QuoteCan you guys please explain to me what it is that Iain Duncan Smith said that is wrong ?
https://www.channel4.com/news/iain-d...de-arrangement - 5:35 in
I see a lot of people criticise him for being wrong, but not stating how he is wrong.
'Hard Brexit would hit 142 Irish cross-border agreements': https://www.theguardian.com/politics...der-agreementsOriginally Posted by bennocelt
Can you guys please explain to me what it is that Iain Duncan Smith said that is wrong ?
https://www.channel4.com/news/iain-d...de-arrangement - 5:35 in
I see a lot of people criticise him for being wrong, but not stating how he is wrong.
He claimed there's a "presidential election coming up" (which is actually going to take place a full year from now in November of 2018), as if that has any bearing on Fine Gael's position on Brexit and the border. There's no connection, as I assume Michael D. Higgins will just stand again for that election and will win relatively easily, but IDS attempts to argue that the firm line Fine Gael are taking on the Irish border is really just posturing in an attempt to take votes from Sinn Féin and the pro-unity demographic in the presidential election. Like the pro-Brexit former Tory MP Peter Lilley tried to do on BBC NI last Thursday night, IDS is attempting to undermine and downplay the seriousness of the national, economic, political and social concerns in Ireland over the border issue and is disingenuously trying to dismiss them as mere electioneering for votes or "showboating", as he puts it.
Fine Gael have already stated they'd back Higgins (who has never been a member of Fine Gael) if he was to nominate himself for the presidency, so they aren't even going to put a candidate forward. And as if they'd base a high-risk play as serious as what they're doing now - threatening to use Ireland's veto on an EU-UK Brexit deal, in other words - on the winning of a few extra votes in a contest for a largely ceremonial role anyway...
It's utterly clueless and nonsensical conspiracy theory stuff from IDS. Comical, delusional waffle. although I suspect he's fully aware of the bull**** nature of what he's spouting. That he could say it so smugly and patronisingly with a straight face to the anchor who tried to pull him up on it immediately after he first mentioned just "an election", as if to imply that she was the illiterate one on Irish affairs due to what she said, demonstrates just the type of character the man is. (KrisLetang; there's an example of real mansplaining for you.)
He's speaking to the ignorance of his audience in England - misinformed Tories and Brexiteer - and he's quite clearly projecting (or introjecting even) as a defence mechanism for his bull**** when he boasts that "politicians [such as himself] can see through [stuff like the alleged showboating of the Irish government] straight away". The reality is that informed politicians would see through his bull**** right away. Terribly disingenuous man.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 29/11/2017 at 2:54 PM.
I think It's worth adding to what Danny said above that the Irish Presidency was an office created to assume the duties held by the British monarchy before independence, and that remains the case today.
The Irish President has no political role, and no role at all in negotiating Brexit. A potential presidential election in 2018 has as much impact on our negotiating position as the marriage of Prince Harry has on Britain's.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Ignorant people see "Presidential election" and think it's a huge deal too, because they just associate the term with having serious executive power, ala the US. A lot of British people, especially the kind IDS panders too, probably haven't a clue how the Irish political system works.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
We weren't much better:
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/...thern-ireland/
---
In defence of IDS. I think he just got muddled. Most of everything else has been way worse. It's rather stunning the anti-Irish schtick that's emanating from the Mainland now!
Even Junior was at it today:
DUP MP Ian Paisley says Ireland should be 'punished' if it tries to use Brexit to split UK
Lisa O'Carroll Lisa O'Carroll
Ian Paisley, the Democratic Unionist Party MP, has launched a scathing attack on the Irish government branding its call for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union and single market as “disgraceful”.
He said they were happy to take £7bn bailout during the financial crisis in 2010 from Britain and need to act “as good neighbours and as friends” instead of “undermining” relations.
Speaking at the Northern Ireland affairs select committee in Westminster on Wednesday, he said if Ireland continued to propose divergence between the region and the rest of the United Kingdom, they should be “punished” with a “long, tenuous and hard” negotiation on a fisheries deal post Brexit. He said:
The DUP is implacably opposed to anything that will separate them from the rest of the UK.
Last week the party, which holds the balance of power at Westminster, said it will use its parliamentary muscle to prevent any special post-Brexit deal for Northern Ireland that could “decouple” the region from the rest of the UK.
Paisley told the committee people were “exasperated” with the Dublin government. Addressing the ministers giving evidence to the committee, he said:
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Oh not the fisheries deal post Brexit. Anything but that. Will someone please think of the fish.
Even?
I dunno. I've heard two Tories try peddle this nonsensical "election showboating" conspiracy theory within the past few days in an effort to play down how serious the concerns in Ireland are. I suspect it's part of a co-ordinated propaganda offensive, or it at least seems like a few Brexiteer Tories have been briefed to spin things this way.
