Brexiteers won the vote but lost the war

[Bean]

Still no answer from Bean, instead he tries to misdirect.

https://www.ft.com/content/8698fc30-...3-9060cb1e5f44

Is Brexit going to restart the Troubles in Northern Ireland? | National Post

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/01...s-irish-border

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...border/546887/
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/08/56290...-u-k-leaves-e-

Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks - BBC News
"There will be no "hard border" with Ireland"

Brexit: EU pledge over cross-border peace funds - BBC News
"Jean-Claude Juncker said he could see "no more important use" of the European budget than maintaining the peace process in Ireland."

HTH

back to your frothing

[Bean]

I think perhaps you’re a little autistic, so I’m sorry for that, and for having to explain it more clearly to you.

“A vote to do x” is not, as you are trying to assert, a literal statement. I’m sure you must get very upset during general elections at statements such as “a vote for the Tories is a vote for austerity” because, literally, that is not the case.

Figuratively though, votes have consequences. So while you might not have _literally_ voted for something, the outcome of your vote has consequences that, figuratively, you have voted for.

As for “risk of restarting the Troubles”, anyone with any interest in the island of Ireland can see that that is indeed the case.

Not autistic, but thanks for caring.

Let me retry in a simpler way;

either the vote to leave was for a hard border (restart Troubles), or not - you appeared in the first instance to suggest it was not (Vote to leave and nothing more, Norway accept FoM.....etc) - but now you appear to be suggesting it is.

Cake & eat it?

[shaunbhoy]

You're saying that the border issue in Ireland is not currently igniting tensions and is a very real risk of restarting the troubles?

****DRAMA QUEEN ALERT****

FFS..................you really do come out with some absolute tripe. I doubt you have ever even BEEN to NI.

[original PM]

Ok the people who want the troubles in Ireland to start again have always existed.

Now there is an excuse for doing it you can hang around the neck of 'Brexit'.

Why not address the actual problem of the idiots who think that they can use violence to achieve their aims?

Stop the collective blame game and blame the person who pulls the trigger.

[WTFH]

Ok the people who want the troubles in Ireland to start again have always existed.

Now there is an excuse for doing it you can hang around the neck of 'Brexit'.

Why not address the actual problem of the idiots who think that they can use violence to achieve their aims?

Stop the collective blame game and blame the person who pulls the trigger.

The people who wanted The Troubles to start again have always existed, but they were silenced by the majority of people who preferred to live in peace. The peace came about through the people of different communities sitting down and talking, through young people who questioned why those in their 40s and older were hell bent on hatred, and through people who thought achieving objectives through political means might be a better way. Education was a big part of it too, but many in GB don't understand that.

Some may have voted in the hope that a hard border would be created as a way of strengthening the NI within the UK, some may have voted hoping that a hard border would be an excuse to return to violence, some may have voted in the hope that a united Ireland would be an obvious outcome.

When people in NI voted, that was not just about leaving the EU, but also about the relationship between NI and ROI and GB (cue some people saying "but it didn't say that on the referendum card")

[meridian]

Not autistic, but thanks for caring.

Let me retry in a simpler way;

either the vote to leave was for a hard border (restart Troubles), or not - you appeared in the first instance to suggest it was not (Vote to leave and nothing more, Norway accept FoM.....etc) - but now you appear to be suggesting it is.

Cake & eat it?

Despite explaining it to you, you still don’t seem to grasp the difference between literal and figurative, or the difference between a literal vote and, colloquially, what a vote was “for” by the consequences of that vote.

It’s not “cake and eat it”; it works both ways - I’m also, for example, quite happy to say that some people voted to “take back control”, even though that also was not an option on the ballot paper. Literally, it was not. Figuratively (and possibly by consequence) it was.

[vetran]

The people who wanted The Troubles to start again have always existed, but they were silenced by the majority of people who preferred to live in peace. The peace came about through the people of different communities sitting down and talking, through young people who questioned why those in their 40s and older were hell bent on hatred, and through people who thought achieving objectives through political means might be a better way. Education was a big part of it too, but many in GB don't understand that.

Some may have voted in the hope that a hard border would be created as a way of strengthening the NI within the UK, some may have voted hoping that a hard border would be an excuse to return to violence, some may have voted in the hope that a united Ireland would be an obvious outcome.

When people in NI voted, that was not just about leaving the EU, but also about the relationship between NI and ROI and GB (cue some people saying "but it didn't say that on the referendum card")

No peace in Ireland happened because the Americans turned the money & support off. They were left only raising money through crime and that was a Police matter.

[meridian]

No peace in Ireland happened because the Americans turned the money & support off. They were left only raising money through crime and that was a Police matter.

Do you hate your country that much, that you would rather reduce a complex and lengthy series of negotiations down to “it was the Americans” than give credit where it is due?

[WTFH]

No peace in Ireland happened because the Americans turned the money & support off. They were left only raising money through crime and that was a Police matter.

Untrue.
1. "The Americans" didn't turn the money or support off. Organisations such as Noraid were raising still raising thousands for PIRA after the first steps towards peace were taken. Since the GFA they have changed their mission statement to say they support the peace process.
2. Raising money through extortion/protection racket was always a very popular way for both sides. Theft, etc were not common ways for them to get their funding
3. In the 90s and beyond one of the most popular ways to raise money was through the sale of drugs. After peace broke out, this continued to be a very lucrative way for the now "peaceful" thugs to continue living in the lifestyle that they had become accustomed to.

[Bean]

Despite explaining it to you, you still don’t seem to grasp the difference between literal and figurative, or the difference between a literal vote and, colloquially, what a vote was “for” by the consequences of that vote.

It’s not “cake and eat it”; it works both ways - I’m also, for example, quite happy to say that some people voted to “take back control”, even though that also was not an option on the ballot paper. Literally, it was not. Figuratively (and possibly by consequence) it was.

a vote to leave was a vote to restart the Troubles (WTFH 1st statement)
a vote to leave was a vote to risk restarting the Troubles (WTFH 2nd statement)
a vote to leave was a vote for a very high risk of restarting the Troubles (WTFH 3rd statement)

some people voted to 'take back control' (Your own phrase)

Do you see the difference in language used between you two?
Your qualifier of 'some people' is the critical difference between a reasonable statement and hyperbolic nonsense.