Youtube comments of Taint ABird (@taintabird23).
-
567
-
279
-
221
-
125
-
118
-
116
-
111
-
109
-
87
-
@sebdcord You comment lacks coherence.
Scotland has plenty of resources: its fishing, its forestry, its oil, its wind, its highly educated workforce and some of the best universities in the world. I have no idea how a country can be 'irrelevant'. Irrelevant to whom? The English? Well, we know that...
The size of the country will have little bearing on anything once it joins the EU - Scotland will have an equal voice. Half the countries in the EU are smaller than Scotland and in case you have not noticed, even Germany and France consider themselves 'small countries'.
An independent Scotland will have it own passport, embassies, flag, foreign policy, and military. Once it joins the EU it will be able to diversify its economy and end its dependence on the UK economy, just as Ireland has done.
There will be no objection from Spain to Scottish accession once he Scots exit the UK legally. One has to wonder why the Tories are dragging their feet, most English people would be happy to see the back of Scotland...
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
56
-
53
-
@ Matthew Shin
Real Irish person here.
Regarding NI, religion is a badge of identity and has been since the Ulster Plantations in the 17th century. In that context, religious practice has little to do with it. However, NI voted to remain in the EU.
May is dependent on the DUP to keep the conservatives in power. The DUP have been against everything in NI for decades, including the GFA, They are facing an imminent Catholic/Irish/Nationalist demographic majority, possibly by 2021 and anything that can keep NI closer to the UK, they will support it.
But the DUP don't represent all Unionists. Many moderate unionists are supportive of EU or CU/SM membership and see all the problems the DUP are creating. It is even said that many DUP representative in NI (as opposed to Westminster) are concerned about NI leaving the EU. This is because NI farmers and communities benefit from EU membership through trade and subsidies, they understand that the open border satisfies many NI Nationalists who are happy to therefore remain in the UK - any change in that will arouse resentment and encourage thoughts of Irish unity.
What the English don't understand is that the open border, the status quo, facilitates improved relations on the island.
For people living on the border, on both sides of it, any border infrastructure will be intolerable. You have people who cross that border everyday to shop, socialise, go to school, go to work, to access their farmland. The border runs through farms, farmyards, villages and in at least one case a church is in the republic while its adjoining graveyard is in Northern Ireland.
Brexiters will tell you that the RoI is trying to grab NI. In fact the opposite is true. While most Irish people would aspire to a united Ireland, the unspoken consensus is that will take place after reconciliation in NI, and that process has not even begun yet. You're talking decades.
The nightmare for the RoI, is an unsettled Nationalist population calling for a border poll. Once this is triggered it needs to be held every seven years. The worst outcome of such a poll for the RoI is a result like Brexit produced in the context of no reconciliation process.
That is where the danger lies: Brexit destabilises NI and makes it the RoI's problem.
No Irish government can put up a hard border in Ireland. When the EU or WTO requires one, the border will have to be put up between the RoI and the EU by the Dublin Government. This is another example of Brexit making problems for the RoI, something the Irish did not vote for.
Finally, the UK has no leadership and Brexit is being promoted by low grade ill-informed politicians who have duped their own people.
History tells us such people use and discard Ireland and its people as it suits them. The levels of ignorance in the UK about Ireland has been truly breathtaking at times.
From your question and your post, I can tell you are not one of those people.
49
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@tsu8003 American's aren't pretending to be Irish, they're Amercian - when they say they are Irish they are referring to their heritage, as you well know. The very reason these people are American is because of a previous time the British shafted the Irish, and they don't forget that. 'Pathetic', indeed.
Your defense of the British empire is laughable, ignorant and not unexpected. The letters of British commander Jeffery Amherst indicated genocidal intent when he authorized the deliberate use of disease-infected blankets as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the 1763 Pontiac's Rebellion, saying, "You will do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execreble race", and instructing his subordinates, "I need only add, I wish to hear of no prisoners should any of the villains be met with arms."
At one point during the famine in Ireland, a member of the British establishment boasted in the newspapers that a native Irishman will soon be as rare on the western coast of Ireland as a native American is on Manhattan island.
And there you have it, that's your 'Great' empire for you.
Lying arsehole.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@MarkMcAllister-ni9sf No, sorry, you are wrong. The IRA wanted Britain to lose, the Irish government and the vast majority of public opinion did not - de Valera suppressed the IRA before the end of 1941 and executed two of them. Your opinion regarding a conquered Ireland is speculation and suggests a sectarian undertone to your selective ill-informed analysis.
Your claim, 'all of that to not cooperate with the English' is no borne out by contemporary pro-British commentators: Frank Pakenham, a lecturer and historian from a landed Anglo-Irish family visited Dublin in October 1939, estimated 8 out of 10 supported neutrality and were ‘mildly supportive’ of the Allies. Even Churchill acknowledged in 1940 that ‘three quarters of the people of Southern Ireland are with us, but the implacable, malignant minority can make so much trouble that de Valera dare not declare for the British side in the war’. Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporters. ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’.
I'm not sure what 'trying to lawyer your way out of' something is supposed to mean, but you are not speaking the truth as you claim. You don't even know enough about the topic to muster a coherent response.
My original claim that Churchill was selling the unionists down the river in 1940 still stands.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@sebdcord I am well aware of the democratic deficits inherent in the FPTP electoral system, yes.
All you can say about the SNP is all that you can say about Brexiters: nationalists movements are emotional impulses, wrapped in ideas about identity and culture - economic arguments don't usually work in that context. Its 'THEM v US'. No country is completely alone in this world as you claim - even North Korea has China at its back - because contrary to what Brexiters tell you, we actually live a world of interdependence, where multlateralism is still the paradigm most countries in the world gravitate towards.
There is no reason why the EU will refuse Scottish accession once it meets the criteria, the PR for the EU would be delicious anyway. Depending on England is a problem that Scots need reduce and that can only begin once it is independent of Westminster. If the SNP puts together a fair argument for independence and if Brexit continues to be a disaster it is very possible that an IndyRef2 could go the way the consistent polling is tell us it will go. The assembly elections will tell us a great deal about how things might go too. If you are correct and everyone in Scotland hates the SNP, they will lose power, won't they.
The UK was never a happy member of the EEC. It was slow to join and when it did, it joined reluctantly. The English were unhappy with the EU because they don't like being told what to do - that's their job, apparently. Because of their sense of superiority, the notion of being treated equally with other 'lesser' countries made them feel oppressed. They won a war and lost an empire and they are taking the whole UK out of the EU because of their insecurity with their place in the world. Of course, there are people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who identify with them, but they are not typical and are not the majority either.
The UK is finished, it is no longer fit for purpose. If we take it that Brexit is essentially an English nationalist impulse, the next stage in its evolution is England's departure from the UK and it may well happen if the English manage to grow a pair. Either way, we know the Conservative and Unionist Party is essential an English party now, and we know they don't take the Unionist part of their raison d'etre as seriously as the used to (ask the DUP). T
The EU will continue to evolve, and you can be guaranteed no other country will leave at this stage . Brexit has brought all the remain states closer together and eurosceptics within the bloc have become euroreformers. Time will tell.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@Porkcylinder It looks like my post did not go down well. Hold a mirror up to certain English and this is the kind of response you are going to get. Let's take a look:
'yes that’s right if you want to play semantics and skew the facts you can make figures say anything you want but I thought you were a real person not some c*nting robot or politician.'
You think I'm a bot? Facts are fact mate, the proportion of the Irish population that was born in Britain (mainly England) is higher than the proportion of the UK population that was born in Ireland. It was not always like that, but is has been since about 2000. It has been increasing since Brexit.
'You’re in no position to make your sneaky thinly veiled threats anymore Great Britain is leaving and if need be on WTO'
Nobody cares. Seriously, since Ireland won on the backstop issue, nobody cares what the English do to themselves, it is not our issue. You voted for it, you live by it.
'We don’t need to take advice from anyone least of all the Irish.'
You badly need advising, but England is in the thrall of an incoherent nationalism that makes it think it needs nobody. We will be there to pick you up when the penny drops.
'We know you’re just trying to agitate to break up the UK along with you spiteful chums in Brussels . '
Oh please, the English are doing that by themselves. The British Demos is in decline, and we know from the last GE in December that it was won by English, Scottish and Irish nationalisms. With the English dictating the futures of the Scots and the Irish because they are comfortable with democratic deficits when it suits them, it will in time lead to the break up of the UK. People just aren't into that level of weapons-grade hypocrisy anymore. The English need to grow a pair, admit they are a nation, and become independent of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. You cannot hide behind your neighbour's forever. Think of how much money you would save!!
'Sorry boys it ain’t happening get used to it.'
It started with devolution over 20 years ago. Brexit is just the second stage, the English acting out in response.
12
-
11
-
Regarding the Irish housing crisis, the World Bank say the following:
'Greece, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Romania and the United Kingdom are the countries where families are the most overburdened by the cost of housing, while those in Malta, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Estonia and France were best off within the EU'.
Ireland's population may be small, but in a European context is is hardly tiny: it is comparable with Denmark or Finland while Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg all have smaller populations. Ireland uses the EUs Freedom of Movement to present investors with whole of the EU as a labour pool. Ireland produces plenty of techs, but not enough to meet the level of investment coming into the country.
As for English language students, about 78% come from the EU, mainly from France, Spain and Italy. The main non EU countries of origin are Brazil, Japan and Korea - about 18,000 in total. It is true that English language schools are increasing in importance in the Irish economy, but they are in every large town and city in Ireland, not just Dublin.
11
-
The same argument was made against Ireland becoming independent in 1921. It was a different world, but in the 1950s, 90% of Irish exports went to the the UK and on the eve of joining the EEC in 1973, it was still well over 70%. Today Ireland has a more globablised, dynamic and innovative economy, a more productive work force and leaves the UK in the dust as an exporting powerhouse. It leads the UK in many human development indices, and is the 6th biggest foreign investor into the United States, the destiny of 27% of Ireland's exports. If Ireland can do it, there is no reason why Scotland can't do it too.
Where would Scotland rank as an export market for goods from England, Northern Ireland and the Wales if it becomes independent? Surely it would be higher than Ireland, the UKs fifth most important export market.
Common sense would dictate that the Scots should leave the UK and amplify its sovereignty with the other nations of the EU through membership of the bloc. This would enhance the prosperity of it people in the long-term.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Chloe Turner 'The Northern Ireland people have raise their concerns to the dup who is the local government for Northern.'
The DUP do not represent the people of NI, and share power in NI with Sinn Féin who are fine with the NIP. The DUP do not even represent all of unionism, and only command 16% support, the same as the Alliance Party, which moderately unionist and also has 16% support. Most people in NI are fine with the protocol as they can see the opportunities being able to trade into both the EU and UK without any friction presents for the NI economy.
'The UK then approached the EU and said the Northern Ireland people feel at the good Friday agreement isn't being upheld and their the UK in the EU needs to negotiate something new to avoid any further disruption to the Northern Irish people.'
The problem is Brexit, not the protocol. The UK waited until two weeks after celebrating the NIP before stating they wanted to change it.
'The EU ignored the UK until media coverage of the story broke in which then the you drop to lawsuits that it has started to avoid bad publicity for the EU.'
No. It was widely reported across Europe from January because there was disbelief at the latest psychodrama coming out of the UK. The EU threatened legal action, but dropped it when the UK requested an extension to negotiations on how to work the NIP.
'The problem is the UK government is working for the people of Northern Ireland but the EU doesn't want to negotiate.'
If the UK government was working for the people of Northern Ireland, the UK would not have told the DUP that it would not be a border in the Irish Sea, and then put a border in the Irish Sea. It is time for the London government to start telling the truth about the protocol and what they agreed to.
'The EU doesn't want to be the ones to implement a hard border in Ireland and maintain the Single Market integrity. So the EU are avoiding negotiations which may lead to them have to bear some of the responsibility.'
The EU are not avoiding negotiations on the existing protocol, but have said they will not negotiate a new one, especially as the UK has not implemented the existing protocol.
'The issue's the EU face is they literally signed up to have on going discussions with the UK regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol. So they're breaching their own contract, also the are going against what the NIP attempted to do which was protect the GFA.'
The EU has never stopped trying to make the NIP work, and offer changes to 80% of the controls, but the UK rejected them. There is no version of Brexit that does not make one side or the other feel like they are losing under the GFA. None. Brexit is the problem.
'...before long Article 16 will be triggered and the EU will force a hard border on Ireland.'
Article 16 will not be triggered because the UK has too much to lose. The EU and the US will retaliate, it will not remove the protocol and New Zealand is expressing doubt as to whether the UK is trustworthy enough to be allowed into the CPTPP because of its behaviour in relation to the NIP.
It is difficult to see how the UK is going to get out of this one.
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Unknown-pi5ll #so you admit 70 million Irish people still haven’t returned to Ireland .'
I'm beginning to see why The Sun is the biggest selling newspaper in the UK.
'If Ireland is so great they would returned by now'
Why? They made the countries they emigrated to great. But many of them are Irish passport holders
'Actually they left because of the potato famine which was a natural disaster it was caused by A disease called late blight it’s destroyed the leaves and edible roots of the potato plants'
About 2 million left during the famine. While the failure of the potato crop was natural, the famine was caused by the British government's response to it, wedding as they were to placing Irish people ahead of the economic doctrine.
'We saved as many ethnic Irish people as we can from genocide by allowing them to escape to America and move in the UK mostly Scotland because of that there is 14,000,000 ethnic Irish people currently living in the UK mostly Scotland .'
Genocide? I never mentioned that the British government committed genocide, that's your doing. However, the famine was characterized by the response of the British government. In the summer of 1846 the British government fed three million people efficiently and cheaply, but then withdrew it, declared the famine over and allowed the Irish to starve. The British government did not 'allow' people to escape, and most of those who did, did so using their own resources.
The famine in Ireland was manmade.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Irish Protestants who were nationalists often played a prominent role in the Nationalist movement as they tended to be well educated, well connected and belonging to the top strata of Irish society. Some were quite famous. Ireland's revolution first began as a cultural revolution, and this included many leading Protestants, some of whom changed from unionism to nationalism because of it.
They were not shunned by Nationalist Ireland. Bulmer Hobson was a Protestant and a member of the secret IRB. After independence he became a Civil Servant in the new state; Douglas Hyde was a Gaelic scholar who became Ireland's first President in 1937; Erskine Childers, the son of Erskine Childers who was killed in the Irish Civil War was Ireland's fourth President; Countess Markievicz was highly respected but as her politics became more radical she alienated herself from the mainstream, but is still a heroine of socialist republicans to this day; Sir Roger Casement who was executed for treason in London in 1916 had his remains returned to Ireland at the behest of the Irish government in 1966; Daryl Figgis who was involved in running guns to Irish nationalists (along with Erskine Childers senior) was an unpopular figure who died young is often forgotten; Alice Milligan, Ulster Protestant stock was a significant individual, particularly as a playwrite, but is largely forgotten today because she was a women. She returned to live out her days in Northern Ireland where she was shunned by her Unionist neighbours and relatives. W B Yeats is Ireland's national poet, and was responsible for overseeing the design of Irish currency and was a member of the Irish Senate; Sam Maguire recruited Michael Collins into the IRB and was later Collins's right hand man. He is more famous today for his role as an administrator of the Gaelic Athletic Association and a trophy for a national competition is named after him. These people were all Irish Protestants except for Erskine Childers senior who was an English Protestant - but his son was born in Ireland.
Irish protestants who were unionists either left Ireland after independence or adapted. Many of them went on to accept the new state over time and were particularly involved in the Irish judiciary - even today many of Ireland's top judges are Protestant. But many ordinary Protestants who remained, while not overtly discriminated against like Catholics in Northern Ireland, found Nationalist Ireland to be too Catholic. And it was. Catholic Ireland was unfair to Irish Protestants in that it did not take their point of view into consideration on many social and other issues that were governed by Catholic teaching.
Hope that helps!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Jo Sm My favourite is still the EU claiming they would support Ireland, doing it, and then Brexiters trying to explain it. As Teresa May said to Barnier, 'why do you support Ireland, the UK is a more important country'. 'Because Ireland is a member', replied Barnier...
In 2017 Varadkar, in order to increase political Irish capital in the EU, volunteered to increase Irish contribution to the EU budget, provided it would not see a reduction in farm subsidies for Irish farmers. He got that. The Irish want the EU to succeed.
The UK red-tops, misrepresented this deliberately so as to keep Brexiter morale up. After all, Brexiters never expected the EU would support the Irish over the UK.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Leroy Jenkins 2.0 Really? Where is my delusion?
You do know the British Demos is in terminal decline, right?
Of course NI is part of the UK, nobody is disputing that - but it is contest territory, with half of the population tolerating its constitutional position within the UK for now.
The majority of Scots appear to identify as Scottish rather than British. We know that because of the rise of the SNP and the prevalence of Scottish identity even among many Scottish Labour voters.
The 2011 census tells us that there are vast areas of England that identify as English rather than British, and polls since then have shown that English identity is on the increase in England. There is a direct co-relation between the areas that voted for Brexit in 2016 and those areas that identified as English in 2011.
Wales voted to leave. But again that 2011 census tells us that 12% of the population of Wales identifies as English, not Welsh. With most of these English voters in Wales being retirees and fitting the most pro-Brexit demographic, it is fair to say these people brought their politics with them.
When you consider that of 17 + million people who voted to leave the EU, 15.1 million of them were English, and add that to the diminishing overarching Britishness across the union, and then the delusion is that the UK voted to leave 'as one country'. If fact, English insecurities dragged the rest of them out.
The constitutional arrangement is clearly unfit for purpose, and there is a yawning democratic deficit that has no parallel in western democracy that I can think of.
The delusion is on your side, I'm afraid. Leaving the EU is England's wrong answer to the wrong question.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The trouble is, while Republicans served a 100,000 years for their crimes, and Loyalists 60,000 years for theirs, only 3 British soldiers were ever convicted for unlawful killings. They served only 17 years and were returned to their units after their release and often promoted.
That is an injustice by the state, the very state that nationalists need to have confidence in if they were to become comfortable with being in the UK.
In the case of Bloody Sunday, the names of the victims were sullied in order to exonerate the soldiers.
The IRA were terrorists, as were the UVF et al. Police, soldiers and the judiciary are always held to a higher standard, otherwise the state has no legitimacy.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The problem with Brexit is that it cannot succeed as presented in 2016. This is because those who sold Brexit to the British public either did not understand what they were talking about or they were knowingly lying - there is evidence for both, depending on the Brexiter.
I live in Ireland. Brexiters were interviewed on Irish media before the referendum and they were constantly asked how Brexit could possibly work without a changing the status quo on the island of Ireland. None could provide an answer, none of them could foresee a problem. It appears they also did not understand the implications for the GFA, or if they did, they were lying.
Some Brexiters have hinted that the subsequent problems were all Ireland's fault. The inference being that Ireland should have left the EU to give the UK the Brexit they wished for. It is more likely the case that, at the time, they held the UKs importance in such higher esteem than Brussels did, and expected Brussels were throw Ireland out of the SM or EU just to get that deal with the UK.
The UK buys more from the EU than vice versa, but it represents only a drop in the ocean when it comes to trade within the Single Market for EU members as a whole. It is the EUs size when compared to the UK that determined who held all the cards in the negotiations.
As for the Protocol, it was simply a British suggested solution to the unresolved question of Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement. Johnson the liar, never had any intention of implementing it, he simply needed to win an election. But now he is stuck with it.
Brexit has been an economic, political and diplomatic failure and betrayal of British statecraft in Europe built up over decades since 1945. It has been remarkable to observe.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Actually, it is the other way round.
During the summer of 2016, Irish officials visited every EU capital and explained Ireland's concerns regarding Brexit and the border. They asked for support for Ireland when they went to the EU Commission to put it national interests front and centre of the negotiations with the UK - they got that, because the rest of the EU backed them. The Irish people north and south, including some unionists, do not want a hard border on the island of Ireland because an open border with the republic was the 'win' nationalists got under the GFA, a trade off for the NI remaining within the UK. Everybody was happy.
Nobody is punishing Britain. The NIP was the UKs solution to avoiding a border on the island of Ireland. You will remember that the protocol was negotiated, signed, and ratified without much analysis by Parliament, so that Boris Johnson could claim Brexit was done. He then used that slogan to win a general election with a huge majority. However, he had no intention of implementing the NIP. Brussels and Washington have run out of patience with London, and are not falling for the chicanery required to deliver Brexit. The UK is not being punished, it has been stonewalled and had its bluff called. The UK is impotent.
Poll after Poll has demonstrated that while Irish people aspire to a united Ireland, they do not want it now and they certainly don't want it in the context of Brexit. Unlike the GFA, Brexit means there has to be winners and losers, and unfortunately the Unionists are the losers because of Brexit - even though they generally supported it. Brexit is likely to bring Northern Ireland and Ireland closer together, economically, socially and politically over the next century and this is likely to lead to unity in due course.
Nobody betrayed you regarding Brexit. Brexit died at birth in June 2016. The Brexit you were told to vote for could never have been delivered in the real world, and never will, because it requires the EU to act against its own self-interest. That is just not going to happen. The EU 27 do not need the UK more than they need the EU.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@ yes
I'm confusing nothing.
The European Union IS united - you only have to look at how the 26 backed Ireland in relation to the border to see it.
Brexiters expected the EU to throw Ireland under a bus because it was small and it was assumed that the Germans would hold it in the same contempt as the Brexiters did; they expected an EU squabble about concessions to the UK in order to give it a 'cake and eat it' deal; if all else failed, the cavalry in the shape of Audi, Mercedes and BMW would ride into the fray at the 11th hour...
The EU has never flinched.
You describe Brexit as a type of 'crusade' to save Europe from itself - it is nothing of the sort.
It the self-serving agenda of an elite cabal in your country that are intent on gambling with your future in order to expand their personal wealth. These people are gamblers by profession, they are Brexit proof, and if/when it falls flat on its face, Brexit will simply be added to list of England's heroic failures which includes Dunkirk, The Charge of the Light Brigade, Scott in the Antarctic, the Franklin expedition etc.
Your explanation of Europe is full of age old English tropes about Europe: England v Europe, Protestantism v Catholicism, Freedom v Tyranny etc. You stopped short of the usual conclusion, working your list of through to Napoleon and Hitler
Nothing to see here.
7
-
7
-
7
-
'What I find fascinating is the fact that Sothern Ireland considers itself to be a country.'
What I find fascinating is the fact that you think there is a country called Southern Ireland. There is a country called Ireland, which is a Republic, and it fits the description of 'a country' better than the peculiar constitutional arrangement that is the UK, as you will see
'Having thrown off the yoke of British Imperialism it has given up it's Soverignty to the European state.'
Ireland has not 'given up its sovereignty to the EU state'. In the context of the recent 1916 centenary commemorations, it is wryly amusing that the British seem to think that they alone value the importance of sovereignty. For us in Ireland our hard-won freedom and sovereignty are things to be shared judiciously and to be deployed intelligently rather than jealously horded away in a tower. It means, for example, that we are NOT forced out of the EU because of the insecurities of the English.
'In fact there is a reasonable argument that the average Irish citizen would have a greater say in his or her destiny if they were now part of the UK.'
What a prize gobshite you are. There is precisely no argument that Irish people would have a greater say in his or her destiny if they were now part of the UK - you only have to look at Scotland and NI to see that. Both are leaving because of 15.1 million insecure English people. We Irish look across the Irish Sea at a partial democracy with theocratic leanings: an unelected Head of State who is the Head of the Church of England, an archaic undemocratic First Past the Post electoral system, an unelected House of Lords with seats for Bishops (!) in it, no regional assembly for the English, no written Constitution that anybody ever voted on and where Parliament and not the People are sovereign. You have a public school system that produces your political class and maintains the existing feudal system. This is the UK the Irish left a century ago...
'I wonder what those early heroes in the struggle for independence would think of Irelands position now.'
Let me enlighten you. It was a rebel of 1916 who signed Ireland accession documents in 1962. That man was Seán Lemass, who fought in the 1916 Rising, took the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War, built the Fianna Fáil Party and could never be thought of as anything other than an Irish nationalist. He was speaking in Brussels in January 1962 on Ireland’s hopes of joining what was then the European Economic Community when he said this:
“Ireland belongs to Europe by history, tradition and sentiment no less than by geography. Our destiny is bound up with that of Europe . . . Our people have always tended to look to Europe for inspiration, guidance and encouragement”.
He stressed that he fully understood that Ireland was seeking to be part of a project that was about much more than economics and that he spoke “in full awareness” of the EEC’s underlying aim of “ever-closer union”.
Apparently, the Irish were aware of this but the British claim they were unaware of it, even though they tried to join the EEC at the same time.
Please accept these lines as a response to your arrogance and deeply rooted ignorance.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
'from at least 200AD to 1000AD people from the Western island raided, slaved, and conquered....'
Indeed, but you are comparing the movement and activities of barbaric tribes during the fall of the Roman Empire with the systematic centralised policy of colonisation of Ireland by England. Ireland was laboratory for testing the various command and control
systems which were employed in the establishment of what is often called England's first empire - the colonisation of North American. Your comparison is both ignorant and desperate.
'...what is wrong with Scottish settlers, they are simply Irish returning home, why were they made to feel so unwelcome...'
It was a take over by a people who practiced different customs, culture and religion. The English are leaving the EU because they think its going to happen to them if they remain. One of the characteristics of Brexit is that that the English are leaving the EU because they feel the EU does not respect their history and culture, yet they expect the Irish to forget theirs in relation to Brexit.
'The referendum was a UK referendum...'
Given the backdrop of a diminishing British Demos, and the litany of democratic deficits in the United Kingdom it is quite clear your factually correction statement will carry with it constitutional consequences in the future. Imagine if the EU behaved in such away towards the English?
'The border was drawn up quickly to prevent civil war - surely a laudable aim,...
'
The minority were the ones threatening war and were the ones who brought the gun into Irish politics in 1912. Had London called their bluff it is not certain there would have been a Civil War and it would have prevented the division of the island, preventing the extremes that evolved North and South consequently. The Ireland of today would have a different character.
'The line of the border was up for discussion in the 1930's, but the Irish Free State chose not to take that option but opted to have a portion of its share of the national debt cancelled ...'
Wrong. The Border Commission was established in 1920 with partition and lasted until 1925. Its terms were ambiguous and misleading. Ireland engaged in an Economic War with the UK in the 1930s over the payment of Land Annuities. This was settled in 1938 with Anglo-Irish Agreement which saw Ireland make one final payment to the UK and the transfer of the Royal Navy bases at Lough Swilly, Berehaven and Cobh to Irish control.
'An offer of unification was made in WW2 if the South would allow the Royal Navy to use bases in the south which it had only vacated in spring 1939 (all as per the Anglo-Irish Treaty)..." '
Wrong. Churchill sent a telegram to de Valera while drunk, having discussed nothing with Stormont. When the Unionists became aware of the offer they were apoplectic. De Valera never took the offer seriously.
''...very odd as the Republic itself already seems to do highly effective checks away from the border by chasing down those from the South who have bought vehicles in the North...'
This is your most stupid comment. Customs and Excise check cars bought by residents of the Republic for importation dues. This is not the same as placing border checks on Northern Ireland residents and business people on the importation or transit of goods through the republic - which would become the norm once the UK moves away from EU regulations. This would be an intolerable imposition on the people living along both sides of border, often just going about their day-to-day lives.
'Phuk the threats from the men of violence - do not give in to terrorists - '
But you are okay with partition because of the treat of violence by the UVF in 1920. You do not want to give into the threat of violence today, but in 1920 it was right for the UK government to give into the threats of a minority. This is an interesting exercise in Doublethink.
'...it is the EU which will have to implement border checks to protect its blessed single market...'
Not so. Ireland will do it.
'- the UK has said it will not do checks at the border - so what is going to happen - terrorists are going to start killing Protestants again cos the EU stops trucks at the border..?'
Republican dissidents will kill anyone who implements a hard border in Ireland, its just a matter of time.
'The volume of cross border traffic compared to the total volume of EU trade is pathetic - and yet they have made an issue out of it - some see it for what it is.'
Well, you are leaving the EU so your trade to the bloc will drop like a stone next month. Under Brexiter aspirations, it will be fine for NI hauliers to pay a tariff at the border when transiting to the Port of Dublin for ports in the UK or the EU.
'Hope this helps.'
You are no help at all.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Well Clarissa, you are not remainer. Your condescending post-imperial resentment betrays your Brexiter credentials.
Ireland has made a success of its EU membership, it has modernised its economy, expanded its export markets, developed its infrastructure - thanks to the EU. It has also become a more liberal country, more secure in its national identity and culture - in large part due to EU membership.
The UK, according to the Brexiters, has not made a success of membership, has developed a very narrow version of identity and is less secure about itself. After two world wars and one world cup, it is jealous of German hegemony.
Ireland produces 8 times more food than it needs, and exports much of the surplus to the UK which for all its genius cannot feed itself. Its corporation tax is the envy of many, including the UK which is lowering its own to compete with Ireland. No country 'survives' on corruption and I can't think of any foreign billionaires running it.
Irish people never dug potatoes with their bare hands - you'd use a spade or pitch fork. After a great deal of hard work, Ireland became successful in attracting foreign direct investment from the US and is now the EU HQ for Intel, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo etc. However, it did not happen overnight as you suggest. It has the largest budget airline in the Europe and is a world leader in aircraft leasing and several multi-national agri-food companies that employ 100,000 people around the world.
Today Ireland has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, and, even after the banking debt, a lower debt to GDP ratio than the UK. You won't know this because when you think of Ireland you think 'potatoes'.
Unlike the UK, Ireland knows it is on a shaky nail, exposed as it is to the collateral damage of a distinctly incoherent English nationalist brainfart.
Only people like you can explain why it is expected that Ireland should not defend its interests in such circumstances. When Ireland spoke of its concerns nobody in the UK listened because it was just Ireland - but the EU is listening.. Ireland has been firm in relation to its interests, with the UK in the unusual position of being weaker than Ireland. This must be a complete head wrecker for the British, and given the circus in the UK, it may appear smug. Its just a reality of Brexit.
Brexit is your fault. It is British policy. It is British folly. Not only is this going to damage your economy and standard of living, it will undermine the whole UK. We want to limit the enormous damage it does to us, don't blame the Irish for that. That's our responsibility to ourselves. We didn't ask for Brexit.
The UK is making a pigs ear of Brexit and you know it. The UK is a laughing stock and we Irish are actually embarrassed on your behalf. And we're all fucked. Together. For Ireland its like being tied to a drowning man who likes to remind us that we're going to drown with him.
Finally Clarissa, don't ever enter a quiz with Ireland as your specialist subject, you will only make an eejit of yourself.
Enjoy Brexit.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
'His fealty is to the EU no matter the cost, if that's what you mean.'
Nope, its not. How you could conclude otherwise is a mystery. Brexit is British policy, its not an Irish one.
'I don't think he cares about Ireland or the UK, but he'll do anything for the Empire to ensure his seat somewhere near the top table.'
Well, he certainly doesn't get paid to care about the UK, that's for sure, but remarkably many Brits think he does.
To suggest that he does not care for Ireland further suggests that he does not represent the people of Ireland, their views and their interests. There is precisely zero evidence of that in a country where 92% support EU membership.
As an Irishman I can understand the issue about the border, its emotional impact as a scar across the country, its impact on daily life for those who live along it, the benefits of maintaining the status quo.
I also understand the signal it will send to Northern nationalists when a hard border goes up because of a brexit nobody in Ireland except the DUP wants. It will be viewed as an imposition from people on the other island who have shown that they expect Ireland to be collateral damage for their fantasies.
You can't see any of this of course, because to do so is an admission of error.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@markc6714 Thanks for the opportunity.
'The 14th Waffen SS Division and their families was transferred to the UK - war criminals included. The Foreign Office was "...not holding membership of the Waffen SS as a crime..." and despite warnings that the screening process was hopelessly inadequate the FO was still claimed: "...there is little, if any, possibility of any person with an undesirable wartime record being brought to this country". Strangely, it was thought best to keep the whole issue quiet as the British public might not understand the policy. There is no doubt that there were war criminals among the 14th Waffen SS, but the UK chose to look the other way. Many of these soldiers made their way to the United States or Canada in due course.
'Antanas Gecas was a Lithuanian Nazi who lived in Edinburgh. Under his original name of Gecevicius, he was named in a list of war criminals living in the UK compiled by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in 1986. British intelligence even employed him after the war. He was never indicted for war crimes, despite a multitude of evidence testifying to his participation in a number of heinous activities. He died peacefully, unlike men, women and children he hanged in Minsk, in 2001.'
'Andrei Sawoniuk is the only Nazi war Criminal to have been convicted under the War Crimes Act 1991 in the UK. He had lived and worked in the UK since 1946. He was found guilty of forcing two men and a woman to strip, shooting them in the back of the head before an open grave. He was submachine gunned 15 people as they stood naked by a pit Domacheo, Belarus. He spent his life working for British Rail.
Syzmon Serafinowicz who also came to the UK after the war was also prosecuted for crimes committed in Belarus, though the trial collapsed as he was deemed unfit to stand trial because of his age. 'Even if an aging Nazi... was discovered today living in Britain, that person would be 85 or older. Unlike Germany – which is still willing to prosecute such Nazis – or the US – which is willing to denaturalize and deport them – the British appear uninterested in taking either course of action. The usual reason given is that these individuals are too feeble to assist in their defence...It is an especially strange answer coming from Britain, where, as of 2010, 51 peers over 85 years old serve on the House of Lords.
In order to inform yourself of the history of your country your media and education overlook, see:
Cesarani, David, (2001) 'Justice Delayed: How Britain Became a Refuge for Nazi War Criminals' (Phoenix Press)
Cheers.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@GromDarkwater Ireland did indeed exist, the fact that you don't know this is no surprise at all - ignorance of Ireland is rife in Blighty. You don't understand the difference between a Nation of People and a Nation State either.
In the 8th and 9th centuries, when Viking raids were common in Ireland, Irish scribes made a distinction between the raiding 'Dubh Gall' ('Dark Foreigners', dark referring to their paganism) and the Gaels; even before that, the when referring to the Irish tribe that extended into Scotland, these Gaels were referred to as 'the Irish in exile', indicating a concept of the island of Ireland as the homeland of the Irish. It was understood that the Irish shared a common language, culture, customs and a homeland - Ireland..
Not only that, during the Dark Ages, Irish monks found patronage in the Kingdom of the Franks and were engaged in bringing Classical learning back to Europe. Several of these monks were referred to as Scotti, or Scottus. A medieval Irish philosopher was given the name John Eriugena Scottus, which literally meant John the Irish Irishman by the Franks. The reason Scotland carries that name 'Scotland' today is because of the Gaelic influence of the Dál Riada tribe which moved into Argyll from their Antrim base in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Before that again, the Romans gave Ireland the name Hibernia and called the inhabitants 'Scotti', indicating a common nation of people. They hardly gave a name to place that did not exist. St Patrick - a Romano-Briton - referred to the natives of Ireland as 'The Irish' in his Letter to Coroticus. He certainly viewed the Irish a nation of people.
In the 12th century on the eve of the arrival of the Anglo-Normans, the Irish compiled the Book of Invasions - a mythical explanation for the origin of the Irish people. No document can better prove the idea that the Irish saw themselves as a nation of people better than a document seeking to explain where the Irish came from, written by Irishmen. The book we have today dates to the 12th century, but it is not an original. It is a copy of older versions that are now lost.
So, there was an Irish nation long before the Angles and Saxons left the European continent for southern Britain; there was no Irish nation state until the 20th century because of English interference in Irish medieval politics.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@themaskedman221 'Yeah, except Ireland is not a "postcolonial nation" and you guys need to stop parroting this nonsense.'
Ireland was England's first colony, attempts to colonise Ireland waxed and waned long before 1801. During that time the Pale was the centre of English power in Ireland. Various plantations (colonies) were attempted during that period pre 1801, beginning with the Tudors: Laois-Offaly, Munster, East Ulster, North Wexford. Most failed.
'It was an equal member of the UK from 1801 -1922, a status that parallels no other British colony anywhere in the world at any point in history.;
Ireland was not an equal member of the UK from 1801 to 1922,. It was the only country in Europe to be ruled by a minority class who practiced a different religion, different customs and culture, spoke a different language, and had sole access to the law and the administration of punishment. Indeed, the law was administered in a language the majority did not understand. GB did not have an armed paramilitary style police force like Ireland did; indeed practitioners of the majority religion could not vote, own a horse worth more than 5 pounds, hold public office or own land.
Irish Catholics were enthusiastic about the Act of Union because they were promised Emancipation, but they had to wait nearly 3 decades to get it as the King reneged on his promise. This changed attitudes by the Daniel O'Connell's time.
While it is true that Ireland had seats in Westminster, it is also the case that the Irish experience of British rule was typical of a colonised society.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@johnkelly1787 'I find it hard to Believe an Irish man volunteered to serve in The British military, most served because they were conscripted...'
Conscription was brought into England, Wales and Scotland in 1916 and it was extended to Ireland in the Spring of 1918. There was almost a second rising in Ireland, such was the opposition to it, and it was dropped.
Nonetheless, about 350,000 Irish VOLUNTEERED to join the British Army in the First World War, with most them joining up before 1916, though there was a surge of new Irish volunteers in the summer of 1918. Some of the early volunteers did it to get Home Rule for Ireland, others did it prevent Home Rule, many of course joined up for economic reasons because their wives would get separation money, not expecting the war to last very long. About 35,000 Irishmen were killed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ Hercule Holmes
You did not give up your empire voluntarily, as you claim. The Atlantic Charter, dictated by the Americans and signed by Churchill gave the commitment allowing self-determination for all peoples.
This is an American value, not a British one.
The English are fine with the subjugation of others as part of the Empire - apparently it was the nicest empire in human history - they only claim to value democracy and freedom when they imagine they are being oppressed themselves.
Incoherent buffonery.
You better get used to the idea of the UK going bankrupt: post Brexit, the UK will have higher inflation, less purchasing power, a weaker pound. The UK has a huge set of imbalances, huge trade deficits, huge budget deficits, people are living way above their savings and they have to pay it back too much consumer borrowing – the household budget is getting worse, the trade deficit is getting worse, their borrowing is getting worse, at a time when they are leaving their biggest market with its economies of scale; inflation will mean it will be harder to pay it back.
Project fear? Project reality that is pending...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brendansherlock6442 Rubbish. There has never been more access to Irish culture and heritage, and it has never had a higher profile. We have never had so many top class museums, galleries or libraries. We have perhaps had more theatres in the past, but the ones we have today are top class too.
Irish music, dance and literature is recognised across the world and is a major source of soft power for this country. They are also an important expression of Irish identity, which is strong and confident. It is a living, vibrant culture that is inclusive and its inclusivity makes it popular and accessible.
Go into any bookshop, certainly outside Dublin, and buy some the raft of local history publications that local historical societies and community groups publish each year. Such publication levels were unachievable thirty years ago - there was no funding for it. People are proud of their place, proud of their culture and proud of their heritage and they want to share it with others.
Irish culture and he heritage is in rude good health, you just need to get out more and experience it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is national exceptionalism, a kind of primitive form of nationalism.
Nobody re-writes history - history is all about perspectives.
I'm Irish. For the Irish, the experience of British rule was largely a negative one, same for the Indians. For the British, their empire was a great thing, nicer than other empires, and the world was a better place when the English were telling everybody else what to do.
Different perspectives.
Nationalism is normal, and moderate nationalism is a good thing. It becomes problematic when you start to see your nation in exceptional terms. This exceptionalism, fueled in part by a failure to come to terms with the complexities of an imperial past, has contributed to the hubris behind Brexit.
In short, Brexit is an example of a people (the English) experiencing an national identity crisis, with its own logic and politics of self-pity and oppression.
In this case, the oppression is imagined.
That seems to be how others see it.
4
-
'I have no idea whether Ireland was overall better or worse under British rule - I wasn't there. You weren't either.'
Not a problem, I'm a historian and read widely. I take it you don't as you are not comfortable with it.
'Some people in Ireland supported independence, some didn't and so many views.'
In 1921 when Ireland became independent it was because most people supported the idea. How else could it have happened? In 7 years Ireland went from being a country that wanted devolution like you have in Holyrood today, to seeking full independence outside the Empire. People were fed up of a government in another country standing in the way of the democratic wishes of the majority in Ireland.
'I'm from scotland - low land scotland. We have a nationalist government. They want to make us believe that Gaelic was our national language.'
I was unaware of that development.
Perhaps an independent Scotland will have both as national languages, just like Ireland. I understand though that Lowland Scotland was anglicised early and quickly spoke Lallans, I think you call it. Forcing the language on people who don't want to speak it won't work.
In any case, nationalism is more than just language: it is about how a group of people view their place in the world, their values, their cultural expression and the symbols of identity that mark them out.
It can also be about being from a particular place - though Irish nationalism has evolved away from being about the national territory and more about the people. It is quite different from the nationalism that underpins Brexit in that respect.
In that context, I I have a question.
You are a Scot, but you are clearly not a Scottish nationalist.
What makes YOU Scottish? And why are you not a nationalist?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
'The Civil Services as stated as a fact they are fully prepared for the inevitable leaving under WTO terms.'
Yes, they will be prepared for food rationing ...sorry, the triaging of food etc...good.
'It's a fact that May's worst terms of leaving anything in recorded history will be rejected in parliament.'
It certainly looks like that.
'This does not exclude or even delay negotiations on a trade deal, because they do not begin until our membership has ended.'
The real fun only begins when you leave.
First, you will be leaving without any deal with enormous consequences for your country. You will be joining the following countries who trade under WTO and have no other trade deals: Holy See, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Palau, Timor-Leste, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and last but not least.....Western Sahara.