Paisley Junior is an irrelevant nincompoop. The bail-out wasn't "interest-free". It was a loan to be paid back; not a charitable donation with no strings attached. What's he on about?
If he genuinely sees the rest of the country as his partner, the best way to demonstrate the strength of that partnership would be to stay in the single market and customs union together, no?
Still, amusing to see Paisley and his ilk against the ropes for once instead of arrogantly pushing their weight around. You can tell he's rattled by the indignant and threatening rhetoric. He should probably get used to the feeling.
IDS and IPJ know what they're doing- pandering to the ignorance of English journalists let alone channel 4 viewers or even the wider public
Anyone know if Michael D is going to the cricket at Malahide? I am practising the notional anthem in his honor.
Compulsory for English hacks as above...
Even David Trimble has been at it: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/503273...xit-sinn-fein/
"The reason the issue of the border has been brought up in the way it has is not because of any practical reasons but because of the internal politics of the Irish Republic. The Taoiseach has been in desperate negotiations with other party leaders in order to prevent a general election being triggered. He is snarling at London, trying to make a big issue about the border, because he is worried Sinn Fein might benefit if he does not. What Leo Varadkar is doing is trying to appeal to Sinn Fein voters.
He hasn’t learned the lesson that some Irish nationals have painfully learned in Northern Ireland: that you can’t out Sinn Fein Sinn Fein. All he is doing is validating its position. For its own reasons, the EU is egging him on. It just shows you how desperate the EU and Irish nationalists are that they’re clutching at these straws.
It is not true that Brexit in any way threatens the peace process. Leaving the EU does not affect the agreement because the EU had nothing to do with it."
Quite a bit of disingenuous "reporting" in that, as well as an outright lie. A common Irish-British EU dimension is expressly mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement and it is upon that common dimension that much of what was agreed in 1998 is based. Brexit itself, never mind just the prospect of a hard border, explicitly contravenes the Agreement. It's startling that Trimble is apparently "unaware" of this seeing as he part-negotiated the thing.
I thought this comment by a poster on Slugger O'Toole, 'SeaanUiNeill', in response to a unionist poster summarised very well the Irish government's rationale for its present position:
"The Irish Government has every right to insist on the resolution of what are clearly on the part of the UK unthoughtout issues over Northern Ireland. It is a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement which, if you have forgotten, is an international treaty which describes our sovereignty as the choice of the local people. The Agreement was
signed off with the understanding that both the UK and Ireland would continue to be members of the EU and this is being altered. The clauses relating to the EU will be inoperative when the UK exits the EU and will need to be rewritten, perhaps again put to a referendum, as the document prepared to brief MEPs clearly states. In this situation, if the Belfast Agreement actually means anything, NI is not the sole responsibility of the UK, but of both signatories to the Agreement. The Dublin Administration would be failing in its duty in not attempting to retain those EU benefits for a NI which may shortly be reunified in accordsnce to the will of a majority disgusted by the little Englander fantasies of a Londoncentrc UK.
Besides all that, the British government have already promised that there will be no hard border in Ireland, so the Irish government are simply ensuring that the British government act in accordance with that declaration.
Jim Allister has been given a fair bit of air-time by Stephen Nolan (on radio and TV) over the past few days (presumably for "balance" or something, seeing as he's one of the few unionists whose unashamed to admit he would be more than content with a hard border). Anyway, he was condemning Chris Hazzard's mention of possible civil disobedience at any hard border as an advocacy of "lawlessness" and "criminality" (and even misrepresented it as a threat of violence and rioting) before it transpired that Allister himself, the hypocrite, had actually supported the civil disobedience by unionists angry at the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the 1980s.
He was asked by Nolan why their "lawlessness" in the 1980s had been justified, in his view, but potential civil disobedience at the border wouldn't be. After waffling and deflecting for a bit, he claimed that unionists had had a right to do it because they'd been prepared to face the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, Nolan, who's excitable and easily distracted by trivialities, hadn't the wit to go for the jugular and missed putting it to him that the logical conclusion of his position would be that people who wished to engage in civil disobedience at any future hard border would have a right to do that so long as they too were prepared pay whatever price came with it.
Allister also kept making the point that the idea of having economically distinct regions within states was an impossibility (without going into any detail as to why that necessarily had to be so), but isn't Hong Kong an example of such a region? I'm sure there must be other examples around the globe. Even if there are no further examples, it doesn't mean such arrangements are an impossibility if the will is there to create them.
