Messages

The old enemy 

Its the Irish govt who are getting it, accompanied by cries of republicans having been rewarded for threatening violence.

I do think at this point its sabre rattling when there still is a chance of it having some effect, and hopefully when Brexit sorted it will settle into something more constructive (working class loyalism needs representation, take on the DUP at the polls), but there will undoubtedly be some eejits who'll seek to cause trouble, and as soon as they do, Bryson et al should be lifted for incitement.

Shocking intervention. But sure as long as no-one on the teams disagreed  Whats the point of having rules if some lad with an ego can just overwrite them when he feels like it? They all signed up to it, if they need changed (and I'm not a fan of the rule), then there's a process to do that, the same process that set them. Unbelievable to see him striding in to call a halt 

I wouldn't be great at reading between the lines, however I am guessing you are not a fan of our County Chairman, are we sure it was a solo decision i.e. did he ring anyone in CCC to discuss first?

I've no real knowledge of him - my view is based on last night, possibly coloured by some of the videos he has put up in the past. Regardless of who was involved in any conversation, it beggars belief that they could have been watching an ongoing competition, and decided it was within their remit to call a halt to it.

Shocking intervention. But sure as long as no-one on the teams disagreed  Whats the point of having rules if some lad with an ego can just overwrite them when he feels like it? They all signed up to it, if they need changed (and I'm not a fan of the rule), then there's a process to do that, the same process that set them. Unbelievable to see him striding in to call a halt 

Sky light years ahead

You do understand a Time limited backstop = no backstop?

That's amazing 

A no deal means no backstop right now.

A 5 year NI only backstop means a backstop for 5 years, with option to extend. That gives the time to do a proper deal, where politics is pushed to the side and social and commercial interests are to the fore.

This is pointless. Read up on why a time limited back stop isn't an option. Its fact, not opinion. Read up on Brexit when you're at it.

You do understand a Time limited backstop = no backstop?

[There can't be a time limit on the backstop.]

My theory. Boris has no majority anymore and wants an election, preferably with Brexit sorted. DUP now no use to him. Surely the sensible thing is go for NI only backstop put that through parliament then when he's done that and can leave with a deal by 31 October, go for election

NI only backstop, but with a timelimit, say 5 years, is the obvious answer that everyone would eventually sign up to. (Even DUP could claim that as a win if they get a timelimit imposed). The 5 years (extendable if all sides agree) would give opportunity to do a new trade deal between EU and UK, such that no border would be required on our island.

There can't be a time limit on the backstop. It ceases to perform its (very necessary) purpose if there is. 'Even DUP....' nothing - they'd rip your hand off for it! And are on record as saying so.

Of course there can be a timelimit.

Insisting on a timelimit for the backstop means there ends up being no backstop at all (i.e. No Deal).

5 years gives time to move away from political nonsense and deal with social and commercial interests where nobody actually wants a border so a proper deal can be done.

The border issue and the necessity for the backstop arises because there is no solution as yet as to how a seamless border can be maintained. And until such time as it can, the backstop must remain in place, or a deal struck between the UK and EU such that there is no regulatory difference, and hence a seamless border. If you time limit it, it is utterly worthless, and serves no purpose whatever - the UK can just let the clock run down and do what they want. You say no-one wants a border - that may sound true when the tories say it, and they may even mean it, but they want a lot of things a lot less, including retaining current arrangements with the EU. A hard border here is of little consequence to them, or the DUP, and they'd cerrtainly have no issue letting any backstop run out without any better arrangements in place before pursuing their brexit utopia free of the last of the EU shackles

[There can't be a time limit on the backstop.]

My theory. Boris has no majority anymore and wants an election, preferably with Brexit sorted. DUP now no use to him. Surely the sensible thing is go for NI only backstop put that through parliament then when he's done that and can leave with a deal by 31 October, go for election

NI only backstop, but with a timelimit, say 5 years, is the obvious answer that everyone would eventually sign up to. (Even DUP could claim that as a win if they get a timelimit imposed). The 5 years (extendable if all sides agree) would give opportunity to do a new trade deal between EU and UK, such that no border would be required on our island.