This is the complete list of the nations who trade only under WTO rules. Appropriate. A clear indication of BREXITEER's ambitions.
Your country will require a Trade Deal with the EU, which of course will require the payment of £39 Billion just to open discussions.
The humiliation begins for you all then.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1 chish
'As for NI joining Eire? It will never happen as the Irish can't afford the cost of the 6 counties (as represented by Barnett and its deficit) and they do not want their sectarian politics either.'
One of the issues about Brexit that the Irish and the EU understand but , remarkably, the English don't, is that Brexit raises the issue of Irish unity before true reconciliation has been achieved in NI.
With Irish nationalists about to become the majority in NI, many of them who were comfortable within the UK are now angry at the attitude of those on the other island towards them. Their rights as Irish citizens in NI are undermined by Brexit. They look to the Republic as an open minded, liberal democracy while the UK has become a introverted, ignorant and insular place. Its like the roles have been reversed.
In the event of a united Ireland, many of the costs of running the place will be removed. EU and Irish government support will be used to develop the NI economy and to get it up to speed with its more dynamic southern counterpart. If the UK was to wean NI off its bloc grant over a period of say 10 or 15 years, then unity is viable. Brexiters would love to be shot of the place, so who knows?
Of course sectarianism is a problem. But this is likely to diminish once the UK breaks up, in any case, and of course any future united Ireland must be agreed - the GFA guarantees that.
4
-
1chish
Oh yes, I am indeed on a parallel planet to you, absolutely, I agree. I'm on planet reality, and you are on planet delusion.
The government has no coherent policy on Brexit. The Tory Party, the Labour party are both divided, Brexit is not what the Scots voted for - the entire country is divided on Brexit. In NI, the DUP keep the Tories in power on a pro-Brexit agenda, even though NI voted to remain, with an even larger majority supporting the backstop.
There IS no policy, there WAS no plan - the Tories are making it up as they go along. Presently, the Tories are electing a new Prime Minister, choosing between a liar, a bluff and a cad or a dunce. The liar, bluffer and cad will win because his bluster is more like how English Tories see themselves.
Of course the Tory Party is represented in every region of the UK, but its membership is concentrated in certain regions and come from a particular demographic and economic background. Do you feel that is representative? Probably, because of course Brexiters have no problem with elites as long as they are not European. Nice try, but your point is obfuscation and does not address the electorate within the Tory Party.
There was NOTHING subtle about my changing the word support to charity - it was DELIBERATE. English Tories who are prepared to throw the UK under a bus to get the holy grail of Brexit will of course view any 'support' as 'charity'...with those receiving it not 'appreciating' the English and all they do for them.
I would advise you to steer clear of my deprivation comment also, as every economist and business leader worth his or her salt is predicting economic decline for the UK post Brexit. Of course, the poorest will suffer most...
Such is Brexit.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ Abominable Snowman: Brexit is a game changer. The UK is a odd political entity, but there has been no demos there in recent years - devolution has shown us the way the wind is blowing.
The Scots have a well formed sense of national identity and have none of the issues the English have with the EU. The final deal with the EU will set the tone of the Scottish response. It seems to me that when the time is right the Scots will leave the UK and join the EU, as the idea that the Scots cannot have what they want because there are more English voters will prove to be untenable in the long term. Scotland is a nation.
Northern Ireland is unlike the rest of the UK and its nationalist population is now close to be being a majority. 56% of people in NI voted to remain because they understand the social, economic and political consequences on the island of Ireland as a whole - not because they want a united Ireland. While Brexit is incredibly divisive in NI, once the subsidies stop rolling in and the full economic impact becomes obvious it is likely that unity will become attractive.
Wales should be naturally pro-EU, but its sense of nationalism is less developed that in Scotland. With a large number of English retirees living in Wales, one has to wonder how solid the Welsh vote to leave is. Interestingly, the Welsh speakers tended to vote to remain - they seem to feel their culture is secure in the EU. Again, once the subsidies to the Hill farmers, and the passing trade of Irish trucks cease, we will see how much commitment there is to following the English in the long term.
And who is to say the English will not be the first to seek independence from the UK?
The break up of the UK is inevitable, its just a matter of time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Europe has had nothing but one war after another for centuries. The EU is based on the premise that if all countries in Europe are interdependent on one another economically, war between these states (particularly France and Germany) would never happen again. It initially started at the European Economic Community and gradually evolved over time as it expanded from 6 founding states to 27 today. During that time through various treaties, the countries have become more integrated. So barriers to trade and movement of people have been removed, and you can move freely to work, study and live in any other member state. Most states have adopted a common currency called the Euro. Poorer member states received transfers of money from the richer states to help develop their economies and to increase prosperity, so that they could afford to buy more goods from the richer countries. By all member states sharing sovereignty as a bloc in the EU, the EU is able to negotiate trade deals with countries that are much larger than most of the member states, to get better trade deals.
The British left because they are country dominated by the English, and the English are in the midst of an identity crisis. They lost their empire and they can't find a role for themselves in the world. Many English people would be much happier if Britain was in charge of the EU, but that is not possible. So they invested a narrative where they believed they were oppressed by the EU and they wanted their sovereignty back. They believed that they were so important to the EU that Britain would get a deal that gave them the benefits of membership without the responsibilities. That turned out not to be the case. Having escaped an imaginary oppression they are now disappointed with their freedom, because it is also imaginary. They're just worse off.
I come from Ireland. EU membership has transformed my country's economy and amplified our sovereignty. The EU is far from perfect, but it is a force for good as the people of Europe now work together instead of being in conflict.
It is worth remembering that the British fought all their wars against either the Spanish, French, Germans, Dutch, Italians and so on, and never felt comfortable in working with them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GromDarkwater Oh I know he was stating historical fact! He's sounds like he misses 'owning Ireland'. The man is in unreconstructed imperialist, bleating on about 'our history' as if it carries with special entitlements today. Ireland was never an equal part of the United Kingdom, it was a possession, a colony.
I don't care what England splits into, that is a matter for the English people. The trouble with you though is that you confuse 'A Nation' with a 'Nation State'. Long before there ever an England, the Irish possessed a concept of Ireland as the homeland of the Gaels and we know that from the literature left behind by early medieval Irish writers.
'That was ours' indeed, Mr Habib,, It was yours only at the point of a sword, lance, bayonet and gun.
You would do well to remember that too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'Leo, trade talks with the 400m strong eu will be down the queue after talks with the biggest economies in the world and the 2000m strong commonwealth countries'
This is untrue for a number of reasons:
1) The Commonwealth made it clear to the UK in April 2018 that they are not interested in being the UKs Brexit crutch. It is not a trade organisation.
2) The UK is a high end producer. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are Pacific or Caribbean islands or are in Africa countries and are dirt poor. There's also a lot of black people in these countries that will be looking for visas, Brexit is all about racism. The Commonwealth is not answer to your problems.
3) India, Australia and New Zealand have both said that they are prioritising EU trade deals over deals with the UK - the UK is at the back of the queue. Two countries are already in the EU and are bound by EU law.
4) All of these countries are far away and in international trade distance applies - you trade more with those closer to you because its worth more to you. The value of the UK’s trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain, even though the total size of Ireland’s economy is much smaller than Italy’s or Spain’s. You're swapping a four course meal for a packet of crisps.
5) The US is not the answer either as any trade deal with the Americans will be for the benefit of the Americans, not the British. The Americans already pick your Ambassador to Washington and your foreign policy is dictated to a large extent by the US State Department. Your country is vulnerable. It is desperate for a trade deal with a United States ruled by President that wants to Make America Great Again. And you have no trade negotiators.
6) Meanwhile, the Single Market is augmented by preferential trade deals across the world, with countries such as Canada, Japan, MERCOSUR and anothers are pending. The UK has nothing but the safety net of the WTO.
7) The Single Market is worth more the EU than the UK. Failure to understand this has been the single biggest strategic error of Brexit.
Varadkar will be kicked out of office in the future because of his domestic policies and not because of Brexit. When he leaves he will be replaced, but the Ireland's Brexit policy will remain the same. There is consensus that Ireland must stand up for the Belfast Agreement and protect its sovereign national interest.
Enjoy your poverty, and remember you voted for it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bellascott6478 The animosity in your part of Ireland pre-dates the Troubles and is unique to this island. Many NI people who visit the republic at this time of year do get out because the feel uncomfortable, not because they necessarily want to - as you well know.
Its a shame that St Patrick's Day is not celebrated by unionists anymore, St Patrick was the patron of Armagh, the ecclesiastical capital of the island and is buried in Downpatrick. I don't know what St Patrick's Day is like in NI, but in the republic it is a secular event celebrated by everybody: Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews and immigrants. It is celebrated all over the world, even in countries with zero links to Ireland. The Irish Guards regiment, which is full of NI Protestants with some members from the republic also, celebrates it, so I don't see why Protestants in NI don't even hold their own parades to mark the day. It appears to me that Protestants don't like sharing the national saint with Catholics.
I'm not pretending for one minute that Catholics are entirely innocent. I'm well aware that NI can be antagonistic towards Protestants in Northern Ireland and I have no time for it, so no bubbles have been burst. I understand that rioting and general disorder is as much a source of fun for bored nationalists as they are for bored unionists on a long summer evening. Btw, what are the 'holy lands'? Is it a place or a slang word for something? Haven't heard that before.
I have a couple of questions for you:
1) what is unionist/loyalist culture to you, and is there a difference between the two?
2) what would you fear from a united Ireland if there was a majority for it in the future?
3
-
@bellascott6478 Thank you for your response, Bella.
So apart from the bands, and the parades, the Orange Order, loyalty to the queen what other things make up Protestant culture in NI? There is football and rugby, though Catholics play those also...what else do you do that is different? And in your opinion why do Ulster Unionists feel the need to be culturally, politically and socially separate from other Irish people even now? It pre-dates the troubles and even partition.
The Irish experience of British rule is quite different to the Unionist experience. Ireland was the only country in Europe where the majority were ruled by a minority who had a different language, customs, culture, from the majority.
Wishing for things to remain the same is perfectly legitimate, but why do you think you would have to give up your identity in a united Ireland? Any united Ireland will have to be negotiated and Polish, Brazilian and other cultures in Ireland don't have to give up their identity - so why would the Unionists? The notion of multi-layered identities is already a value upon which the Irish state is run now, and it is not Irish policy that unionists or Ulster-Scots do not have a right to be in Ireland. There is already an Ulster-Scots population in the Republic and one of them is a government minister.
We are about the same age, I suspect. During the Great War , one of my great grandfathers, a retired RIC man, served in a special constabulary established in Gretna where a huge munitions factory was built. He was Home Ruler, a follower of John Redmond - he was an Irish nationalist serving King and Country. His best friend, an RIC man, was killed by the IRA in an ambush on a train at Knocklong County Limerick in 1919. Another great Grandfather, a veteran of the Boer War, served at home training volunteers for the British Army during the Great War. He had a brother who was in the Royal Artillery in India when that war broke out and arrived in France in December 1914. I only found out that he was in Salonkia with the 10th Irish Division just last week. He survived and lived out his life in in Ireland, dying in 1973. He had another brother in the Royal Irish Regiment who survived the war, but was never right afterwards and he died in a mental home in 1980. He fought in one particular battle in 1915 and survived, but I discovered yet another relative from a different branch of the family was KIA in that same battle in the same Regiment, having only been at the front a few weeks. So we have something in common?
Up to 2016, I didn't see a united Ireland as being likely or necessary. But since Brexit it would seem that the ground is shifting, not so much because of what is happening on the island of Ireland, but because of what is happening on the other island over which none of us having any control. It seems to me that unity is an issue that will not be going away anyway soon, and my fear is that London will try to dump NI in the future even though the GFA prevents them from doing so. What are your thoughts on that possibility?
Don't be so defensive - I'm only trying to learn your point of view. Nobody is suggesting you should be ashamed of anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@markaxworthy2508 It is covered by the GFA, it is the whole point of one of the strands of the relationships outlined in it. One of the roles of Dublin is to use its position to represent the best interests of Irish nationalists with London. Unionists would not trust Dublin to represent their interests with London, and why would they? They view the Irish as the cause of all their problems through existing. See the strand that deals with Dublin -London relationships (east-west I think it is called in the agreement). I think it is strand 3.
It is difficult to see how how Dublin and Brussels could have saved the DUP from themselves when they explicitly sought the hardest of hard Brexits, a view that was not in keeping with the majority - NI voted to remain after all. Remember, the DUP did not support the backstop, which would have avoided all of this nonsense. They never supported the GFA either, but its the agreement that is saving them from being abandoned by London.
I guarantee you Dublin did not 'forget' the unionists. We watched them, awestruck, as they continued to dig a deeper hole for themselves and increased their hostility towards Dublin for having the cheek to defend the open border in Ireland. They provided confidence and supply to the May government and enjoyed their influence, thumbing their nose at civic nationalists. Their strategy was to get that border hardened at a time when nationalists were at the cusp of becoming a majority, it didn't cost them a thought. It was a major strategic error and now the DUP is on its last legs, by the look of it, because it all backfired when Boris lied to them.
There is nothing wrong with the Protocol in terms of the Act of Union, the British courts have told us that. The problem is Brexit and the decision to leave the Single Market and Customs Union. It means in NI there has to be a loser and that makes it incompatible the constructive ambiguity of the GFA. Tories are too thick to know about stuff like that, but the DUP knew. Some moderate unionist voted to remain because of it.
One of the characteristics of Brexit, or at least its supporters, is that the problems it throws up are always for somebody else to solve. The problem with it is that others who had nothing to do with it are required to sacrifice their best interests in order for it to work smoothly. Either the EU sacrifices its Single Market or Ireland leaves it. Nobody in Ireland or the EU voted for that. It won't happen.
'The newly introduced fly in the ointment was the EU's requirement to protect its internal market, which required border checks regardless of the Agreement.'
You cannot have access to the Single Market and have regulatory divergence at the same time. World trade is more about aligning regulations than removing tariffs these days. On of the fundamentals of world trade is the requirement of checks with third countries. This was not 'newly' introduced, Brexiters in their pompous arrogance believed they could have their cake and eat it. They engage in whinging victimhood when they discover they can't have their cake and eat it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KR-us9pj But you don't explain WHY you wanted those EU additions gone. Why feel resentful of it? One of the characteristics of Brexit was that in 2016 the British people were told that they could have all of the benefits of EU membership without being bound by any of the rules. So, there must have been something about being in the EU that Brexiters liked.
I also see the EU and Europe as very different things: the EU is a group of countries that work together and share the benefits of that membership, and Europe is the EU and countries not in the EU that want to join it. My identity is Irish and European; I am a citizen of Ireland and the European Union. That shared EU identity is something I am conscious that I share with 450 million others and it does not dilute my Irishness in any way.
The UK plays on 81 teams and the Irish play on 67. The idea that Ireland will not be a member of more teams in the future though, is speculation as the trend is the other way. It is interesting that you chose G7, G20 and NATO as examples: these make English people feel important, exclusive - being part of an exclusive team or a team where militarism is at the forefront. I think it is this exclusivity and the promise of special treatment that made Brexit attractive to voters in areas such as yours. The English are exceptionalist and don't see themselves as equal to their neighbours. The thing is, thanks in part to Brexit, you won't be in the G7 for much longer.
The UKs support for Ukriane is an opportunity for the British arms industry and a way of looking good in front of the cameras while dragging your heels providing refuge for Ukrainian civilians. It was important also to try and get one up on the EU. Even outside the bloc, the Brexiters are still obsessed with the bloc.
It took you a while to bring up WW2. i'm always curious about its effect on the English mindset, as the UK was never invaded and was on the winning side in WW2 and yet today it is the English people who seem to be most traumatised by the experience. Talk to an Englishman about the EU for long enough and eventually 'the war' gets mentioned. When will the English get over it?
What was 'shameful' about it Irish neutrality? You didn't say. The whole of Europe declared neutrality in 1939, and Irish did the same. Other neutrals such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and so on, had their neutrality violated by the Nazi's but Ireland didn't. Initially, the British supported Irish neutrality, but when it faced invasion in the summer of 1940 it resented it. In 1939 the war started out as a just another spat between the European super powers - Ireland had no place in it; by the end the war, or perhaps shortly after it, it had been recast as a simple war of good v evil and a great myth was born
Irish people chose to stay out of WW2 purely as an expression of sovereignty - sovereignty is part of the reason for Brexit. Ireland had a divided population: half of the population resented the British for the atrocities committed in Ireland during the 1920s, while the other half were more sympathetic to the British. All were agreed though - even Irish volunteers to the British armed forces - that neutrality was the best option for Ireland. It was a sovereign and democratic decision for an unarmed nation.
During WW2 the British and American democracies, in the 'war for democracy', did not respect Ireland's democratic decision to be neutral - even though Ireland was secretly co-operating with them. In 1945 in an attempt to humiliate Ireland, the allies demanded that Ireland hand over the German and Japanese Ambassadors and their documents - a breach of Irish neutrality. It was in that context that de Valera paid his condolences to the German Ambassador and offered him and his family asylum (he refused).
On the downside, the Irish obsession with sovereignty did nothing to develop the economy or make the lives of people better, so they left in their droves during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Sovereignty is great, but you can't eat a flag. The true value of sovereignty, you will learn, is how you use it to better the lives of your people. Hoarding it in an Ivory Tower as Brexiters have done will butter no parsnips in the long run and will ensure that the UK will return to the EU in due course. Is your life better now that you are out of the EU? Do you have a higher standard of living because of it? I already know the answer. The UK will be back in the EU in about 20 years time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@woofytwoshoes7711 I've spent time in the Bay Area, and my wife is from there. She lived in Burlingame and her parents in Pacifica.
You don't know about Ireland at all, which is why you are making the comparisons...including comparing San Diego and LA with Paris, Venice and Stockhom - Vancouver is the only city outside your country. Only you can explain why you are comparing California with Ireland on a video about European citizenships.
In any case, it is the opinion of most that Ireland is far more beautiful than California - especially Californians. While there are beautiful places in California, indeed in every country, you will not find such variation of beauty in such a small area in California as you will in Ireland. You will not have to drive such great distances to access it. That's just a fact. You never heard of the Burren, know nothing of the Wild Atlantic Way and oddly compare LA, which is in the same state, with European cities.
California is a fine place. If I was to move to the US, the Bay Area would be my choice. But comparing California to Ireland is a fools errand, it is hard to know why are you are doing it.
Cheers!
3
-
3
-
David, are you suggesting the UK gives a shit about Ireland?. We already know it doesn't.
The UK is not 'Ireland's biggest customer', the United States is; furthermore, Ireland's exports to the EU are three time larger than its exports to the UK. It is however, a vital market for the bulk of Irish agricultural produce.
You do know that the UK exports more to Ireland than vice versa? You do know that Ireland is worth more to the UK economy than all of the exports to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined, by a factor of two? AND its right on you doorstep, and as gravity applies in economics, its value is worth more to the UK than the same exports going to another continent. By leaving the Single Market, and Customs Union, you will be putting a barrier to your exports to Ireland.
Ireland wishes to remain in the EU - in fact, support for EU membership now stands and 92%, UP 4% since last year. Brexit is making Irish membership of the EU more popular!
Best of luck!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@eddiel7635 How would Ireland be economically ruined? It will still be in the EU. Certain sectors in Ireland would certainly be damaged, but there is no indication that it would be ruined when it has unfettered access to the SM. Any damage Ireland experiences because of Brexit will be the UKs fault, not the EUs - the UK is the one changing the status quo.
The entire UK economy will not collapse, its internal market is strong and will continue. The overall economy will not function properly though, there will be a flight of capital out of the country, there will be unemployment at a time when personal debt is at its highest in years, increased unemployment, negative price shocks, and political and social unrest. There is zero panic in London because everybody knows that the UK is cannot go for No Deal with the EU because Biden has closed the door on a US-UK trade deal under those circumstances. 46% of your exports are to the EU. There will be a deal, sooner or later. Everybody knows this.
Ever since 2016, Brexiters have been making it up as the go along, pretending they never wanted a deal when in fact they were led to believe they could have any deal they liked because they were so important. When it became apparent that this was not the case, in order to avert humiliation they simply changed the narrative.
Peter Lilly described no deal as 'madness'; Farage said he fancied a Norway-style deal (don't remind him of that now).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ireland was colonized by the English and the Scottish, thicko. Indeed, the Elizabethans debated whether the Irish qualified as white or not, thicko.
The Irish were the only people Europe to be colonized by a people who were a minority that spoke a different language, practiced different culture, different customs and a different religion, thicko.
The English colonies in Ireland were known as 'Plantations', thicko, where English protestants were 'planted' on Irish soil, and the Irish people were kicked out. Most of those plantations failed, and the English colonizers were eventually absorbed into the Irish population. This did not happen following the Plantation of Ulster and this resulted in partition in 1921.
It was in Ireland that the English perfected their colonisation process which they put to good use in New England in the 1600, thicko.
The full name of Rhode Island, for example, is Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, harking back to that old word - Plantation - used in the colonization of Ireland, thicko.
And Europeans are not an 'ethnicity'. Europe comprises a large number of ethnic groups, groups who share a language, ancestry, history, customs and religion - and are usually identified as a nation of people.
Thicko.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@quiteamazingtoo The British government refused to stop exports of food leaving Ireland, as it was wedded to the Laissez Faire economic system. In the summer of 1846 the UK government successfully fed 3 million people in the west of Ireland, cheaply and efficiently. At the first sight of a new potato crop, they declared the famine over and withdrew the aid. When that crop failed, the refused provide further assistance, and instructed the Irish poor law system to deal with the problem. The Irish Poor law system was simply unable to cope. The British knew this because of a report from 1838 which stated that any large scale distress in Ireland would leave the Poor Law system overwhelmed.
As for the common heritage, those who were died in the famine or had to emigrate because of it were Irish speaking, with a different culture, customs and to those who ruled them. They did not speak English. Any common heritage exists because the Irish gave up theirs.
If you want to understand Ireland, even modern Ireland, you need to understand the famine. Sadly, it is not taught in British schools.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ A Westenholz
No, Brexit is not like that all
If you go out for a pack of cigarettes you know where you are going, how long it will take and when you will be back. Coming back is an intention. You will know how much the cigarettes cost and how you will get there. You have, in fact, a rudimentary plan.
Brexit characterized by the complete absence of a plan.
Instead you have an inarticulate England nationalism, taking the whole of the UK off on a mystery tour to an imagined pleasant land called Brexit, without a map, food, agreed means of transport or money. Instead it is simply equipped with the faith that it will all be alright and you will get there - if everyone just believes hard enough.
In the end UK just finds itself lost and simply has to come home, the way you came - and they will find the door open at the EU, once they realise their limitations and stop acting up.
That's Brexit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sounds like a English person 'Britsplaining' Ireland to the Irish.
'Anyone who thinks that Ireland is thriving probably doesn't come from Ireland.'
I'm Irish.
Ireland is no Utopia, that is for sure, but by any social index that you care to look at, Ireland is doing better than it ever did and and is ahead of the many other countries in almost all of them. It used to be nowhere to be seen.
Ireland is not Utopia, but Ireland has full employment, Irish people are live longer, are better educated than ever before. Modified domestic demand is expected to increase by 3% this year, employment by 2.2%. Ireland is indeed thriving.
'Consequently, emigration from Ireland has tripled - although the emigrants are more than being replaced by immigration from poorer countries.'
Emigration from Ireland has always been there, even during the Celtic Tiger period, it is part of our culture. While many will leave because they can't get a start in Ireland, these days though, most are migrants, not emigrants, and eventually return to settle in Ireland with new experience and money.
It is true that Ireland is taking in immigrants to work in parts of the Irish economy that Irish people will not work in anymore. They tend to come from poorer countries. Rich people don't usually emigrate for economic reasons. They usually move to tax havens.
'On the contrary, the range of social and economic issues that being a tax haven economy creates has caused deep discontent in the country leading to increasing political fragmentation and extremism.'
What is your agenda? Political fragmentation in Ireland began some 40 years ago and reflects a slow reorientation of the Irish political landscape along the normal left/right spectrum found in every other country. The results of the Irish general election in November indicates no rise of extremism.
Ireland is much more than a tax haven economy. It is an open, flexible economy with a highly educated workforce.
The UK is in decline, and talking down Ireland may make you feel better, but both our countries are on differing trajectories even though both have their problems.
You're not a British person? You sure do brilliant imitation of one.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1chish
'Now this may come as a bit of a surprise Soft Lad but the 160,000 Tory members are not the UK population and they are not the Government or Opposition that define UK policy.'
They shouldn't be, but they are at the moment. It is they who will decide on which Brexiter gets to rule the UK with out a popular vote: 0.34% of the UK’s population will get to decide who is the country’s next prime minister.
Recent research at Queen Mary University of London shows the Tory membership lives predominantly in the south-west, south-east and east of England. It is also overwhelmingly white (99%), male (70%), with 86% categorised as ABC1s with more education and better-paid jobs, and 72% aged over 45.
The UKs future is in the hands of gerontocracy that is barely represented in the north of England or Wales, has a minimal presence in Scotland, has almost no working-class base and is insulated from the deprivation that will follow Brexit.
These are the people who are prepared to destroy the UK to get the Holy Grail of Brexit. It matters not, what you think or feel.
'Interesting you don't argue with the huge extra support 'England' gives to 'Scotland', 'Wales' and 'NI'.'
I have no interest in what Brexiters consider charity to another part of the UK. The next stage in English nationalism will be to withold this money also, and perhaps it will be the English who will finally dissolve the union, grow a pair and finally become a nation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'DeValera was a dictator.'
He was not. He won more elections than any other Irish political leaders. Ireland is the only country to have gained its independence between the World Wars that maintained its democracy unbroken until today.
'He was arrogant, a racist and pro Nazi. He even paid homage and offered his condolences to the Nazi's on Hitler's death. His blind hatred of all things British blinded his judgement.
'
I don't think he was arrogant, but he was certainly single-minded. He was not a racist. Ireland was the only country in the world to put protections for it Jewish population in the Irish Constitution in 1937. The Irish-Jewish population never forgot that and named a forest in his honor in Israel in 1966 - some racist, eh?. He was also NOT pro-Nazi. He refused to send an Irish team to 1936 Olympics because he did not wish to participate in Hitlers pantomime. He offered condolences on the Hitlers death - a mistake - but this was at a time when Churchill was pressurizing the Irish to hand over Axis diplomats to them, in breach of Irish neutrality. He also sent condolences upon the death of Churchill - does this mean he was pro-Imperialist too?
'It would've been far better for Ireland and everyone else if Michael Collins had survived and been our leader. '
Possibly, be we don't know that for sure. Collins had plans to run a terror war in Northern Ireland, and who knows where that would have led. Fine Gael, populated by his supporters, also supported neutrality in WW2.
'When DeValera was asked if Ireland would give refuge to small Jewish children and babies to escape the Holocaust his answer was " No - We do not want to be contaminated by these people." - This in our name and to our Shame.
'
He never said those words, you ignorant prick. Any efforts the de Valera made to help the jews were blocked by the Department of Justice. This is a matter of record, if you ever cared to read a fucking history book.
'Yes - We were neutral - To our Total and Utter Everlasting Shame. It's only because of the tens of thousands of decent Irishmen and women who volunteered to fight the Nazi's in both the American, British and Coomonwealth armies that in a small way saved our honour.'
Speak for yourself. I suspect your shame and self-loathing could alleviated if you actually researched the facts, but I think you like it too much. And I say that having had great uncles in both Bomber Command and the 8th Army.
3
-
3
-
Where to start....
The EU will always stand by its members against outsiders, which is what the UK is now, even though it is still a full member of the EU. It is not Ireland's problem that the UK thought that it was so exceptional that all it had to do was strike a deal with Germany to hold the EU over a barrel.
What a clusterf*ck that turned out to be.
Once the UK (finally) leaves, Brexit will not be over and the EU will continue to have Ireland's back. This is because it is what the small nations of Europe (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Slovenia, Luxembourg) expect from the bloc - that the EU should stand up to threats to the interests of smaller members by the British, the Russians or the United States. The EU is very good at it. That's one of the reasons for the existence of the bloc, not that a Brexiter would understand that.
They will be behind Ireland when the UK returns to seek a deal with the EU in the future. And you will.
The tax issue is another area I am better informed in than you. Taxation is a matter for individual states, and Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden are in alliance against the EUs proposals. In the end there will be a compromise, as there always is in the EU, something the British seem to hate.
Certainly, there has been no drop off in FDI into Ireland since the tax issue emerged, unless you are claiming to know more about the intentions of Intel, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, Google and all the rest. As a Brexiter, you probably do make this claim.
Post-Brexit, Ireland remains ideally placed to eat the UKs lunch as the only English speaking member of the EU, providing a gateway into the European Union for American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand FDI. Ireland has considerable soft power in the United States, being the closest friend of the White House within the EU and having a considerable Irish-American diaspora whose ancestors escaped famine with a bitterness for the British. It is also the sixth biggest investor into the United States, which impresses the moron in the White House.
Brexiters are bitter little toe-rags, as you demonstrate. You may have no consideration for Ireland, but we will continue to defend our sovereign national interest regarding Brexit. The UK has overplayed its hand, failed to understand how the EU operates and is led by donkeys.
Ireland is a confident country and benefits from consensus about Brexit - something the UK can only dream about - and it knows how to use its sovereignty effectively. Ireland also has the weight and power of 26 other nations behind it.
Enjoy your deal-free Brexit and all that WTO it brings to you. Your trade deal with the US will be blocked by Congress if there is a hard border in Ireland.
Its your remainers I feel sorry for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ Kojii Naz
I am a historian by profession and have an understanding as to the current thinking in relation to Historiography. I have a number of points for you to consider, some of which may be difficult.
First of all Brexit has highlighted the widespread ignorance of Ireland in the UK. This has come as a great shock as, while Irish nationalism has evolved and matured, no national self-examination has ever taken place in the UK - specifically among the English. In Ireland we somehow assumed that there was a genuine shift in attitudes as Ireland, Irish culture and Irish people were increasingly portrayed in positive terms. It appears this was just a veneer.
Secondly, Brexit has also exposed the extent to which there is a crisis of identity in the UK, or should I say, among the English. The English have never come to terms with their place in the world post-empire, have never come to terms with the legacy of their empire in any truly balanced way.
Thirdly, the way history is studied has changed. In the past, history was written by the winner from their own point of view. Ulster Unionists, for example believe that there was nothing in Ulster until their colony was established and they brought modernity to the place; these days it is understood that there is another perspective, that of the person who experienced the colonisation and those of a native Irish identity would be aware of a different experience of the same events. Many English people, are unprepared and too insecure in their 'national skin' to come face to face with an alternative perspective.
Such attitudes reveal a lack of understanding of the nature and effects of colonial conquest and rule. There is insufficient education,about the realities of empire. Historical analysis of empire has also tended to evaluate the British empire either “neutrally”, or offer a triumphalist narrative that pointing out the benefits of empire for the British while ignoring its devastating impact on the peoples whose lands were taken, cultures transformed, and economic well-being was decimated.
Does this narrative sound familiar?: while the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgians and Germans exploited and abused, the British empire brought ideas of protection for lesser races and fostered their incremental development. With British tutelage colonised peoples could become, eventually, as competent, as knowledgeable, as “civilised” as Britain itself. These platitudes have been repeated time and again – they are still at the heart of most popular representations of the British Empire in my experience.
And don't get me started on romanticism around the Second World War!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'you have to understand most nationalist dont want to be part of a banana republic like the irish republic :)'
I don't agree that Ireland is a banana republic, but I was assuming that was a given that any United Ireland would be a new, agreed one: new flag, anthem, perhaps new institutions, new constitutional arrangements and a new way of doing things. Equally, people in NI would have to learn to work increasingly in the private sector - especially as Brexit England will in all likelihood seek ways of reducing its taxpayers money going to the periphery of the UK. They will have to learn the practice of 'normal politics' which exists in the Republic, with none of the sectarian bullshit. Southerners would have to get used to the possibility of Unionists frequently holding the balance of power. Who knows...
However, your argument is based on the premise that there are not external factors that will change things - in other words, everything will stay the same. I contend that there are external factors which will begin to become apparent only after Brexit that will sooner or later result in a United Ireland: I suspect these changes will be economic, political and/or constitutional.
We'll see, I suppose.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
All countries in the EU have had economic difficulties since joining, but all countries have a higher standard of living today than they had before EU membership.
The Greeks lied about everything and should never have been admitted to the EU never mind the Euro, the Italians have been nursing a huge national debt since before they joined the Euro, and Cyprus was exposed to the Greek collapse and eurozone crisis
Spain, Italy and Cyprus all had growth rates higher than that of the UK in 2017. France has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, while the Italians are just behind the UK. Why do these countries not want to leave? Why do the Greeks not want to leave - they almost begged not to be thrown out of the Eurozone.
Unlike the UK, none of these countries are planning to leave the EU.
One wonders what you point is...
'Did you watch the World Cup and see all those people cheering on their country's teams? That's the "nationalism" you seem to despise, and no amount of self-serving EU political dogma will change it.'
I seem to despise, it do I?
I love it. I love people celebrating their national identity in peace and friendship. The EU does much to foster the notion of maintaining national identity in this manner asking only that members citizens adopt a common EU identity alongside it. The English lack the confidence to entertain such a notion and have instead demonised the entity in order to distract from decades of bad economic and social policies. The idea that the membership of the EU is a challenge to national identity is as ridiculous in the context of the UK where national identities survive despite also sharing British identity.
Poland and Hungary don't define the EU.
Every member of the EU has its beef with the bloc, but the UK is the only country planning - or not planning actually - to leave. Apparently, Brexit will be a disaster for the EU, while the UK will remain unscathed if everyone would only just believe in it enough.
Are you stocking food and medicine yet?
Brexit is stupid.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Watchman Of Manasseh The GFA means that there must be an internal border between the GB and NI...nothing more and nothing less. There is no majority for Brexit in Ireland, north or south, its an English crisis of identity that requires others to sacrifice themselves in order for it to fail correctly. No thanks. The English voter does not have an unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable control over the democratically elected government of Ireland.
The UK is based on the notion of one overarching British identity which cannot be defined. This shared British Demos is in sharp decline with rising English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh identities. The Constitutional arrangement has not had time to keep up with this change and so there is now a yawning democratic deficit: of the 17.4 million voters for Brexit, 15.1 million of them were English coming from areas of England that identified predominantly as English in the 2011 census.
Basically, the UK is based on everybody doing what the English want.
The problem that we have in Ireland is that the English voter just presumed that it can use power politics to push other countries around, like it used to be able to do. I presumes the Irish and the English are 'the same people' with a similar world view. This is not the case.
I don't wish for the UK to split, and it matters not what I think. The fact is, the split started with Devolution and is continuing through Brexit. In due course even the English will grow a pair, admit they are nation, stand on their own two feet and leave the right union.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@John Haynes
Of course I grasp that something significant has happened in the UK, why do you think it I don't?
This seismic result - an English Nationalist Mental Breakdown - does not over-ride an Irishman's right to defend his national interest which are threatened by it. Supporters of Brexit seem to think otherwise, for all their talk of sovereignty. In the words of a former Taoiseach of whom you will have never heard 'Brexit is a profoundly unfriendly act'. He's right.
The border will be closed because the UK is leaving the Customs Union and Single Market. It has nothing to do with the UK contribution. That's a British obsession.
Aside from failure of the current devolved government in Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement is working. The war is over. Unionists feel secure with the UK, and nationalists have access their cultural hinterland across the border. They have a tourist industry in NI now, and some semblance of economic development. Northern Irish people of all persuasions use Dublin port to trade with the EU, and Dublin Airport to connect with the world - a hard border will hinder that. No matter, you wouldn't understand and there is no indication that you care.
The reason for Brexit is obvious to all outside the Brexit bubble: it is the result of an English crisis of identity. The loss of empire, followed by the destruction of your industrial base (under Thatcher in particular) has left millions of predominately English people feeling disenchanted. The EU got the blame for what were essentially decades of domestic mismanagement, and of course your elites, always prepared to co-opt the working classes against the foreigner, groomed the population appropriately through the media.
It is no accident that the Scots voted to remain: they have a secure identity, they know who they are, have their own devolved government and have never relied on the UK identity or the empire to express their Scottishness.
The Northern Irish have multiple identities: under the GFA you can have an Irish, British or Irish and British identity - its ambiguous and fluid, and all are united by an EU identity.
The English have no Empire anymore, the United Kingdom, the original conduit of their nationalism, is slowly fragmenting and they have no parliament of their own (Why not?). The English are discontented and reacted in an incoherent way by blaming the EU: every nationalism needs an oppressor, so you invented one; every nationalism needs a 'them' and 'us'.
The upshot of all of this incoherence and confusion are the people in the Sunderland car factories who voted for Brexit even though their jobs depend on the exports to the EU; the people of Liverpool who voted for Brexit even though their area is a huge recipient of transfers from the EU; farmers who voted to leave even though they depend on the CAP; the pensioner in Liverpool who voted for Brexit because she heard that German pensioners get a better pension that British pensioners do 'its the EUs fault', and so on.
Sure, many voted for 'sovereignty' and wished to reject 'EU laws' but nobody can ever tell you which law they would change after Brexit. Absurdly, the vote was also carried by the will to 'take back control' of their borders, while simultaneously stating the wish to leave the only land border with the EU wide open.
So yes, its seismic, and we do respect the vote even if it was based on lies and misinformation and will hasten the disintegration of the United Kingdom in time - BUT it is also incoherent at present and Ireland has a right - and its politicians have a responsibility - to insulate itself from it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'Until occupied by the British, Northern Ireland, or the North of Ireland has never in been ruled by anyone other than the Northern Irish, they have always been independant throughout history.'
Rubbish. There was no such people as the Northern Irish until recently. Ulster was rule by Gaelic families, the O'Neill's being the dominant clan.
'Until Northern Ireland is left the way Britain found it when they invaded, independant, able to determine its own future without ouside interference.'
Northern Ireland did not exist. Ulster was Gaelic and resistant to English interference - it will never return to that. There is no evidence of that the people of Ulster did not see themselves as Irish. We know from the writings of Irish monks that Ireland was seen as one nation, and that those Irish living in Scotland and Wales etc were 'the Irish in exile'. Ireland was there homeland, and the province of Ulster was part of it, along with Leinster, Connacht, Munster and at on point, Meath.
'Both Dublin and London will continue to squabble over it as they have always done and assume responsibility for something that is none of their business. The Northern Irish will be ignored as usual.'
Rubbish. There can be no constitutional change without the consultation of the Northern Irish people. The Northern Irish could help themselves by reviving Stormont and acting like grown ups.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@timhull8664 'The Irish fought the British like mad for independence, but now let the EU jackboot stomp all over them.'
A false equivalence. There was no article 50 for Ireland to trigger to leave the UK and a long history of violent oppression towards Irish nationalism. In the EU, Ireland has had the opposite experience: an equal voice, respect for our culture and a strengthening of national identity and indeed Ireland is shaping the future of the EU, along with the other members. Irish people voted for membership of the EEC in September 1972, it was our free decision, and we voted for every treaty change thereafter. Brexiters thought nothing of stomping all over Ireland with their departure from the EU, and in fact it would appear seem to have expected Ireland to simply trot out of the bloc with them. Incredible.
Ireland sells less to the UK than it buys from it. Ireland sells more to the EU - four times more - than it sells to the UK. Why would Ireland leave the EU under those circumstances? Given the way English nationalist Tories behave towards the Scots and the Ulster Unionists, why would Ireland wish to be treated in that way? Sajid Javid referred to Ireland as 'the tail wagging the dog' while your gutter press referred to Ireland as a 'pipsqueak nation'. The other EU member states do not treat the Irish with such disrespect and utter contempt.
In the summer of 2016 Ireland went on the diplomatic offensive in the EU to get support from the member states to have the border issue placed front and centre of the negotiations between the Commission and the UK - that worked. In 2017, when the Irish government went to Washington for St Patrick's Day, they used the opportunity to get support from Irish-America in relation to dealing with the border issue - it worked. Ireland got one of its former heads of the Irish Central Bank into the most important position with the ECB, while Ireland beat the German nominee to the head of the EU Group of Eurozone finance ministers. Indeed, Ireland won a seat on the UN Security Council beating the Canada and Norway - strong competition - in the vote. Ireland won the case against the EU Commission in relation to Apple's tax affairs in Ireland.
Ireland is no pushover.
The only people 'dictating' to the Irish are Brexiters, who are unaware of their impotence. While Brexiters view Ireland as a backwater still dependent on UK, but one that does not 'know its place', we Irish have moved on and see our place in the world quite differently to how the English do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gordonmills7798 'You never cease to amaze me with your anti-English/Westminster rhetoric.'
I'm not anti-English, but I am against the form of English nationalism that led to Brexit. You don't find it in Scottish, Irish or Welsh nationalism, which is inclusive and civic, not binary and ethnic. As for Westminster, it is a joke.
'You really do believe you have all the answers wrapped up in your oracle of facts and assumptions.'
I don't have answers, I only have observations and logic.
'This is your arrogance of which I repeatedly lay at your door each time I correspond with you.'
It is me calmly and coldly holding a mirror up to you, and all you are doing is focusing on my lack of emotion and confidence. Sadly, like many English people unaccustomed to he being critiqued, you assume I am somehow 'anti-English'. There is no reason why the English cannot be their own nation, they are as entitled to it as anyone else - my question is when are they going to grasp it, admit it and stand on their own two feet? No answer is ever given.
'The arrogance you portray is equal to blaming all Germans for the Holocaust.'