Watching the BBC's 'Question Time' and 'This Week' earlier, you'd almost think Ireland never even existed. The border matter wasn't even discussed on 'Question Time' and, on 'This Week', Michael Portillo arrogantly laughed off Irish concerns as "artificial" before Labour's Liz Kendall, who, in fairness, wanted to give the issue a proper hearing, was shut down by presenter Andrew Neal who diverted the discussion elsewhere despite Kendall's request for him to return to the matter later in the programme. Neal, a Tory, refused to grant her her wish.
Portillo had said that the Irish concerns were "artificial" because, he claimed, it was the EU who were actually going to be erecting any border infrastructure rather than Britain, which, according to him, meant it "wasn't Britain's problem". It may well be the case that the EU will want to protect its border if the north leaves the single market and customs union, but that doesn't mean this whole mess is not an issue of Britain's making and it's certainly not something of which Britain can just wash their hands and blithely dismiss like Portillo did.
It is also important to remember that it is the British government who have opted to leave the single market and customs union - the public didn't necessarily vote for this in the referendum - so it doesn't have to be this way, as you can participate in both of those from outside the EU, as some countries do. The British government have obligations arising from the GFA and framing the matter as Portillo did is entirely disingenuous and irresponsible. In fact, it was exactly the same line as was being pushed by hard-line bigot Jim Allister on the previous night's 'Nolan Live'.
Here's one you could add for double points: "26. Ireland was partitioned by which state upon the threat of violence from which Irish democratic minority?"Compulsory for English hacks as above...
Parity of esteem and all that.
I was just reading this BBC article on the complexity of the border issue and, in order to demonstrate the invisible and meandering nature of the border, it features a video of a car driving unimpeded along a road from Clones to County Cavan that crosses the border four times within the space of six miles: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42188485
The road is known as the A3 in the north and the N54 in the south. I'd been vaguely aware of its existence before as its quite unusual, but I decided to look at it a bit closer on a map after reading about it in the article. Here it is:
The part of County Monaghan through which the N54 runs after crossing the border is almost like an enclave. In fact, the strip of land where that area of Monaghan that is surrounded on all sides by County Fermanagh connects with the rest of Monaghan is about 80 metres wide. The "enclave" also appears to be cut off from the bulk of Monaghan by the River Finn (not the same one that runs through Ballybofey).
In light of this, I was wondering, how would, say, the Garda access the "enclave" if a crime was reported there? Do they have some special arrangement with the PSNI whereby they (the Garda) can access via the A3? Presumably they don't cross the river by boat and wade through fields in wellies to get to their destination, ha.
Redraw the border there, I think. The lands left and right are breaking up the passage of the N54 and therefore should be returned to the Republik. The A3 ends at the border with Monaghan. The classification of A3 to the broke-up passage parts seems like an afterthought, as A3 designates a primary road in the North while the N54 is a secondary road.
You can hardly imagine it's as simple as that, though, surely?
Job for a boundary commission, no?
Two checkpoints on a minor back road isn't practical, imo.
I'd say that even if the Irish and NI and UK governments were in favour of such a process, it would be a massive undertaking that would take much longer than Brexit.
How about Ireland/ the EU "purchasing" the strip of land used by the A3 route? Or implementing a mechanism that stops access to the A3 from the North?
Who knows how long the Brexit process will take, btw? A lot more complicated issues than this to address.
I'd love to see the DUP's reaction to Dublin buying back a bit of the north.
Well, they have 16 months or nothing. Looks increasingly likely there will be no deal and that the UK will refuse to implement any border controls on their side. Make us and the EU the bad guys, if we care to implement border controls ourselves.
That's if May is still PM when that happens, or if Tories are still in power. We should perhaps wonder what kind of options a Corbyn led government would present in contrast.
Coleman's Island is a weird little case. Does anyone know how Monaghan's border ended up like that? From what I've read it's a pre-1921 state of affairs.
Last edited by NeverFeltBetter; 01/12/2017 at 3:12 PM.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
It also appears to be known as the Drummully Polyp, the Drummully Salient and, locally, as "the Connons" or "Coleman's Island" (as you've referred to it). There's an article on it here: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/h...rder-1.1530942
Frank McNally writes:
"To find out how this oddity first arose, you might have to go back to the Middle Ages. The McMahon clan, whose family business later became Monaghan, could probably explain. Or failing that, the Maguires, whose farming and feuding interests were likewise rebranded as modern-day Fermanagh. The 1921 division inherited those lines. And this may be when the term polyp gained currency as a description for Drummully. The word has a detached, scientific sound about it; although it was hardly designed to reassure the populations on either side."
Just to add to what I said on IDS above, the C4 News presenter had corrected him that the potential general election was off, meaning his point no longer stood, but he acknowledged this, claimed that that wasn't what he had been referring to and claimed he'd actually been referring to the "presidential election coming up".
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks