Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You have a point on the younger folk. I know in my local town during the troubles there were about 20 UVF members now there are at least 200 hundred (judging by the crowd going into their headquarters for their Sunday meetings). But any of the experienced men are long gone. They are all young fellas.
The UDA has grown exponentially too. But for those who don’t know the UDA barely functions as an organisation anymore. It has no central leadership and has descended into various local gangs who hate each other with a passion. My local UDA brigade would be one of the largest and most violent UDA units has gone so far that they have officially left the main UDA organisation. Last year they killed two members of their own unit when they fell out. When people show pictures of Dee Stitt they don’t realise that his North Down Battalion are at war with the South East Antrim UDA and East Belfast UDA. South Belfast is probably the only unit that would have any cohesive leadership and membership but it’s also the unit least involved in violence and criminality.
Overall the UDA couldn’t return to a military campaign if they tried. The UVF probably could and it was them who previously took the violence to Dublin when Dublin tried interfering in NI affairs before and I’ve no doubt they would do again.
I make the point on loyalists as people are so focused on SF trying to scare people they forget that the ROI government are playing a dangerous game talking about moving the border to the sea or trying to impose joint authority. Support for the UVF across NI has never been higher, even at the height of the troubles.

So, you're saying that we should be wary of a "threat" of violence offered by Loyalists over perceived interference by Dublin, but should ignore any percieved republican threat of renewed violence over a hard border as over-blown hyperbole?

bouncingboredom wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, the current Irish border works basically like a Schengen border. There are no checks at all. It's not like Dover of Heathrow, where an EU passport holder has to present their passport and will automatically be allowed in.

You'd be right, it's a completely free border. But the options are limited to basically three;

1) A border between Ireland and the EU, obviously unacceptable for them.
2) A border between the UK and Northern Ireland, which the DUP would find unacceptable.
3) Border between NI and Eire, which is almost certainly the option that will be taken.

You've missed two.

4) Remaining in the EU after another referendum
5) Leaving the EU but maintaining free trade and freedom of movement (which is the default position if nothing is agreed).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:

Sorry I must add the border between NI and the ROI is far from a free border as farmers and traders well know. Exporting animals into ROI from NI brings with it a mountain of paperwork and government checks from relevant departments on both sides of the border.

Exporting animals is more restricted because of trying to restrict things like Foot and Mouth and what was Mad Cow Disease. The issues with NI/Eire is freedom of movement and not giving those that associate themselves with the EIRE the ability to move forward and backwards between them freely. What happens with arbitrary goods doesn't have the same emotional response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
You have a point on the younger folk. I know in my local town during the troubles there were about 20 UVF members now there are at least 200 hundred (judging by the crowd going into their headquarters for their Sunday meetings). But any of the experienced men are long gone. They are all young fellas.
The UDA has grown exponentially too. But for those who don’t know the UDA barely functions as an organisation anymore. It has no central leadership and has descended into various local gangs who hate each other with a passion. My local UDA brigade would be one of the largest and most violent UDA units has gone so far that they have officially left the main UDA organisation. Last year they killed two members of their own unit when they fell out. When people show pictures of Dee Stitt they don’t realise that his North Down Battalion are at war with the South East Antrim UDA and East Belfast UDA. South Belfast is probably the only unit that would have any cohesive leadership and membership but it’s also the unit least involved in violence and criminality.
Overall the UDA couldn’t return to a military campaign if they tried. The UVF probably could and it was them who previously took the violence to Dublin when Dublin tried interfering in NI affairs before and I’ve no doubt they would do again.
I make the point on loyalists as people are so focused on SF trying to scare people they forget that the ROI government are playing a dangerous game talking about moving the border to the sea or trying to impose joint authority. Support for the UVF across NI has never been higher, even at the height of the troubles.

To be honest this has even more worrying undertones than I think you are realising. We have:-

More people are potentially exposed to 'extreme' views than there was during the troubles
They are still willing to use violence to meet their aims
There are many young people, which although lacks experience implies, the Nationalists/Unionists divide isn't healing quickly (though both DUP and SF have to take some blame here)
They are currently leaderless, without an overall aim. However as shown by Wrexit give people a simple answer and a 'charismatic' leader that is willing to spout nonsense and then all of a sudden you have a larger number of people with one aim (and any type of border could be a catalyst).

I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.

I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.

 Knockagh wrote:
I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.

I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.

'Never say never' comes to mind. I think partially it comes down to whether both sides can tap into old funding or not. We know the IRA had support from the US so it depends on whether they can still tap into that resource?

However even any low level violence is a bad thing. Because of the close knit groups I wonder whether it will as easy for security services to identify attacks. The real risk is that any increase in violence will then divide the security services attention and they will be fighting on two fronts both in terms of ISIS and any NI violence. With limited funds that likely means increased success for both sides.

@whirlwind I agree we are more polarised as a society than we have been since the troubles ended, but that’s a situation that has been cultivated since the days of Tony Blair. He left us with the most appalling legacy. The GFA is no perfect solution folks. It institutionalised sectarianism. It legislated around it and made it a permanent feature in society. It didn’t heal anything it just put in place a permanent stalemate. Honestly that was never going to end well.
I remember at the time people who said that were told the agreement was a stepping stone to get us out of violence and once we moved on it would have to be replaced. It never was and sectarianism took deeper roots, without the violence to turn people off tribalism they flocked to it.

 Knockagh wrote:


May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.

Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.

The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.

Things are not as bad as people predicted.

We've had this argument before, not everyone predicted and immediate recession, rather stifled growth compared to the global economy so out economy is contracting relatively. The more rational views have been pretty much spot on.

IMF prediction is within 0.1%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42424700

UK investment is only 2.1% compared to a 6% investment that should be expected.

Phase I only just survived but effectively fudged the issues into Phase II without resolving them.

The UK government has done no analysis on the impacts of leaving so is 'guessing'

Number of people employed is decreasing.

Food going rotten in fields

Increasing shortage of nurses as people leave the country

Still after 18 months you did manage to get a Tory blue passport cover (which you could have had anyway). So Wrexit has managed to achieve one thing that the EU didn't stop us having anyway.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
@whirlwind I agree we are more polarised as a society than we have been since the troubles ended, but that’s a situation that has been cultivated since the days of Tony Blair. He left us with the most appalling legacy. The GFA is no perfect solution folks. It institutionalised sectarianism. It legislated around it and made it a permanent feature in society. It didn’t heal anything it just put in place a permanent stalemate. Honestly that was never going to end well.
I remember at the time people who said that were told the agreement was a stepping stone to get us out of violence and once we moved on it would have to be replaced. It never was and sectarianism took deeper roots, without the violence to turn people off tribalism they flocked to it.

This was always going to be the way at least initially. It's going to take hundreds of years for this to resolve and perhaps longer. At it's base is a religious divide that's got to go first. Before anything progresses anyone that remembers anything has to die off until you get to a point where people don't even see the injustices both sides have inflicted on the other. Expecting anything to be solved in 20 years was never going to happen. Perhaps in 200...

 Knockagh wrote:
. But we could see more low level stuff.

And then one low-level action goes wrong and someone gets killed, the other side feels the need to retaliate and we're back in the same old circle.

I have to agree with Whirlwind that the situation you describe is worrying. From my own dealings in NI (which by chance are for the most part with Catholics) I can see both groups are for the most part separate, like a company with Catholic ownership will have +90% Catholic staff and the token Protestant to prove they're an equal opportunity employer. With a lot of dismissive attitudes regarding "the others".

I've no doubt things are much better in Pharma or the urban service economy but at the primary sector level out in the sticks the divide is still visible.

I agree the passport colour thing is too ridiculous for words. As a unionist living in NI I don’t care if my passport is pink with yellow spots as long as it still says United Kingdom on it. I’m not even overly fussed if it say EU I would prefer it didn’t but it’s not world end if it did.

 Knockagh wrote:
I agree the passport colour thing is too ridiculous for words. As a unionist living in NI I don’t care if my passport is pink with yellow spots as long as it still says United Kingdom on it. I’m not even overly fussed if it say EU I would prefer it didn’t but it’s not world end if it did.

My suspicion is that it's blue because that's the Tories colour. If their colour was orange it would have been that colour. It's just convenient for them that the old passports were that colour.

I think it would have made a greater statement if it was associated to a general principle rather than nationalistic ideology. For example it could have used the LGBT rainbow colours as a representative of being an inclusive nation for example. It would also make our passports truly unique and not stuck in the past of what used to be.

 Knockagh wrote:
Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.

“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”

Two sentences later

“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...

Right...

No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42469901

Some plan to re-brand the Army has been ditched.

Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.

In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.

On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.

“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”

Two sentences later

“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...

Right...

No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.

Sorry Steve I’m desperately trying to find that second quote your attributing to me? Maybe you could point it out? Because it’s not there.

What I said was “Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste” a little different Steve. Please don’t make things up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42469901

Some plan to re-brand the Army has been ditched.

Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.

In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.

On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.

Having expereinced several "Branding" processes - this would have cost a fortune to have even got to this stage - vast sums wasted.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.

“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”

Two sentences later

“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...

Right...

No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.

Sorry Steve I’m desperately trying to find that second quote your attributing to me? Maybe you could point it out? Because it’s not there.

What I said was “Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste” a little different Steve. Please don’t make things up.

I don’t think that me reading Chaos as a synonym for violence is unreasonable in the context of this:

 Knockagh wrote:
I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.