There can't be a time limit on the backstop. It ceases to perform its (very necessary) purpose if there is. 'Even DUP....' nothing - they'd rip your hand off for it! And are on record as saying so.

No oath.

https://twitter.com/markdurkan/status/1067124640164864001?lang=en

Well that solves one mystery - you don't read what you post 

see first response to that tweet, outlining what the affirmation is 

I saw something in the media a few years ago whihc I thought summed it up well re Brexit, nationalists/unionists and farming. It was a more in depth piece, and they visited some of the marts round Fermangh/Tyrone to speak to farmers. One farmer when asked about the nationalist/unionist dfferences, laid out that speaking very generally, the unionists had got the better land, and so weren't reliant on the payments from the EU to the same extent as the nationalists with worse land - indeed, the unionists were much more inclined to see the restrictions of the EU rather than their support, as being more relevant to them.

To be fair a caller was pretty bitter and derogatory towards Claire Hanna today and William Crawley was straight on it, called him out and shut him down.  And so he should of course.

He didn't shut him down. The caller insulted her personally twice, didn't contribute anything but abuse towards her, and Crawley (who is one of the better ones) just kept trying to get him to ask a q instead of cutting him straight off. He was on for two minutes, and Crawley just let him tail off without saying something about it as he should have.

Agree wholeheartedly. and actually feel it has been getting worse over the last couple of years, perhaps as possibility of UI moves closer. I read Martin Dillons book on his life as a journalist (with the BBC for some time) lately, and it made clear the entrenched unionism in the BBC - a desire by top brass to 'meet one of them' (a loyalist killer), parties in the office on the 12th to watch parades etc - it seemed to have  moved on a bit, but now I'm not so sure at all.

Arlene on this morning saying must condemn violence whenever it is, rolling her eyes the night before at the murder of McAnespie, and posing with Para banners. That hypocrisy should have been pulled straight away.

Are any of their senior presenters nationalist? Certainly the major programmes are unionist, in ranging degrees of staunchness - Thompson, Nolan, Conor Bradford. There's often very little balance.

Deegan cost Tyrone the game. Say what you want re what Tyrone should have done better, and always likely to a dodgy decision or two, but I watched the game again and it was about a 6 point swing directly attributable to very bad decisions from Deegan. Its as bad a one-sided (in that you'll see refs just being bad for both teams) reffin performance as I've seen. Tyrone did well to keep their cool imo.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/darragh-%C3%B3-s%C3%A9-if-tyrone-put-as-much-into-football-as-the-dark-arts-they-d-be-some-team-1.3985286

Complete clickbait headline.
A nonsense article too from the usually decent O'se

The headline isn't based on the article. The headine is very anti-tyrone though, which gives precedence to the thread title. Is it partitionism and just manifests via tyrone as only northern team successful enough to bother anyone?

The headline is taken from a quote O'Se made in the article

"Christ, if they put as much thought and brain-power into the actual football as they do into all the other stuff, they'd be some team"

That was regards a player trying to get free for a short free, not in reference to any 'dark arts'.

'I thought of him a bit on Sunday watching Tyrone. There was one stage where a substitution was being made and one of their players came over to the sideline pretending to be the one coming off the pitch before doubling back on himself in the confusion to show for a free. I was watching this thinking, 'Christ, if they put as much thought and brain-power into the actual football as they do into all the other stuff, they'd be some team.'

Its a leap for the sub editor to make the link (and include the McKernan pic) when the only specific ref to dark arts is Tommy Walsh getting wired into Morgan (but sure that was only a bit of craic).

I'm not from Tyrone, and have no love for them, but I do see the bias.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/darragh-%C3%B3-s%C3%A9-if-tyrone-put-as-much-into-football-as-the-dark-arts-they-d-be-some-team-1.3985286

Complete clickbait headline.
A nonsense article too from the usually decent O'se

The headline isn't based on the article. The headine is very anti-tyrone though, which gives precedence to the thread title. Is it partitionism and just manifests via tyrone as only northern team successful enough to bother anyone?