You have lost me here. If you have a guilt complex because your ancestors past, that is your business, but it is not healthy. English nationalists need to be able to acknowledge the good and the bad of their past in equal measure. Then you will no longer feel bound to defend the indefensible but be able to critique and understand yourselves and where you have come from as a people. Most of Europe has gone through this process in recent years, including the Germans. But not the English.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@anneclarke3905 With respect, for me, your post seems to be rather incoherent. It makes no sense.
The UK voted to leave the EU, and that includes its trade deals. It cannot follow surely that the decision to exclude Northern Ireland from EU trade deals is 'punishment' for the UKs vote to leave...because the UK voted leave, it was what it wanted even if Northern Ireland voted to remain. Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. Would the Unionists not feel that they were being 'pushed' into a united Ireland against their will if they were included in EU Trade deals and Britain was not? After all, the Irish government wanted NI to remain in EU trade deals too and I remember that being said when NI was allowed to remain in the customs union.
The UK voted to leave, Brexiters tell us, because they did not need the EU. I don't understand why Brexiters voted to leave the EU and then expected to be able to have all the things they liked about it, and then claim 'punishment' if they don't get it. When humans behave like that we consider them to be spoiled, don't we? You don't like unelected people who run the EU, but you want to benefit from the parts of their work that you like. I can't understand that.
It is also difficult for me to see how the EU 'weaponised' the border issue when Brexiters had no response to the problem to begin with. [It seems to me now that the assumption was that Dublin would leave the EU with the UK, because there is a widespread belief among Brexiters that the Republic totally depends on the UK economically. This only occurred to me recently and I think this is the root of the problem. The understanding of the Republics economy among British based Brexiters is about 50 years out of date.] In frustration, the Brexiters decided it was being 'weaponised' against Brexit. It was an explanation for the failure of the EU to come to heel as the Brexiters assumed they would and it is hugely regrettable - they cannot accept their miscalculation.
It is difficult for me to see how keeping NI out of EU trade deals is pushing for a united Ireland when it is keeping the NI in UK trade deals only. Do you understand what I mean? It seems to me that the biggest threat to NI remaining in the UK comes from the Tory party and the SNP. The Tory party could possibly have tried to discard NI in order to get Brexit but for the GFA is preventing them from doing so and we know from how the Tories treated the DUP and from polls within the membership of the party that they don't really care about NI or Scotland. Brexit has also raised the prospect of the Scottish leaving the UK in a referendum in a few years time. None of us on this island, north or south, seem to have any control on what is going on in Britain. It's not about us, for once!
As for the security at the border, I assume this has to do with COVID-19? It is obviously a temporary thing and not permanent as Brexit is.
Brexit is bad for all of us. You and I voted in a referendum to bring peace to this island back in 1998 and everything was working out fine. The Queen came to visit Dublin and Cork in 2011, I wasn't all that interested in the historic relevance of it, but I was surprised when I actually found the visit really moving. There were excellent relations North and South, East and West. We in the south have evolved and changed to become a more inclusive country, being more inclusive of the British part of our history and being more questioning of the sacred cows of our culture. In the south we evolved to embrace a civic nationalism rather than the binary type of nationalism that fuels Brexit and are all the more confident for it. Then Brexit happened and we in the south discovered that no such changes were happening among the English outside London. They know nothing about us, north or south, and care even less. That was a genuine shock down here I can tell you, it was like being thrust into a cold shower.
Anyway, here is hoping that the outcome of the negotiations are not too severe for any of us and that we can make the best of a bad situation, whatever the outcome.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
***** 'So basically you've taken what I've said, applied it to a specific part of your comment while ignoring it's intention...'.
No, what I have done is point out how you contradicted yourself. I cannot know your intention unless you state it and I originally thought your intention was with regard to 'Catholic v Protestant nonsense'. I thought we were on the same page, but it appears you meant something you weren't saying at all.
You admit:
'Yes, ROI has secularized over the past 20 years...'
and again
'So yes, ROI has secularized in some areas...'
But then you flatly contradict yourself with:
'...but the fact that it took so long, and required a very publicized death and mass protests seens to me to be indicative of a nation still influenced by Catholic principles.'
Your contradictory conclusion does not stand up to scrutiny. The fact that the law was changed and popularly so, despite the protest of the Catholic Church is indicative of a nation NOT still influenced by Catholic principles. Are you aware of Enda Kenny's 'Vatican speech'? Google it, you'll be glad you did.
The fact that Ireland used to be devoutly Catholic is only relevant if I claimed that Ireland was always secularised. But I did not, so my claim that Ireland has securlarised in the last twenty years still stands, and you provided some of the evidence for it.
If I was going to chastise you I wouldn't mention the illegal war - I know that it was unpopular in the UK and that Governments don't always do what the people actually want.
I could, if I had a mind, point out that only a member of the CoE can become Head of State in the UK and ask 'how many years is that behind the western world'?.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
West Brit I voted in favour of the Presidential amendment on the same the day as the marriage equality referendum. It was defeated. That is democracy. You have to be 35 years old to run for President and that is not likely to change any time soon. Like some who feel marriage equality is wrong, I am disappointed but I will accept it.
Regarding the abortion referendum, I don't think you are comparing like with like. Marriage equality takes nothing from anyone, it gives something to those who were excluded before - but its a choice, we are not all obliged to marry members of the same sex. Not even gay people have this obligation.
In your abortion hypothesis, a retreat to a more conservative position does take something from others - in many cases, a free choice.
The Constitutional ban on abortion was lobbied for by an influential conservative Catholic group who intended to ensure that others would not have a choice. Having a blanket ban is not the mark of a free and socially inclusive society. It infringes Civil Rights. Marriage Equality does not impinge on anyone's Civil Rights, so why would No voters feel threatened by that?
Perhaps it has a parallel: in Northern Ireland, equality for Nationalists has also led to Unionist and Loyalist communities feeling a sense of loss. This is counter intuitive but is common in societies undergoing change - some people don't like it. For some reason equality between Nationalists and Unionists makes some Unionists feel that their Culture is being eroded. As with the anti-marriage equality voters, people wonder what is next and draw all kinds of usually ridiculous conclusions. Fear does that, fear of change, and fear was behind the answers Unionists had to Nationalist equality - civil and social exclusion.
The Republic has traditionally been a socially conservative country, and those who did not conform suffered appallingly for it, being put in institutions and shunned. These were the southern solutions, but like our Northern counterparts we are maturing in our own way.
Unlike the Presidential amendment, marriage equality and abortion are considered to be Civil Rights issues. Unlike Marriage Equality, the abortion referendum will be much more complex, between those who want a blanket ban, others who want it available in limited circumstances and the those who want a liberal free choice. It is a much more complex matter than Marriage Equality, in my opinion. While there are no losers when a civil right is protected, in the case of abortion the argument will be about when the Civil Right of the unborn becomes the issue I suspect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no 'prevailing narrative' in relation to the Nice and Lisbon treaties. There are just facts.
Unlike the UK, referendums are a normal part of political life in Ireland. During the 2000s, they were used by the public to give the Irish government a kick in relation to domestic issues. In both cases, Ireland got protocols from the EU guaranteeing Irish military neutrality - that's just a fact; the Lisbon treaty was rejected, in part also, because the minister in charge of delivering it said on live radio that he had never bothered to read the treaty and could not explain why Irish people should vote in favour it. In fact, there was no information about the Lisbon treaty made available for the Irish people to base their decision on, so the Irish people rejected it.
Having given the Irish government the kick it needed, the Irish public got the concessions they required from both their own government and the EU: the government provided the text of the treaty and an explanation as to why it was in Ireland's interests to vote in favour; the EU put a protocol in the Lisbon treaty with the support of other member states guaranteeing Irish neutrality. They then voted in favour, with a higher turn out than in the previous vote.
That, my friend, is Direct Democracy in action. Not a 'prevailing narrative'. Farage laughed at our democracy, while we looked upon it with pride.
In the UK Parliament is sovereign; in Ireland, the people are.
2
-
@themaskedman221 It is true that the Irish people held a diverse range of political views. While support for independence was not widespread it was widely held among young people in nationalists Ireland, with a generation gap between those who supported Sinn Féin and those who supported the Irish Party; in any case there was certainly no majority for traditional Unionism,
'And what exactly were these 'human tragedies resulting from British occupation'?'
The famine in Ireland? A reliance upon the manipulation of conflict between ethnic, religious and racial identities in order to keep subject populations from uniting against the occupying power—the classic "divide and rule" strategy? It left a legacy of partition and/or inter-communal difficulties in areas as diverse as Ireland, India, Sudan, and Uganda, though in all cases these societies were plagued with internal division well before British rule.
Syke's-Picot ensured that drawing lines on maps has kept the Middle East as the most volatile region of the world, although the British didn't occupy the whole Middle East of course.
Historian Niall Ferguson states that British settler colonialism was a form of "ethnic cleansing". In particular, he mentions Ireland and North America as areas that suffered ethnic cleansing at the hands of the British.
There are plenty of human tragedies resulting from British occupation where ever they rocked up, you only have to look for it. And don't forget to look inside he UK - it is no accident that the native poor were kept in a state of near destitution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'The UK isn't exactly a poor neighbor. This is a hyperbolic oversimplification especially since much of Europe is experiencing a cost of living crisis that in large part is a byproduct of the war in Ukraine as well as post Covid economic headwinds'
The poorest 20% in the UK are poorer than the poorest 20% in Poland. The problem with the UK is the wealth is concentrated in the hands of relatively few and the Ukraine and Covid are being used as excuses for the diminishing GDP caused by Brexit.
'The Brexit story is far from over and a Labour government will likely get a free trade agreement with US and NAFTA'
Brexit will never be over until the UK returned to the EU in a generation. Thee will only be a FTA with the US provided the UK accepts its role as rule taker. Ready for that yet?
'In addition, Europe must stop making an example out of the UK. EU fears of other states lo leaving are ridiculous because few aside from UK retained an independent currency. '
There is no appetite to engage with the UK and the EU needs the English to get over themselves before they will seek entertain the UKs return to the Single Market or the EU. There are no fears of any EU states leaving thanks to Brexit.
'UK has contributed more than most of Europe to Ukraine and, due to NATO, should be given duty free status for UK goods in exchange for freedom of movement treaty based on the Irish/UK model.'
No, you shouldn't. The UK needs to get over this exceptionalism.
'UK, unlike France and Italy, has created a global civilization--Anglosphere--vased on Common Law and, to a lesser degree, language. UK has more in common with Canada than France making EU membership, especially as the Union becomes more centralized, a difficult pill to swallow. Ireland suffers this same issue but has done a better job navigating out of economic necessity. Imagine a CANZUK w/both free trade with EU & NAFTA. Imagine Northern Ireland under joint UK-Irish sovereignty w/Ireland both an EU & CANZUK free trade partner. None of this is possible without dynamic UK leadership as well as US pressure'
This is a fantasy. Ireland does fine in the EU because it understands that it only an equal member. The UK cannot accept the idea that it has the same voice as Ireland, a country the UK tells jokes about, or the rest of Europe with whom it fought all its wars.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brother1ray You spoonfed me nothing except a weak and feeble argument.
'if the ENGLISH were invaded and conquered in 1066 and ruled by the Normans thereafter, HOW did the "English" invade Ireland in 1176, eh kiddo??'
They came from England, where English born knights and their retinue, loyal to the King of ENGLAND. Languages change over time, but where you come from usually stays the same. They did not come from Normandy, and probably never set foot in the place.
These Anglo-Normans, or if you prefer, Cambro-Normans, loyal to the King of England, did not need to speak English to be Anglo-Normans. Following your logic, if you speak English you cannot be Irish.
The descendants of these Anglo-Norman families would in time become known at the 'Old English' during the Cromwellian wars. They were not known as the old French, or Normans for a reason, despite the fact that the first of them spoke French and would later speak Irish and adopt Irish customs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
All nationalism is based on a romantic notion of how we see ourselves a Nation – the Nation being a collection of people who share the same cultural values and identify as being part of that group - whether moderate or advanced nationalists.
The difference between the moderates and the advanced nationalists are usually the methods and strategies favoured to achieve nationhood or to maintain or express it.
Scottish nationalism, like Irish nationalism, seems to be very comfortable with itself and has the capacity to integrate others. In that respect, I feel that multi-culturalism will be less of an issue in Scotland than it is in England.
There was no mandate for the 1916 Rising, but the failure to implement Home Rule because of the war, and the endless concessions to unionists made by the Irish Party to have it implemented, left a vacuum that was gradually filled by Sinn Fein.
The vote for Irish Independence is generally taken to be the 1918 general election. Sinn Fein won 47% of the seats with an expectation that Ireland would negotiate its independence from the UK and the Empire – something it is hard to believe the British establishment could ever have tolerated.
Unionists only won about 25% of the vote, while the previously dominant moderates, the Irish Party, won about the same percentage, but with fewer seats than unionists.
It was arguably the most democratic election ever held in Ireland up to that point, with women and certain classes of men voting for the first time. However, the first past the post system is a less democratic voting system than the single transferrable vote used in Ireland today.
The war of independence came afterwards, but it was clear that the majority of people in Ireland had voted for Independence from Britain as this was Sinn Feins agenda.
The IRA started the war of independence without any mandate and perhaps about 3000 died. But support for the military campaign came quickly as the Crown Forces alienated the population further with their reprisals and atrocities.
While the Irish War of Independence did not have a democratic mandate, it is also the case that it came about because of the democratic deficit in the country - the failure to implement Home Rule.
Also the government's determination to partition the country and not to respect the democratic will of the majority was a significant contribution alongside the attempt to force conscription on a population that was against it in 1918.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'The IRA declared war on the UK in support of Nazi Germany.'
The IRA was already at war with the UK. They sought an alliance with the Nazis as a Nazi invasion remove regimes in both Dublin and Belfast and unite the country.
'They had secret contact with the Nazi's and there was even a plan to invade Ulster in support of the Nazi invasion of England.'
Not that secret. What they didn't tell you in the Orange Hall was that by mid-1940 de Valera's government found out about the IRA plot and rounded up the IRA. Two IRA men were executed.
' Yes, the IRA is an unofficial group of irregular civilians who always adopted terror tactics but it gives an insight into the will of the people.'
On the contrary, the behaviour of the democratically elected government that is the insight into the will of the people.
'The Irish are said to have permitted U-boats to refuel in "neutral" Irish waters despite refusing access to the allies...
In 23/10/1940 Lord Strabolgi stated in a speech in the House of Lords that refuelling of uboats in Eire was ‘physically impossible because submarines did not use gasoline but heavy fuel oil...such supplies could only be carried in a surface ship which could not fail to be observed and reported’. Stabolgi demanded to know the UK government had allowed such false rumours to circulate. Lord Snell, replied saying that the Government had no evidence that enemy submarines were supplied from Irish territory. The idea that heavy fuel oil could be conveyed in large quantities to submarines, which are distinctive warships without anyone knowing about it is grotesque’, Lord Strabolgi remarked. In contrast, the Royal Navy were free to pursue their enemy in Irish waters, contrary to your claim.
'The Catholic Church was sympathetic to the Nazi's and the Vatican arranged the escape of a great many Senior Nazi's after the war. I mention this because the Catholic church was a (the?) real power in Ireland at that time.'
The Catholic Church was sympathetic to anybody who was anti-communist, but of course you didn't have to be Catholic to help the Nazis escape justice. Look at the UK, where the Catholic Church has no real power, some 7,000 Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and their families were granted post-war asylum, many subsequently moving on to Canada or the US. Men of the 15th and 19th Waffen SS (Latvian) Divisions and the 20th Waffen SS (Estonian) Division were also offered a life in Britain. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Antanas Gecas was a Lithuanian Nazi who lived in Edinburgh. Under his original name of Gecevicius, he was named in a list of war criminals living in the UK compiled by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in 1986. British intelligence even employed him after the war. He was NEVER indicted for war crimes, despite a multitude of evidence testifying to his participation in a number of heinous activities. He died peacefully,unlike men, women and children he hanged in Minsk, in 2001. Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.
'Finally, those brave Irish men (7.000?) who returned after joining the British army to fight the Nazi's were treated like traitors by the government and people of Ireland. Many of those men had their lives blighted by their brave decision to fight fascism. This "history" is so, so wrong headed.'
About 70,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British Armed forces and none of theme were treated like traitors when they returned home, though nor were they treated like heroes; deserters from the Irish Army who joined the British Army were barred from jobs in the Public Service and were ostracised for being traitors. In the 1980s, the British Army were still arresting Irishmen who deserted the British Army in peacetime, for the same reason. Treachery.
You're knowledge of Irish history of this period of the East Belfast variety. Imbued with anti-Irish ignorance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@djyork8634 You said: 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'...it is not semantics to assume you meant 'the IRA held talks with Hitler'.
'The Irish government claimed neutrality but in reality were quite clear on their sympathies when they offered their'condolences' on Hitlers suicide.'
Contemporary commentators never suggested that the Irish government was pro-Nazi, and your comment does little to explain away the extensive co-operation Ireland rendered to the UK during the war. It is of course quite possible you know nothing about it. If the Irish government was sympathetic to the Nazi's then you need to explain why Ireland was the only country in the world NOT to send a team to Berlin Olympics because of the the Nazi's behaviour and why Ireland was the only country in the world to place a special protection for its Jews in its constitution. To follow your logic, the British supported the Japanese in WW2 because Prince Charles attended Hirohito's funeral or worse, that the Irish supported Churchill's policy on Ireland because de Valera sent his condolences upon his death too.
'I'm well aware of Irish history particularly the shameful episodes of soldiers who fought bravely for the British returning home to be scorned - a blight on Irish history.'
It's not considered a blight on Irish history in Ireland and I say that having had three great Uncles in British uniform in WW2. There is no evidence you know anything about Irish history, quite the opposite in fact. I doubt you ever lived in Belfast and you certainly never lived Dublin.
'The colonial nature of the British is in the past, outside of the extremist imbeciles to be found in any country, it is an extremely wecoming place.'
Brexit and the casual way the Irish were expected to go along with their role as collateral damage suggest that the colonial nature of the relationship is still harboured among the English who long for 'the good old days'. I have not been to Britain since the referendum, so I cannot comment on the welcoming nature of the place these days, but I have it on good understanding that many living there from other countries are experiencing a less than warm welcome. Your extremists are increasing.
'It is a shame that things are not so pleasant in Ireland.'
Well then you need to visit again. Ireland is a very welcoming place, with no hang ups about immigrants and no right-wing political parties with any representation. Ireland has never been considered xenophobic but arseholes are usually given short-shrift. The Catholic Church has little power in Ireland these days, and as a universal church has little issue with foreigners - so much for your theory. Ireland now has a higher proportion of its population born outside the country than the United Kingdom has. The British make up the lsecond argest minority in Ireland, and they seem to settle in well.
' A quick lesson for you - no one alive today is responsible for the acts of the past.'
One of the problems with the British, well the English mainly, is that they have simply never come to terms with their Imperial past. Because they have never processed the consequences of their great achievements - its not taught in your schools for example - they tend to wash their hands of it, either by victim blaming or claiming victimhood themselves. Another way is by saying 'no one today is responsible for the acts of the past', a meaningless statement of the obvious. A quick lesson for you - in Ireland we live with the consequences of British rule in Ireland every single day. Its just part of our routine.
'Let these things pass, and move forward and lose the hatred'.
Telling the British things they don't want to hear does not signify 'hatred'. When you come to terms with your own past and actually learn something about Ireland you will understand that. As a nation, the English need to mature.
Its like everyone in Britain blaming the French for the invasion of 1066..
The English have no time for the French to this day, their dislike for them is second only to the Germans. And of course the French did not partition your island either..
'(and technically it was they who invaded Ireland in the first place, not the English)'
In Ireland they were known as the Anglo-Normans for good reason.
'Xenophobia is an extremely ugly trait, and ultimately just another way of demonstrating ignorance.'
It is. And the English have embraced with all their heart, 15.1 million of them at least. With only 13% of Britain's population born somewhere else your countrymen think their culture is being denuded because of immigration, when in fact it enhances it. Why are they so insecure in their identity?
'There's an excellent life lesson which I think will serve you well. Best of luck!'
I think the prescription was made out to you, I don't need it. Try closer to home.
Oh and do us all a favour, will you? Get over the war - everyone else has.
2
-
@djyork8634 Do you have an abridged version?
The only problem you have is that anything that makes you feel uncomfortable - England's less than stellar record in Ireland for example - is automatically interpreted as 'hatred'. I hate nobody. It is not my role to make allowances for your failure to come to terms with your nations past, an ability to balance the bad with the good. You could learn a lot from the Germans in this regard.
Earlier you claimed that Ireland was backward country. This is not the case. Ireland has made success of EU membership while the British made pig's ear of it, by all accounts. Ireland has a more dynamic economy, a more productive workforce, and a higher average income than the UK. The minimum wage is higher and Ireland has no barriers to workers from other countries coming to live and work in the country. In the United Nations Human Development Index for 2019, Ireland is ranked third highest in the world. The UK is 12 places below Ireland.
As the UK faces into a once in 300 year recession, followed by its choice to trade on WTO rules only, and with a liar and a charlatan for PM, the following is some data for you to consider. It makes a sound argument that in fact the UK is a more backward country than Ireland in 2020. You could learn a great deal from us if only you could let go of your prejudices and open your mind to new ideas.
You guys live shorter lives, are closer to being a failed state, have less democracy (your lack of democratic accountability is a shocker, believe me, I don't know how you put up with it), makes fewer contributions to global peace, and have a less free press than the Irish. Check it out
Life Expectancy at Birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Fragile State Index (Formerly Failed State Index) – Ireland ahead of UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index
Democracy index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Global Peace Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Freedom of the Press Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)
Economic Freedom of the World – Ireland ahead of UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
Good Country Index – Ireland ahead of UK
https://goodcountry.org/index/results#
Better Life Index – Education
Irish people spend longer in education, have better Maths, literacy and science rates with 82% of Irish people having completed secondary school than the UK. However, only one in five English people complete secondary school.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
flip inheck 'It is a historical fact that Ireland (Free State) left the UK creating the partition, your ignorance of historical fact is obvious'
You owe Bush Ranger and apology.
Partition took place on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The smaller of the two, Northern Ireland, was duly created with a devolved administration and forms part of the United Kingdom today, but the larger one, intended as a home rule jurisdiction to be known as Southern Ireland, failed to gain acceptance. The territory instead became independent and is now a sovereign state also named Ireland and additionally described as the Republic of Ireland.
The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland, with both remaining within the United Kingdom. It also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, in 1922, following the War of Independence (1919–1921) and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the southern and western part became the Irish Free State, while Northern Ireland exercised its option to remain in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, partition occurred before the creation of the Irish Free State. Incidentally, Irish nationalists were not consulted on partition or the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The British government only consulted Ulster Unionists who took the opportunity to abandon their brethren in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan in order to ensure a larger Protestant majority in their truncated province.
2
-
flip inheck So now you claim partition never happened until 1937? Odd that, the DUP are already talking about commemorating the centenary of the creation of Northern Ireland later this year...
Contrary to your claim, Ireland left the United Kingdom following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, becoming the Irish Free State. Partitioned in 1920, the Boundary Commission cemented the border in 1925. In 1923, the Irish Free State joined the League of Nations, and with the adoption of the 1937 Constitution following a plebiscite, the name of the state changed to Eire and it elected a Head of State. In 1949 the state became Ireland, left the Commonwealth and declared itself the Republic it was in all but name.
Contrary to your other claim, Ireland was universally recognised as an independent country, with any doubts being removed following the 1938 Anglo-Irish Agreement which saw the removal of the three RN bases. Irish independence and neutrality was recognised during WW2 when the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany.
2
-
2
-
@leehallam9365 'You question the decision of the British Government to ally itself with the Soviet Union.'
Yes, I do. While it makes military sense of course, you cannot make the claim that participation in the war was a 'moral' issue as you claim later on, without confronting the fact that Stalin, not Hitler, was the most evil man of the modern era in 1941 - and Britain was happy ally with him. That is just a matter of plain fact. It is also the case that the Irish were fiercely anti-Communist and saw little difference between Stalin and Hitler. You fall into the trap of moral cognitive dissonance.
'I am afraid you demonstrate those prejudices further in your references of events 20 years before.'
I am demonstrating no prejudices. I am pointing out the reality of 1940s Ireland. The reality is, the entire Irish government of wartime Ireland had fought against the British in the Irish War of Independence and it was Churchill who gave the green light to take revenge against the civilian population and made it official policy during the conflict. It is not my problem that this shameful part of Britain's imperial past is not taught in British schools. There was no Article 50 for Ireland. The generation of 1940s Ireland had no reason to trust the British. Public opinion would not allow any entry to the war on Britain's side unless attacked by Germany first.
'It's the same point, that was history, even then. To justify decisions on the basis of historic grievances, is just wrong.'
That is easy for you to say, the UK is the only country in Europe that never had foreign troops on its soil but for the Irish government of wartime Ireland those issues were not in past, they were real and were represented by the border. Your comment is odd as the English in particular still distrust Germany to this day even though they won both world wars.
'The question before Ireland at that point was not, do I love the British, rather it was, which side in this conflict should I take?'
That question never even arose!. The question in Ireland was, how do we stay out of yet another war between the great powers of Europe. Ireland condemned Nazi Germany in its invasion of the neutral Benelux countries. It is also a fact that Churchill refused to give an undertaking not to invade Ireland in the same way if it suited him.
'Ireland's neutality was not in the end crucial to the war.'
The Irish made the same argument in 1940. Interestingly, according to Cecil Liddell of MI5 in January ‘46 ‘...as things turned out Eire neutral was of more value...than Eire belligerent would have been. Had Eire come into the war her people would have been conscripted...for an invasion that never materialized. They would have to have been supplied with arms to resist attacks by air and land...when supplies were practically non-existent ‘particularly after the fall of France...to the accompaniment of minor guerrilla warfare by the IRA.' He could also have added that neutral Eire supplied thousands of people to work in the British war industries.
'Yet the valour of the tens of thousands of their own citizens who ignored their government is a rebuke to that policy, and the decision of DeValera to sign Hitler's book of condolence, is a symbol of the moral smallness of Irish leaders.'
Oh please, this analysis is simplistic and belongs with the Daily Mail (which supported the rise of Hitler, funnily enough). De Valera took a neutral stance on British recruitment in Ireland, as pointed out in the Cranbourne Report. He did nothing to prevent it. It is a mistake to see Irish recruitment as a rubuke of neutrality: The Volunteers Project based at University College Cork has interviewed veterans on their experiences. Most considered they were fighting for the defence of Ireland as well as Britain and all supported Irish neutrality. Many of the volunteers also believed that their war-time endeavours were not incompatible with an Irish national identity, or a demonstration of hostility to neutrality – there was, after all, a long tradition of Irish service in the British Armed Forces. Others joined for their anti-fascist views or simply in search of military excitement. The old joke in the British army was that the Irish 'knew who they were neutral against'. I had three great uncles that served, one in the 8th Army and two others in Bomber Command.
Herbert Shaw a former southern Irish Unionist MP, a Protestant, visited Dublin in December 1940 and gauged the support for neutrality. While he claimed the Irish had no sympathy with Hitlerism, he was not surprised to find support for neutrality amongst Irish nationalist, ‘I was surprised’ he said, ‘ to discover that even former Unionists, who were prepared to send their sons into the British Army, held no other policy to be possible’.
De Valera did not sign any book of condolences, his condolences were made personally to the German legate and his family as a demonstration - an unnecessary one at that stage in the war - of Irish neutrality. He also offered the man and his family political asylum, which was refused. Ireland paid a price for 'getting away with neutrality' as you say. This incident was widely circulated in the American press by the US legate in Dublin. It was vindictive, but it was also political - Roosavelt before his death was already trying to undermine de Valera's influence in his relection with the Irish-American diaspora. The US legate to Dublin was his husband in law. Churchill too, seized on it because he did not recognise Irish neutrality in the first place and wanted to silence any attempts by Dev to seek unification.
However, nobody accused de Valera of being pro-Nazi, his anti-fascist credentials had been established way back in the 1930s when he was head of the League of Nations.
2
-
@leehallam9365
The invasion of Poland was a matter for the UK, it was a world power playing geopolitics – but you have provided no moral justification for Ireland join the war because of a treaty the UK had with Poland. If you consider Ireland risking its own political stability to join in a war with a former imperial master on these grounds, then you are not dealing with reality. The traditional British response to such realities is dismiss it as ‘victimhood’, which means you simply don’t need to deal with it. This is dishonest. But it is also avoiding the proposition that when reading history we need to put ourselves in the shoes of those at the time and judge them on these grounds – you have shown evidence you understand that but then you cop out. What I have been trying to draw out of you is the moral reason Ireland should have joined the war. You have avoided it.
I’m going to lay my cards on the table here – I think Hitler was the most evil man in history by the end of the war, but I only know that from reading history backwards. I’m trying to find out from what the moral argument was for Ireland joining the war.
I disagree that I defame Britain. I’m trying to present the landscape from an Irish perspective and from you I’m trying get back what moral responsibility Ireland had to Britain’s commitment to Poland. I’m trying to find the moral argument that you believe compelled Ireland to join the war, so far unsuccessfully. You have not articulated what that moral reason is, either through oversight or avoidance. An attack or a declaration of war by Germany would have brought Ireland into the war, but it never came. So, what moral imperative was there for an Irish government in the 1940s to join the war? Incidentally, Ireland also feared invasion from Britain. While Churchill gave Roosevelt an assurance that he would not invade Ireland and make life difficult for the President in the US, he refused to give any such assurance to de Valera.
Regarding discrediting Ireland: the Democratic Party in the US was deeply divided between the WASPish side of the party that Roosevelt belonged to and the rising Catholic-Irish American element, which included Joseph Kennedy, the father of the future President. Kennedy and others were opposed to US material support for Britain not to mention involvement in the war - until Pearl Harbor changed that. de Valera had fairly strong connections to them and had used their influence in the 1938 Anglo-Irish negotiations. Roosevelt and particularly his brother in law wanted to discredit de Valera and Ireland so that the Irish-American faction within his party could not use Ireland to undermine them, as they saw it, in the post-war world. It worked for about 15 years.
It is taken as a given that the British public are not interested in Ireland – but it was an issue for the Ulster unionists. Your quote from Bevan is reflects that it was government policy.
I’m not sure what you mean by this when you say I'm dishonest. Being dismissive of the realities that faced the Irish government in the 1940s is anything but honest in my view. You place no moral value on avoiding war while unarmed and politically divided and are quick to dismiss the legacy of British activity in Ireland in the 1919-1921 period as ‘victimhood’. ‘Political convenience’ is your prejudice, political reality is my reasoning.
Ireland and NATO: The war was nearly two years old when Stalin joined the war, but the British did not declare war on Stalin when he invaded eastern Poland which indicates that the defence of Poland was not a moral issue. It was about Germany. Ireland did not join NATO because of partition. You need to understand, this issue regarding partition was not settled until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and this transformed the relationship until Brexit. Partition was extremely divisive in Ireland, just because people in Britain have no interest in it does not mean the Irish felt the same way. Partition flew in the face of democracy, yet the Irish were expected to set this aside by those who denied this democratic will of the Irish people…to fight a war to in defence of democracy. The hypocrisy of the Americans in this regard was particularly galling to the Irish. That did not change in the 1950s when Ireland considered NATO membership. While the Irish could ally themselves with the United States, they could not do so with the UK as public feeling would not support it. Political reality.
I did not suggest Britain could not supply Ireland – it could have, but Churchill would not arm neutral Ireland as a matter of policy. Churchill also stopped the American’s giving the Irish Defence Forces any heavy equipment, the strategy was to keep Ireland dependent on the Allies for defence. And yes, there is a good argument to be made that Irish neutrality helped the UK, and you have provided no evidence to contradict that.
Liddel was your M15 man, he was not Irish. These were not ‘diplomatic words’ as you state, M!5 is not the foreign office or the diplomatic corps, and they were never meant for public consumption or Irish ears. This was an M15 internal report delivered in January 1946, emerging years later with the release of archival documents. This was the reality of Irish neutrality without the politics. Behind the scenes Ireland co-operated and provided any assistance it could to British Intelligence. If you think MI5s contemporary assessment is ridiculous, then we will have to differ on that, but it is not honest. The fact is there was no majority in Ireland for participation in the war. Various British and American commentators gauged public feeling during the war, and found none. It is quite possible some could have been convinced, but it is likely too that de Valera would have faced a coup from within his own party.
ireland was not choosing to stand against an enemy. Ireland didn’t have an enemy. The British did. It was opposed to Partition, Imperialism, Fascism and Communism.
I agree, its fun to speculate about how things could turned out if different decisions had been made. You demonstrate the usual argument that usually ends with the proposition that Ireland could well be a united country today had Ireland joined the war. Yet, in the 1940s he Irish were aware that Unionists and Nationalists had fought side-by-side in the Great War and within two years Ireland was partitioned. Even now, 22 years after the border issue has been settled, it is difficult to see any sign that the Unionists in Northern Ireland have warmed up to the notion of Irish unity despite removing pretty much all the issues that unionists placed as obstacles to unity. Ireland had the distinction of being the only country that gain independence during the interwar period that managed to remain a democracy, but it was a close-run thing. Would that democratic consensus have held had Ireland entered the war? Let’s ask an Englishman: ‘If he has wished to do so, could de Valera have brought Eire into the war on the side of Great Britain inspite of Partition? He would have been bitterly opposed by the IRA, then a formidable organisation, capable of gaining large numbers of sympathisers…;while many of his own supporters were convinced that entry into the war on the side of Britain would have meant the occupation of the ports and airfields by British troops, and that, once there, they would never have been got rid of’… De Valera is a very astute politician…he may, none the less, have been politically right in deciding that as long as Partition remained, his Government would not have survived an attempt to bring Eire into the war. (Guy Liddel, 28th May, 1945).
It is also the case that post-war the British government turned its back on Northern Ireland gave unionists a free hand in running the place as they saw fit. This in turn led the violence the civil rights protests and later The Troubles. It took until the mid-1980s before the British could acknowledge the problem required a political solution. Had that political solution existed before the outbreak of the war, things may well have been different.
So that leaves us with the moral argument. Can you make one?
2
-
@leehallam9365 ‘It was certainly the case that Germany did not invade Ireland, to what degree that was due to its neutrality being successful, or was down to Britain not being defeated is open to debate.’
No, in fairness to you I don’t think there is ANY debate.
Britain not getting invaded prevented Ireland from getting invaded. We know today that the Nazis would only have attempted an invasion of Ireland as part of an invasion of Britain, and that they had no confidence in invading Ireland separately without knocking out Britain first. Irish neutrality also prevented a political split internally, which would have been exploited by the Germans, no doubt and who know, perhaps by the British too. Neutrality was the first time there was consensus in new state on anything. Not joining the allies kept the Germans from attacking Ireland, which was highly vulnerable to the Luftwaffe. Assisting the British in secret prevented an invasion from Britain. To this day, the Irish considered neutrality in WW2 to be a foreign policy success.
‘I think it is most unlikely the Germans did not see what Ireland was doing, they ignored it because it suited them.’
This is speculation. Ireland remained on the Nazi agenda even up to late 1940. In December that year at a meeting in Berlin where an invasion of Ireland was discussed, Hitler stated that ‘a landing in Ireland’ could ‘only be attempted if Ireland requests help’. Admiral Raeder considered that, British naval supremacy in the waters surrounding Ireland meant that no transport operation of troops to Ireland would be possible. This may have its roots in the de Valera’s statement that any invasion by Britain would result in a request for assistance from Germany. He told the Nazi’s that any attack by them would result in a request for help from Britain. Raeder was not even confident of a cross-channel invasion of England either, as it happens. However, there are no files on Ireland that indicate the Germans knew what the Irish were doing.
During that same month, December 1940, the Germans requested to send four serving military officers as military attaches to the German Legation in Dublin and were told that ‘refusal would be seen by the German Government in a most serious light’. De Valera refused the request stating that it would undermine neutrality. All military leave was cancelled and Dublin braced itself for air raids or an invasion. In early January several bombs fell on Ireland, (one damaging a synagogue in Dublin. It became the only synagogue that the Nazis ever paid for the repairs of). Incidentally, also during this month the Irish took in refugees from British, including children whose parents had been killed, a total of 2000 altogether. But I digress…
‘…it was a neutral country led by a man that from Churchill's perspective, was led by a man who had been among the leaders of an armed rebellion, while his country was at war.’
This is a perfectly logical argument. However, Churchill’s own intelligence agency was working hand in glove with its Irish counterpart, G2, since Chamberlain’s time and he knew, when he listened, that Ireland was playing ball behind the scenes. Churchill was a drama queen, and an old imperialist. It galled him that Ireland did not know its place and fall into line behind what he would have considered the ‘mother country’. It mattered little to him that the public display of neutrality concealed a private benevolence that met most of the UKs needs. As MI5 pointed out, there was little additional advantage, if any, to be gained through having a belligerent Ireland, and perhaps some considerable disadvantage. At the end of the war, Churchill found time to have that side-swipe at Ireland, but Churchill was disingenuous given MI5s account of its Irish activities.
There was no moral reason for Ireland to join the war. And Ireland would have put its differences with Britain aside has Ireland been attacked or if Germany had declared war on Ireland, as ‘Plan W’ indicates. The Irish position was no different to that of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and so forth. Ireland’s ‘problem’ is that Ireland was never attacked.
‘If you look below the racial aspect, you will notice it was an attack on the principle of nationalism…’
That’s not very reassuring if your Irish, is it? Britain had an empire base on a notion that some races are entitled to dominate others, including the Irish.
‘When we get down to the basic moral choice over neutrality, we won't agree, and it is becoming repetitive.’
There was no moral dilemma for Ireland in being neutral, you have provided no logical basis for it. But the case you could make, and I’m surprised you have not yet, is that Hitler was undoubtedly the most evil man in human history by May 1945. The benefit of hindsight, and decades of research have all combined to ensure that most now have a certain view of the morality and immorality of various decisions made during the Second World War. Popular culture has given the reading of history backwards a free hand, while a certain obsession with the war is now a part of British culture. Putin is currently re-writing the Soviet history of the Great War, as are the Poles (I think). In the US it is taught that World War Two was fought to save the Jews. Commemoration and memory are often used to serve contemporary requirements. But again, I digress…
‘All nations have their national mythology, mine does, I think this might be part of yours.’
It may well be as you say, though the Irish spend much less time thinking about this period than the British do. In fact, only for the British ‘mythology’, which ranges from ‘Irish collaborated with the Nazis’ across to ‘the moral bankruptcy’ argument, I think few Irish people would give much thought to this period of Irish history. It is clearly much more important to the British than to the Irish or indeed any of the countries of Europe once occupied by the Nazis. If you have any insights as to why this might be the case, I would be genuinely interested.
Ireland has been dealing with its national mythology over the last 30 years and has come a long way with it. There seems to be little evidence, no evidence in fact, that the English in particular have done something similar.
‘..and saying well we decided in 1936 is just silly, what's decided can be undecided.’
Agreed. But you provided no logical reason as why that change could have taken place.
‘However, my view is very simple, you don't need to like your allies, you don't have to trust them.’
Given the size and proximity of Ireland and partition in relation to Britain, I’m afraid you do. Remember, when you asked if the Irish were so stupid to believe that they could force Unionists into a united Ireland against their will? Churchill offered Irish unity to de Valera in exchange for an ending of neutrality in June 1940, without the knowledge of unionists. He seems to have offered it again in December 1941. He never consulted the unionists. Is that not moral bankruptcy? Is Britain’s necessity a moral code? Trust is vital.
John Redmond, the great constitutional Irish nationalist who campaigned for Home Rule had his career destroyed by his support for the Britain in the Great War. He was seen to have been duped by the British. Between the wars, it became clear that many of claims about German atrocities in Belgium used to recruit Irishmen were exaggerated. You can be sure that the ghost of John Redmond was in the room of the Irish cabinet during this time…
2
-
@leehallam9365 ‘However, it's little commented on how perhaps three quarters of protestants left the Republic after independence…’,
There are plenty of books and documentaries on the subject the existence which discount this notion that it has been little commented on. Ian Paisley regularly made claims that southern Protestant community were a persecuted minority prompting correspondence to the letters page of the Irish Times repudiating such claims from southern Irish protestants. Of course Catholic Ireland was not often a cold place for Irish protestants, but they remained an affluent, middle-class, professionals, that dominated the judiciary and produced two of Ireland’s nine Presidents. The banning of divorce and contraception in the 1930s was viewed as a hostile act by them generally and for those wishing to celebrate their British identity, they felt they could only do it in private. This was shared by some Irish Catholics nationalist also.
The Protestant community had been in decline since the disestablishment of the CoE, and, it nose-dived with the withdrawal of British administration in 1922. Others left because of their loyalty to the crown, and more still for economic reasons, just like Catholics. While most protestants in the Republic came from unionist backgrounds of a century ago, Irish protestants identify with the Irish state and have done so for decades now. Irish Free State did adopt a holier-than-thou level of Catholicism that was completely over the top, and for Protestants this was difficult. Recently protestant historians now also argue that their community must were too inclined to keep their heads down. From 1937 they had a constitution that explicitly protected them.
‘Is that really about a change in Irish Nationalism, or just Irish culture, are they really the same thing?’
It is both. After Independence, a very narrow view of what it was to be Irish became the norm: it was implicitly, white, Irish and Catholic. A number of factors influenced the change, including the Troubles in NI. A new notion of Irish nationalism emerged, which was more inclusive and allowed for a multi-layered identity. Ultimately, it became a corner stone of the Good Friday Agreement and led to the redefining of Articles 2 and 3 three of the Irish constitution, adopted by 94% of voters in the Republic. Our culture is international now anyway, our writers, musicians, film makers, politicians are Irish, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, American, British, Ulster Scots. Some of our finest literary works challenged that old binary notion of Irishness. Now life, and the Irish constitution, imitates the art.
