last"

Firstly, it is worth noting that the issue of Northern Ireland is complex and deeply rooted in history, politics, and identity. The Northern Ireland Protocol, agreed as part of the Brexit deal, was designed to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, while also maintaining the integrity of the EU's single market. This was seen as essential for preserving the peace process and avoiding a return to violence on the island of Ireland.

Secondly, it is not accurate to suggest that the EU expects the UK to put a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. In fact, the EU has repeatedly stated that it does not want to see a hard border on the island of Ireland, and that the Northern Ireland Protocol is the best way to achieve this.

Additionally, a hard border could also threaten the Good Friday Agreement, which is widely seen as a cornerstone of peace in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the suggestion that the issue of Northern Ireland could be solved overnight by the EU putting a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU is not based on accurate information or a full understanding of the complex issues at play. The Northern Ireland Protocol, while not perfect, was agreed as the best way to maintain peace and stability on the island of Ireland, and it is important that all parties work together to ensure its effective implementation.

StopPress: Another random bloke thinks he knows more and better than what he refers to as a random bloke!

Let's just have a quick look at the distorted logic here ... "it is not accurate to suggest that the EU expects the UK to put a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK." and "the EU has repeatedly stated that it does not want to see a hard border on the island of Ireland" ... one is a "hard border between NI and the rest of the UK" and the other is a hard border on the Ireland of Ireland. May I point out that the border between the island of Ireland is not the border between NI and the rest of the UK. I suggest you check your geography!

In conclusion, if the EU implemented a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU then things could return to exactly as they were under the GF agreement but that seems to be too 'correct' for Remoaners to grasp, probably because their darling EU cannot be seen to be causing problems!