I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42469901

Some plan to re-brand the Army has been ditched.

Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.

In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.

On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.

Having expereinced several "Branding" processes - this would have cost a fortune to have even got to this stage - vast sums wasted.

It’s a real waste if the army want to do the rebranding of their recruitment, do the consulting, find something they want then the government stick their nose in. This seems like political medaling in something they don’t need to be involved in.

It a direct misquote which you put into quotation marks and it doesn’t reflect what i said in anyway. Why would you put it in quote marks if not to deliberately misconstrue what I was saying?

You misconstrued my words to back up your claim that Brexit was a threat to the GFA. I was saying that Adams was using Brexit to threaten the union. Poles apart.

Although in a way I’m glad you did it because you’ve shown exactly what I was saying remainers we’re doing. Using the NI situation, without any care or knowledge of facts to back up their argument and all that does is allow people like Adams to feed the chaos.

Say sorry Steve. Always helps

 Steve steveson wrote:


It’s a real waste if the army want to do the rebranding of their recruitment, do the consulting, find something they want then the government stick their nose in. This seems like political medaling in something they don’t need to be involved in.

Gotta think of those negative tabloid headlines dontcha know That said I don't see what's wrong with "be the best" being elitist and non-inclusive(and calling it dated totally baffles me). Surely that's the whole point? Don't the armed forces want to attract people who want to push themselves and be challenged?

The research also found the Army's crest - depicting crossed swords, a crown and a lion - to be "non-inclusive" and recommended replacing both with a union jack with the word ARMY in bold underneath.

I don’t even understand what this means. How is the lion, crown and swords not ‘inclusive’? Who is it excluding exactly? Replacing the army’s crest with something so generic doesnt strike me as a solution to anything at all, just stripping the character of something.

Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The research also found the Army's crest - depicting crossed swords, a crown and a lion - to be "non-inclusive" and recommended replacing both with a union jack with the word ARMY in bold underneath.

I don’t even understand what this means. How is the lion, crown and swords not ‘inclusive’? Who is it excluding exactly? Replacing the army’s crest with something so generic doesnt strike me as a solution to anything at all, just stripping the character of something.

It's been going that way for a while

I can't imagine many people setting out to join the Army, then changing their minds because they disliked the logo.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.

I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.

Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.

British armed forces make their allegiance to the queen so if you don’t like a crown on the logo you’ve got a problem.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
British armed forces make their allegiance to the queen so if you don’t like a crown on the logo you’ve got a problem.

Hit the nail on the head buddy!

 Knockagh wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
British armed forces make their allegiance to the queen so if you don’t like a crown on the logo you’ve got a problem.

Hit the nail on the head buddy!

Which is why the 'issue' is probably made of the echo chamber of a committee meeting.

Howard A Treesong wrote:British armed forces make their allegiance to the queen so if you don’t like a crown on the logo you’ve got a problem.

Fair enough, makes the objection to the crown seem odd then if it's so ingrained in army life, I'd always assumed it was a superficial involvement they had with her.

Is it a Hippocratic oath type affair or something that they make automatically when they sign up?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.

Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.

I suspect its less people wanting to justify the change and more wanting to justify there own jobs.

And we have a winner....

 Ketara wrote:
I can't imagine many people setting out to join the Army, then changing their minds because they disliked the logo.

To be fair the logo does look like it was designed in the early 70's. In a world where advertising to get a message across is key then having a modern logo might encourage those that haven't even considered it as a career and get them noticed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.

I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.

Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.

Without seeing the reasons it is difficult to explain. However it may be that the younger generation have less empathy with the 'crown' as a symbol and might see it as the wealthy telling the poor what to do etc. (so hence protecting the rich). Also more and more younger people have diverse backgrounds where the crown might be considered reminiscent of a colonial era. It might not just be political correctness, people may simply view it as representing something they don't believe in (even if they do believe in defending the country).

"Best of the Best" could put people off if they don't think they are the best (which realistically they are not, because none of us are). It might also foster elitism in that on day one those at the top might deem themselves better and those at the bottom might be 'bullied' for it (despite the fact that with proper training they could be better then these people).

 Whirlwind wrote:

To be honest this has even more worrying undertones than I think you are realising. We have:-

More people are potentially exposed to 'extreme' views than there was during the troubles
They are still willing to use violence to meet their aims
There are many young people, which although lacks experience implies, the Nationalists/Unionists divide isn't healing quickly (though both DUP and SF have to take some blame here)
They are currently leaderless, without an overall aim. However as shown by Wrexit give people a simple answer and a 'charismatic' leader that is willing to spout nonsense and then all of a sudden you have a larger number of people with one aim (and any type of border could be a catalyst).

Young, stupid, and armed to the teeth. Sounds like all that's left is scream 'Fág an Bealach' and point at something, and the shooting starts all over again.