In the event of a border poll, the citizens of the Republic have a vote too. It will be held on the same day as the one in NI. It is quite possible that NI could vote for unity and citizens south of the border will reject it. Any future united Ireland will have to be an agreed one and everything will on the table. I imagine there will need to be a sense that about 60% at least in favour, before a vote will be held.
‘Ireland and the EU actually believed it was right that laws be placed on the north, that they had no part in making...’
You’ve lost me here...
‘It's interesting two in light of your views on Partician, that Irish Nationalists took the view that the Remain vote in NI somehow invalidated the Leave vote in the UK overall applying in NI.’
Not in light of the Good Friday Agreement, it highlighted the democratic deficit at the heart of the UKs constitutional arrangement at time when British identity was never weaker.
‘Funny how a majority in NI counts in your mind in one case and not the other.’
Don’t confuse my ability to place myself in the Ireland of 1920 or 1940 with that of 2020. One is dealing with different realities. The GFA did not exist in 1920.
‘A lot will depend how NI special status works out…
I agree. No Irish government will want a 51% majority in favour of unity – it will need to be larger than that. I gave you examples, which you have ignored, that indicate that something is changing. Brexit Britain does not reflect their values or economic interests. Remember Northern Ireland voted to remain, manly for economic reasons.
There is no clamor for a border poll in the Republic either, and you are correct that the situation is fluid, however it is quite clear which way the momentum is going, and if we take that Northern Ireland’s existence was originally based on a sectarian headcount, then it would be foolish suggest it can be dismissed when the numbers are reversed. It certainly doesn’t bring Unionists much comfort.
‘As for Irish Nationalism, well it has changed, it's no longer tied to the Church, but it continues to be focused on its bigger neighbour, but has also taken on an ethnic nature.’
I don't understand your claim that Irish nationalism is becoming more ethnic. It is unfortunate that you see an Ireland standing up for itself as somehow intrinsically hostile to Britain, but that might reflect an insecurity on your side of the Irish Sea. Dismissing Irish utterances that you don’t like as ‘victimhood’ or ‘ethnic’ or ‘anti-British’ is simplistic. The idea that the Irish should just ‘know their place’ and pipe down has been one of the characteristics of Brexit and it has not gone unnoticed in Dublin, Northern Ireland, Brussels and elsewhere. I expect Ireland's focus is on Europe, not Britain, and that will increase post-Brexit. Ireland has reduced its dependency on UK over the years and this will continue by necessity now.
I emphasise England because it is the English vote that is taking the UK out of the EU. And it remains the case that there is no international land border on the island of Britain. You have no relationship with the British border in Ireland – you never have to deal with it.
‘Your bizarre idea that England will leave the UK is a fantasy…’
I know! Precisely nobody agrees with me in Ireland either. It’s a gut feeling. I feel that English nationalism will evolve in that direction in due course in part because Brexit will not solve any of the problems the English have with their democracy, their inequality etc.
‘..if you are of Irish ancestry, then that Empire at its height was your ancestors responsibility as much as mine.’
The British empire was a joint English and Scottish project. Ireland was different. Ireland was the only country in Europe that was ruled by a minority who were planted there; a people who were who practiced a different language, religion, had a different culture and customs, they had virtually sole access to the law and the enforcement of that law. It was this Anglo-Irish class that was empire building across the world, many of their descendants were southern protestants whose fate you feel is not talked about. The Gaelic Irish provided the rank and file of the army and navy. Ireland was the laboratory for the creation of the British empire, the place where plantation was first attempted and where blueprints for command and control were formulated. Ireland was the UKs first colony.
‘As for partition, you didn't take on my question about what Ireland would have been like without it.’
Partition dates to when to passing of the Home Rule bill in 1914, when the British government tolerated the arming of the UVF in resistance to it, and a mutiny of the British Army officer corps. That’s hardly democratic. Had Ireland not been partitioned, the avoidance of violence would have depended on the approach of nationalists and the British government. If the British had said to the unionists that they needed to work out an arrangement with Irish nationalism, then anything is possible. Had it come to pass, the emergence of two states each with dominant religious cultures would not have occurred. Unionists could have held the balance of political power, creating a more religiously plural state, still a member of the commonwealth and having participated in WW2. I will not discount the possibility there could have been sectarian bloodshed, of course, but a political arrangement could have been reached. Nobody consulted Irish nationalism in 1920.
‘The civil war demonstrated that the heroes of the Independence struggle, were every bit as capable of using violence to settle political disputes among themselves, as in fighting Britain.’
I agree, but it was conducted under pressure from London as the pro-Treaty faction was reluctant to move against de Valera’s faction. De Valera’s faction had little political support among the public. Democracy survived because, there was just enough common sense to take the gun out of politics. When de Valera came to power, he did not seek retribution and the army did not stage a coup. However, the bitterness remained a factor into the 1970s at least.
Surely if NI had been democratic there would have been no civil rights movement or outbreak of the Troubles in 1968?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bellascott6478 Since the end of the Troubles, Irish families have been researching their ancestors who were in the British Army in the Great War - almost every family seems to have some connection. Some of these families also had family members in the IRA during the War of independence. So you can see how complex things were in the south, they were not as black and white as they are in NI.
I have to say, under the old Stormont regime, up to 1969 or whatever, there was a great deal of discrimination against Catholics in NI. There must have been, as the Catholics never accepted partition and that is why they were seen as a threat. It is not like that now of course, there is much more equality. In Irish culture, we take every opportunity to better ourselves when we get it. I'm not sure that exists in Unionist culture. For reasons I don't understand, it appears that there some sort of 'shame' attached to doing what the nationalists do. It could a 'British thing', because British visitors to Ireland would often sneer at Ireland seeking transfers of money from the EU to improve the infrastructure of the country, and there was always a sense they saw it as shameful. In the run up to the Brexit vote in the UK, it became apparent to me that even in Labour held councils in the North of England there was a resistance toward applying for European money to improve and develop their cities for their people. Instead there was resentment towards the EU and even resentment towards Ireland for having a 'begging bowl'. I sense there is the same resentment in Unionist culture towards Irish nationalists for improving themselves instead of being stoic about their. Today, Irish people a proud that Ireland is now a nett contributor to the EU and others are benefitting from us.
Having said all that, near where I live in the republic, a large number of Catholic refugees from Belfast settled in the early 1970s. An old boy who worked with the Council in those days told me that the Belfast people were very forward in speaking up for their rights and entitlements, and were much less easy going the provision of services than the local population. Here put it down to Belfast people having to fight for the entitlements in NI. Maybe its a Northern thing.
If there is going to be a united Ireland, nobody wants it right now. Brexit is not the context for it. Left to its own devises it would be way off in the future, maybe after our day. But as i said in my previous post, there are other factors at play now. It will have to be confronted sooner or later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand?'
All countries where the native populations suffered persecution and or genocide. Colonization usually caused a large decrease in the indigenous population from war, newly introduced diseases, massacre by colonists and attempts at forced assimilation. The settlers from Britain and Europe grew rapidly in number and created entirely new societies. The indigenous population became an oppressed minority in their own country. The gradual violent expansion of colonies into indigenous land could last for centuries, as it did in the Australian frontier wars and American Indian Wars. Interestly, Brexit Britain seems to be trying to appropriate this narrative from the imagined oppression that equality within the EU has made the English feel - but I digress.
'Or maybe you are talking about India which doubled its GDP under the British and began industrialisation 90 years before the British left?'
Hardly.
In the 17th century, India produced a quarter of the world’s income – equal to the whole of Europe combined – and its per captia GDP was 80% that of Britain’s. But standards of living in India fell rapidly following what the historian William Dalrymple has described as “the supreme act of corporate violence in world history” – the gradual conquest, plunder and subjugation of India by an English trading company with one of the most powerful armies in the world.
In just the half century following the dissolution of the East India Company and the imposition of crown rule in 1858 – the start of what is popularly known as the “Raj” – per capita income declined by over 50%, life expectancy fell by 20%, and between 12 and 29 million Indians died in famines that the colonial regime largely facilitated instead of alleviating.
So rather than leaving the colonised “better off”, empire led instead to the creation of what would later be known as the “third world”.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Britain was economically 'the sick man of Europe' before it joined the EEC. Low productivity, strikes, power cuts and it even required an IMF bailout shortly after it joined.
Leaving the EU is only the start of something in the UK - what exactly happens next is not clear, but not much of it suggests that 'the British people' will survive as an entity in the long term: will the Scots leave the UK? Will Northern Ireland unite with the Republic of Ireland? Will the English tire of the UK and become independent of it? Will the UK economy fall flat? Will there be greater inequality between rich and poor? It is the answers to these questions that will determine if the 'the British people survive once they split'. Especially as there is a diminishing British Demos anyway.
There are no countries in Europe that have better economies that members of the EU. The EU is by itself the largest economy in the world, larger than China and the United States. The is leaving and putting trade barriers up against, with the intention of replacing lost trade with the EU with trade much farther way with Australia, China, the US etc.
There is much negativity about Brexit because before the democratic vote, nobody agreed as to what it meant exactly; promises made about it by those promoting leave have all be shown to be untrue while assumptions that were made were found to be serious miscalculations.
The truth is, many of the reasons why people voted to leave have nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with domestic policies by successive UK governments over decades.
It is often easier to blame 'the foreigner', those against whom you fought all your wars, for your shortcomings than to accept responsibility for you own flaws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Roboute Guillman
'Brexit is merely restoration of what is the normal state of affairs for most countries across the world'
Really? The normal state of affairs is have trade deals, and to be part or trying to be part of a trading bloc with your neighbours...unless you are major player like China or the USA - and the UK is not one of those.
No. You leave without a trade deal alongside the following Great Trading Nations: Holy See, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Palau, Timor-Leste, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and last but not least.....Western Sahara. This is the complete list of the nations who trade only under WTO rules. Appropriate. A clear indication of BREXITEER's ambitions.
How is that a 'normal state of affairs'?
2
-
@ P S
Who is going to erect a hard border.
Both Ireland and UK will have to erect a hard border.
Ireland will erect a hard border to protect the Single Market, the UK will be required to deploy checks for WTO purposes.
Another hard border will be erected by the UKs denial of Irish identity and the EU rights of Irish citizens in NI in contravention of Article 1 (vi) of the Belfast Agreement. The UK has provided no solutions to this problem either. Dissident IRA have already set off a bomb in County Fermanagh this week (Fermanagh is on the border) and so armed security will in due course be returning to the border.
I told you that there is a diminishing UK demos - what part of that do you not understand?. Most Leave voters are English and identified as such in the 2011 census, or as English first and British second. There is a direct co-relation between the pattern of leave voters and the expression of English identity in the 2011 Census. Brexiters don’t care about the UK, and we know from recent polls of members of the Tory party that they want Brexit more that they want to maintain the United Kingdom. The only reason the backstop is an issue is because the Tories are stuck depending on the DUP to keep Corbyn out of power. Brexit is a product of an English identity crisis and a Tory party at war with itself. Both the Scots and Northern Irish voted to remain and the fact that they are leaving is indicative of a democratic deficit in a union that is no longer fit for purpose. Therefore, your comment, is disingenuous.
Texas is not at all like NI, it is true, but neither is any other part of the UK for that matter. NI can vote to leave the UK at any time and its citizens are entitled to plural identities. The citizens of say, Somerset, do not have this right and cannot claim an identity that is Irish, British, both or neither.
You have never read the Belfast Agreement, and neither have your Brexiter leaders. The EU is mentioned in relation to the development of cross border relationships, their funding etc, in relation to Strand Two. These cross border relationship (Agriculture, Education, Transport, Environment, Waterways, Social Welfare, Tourism, Inland Fisheries, Aquaculture, Health and Urban development) will be disrupted or halted as the UK will be outside the EU. This is significant for the island of Ireland.
The people of NI did not vote for this.
While Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, the BA states that no changes to status of NI can be carried out unless the people NI vote for it. NI nationalists did not vote to lose their EU rights that come with their Irish identity which they are permitted to have under the Belfast Agreement.
So, your argument is baseless and pointless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fisher1907 Wrong. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland all declared neutrality in 1939.
Spain abandoned neutrality in the summer of 1940, offering the Nazis their services and becoming a non-belligerent ally. Spain u-boats were allowed to refuel in Vigo, for example. As the war turned, Franco declared neutrality again in 1943.
Sweden and Switzerland were neutrals which leaned in favour of the Axis.
Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway were all neutrals that became belligerent only when the Nazi's invaded them.
Portugal was neutral but under a fascist dictatorship. It's neutrality favoured the Allies.
Ireland was neutral, but provided assistance to the allies in secret. It remained neutral as the Nazi's never invaded Ireland or declared war on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbeam3280 They were punished because they deserted AND joined the British Forces, the armed forces of a country that had never given an undertaking NOT to invade Ireland. It was a threat. They had taken an Oath of Allegiance to the Irish State, and now they were taking an Oath for another. They were traitors. There was no opposition to Irishmen joining the British Armym which is what you are implying, during WW2.
The Government was committed to providing employment for all demobbed Irish Defence Forces personnel. To avail of Civil Service jobs, those demobbed soldiers had to hold a military discharge certificate. This was supplied only to those with satisfactory military records and any man dismissed for desertion weren’t around to receive one.. Thus the seven year disqualification - the Starvation Order - was a dead letter as they were already barred anyway.
The deserters were allowed to collect all pay due to them up to the time they deserted. They were allowed to claim British benefits while living in Ireland, in fact the Irish government negotiated a deal with the British allowing them to claim their UK benefits while living in Ireland. None went to prison. There could be no question of allowing the men to go unpunished; that would have undermined Irish claims to neutrality, eroded morale in the forces and set a dangerous precedent that desertion would be tolerated. (Bernard Kelly, Dev’s Treatment of Irish Army Deserters: vindictive or pragmatic).
However, I will agree that the punishment of their families was outrageous. Such treatment of children was typical of the Ireland of that time though.
Taking the oath of Allegience in one country while still under an Oath of Allegience in another is a prima facia case for desertion.
And what about the hypocrisy? Well known Irish Puppeteer Eugene Lambert was arrested in Dover while returning from a family holiday in about 1980 and accused of having deserted the British Army in Omagh in 1946. He was taken from his family, hauled up before a Magistrate and the Irish Gov. was told it was part of a campaign to catch deserters going back over decades. It turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, but as recently as the 1980s there was still no pardon for Irishmen who deserted the British forces during peacetime!
About 5,000 Irishmen deserted during the war. According to the Daily Mail they all joined the British Army to fight the Nazis, however, only 100 Irish men are known for certain to have deserted the Irish Army and joined the British Army. It also the case that many deserted for reasons other than opposition to the Nazis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Charlie
No it is not.
Some Scots hate the English, who utterly dominate them. Who else do they hate? Nobody. Irish and English friends in Scotland have told me stories about the hostility some Scots have for the English, and both have found it shocking. It is not something you would ever see in Ireland, not since it took its place among the nations of the world, although some English I find on this media insist I that I hate them because the are English - or more accurately, because I am Irish.
The English also insist on speaking on behalf of the various Celtic nations, claim to know what is best for them - your statement that the Scots 'wrapping themselves up in an EU blanket won't make them feel any better' indicates that tradition is still alive in you. In my opinion, it also points to your insecurity - the English still need the Celtic nations in order to feel secure in their identity.
This will change over time. English nationalism is still in at nascent stage, and it is relatively incoherent. It make sense to me that you should be confident as the world is full of Englishness: football, rugby, cricket, the English language, Common law etc. English culture is everywhere and is easily identifiable, a product of an imperialism that was a vehicle for English nationalism for hundreds of years. And yet Brexiters still feel that the EU threatens their identity. This is because the post-Imperial English are still trying to find their place in the world.
Irish identity and culture has thrived and its nationalism has matured since joining the EU, in a large measure because it is not dominated by England to the same extend anymore. Irish people are also more confident than they used to be, as we have an equal voice in the EU, unlike the experience of the Union Ireland left in 1922. In short, membership of the EU has done more for Irish identity than independent isolation did previously. The Scots understand this, and the English fear it.
This brings me back to a point I've made before. The real problem the English have with the EU is the equality that it offers. The English don't feel equal to anyone, they feel they are exceptional because of what they achieved in the past and this is a reliable indicator of can be achieved in the future. They want exceptions to be made for them as they are particularly special. You can see it clearly in the Brexit 'negotiation strategy' of the UK government, UKIP and the like.
You are right, Brexit is the least of the EUs problems, and I think that overlooking that has been a strategic error of the exit strategy. 'They need us more than we need them' has proven to be an unreliable hook to hang the Brexit strategy on.
British Eurosceptics have been predicting the end of the EU since they joined in 1973. It won't happen, it will merely continue to evolve.
Can the same be said for the UK? That remains to be seen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no constitutional account for the fact that both Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain.
This is significant as devolution tells us that there is no longer a British Demos, indeed we know from British Election Studies that identity played a huge part in how people voted: In Wales, 71% of Welsh speakers voted to remain; Welsh speakers who identify primarily as Welsh, 87% voted to remain; in England, those who identified primarily as English voted to leave; Scots who identified mainly as Scottish first voted to remain; in Northern Ireland, most who identified as Irish voted to remain.
I would suggest that there will be constitutional consequences for the UK as a result of Brexit, as English, Welsh and Scottish identities begin to assert themselves.
Some of these tensions may emerge as the UK attempts to feed itself post-Brexit. At present the UK can only produce 60% of its food needs, with 70% of the deficit imported from the EU. WTO rules, the break down of 'just in time' supply chains at channel ports and the time it take to set up trade deals with third countries will be significant. A cheap food policy will destroy the British agricultural sector in 2-3 years.
In short, I think there will be chaos and everything will not be fine - assuming of course there is a hard Brexit in March.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Scott Bowman
That's not being honest, by any stretch of the imagination.
'Lets be honest':
The border issue is not 'harder than it needs to be', it is emphatically at odds with the Good Friday Agreement, carried by two referenda in both Irish jurisdictions by far greater numbers than the Leave vote in the UK. The hard border reflects an 'attitude' toward the Nationalists community, who are Irish and therefore EU citizens, even after March 2019. Northern Ireland not like any other part of the UK. It is not 'as British as Dorset' as Mogg has hilariously repeated over and over again.
'Lets be honest':
Even the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee agree in their report on the border issue that there can be no open border with the Republic, as proposed by those heading up Brexit; without the agreement of the rest of the WTO - ‘We note that WTO rules prevent the UK from unilaterally creating an open border with Ireland without offering this to the entire membership of the WTO’. - The Land Border between NI and Ireland – Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
'Lets be honest':
The Brexit issue in NI has added a further division to the two communities there - Nationalists wish to Remain, while Unionists are backing Brexit. Its a winner takes all situation, something the GFA had successfully removed from politics there, at a time when there will be a Nationalists majority in NI in the next 10 years or so.
To be honest, the Irish border issue is simply the Brexit chickens coming home to roost.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And Portugal, Spain, France, Malta, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Estona, and Ireland. The SNP are seeking to swap a small and rapidly declining union based on inequality, for a progressive and much larger one where they have an equal voice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joecook5689 I'm back, sorry for the delay. Here is some research on the topic. This is a quotation from Brian Barton from his book Northern Ireland and the Second World War.
'Until April 1941, when Belfast's first blitz brought them to their senses, it was difficult to raise recruits even for civil defence. The local force, 40,000 armed Protestants (B Specials and Local Defence Volunteers), never took their eyes off the main sectarian chance. The irony was that between September 1941 and May 1945 there were 11,500 northern volunteers as against 18,600 southerners passing through the Northern Ireland recruiting channel alone.'...later he comments: ' Apathy was pervasive. Cynics suggested that the suspension of twelfth of July demonstrations was to divert attention from the large number of able-bodied Orangemen who had not entered military service.'
This from Thomas Bartlett's book 'Ireland a History':
'A public-private contradiction emerges when the two Ireland’s respective roles in the Second World War are considered . Eire’s stance was often criticised in public by UK and US politicians, but in private its ‘contribution’ was tacitly, though rarely warmly, acknowledged. By contrast, Northern Ireland’s war effort was publicly praised on all sides ...yet in private, in report after report, there was much criticism of Northern Irelands lacklustre response to the needs of the UK war economy.
You state that Ireland would have loved to have seen Germany win the Battle of Britain - that is not borne out by the historical evidence. Neutrality was the only sustainable policy for Ireland, given the divisions within its society in relation to Britian, which had committed atrocities in Ireland less than 20 years before. Nonetheless, thousands of Irishmen volunteered in the British forces, thousands of others served nurses in British hospitals, or worked in British war industry; Irish military intelligence worked hand in hand with the British, even helping to crack Nazi codes, and repressing any that might have might facilitated Germany in attacking Britain.
The subject is complicated. There was a sense in the US and UK that Ireland 'got away with it' in terms of neutrality and both countries sought to discredit Irish neutrality in the immediate aftermath, making no public mention of any assistance the Irish rendered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, right.
The Institute for Government, a think-tank in London, notes that all big countries have bilateral agreements on such trade-facilitating measures as customs co-operation, data exchange and standards. Imagine, ifthe World's fifth largest economy exited the EU with no deal?
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama of ECIPE, a Brussels-based think-tank, says that only seven countries trade with the EU on WTO terms alone—and they are small fry like Western Sahara, South Sudan, Cuba and Venezuela. The UK will be joining this merry band of economic powerhouses.
In any case, reverting to WTO rules is not simple. The UK was a founder of the organisation but now belongs as an EU member. To resume WTO membership independently will require a division of EU import quotas, notably for beef, lamb and butter - I believe this may be happening again at the moment. A first effort was roundly rejected by big food exporters like Brazil, Argentina, the US and even New Zealand. The WTO proceeds by consensus among its 164 members. Were Britain to leave the EU on acrimonious terms, negotiating its resumption of full WTO membership could be difficult.
Brexiteers say trade with third countries would be easier. Perhaps, but the EU has free-trade deals with some 60 countries, including South Korea and Mexico, and just recently, Japan. It will not be easy for the UK to “grandfather” these deals, especially if it has walked out with no deal, if only because doing so would need EU agreement, too.
Then there is the WTO’s “most-favoured-nation” rule, which bars discrimination unless it is allowed by a fully registered free-trade deal. If after no deal the UK and the EU wanted bilateral trade to stay tariff-free, both sides would have to offer the same privileges to all WTO members. Services are barely covered by WTO rules, but even here, were Britain to seek to keep trade in services, the same terms would have to be given to several countries with which the EU has free-trade deals, including Canada. Subjection to WTO rules might yet prove more problematic than Brexiteers realise.
The UK does not need to reapply to the WTO on leaving the EU as the UK is a member in its own right, though currently operating through the bloc. The UK’s detailed WTO commitments on tariffs and barriers to trade are set out in schedules shared with the EU. On Brexit, the UK will need to have its own schedules and for those schedules to be certified, there must be no objections by any other WTO members. We can speculatethat the ability of any member of the WTO to veto proposed changes would mean the UK was at the mercy of countries playing politics with ulterior motives, say by Argentina over the Falklands or by Spain over Gibraltar. Or of course the EU themselves in the event of a no deal.
As such, the WTO is another ironic example of a process supposedly about “taking back control” handing real power of the UK’s post-Brexit fate to the whims of outside powers. Brexit is that stupid. It is the greatest exercise in national self-harm since the Easter Islanders cut down their last tree, but I will not speculate as to the social, economic, political and constitutional implications of this farce, as this is taboo.
You have little to be worrying about with regard to Continental perceptions of the UK. You should be reminded of the English taste for heroic failure instead. Retreats and disasters loom large in your culture, from Balaclava to Dunkirk to Scott of the Antarctic, the Somme, the list goes on and on. Kipling hints to the English cult of 'heroic failure' when he stated in 'If' that 'triumph and disaster are the same thing'.
Brexit follows in this rich tradition.
What a clusterf*ck.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shelleyphilcox4743 NI did vote in the EU referendum, but a small number of Irish nationalists there don't engage in British elections or referenda on the grounds that it is a foreign country.
The rest of your post is interesting and rational but seems to be based on the notion of an existing British Demos (I think). The overarching British identity that held the UK together has been diminishing, probably for decades but almost certainly since devolution in the late 90s. The 2011 census showed that huge numbers of people in England no longer identify as British, but as English (particularly outside London); large numbers of Scots no longer identify as British as we can see from the growth of the SNP, and in NI, those who identify as Irish or Northern Irish are on the cusp of being in the majority. Wales is interesting. The Welsh have a weaker nationalist movement than the Scots or the Irish, but they would probably have voted to remain but for the 12% of the Welsh population who identified as English in the 2011 census (English retirees who brought their politics with them?).
In that context it is no longer coherent to have 55 million English people deciding the futures of Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh with different identities. There is a fundamental democratic deficit in having the English dominating the political landscape in that way, just as there is a leaving the English with no devolved assembly. Furthermore, Brexit is underpinned by values and insecurities that are part of English nationalism and are not shared by the Scots and the Northern Irish. I think this is significant too.
If we take it that the UK was established as a means to run an empire, then it would appear that the union has run its course. There is a good argument to be made that the break up of the union is already underway.
2
-
@shelleyphilcox4743 That's the thing about English nationalism. Nobody has been speaking for it. Sure, you had UKIP on the fringe and perhaps they would have had more of a presence in the HoC if there had been a more democratic voting system, but they don't represent all of English nationalism. The Tories seem to have taken on the role, and in doing so have alienated the Scots even further.
English nationalism is a product of insecurity. I think the emergence of the SNP and devolution for the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish has left many English people with an identity crisis. The Empire is gone, the traditional industries have gone too, there have been decades of government mismanagement by all parties, and no devolution for England. Areas where immigration is least evident are among the places where fear of immigration and loss of identity appear to be highest. This is odd because English cultural expression is to be found everywhere in the world.
The Scots have a clear vision as to where they want to go, but the English do not - do they stay in the EU, or do they pivot to the US? All the focus is on a lack of democracy in Brussels, when in fact the lack of democracy in the UK is having a much bigger impact on the lives of English people. English nationalism is organic, it has emerged by itself without any clear and coherent leadership or vision. In due course it will evolve into a movement that will seek an English nation, English money for English people, English laws for English people - if the Scots don't leave first.
The Scots know what they want, by and large. They want away from English dominance and most Scottish nationalists want to find their place in the EU. They are comfortable with the EUs civic nationalism and feel comfortable with being Scottish and European. Irish nationalism emerged from a cultural movement that was clear and coherent over a century ago It used to be obsessed with 'not being British' and obsessed with sovereignty and territory, but the peace process in NI is based on the notion that you can have a multi-layered identity: be Irish, British, Irish and British, Irish and Black or Muslim or whatever, under a shared EU identity. Irish nationalism is not about borders anymore but about people. The Scots and the Irish are confident and understand that sharing sovereignty with other small countries helps to amplify it, while English nationalism seeks to horde sovereignty in an ivory tower. That points to an insecurity rather than confidence.
Welsh nationalism is weaker but is also based on a model similar to Scotland and Ireland. Its just not as widespread. Wales is harder to read as it is much more influence by the English media than Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, Welsh speaking North Wales had the highest vote in favour of remaining in the EU in the whole of the UK. This points to confidence and a rebuke of insecurities about the EU so prevalent in England.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The minimum wage in the republic is higher than its equivalent in the UK: its €9.80 for all ages. In the UK its the Euro equivalent of €9.22 at the age of 25, and lower when you are younger, I was surprised to find.
Dublin is the economic powerhouse of the island and the republic has a more dynamic, more productive and more globalised economy than the larger UK does.
On a conservative estimate, the Irish are now over 25 per cent richer than their UK counterparts. Irish income per capita rose from €13,934 in 1995 to €40,655 in 2018 — growth of 192 per cent. In contrast, UK income per capita rose from £21,716 in 1995 to £30,594 in 2018 — growth of roughly 41 per cent. Ireland is growing economically nearly five times faster than the UK every year.
While Ireland has a massive national debt, its growing economy means that its debt to GDP ratio is 64.8% in 2018; in the UK the debt to GDP ratio is 84.7% and is higher than it was before the Brexit referendum.
In a united Ireland scenario, there is no doubt the cost to all the people of the island would be enormous as Northern Ireland cannot pay for itself. However, once the economies are aligned the tax burden for all would decrease. This would be aided by the united entity have full access to the EU and a market of 400 + million.
Whether a united Ireland is on the cards or not is dependent on the success of Brexit. A hard Brexit may make the republic look more attractive as only Brexiters are convinced that leaving the EU carries any benefits for the UK. It may result in many UK citizens losing many benefits they take for granted today: the NHS, 40 hour working week, retirement at 65 etc
Best of luck with your studies...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bumblebee5818 'You are dreaming, and misinformed if you think there were no controversial parades in NI last year, they have even exported them to Scotland where there were a number of clashes between the Orange and the Green last Autumn.'
I said this year, and Scotland is not in Northern Ireland.
'I look to the future and apply logic rather than any romantic viewpoint of the quality of the people of the UK.'
You look to the future, and apply denial. Northern Ireland has for the first time more nationalist MPs than Unionist. This is because the population of NI, its political demographic, is changing and Nationalists will soon be in the majority if they are not in the majority already; secondly, moderate unionists can see the writing on the wall are increasingly open to a deal with the republic, but first they have to negotiate with themselves and get on the same page; thirdly, the post-GFA generation is less wedded to the NI tribalism and is more open to the values espoused in the republic and the EU than those in Brexit Britain; finally, the future of the UK is out of the hands of unionists, and it is only a matter of time before Scotland becomes independent. Then there will be no union to remain in. This is one of the other issues moderate unionists are considering right now.
Next year, the UK will be faced with a constitutional crisis because of a Scotland seeking a second referendum on independence and a Tory party which has no representation in Scotland wishing to thwart it. The democratic deficit is untenable.
Suspend your denial and watch this space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What vacuous waffle.
It is not doom and gloom you are experiencing here, but the sound of chickens coming home to roost. The European Commission's draft text of the withdrawal treaty - basically the legal version of the political agreement signed in December -puts in clear, precise language what was fudged previously. It promised 'full regulatory alignment - had you forgotten that?
Full regulatory alignment entails a common regulatory area and a customs union. It's not the EU position which would need the change, but the fundamental laws of trade.
The Irish border IS the UKs problem, to suggest otherwise is mendacious, and indeed the majority of people in either part of Ireland would agree.
Brexit is British policy, not an Irish one; a majority in NI voted to remain as they were happy with the status quo; Brexit is a social, economic and political problem for the people of Ireland.
It is also the case, that because Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats in Westminster, it is left to the Irish government, as permitted under the Good Friday Agreement, to speak on behalf of the interests of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, it has nothing to do with Unity, which will come sooner or later anyway, but reducing the damage Brexit will cause.
2
-
@ John Haynes
I'm a citizen of Ireland, and Ireland has not been part of the UK since 1921. I am not 'part of the UK'.
Brexit is a UK decision, you say - and this is correct. It is British policy, Ireland has an entirely different policy, different experience of the EU, different view of the world. Ireland IS taking 'its own issues seriously', unlike the UK which is presiding over a farce; the border IS an Irish issue, north and south, and it is also a British issue.
You will get no deal with the EU if the UK does not address it.
You will make no headway with the WTO if the UK does not address it.
The border issue, as I said before, has nothing to with Unity. Nothing. It relates to the 'full regulatory alignment' promise the UK made in December, but like much in relation to Brexit, it did not mean it, which through cognitive dissonance has been blocked from you memory. Boris Johnson said last December that a hard border would he a disaster for Ireland, now he's saying it will be fine. This is because the arch-Brexiters are as incompetent as the are mendacious.
Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement are not compatible. It is the fault of those who led the Brexit debate that you are in this position now: the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davis, Rees-Mogg and Duncan-Smith and the gang.
Don't blame Ireland or the Irish - you lads made the decision...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robw7676 Your analysis with the United States is simplistic. In the Italian case, just like the that of Greece, economic problems are essentially structural. The Greeks only export feta and olives, while the Italians are excellent entrepreneurs and useless innovators - they cannot seem to respond to changing international economy. It is also a notoriously unstable political entity. It is easier to blame Brussels and the Euro than deal with some hard political and economic realities.
The Anglo-sphere (Empire 2.0) is a product of the English imagination, and if it were ever to come to pass, it's centre of gravity would not be in London but Washington DC. The American's only care about themselves, and will devour the UK in any trade negotiations as it is, and they don't need any 'Anglosphere'. In the antipodes the Aussies are on record as saying their priority is with an EU trade deal and both they and the Kiwis are strengthening their economic ties with south an east Asian economies. In any case, Brexit Britain voted to leave the EU with no policy on where it was going next and they are just making it up as they go along. In this context kites like the Anglosphere get flown. There is no evidence of an interest in an Anglosphere with the other required component countries. The Anglosphere is a fantasy of a country that is insecure about its place in the world.
It does indeed suit Ireland to stay in the EU. It will continue as a trading entrepot between the United States and the European Union. EU membership will come with increasing power, amplified through the bloc, agreed by consensus between all of the EU's member states. In the modern world, the Irish understand that sovereignty judiciously shared is more effective than the British choice of hording it away in an ivory tower. It gives Ireland more control: in Ireland we understand that if we want to maximise control over the important issues which by definition do not stop at borders – from trade to energy to international crime – these must be addressed on a cross-border basis; and we know the EU remains the most effective cross-border mechanism in the world.
Brexiteers are driven by the idea that they are putting their country first. But so, of course, do the Irish. The real issue is whether national interests are to be defined narrowly and pursued as if the aim is to be masters of our own little world or whether, as we believe in Ireland, those interests should be defined broadly and pursued in the knowledge that the real world is necessarily one of interdependence, compromise and shared interests.
In Appalachia and the mid-west US, industries failed to innovate and there is culturally little value, quite often, in educational attainment. This contrasts with the east and west coast which remained dynamic and innovative fueled by new ideas that resulted from exposure to outside influences. Furthermore, the trickle-down economics of the Reagan era never happened for those in the rust-belt and instead these people saw their jobs flee from the mid-west and Appalachia to cheaper manufacturing centres in Mexico and Asia and so on.
Finally, since Brexit, support for membership of the EU has actually risen across the bloc. There is an increasing appreciation and understanding for the benefits it brings, alongside each the issues that every country has with it. These are the challenges for the EU in the immediate and long term future, and not a death sentence for the bloc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robw7676 I'm not sorry about anything.
Ireland is happy to change its Corporation Tax rate provided all countries jump together, and for that reason the Irish, Dutch, and others in the New Hansiatic League are awaiting a decision from the OECD. The EU Commission does not agree, but has no power over taxation in member states.
Once there is a level playing field, other advantages Ireland possesses will keep investment coming in: these included excellent universities producing excellent graduates, freedom of movement, climate (believe it or not), a well-educated workforce, a culture of high-productivity and the fact that Ireland is considered a welcoming and cool place to live.
Brexit has presented Ireland with an unexpected advantage: it will be the only English speaking country in the EU and the focus of investment into the EU from places like Canada, New Zealand and Australia that might have otherwise gone to the UK. Irish third-level institutions and language schools are already experiencing a bounce from Brexit, as students from across the EU are being diverted to Ireland. It will be interesting to see how long the British universities maintain their rankings post-Brexit, and the ranking for tech start ups applies to London which is where the remainers live.
It is difficult to find any independent economist who thinks the UK will be better off after Brexit - you don;t up barriers with your neighbours and thrive. I have no doubt some aspects of the British economy will do better than others, but I seriously doubt that the vast majority of the people of England will be better off. Those who voted for Brexit will be worse off than they ever were and the reputation of the UK be diminished.
And it will have been entirely self-inflicted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, in fairness Veronica, if one side won Brexit by a small majority and a heap of lies, it is quite natural that those who lost should try to minimize the damage as they see it.
It is also healthy in a democracy to have an opposition, especially when there was no agreement as to what leaving the EU actually means in terms of the future relationship with the EU.
I doubt anyone voted for no deal.
I has been quite remarkable how the silencing of the remainer constituency has been so effective.
Do you not think it was also embarrassing that leading Brexiters believed that the UK could vote to leave and have all the benefits of membership of the EU?; that the UK was in effect more important the whole of the Single Market?
I would agree that there is a woeful lack of leadership in the UK and I would say there is also a remarkable ignorance about the EU and how it works. However, it should be remembered that the UK has little negotiating experience at this level in contrast with the EU and its highly experienced in negotiating team - this does not help the UKs cause.
I think, given the conduct of the referendum and the malaise in Westminster, it is quite clear that there is a crisis at the heart of democracy in the UK. Brexit has exposed it, along with other fault-lines such as the fragmentation of identity, and those with a sense of being 'left behind'. The EU is being blamed for a failure of domestic policies of UK governments of all hues over many decades.
For me, it is hard to see how the Brexit vote could be considered democratic given the lies that were required to win it.
2
-
Oh Veronica there are so many lies to pick from. Here are a few:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxWiRz6A9E
and more here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
When Ireland made its first application to join the EEC in 1962, the Irish new that the organisation they were joining was more than just a common market. The Danes don't seem to have been surprised it was more than a common market and they both joined the EEC with the UK in 1973. How did the British not know? If the government hid this fact, what were the media doing? Its not like it was a secret.
You and I both know that the majority of those who voted to Leave did not do any research. Those who do feel they carried out research, may have been influenced by the widespread misinformation available online and in the print media about the EU, so we cannot glean any comfort from research unless we know the sources.
I'm not saying that the result should not be accepted because of its size, I would question its legitimacy because of the lies. However, unlike in a government situation, in this referendum, because there was no plan and no vision document on paper that politicians could be held to, we only know what a small majority voters are against, not what they are in favour of in terms of the new relationship. The small margin means there are plenty of remainers trying to shape that new relationship. Nothing wrong with that in a democracy, I would have thought. It is a pity Brexiters had no plan.
Most British people are deeply ignorant of the EU - we can probably agree on that. Again the UK media must take responsibility I feel.
I look around the other countries of Europe as you have suggested and frankly none of them are in the kind of chaos the United Kingdom finds itself in. Some people are loudly calling for change, but not the majority in any country I can think of. In some cases these countries, like the UK, are seeking exemptions from rules that govern all the rest - hardly sounds fair. It is often the case (Italy comes to mind) that governments will take on Brussels in order to gain popularity at home, blaming Brussels for difficult decisions that are made domestically. Every country does that at some stage.
I think the EU will be fine. It will continue to evolve, probably as a multi-speed entity. It seems to be an important aspect Brexit theology that the EU is the union that is failing when in fact it the union closer to home that is the one on more shaky ground. Perhaps the English will be the ones to leave the UK in the future; maybe it will be the Scots if they can convince Westminster to allow a second referendum; Northern Ireland will almost certainly seek a border poll in the event of a hard border; perhaps Brexit will be the catalyst to propel Welsh nationalism towards a more coherent identity - Welsh speakers voted overwhelmingly to remain, while more Anglicised parts of Wales voted to leave.
That's the fascinating thing about Brexit - who knows what forces it has unleashed at home. It is has had relatively little effect on the continent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Jonathan E
'In that regards, how does she resolve the contradiction between unified decision making on the island with the shared/diluted decision making as part of the EU.'
Personally, I don't see any problem with this. I don't believe Irish people see any contradiction in this scenario - this binary notion of nationalism behind Brexit is outdated in Ireland. Problems within the EU are problems for all the members and it is likely now that reform will follow in the coming years. This is because of Brexit, the migration issue and because we are close to the limits of deeper EU integration.
''All are aware that the GFA does not commit the UK and ROI are part of the EU political union. She must also be aware of the strange situation where she, as a republican who supports the separation of NI from the UK political union, whilst proposing the NI rejoin a different political union (the EU).'
Sinn Féin were a euroskeptic party on the island of Ireland until after the Second Lisbon referendum when it finally accepted that if it were to be make any a progress in the Republic, it would need to change its attitude towards the European Union.
Irish Nationalism sees no comparison between membership of the UK and the EU - they are quite different in the Irish experience. Irish Nationalism is a much broader church than it was 50 or 60 years ago and many of the English nationalist rhetorical arguments for leaving the EU simply don't wash in Ireland. Irish nationalism has evolved to a point where it is no possible to Irish and European, in the same way as it is possible to be Irish and British, Irish and Protestant, Irish and gay, or Irish and Black. We understand in Ireland that the EU is not replacing our identity with a European identity, it is asking us to add a common EU identity to our distinct national identity. In that context - and SF were slow to cop on to this - there is no difficulty for Irish nationalism and a United, shared Ireland, to be part of European Union. After all, a new united Ireland who have its Britishness and its Irishness side-by-side too.
'The UK is attempting what the Republicans called for themselves (except the UK are attempting it with a clear mandate)...separation from a rejected political union. I would have thought the Irish would understand that instinctively.'
The Irish know the limitations of 'independence', but apparently the British, or should I say the English, don't feel the Irish experience is worthy of consideration. You really think the UK is leaving the EU with a clear mandate? What was that mandate? And where is the evidence of it?
Indeed, the referendum has highlighted the crisis in the UK Demos: both the Scots and Northern Irish must leave the EU because of what is clearly seen outside the UK bubble as a crisis in the heart of English identity and English nationalism. England is behind Brexit - and yet English nationalism still cannot admit that England is its own country, and still conceals itself behind 'Britishness'. This is what we see from an Irish perspective, in no small part because of our history with English nationalism as part of the UK.
Irish nationalism was and is coherent. What is coherent about the English nationalism underpinning the UKs departure from the EU?
Brexit is utterly fascinating to watch, it is a pity there is so much at stake.
2
-
2
-
If this is done 'without electoral consent', why did the two anti-immigration parties that stood in the last General Election in 2020 only muster 10,000 votes between them, in a country of 3 million voters. Where are the elected representatives for these people?
A few hard right 'protestors' destroyed public property in Dublin yesterday afternoon, at about the same time as many young Dublin scumbags got out of bed. It is worth remarking that none of these intellectual retards looted any book shops, only shops selling phones, track suits and trainers. The 'protestors' took one black bus driver from his cab and beat him up. They beat up a working man 'for Ireland'. These are scumbags.
All of this was sparked by an attack by a mentally ill man, originally from Algeria, we are told, on children and their teacher, with a knife. All of the children he stabbed were foreign nationals, and the attack was halted when a man from Brazil manhandled the demented man to the ground. All of the victims were taken to hospital where they were treated by doctors from the Middle East and nurses from eastern Europe and the Philippines.
Aside from the attacker, all the other problems were created by unvetted Irish people, of military age, who refuse to integrate to Irish society.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anneclarke3905 Many in Europe don't remember the Troubles - we do. Here in the Republic and along the border, the fear is real. You have a British government that lied to its own people talking about 'taking back control' of their borders but were unable to articulate what that meant in relation to the border in Ireland. We were all happy with the status quo as it was, nobody wanted to change it.
Furthermore, there were no dissenting voices in the Republic on the issue, and nationalists in Northern Ireland recognised that Varadkar was speaking for them too. The DUP certainly were not, and that is the reason Varadkar had to speak up. The fact is, there is no majority support for Brexit in either part of Ireland and it was Varadkars duty to represent the people who pay his considerable salary, and, under the GFA, the voiceless civic nationalists north of the border. He used Irish membership of the EU as leverage over a British government that thought small countries don't matter, it just needed to strike a deal with the Germans. It was all he or any Taoiseach could have done.
Now Northern Ireland has the best of all worlds. The GFA remains intact, nationalists are happy, moderate unionists seem happy enough, Northern Ireland remains in the UK and its businesses have access to both the UK and EU markets. This should be a tremendous shot in the arm for the Northern Ireland economy. How many US or Asian companies will look to Northern Ireland as a base for their investments which would be both in the UK and the EU? It could transform Northern Ireland.
I have a friend who is a Unionist from County Down, she has a close friend whose husband is an Orangeman. My friend tells me that the Orangeman saw no future for his business because of Brexit and he told his wife that he could for the first time see a benefit in Irish unity. That was in two years ago, before the Irish protocol, and I have no idea what that man feels now. But I was quite surprised.
As for the virus, the reason the death rate is so low is because of restrictions. A British study indicates that 1 in 20 people who contract it end up with long-term health problems, regardless of their age, many of them with permanent organ damage. I trust the science.
2
-
@anneclarke3905 Well, there is no border in my jurisdiction in relation to the virus. The border remains open, people can still go to work or school from either side, depending on what the restrictions are. One the reasons the virus infections are so high in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan and Louth is because when the pubs were closed in the south, people just nipped over the border to the north to socialise there, and vice versa. I'm not sure what you mean about refusing to put u a border to protect families from food price increases. My understanding about milk in the north coming south etc is in relation to the integrated economy, which is something Varadkar was trying to protect by making his stand.
A cousin of a friend of mine contracted COVID-19 in March. She's 30 years old and now has only 30% lung capacity too, and oddly, is only slowly getting the use back in her right arm. For months she could not hold a cup in her right hand. Looks like the lung issue is permanent too.
So, can I ask you, do you think Northern Ireland remaining in the EU Customs Union is a good thing or a bad thing?
2
-
2
-
@keithalan9430 Don't apologise for 'quoting facts', apologise for denying reality.
it remains the case that of the 17.4 UK voters who voted to leave the EU, 15.1 million of them were English, voting in areas that identified predominantly as English rather than British in the census of 2011. This indicates the current constitutional arrangement is not fit for purpose.
Secondly, I have no vote in this matter. I'm Irish, and I am an observer. However, I can tell you that the Scots should given as many votes as they want for independence - there should be no limits on democracy and being allowed to change your mind is a central tenet of the democratic process. However, in this case, when the party that used the fact that the UK was in the EU as part of its campaign to maintain the Union during the IndyRef is then also the party responsible for taking the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the Scots, then you cannot deny them another referendum and claim to be a democrat.
The Scots deserve to take their place among the other small nations of the EU, where they will have far more sovereignty than they can ever have as part of the United Kingdom. They will be able to choose their own destiny, which includes leaving the EU, and that is more than can be said for the 'precious union'.
It is all just a matter of time. A divided house cannot stand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
West Brit "Your point that nobody would lose by the my speculative Abortion referendum , shows that you have no respect for the people who disagree with you ( us in this case) as they think that the foetus is a Human Life from conception so many 'people ' have the Ultimate to lose -Life."
I disagree that it shows a lack of respect, I totally respect their point, I just don't agree with it. People should be free to chose. Not everyone shares their beliefs on a blanket ban.
"...but they can't be Equal any more then you can say that a Goat and Herring are Equal they both have there qualities but are completely different."
The concept of marriage has been broadened and same sex marriage is now equal to the traditional concept of marriage in the constitution. That is where the equality lies - recognition in the constitution. A goat and a herring are different, but theoretically they can both receive equal protection in the Constitution. That is all that is happening here.
"You have no understanding that the Unionists Stand to lose their Identify and Culture ,and in fact only have to look here to see it .
At independence the Free State had a Unionist population of over 13% and a protestant Minority of 10% , there are now Zero Unionists and 2.8% Prods left , at the same time the Nationalist population up there has grown -give it some thought before you claim that they are the intolerant Bigots ."
Equality is no threat to anybody, unless their identity and culture is based on a belief in inequality. Is it?
Following partition, Southern Unionists were told to make the best of it by the their Northern counterparts, and by and large they did. They ceased to exist, as politically the Union was over, but many quickly identified with the Free State and joined with the new pro-Free State party that became Fine Gael in the 1930s.
The Protestant population in Ireland was in decline from the time of the disestablishment of the Anglican church. It declined further following the treaty as the British administration withdrew. Some others left due to fear for their future in the new state while others left for economic reasons.
The First World War and the Catholic church's Ne Temere decree also contributed to their decline.
Susan McKay, journalist and Belfast born Protestant puts it this way in her book 'Northern Protestants':
"Southern Protestants never were a downtrodden and disadvantaged minority. Economically they were privileged and secure, and research shows them to be overrepresented in the upper reaches of the class structure....there is considerable cultural assimilation rather than isolation or ostracism’ and described myths and overstatements about the oppression of Protestants in the South is a form of secular anti-Catholicism. Southern Protestants have protested in the letters pages of the Irish Times that they were quite happy, and have no wish to be championed by Northern extremists’ (McKay, 353)"
I also never mentioned anything about Ulster Protestants being intolerant bigots. Why did you claim I did?
I just pointed out that they are, and have been historically, fearful of allowing Nationalists the same rights and opportunities and access to life chances as they had.
What have Ulster Unionist got to fear from equality in Northern Ireland anyway? Now that is has largely arrived, the majority of Nationalists are happy to stay in the Union.
1
-
West Brit "I thought you might miss the abortion point."
What point did I miss?
"But frankly you telling me how it is/was for Southern Prods and then backing it up with a Quote that you think is validated because the Women in question was born in Belfast, is either satire or offensive."
This is just "shooting the messenger" because you don't like her message. Supporting an argument with evidence is normal academic convention, the author is not a southern catholic viewing the situation from afar, but a local critiquing her own. There are very few of those in print, so in that context it is a valid reference. Referring to it as satire or offensive without any supporting evidence is the opposite of that and doesn't take your point anywhere.
"You are frankly all over the place anyway on that subject anyway , if we all support FG ( LOL, I do) then obviously we are not looking to reunite with our brethren in the North"
You need to flesh out your points better than this, its too vague for me.
"I don't Believe and did not mean to say that the equality of the citizen regardless of Faith in the North or any other Foreign Jurisdiction was wrong and should be feared- the trouble up there however is people who do not believe that the Unionists are truly Irish and like you think that when they live in a Catholic/Nationalist Ireland it would be reasonable to repeat your statement".
You certainly come across as being dismissive of equality in Northern Ireland. I can't see how equality can infringe on the two identities up there, it can only create one identity over time. I consider Northern Unionists to be Irish, but do they? A few years ago I mentioned that to a Northern Protestant, personally, while attending a conference at the Burrendale Hotel in County Down and he told me in no uncertain terms that he was British. They should reclaim their Irishness and contribute towards it redefinition - its too green anyway. They seem to lack confidence in themselves and their culture - that's how it come across to me at least.
"But their relationships to each other(Herring to Herring , Goat to Goat) will be different and no end of debate , linguistic fascism or referendum's could change that either"
62% of Irish voters disagree with you.
1
-
West Brit "Which was the point I was trying to make to you over abortion ,that you missed ( twice) if your opinion lost that referendum as it has in the past, you would still believe what you do"
I didn't miss it at all, but perhaps I was too subtle for you:
No, because the blanket ban on abortion is a contravention of human rights. Providing for abortion in certain circumstances at the very least is a civil right. Providing marriage equality is also providing a civil right and opposing it, no matter how well meaning, I believe to be a mistake. In that context you are not comparing like with like in my opinion.
Regarding identity in Northern Ireland, people can call themselves what they like, it really doesn't matter what I think. They should just figure it out and let the rest of us know instead of taking offence.
Sorry for touching a nerve, but Northern Ireland is not off limits to me. If I don't know what I'm talking about, surely you can do better than telling me to "shut up". Don't be so petty.
1
-
West Brit "Human rights are not a concept that you get to define and they can obviously overlap -the right to life might for instance Trump the right to murder a inconvenient Child ."
Human rights were well defined and agreed by governments internationally. However, the question of abortion is a tricky one: I think abortion for simple "convenience" purposes is wrong, for example, especially late in the pregnancy. However, the idea that the religious right have that it is wrong to allow a child to die if my pregnant wife's life is under threat is simply ridiculous (or if she is raped etc)
.
"My view for what it is worth is that Abortions are going to Happen, so should be legal and discouraged, the present situation is simply that all but the most impoverished and vulnerable o to England and have one.
Leaving us feeling all warm and virtuous whilst a women can die ' because we are a Catholic Country' I will vote to Liberalise the law".
I totally agree.
"You did not touch a nerve on the 6 ( you simply trot out the usual conventional Rubbish views on the subject ). It was you inane lecture on the position of Prods here that did a bit. Maybe I am petty ,I said we are petty people, I am Irish so maybe have to accept the logic of my own Statement !"
Sure seemed like I touched a nerve. You ridiculed my me and my point, then you dismissed it, before finally telling me shut up, and all without offering a counter argument. And it wasn't about Southern Prods either, you never mentioned them.
If you have something to say, have the confidence to say it. We don't have to agree, but I'm open to intelligent points and you've made a few of them in the past...
1
-
1
-
West Brit "So where is the quote from Carson or Craig telling the Southern Protestants to make the most of it?"
That's not a quote, its a turn of phrase, reflecting an attitude. After all, Ulster Unionists was decided to jettison Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan when formulating the partition option, not to mention the Southern Unionists of non-Ulster Scots stock.
"You say that they came to identify with the Free State - No we continued to identify with our neighbours and fellow Countrymen , and unlike the Minority in the North we were non violent ,so have on the whole supported the least nutty Southern party (FG) but that is not the same as embracing the State".
See below: is this a better explanation? I think this covers both of our positions.
"While the Border Minority Group survey found that Protestants living in the counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Leitrim identified themselves as Protestant first and foremost, Orange second, Ulster Scots third with Irish coming sixth, the other reports found that there was a strong and enduring sense of identity with the Irish state."
Taken from: http://www.seupb.eu/Libraries/Peace_Network_Meetings_and_Events/PN__The_Border_Protestant_Community_and_the_EU_PEACE_Programmes__100205_A_report_to_the_Peace_II_Monitoring_Committee.sflb.ashx
The Irish church was disestablished in 1869 the proportion of Prod's fell a little in the following 5 years then it remained fairly constant up until the 1911 census at around 10% to 12 % . There was no census in 1921 due to civil unrest, in 1926 the Free state had one and it fallen below 8% and continued to do so every time it was counted , until the turn of this century."
Yes, they left.
"The 'return of the British administration is the biggest lie of all- most of the administration was Catholic and Irish and continued to work for the Free State ,about 1700 civil servants returned to the UK and the military had never been counted due to the lack of 1921 census so no black and tans in your totals."
I'm not sure I follow this. While the exact records are destroyed, it should be easy to make a stab at numbers of troops in Ireland in 1921, and Civil Servants. Do you have any supporting references?
"Fear for their Future Yes"
Yes, it was a major motivator.
Economic reasons,why would they have more reason to leave for that reason then a Catholic ?"
They didn't. They would have left for the same reasons. They were economically better off in the UK.
"As for offensive and arrogant, that's how it felt to me but that is of course subjective."
I'm sorry you felt that way.
I would identify two native Protestant traditions in the Republic: the Ulster Scots and the Anglo-Irish. Would you agree?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inamortz2372 It was invented by the SH. The charge was led by NZ and Australia, but SA, while banned from play, still had a vote and they voted in favour. Eventually, England and France came on board. Interestingly, Ireland, Scotland and Wales never voted in favour of it as far as I know.
At the time in 1985 the head of NZ rugby couched the desire to have a RWC inaugurated in the context of the NH having the 5 Nations, which he said the SH was envious. In short, I think the NH was happy enough with the status quo, and there would never have been a RWC but for the SH nations. With SA banned, I remember thinking it was invented for NZ to win it. They were the best team in the world and they wanted a World Cup to win to reflect it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pamietamGryWpodchody 'The EU won nothing at all during BREXIT.'
Brexit has no winners. However, the EU got what it wanted from the negotiations with the UK, the UK did not
'The EU has lost more than it can imagine. The UK controls many trade routes for which the EU will have to pay more.'
This is a lie.
'BREXIT took place in a very difficult time and no one knew that a pandemic would come and that there would be a war in Ukraine.'
But everybody outside of the Brexit bubble knew that Brexit would be a failure.
'Now you are a free country and you have much more to offer than any other EU country. Why? You can make your own law, no one will block your projects.;
The UK is small country, much weaker than when it was a member, making laws for itself but have to take the rules of the USA, EU and China without any influence over them.
'You can freely exchange technologies with the USA, South Korea, Japan, Norway or even with Singapore. After the end of the war, you can invest in food in Ukraine, because Ukraine is the granary of Europe and the breadwinner of the world. All you have to do is play it right and you will be one of the largest food producers in the world. I believe that the UK won the battle with the EU. It takes some time to see the effects. Slowly.'
Bizarre self delusion. After the war, Ukraine will join the EU and British investors will be subject to EU laws and regulations
'Absolutely do not go back to this mess called the EU. Bring about the disintegration of the EU. Because not the whole EU is against you, but the German command center of the EU and Germany. Germany wants the federalization of the EU.'
Your comment indicates that you are simply anti-German.
The UK will be back in the Single Market in a decade and will be a full EU member again in 20 years. Welcome to reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewthompson1779 As you know, in the UK Parliament is sovereign so there is no requirement to give the public a direct say in its decisions. However, you will remember that Boris Johnson did win a huge majority for 'getting Brexit done' with the NIP, thanks to the UK public. Within weeks the UK government was condemning an agreement it conceived, negotiated, agreed, signed, debated in Parliament and won an election on. I don't think that could happen in any other European country.
Every country has had the pandemic and is now suffering a cost of living crisis thanks to the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. The reason the UK continues to languish more than any other country in Europe is because of consequences of Brexit for trade and investment.
Whatever difficulties NI has importing sausages from the UK, it has been weaponised by the Tories to keep the UK public angry at the EU rather than at the UK government. In the meantime, the NI economy is booming because of the quality of the deal it has access to: unfettered access to the UK market and the EU single market. This is a NI that has had all the same problems as GB, except it can trade with the EU easily. Nobody is actually using Brexit to explain all the UKs woes, but it is the reason why the UK has done worse than other countries.
I agree that the UK will get closer to the EU n the future. I agree also that the EU is constantly evolving, and has an ability to be quite flexible, whether it is a Norway deal, or being a member of the Eurozone or not and so on. As the EU has increased in size it has become less and less likely that any form of United States of Europe will ever be possible - certainly not as it was conceived in the past. But it will still exist. Brexit will not be a footnote in history for the EU: for the rest of Europe, membership has demonstrated its benefit to small nations, more than half of which are smaller than Ireland, in relation to larger third party neighbours. Ukraine is fighting an existential war for the freedom to join, while other smaller countries like Albania, Moldova and Georgia have all sought to begin accession negotiations. If the EU ceased to exist, it would only have to be invented - its benefits far outweigh the costs.
For the UK, it will not be a footnote either. Perhaps Brexit is part of a process that will lead to the ending of English-dominated British exceptionalism. Perhaps it will lead to internal political, economic and social reform that successive governments of all hues have ignored in the past. Now that the UK can no longer scapegoat the EU for all its problems, perhaps the British establishment can be held to account for its greed, corruption, ignorance and misrule. Perhaps?
1
-
@andrewthompson1779 Well, I can tell you that from an Irish perspective, having to place controls on the British border in Ireland because of a vote in GB was so politically toxic that there was not a single voice in favour of any alternative course of action other than the one taken by Varadkar. Every political party, even the fringe head-bangers who never get anybody elected, supported the government in this regard. At one stage, when Varadkar's approval levels reached unprecedented levels, 20% of public opinion felt he was not hardline enough. The border runs through farms, homes, businesses and separates people from their jobs, places of education, and in once case, a church from its adjoining burial ground. People on both sides of the border would not stand for it. Brussels, Merkel, Washington DC all understood this, but the British said the border was being 'weaponised'. I think they just never expected any pushback on it.
Brexit is reckless. It creates winners and losers in Northern Ireland where the GFA made both sides feel like winners; it is binary, ethno-nationalist, while the GFA guarantees parity between being Irish or British or both, while sharing an EU citizenship identity also.
Ireland needed to protect that. The alternative to infrastructure on the border would have been then for Ireland to leave the EU or just the Single Market - but this was also politically toxic in Ireland. The Irish people like the EU. Why would the Irish, as they commemorated a century of independence and sovereignty, accept having to leave the EU and damage its own economy, because of a vote in foreign country? The Irish people would not stand for it.
Finally, one of the root causes of the Troubles, often not appreciated in the UK, was the feeling that nationalists in NI had that Dublin had abandoned them for the first 50+ years of partition. And Dublin did abandon them. There was widespread discrimination against Catholics, and Dublin left it to the British to sort out, and never brought it up with them. One of the commitments Dublin made to nationalists under the GFA is that it would speak for them and represent them on the international stage and with London in particular - Varadkar had to do that and had to be seen to be doing it.
But don't forget, the Irish government took a softly-softly approach for the first year or so of Brexit, It was only when May lost ground in the 2017 election and used the DUP to stay in power that a newly elected Varadkar took a different approach to his predecessor. You now had a situation where the DUP were working hard to put a hard border in Ireland - they never supported the GFA - against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland who voted to remain. They were doing this with the support of the ERG which comprised a membership that included many Tories that were against the GFA in 1998 also. This was a threat to the peace process, and any threat to the peace process is a threat to Irish national interests. This view was supported by the security forces on both sides of the border.
So Ireland did not 'weaponise the border'. Brexit did that. Brexit was all about borders and there has to be a border between Brexit UK or Britain and the EU somewhere. It is incredible that nobody in the UK gave it any consideration, even among remainers, before the referendum.
I do get it about decades of decline in the UK prior to Brexit, I was well aware of the loss of traditional industries and how that had impacted on communities under successive governments. It seems to me that too many politicians blamed Europe for domestic policies that failed so many. Today there is a huge inequality in the UK and levels of poverty that you never see in Ireland anymore today. The UK has gone backwards, while Ireland has moved forwards - why?
So, the point is, despite these social and economic problems, Brexit is not answer. Leaving the EU is not going to solve those problems. Brexit makes everything worse
As for the price of oil - Putin has reduced supply and this has increased the price on the world market. It is shocking though that even wind energy providers are benefitting for the increase in price of oil as they're getting their percentage of the increased profits of power companies. Super profits should be taxed to provide relief to those suffering the most.
1
-
@andrewthompson1779 I disagree with you in relation to Varadkar and the those images. He was showing what was at stake, and remember, the security forces on both sides of the border agreed with him. It was the DUP that complained about his 'irresponsibility' as they were trying to get that hard border up on the island of Ireland. Everybody says they don't want a border in Ireland, that they wanted to maintain the status quo, but leading Brexiters left to Ireland and the EU to come up with solutions, Brexiters themselves had no solutions that would actually work while the EU had none that were acceptable to Brexiters.
Relatively few DUP supporters live along the border so they are unlikely to discommoded by the consequences of their actions. The trouble with Brexit is that it requires a border somewhere, either on the island or in the Irish Sea, which leaves one side or the other feeling hard done by. The only other option is for GB to return to the Single Market, but then many of those who voted for Brexit will feel cheated. Brexit has been an ill-conceived mess.
On one level, Brexit has provided a clear view for nationalists - they could see how unity might come about quite naturally, as NI and the RoI converge economically; on the other hand though, the new dispensation for NI could see its unique position as a centre for export into the UK and the EU work as a barrier to unity. Why would anyone want to give it up? As you say, it would be worth parking the constitutional question for a decade to see how things turn out. I'm a little surprised Unionists are not more confident about their future in that context.
It is true that there has been a backlash against immigrants in Dublin - but that has been headed up by bone fide racists, make no mistake. The problem in the republic is that there is no political will to engage in the provision of public housing, and instead they main parties are trying to get the private sector to solve the problem. This has not worked and that has left the field open to the racists to exploit the situation. The fact is, in the 1930s when Ireland was dirt poor and engaged in an economic war with the UK, de Valera still managed to solve a housing crisis by providing social housing. There is no excuse for Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil today.
All the best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About 13% of the population of the UK was born outside the country. The figure for Ireland is 17%.
Granted, nearly have of these immigrants come from Poland and the UK, but immigrants integrate well here and we have no right-wing anti immigration parties that don't fail to lose their deposit when they run in elections.
The concept of multi-layered identity is part of the Irish national identity now. In the Irish constitution, the definition of the Irish nation includes the notion that you can have more than one identity by including people of Irish heritage as part of the Irish nation: you can be Irish and British, Irish and American, Irish and European, Black, Muslim, Jewish and so on. You don't have that type of civic nationalism in England - its an ethnic nationalism.
There's no mention anywhere of conscription into an EU Army - except in the UK right-wing media. In any case, Ireland has an exemption from the EU Army in the Lisbon Treaty, which is what the Irish people had included as a protocol in the Treaty and voted for in that second referendum that Nigel Farage believes is an example of the Irish being 'made to vote again'.
Ireland voted for its membership of the EEC and later the EU. The Irish people vote on every single treaty change and so we 'own' our membership in a way British people never did.
The Irish people never voted to be part of the United Kingdom in 1801. I won't give you a history lesson, but Ireland experienced real oppression under British rule and we know what real oppression looks like. Its the same in Europe: between the ambitions of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar and Stalin, Europeans know what real oppression looks like. Our country is still dealing with the consequences London made in the interests of an establishment which spoke a different language, practiced a different religion, culture and customs than the natives.
English oppression within the EU is merely a product of the English imagination. It would appear that some English concluded that if the English are not ruling the EU, then the EU must be ruling them. Brexit is seem as a very English tantrum.
When you have to shoot your way out of the union you want to leave, perhaps we can compare the Irish independence and with the UK leaving the EU...
You don't get taught much Irish history in the UK. Mores the pity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it was in the Irish national interest.
Churchill never gave the Irish an assurance that the UK would not invade Ireland in its own national interest. Churchill, an old imperialist, did not recognise the right of the Irish to be neutral on a personal level.
In the event of a German invasion, there was an agreed plan that the Irish would invite the British army and RAF into Ireland. In the event of a British invasion, there was a tacit understanding with the British that Ireland would invite German assistance.
The declaration of neutrality in 1939 was the first free decision made by an independent Irish people, and it reflected a broad public consensus, which even included the Anglo-Irish, whose sons were in the British armed forces. Only one Irish MP ever spoke out against Irish neutrality during the war, and his constituents were appalled.This was because the Irish population was split between those who were hostile to the British and those who were sympathetic to them and national unity less than 20 years after the Irish Civil War was required.
You would think the Brexit British would understand the value of independence better than anyone these days, but Brexit has really only revealed the true depth of ignorance that exists about Ireland on the other island. There seems to be an underlying belief among many across the Irish Sea that Ireland is still an appendage of the UK.
Remarkably, after nearly a century of Irish independence, English people seem to think that only THEY ALONE understand the value of national sovereignty...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arisernestoskolios317 There was no false binary choice. I have no idea what 'a leasing scheme' refers to.
The integrity of the UK was never under threat until Brexit placed a strain on the bonds that hold it together. Brexit has been deeply divisive politically in your country. That's just a plain fact.
Ireland told the UK that it would object to a hard border on the island of Ireland, because nobody in Ireland had voted for one. It was politically toxic in the Republic. Indeed, as part of the GFA, people North and South of the border had voted for an open border by democratic process. In October 2016, UK PM May announced that the UK would be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, something that was denied would happen prior to the referendum. Ireland objected on the grounds that it would mean a hard border in Ireland, and the the UK response to this was to state they would not put up a hard border, something which would be necessary under two different customs areas. It was going to be Ireland's job to do it, or it would have to leave the Single Market. That was not in Ireland's national interest.
Ireland lobbied all EU capitals and Brussels to get the border issue resolved before any trade negotiations would take place. The Irish then went to Washington for support - Irish-American lobby is strong there - and got a commitment from the Democrats to block any UK-US trade deal if there was a hard border in Ireland. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, considered the GFA one of the great achievements of his Presidency while the EU took great pride in its role, particularly as it sees itself as a peace project. Brexiters seem to be completely unaware of any of this.
This is the reason that Johnson caved in and put the border in the Irish Sea, and when Joe 'I'm Irish' Biden was elected, why the UK dropped the IMB shenanigans - the UK NEEDS a US-UK trade deal.
So the entire problem was of the UKs making. I understand that this is difficult to accept, and claims that the 'EU put the Irish up to it', is the denial necessary to avoid the reality that membership of the EU does not weak member nations, but actually gives them strength. It does not sit well with Brexit propaganda.
This is one of the astonishing miscalculations of Brexit that historians will parse in the future years.
1
-
@arisernestoskolios317 National referenda are a problem for the EU. If raises the question to why an entire bloc should be held to ransom by one population living in one country. It is not very democratic if it is voted against and has the potential to cause chaos. In Ireland's case, it was told by the EU that it would left behind, outside the Lisbon Treaty, which would have been fine that is what the Irish people wanted. In fact, they wanted changes to the EU treaty and these changes were dealt with through protocols. You must remember too, that populations use referenda to vote their approval or disapproval on issues that have nothing to do with the reason for the referendum - displeasure at a government making health cuts, for example. The whole issue is tricky.
Brexit was divisive because leavers lied, and remainers were complacent and ineffectual. Most leavers are also English, and identify as such, rather than British. Most remainers in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not identify as British, while the Welsh were voted to leave presumably because a high proportion of voters there are actually English and not Welsh. A crisis of identity within the English is one of the reasons for Brexit.
Every since long before the Brexit referendum, English nationalist dominated political arena has railed against referenda being repeated. This is interesting, as the British have only ever held two referenda as a country in their entire history, the second being a rerun of the first. In Ireland and Switzerland, the two countries in the world that have more referenda than any others, this idea that you cannot change your mind is utterly bewildering.
1
-
1
-
@arisernestoskolios317 You make a good point about British nationalism - it has a potential to be civic, in part because it incorporates the notion of multi-layered identity: you can be Scottish and British or Greek-Cypriot and British etc. The trouble is, we forget that 'Britishness' became the home of English nationalism when it came into being. All of the characteristics of 'Britishness' as we understand it today, are transferable with being English, but not so transferable with being Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Only Northern Ireland Unionists are truly 'British' these days. British people speak English (not Scots Gaelic or Irish Gaelic or Welsh) and the head of the Commonwealth is actually an English-born monarch.
The use of 'Irish irredentist' is not accurate and signifies as misunderstanding of the peace settlement. There is no irredentist claim on Northern Ireland anymore. As part of the GFA there is an acceptance that a united Ireland can only come about through the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. Irredentism is about territory, and Irish unity is now no longer about uniting territory - it is about uniting people. This is a crucial difference and failing to understand that really undermines your otherwise valid points. Any united Ireland will be a 'new Ireland', with a new identity, perhaps as a member of the Commonwealth again, new anthem, flag and constitution. It is about people, not territory.
Hatred is a very strong word to use. I don't think many Scottish nationalists 'hate' Britishness. While the Irish never fully identified with the 'Britishness', the Scots are partners with the English in the whole British project, which was then used to help build the largest empire the world has ever seen. The Scots are a nation to themselves and now feel that their best interests are outside a union dominated by England - in other words, the United Kingdom has outlived its purpose as an imperial device now the empire is over. In my experience, many Asian Britons are leavers because they resented EU citizens moving to the UK when there were barriers to their kin in India, Pakistan etc moving to Britain. That said, more cosmopolitan London has a stronger 'British' identity and it voted to Remain probably for the reasons you outlined in relation to the dismay towards Scottish nationalism.
After the last General Election in the UK, in 2019, we were left with the Conservatives dominating England having adopted the politics of English nationalism; the Scottish nationalists dominated the Scotland having rejected the Conservatives; Irish nationalists returned a majority of the seats to Westminister for the first time in history. Welsh nationalism is weak, but it held on to the extra seat it gained in the 2017 General Election. Nothing more starkly highlights the position of British identity today than that electoral result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He scored tries against Argentina (1) Australia (4), England (3), Fiji (2), France (8), Georgia (2), Italy (6), Japan (2), Namibia (1), New Zealand (3), Romania (1), Scotland (5), South Africa (1), USA (1), Wales (7). Looks like he padded out his stats v France and Wales.
32 of his tries were against teams that were considered NOT weaker and NOT Italy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HBTeamaker Its not possible: the British could not come up with any grown up solutions and told the EU to find solutions instead. There are no solutions to the square peg of Brexit and the round hole of the Belfast Agreement. The British would have to concede on their red lines, but for party political reasons the Tories cannot do this - look what happened to PM May. You are trapped by reality. Had May's deal gone through, had the DUP not worked against her, the DUP would not be in this situation right now.
The whole of the UK did not democratically chose to leave the EU. There is a decreasing sense of Britishness in the UK according to the 2011 census, with most Scots identifying as Scottish, most English identifying as English and so on. 15.1 million of the 17.4 million leave voters were English, the Scots and Northern Irish voted to remain but there is no democratic accountability for that. The Welsh voted to leave but something like 21% of Welsh voters identify as English (2011 Census), so that obviously skewed the vote there because the English living there took their politics with them.
Your referendum was shaped by a civil war in the Tory party; there was no citizens assembly to shape the issues, and no referendum commission to police the wild claims made by both sides, particularly the Brexiters. Was it really democratic? The upshot of it all is, Brexit can only work if others who did not vote for Brexit sacrifice themselves for it. And that's not going to happen.
The EU is a rules based organisation and the treaty will not be negotiated. The Tory Party needs to respect the rules it negotiated and stop using the NIP for internal political reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Figure for WW1: 200,000 with 30,000 killed; some say that this is an underestimate and that 350,000 served. This is based on a more recent figure of 35,000 killed in a war with 10% fatalities, apparently. It is a figure for both North and South, obviously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I
Figure for WW1: 100,000 from Ireland (North and South) https://www.scotsman.com/news/full-scale-of-irish-wwii-death-toll-revealed-1-1208756.
This suggests that your assertion, '200,000 Irish served With British/Allied Forces WW2' is incorrect. Given the facts my assertion 'Wrong war. That was WW1', still stands. However, you are in good company - people often mistake the numbers served in the First war with those for the Second.
There is no excuse for ignorance, plenty of libraries, bookshops.
I can recommend a reading list if you require one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Timsvideochannel1 That's not my experience of Eastern Europe, my experience of working in Poland, the Baltic States and Hungary detected no ill-will towards Germany but a deep mistrust of Russia. I find East Europeans, particularly in the Baltic States and Poland, have a very low opinion of their own government, and the educated ones value the opportunity to travel to Western Europe to work for a few years and return with a nest-egg for a good start in their own country or, or for the opportunity of a new life.
It is true Eastern Europe is denuded of the young and educated, but that will change over time as their economies are lifted.. Many of them are copying Ireland's economic model. I heard zero complaints about Germany, but plenty of complaints about the UK and its attitude to their citizens working among them. Some towns and villages are populated only with middle aged or old people. These are the ones who have nostalgia for the certainly that communism brought them and they have not adapted well to the real world. The young are quite different, having no experience of communism, and possessing higher expectations.
Yugoslavia was created as part of a settlement after the First World War. Every single state created by the Anglo-French empires after the Great War has been at best a mistake and at worst a disaster that led to conflict, whether in Northern Ireland, Europe or the Middle East.
I understand that Brexiters seek validation from abroad, but the fact is, there is no other country anywhere with the kind of phobia for Germany that the English have. This is particularly odd, as it is also one of the few countries in Europe did not have the jack boot of a foreign power on its soil, giving them a real experience of what actual oppression is like.
1
-
@Timsvideochannel1 Well, Europe has been a peace since 1945, with the exception of the Balkan Conflict. It was one of the purposes of the European project - to make war impossible because member states had economies that were too intertwined to make it viable. It was also intended to be more than just a trading bloc. I'm Irish and Ireland knew it was intended to be more than a trading bloc when it made its first application for membership in 1961. Somehow, the British feel that political union is a new thing foisted upon them, but it seems to me like the British people did not understand what they joined. In the 1980s, I noticed that the EEC was always referred to as the Common Market on the BBC - in Ireland it was called the EEC, but we knew that the Common Market was part of it. I think this is significant.
When I was growing up in Ireland, everybody was white, Irish and most were Catholic. The exotic people were born in England, usually to Irish parents and they stood out only because of their accents from various English cities. Today, 17% of Ireland's population was born outside of Ireland, about 45% of them from either Poland or the UK. This percentage is higher than that of the UK, which is about 13% foreign born. Most immigrants are from Europe, but there are people from every continent living in Ireland today. Immigrants have settled in well and we have none of the problems of poor community relations that are present in the UK. They have integrated quite well.
Ireland is also an island, but we do not have an island mentality. We feel connected to the world, to Europe, the United States, Australia - everywhere. From 1973 to the early 1990s, Ireland was what Bulgaria is today, or certainly Poland: poor, underdeveloped, with a large emigrant population. We didn't join the EEC out of a sense of defeat and reluctance, we joined with optimism and a belief that the best days for Ireland were ahead. This has turned out to be the case - Ireland is a good place to live and other people want to live here, just like the UK. Irish people are different to English people though and have a different attitude to outsiders living among us. Perhaps it is because we are an emigrant people ourselves. Key to Ireland's success was finding an economic counter balance to the UK in the EEC/EU and finding that sweet spot has brought prosperity previous generations could only have dreamed of.
Based in the Irish experience, Bulgaria will be fine. It only joined the EU in 2007 and is one of the poorest of the post-communist states. Its economy is still adjusting, just as Ireland's was after 14 years of membership. It is in the process of joining the Euro, and if you want to find out what the EU has done for Bulgaria, look it up. It is a net recipient of transfers from the EU which will help modernise its infrastructure and develop its economy in due course.
The UK is a country very much ill-at-ease with itself. The English, many though not all, seem to be very angry and resentful at whole of Europe, Germany in particular. The behaviour of some English fans during the Euro 2020 tournament is an example of that anger and resentment. Ireland has no issues with Europe, we know what we get out of it and we know the limitations of hoarding sovereignty in an ivory tower, we tried it as official policy from 1923 to 1959. You can't eat a flag.
I'm sure there are innovative people in the UK, there always has been, but the UK has already one of the least productive workforces in the OECD. While you state that British fruit and veg pickers were forced out by racists East Europeans, today there are fields of cauliflower rotting in Cornwall. No local Cornish people will pick them and the migrants are gone.
Other ethnic groups earn more than the British do, with the Irish at the top of the salaries ladder in the UK. As the UK is seeking to defy economic gravity by focusing on trading with countries far away rather those on its doorstep, innovators will have their work cut out for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeanieVoiceOver 'According to historian T Ryle Dwyer 'On 26th June 1940 the British Government made an offer to Dev of unity in principle if Eire would declare war on Germany. Next day de Valera’s cabinet rejected the proposals. France had fallen and Britain seemed on the verge of defeat with the result that joining the British seemed a preposterous proposition, especially when it was inconceivable that Irish help would make the difference between victory and defeat.'
'The de Valera people are afraid we are going to lose, and don’t want to be involved with us’, former PM Neville Chamberlain wrote in his diary.' (T Ryle Dwyer).
'We believed that if we were foolish enough to accept that invitation’, de Valera told the Dáil some years later, ‘we would have been cheated in the end’ As Basil Brooke, the future Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, later wrote to Gray (US Minister in Ireland), ‘De Valera knew, of course, that Britain was not in a position to hand us over’. (Ryle-Dwyer, p85)
There is speculation that in a united Ireland Fianna Fáil would have lost their overall majority and instead would leave Unionists as kingmakers after any general election.
'On 2 July de Valera informed Richard Mulcahy of Fine Gael about the British proposals...Mulcahy suspected that even with Cosgrave's support de Valera would be unable to carry the Dáil on the British terms. In his estimation, half of Fianna Fáil, one third of Fine Gael and the whole of Labour would oppose the offer.’ (Ryle-Dwyer, p85)
James Dillon, the only member of the Dáil to advocate abandoning neutrality during the war, agreed with Mulcahy’s assessment . ‘If de Valera tried to carry the country for abandoning neutrality on the strength of the present British promises,’ Dillon told Gray, ‘he would be beaten’. (Ryle-Dwyer, p 85)
'Behind the Green Curtin - Ireland's Phoney Neutrality During World War II' by T Ryle Dwyer
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Nigel
Yes, but you will not last long...a country that throws an international peace treaty under a bus and walks away from a €39 billion commitment to the EU will be something of a pariah on the international stage.
And you will have to come back. You will find that trading on WTO without trade deals alongside Somalia, South Sudan, East Timor, The Vatican, Serbia, Monaco, Sudan and Western Sahara comes at a cost you cannot bear.
You will come crawling back when the City decides it wants a deal with the EU, the worlds largest trading bloc, on its doorstep.
You will cough up the 39 billion and return to Customs Union and Single Market in order get a quick deal. The humiliation will be complete.
You will have discovered the limitations of independence in a world of interdependence.
You will leave, and you will return. Which part of that do you not understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5888max You have an uncanny ability to read your biases into what I'm actually saying. Must be the siege mentality.
Protestants play a full role in Irish society, so I have no reason to get excited over Heather Humphries. She's just another politician to me, at the end of the day.
There was nothing democratic about the establishment or creation of Northern Ireland, it was a plan hatched between Belfast and London without the consultation of any Irish nationalists - or as you see them - 'Catholics'. The newly gerrymandered region of the UK in Ireland provided what Craig called a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Had there been no border, it seems likely that the excesses of both jurisdictions could have been avoided in the century that followed. But we are where we are.
I don't need to consider anything in relation to demographic change on the island of Ireland. I have already studied the exhaustive research into the subject, and unlike you, i understood it.
Catholics have more babies than Protestants on both sides of the border. In Northern Ireland though, part the reason Protestants declined in relation to their religious opponents is because many left and moved to the 'mainland', especially middle class Prods.
In the republic, the Protestant population had been in decline since the disestablishment of the church in the 19th century. They suffered disproportionality in terms of losses during the Great War, and many others left with the departure of British administration in 1921/22. And of course in the years that followed many emigrated for economic reasons, just like Catholics, and some will have departed out of fear of what living with Irish nationalism might mean for them. These days the numbers have stabilised because of the numbers of Protestants moving into Ireland.
Ulster Prods don't want to share NI with Catholics. Everybody can see that.
The idea that Protestants felt less safe in the republic when compared to NI actually infuriates southern Protestants. Protestants in the south, though small in number, belong to the upper socio-economic echelons of Irish society, particularly among the professions such as in law, architecture, accountancy. Many among the judiciary are Protestant. ( Unlike in Belfast, Dublin did not have vast swathes of working class Prods). Protestants in the south would often write letters to the editor of the Irish Times over the years, distancing themselves from the Paisleyite characterization of southern Protestants being 'an oppressed minority'.
Contrary to your uncalled for side-swipe, I'm quite open minded about anything you have to say. I'm not open minded about tired old tropes, long disregarded by thinking people. You can keep them to yourself.
Btw, there is no 'a' in border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daycentchunage5341 Unification has never been the concern of any Taoiseach. There are no votes in it. Nothing did more to create a partitionist mindset in the south than 30 years of mindless violence in Northern Ireland. There are votes in maintaining the GFA which people in the south genuinely care about. Peace is popular in the south. That's the priority, not unity.
Because of this, the south is playing a long game. The establishment of the Shared Island Unit in the Department of the Taoiseach is part of that long game, seeking to create relationships across the border with Unionists who hate us. This is a glacial process, but it is actually happening, and it is unlikely that you or I will ever see the fruits of it.
There is no point in any Dublin government pushing too hard to bring forward unity. The public in the south would not stand for the distraction when there are more important bread and butter issues. While Sinn Fein has become more and more popular in recent years, this has been because of their social and economic policies, not because of any sense of urgency about unity.
Unity will come about through the breaking down of the borders in peoples minds, north and south, and because of changes in attitudes in the UK, particularly among the English. They will eventually tire of paying for the place. A form of unity that comes about almost naturally will work better with the public in the south also, as many of the answers to many of the questions we would have down here would be answered.
I think it will happen though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garrywynne1218 You lost me mate.
Ireland respected international law and was not involved in changing the status quo - that was the UKs decision. In the same way as the Nazis were democratically elected to power in Germany in the 1930s, it was the democratic decision of mostly English voters that took the UK out of the EU without any debate or discussion about the British border in Ireland. In short, just because it was a democratic decision, it does not make it right for you as a brit, and it certainly does not compel me as an Irishman.
Because of the archaic democratic system in the UK, NI was taken out of the EU even though there was no majority in favour of doing so. Since the GFA, NI has been a part of the UK that is in the waiting room to leave the union - it may never leave it - but because of the GFA, NI it is not a 'normal' part of the UK. It is not, as JRM once claimed, as British as Somerset. It is anything but. With me so far?
In 2017 the DUP saw an opportunity to put a hard border in Ireland. There would need to be a hard border between two customs areas, requiring infrastructure and the British government pretended they didn't want one. Some perhaps thought that could force Ireland out of the EU with this ploy, weakening Ireland, but they had no idea what they were doing. According to An Garda Siochána and the PSNI, any hard border would result in a return to violence. The Irish government pointed this out to Brussels and Washington. The DUP in particular felt the Irish were being unfair by pointing out the obvious, and faked some outrage.
How are you doing? Still with me? Keep up.
So, the EU defended its member state - a shock to Brexiters who believed that Ireland would be 'thrown under the bus', because it was not 'important'. Ireland defended the GFA and retained the status quo for nationalists, because Teresa Mays government found itself in hock to the DUP. The upshot was that under Boris Johnson, a known liar that the British enthusiastically elected PM anyway, Unionists ended up with their border, but it was in the wrong place. The Irish Sea border makes them less feel less British. They did not think about the consequences when they backed the hardest possible Brexit. They did not think about that when they thought the losers would be Irish nationalists.
Washington gave the UK, its client state, a slap for trying to use the border to get leverage with the EU. For the cross-party Irish Caucus on Capitol Hill, Irish-Americans were looking at yet another example of the British trying to shaft the Irish; every Irish-American knows that they are American today because of a previous time the British government shafted Ireland. They were never going to allow the UK to ruin the GFA, a peace agreement the US had actually brokered.
In short, the UK bit off more than it could chew. You are entitled to what passes for democracy in your country, but if the UK had approached Brexit as a serious nation a whole lot of trouble could have been avoided. As for Unionist in NI, I feel second hand embarrassment for them.
Even you tell me that you were all laughing at the wrong bits, comparing Ireland as part of the European Union while it is against being in the United Kingdom, without understanding the difference. Or is it? NI Protestant Susan Mackay has written about Ulster Prods doubling on stupid opinions rather than admitting they are wrong, engaging in willful ignorance. Its probably an example of it.
After all, if you did not understand what was happening around you, what hope did you have?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 'British People' did not vote to leave the EU, 15.1 million the 17+ million voters were English - the English voted to leave the EU, the Scots and the Northern Irish voted to remain. Indeed, the Welsh probably would have voted to remain too, if it were not for all the English retirees living among them. Brexit will break up your 'precious union'.
Your country was never a democracy other western countries would recognise. You have an unelected head of state, a first past the post electoral system for your House of Commons, an unelected elitist Upper House with Bishops (!) in it, no written constitution that any citizen has ever voted upon, no devolution for England and no constitutional account for the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Your referendum was a joke, with many pretending that they were never promised that the UK would leave with some sort of a trade deal with the EU.
The UK already has a dictator - Rupert Murdoch.
Good luck thinking you will be a self-ruling county. You will be rule takers, not rule makers. Enjoy!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leehallam9365 ‘…so yes I do claim moral credit for Britain in both instances.’
I’m not sure about the claiming of ‘moral credit’ for upholding a treaty and for holding out after the fall of France. That's setting the bar a bit low, isn't it? The treaty existed for geopolitical purposes, and while Britain was expected to fall in the summer of 1940, the Germans still had to press home their advantage. They failed.
‘That was not a moral decision, but the notion that we, or the Irish were choosing between the two, is ridiculous.’
Not from and Irish perspective: 1) There was no moral justification for Ireland declaring war on Germany when it was unarmed, particularly when there was consensus since 1936 that Ireland would be neutral in the coming war. 2) The British and French were Imperial nations and Ireland considered imperialism to be immoral – it is a tenet of Irish nationalism and the Irish of the 1940 did not trust a British leadership that was trying to kill them just a few years before, and partitioned their country; 3) the Irish considered the Nazi racial system to be immoral and indeed was the only country in the world not to send an Olympic team to the 1936 Berlin Nazi showpiece for this reason. 6) Catholic Ireland hated Stalin. Rightly or wrongly, many in Ireland saw a moral equivalence between all sides.
‘Germany was the prime aggressor, it was they who initiated the attack on Poland, who took country after country.’
The UK and France did not go to war against the Soviets when it invaded Eastern Poland because their treaty with Poland only specifically mentioned Germany as the aggressor. Thus they did not go to war for moral purposes but for geopolitical reasons: containing German ambitions.
'Second, this idea about the English not trusting the Germans, it matters little but it is nonsense… it's the French we don't trust.'
I don’t buy that. There is a venom towards Germany that does not exist towards the French, it is very apparent, perhaps you have a difficulty admitting it. Militarily the British had an alliance with France in 1914 and 1939 and again in NATO. They went into the Suez with the French in 1956. Within the EU, the British popular belief is that the Germans run the EU, that they alone pull all the strings because Germany has the biggest economy and countries don’t have an equal voice in the bloc because, in their view, it is undemocratic. British people have told me for years that, through the EU, the Germans had achieved economically what they could not achieve militarily, and their resentment was real.
‘But they also believe that they understand the English. I've heard a great deal of it over recent years, lots of analysis about what we think and why, quite hilariously superficial and wrong.’
Wrong? Oh I don’t think so…
‘Third, the substance of your reply about the reasons behind the Irish decision. We have judge these things on the situation at the time, so relections after the event that it might have been for the best are not relevant, you mention that the Irish argued at the time that was the case, but without detailing it.’
You had previously stated that Ireland’s participation was, in the end, not crucial in the war. You then state that such reflections are not relevant when I supplied M15’s assessment supporting the assertion. I claimed that the Irish had made the same argument: that Ireland had little to offer the allies by declaring war on Germany. It had no defences of its own and that these would have to be supplied by the British, who claimed they couldn’t spare very much (it was policy not to supply Ireland, instructions of Churchill). Another issue was the provision RN naval bases in Cork and Donegal – the Cork ports were of little advantage following the fall of France, and the Donegal base was irrelevant because NI was available. Ireland could have provided little more than it already did in secret.
‘But there were many different ways in which Ireland could have been involved, it certainly need not have meant a conscripted army.’
Cecil Liddel did not seem to think so, nor does anyone else from that time that I'm aware of. You don't provide examples of these 'different ways', none of which would relevant anyway as belligerence would not reflect the will of the people. Ireland was involved behind the scenes, and was thanked for it in private.
‘Yet had West Germany been attacked in the 1950s, do you seriously think the UK would have stood by?’
No, you had a treaty with them as part of NATO. Ireland had no such treaty with the United Kingdom. Germany did not partition part of Britain and rule the partitioned bit against the will of the majority in Germany. Britain did not partition Germany, the Soviets did, but they partitioned Ireland.
‘…Is victimhood so weaved into the Irish psyche that even now you haven't noticed that?
Ouch! I didn’t see that reversion to type coming! I'm only telling you how it was then. Anti-British feeling, dating from the Anglo-Irish War in the 1920s was still high; while many viewed the NI as an illegal occupation. An alliance with the UK risked serious political instability. De Valera’s public policy of neutrality enabled Ireland to maintain internal political unity.
‘Ireland had a choice, perhaps it's government couldn't choose against public opinion, but that just moves the ownership of the decision from its government to its people.
Yes, neutrality was ‘the will of the people’, and under the 1937 Constitution the Irish people are sovereign. Support crossed all sections of society from the old Anglo-Irish unionists and those who volunteered to fight in the British Armed Forces – they all saw it as the only option for Ireland. In the early months of the war the British Government did not suggest that there was anything wrong about Irish neutrality, only that it would prove to be an impractical policy. Nor was neutrality an unusual notion: Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland were all following a respectable and rational policy of neutrality. The United States was also neutral at the start of the European war, and only joined the war when attacked by Japan - Ireland was never attacked by Germany. Had the Germans declared war on Ireland as they had done with the Americans, that situation would have changed. Make no mistake, the Irish people own their neutrality, then as now. The British attitude changed significantly when Churchill came to power. He had no time for neutrals, constantly argued that Irish neutrality was not even legal, did not believe the RN bases in Ireland should ever have been returned to Ireland and he did not trust Ireland. Elizabeth Bowen, the Anglo-Irish writer, friend of Churchill and spy, in a letter to the Ministry of Information saw it thus: ‘It may be felt in England that Eire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But his assertion of her neutrality is Eire’s first free self-assertion; as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Eire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative’.
‘You shouldn't be surprised then if Churchill and Roosevelt showed scant respect for Ireland or DeValera after the war.’
Why not? Irish neutrality was a sophisticated deception based on a two track policy: external scrupulousness in maintaining the diplomatic niceties of neutrality and secret de facto co-operation with the Allies. Co-operation with the UK began in 1938 following the return of the treaty ports, and became more focussed from the summer of 1940. Neutrality was a public relations exercise by the Irish Government that convinced everyone at home and abroad that Irish neutrality was unpartisan. There is a good argument that neutrality benefitted Britain, MI5 certainly believed so. Either way Churchill and Roosavelt were fully aware of Irish assistance but never acknowledged it. Their attitude was vindictive and political. They needed to discredit Ireland for their own personal political reasons, which I may or may not have mentioned earlier.
'Had those volunteers and more beside fought under the Irish flag, then DeValera and Ireland would have earned a very different place in the post war world. I think they made the wrong decision, for reasons that are understandable, but are just excuses based on how they felt about the British.'
I don’t think de Valera really cared about how the world viewed him, when the Irish Jewish community sought to plant a forest in Isreal in his honour, he only agreed to it on the grounds that there would be no publicity. Like Roosavelt and Churchill he was man of strong will. I genuinely believe that the Irish people didn’t care much for how it was viewed either, they were very proud of their stand. Ireland was blocked from UN membership by the Soviets in 1945 on the grounds that it had been neutral, but the real reason was that throughout the war, while there was no criticism of the UK and the US permitted in the media, Stalinism was constantly criticised throughout. It is often said that Ireland was excluded from the Marshall Plan, but in fact Ireland rejected most, though not all of it. The Irish government did not trust the Americans.
You have no excuse for not having a more nuanced view now...
1
-
@leehallam9365 ‘I did not intend to say you were dishonest, my view was by your own estimation Ireland's neutality was dishonest, it said one thing, and to some extent did another.’
It is certainly the case that Ireland maintained a scrupulously neutral position in public, and behind the scenes provided whatever assistance it could to Britain and to a lesser extent the Americans. It was a balancing act, necessary to maintain political and social cohesion at home and to deter German aggression on the one hand, while assisting the British in secret and keeping them at arms-length at the other. In WW2 Europe, there was no such thing as absolute neutrality anyway. Maintaining that balancing act was where Ireland’s interests lay, and they pulled it off.
‘On Churchill, of course he would not arm a neutral Ireland, we were at war, our supplies were needed for ourselves and our allies, no country would have done that.’
But that was not the reason, the reason was to keep Ireland on a short leash, better to pressurise Ireland into joining the war.
‘As for his failure to guarantee he would not invade Ireland, wasn't he just being honest?
No. A feasibility study to invade the former RN bases in Cork Harbour, Berehaven and Lough Swilly was conducted by Montgomery at Churchill's instruction in June 1940, while at the same time the Irish and British militaries were putting a plan in place for a joint defence of Ireland (Plan W) in the event of a German invasion – Ireland was committed to resisting any invasion and the British were keeping their options open. After the attack on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, the US Secretary of State informed the UK that such an attack on Ireland would have a disastrous impact on Roosevelts pro-British policy. Churchill told him that the UK would not make the first move. This is more than the UK ever told the Irish at any stage of the war, despite repeated requests after sinking of the French fleet.
Churchill congratulated himself in his victory broadcast in May 1945 for not invading Ireland, saying it would have been perfectly justifiable to invade Eire. De Valera’s response highlighted the hypocrisy in the British position from an Irish perspective, as Britain claimed it was in a war for democracy, but was prepared to invade a neutral democracy if it wished to: 'It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean Britain's necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people's rights were not to count. It is quite true that other great Powers believe in this same code-in their own regard-and have behaved in accordance with it. That is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars-World War No. 1 and World War No. 2…’
You need to brush up on your history of partition. The fact is, from an Irish perspective, the British partitioned the country without consulting the nationalist majority on the island – this is undemocratic. The war in what is now the Republic was not sectarian, but it was in Northern Ireland - and it was not nationalists who brought the gun into Irish politics but the unionists in 1912, and the British government turned a blind eye. The British Empire has a long history of drawing lines on maps and leaving those on either side of those lines to deal with the consequences which have lasted down to this day. Maybe if you had a land border in your country you might feel differently.
‘I do wonder how those demanding an end to partition without the consent of those in the North actually thought it would turn out, we're they really that stupid?’
The British ruled Ireland without consent and they didn’t think it was stupid, did they? As we have seen, Churchill would probably have annexed Ireland in 1940 but for Roosevelts concerns about the Kennedy faction, Ireland would have exploded. Let’s not get carried away with administration of stupidity here.
Irish nationalism has matured and evolved since the 1960s. Today you can be Irish and Catholic, Irish and Protestant, Irish and black, Irish and British, Irish and gay and so on. The Irish constitution embraces the notion of a multi-layered identity. Contrary to your claims, I read in today’s Irish Times the headline by Newton Emerson, a unionist commentator ‘Unionists interested in a United Ireland’; it is also the case that since Brexit thousands of unionists now carry an Irish passport; with a declining British Demos, it would appear that the UK is in decline (my personal opinion is that the English will leave it) and Irish nationalists will probably find themselves in the majority in NI after the 2021 census. The Union has lost moderate Irish nationalism since Brexit and Unionists know English nationalism would throw Unionists under a bus in heartbeat if it suited them. A united Ireland is much more likely now than it was in May 2016, the only argument is over what the new Ireland will look like and how long it will take. Yesterday the Orange Order announced it had purchased PPE equipment for hospitals north and south of the border. I had to read the article twice to check. Brexit is changing things.
‘It's about the survival of civilisation, yes they don't know about how evil Hitler is, but they do know he is pretty bad, you've made clear that Irish public opinion and politicians knew who they wanted to win, so Ireland has a choice.’
Yes, they had chosen to be neutral since 1936. Irish public opinion was hardly going to be changed by Churchill. On 13th May 1940, Churchill made is famous ‘Blood, Sweat and Tears’ speech. The reason he gave as to why Britain must win the war was that otherwise there would be ‘No survival for the British Empire, no survival at all for the British Empire stood for...’. Well, as far as the Irish were concerned, they knew what the British empire stood for – why would they Irish fight for the maintenance of an Empire they had to shoot their way out of during living memory and still partitioned their country? There is no logic there.
It is not surprising the Irish of the 1940s saw a moral equivalence between the great powers of Europe. Who said, “I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. ...I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, has come in and taken their place...
Adolf Hitler? Nope, it was Winston Churchill in 1937 in relation to Palestinian Arabs.
Churchill failed to place Ireland in a moral dilemma with such beliefs. There was genuine anxiety in Dublin that if the British came into Ireland the Irish would never get them out again, and these words above explain why. And you we are still stuck with the reality that the democratic will of the Irish people was to stay neutral, a position that was not out of step with most other nations in Europe In this context is difficult to see how the Irish had a ‘practical and moral’ choice to go to war alongside Britain without an attack or a declaration of war by Germany first.
I’m reminded of the words of the British spy Elizabeth Bowen, I quoted her in a previous post, who said that Irish neutrality was important to the Irish people, that was not just a negative (one in the eye for the British) but a positive (an expression of sovereignty). That sovereignty, amid the empires, was an important factor.
I’ve outlined where Ireland’s interests lay, but the evidence does not suggest there was a moral imperative to abandoning neutrality.
1
-
1
-
@leehallam9365 I retrieved my response. I it had something to do with the length,
‘.. the Germans did use the IRA, I think it unlikely that they didn't know what happened in Ireland.’
The IRA was a banned organisation in 1939, did not recognise the 1937 constitution and they were a threat to Irish neutrality. De Valera rounded them all up and executed six of them. They had no access to the government. Dev made a promise to Chamberlain that Ireland would not be used as a base to attack the British from and he kept it. Not only do the British and Ulster Protestants hate de Valera but Sinn Fein supporters do to.
‘Is Churchill supposed to be intent on taking back Ireland? Or on selling out the Unionists?’
The public feared a German invasion, but what they did not know was the Irish government could not get an assurance that Irish neutrality would be respected from Churchill. This caused anxiety about invasion from Britain in government and military circles. We know that a feasibility study regarding the seizure of the old RN bases was carried out, it was decided it was not worth it. It is also the case that Churchill sent de Valera a telegram offering Irish unity for an abandonment of neutrality. It is a measure of the desperation felt in Britain and Ireland that these actions, offers and fears existed.
‘Britain gave up Ireland after a war with 2000 dead, had it wanted to keep it by force, it could easily have done so, why on earth would it desire to take it by force at massive cost, while fighting Germany.’
Montgomery came to the same conclusion in relation to seizure of the ports, but remember the Irish were unaware of all of this. Furthermore, the value of the ports was much diminished as they were run down and within range of the Luftwaffe following the fall of France…but Churchill kept pushing for them. It was a psychological thing with him from his days as First Lord of the Admiralty, concerned about his exposed Western flank.
‘Perhaps the Irish at the time genuinely thought it likely, though I've seen no evidence of that, but their was no logic to it.’
Its all about trust. The Irish did not trust the British, and had no grounds to do so. The British did not trust the Irish and you put forward the explanation as to why.
‘The reality about Churchill is that this is evidence that he passionately believed in 1940, that ending Irish Neutrality was of vital importance.’
I’m not disputing that. My point was that that maintain neutrality was of vital importance for the Irish. De Valera saw it as being of vital importance to Britain. To be honest, I think if Germany did attack Ireland or even just declare war, the Irish would have had no problem throwing in their lot as Dev could have carried the country. But it never happened.
‘Later judgements might have been that he was wrong, but they had hindsight. Only one thing mattered to Churchill, winning the War, and if that needed him to sink the french fleet, and give the Irish Unity, or if the need arose invade Ireland, he would do that.’
England’s necessity becoming a moral code?
I read somewhere that Churchill wanted to use poison gas Ireland if the Germans began an invasion. Ever come across that?
‘My view is that on the basis of what was known at the time it was the wrong choice.’
It was certainly the logical one, Britain was facing defeat. We have an insight from Neville Chamberlain who was still a member of the British War Cabinet in July 1940 when he wrote: “The real basic fact is that it is not partition which stands in the way at this moment, but the fear that Dev and his friends that we shall be beaten. They don’t want to be on the losing side, and, if that is unheroic, one can only say that it is the attitude of the world from the USA to Romania, and from Japan to Ireland.”
‘So yes having Britain between them and the Nazis, was what gave them the moral choice.’
The moral choice between throwing yourself in behind an apparent loser when you are unarmed is neutrality, especially as the British lost so much military equipment at Dunkirk and had little to spare.
‘Its leaders, put their careers and old disputes and historic enmity before the very real threat about to hit them.’
In 1942, a member of Fine Gael called James Dillon, broke with the consensus and advocated Irish entry in the war. He was not in Devs party, but his assessment to the American legate in Dublin who was trying to get Ireland to end neutrality was ‘If de Valera tried to carry the country for abandoning neutrality on the strength of the present British promises, he would be beaten’. He could not have done it, and he would have been overthrown from within his own party. I disagree that they put their careers ahead of the German threat, these were not people afraid to but their lives on the line for their country. But they were not prepared to split the country either.
‘And Ireland was not a possession of the Empire, or even a Dominion, it was part of the UK from 1801.’
Ireland was colonised in stages from the 12th Century, Ulster was planted in the early 1600s and there were various failed plantations in Munster and the midlands. Cromwell dispossessed all landowners, Irish and ‘old English’ who were Catholic, and replaced them with protestant owned estates. It was a colony. It remained a colony after the Act of Union, but differed from the others by having representation in parliament. Unlike the rest of the UK, it had an armed paramilitary police force. The Great Famine provided clear knowledge to Irish people that there were not considered to be the same as English, Scottish and Welsh members of the UK by London. It is no national myth. It was the experience.
‘Finally why are the British more interested in WW2 than other European countries, other than the ones re-writing it?... We stood alone..’
Yes, the last act as a power, that is what I thought myself, and if anything it is growing stronger with the years rather than diminishing. The UK to find its post-imperial place in the world and the EU did not cut it. As you know though, the Canadians and the Australians would dispute that you stood alone!
1
-
@leehallam9365 Are you suggesting the South might vote against unity?
It is quite possible. A poll in November said that most people in the Republic believed there could be a united Ireland in five years. Today a poll says only 30% see a united Ireland by 2030. Its fluid, but these are also polls taken in a vacuum. Any united Ireland will have to be an agreed new Ireland. We have a lot of experience with referenda and its pitfalls. Irish people rejected two EU treaties in protest at the government for reasons that had nothing to do with the EU, so we have form. Hard choices will have to be made: a new flag? A new constitution? A new national anthem? How will it be paid for? Will the loyalists bomb Dublin? Will it be federal? Rejoin the commonwealth? These are issues that have to be overcome and they have not been discussed yet. The first move may have to come from the unionists.
‘Why for example would we want a NI that had declared it does not want to be British in our country?’
That’s a matter for the UK. Also, no Irish government will want to deal with the embarrassment of NI voting for unity and the republic rejecting it (or vice versa). While a 50%+1 vote in NI in favour of unity is enough, no Irish government will want unity unless there is a substantial minority of unionists favour too. And what if the Scots or the English leave the UK and there is no union, will there be time to do things correctly? There are questions to be asked that did not exist in 1920 or 1940, but such is the evolution of Irish nationalism. Under the GFA, unity is no longer simply about unification of territory, it’s about the unity of people.
‘..under the original Backstop EU law including new laws would apply in NI, they would have no representatives to vote on them, and no right to leave the arrangement.’
The original backstop was the suggestion of the British Government, not the Irish government. I’m sure if NI later desired to leave the EU, it would be free to go.
‘I don't understand what you mean about democratic deficit.’
There is no constitutional account for the fact that NI and Scotland voted to remain. Scotland is a nation with its own identity, NI is a territory where two separate identities are given equal standing, both unified under a shared EU identity. That shared identity was what future reconciliation was to be built upon, and the people NI voted to keep it. There are other deficits in the UK: the FPTP electoral system, unelected House of Lords with seats for bishops in it, no codified constitution that the public ever voted on, no devolution for England and so on…you could even include hereditary monarchy!
'You suggest that in a united newly independent Ireland Unionists would hold the balance of power. I'm not sure how that happens, the nationslist divide was over partician. '
The Irish Civil War was actually fought over the Oath of Allegiance as partition was supposed to be temporary. The Oath of Allegiance to the King remained until the 1937 constitution abolished it. It has been argued here that de Valera deliberately avoided doing anything to remove partition because he feared a million unionists voting for their party would it dilute the dominance of his party in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.
‘Isn't it more likely that they would be in the position of the nationalists in Northern Ireland.’
Well, if the experience of southern protestants is anything to go by, then no. And certainly in the south we would be very conscious of not repeating the same mistake. Unionists felt under siege in NI, in a united Ireland, Irish nationalists will not have that insecurity. In 1920, a united Ireland of say 5 million people would have been about 25-30% protestant, with a disproportionate dominance in positions of economic power and the professional classes. That would have given them clout and the excessively Catholic Irish Free State would surely have been blunted.
‘The anger directed at Ireland was in part due to the use made of the border issue by those trying to stop it. The Irish government were quite explicit in their support for this campaign to over turn a referendum decision in another country.’
That is the perception. Brexit Britain had no understanding of the emotional impact that border has in Ireland. The GFA was the perfect compromise. But Ireland never featured in the Brexit debate and it was dominated by a particular type of English person who would expect Ireland to suck it up. What Ireland did was put the border issue straight back on to the British government. It appeared that the Irish were trying to stop Brexit simply because there was no solution. While the British politicians and media were banging on about the economic impact of Brexit on Ireland, to the Irish this was secondary to the political implications of an Irish government watching while a hard border was erected on the island again. Ireland would have to deal with the problem. Fixing the economy would be easier.
‘It was as though it was something we had done to Ireland, it wasn't it was something we are doing for ourselves.’
It did feel like something that was ‘done’ to Ireland. It really did. A thoughtless oversight that we saw coming when we watched your pre-referendum ‘debates’. It took us by surprise because relations between Ireland and the UK had never been better. Brexit meant that the Irish government had to speak up, not only for the Republic but for nationalists in NI. Their grievance in the past was that when they were being shafted by Stormont for decades, Dublin said nothing and that this contributed to the emergence of the IRA terrorism. Once the DUP went into government with the Tories, Ireland hardened its position. Ireland had an obligation under the GFA to speak up, and quietly, moderate unionists were impressed because Varadkar spoke for their interests too. The people of Ireland voted for the GFA, and a decision made largely by English voters on another island changed it.
Brexit was just not compatible with realities in life in Ireland. Brexiters had dealt with that problem by not dealing with it because Brexit was supposed to be easy.
‘…firstly we voted as a single nation not as separate entities, and second Wales voted to leave too. Poor old Wales always forgotten as they don't fit the England dragging the Celtic nations out of the EU agenda.’
Yes, you voted as one nation, but it also the case that 15.1 million votes were English. An English academic, Anthony Barnett, pointed out that there is a correlation between those who identified as English only (and English first and British second) in the 2011 census and leave voting areas in England in 2016. These were areas where people had identified as British in 1991. This suggests an assertion of English national identity. The pro-EU SNP dominate in Scotland, while NI returned more Irish nationalist seats than unionist for the first time. There are three nationalisms rising in the UK resulting in the overarching British identity becoming increasingly irrelevant. There is a good argument therefore that the UK is no longer fit for purpose, and that the realignment you mention also includes this rise in nationalisms.
‘England will not leave the UK. I don't even see a constitutional mechanism for that. There is no English Government.’
Why is there no devolution for England? You still have your political class in charge, the same type of people that always ruled, now with notions of an Empire 2.0…what will Brexit change for the ordinary people of England? Like I said before, I know nobody else who agrees with me about an Independent England, and you may well turn out to be right.
The election in December saw victories for English, Scottish and Irish nationalism within the UK. Everybody overlooks the Welsh, including me, but Barnett tells us that in the last UK census 12% of the Welsh population identified as English. Apparently, there is a large population of English retirees in Wales, and he argues they took their politics with them. He also points out that unlike Scotland and NI, Wales has a weak local print media, and they are more exposed to their English counterparts. Interestingly, Welsh speaking north Wales provided the highest remain vote of any British demographic – some 80%. Barnett reckons the break up of the UK is not inevitable and that it may instead lead to constitutional reform.
‘How Britain does outside the EU remains to be seen, but don't think that Brexit is loaded with expectations by most Brexit voters.’
Expectations were high in he summer of 2016, but the narrative was subsequently modified to fit the reality that Brexit was not going to make people better off, it would appear. At the moment I’m not seeing anything that suggests it will prove to have been a good economic decision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'We unionists in NI have many sensible reasons for not wanting to take our country into a union with your country.'
I'm sure there are - you don't share them with me though.
'Can't believe you pretend intelligence and come out with claptrap like "inclusive, compassionate values of Irish nationalism".
You omitted the word 'today' when quoting me. Was this a deliberate attempt to substitute an argument you want to have or or just an error? Irish nationalism has and continues to evolve.
For the record - nobody 'forced' Protestants out of the new state in 1922 or thereafter, Protestants were not an oppressed minority in the Republic, and instead have a disproportionate representation in the professions, particularly in the legal profession. The Protestant population in the 26 counties began its decline following Disestablishment, and others left with the British Administration in 1922, some left because they could accept the reality of living in the Irish Free State and others for economic reasons - just like Catholics. The 'oppressive' Republic has had two Protestant Presidents. Unlike Catholics in NI, Protestants in the Republic identify with the state within which they are a minority. This includes the Ulster-Scots of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, one of whom, Heather Humphreys, headed up the 1916 centenary commemorations two years ago. Imagine that. Another, Jack Boothman, was President of the GAA in the 1990s.
Kingsmill had nothing to do with Nationalism, and everything to do with pure sectarianism - the 'ism' that has blighted your part of the island and still does. You are a buck eejit if you think I support terrorism.
The fact is, in the last 40 years, Irish nationalism in the Republic has evolved. It is confident, inclusive and compassionate. You can be Protestant and Irish, Gay and Irish, Black and Irish, Atheist, British, Polish, American, Chinese and Irish; Catholicism is no longer a badge of Irishness in the Republic and Gaelic Irishness is only one strand of Irish identity.
Now, you are free to reject this is you wish, but it does not change the facts. From what I read online, it is only the British who have a problem with the current Taoiseach being half-Indian and gay. Its no problem for the Irish. Irish nationalism has evolved while unionism has remained the same.
'Oh bye-the-way, love all you statistics BUT if Ireland is actually such a lovely place why are there more Irish living in the UK than actually live in Ireland, maybe they think the UK is better?'
Your claim is a preposterous fabrication: in the 2001 census, only 780,000 Irish were living in Britain. I will let you look up the population of the Republic yourself. British immigrants to Ireland represent a higher proportion of the Irish population than vice versa.
Can you show me where I claimed Ireland was on a par with Germany?
Your entire argument is incoherent, prone to jumping to conclusions and ill-informed, . Can you point out something I said that is offensive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCG_lPFXu37gANPoEodqUjMg It is true that there were class divisions, but your analysis is simplistic. Ireland was the only country in Europe where the majority were ruled by a minority who spoke a different language, practiced a different religion, customs, and culture while at the same time, having sole access to the law and the means to implement it. Irish Catholics had no political representation until 1829. The division was ethnic, linguistic, social, political, sectarian and economic. Ireland's experience under British rule was that of the colonised.
The Irish Revolution of the 1920s was one of the most conservative anywhere, and is well documented as such. While there were socialist republicans among the ranks and leadership, they were few and far between, with most seeking to simply remove the British from political scene to allow the Irish people to chose their own destiny. Following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, socialists were marginalised by the new political elite and distrusted by the dominant Catholic church.
The idea that the Irish were an inferior race probably dates back to the Romano-Britons - St Patrick himself had little time for the Irish despite dedicating his life to the conversion of Irish people. The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland was justified in the writings of Geraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) who accompanied the invaders and wrote disparagingly of Gaelic Irish society of the time, so British attitudes to towards the Irish were well formed before the early modern period. It seems to me that the racism necessary to underpin the British empire was well defined too, by the 19th century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
'I have seen your name and comments on various strings on YouTube, so I know I am not addressing some schoolboy, sitting at his game consul in his bedroom.'
Aw, shucks. Thanks Jack.
'I would expect you to be deeply knowledgeable about EU future policy and although Ireland is not in Shengen, do you really believe you will be allowed to remain like that.'
Yes. Every country has its opt-outs, the UK has more than other member, and we have ours. We control our borders while being members of the EU. On Monday Ireland will issue 800 visas for non-EU unskilled workers to work in our meat rendering plants - they will probably come from Brazil as they have done in the past. Why can the UK not put such practices in place while a member of the EU?
With respect, your assertions are based on assumptions which in turn is based on fear - fear is frequently the product of ignorance. Religion is less of a problem than ignorance is.
Irish identity is secure, and Irish nationalism is confident. It can therefore cope comfortably with immigrants from all over the world, though mostly from Poland, the UK and Lithuania (about 50%). Ireland has learned from the mistakes of the UK and other former imperial powers by integrating immigrants into a culture that is inclusive and at ease with itself. Ireland's 60,000 Muslims are mostly professionals and are well integrated. Only a handful are Islamists and these are 'policed' by both Muslim and the intelligence communities.
The future of the EU is not set in stone. While Brexiters tend to simultaneously hold the two opposing 'truths' 1) that the EU will turn into a superstate taking away members rights AND 2) is destined to collapse, in Ireland we understand that EU integration is rapidly reaching its limits.
This quotation sums up Brexit for me:
'Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.' - Martin Luther King Jnr.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gary637 'How would everyday Irish people be affected by a customs post in France?'
1) Because the Irish understand that it would mean they would have to leave the Single Market. This is not good for the Irish economy. Why should the Irish pay the price for Brexit? It was not an Irish idea. When the Irish government put this to the other EU member states and to the US State Department, the White House and not to mention the Irish Caucus on Capitol Hill, they fully understood.
2) This would bring the Republic of Ireland back inside the UK sphere,. Ireland has always suffered economically and politically in that unequal relationship.
'The fact is that, Ireland is signed up to the peace agreement. If they want to maintain the fundamental principle of consent for both sides of the agreement and respect the wishes of the people of NI to remain in the UK, then, they too will have to make small sacrifrices.'
Here is another fact - consent works both ways. There is no majority in the Republic or Northern Ireland in support for Brexit. The DUP tried to put a hard border on the island of Ireland, assuming along with the ERG that the EU would throw Ireland under the bus and 'make the Irish put a border in Ireland'. It backfired. Why should the Irish people pay a price of any kind because of vote on the other island?
It is a fact also that Ireland signed up for a peace agreement, but it is the English voter that is changing the status quo, without a plan and with absolutely no mention of NI in what passed for pre-referendum debate in your country. Of the 17.4 million votes for Brexit, 15.1 million of them were cast in England.
Northern Ireland remains in the UK despite Brexit. The idea that NI has left the UK or is in any way diminished in its membership of the UK is a ridiculous notion that exists only in the imaginations of unionists. 'The people of NI' has traditionally been a term used by Unionists to refer to themselves. It is about time people remembered there is another community in NI also which never gave its consent to Brexit, but for which there is no democratic account in the archaic democracy that is allowed to pertain in the UK.
Ireland has broken no agreement, nor has is it responsible for any change in the status quo in NI agreed in 1998. That's all on people like you. Ireland will make no sacrifices Brexit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Deport'....
You mean extradite.
In Ireland, the judiciary and the executive are separate. The Irish judiciary would not extradite suspects to the UK because the UK judiciary had put innocent Irish people behind bars for terror crimes they did not commit. Your judiciary were not up to standard, and your community made excuses for these shabby injustices.
The killings of Protestants on the northern side of the border was IRA policy not the policy of the Irish government. The IRA did not recognise the right of the Republic to exist until 1986 and was responsible for the deaths of Irish security forces. There was no widespread support for the IRA in the south, but that did not mean there was blind support for the politically corrupted, flawed, regime in Northern Ireland either.
Peace in the north was only possible because both the UK and Ireland were in the EU. It meant that the UK was forced to treat the Irish government as an equal, while at the same time facilitating regular contact between politicians and civil servants that brought about trust. Its the same with the Irish border - its open nature facilitates trust between those on both sides of it, trust that will increase over the decades. An open border would secure NI place in the union. Its the most perfect imperfect solution.
Nobody suggests that if Brexit happens we're going back to 1969, however Sir Hugh Orde agrees that any change to the present border will bring problems. I think he is better qualified than any of us to make such a judgement. So does George Mitchell. And we're NOT talking about Adams here, so I don't know why you mention him - we're talking about Republican types that would put a bullet in Adams head because they see him as a traitor. These are not people 'with a brain'.
There is no evidence that the UK leaving the EU will bring you a job and prosperity, quite the opposite in fact, especially in NI. The move toward automation means that all the unskilled will be without jobs in the future, regardless of Brexit. You need to get yourself a skill and then keep upskilling in the future. We all do.
Ireland is not Germany. The republic is not overrun with unskilled migrants from foreign lands, it accommodates half a million people from 200 hundred nations (but mostly from Poland, UK and Lithuania) who live and work comfortably among the Irish. You are leaving the EU because of something going on in Germany.
Ireland is not in Schengen and has no intention of joining. Ireland deports wasters. Why does the UK not do the same? Ireland will issue 800 work visas for unskilled non-EU citizens to work in its meat processing industry - they will probably come from Brazil - why can't the UK do that while still in the EU? Brexit makes no sense.
Borders played a very big part in the way people voted, and yet the Irish border did not figure at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Skybar23 Yes, but they had to be developed into those internationals. Lowe and JGP had already been told they would never make it as All Blacks. Aki never played internationally at any level as far as I know.
Lowe looked like a mistake when he arrived in Ireland, he couldn't tackle until about November last year, and he improved his kicking - he is excellent with both feet now,
JGP has always been a good player in my estimation, and he certainly met the requirements of Andy Farrell's style that he wanted for Ireland.
Aki is a very popular with the Irish public, and he had to fight to become a regular in a a position that was already populated with world class players, like Henshaw, Ringrose and others. He never played for the Maori, unlike the other two. He was dropped by Connacht a year ago, and he eventually found his game and came back better than ever.
None of these players would have achieved anything of note had they stayed in New Zealand. Now they are internationals on the team of the year.
1
-
1
-
@Skybar23 Being dropped from the 23 means he is dropped from the Irish team also, which is the whole point of having him in Ireland according to you. Rodney Ah You was brought over and didn't work out, he won a couple of caps and moved on. There are no guarantees, these players need to be developed.
In any case, you are looking at the wrong end of the production line.
Ireland has a small pool of world class players, to pick from, produced by 209 clubs on an island of about 7 million people. The current under 20 side has won the last two Six Nations under 20 championship grand slams, and were beaten finalists in the under 20 RWC...so there appears to be a raft of golden generation players coming through. Irish private schools turn out players ready for the professional game and that is where the bulk of the talent comes from. It works well and is why the Australians are seeking to copy it. There is not always enough players in certain positions and that is why the provinces bring in project players.
Nonetheless, this production line you disparage has produced three World Rugby Players of the year, which is the same as South Africa and France, and more than Australia, England or Wales.
So why the 'need' to 'fill' in the gaps with project players? Sometimes there are just not enough players coming through that are of test quality.
It is quite simple really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree fundamentally with this. There is simply no comparison between Ireland today and Ireland 30 years ago.
The homelessness crisis is almost entirely political in origin, not economic. If the government built houses it could easily resolve the issue. It is government policy not build houses.
The health system is not third world either. It is an expensive and badly managed system, which means accessing it can be difficult. Once you get access, you get the best of care.
About 17% of the population of Ireland was born somewhere else. Many of these people work in our economy doing jobs you and I consider ourselves to be to important to do. If Ireland was as bad as you paint it, these people would not be here and Ireland would look like it did in 1993, white, with high unemployment.
The childrens hospital has cost an incredible amount of money, but the Germans had the same problem with a new airport in Berlin a few years ago. It cost a billion and it had so many problems they considered knocking it down and starting again. The fact is, big infrastructural projects cost a lot more money than projected most of the time regardless of where you live.
Since foreign money started coming into our country, we have improvements all over our country and society. You can best see this in the fact that Ireland's life expectancy at birth has increased and is now ahead of the UK and Germany, for example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@springer3783 Will you stop tell lies and trying to compensate for your low national esteem by trying to put others down?
Your ignorance is breathtaking.
1) There was no book of condolence - de Valera paid is personal condolences to the German Minister in Ireland in response to Churchills demand to hand over the representatives of the Axis power in Ireland, in a hostile act against Irish neutrality. This was typical of the man. He even sent his condolences upon the death of Churchill, the man who tried so hard to prevent Irish independence and would have seen de Valera hang from a rope fifty years before.
2) The Irish population was not 'full of Nazi sympathisers'. Indeed, Eamon de Valera rounded up the IRA and interned them, executed either two or four of them, I forget which. The IRA were in alliance with the Nazis in breach of Irish neutrality and de Valera brutally put them down. According to Robert Cole, historian in his book Censorship and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War: ‘In fact, by mid-1940 the IRA was on the run, and 93% of the population of Eire supported the neutrality policy but was prepared to fight anyone who attacked Eire’
3) Britain was concerned about Ireland being used as a backdoor to invade the UK and wanted to station troops in Ireland. In order to appease English insecurities and to maintain Irish neutrality, the Irish and British governments agreed in the event of a German invasion, that Ireland would invite British troops from NI into Eire after 24 hours.
You are so deeply ignorant of the facts you appear to be graduate of the University of Ibrox.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'what English Nationalism is it you're claiming has been inflicted upon the Celtic Nations?'
Language, Customs, Laws, Religion, Plantations/Colonisation, etc
A starting point for the English could be learning their own history. Anglo-centric Britain has been a force for good in the World, but also some pretty appalling behviour which has had negative consequences Both have shaped the world. Acknowledge it.
In conjunction with this, the English could start 'standing up for themselves' by standing up TO themselves: admit you are a nation like everyone else and establish a regional assembly for England. The British establishment, dominated by the English elite, are blocking this - they see Westminster as their own Parliament and the regional assemblies as a sop to the Celtic nations. These people see Britishness as a conduit for English nationalism and have done since 1707, now the English lower orders are realising that all is not well with this paradigm. Leaving the EU will do nothing to change this.
This English elite have co-opted their inferiors to fight wars and create their wealth all through history, and now they've used the likes of yourself to leave the EU. The expectation for most Brexiters is that life will be better for them: it will not - most of the social and economic problems in England are home grown.
The Celtic Nations have been on to this lark for centuries - starting with the Irish, and more recently the Scots. Welsh nationalism is weaker but it know their history too.
Throwing the toys out of the pram will get you nowhere - you need a coherent vision for a future England, and the English are nowhere near establishing that yet.
There is nothing cuddly about English nationalism at present - it is binary, militaristic, confrontational and based on exceptionalism. Its about 100 years out of date and might as well have a football hooligan has a mascot - because that is what it looks like.
Personally, I have nothing against the English as a people and I fully support the notion of an English nation. If telling you some truths about your nationalism makes me a 'racist' then I will happily wear it.
It is a measure of the crisis in English identity, the sense of helplessness at the heart of it, that you feel victimised by those living on the periphery of a British Isles which has England as its focal point.
1
-
Of course there is a crisis in English identity - the leave campaign presented requirement to leave as membership of the EU was lethal to your identity!
England placed its identity in the unions with Scotland, in 1707, and with Ireland, in 1800, which gave rise respectively to Britain and to the United Kingdom.
The dismantling of the British empire in 1945 by the US was a traumatic blow to the psyche of the English, from which you have never recovered England also didn't recognise that it was now essentially a vassal of the United States, dressing it up instead as a 'Special Relationship'.
The end of empire meant the end of the English pretension to have and need no national identity of their own. Once they admitted their empire was no more, the English would have to become just another nation like everybody else, with a specific, limited identity, a specific history, neither specially honourable nor specially dishonourable, with limited weight, limited resources, and limited importance in the world, and on the Atlantic archipelago which they shared equally with those 'oppressive' Celts.
That is the terrifying truth that membership of the EU presents to you and other English people and from which for centuries the empire insulated them: you have to live in the world on an equal footing with other people.
In Scotland, in contrast, to vote for the EU was to vote for the distinctness of Scotland as a legitimate fellow occupant of the island of Great Britain and for its equality with England as a fellow member, alongside Germany and Malta, France and Cyprus, of a larger union than that centred on London. Its the same in Ireland - Irish national identity has thrived since it joined in 1973.
Only the English could not see the EU in these terms. Because only the English could not see themselves as a nation at all.
And that Dave, is why you need an Assembly to call your own. A Parliament can come later, but you need to walk before you can run - because after all, as you know, not all English people have travelled as far down the road with your ideas as you have. And as for the English victimisation at the hands of the Celts - it really only proves my contention that English nationalism is still in an incoherent state - still searching for a legitimate 'Them' to bolster the 'Us' - and is currently inventing 'oppressors'.
1
-
Well, if your starting point is that the English were oppressed by the Celtic Nations then it must indeed seem incoherent. But the facts suggest otherwise, I am afraid.
1) It was a British Empire dominated by the English. Sure the Scots played their part, particularly as administrators, but it was the Church of England, the Established Church, that was used as a tool of Imperialism, and it was mainly English cities that benefited from the Slave trade; it was London that became the centre of world finance, it was English that became the lingua franca, it was English Common law that was spread around the world; the industrial revolution was English. You can waffle on about bloodlines all you like - the English projected their nationalism through a Union with Scotland and later with Ireland.
2) You never lost your national identity - and I never said that you did - English identity lived vicariously through the United Kingdom and the British Empire using English tools of colonialism and reaping the benefits, some of which are listed above. It did so through the dominance and subjugation of the Celtic peoples, inferiors co-opted in what became an English project. England was successful in largely replacing the cultures of Scotland, Wales and Ireland,with their own, reducing the Celtic cultures to some sort of biscuit tin version by the end of the 19th century.
3) The English are unable to see themselves as equal to everyone else and the 'equality' that you proclaim is vindictive and spiteful. The English will continue to have special status in my country, which they never lost considering how much we 'oppressed' and 'hate' them. Other EU countries are more open to outsiders and don't feel their identity is threatened by people to immigrants in the same way as the English are. That's something you still can't admit to and therefore you are not yet viewing English identity as equal to other nations - to you its exclusive.
4) Of course you know you are English, but you no longer know what it is to be English. The Empire is gone, the United Kingdom, your nationalist conduit harnessed so successfully by your ancestors, is slowly breaking up. Your industrial base is gone, and huge swathes of your country resents Westminster but blames the EU for successive poor domestic policies; militarism is important to the English identity and your armies were essentially defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing to an end any notion of a new Anglosheric hegemony; Since devolution, it is clear there is no longer a demos in the UK. Many Scots don't identify with the UK at all; a majority there identify with the EU and feel secure with it unlike the English; Northern Ireland has the power to chose to leave the UK whenever it likes - indeed the people there can chose Irish or British identity or both; the Welsh language speaking minority voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. All of this feeds into an English Nationalist Crisis of Identity.
The Celtic nations do not share the binary notion of identity that the English do. That is why the English can live among us and there is no crisis of identity, and you can't live with them in your country..
Do you need me, a Celt, to hate you to bolster your sense of national self worth? I don't require it of you.
Sorry the Celtic nations have been such a disappointment to you, but I suppose we're just not willing to be dominated by the English. When you accept that then you will not longer feel hated and you will genuinely feel equal to the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
And then English nationalism will be coherent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Halotest100
The Irish are the UKs masters now, certainly in relation to the EU.
The Irish have shaped your Brexit to a point where you are all now pretending you never wanted a deal in the first place. Too funny. When the UK comes looking for a trade deal it will be the Irish you will have to suck up to, in order to ensure you get a good deal. Ireland will be in your corner, but will not tolerate any perfidy.
Once there is a deal the Irish can live with, Dublin will give the nod to the US Congress not to block any trade deal between the US and the UK. The US will be your other master, dictating the terms of any trade agreement as the UK will be a rule take, a vassal used to Make America Great Again. Your foreign policy will continue to be determined by the US State Department, and it appears you have already surrendered selection of your Ambassador to the US to President himself.
This will give you all more time to pick your own fruit and other hard work. It will be hard, as the English are the least productive workforce in the entire OECD.
By the way, Ireland joined the Euro freely, and the Germans ceased approving the Irish budget in 2012. Ireland has its own Refugee Policy which it implements and it takes in relatively few refugees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your diplomats claim that the UK is losing its influence:
http://theconversation.com/diplomats-reveal-concerns-over-uks-waning-influence-on-un-security-council-103043
The fact is that the world's trade is run by either large single economies like the USA, China, India and Brazil, or trade blocs. Only states like the Holy See, South Sudan, Western Sahara, Montenegro, Serbia etc, trade on WTO ONLY, very country on the planet is either starting, or strengthening, regional trade blocs. When the UK leaves the EU, it will find that trade finance, never mind trade itself, is going to become very difficult. The country will, automatically, cease to have all the trading rights it enjoyed as a result of its EU membership. That currently amounts to nearly 90% of the countries on the planet. Yes, it is economically stupid.
And you will be negotiating trade agreements with the big boys from a position of weakness...
That is the reason why Europe needs the EU;the collective amplifies the power and indeed the sovereignty of individual member states.
'Do we respect the democratic institution that voted on this issue?'
To what are you referring?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It makes sense to you because she is aping English attitudes and the English world view which, of course, you do to.
I wonder about the kind of time you spend in Ireland and the extent to which you have immersed yourself in the culture of the place. It is not reflected in your comment, you must find Ireland a very strange place indeed.
The Irish only blame the English for its historical problems. It is richly deserved. Ireland was the only country in Europe that was ruled by a class who were a minority with a different religion, culture, customs and language to the majority. This is the source of all the historical grievances. However, I do agree that it is a disgrace that Ireland expects British servicemen to defend Ireland. In that respect, Irish thinking is dysfunctional.
The UK is no longer the large trading partner it used to be for Ireland. Ireland trades far more with the United States and with the EU these days, and as a result, Irish living standards have risen. Brexit means that Ireland has replaced British imports with imports from the EU. In 2016, only four other countries bought more UK goods than Ireland.
And don't forget, the CTA is a two-way street. Without it, your trips to Ireland would be more difficult.
Finally, in Ireland, more crime is committed by local Irish people than by immigrants or refugees.
1
-
@annieluctor7524 Well, of course you will well know that there were no Norman French invaders of Ireland; instead there were Anglo-Norman invaders who were referred to as 'the English' as early as 13th century. The Statues of Kilkenny (look them up) were laws designed to promote English rather 'Norman' or 'French' customs, dress and language in Ireland. You need to immerse yourself in the Irish perspective for a nuanced understanding of the country you like to spend time in.
What arguments do you make in defense of English rule in Ireland? Do you have any, or are you just uncomfortable with the Irish perspective on that rule?. Are these the people in Ireland that you find 'narrow-minded' and 'parochial'? The kind of people who believe and understand historical truths that for you make you feel uncomfortable? Because that would be pretty much all of us.
Like your wife, I have also lived abroad and my spouse is also not Irish. Travel has certainly broadened my mind, but I also possess an in depth understanding of Irish history and the influence of the colonial experience on the Irish personality, culture, world view and so on. It is quite possible you have a poor understanding of the reality of empire, and in particular the Irish experience of it.
Just like in your country, there are narrow-minded people with parochial Irish attitudes, but you give no examples of it. However, I don't think the Irish have the same deference towards the establishment as you would get in your country. 'Knowing your place' and nepotism are codified in a class system in your culture. You literally have a ruling class, with many of them occupying a strata in English society that goes back to Norman invasion in 1066. Less so in Ireland. Ireland is a more democratic country than the UK and it is difficult to transpose a British understanding of politics onto Ireland with any great accuracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sionnach1601 No, foxy, we're not, actually. We're not interested in leaving the EU.
There is no such thing as total independence. Give me an example of such a country? I'll call you a liar! Even the UK cannot put up a border between the GB and NI without consequences - so much for 'total independence'.
If you ever studied the history of Ireland you would know Ireland found out about the limitations of independence the hard way, nearly a hundred years ago.
Another lesson from history: the closer Ireland gets economically to the UK, the poorer we get. That's just a fact.
After independence we gradually increased and hoarded our sovereignty, but it does not put food on the table. Sovereignty's value is based on what you do with it, and the UK has chosen to take it back from the EU in a fit of pique because of a crisis in English nationalism. I just admires its sovereignty, and it does not work for the people.
So, no foxy, we're not interested in aping the worst excesses of Englishness. That's all on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the famine it was easy to define the Irish. Those most effected by the famine, were illiterate, Gaelic speaking, rural and Catholic. Those Irish who were least effected by mainly English speaking, rural and also Catholic.
For the English, anyone born in Ireland was Irish. This included the Anglo-Irish aristocracy who controlled the economy, administered the law and were landowners who the other two groups never considered Irish, put the English in Ireland. Indeed, the Irish people were the only people in Europe to be ruled by a minority who spoke a different language, practiced a different religion, customs, culture and had sole access to the law, its administration and enforcement. it was a colonial experience.
Today's definition of 'Irish' is enshrined in the Irish constitution. Central to it is the concept of multi-layered identity, so you can be Irish and British, Irish and English, Irish and Protestant, Irish and Black and so on.
In your case, as part of the Irish diaspora, your sense of Irishness is personal to you. You cannot put a 'rule' on it. With a name like Kelly, the second most common Irish family name, you may well feel conscious of your Irish heritage. That too is acknowledged in the definition of 'The Nation' in the Irish Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
* It has the biggest fiscal deficit in GDP terms in the EU which is funded by rUK.
That’s because it is far away from the centre of economic power in the UK – London. An Independent Scotland will have more flexibility to shape it economic future within the EU than it does within the UK.
* It has no independent currency, will not have one and will not have a bank of last resort (ie Central Bank).
Ireland did not set up a Central Bank until 1944. Scotland could launch its own currency and peg it to the Euro, and set up its own Central Bank. These are challenges but are not unsurmountable.
* Its S & P rating will be deplorable as it will be a) a new economy, b) have no track record, c) no CB and no way of raising money to pay loans.
Only in the short-term. Assuming Scotland will have a plan – and it did the last time there was an IndyRef – the rating agencies can be found to be very forgiving. So, there will be belt tightening, but again it is not the end of the world.
‘For all the kind words during Brexit the EU will not want yet another lame duck member state…’
If Brexit has taught us anything, it is that English people know nothing of the EU - you draw from that well of ignorance. The EU is made up of small countries includes many that are smaller than Scotland. The EU sees no great difficulties in any Scottish application and indeed Scotland is likely to be fast-tracked into the bloc as it already meets the majority of its conditions of membership through its UK membership.
* 75% of Scotland's 'exports' go to rUK.
That will end. The Scots can quickly join EFTA and begin the process of economic decoupling as an interim before joining the EU, helping the Scots find new markets; any dissolution of the UK will be done through negotiation with the English and we must remember, that Scotland will remain an important market or English goods and services and only the third with which it will have a surplus. If Ireland is the UKs 5th largest export market, what will Scotland be? Fourth? Third? The negotiation will be a two street of give and take. When Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, 71% of Irish exports went to the UK. Today its 11% and falling. Scotland is in a much stronger position than Ireland was in 1973.
* The Eu will demand a border as they did in Ireland, will levy EU External Tariffs against rUK which will kill Scottish 'exports'.
Actually, the fundamentals of world trade require a border between different custom areas. Scotland will be exchanging a market of 58 million of a market of 400 million. After some readjustment – a few years – Scottish exports will explode. You do realise that the UK will not exist post-Scottish independence, right? The tariffs will be on good from the FUKEW.
* It will lose its coastal waters to the EU and Scottish fishermen will be decimated. (While rUk's fishermen reap the British sea harvest)
The waters around the British isles will be divided appropriately between Scots and the FUKEW. The Scottish fisherman are supposed to be already decimated because of UK membership, while their English will be free to catch fish in their own waters for which they will have no market. Famously, the English eat relatively little fish for few fish species – they don’t like the stuff. Some European countries fish, but there will be cheaper options.
* It will lose the £ Bns that are ploughed into the Scottish economy by the UK MoD for air and army bases, ports and facilities.
The UK depends on Scotland as a home for its nuclear deterrent, as there are no harbours deep enough base it in England. This will be subject to negotiation with England upon independence
* It will inherit 8% of the UK's National Debt on leaving. Or £144 Bn to which it will add 313 Bn a year in deficits.
That will be subject to negotiation upon independence.
* It will never build another rUK warship so Glasgow and Rosyth will close costing 20,00 dependent jobs.
No, but Glasgow and Rosyth will be able to offer their expertise to Navatia, Fincantieri, Naval Group, Damen and others. You see, the EU is a bigger market than the UK.
More opportunities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'try this, the EU is negotiating with the most corrupt, incompetent and duplicitous UK govenment.'
The EU has not begun to negotiate yet. The EU has simply set out its terms, while the UK has done nothing but negotiate with itself. Brexit, as promised, cannot be delivered but the slow learners think they are being betrayed.
'Any inconsistencies can be ascribed to the dichotomy between the UK political elite and the UK people.'
Your problem is your own entitled, privately educated, confident but deeply ignorant elite - not the EU. They are out of touch with many of British, mainly English, citizens. Blaming the EU is simply displacement.
'The UK has slowed the federalisation of the EU and could still veto the next EU budget'
Perhaps, but the UK has overplayed fears of a ferderal Europe in their own Project Fear, as really only the French and Germans want it. The future of the EU is not as a superstate, but as a multi-speed bloc.
'A budget that will be difficult anyway, if the UK leaves without a deal and no agreed payment to the EU.'
The UK contribution to the EU budget is tiny when compared to the EUs GDP. Currently members pay 1% of their GDP into EU coffers, and raising this to a whooping 1.1% will cover the UK contribution.
Let go of this 'they need us more than we need them' rubbish, it is mere hubris.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lemonaid2216 Ireland and Great Britain have been culturally different for most of their existence. But that is an entirely different conversation.
The Irish definition of the Irish nation does not use the word 'indigenous' because that is a racist term. Here is how the Irish define themselves in their constitution:
Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
Article 3
It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[a] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
According to these definitions hatched by the Irish people, you can be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist, white, brown or black, gay or straight and still be Irish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superdan8286 Some observations:
There are about 200 nations in the world as I understand it, and you correctly point out that many of those countries are poor, indicating that they are unlikely to be customers for the UKs high-end products - which limits the UKs opportunities with them. But most other countries are, including these poor ones, creating trade blocs or are strengthening existing ones with their neighbours. Countries trade more with their neighbours because it adds value to our exports - the further you have to send your stuff, the more expensive it is to send it, the lower your profits. In that light, pure economics, Brexit makes no sense.
You say that a country should sink or swim by its own merits; I would say countries, especially small ones, live or die by the quality of their strategic thinking, especially in relation to the tyranny of geography. In that respect, the UK is a small country now, off the coast of the EU, and against a much larger bloc that will continue to be an influence on British decision making without the UK having a chance to shape that influence; China, the emerging superpower, and the USA, the existing superpower, are both rich and have much larger economies. Both of these will expect the UK to be rule takers in any formal economic relationship and you will have to sacrifice some sovereignty in order increase British prosperity in the future. In that light too, the obsession with sovereignty makes no sense.
The remainers are defeated, they were routed in the 2019 General Election. They are an irrelevance now. Still, there seems to be a tendency among Brexiters to hold them accountable for the EU not begging for a deal or whatever. I'm not sure what they really expected. In any case, I would be concerned as to where the blame for the unrealised expectations of Brexit is being placed, because unlike you, they really believed that the EU would fall at the UKs every demand in order to get any kind of a deal, because they liked the idea of the UK being that important.
I'm not British, but I have been really struck by how Brexit has exposed pre-existing fault-lines in UK society. One example is that it seems to have energised Scottish nationalists once again and I think there are English people too that want England to leave the UK. Do you think the break up of the UK is now inevitable? Will we see an independent England in the coming years?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HBTeamaker Actually, most UK politicians supported the GFA, there were just a few dinosaurs who did not. Unfortunately, it took the involvement of United States to bring the British to heel, otherwise, people would still be dying in Northern Ireland. I'm sure that wouldn't bother you.
Boris is a liar, who only thinks of himself, as you well know. He has left the UK between a rock and a hard place and has thrown Northern Ireland - particularly the DUP - under a bus. And why shouldn't he? For a scurrilous individual like him, he is aware that the Tory Party is an English party, not a British one, and he will lose no votes there - just as in Scotland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@searscone3799 I understand that Protestants fear Catholics, but it is not clear what it is they are afraid of. Southern Protestants may be invisible to Unionists in NI, but that is only because they identify as Irish, not British, and don't. Protestants occupy some of the most influential areas of Irish life, they are not some downtrodden community in the republic: they have a disproportionate representation in business and in particular in the justice system. Many of our top judges and barristers are Protestant, and two of them have be President of Ireland. An Ulster-Scots person from Monaghan is a minister in the government.
In Northern Ireland, nationalists are coming into the majority and are seeking to attain equality with the Protestant neighbours. Protestants are generally resisting it, because they view equality as a diminution of their culture: when you feel superior to another group, equality feels like oppression - that appears to their culture, though I am open to correction. It is difficult to see how this means they are losing their identity, unless their identity is built on dominance as a birthright - is that the case? Their history is their history - how can that be lost though acknowledging the heritage of the other people in community that do not identify as British? And what is their culture and why do they think they will lose it? If the GFA seeks equality, how can equality be a 'loss' to unionism?
I understand that poverty is an issue, that and low levels of education in working class areas is a significant problem. But there are many middle class unionists also - why are they not doing more to help their poorer brethern? Surely that would give the community as a whole more confidence? You seem to hint that this may be about class, and I think I would agree with that. Nationalists seem have a more organised and coherent vision of the future than Unionism does. The lack of leadership in unionism is appalling, it is deeply divided and undermining of itself at a time when it needs to come together.
I understand that the problem here is one of identity, class and economic deprivation. I think there is a cultural issue here too: Irish culture is seen inclusive, fashionable, accessible, progressive and international; the British culture as expressed by Unionists is exclusive, conservative and local. I think Unionists feel threatened by it.
Any thoughts on this view?
1
-
@searscone3799 'Historically, it has always been about territory; the "Huns" stole the North mentality.'
It is a historical fact that partition occurred without consultation of the nationalists majority in Ireland in 1920. However, today it is about unifying the people of the island and this is outlined in the Irish constitution. Articles 2 and 3 define the Irish nation quite differently to the territorial claim which preceded it - it is about people now.
'You think that things will remain the same as they are in the 26 Counties; that is a mistaken belief.'
On the contrary, I know it will be fundamentally different - any new Ireland will have to be agreed and this will require concessions on both sides.
'Moderate Nationalists wanted a deal with the Unionists, but the various wings of the IRA stopped that in the Six Counties.'
Everybody knows Unionists would not engage with nationalists also, so it was a two way street. Only one motion put forward by nationalists in Stormont between 1920 and 1969 was adopted by a Unionist dominated devolved parliament, all the rest were out voted by the Unionist majority. There is no evidence that the Unionists wanted to work with the Nationalists, quite the opposite actually.
'The Loyalist paramilitaries do not need the majority support of Protestants to wage war.'
Irish unity will only happen if there is an agreed Ireland. In that context, it is difficult to see how loyalist paramilitaries will be able to murder their way into staying in the Union - the rest of Britain will not support it. In the context of a democratic process, their activities will only undermine their own position and will make them international pariahs. It must be remembered that Unionists strategic thinking has been poor in recent decades - a return to violence would be counter productive.
'I don't think the 26 Counties' government wants a referendum on the North. They cannot afford it. If it happens, it will be because the British want it to happen; they get rid of this problem and it becomes Ireland's problem.'
It is true that Dublin does not want a referendum any time soon, not in the context of Brexit. If allowed to occur naturally over the next say 25 years (perhaps longer) in the context of NI taking opportunity for prosperity that NI having access to both the EU and UK markets can provide, the cost of NI will be much reduced if not eliminated. We know from a poll of Tory party members in 2018 that they want Brexit more than they want to maintain the UK and so we must be thankful that the GFA prevents them from dumping the NI. The Irish government must also be party to any referendum, as the vote must happen in both jurisdictions on the same day. At present, nobody knows what a united Ireland will look like, in part because unionists will not allow a discussion to take place, and so there is no appetite for unity just for the sake of it in the south.
'The census data is unreliable.'
So I checked your claims and could not find any supporting evidence in various academic papers on the subject, and you don't provide a source.
'This Brexit issue will fade away.'
It won't. The UK is now engaged in a never ending negotiation with the European Union, not just on the protocol, but on every aspect of its relationship with the bloc. The EU is unlike to change what you call 'behaviour', because to change its rules for the UK so that it can have the benefits of membership without the responsibilities (which is what it amounts to) will undermine the Single Market, the goose that lays the EUs golden egg. It will take some time for this penny to drop among Brexiters as their media turns everything the EU does into a 'punishment' or a 'capitulation' in the face of the UKs decision to leave the EU.
'No one in the elite in Dublin wants Northern Ireland (they are too intelligent to take it). Irish unity at this point in time is a pipe dream; it cannot work.'
Not so. Most people aspire to a united Ireland, just not now. Dublin has established a 'Shared Island' office as part of a long-term strategy to create an environment where the unity of people can take place in practical ways; the two economies are already rapidly integrating since January this year and this is likely to continue. As stated above, in the long-term the economic prospects of NI look very positive which will assist unity in the long term.
'The Loyalists often hate, but I would not call it irrational. It is based upon their historical experiences with the Irish Catholics.'
It is both historical and irrational. I agree, that there is real sectarian tension between unionists and nationalists in parts of NI - but projecting that into a united Ireland scenario is irrational. The idea that a small minority can hold a veto over the democratic will of a majority is simply unsustainable in this day and age. It is no longer 1912.
'Would you want to live in a state that wants to eliminate your identity?'
Again, the Irish constitution - remember we in the south voted voted for an amendment - by 94% in 1998 - acknowledges Irish identity as a being a multi-layered one. We've had a half Irish half Indian and homosexual Taoiseach for example. Irish identity accommodates being Irish and something else and in recent years there has been an increasing acknowledgement of the shared history Ireland has with Britain. 17% of people living in the republic were born somewhere else, so the republic is comfortable with both its own identity and the identity of others living in Ireland. So who exactly is going to take away the British identity of unionists? How could it be done? It may be the case in NI that Catholics and Protestants at interface areas view each other in the traditional manner, but that is not the case in republic. In any negotiated Ireland, the identity of unionists can and will have to be accommodated and copper fastened.
The smartest way for Unionists to prevent a united Ireland is through working with the Nationalist middle class that were presently happy in the Union - but there is no sign of this happening yet, not in any major way at least. This is a strategic error, in my opinion.
The X factor here are the changes occurring in Britain. It seems to me that a natural outworking of Brexit is England becoming independent and the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Should this occur in the short term, this is has the potential to be a disaster for all of us, but it does not appear to be imminent at all at the moment. A Scottish departure is more likely on the face of it, and while this could be a huge psychological blow to Unionism, it is unclear that London will give them a referendum any time soon either. Constant conflict with the EU may keep the English onside for some time to come as it will distract English nationalists and provide somebody to blame for the short comings of Brexit. But who knows?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ oliver clark
Most people in Britain would feel proud that their country played the leading part in rendering slavery unacceptable across the world. The dominant narrative was that of a benevolent empire leading the globe in the establishment of humanitarian principles.
When you take a closer look, Britain’s humanitarianism was part of the very fabric of imperial expansion – and reflected all its ambivalence.
After the abolition of the slave trade, those already enslaved remained in that state until 1833 and were even then subjected to a further four years of “apprenticeship” to their former owners. As apprentices they were subject to new policies of “amelioration” intended to prepare them for freedom. These policies restricted the hours they could be made to work and the punishments that “masters” could inflict upon them, but still bound them to work for their former “owners”.
Acknowledgement that cities such as Bristol, Liverpool and London were enriched by Britain’s dominance of the slave trade, that many stately homes were built on its wealth and that the compensation money paid to the OWNERS upon emancipation – rather than the enslaved – helped drive the industrial revolution and the growth of the City of London, tends to be overlooked by people like yourself.
No mention either, of the fact that slavery was replaced by indentured servitude - unsually Indians - who were shipped around the empire as coolies. Aside from providing cheap labour, it also provided the British with the means to create ethnic tensions between say, Indians and Black Trinidadians, allowing for a more effective divide and rule strategy.
How else would a handful of civil servants and soldiers manage all these people?
1
-
1
-
Spare me your self-pity and congnitive dissonance.
'You talk about Germany's imperial age, but no one even wants to talk about how the German Empire treated their colonies.'
No need!
The German's have taken ownership of their history and teach what they have done to future generations - they have at least one museum dedicated to their appalling empire. How many have the British have?
None!
The UK has never come to terms with its imperial history. It is still patting itself on the back, using the fact that it co-opted people in their own oppression as an excuse to absolve itself of past responsibility.
Historical analysis of empire in the UK tends to evaluate empire either “neutrally” (as you do if memory serves) or offer a triumphalist narrative that heralds the benefits of empire for Britain while ignoring its devastating impact on the peoples whose lands were taken, cultures transformed, and economic well-being was decimated.
In short, Brits are more inclined to bask in the afterglow of imperial achievements but are quick absolve themselves of any guilt associated with its atrocities on the grounds that they 'weren't around at the time'.
Finally, while 'Empire' was a joint English and Scottish project, it was soon dominated by the English: it was English that was the language of the Empire, and English cultural and social norms that were the 'civilising' standards to be imposed on foreign peoples; English cricket, English rugby, English football. They didn't export Gaelic or Shinty, now did they? So much for your 'joint effort' fantasy eh?
Why? Because it was 'Britishness' that contained English nationalism for 300 years.
In this context, what is the difference between Britain / Britishness or England / Englishness?
Zip.
Give me another challenge: give me one of your points that you claim is worthy my time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alangardner8596 I understand that it is very important for Brexiters that the UK is seen as 'very important'. The trouble is, internationally, it is not currently seen as 'very serious'. Your post exemplifies that.
The figure from before Brexit was 46% and not 12%. Everybody in the EU is selling less to the UK since the referendum, because of sterling, the up to 20% COVID-19 related collapse in the UK economy last year and because suppliers are seeking new markets away from the UK. Since January, the price of cars is likely to have risen due to increased paperwork required just to export to the UK, making them less affordable. It is quite possible also, though I have no evidence to support it, that the production of cars is down due to COVID restrictions at manufacturing plants.
Where do we see it going? We shall see trade between the UK and the EU continue to decline with many Small and Medium Size Enterprises in the UK going to the wall. In Europe, SMEs will find new markets within the Single Market, filling gaps vacated by the UK. They will do much better by comparison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oreooreo5622 The WTO is becoming dysfunctional, and of course for any sensible country, WTO is merely a safety net, a waiting area ahead of a trade deal. Countries across the world are either strengthening existing trade blocs, creating them or negotiating trade deals.
The Swiss are years ahead of the UK, and everyone else for that matter. The EU will soon catch up with Switzerland and surpass it with the value of its trade deals by virtue of its size. Since you checked two years ago the EU signed a the largest ever trade deal with Japan, for example, an economy much larger than that of the UK. The Swiss have the advantage of being politically neutral and politically stable, and it will be interesting to see how the UK deals with the constitutional reckoning that Brexit will bring in the years ahead. The Swiss also benefit from a trade deal with the EU - which Brexiters like to claim they don't need - because they understand that trading with your neighbours makes sound economic sense.
The UK is a small fish. It will be much smaller when it leaves the EU. Remember too, that those who voted for Brexit are the ones who will lose most because of it, while it will make the rich even richer. Brexit has been championed by the political class responsible for the austerity that led to so many voting against their own interests. Unlike the British, the Swiss have used their comparative wealth well, and are ranked second in the UN Human Development Index, 13 places above the UK who have a larger economy. They are also considerably more productive than the UK, which has the lowest productivity in the OECD. It will be interesting to see how the UK tackles these disparities, which it will need to do, if Brexit is to be worth it for the ordinary people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrpath99 The EU is nothing more than a collection of laws, regulations and treaties. This allows for the smooth running of the EU, though is it up to member states to make the most of laws, regulations and treaties in order to increase the prosperity of the citizens of member states. Member states tend to use the EU as a scape goat for national shortcomings, with the UK and Italy being most guilty in this regard.
The EU was always intended as more than just a trading bloc. Everybody knows this, though the English claim they did not. However, the possibility of the USE ever coming into being is highly unlikely now. Support for the concept has diminished, particularly in the founding states of the Netherlands and Italy. The idea that you could bring 27 different states with their different agendas, economies and aspirations together into one federal unit seems more and more unlikely over the last 10 years. A multi-speed Europe is the most likely outcome now.
The Single Market is the jewel in the crown of the European Union, something Brexiters do not understand. Maintaining that market is the greatest source of prosperity for EU citizens, while the bloc itself will continue to serve as a bulwark against the predatory inclinations of the US, China and, dare I say, it the UK for as long as it lasts, in the century ahead. The bloc will not break up because it runs against the interests of all member states, and it will continue to evolve into the future. There is strength in numbers. Brexit has also demonstrated the benefits of unity against threats from outside the bloc. The EU is made up of countries, half of whom are smaller than Ireland. Membership of bloc brings with it security for its membership and the knowledge that their neighbours will stand with them in times of crisis. The pandemic revealed a gap security which will now be covered by future laws, regulations and treaties going forward.
To sum up, the EU will not cease to exist. It will continue to evolve in a manner that suits the membership, while the UK will slip into a three independent states and federal Ireland (which will probably return to the Commonwealth).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree, the UK is in chaos: thick leavers, impotent remainers, a limited free press, a divided parliament still negotiating with itself, useless leaders, a hopeless opposition and an incoherent English nationalism that is not comfortable with its place in the world. As a result the UK is a laughing stock.
'Unlike you I accepted the decision and moved on, only to watch a disgusting and disgraceful attempt to make a mockery of people’s only way of changing the status quo.'
The above statement betrays you as a Brexiter. For a those who voted leave, Brexit is more important than democracy and informed choice. If believing that democracy requires informed choice makes me arrogant, I can live with that.
The UK is not my country - so in many ways your misinformed referendum is immaterial to me. However, from outside the Brexit Bubble, I can tell you that what is happening in your country is viewed as the greatest exercise in national self harm since the Easter Islanders cut down their last tree. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the UK.
If you are looking for an elite to blame you need to look closer to home, to your pantomime toffs in parliament and the oligarchs that own certain newspapers.
I don't belong to that crowd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ kcridrab
I agree, you are struggling.
It is a measure your ignorance of Ireland that you are trying to shape your insular argument around cosmopolitan influences on Irish soil, when for 800 years Crown and British policy in Ireland was focused on suppressing such influences - using legal, legislative and when necessary military resources available to it.
'Cosmopolitan and Foreign influences' were only permitted for the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, and they followed the fashion trends of London which in turn were frequently influenced by social and cultural tastes on the continent. The last the thing the British establishment would permit for the natives in Catholic Ireland were any ideas or influences from outside Britain as the Irish could not be trusted with them: after all the Irish practiced the religion of England's enemies, spoke a different language, had a different culture and customs. Nonetheless you will struggle to believe that in the 1790s the Irish nationalists were strongly influenced by the Republican revolutions of France and the USA, which led to the Rebellion of 1798, uniting Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter.
You are unaware also Irish traditional music absorbed foreign influences from England, Scotland and France, but this was allowed as such influences were considered harmless. Today it absorbs influences from Africa, the Middle East and the United States, but I guess you don't know that either.
Ireland opened up to the world following the publication of the Whitaker Report and the election of Sean Lemass who planned to open Ireland up to the world economically. Both occurred in 1959 and led to a policy change. I'm surprised you did not know about this given your confidence on the topic.
'The creation of Empires contains a lot of loot-raking, & a lot of other things besides, the loot-rakers are quickly forgotten after they die, other things are not & last.'
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
You are also struggling with the acceptance of the English identity crisis - I already gave you some examples which obviously flew over your head because you could not contradict them. And while it I am not speaking from personal experience of it or the public school elite, Brexiters personal experience of the EU is equally unreliable.
Since 1707 English nationalism has expressed itself through the conduit of 'Britishness', but devolution has undermined it. There is no constitutional account in the UK for the fact that 62% of Scots voted to leave. This is because the 52% leave victory is predicated on the notion that there is a UK demos – but that is not in keeping with the sociological reality of how the UK works and how it has been understood constitutionally over the last 20 years. Following the dismantling of the Empire in 1945 at the behest of the US, the UK has been a vassal of the Americans; this seems to have been acceptable, but the loss of traditional industries, the arrival of immigrants in the 60s and 70s, and the defeat of British militarism on an American conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to contributed to this crisis in English identity and a sense disfranchisement. Brexit depends on a ludicrous notion of the EU as England’s imperial oppressor, and yet the PM TM stood up in Westminster and announced that 'Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.” In other words, the Leave campaigners’ principal claim, that it was necessary to “take back control” of UK laws, was false, since control had never been lost; and the campaign was based not on fact, but on what it “felt like” – on illusion, on emotion, on a crisis of English identity.
Hope that helps.
1
-
@ kcirdrab
3rd Para: I have no idea what a ‘Fenian myth’ is, but you seem to be prepared to heroically deny historical fact: the Crown claimed Ireland from 1172 and Irish territory was considered fair game. The Statues of Kilkenny, the various plantations in Munster, Laois-Offaly, North Wexford and Ulster at various points mark the waxing and waning of early experiments with colonisation, perfected later in the American colonies; the Cromewellian land-grab and the Penal Laws that Ireland was clearly more than ‘a troublesome backwater after the 13th century’. If could apply to the period following the end of the Williamite War. Indeed, over the next 200 years there were more books written about Jamaica by Englishmen after 1650 than there about was about Ireland. I give you an F.
4th Para: more denial, as it is easier than arguing the facts. I’m not aware of any ‘Fenian’ issue here either…some waffle about ‘Pale Aristocracy’, whatever that is supposed to mean, and the announcement that Wolfe Tone, born in Dublin, was not in fact Irish (?). This is followed by a trope about Irish catholics during 1798, which you admit to being self-serving. I can't actually grade this.
5th Para: evasion. NG
6th Para: enter the strawman and a rapid retreat. NG
7th Para: ? NG
8th Para: 8th: ‘English nationalism conduit Britishness (Right). Scots/Welsh devo has undermined Britishness (Wrong, devo came because of Britishness' waning, it didn't cause it).’ I can accept that. A+
‘62-52% Demos point poorly worded to the point of being lost in obscurity.’ It touched a nerve and you can’t argue it. NG
‘Empire dismantled at behest of USA (It's a little more complicated than that, but the central point you're making is Right).’ Agreed. A
‘UK has been since then a vassal of the Americans (in foreign policy - Right).’
Agreed. A
‘Loss of industrial capacity, foreign immigration in the 60's-70's (should be 1950's to the present), & military defeats for British Army on American foreign wars have created a crisis in English identity. (No this is mainly wrong & misunderstood. The loss of manufacturing capacity caused a crisis in the 1980s to North England & Midlands working class identity, particularly for the youth of those areas, but it was limited to that part of society.’
Yes, I know about the ‘crisis’ in 1980s England, I remember it. Thatcherism created a deeply resented socio-economic divide, which even if its just a perception in some cases, contributed towards a sense of disenfranchisement afterwards. The upshot is ‘Dave in Sheffield’ voting to reject EU membership even though is car assembly plant requires the EU market… on the promise of a better future for which there was no plan, just to poke the establishment in they eye. Making a referenda about other issues is a common problem with referenda everywhere. B
‘Foreign immigration & America's recent petro-chemical wars haven't affected English identity in the least).’
Both have contributed to the retreat from Britishness into Englishness for many Brexiters. You must have been in coma during the referendum campaign if you think foreign immigration was not an issue. F
‘Brexit predicated on the suggestion that the eu was an imperial oppressor (Wrong). Brexit is predicated on the fact that the English & Welsh do not wish to see their Kingdom abolished & replaced by the eu. It's no more & no less complicated than that elemental fact.’ This is new! So replacing your Kingdom is not EU oppression? Incoherent claptrap. You made my point perfectly in a classic example of Brexiter Doublethink! NG.
‘Quote from Theresa May to represent English consciousness (Wrong).’
It is a quote to highlight the lack of substance underpinning Brexit. Again, you use denial as a bolthole as a substitute for critical analysis. There is no ‘English consciousness’ yet – its still evolving. C
‘May is a modern professional political class snake of a low grade, she represents Torysim, not England in any serious way.’ And its Toryism that is representing Brexit, without any agreed vision with itself for the future. F
So lets sum up, shall we?
1) You have established that you have no knowledge of Ireland, just stuff you might hear in the pub after a Glasgow Rangers game. I’m not even sure you even understand that stuff either. Once ‘Fenian myth’ is mentioned, I know you are beaten docket.
2) You failed to address the lack of demos in the UK – you just ignored reality, following a fashion in Brexiter Britain. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same if I was in your position.
3) You contradicted yourself: dismissing the EU as an oppressor with wild speculation regarding EU oppression. It supports my assertion that Brexit is an incoherent English nationalist revolution, just like TMs quotation indicates. Thank you for that. I will be quoting you.
4) You dangled the strawman again, but with no conviction. Why bother with a fallacy at all?
5) You felt more confident when discussing English identity, and while you indicate a few areas where we agree, you emphatically failed address the issue in any coherent way. You actually don’t understand the issue. How embarrassing for you.
6) You should learn to critically analyse. It will reduce your tendency towards evasion and give you the ability to make reasoned, sound arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PORTION OF AN EDITORIAL FROM THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER, UK 10/07/2018:
"Never at any stage do the Brexiters ever accept the practical duty of producing a detailed post-Brexit plan. Instead, David Davis smirks through meeting after meeting, Boris Johnson gabbily chases cheap headlines, Michael Gove spins a wordy web of courteous waffle and Liam Fox insists that black is white and white black. Mr Davis said this week that Mrs May’s ideas would not work. So, what might work instead? There was, predictably, no answer from Mr Davis. There never is. The Brexiters created the mess and the burden with which Mrs May has to wrestle. But it is never, ever, their fault. Nothing ever is. It is only, ever, Mrs May’s fault – or someone else’s fault: the civil service, the judges, business leaders, the Irish, the liberal elites or Brussels.
Before the Brexit vote and since, the Brexiters have never put forward a detailed plan of their own. They did not do so this week. They spent 12 hours at Chequers not doing it. They won’t do it next week either. They don’t do plans. They only do fantasy. They spun a fantasy of takeover by Brussels; now they spin a fantasy of liberation from it. They have held our country, its politics, its press and its shared life hostage to their lazy second-rate dreariness for too long. It is time to take the fight to them."
Articulate, succinct, and accurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gerhard7323 Ah yes, the mythical 'No Deal Brexit'...Brexit died at birth in June 2016.
I also wish the UK had taken the no deal option, but it was a bluff that Brussels and Washington called.
Logic dictates that there needed to be a hard border between two customs areas. In 2015, Ireland began too prepare for a hard Brexit, and asked your then PM how it intended to keep an open border if he lost the referendum. He and his civil servants laughed it all off. There was no 'Private bricking it' - this was the topic of conversation in Ireland. We hoped for the best but tried to prepare for the worst. You won't know this of course, because you don't get Irish media in Britain. But we get yours.
That is why Ireland was better prepared for Brexit. There was actually a plan prepared.
'Barnier had already all but stated that peace in NI was a very poor second to the preservation of the EU's single market.'
See that? This is a lie.
Barnier was the EU point of contact during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, so he understood better than anyone in Brussels what was at stake. It was understood that a particularly reckless and deeply ignorant wing of the Tory party had taken over in London and that its effects needs to be controlled. Ireland went to Washington in March 2017 - half the government and civil service was over there for the St Patrick's Day celebrations it seemed - and they got the ear of the cross-party Irish Caucus. Their influence saw the US soon reel in its rogue vassal.
Are Brexiters that thick that they really believe that Irish-Americans who know they are Americans today because of a previous time the English shafted the Irish, would stand by watch the UK shit all over a peace agreement in Ireland that the Americans considered to be one THEIR great foreign policy successes?
From that point on, you had a better chance of finding a Brexit unicorn than getting your mythical 'no deal'.
This will be very difficult to swallow for you. You already know the Irish wiped the floor with the UK diplomatically, and you can't back up your dismissal of it, Like Brexit, its just 'wishful thinking'. One of those 'we will have to agree to disagree' moments you employ when confronted with facts.
Brexiters thought they could force Ireland out of the EU, or they just assumed Ireland would up and leave. Some Brexiters like Lord Digby Jones thought Ireland sent 90% of its exports to the UK; Ben Habib thinks Ireland was 'all ours once' - a possession of the UK, in others words.
It was all power politics.
We in Ireland said 'f*ck you'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The government was English, based in London - that is who is to blame, not the ordinary English, Welsh or Scots. The Irish in the cities were more ambivalent, but they were much more anglicised, which explains it. This is not an uncomfortable fact. Its just a fact.
Unlike the UK, Ireland does have a reputation for compassion and has none of the imperial baggage of the UK. It is one of the characteristics of British imperialism, particularly during the 'second empire' (after they lost the American colonies) to recruit the colonised in their own oppression, and up to half of the rank and file of the British Army and navy were the sons of Irish farmers who for economic reasons found the promise of three square meals a day rather appealing. Sometimes they came home and found that their own people were being treated the way they were told to treat foreigners. It resulted in a mutiny among the Connacht Rangers in India in 1920.
Today the apologist for the empire tell themselves that 'the others were worse'. It means they don't have to deal with their history.
Ireland remains the only country in Europe to have been ruled by an minority who spoke a different language, practiced a different religion and customs, and had a different culture to the majority on the island. Don't expect the Irish to have been happy about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Boris's aim will be to try to bluff Brussels, and fail. He will then come back and say there is nothing to be done but to leave NI in the CU and put a hard border in the Irish Sea, and gamble that this will win him a majority in a General Election if the DUP pull out. He knows no deal is not an option politically and perhaps economically.
The DUP in Westminster are not representative of opinion in NI, which voted to remain. An even larger number in NI, including some DUP voters, wish to remain in the CU. This will keep the border open and quieten any push for a border poll by nationalists who were happy with the status quo until Brexit came along. The DUPs bottom line is not leaving the EU, but preventing a united Ireland.
It is also the case that the DUP do not want a pro-Irish Nationalist Corbyn in government. So perhaps he will call the DUPs bluff. Furthermore, polls show that members of the Conservative and Unionist party are quite happy to throw NI, Scotland and even their own party under the bus to get Brexit. The DUP, despite their posturing, are between a rock and a hard place here.
Either way, ditching the DUP or bringing them to heal, will allow Boris to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the EU with Dublin possibly on the UKs side of the table - because they will share the UKs interests. It will also allow Britain to negotiate a trade deal with the USA safe in the knowledge that the Democrats will not block it Congress - something they have threatened if there is not an open border in Ireland. Again Dublin has some influence here.
He could then save Brexit, save the Tories from themselves, remove the threat of Farage and prevent Corbyn from coming to power.
He will be the greatest PM since Thatcher.
I'm not sure how he will do it, but I think he will try something along these lines.
Have I covered all the bases here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Britain has lost its edge due to the EU over regulating its industries.'
How come other EU economies have not? Germany is doing fine under the same rules - why?
'They want out and they are entitled to leave. '
It is the English voter that is taking the UK out of the EU. The Scots and the Northern Irish voted to remain. The UK is entitled to leave, but it not entitled to set the terms of its departure.
'Why would you not want to run your own Country? We all saw what the EU did to Ireland ramming the Lisbon treaty down its throat after it rejected it.'
Ireland runs itself. For us in Ireland our hard-won freedom and sovereignty are things to be shared judiciously and to be deployed intelligently rather than jealously horded away on our island as Brexiters propose. Ireland makes the vast majority of its own decisions. The Lisbon Treaty was not RAMMED DOWN anyones throat - Ireland got protocols protecting its neutrality following its rejection and the Irish government made an argument as to why we should vote in favour of it - something it didn't bother to do first time round, and it was carried a second time. Ireland is not anti-EU, despite Farage's interpretation of Lisbon in Ireland. Repeat referenda is perfectly normal in Ireland which had two referenda on divorce, five on abortion, two on the Nice Treaty...in Ireland we are allowed to change our minds as part of our democratic process. Referenda in Ireland are fine examples of how the Irish make their own laws.
'The EU is also trying to ruin the UK and Ireland's current relationship and I find it terrible that the Irish people are allowing the EU to do this. Britain would continue to trade with Ireland on their current terms but the EU won't allow Ireland too.'
Are you serious? In Ireland, Brexit is seen as an unfriendly/hostile act with an early attempt at using us to underrmine the EUs negotiating position being headed off by Varadkar. Ireland has taken sides with the EU as it sees no benefit in supporting Brexit. Ireland was never mentioned during the pre-referendum debate in your country.
'Countries should be able to run themselves, make their own laws, allow who they want to allow in and make their own trade deals on their own terms and the EU does not allow its members to do this'
Countries join the EU to amplify their strength in obtaining trade deals - we are all equal in our membership with one another The trouble with the British is that the English have not yet accepted that they are actually equal to their neighbours and feel they are special because of their history. All of their short-comings since WW2 are being blamed on the EU and it does not realize yet that it is a small nation, getting smaller. If Ireland can adequately manage its immigration, why can the UK not do it?
'Britain would continue to trade with Ireland on their current terms but the EU won't allow Ireland too.'
Given the lies the pro-Brexit Tories have told their own people, the Irish would not trust the UK as far as it could throw it in terms of Brexit promises. We're safer with the EU, we're economically better off with the EU, while the EU itself has proven to be more informed about Irish issues than the British establishment, which is quite shocking. As a consequence support for the EU in Ireland has increased during Brexit.
The UK is screwed because of an English identity crisis, and Ireland needs to reduce its exposure to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK may give NI 12 billion a year, but the RoI would not be required to give so much as NI would not have to contribute to the UK defence budget for example. Furthermore, when one takes in to account VAT contributions from NI, the 12 billion figure is reduced.
With NI in both the UK and EU trading areas, its unique position is likely to turbo charge the NI economy and remove it as a dependency on largesse from GB. In effect, NI will pay for itself in the next 10 to 20 years, making unity more attractive to people in the south.
The HSE will have to be reformed to be more like the NHS, although the NHS is in the toilet at the moment.
Ireland has an expensive economy, which is common in wealthy economies. It seems even more expensive because the median income in NI is about $35,000 (in GB its $38,000) while the median income in Ireland is $41,700 per year. People south of the border earn more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robgw Like I said, you like to take offence. It's your choice, and its also quite fashionable among the under 30s in my experience. I guess you are 'with it'.
In your opening post you asked a question, which demonstrated ignorance. You are ignorant as to why the UK cannot speak with Germany, Italy and France directly. This is not an 'opinion' as you claim, it is a lack of knowledge.
So what's the answer? It is this: the EU operates as a bloc. The UK wishes to have a trading relationship with the bloc, therefore it talks to the whole bloc. As it happens, the UK did attempt to strike a deal with Germany, in the belief that Germany 'controls' the EU and they were given short shrift, because, like you, the people championing Brexit also didn't know how the EU works.
You jumped to a conclusion, commonly peddled by Brexiters, that member states 'hand over their sovereignty' to the EU and then compared it communism for some bizarre reason. This is also ignorance. Countries POOL their sovereignty in order to amplify it with the intention of raising the living standards for their citizens. Instead of competing against one another, they work together.
The values of the bloc are underpinned by those of Social Democracy: 'Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.' In other words it is not communism, which seeks to destroy capitalism. Social democracy is based on the premise that if you are poor and have insufficient access to education or health care, you are not really free and you cannot achieve your potential.
The other value that underpins the EU is civic nationalism: an inclusive form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. In other words, an Frenchman is as good as a German, or an Italian is an equal to a Dutchman etc. This is different from the ethno nationalism of Brexit or Donald Trump, which is based on the notion that being British or American makes you better than everybody else. In Europe this form of nationalism led to two world wars.
I hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ireland is doing great, despite having neighbours as ignorant as you.
Irish people live longer than British people
Irish people are better educated,
Ireland has a freer press
Ireland is more democratic that your country
Ireland is the 9th largest investor in the US economy
Brexit has shown us that Ireland is more diplomatically astute and knows how to use its soft power better than the UK
Ryanair, which so many poor English people depend on to visit the Med every year, is Irish and is one of Europe's largest and most successful airlines.
The Irish workforce is more productive than the UK workforce
Ireland is an exporting power house, while the UK cannot even export into the EU effectively.
32% of Irish exports go to the US, only 16% of the UKs exports go to there
Ireland is the UKs fifth largest export market before 2016 - but not any more, None of your trade deals are large enough to replace what the Irish purchased from the UK.
Learn some Irish history, and while you are at it, update your knowledge of modern Ireland. Do that, and you might find you can compete with us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Irish don't want any hard border, but the fundamentals of international trade demand one. Sorry.
What will be the consequences of a border?
On the one hand, once there is a hard border it puts the DUP in a difficult situation. Most unionists and all nationalists seem to want to stay in the Customs Union, only the DUP don't. This will speed up demands for a border poll, and there is one thing that the DUP want less than staying in the EU - and that's a united Ireland.
On the other hand, a hard border means your much hoped for trade deal with the US will be blocked by the Democrats in Congress...or is the House...whichever one Pelosi is the Speaker of. That's democrat policy now, and in fact you can expect some prominent Irish-American's on the Republican side to cross the aisle for that one.
For the Irish a hard border will mean civil disobedience on both sides of it. Politically, the Irish government will be blamed for the difficulties it causes by those living on the southern side and the DUP will be blamed on the Northern side.
Practically it means that cross border arrangements underpinned by EU membership will be abandoned: an all-Ireland congenital heart disease network to ensure that vulnerable children receive treatment on the island of Ireland which has a single surgical centre in Dublin and a specialist children's cardiology centre in Belfast will be no more. There is no technical solution to this problem.
Other areas of cooperation across the island of Ireland that will be affected by Brexit include major emergencies and A&E services, cancer research and health promotion. Also underpinned by the EU are everyday services such as the operation of cross-border taxis and mobile phone roaming services.
Terrorism is a possibility and it will be the fault of Brexiters. It amuses me when I hear threats of trouble in the UK if Brexit is not delivered while the concerns about the British border in Ireland, over which thousands have died, are dismissed as 'scare mongering'.
I view Brexiter threats post Brexit with the same concern as I would the libido of a eunuch in a brothel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aib0160 Again, if you had bothered with a plan, if people had voted upon that plan, you would not have had MPs and parties arguing over what type of Brexit you voted for.
The UK will not tear up the agreement, that bluff was called last December. If it were left to the UK and the RoI to resolve the border issue, the UK would merely steam roll over Ireland and the Irish would just have to put up with it, and probably leave the EU or the SM - neither of which the Irish people voted for - and to the detriment of the Irish economy. We know that when Brexiters talk about sovereignty and independence they do not take into account that others value their sovereignty and independence too. As Sajid Javid stated on TV one Sunday morning, 'the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog'. That's lovely, Sajid, thanks.
The EU is not weaponising the border. The border is an issue the UK never considered and it is a problem for which it has no solution, undermining the 'we hold all the cards' mantra that English nationalists were seduced by. Brexiters never considered that the EU would stand by a small member state in relation to an 'important' country like the UK, failing to understand that the EU is made up of 'small states', and one departing state that does not know it is small. The Irish also wiped the floor diplomatically in Washington, so much so, that British diplomats have been told to 'copy the Irish' in terms of winning friends and influencing people in the United States.
The border issue does not have and never had, anything to do with the free movement of people between these islands. The problem is the movement of goods and the anger Irish people living on the border would have in relation to checks because of a vote held on another island. Now we can see the anger of Unionists in Northern Ireland, Brexit supporters, as borders are being placed in the Irish Sea. We can see the UK is not implementing all it is supposed to, and that Boris's claim that there would be no paperwork is another Boris lie. We can see how the DUP are desperately trying to undermine the Irish Sea checks because their supporters are deserting them, deserting them because they made the strategic error of blindly supporting Brexit even after being sacrificed by the Tories.
But if you're a Brexiter, you blame the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Charlie
You're half right with the facts and half right with the analysis.
Firstly, the argument for the Scottish opposition to Brexit is an odd one. In 1973 80% of Irish exports went to the UK, joining the EU has reduced that figure to 13.5% over all (granted, the majority of Irish agri-products still go there). One of the arguments for Scotland being independent but a member of the EU is that it would over time allow the Scots a greater measure of economic independence from the England. While some Scots that I know surprised me by voting for Brexit, they did so thinking it would make Scottish independence easier to achieve, while the overwhelming support to remain in the EU in 2016 suggests that they are quite comfortable with EU membership and lack none of the identity issues of the plague the English. You argument for the dependence of Scotland on the UK single market does not take into account the dependence of the Scots for EU funding and subsidies, particularly for the farming sector.
Secondly, your analysis of the Irish 'Celtic Tiger' economy needs work. The Celtic Tiger expired, ceased to be, joined the crowd invisible in 2008 - nobody uses the term for the current economic growth. While it is true that 26% GDP growth rates are a result of the distortion of US FDI companies filtering their profits through Ireland, it remains the case the the Irish economy is in rude good health by any standard: in 2017 GDP grew by 7% - strip out the Corporation tax and the figure is 4%, the highest in the Eurozone, and much higher than that of the UK. Incidentally, the UK is leaving the EU with a debt to GDP ratio that is higher than that of Ireland and with a lower GDP per capita. Indeed, NI has an average household income that is 50% lower than that of the republic as it stands. The economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland has historically been Belfast, but it has been Dublin for the past two decades or more. The Republic must be doing something right, as NI is seeking to lower its Corporate Tax to match that of the Republic in order to benefit from those profits generated elsewhere.
Thirdly, your simplistic view of the level of economic activity in the Republic is as a result of hanging too much on multi-national FDI. For example, Ireland is the 10th biggest economic investor in the US, where Irish multinationals employ over 100,000 people; its the 6th biggest beef exporter in the world; its the world leader in aircraft leasing. Ireland has an open economy.
Finally, your analysis of Irish emigration needs updating - those who left during the crash are returning in large numbers as the economy approaches full employment. The Irish workforce is highly mobile, even during the Celtic Tiger period young people left to broaden their minds by choice, while economic emigrants from the 1980s returned in their tens of thousands at the same time. Most who chose to emigrate today are those who work in the public sector jobs market, particularly health professionals and educators - tight controls on public spending by the current government means more money and experience can be found abroad. They are travelling in smaller numbers to the UK and US than previously, the Middle East and Australia seem to be more alluring these days. And British people emigrate to Ireland too - just over 100,000 according the 2016 census. You will find English accents in every economic sector in the Republic, from retail to company CEOs, from the trades to public services.
There a lot of talk about a united Ireland as the moment - too much talk in my view - and most of it in the media. It leads to insecurity among Unionists in NI and the rehashing of the old comfort blanket that the Republic could not afford unity. However,, this argument seems less plausible now than it did in the past.
1
-
@ Charlie,
Again, you're kind of all over the place here. Allow me to elaborate:
There may be no financial independence when you throw your lot in with the Eurozone but if an independent Scotland was to peg its new currency to Sterling, it would be in an even more dependent position. On balance though, the membership of the Single Market and Customs Union would open up huge opportunities for an independent Scottish economy. But EU membership is not all about economics for the Scots, I suspect. Its also about having an equal voice with its European neighbours as a sovereign nation, something that will enhance their sense of national identity and confidence.
Tax policy remains the competence of member states, and at present ten EU states oppose the harmonisation proposal including at least two of the founder members of the EU. Ireland's policy is to wait until the OECD rules on subject and then all countries will jump together...in the meantime, Ireland has its veto.
Many countries have opt outs on various EU decisions, including the EU army. The UK has availed of more opt-outs than any other member country, as you know, and Ireland secured its opt-out in that renegotiated treaty passed in the second Lisbon referendum - the one which Brexiters like to claim Ireland was 'made' take again by the EU. Personally, I would support Irish participation in an EU Army but I would be in a minority in my country.
Regarding Scotland's debt, it would have to get its act together in order to join the EU, but it would have less to do than other past accession applicants who are now members. Sometimes the desire to be independent trumps the short term pain of austerity and a lower standard of living: it was such in Ireland a century ago following independence and hard-core Brexiters will tell you the same in relation to their ambitions.
There are many differences between Scottish and English nationalism, but my statement was with regard to identity: the English-outside-London are particularly afflicted by it. However, Scottish and English nationalisms are indeed different: English nationalism and identity is binary, it cannot accept the invitation to adopt an EU identity along with its own national identity. The English cannot accept they are nation themselves at all - they cannot view themselves as equal to other nations - they are exceptional because of their history - British history - as Britishness in the United Kingdom was the main conduit of English nationalism in the past.
This is why there is no devolved government for England, the English can't seem to accept they need it and that they are equal to the Scots, Welsh and the Northern Irish. The English reaction to the concept of an EU identity is to invent an oppressor in the EU instead - creating the 'Them and Us' required by any nationalism; Nobody is oppressing the English, certainly not the EU, but Breixters - and most of them are English - think otherwise. 62% of Scots appear to understand that shared EU identity concept and feel no threat by it, alongside 56% of Northern Irish. In response, the English are turning to Empire 2.0 - the Commonwealth - where it will feel more comfortable. Brexit is a English Nationalist Mental Breakdown.
In the event of unification in Ireland, there would be short-term pain but long term gain and several economic studies support this view. Do I take it you think only the English have the stomach to suffer economically in the national cause? of course there would be concern about it, but I can guarantee you it will be a different issue that will dominate discussion in the Republic: reconciliation. The nightmare scenario would be, say, a 52% majority in NI in favour of unification without reconciliation first.
'The UK is a large net contributor to the EU, it receives no net funding from the EU at all. And as I have noted previously, Scotland receives a large fiscal transfer from the UK. Any dependence is with the UK.'
Tell that to the farmers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as they don't feel reassured. EU subsidies kept many if not most UK farmers viable - especially in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - helping to maintain rural communities and provide food security. After Brexit, the UK is intending to pursue a cheap food policy from abroad which will destroy this. Today, Ireland elected a Northern Ireland Unionist farmer, a former member of the Northern Irish Farmers Union, to the Irish Senate, the parliamentary upper house, in order to provide some influence for NI farmers in a parliament that will continue to deal with the EU.
The UK may be a net contributor to Brussels, but there is no evidence that it intends to distribute its largess for the benefit of British farmers - or, famously, the NHS either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxdavis7722 My source is a history book. An Irish history book, you won't find this in a British one.
'The closest I’ve found is just something saying the majority were Protestant, that doesn’t mean English, that doesn’t even mean British, at the time there were quite a few Irish Protestants'
Many landlords were English and lived in England, never setting foot in Ireland. These absentee landlords were the worst and they evicted their tenants, which meant death by the roadside. Others were Irish by birth and lived in Ireland. But they were considered English by the the Irish because they were colonisers who inherited land taken by the Cromwellians, spoke a different language, practiced a different religion, customs, culture, had sole access to the law and the means to implement it.. Ireland was the only country in Europe to be ruled by a minority with whom the majority had nothing in common. What was Irish about the Anglo-Irish to the peasant minority?. This was colonisation. They weren't part of the 'Irish nation' of people. The English recognised no such Irish nation so, they considered Irish landlords to be Irish.
Apparently, the Duke of Wellington understood this distinction. When he was accused of being Irish (he was born in Dublin) he stated 'being born in a stable does not make you a horse'.
The UK government was married to the Laissez-Faire economic system, which prioritises the market forces of over people. Despite feeding 3 million Irish people successfully in 1846, cheaply and efficiently, they went back to the economic model they loved so much, declared the famine over and put all remaining Irish suffering down to 'Providence'. Under such circumstances, who should get in the way of God's will? There was a famine in Scotland at the same time, but it was dealt with differently.
You have a lot of reading to do!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amm287 This is correct. It was the EUs big test for Ireland. They came on board with the GFA, and very quickly in the days after Brexit, agreed that in any united Ireland scenario, Northern Ireland would be automatically enter the EU without there being any internal restrictions within Ireland. Having being shafted by Jean-Claude Trichet for the enormous debt caused by by the Irish banking crisis, there was a nervy moment in the summer of 2016, but so far the EU, the Commission and the other member states, have been 100% behind Ireland.
It appears that it is Brexiters that are happy for Ireland to be the collateral damage for Brexit. History demonstrates that when the British establishment goes up its own arse like it has done since June 2016, Ireland always suffers, so we were vigilant in Ireland. So far we've got the least worst Brexit we could have hoped for - and we are hoping it stays that way.
Fintain O'Toole is a remarkably perceptive journalist, particularly in relation to Brexit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kcirdrab
Nothing is perfect. That said, Ireland was the only country to gain independence between the wars that successfully maintained its democracy. In truth, many of the 'flaws' played a part in securing this achievement.
Why would I have a problem with Irish nationalism? It is coherent, had a clear identity, knew what it was for and what it was against. It was also conservative, an unusual trait for a revolutionary movement. In the early period it was insecure and retreated behind a narrow identity. This has changed in its second 50 years of independence to gradually adopting a broader identity and in doing so has reaped the benefits of a more cohesive society. There are now many strands to Irish identity and this change has been caused by opening up to the world, The Troubles in Northern Ireland, returning Irish immigrants and membership of both the UN and the EU. Irish nationalism has matured and and believes that its best days are ahead.
Brexit in contrast is incoherent, there is no consensus as to what it is against and cannot agree what it is for. There is no agreed vision. It is underpinned by an English nationalism that cannot admit that England is a country, a nation in its own right and a sense that things were better in the old days - even to the point of Empire nostalgia. It bizarrely feels that membership of the EU is a threat to its culture when its influence around the world is enormous. It is insecure and insular. For us in Ireland our hard-won freedom and sovereignty are things to be shared judiciously and to be deployed intelligently rather than jealously horded away on our island. Research has shown that Brexiters admit to being English first and British second - they cannot also accept the invitation to take on an EU identity alongside their national identity.
It is also the case that Brexiters have invented an oppressor, transferring blame for the emphatic failure of successive governments of all hues on to the EU. The upshot? Pensioners in Liverpool voting to Leave and blaming the fact that their German counterparts get higher pensions on the EU; Sheffield car assembly workers voting for Brexit in protest at Westminster even though their jobs depend on exports to the EU; farmers voting for Brexit even though some of their income is dependent on trading with the EU and subsidies from the CAP.
It is fascinating to watch. Its history.
Marxism is a fatally flawed, failed ideology. Be careful not to introduce a strawman to your argument, it will only highlight an inability to critically think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnt4768 The EU never bottled it.
It is important for your media to construe any concession from the EU...indeed anything at all... as evidence of the EU 'bottling it', but the fact is, the EU has the UK on a short leash, and everybody knows it. Frosty knew it, which is why he bailed.
The UK is the big bottler. It has bottled triggering article 16 for example, the threats to do so now are much more low key and for internal consumption. Last October the EU and the US told the UK that any plan to trigger article 16 would result in an immediate response, so the UK pretended it never wanted to trigger article 16 in the first place.
The UK bottled putting up a border with Ireland on 1st January. This is because the UK cannot feed itself and needs Ireland more than Ireland needs the UK.
If the UK wanted to do the right thing because the UK loves and cares about Ireland it would have stayed in the Single Market, preventing the need for the NIP. But we know where Brexiter priorities lie, don't we. In that context you have a bit of neck to criticise the motives of other stakeholders.
Finally, the three leafed shamrock, not the four leafed clover is the symbol for Ireland....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The EU has an agreement with the Turks in relation to keeping Middle Eastern refugees in their country and not sending them on to Greece.
That's what the money is for.
'Poland and Hungry have appalling human rights records by their current governments yet are still EU members.'
Such as?
'Poland makes it a criminal offence to say there were Polish death camps. Yet there is clear evidence that Jews, Germans, communists, non communists, free thinkers, etc. were murdered by Poles in Polish death camps both before and after WWII.'
Yes, of course the Poles object: they were GERMAN death camps in Poland. In Ireland we object to the term 'the Irish border' used constantly in the the UK - its the British border in Ireland. The Irish never wanted a border. If the Poles have a law against the use of 'Polish death camps', that's fine with me, its their business. Contrary to the bullshit of Brexiters, Poland is a sovereign nation within the EU.
'There is evidence that the EU policy of forcing refugees on Ireland is not popular see https://www.irishmirror.ie/all-about/refugee-crisis'
There is indeed. There is also evidence of people that are fine with it. Why have you not produced that?
'The EU's dumb policy of trying to put a hard border on Northern Ireland seems to be not popular in both Northern Ireland and Eire.'
Its not popular and neither is Brexit. The fact is, it is Brexit that putting a hard border in Ireland, a border nobody in Ireland wants, because Brexit is incompatible with the Belfast Agreeement. It is necessary because the UK intends leaving the Customs Union and regulatory alignment with the EU for lure of low grade trade deals with nations.
The fundamentals of international trade therefore make it necessary to put up controls. Remember, its the UK that is changing the status quo, not Ireland or the EU.
'From a distance I can't see why a Norway like free trade agreement would not be accepted?'
Take it up with Leavers.
After running a campaign stating that it would be quite mad to leave the EU without a deal such the Norway free trade deal, the Swiss model or the Canadian one, the Brexiters immediately stated they wished to leave the Customs Union and Single Market when they won the vote. This is because they want to stop freedom of movement.
The Norway deal requires Freedom of Movement. Freedom of Movement is one of the core values of the EU, and the EU will not change that for the UK. The UK is less special than Brexiters think it is.
Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the UK is held to ransom by its lack of a plan for Brexit in relation to the Good Friday Agreement. That international peace treaty was assent by democratic vote too, 71% in Northern Ireland and 94% in the republic.
It is not 'racist', but a matter of fact that people living along both sides of the border will not tolerate any changes brought in because of a decision made by people on the other island. There is no majority for Brexit in Ireland, and there is no support for the casual attitude Brexiters have towards their only land border with the EU.
The Irish protocol that the UK signed up to a year ago places the customs border in the Irish Sea. This is an international treaty and the UK cannot unilaterally walk away from it. To do so will have consequences for the US-UK trade deal. You will then have both the EU and US ganging up on the UK, and we know how that will end.
The Irish government has used its diplomatic influence in Washington to invite support for its position. Brexit is not just the business of Britain. You need a deal with the US, it is your leverage with the EU in the trade negotiations - or it was.
While some Irish-Americans funded the IRA because of their ancestral memory of British misdeeds in Ireland, the American Government did not. However, that ancestral voice is still strong and no Irish-American politicians in the US will shaft Ireland in order to assist Brexit or a trade deal. The UK no longer has that power or influence. And the Irish-American lobby, a bi-partisan group, has already told the UK that.
It is time to listen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Shane Gallagher -
Sorry that the Irish government didn't assist in 1969, but handing guns over to the IRA, which didn't recognise the right of the Republic of Ireland to exist was hardly the answer. Especially as a the IRA campaign which developed after Bloody Sunday failed to deliver on its goal. The solution to the problems in NI were and remain political, not military. I know all about the refugees who came south - I live near some of them and their descendants.
Pearse and Plunkett may have had the notion of inviting Germany to invade Ireland - at one point Sinn Féin under Arthur Griffith were monarchists too, and wished to invited the Kaiser to be King - but in WW2 the Irish people wanted to be neutral. This was the consensus as the southern state was a divided regarding the relationship with the British. As usual the IRA thought they knew better.
The 1916 Rising was undemocratic, make no mistake, but then there was already a democratic deficit in Ireland at the time. This was not the case when WW2 came round, not one party - not even Fine Gael who comprised old Southern Unionists and old Home Rulers alongside the pro-Treaty nationalists - supported joining the British without an attack first by Germany. It never came. There were cross-party demonstrations in Dublin in the summer of 1940 in support of neutrality even when a German or British invasion seemed inevitable. Neutrality was only an issue during General Elections during WW2 insofar as people were concerned about maintaining it.
In that context, Sean Russell, Stephen Hayes and their ilk were treacherous in their illogical attempts to invite the most evil regime in modern history to invade Ireland to drive out a less evil imperial power from one corner of the island.
Nationalists suffered appallingly under Unionist apartheid, but all would have suffered a great deal more under the Nazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joecook5689 'Ireland as a country wanted Britain to defeat the axis or not?'
Yes, the Irish government did not want Germany to win. Most Irish people were ambivalent about the war and just wanted Ireland to be left alone. They had little interest in Germany and did not trust the British.
'And what percent of Ireland fought for the allies out of the number of possible soldiers that would've been enlisted British soldiers if they were, for the sake of argument, part of Britain, say. You know, like what percent would not bother or oppose?'
No idea. According to British figure in 1945, there were 50,000 Irishmen and women in British uniform, though this did not count volunteers from the south who enlisted in NI. The correct figure may have been 70,000 with up to 10,000 fatalities. There was a long tradition of service in the British army in Ireland, a tradition that often ran in families. Research has shown that many who volunteered for the British armed forces had no difficulty with Irish neutrality, and joined for reasons of tradition, anti-fascist ideology or for adventure.
Elizabeth Bowen, the Anglo-Irish writer, lived in neutral ireland throughout the war. A supporter of Churchill, she wrote fortnightly in secret to the British Ministry of Information on the Irish attitude to neutrality – she was a spy. She discouraged any invasion by the British as she was convinced it would be fiercely resisted and counter-productive. The Irish government would have welcomed such an observation, but she was not acting in Eire’s interests, but in the interests of Britain and was opposed to Irish neutrality.
Nonetheless, she stated that 'it may be felt in England that Eire is making a fetish of her neutrality. But this assertion of her neutrality is Eire’s first free self-assertion; as such alone it would mean a great deal to her. Eire (and I think rightly) sees her neutrality as positive, not merely negative’.
Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mgaffo222 That was a hard read.
Aside from the abject misery, writing what is essentially a complaint in a single block of text and expecting people to read it is a big ask. Break it up into paragraphs, its easier. And beside, the paragraph is an ancient Irish invention, created by ancient monks long ago. Its a tradition worth keeping.
As far as I can see, Irish culture has never been in a stronger position. Now that it has largely received the approval and recognition outside of Ireland, Irish people are no longer ashamed of it. This has been one of the benefits of coming out from under the cultural vandalism practiced by the British empire.
Irish dancing, Irish music and Irish literature are widely available and recognised all over the world. Just this weekend I received video of a celebration of Irish culture at the Fahy Club in Buenos Aires, where local people performed Irish dancing and played Irish music. There were men in orange kilts with warpipes, none of them born in Ireland only a few would ever have visited our country. There are more GAA clubs in Cork than there are rugby clubs on the Island of Ireland, with the All-Ireland finals in Croke Park, we host two the biggest annual sporting events on the continent of Europe every single year. There is no comparison to the Fleadh Ceoil which I attended in Wexford this year (did you?) anywhere in the world. About 600,000 people came to enjoy the atmosphere, listen to music, part take in competitions, from all over the world. In recent years we have started to use film to tell our story and as a means of cultural expression. One of them, in the Irish language, won an Academy Award as far as I recall. That's all part of Globalisation too. Now you have a rap group from Belfast, rapping in Irish and getting global acclaim.
For the most part, Irish culture lacks your inferiority complex. St Patrick's Day is an inclusive cultural festival that encourages other national identities in our society to express themselves. That is not a sign of inferiority about our culture, it is an expression of confidence in it. This is because the concept of a multi-layered national identity is part of who we are in this country in the 21st century. You can be Irish and British, Irish and Polish and Irish and Nigerian. You might not like that, but it is who we are today. Its reality.
It is my experience that the children of immigrants often take to learning the Irish language like ducks to water. This is because they are already growing up in polyglot households, unlike the natives. It will be interesting to see how this influences the revival of the language in the future. Creative Ireland has providing funding for the recording of our intangible cultural heritage from our elderly people all over the country in recent years, so our culture is not being lost, it is being preserved.
While I would lament the Americanization of Halloween, it is also the case that the traditional halloween is still being taught in primary school. There is no reason why it cannot be revived.
Traditional pub culture is dying, although it is still hanging on, on the western seaboard. In a decade from now it will have passed into history much like the traditional halloween we used to practice as kids. Drinking was always part of the Irish culture and always will be to some extent, but drinking to get drunk is an aspect of Irish culture we can do with out. Irish culture has never been good at providing expression for the significant minority that did not drink at all, but I digress. If you think that 150 years ago everybody was engaged in Irish culture the way you seem to romanticize it, then you are sorely mistaken. For many it was considered backward.
There is no Hibernophobia, in my opinion, and you don't provide a good argument to support this claim. Irish culture is still alive and can be found all around you. Its just not the ONLY culture in Ireland now, but it is the only one capable of creating and maintaining Irish identity. But because it is a living culture and has always absorbed outside influences, it will continue to change and evolve in the years ahead. Irish identity is not under threat either, it is evolving also. Irish people are confident in their identity - it is a pity you don't seem to share it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Rural Rebel Tory
Ireland will not put up a hard border. It simply cannot be done, politically or physically. It seems to me that the Irish government and the EU are working on some other arrangement, an imposition on Ireland caused by Brexit, that will protect the EU and prevent a hard border.
Tactically, Dublin knows that “no deal” is only “no deal” for now. The UK must eventually do a trade deal with the EU because of all of that trade you listed with EU countries in your post. No matter what the political and economic fallout, the UK will be back at the table soon. The more chaos at British ports, the shorter the self-imposed mercantile lockout. The suppression of the Impact Assessments indicate that this chaos will be more serious than Brexiters can admit and they don't trust their divided society to accept whats coming to them.
When the UK returns to the negotiating table, they will be handed the WA and a pen.
Ireland has been far more successful in diversifying from the UK than the UK has been in diversifying from Ireland. Today, Ireland remains the UK’s fifth largest export market and as you can see from your list, the UK exports more to Ireland than it does to China with its population of 1.4bn.
Furthermore, the UK runs a large trade surplus with Ireland — in fact, its second-largest trade surplus after the US. Strangling Ireland would hurt UK business much more than the other way around.
What Brexiters don't understand is that the EU is not all about the big countries and what they want. Most of the countries in the EU have smaller economies and even populations than Ireland. They are watching how the EU behaves when one of its smaller members is confronted by a larger bully. Standing up to the UK is the greatest PR coup the EU has had and it will help to strengthen the bloc going forward.
Trading on WTO rules is a primitive form of trade, a mere safety net. No advanced economy depends on it. With India and other emerging economies prioritising their pending trade deals with the EU and the United States engaging in national chauvinism, the UK will not have its choice of trade deals. Other countries will copy the USA and take the opportunity to hit up the UK for a trade deal at time when it is weak.
Any deal the US gives you will see the UK as rule taker. Democrats in the Senate will get enough Republicans of Irish extraction to back blocking the deal and its a Democrat House already.
Meanwhile, the UK will be in turmoil, politically, socially, economically and probably constitutionally going forward. While the UK is deeply divided over Brexit, there is consensus in Ireland and across the EU in relation to the UK leaving.
The Troubles will erupt again in Northern Ireland as Brexit has removed all the ambiguities that the Belfast Agreement put in place. Peace was possible because of those ambiguities. The first bomb exploded on the border in Fermanagh this week.
By the way, can you think of any promises Brexiters made that actually came to pass?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Monuments should be kept, they just need to be more honestly interpreted. I personally don't have a difficulty with the Cenotaph, it is important and healthy to remember the dead.
The British Empire was great for the UK, but it came at a cost to others that the UK cannot bring itself to acknowledge. Many English people in particular are deeply deluded about their own history and even their place in the world today.
I'm Irish and Ireland has acknowledged the role of Irishmen who served in the British army in WW1, for example, Public memorials have been erected in Waterford, Wexford, Clare and elsewhere in the last few years, and there has been a library of publications on the topic produced;
While, Ireland has the confidence to challenge many its sacred cows of Irishness and Irish history, the British have not even begun this process for themselves yet. They have yet come to terms with their imperial past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BritishFreedom Do you a link where I can read about these taxes?
It is true that the UK can get anything they want from elsewhere in the world. The fact is though, the UK will have to pay more for most of it because of tarrifs, will get less of it, and it will come with lower standards. In order to take advantage of these disadvantages, UK businesses will be buried in bureaucracy, driving up costs to the consumer, until such time you get some second or third rate trade deals with say, the United States, China or Japan.
There is quite literally NOTHING the EU cannot get from elsewhere in the EU or the world. The idea that private banking in London will happily support its exclusion from the worlds largest trading bloc on its doorstep is ridiculous. Parts of the main financial houses in the UK will gradually ebb away to Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid and Dublin - it has already started - leaving a somewhat diminished presence in The City for the rest of the world.
Incidentally, Irish exports of high-value pharma are almost twice what the UK produces...somehow I think the EU will survive.
1
-
@BritishFreedom Yes, but have not provided a link for your source of information - I can't find it when I google it.
The UK is not buried under EU bureaucracy, this is a perception peddled by the right-wing media in the UK over the last 40 years. It has even been described as evidence of 'EU oppression'. This is utter nonsense. The whole point of the SM and CU is to create an internal bloc suited to free trade and high standards. When you leave the EU, the UK will experience the tyranny of real bureaucracy, not only with the rest of the world, but with the EU also. The purpose of the EU tariff regime was to protect UK and other EU workers and farmers from cheaper goods coming in from outside the EU, undermining jobs and incomes within the bloc. The UK will be outside that protection once it leaves, and the OECD's least productive workforce will come face to face with reality.
All European countries export high value, patented pharma to the EU, the UK and the rest of the world. That's just a fact. It may be the case that the UK does not produce the generic stuff too like the rest of Europe. If so, good luck finding a market that can afford to compete with the generic pharma outside of the EU. Figures I have for UK pharma exports value it at about $30 billion. This slightly less than French pharma exports a little over half of Ireland's and a third of Germany's. I expect many British pharma companies will move some of their operations to the EU in order get around the barrier the UK is putting up to free trade with the worlds largest trading bloc - there is no sentiment when it comes to profits. The UKs dependency on EU pharma is well documented when your country was stockpiling, so I won't repeat it here.
£25 billion a year? Consultants EY estimate that $1.2 trillion-worth of assets have left the UK since the country voted to leave the EU in June 2016, along with 7,000 jobs in the financial services sector. Over half of these have moved to Ireland. The pro-European think tank New Financial claims that 275 big financial firms have moved at least some of their employees or operations to other parts of the EU, where they can continue to trade without interruption. Europe's other major financial centers – Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam – have been actively lobbying for post-Brexit business with banks and institutions around the world.
The EU will be fine without the UK, but the UK will is unlikely to even exist in its current form by 2030 and perhaps not at all. There will be no deal between the EU and the UK by the end of 2020. The EU will not blink and at the last minute give the UK an advantageous deal in the face of English pluck. There will be a hard Brexit - which I believe it the agenda of both the UK government and the EU - in the knowledge that once its reality hits home, a future UK government will return to Brussels and negotiate as adults.
Its all about the English finding out what the UKs place in the world actually is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therebutfor3929 I sort of half agree with you. I think there has always been a degree of enthusiasm for a united Ireland in the Republic, just no clue as to go about it. It really was not until the Troubles that people in the south understood the depth of the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, and it is not that long ago that even Sinn Féin believed that simply removing British rule from NI would solve all the problems. TheGFA ensured an open border on the island and I think most in the republic could have lived with that into the future. Brexit changed that overnight.
Unionists always said that the south would need to be more pluralist in order for them to consider unity. Now it is. At partition, Belfast was the economic powerhouse of the whole island. Now Dublin is. You overlooked that fact that there has been a strong element of Irish nationalists who were happy in the UK once there was a level playing field, but that too is proving to be more fluid.
There is a confidence in the Republic in our ground up citizen based consultations on constitutional changes in our country, something that we will have to employ in order create a state we can all live in. With the external pressures of Brexit, changing demographics in NI and an understanding in the Republic that any new unified state will have to be agreed, unity seems more possible now than it ever did. Timing was important here - if the Republic was to engage in open discourse on Irish unity too early it will likely scare the unionist and loyalist horses, and when that happens, life gets difficult for Northern nationalists. Now that SF is led by somebody who doesn't have to pretend she wasn't a member of the IRA, perhaps it 'our day has come'?
1
-
@therebutfor3929 Agree that sentiment in the North is essential - if they don't want it, then everything else is moot. A citizens assembly could start the discussion on what the united Ireland might look like, and we have control of that in for ourselves in the Republic. I don't think it is media spin that they have been successful, because they have. Other countries are seeking to copy the model.
I would like to see an ambitious vision of a future Ireland come out of such a gathering, one which confronts people in the south as to what we going to have to put on the table in any future unified state: new flag, new anthem, new constitution, federalism, membership of the Commonwealth, 12th July as a national holiday, taxation, health, economic models for integrating the economies, bi-culturalism, the role of the UK etc. You could probably add a few yourself. That will probably frighten a few horses in the south too, but it would at least get a discussion going as to what people living in the Republic are willing to offer. As for NI, all unionists have to do is ignore such a process, but through my involvement in a cross-border body that is cross-community too, I am aware of orange men thinking the unthinkable and wondering if they are not better off in a united Ireland. We need to make them a fair offer. I don't think there will be much room for triumphalism as any new agreed Ireland is likely to be quite different to the winner takes all type of Ireland unionists fear and some republicans relish.
Jack's cynicism is the product of an particular Northern Ireland background and an unease at the prospect of a United Ireland. It overlooks the fact that while Ireland was not politically unified, it had a cultural area that included Scotland. The possibility of a hereditary kingship and political unity was interrupted by influence from across the Irish Sea. These days we are in control of our own destiny and we need to aim for much more than a 50%+1 referendum result - a super majority north of the border is essential.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelstanley5215 I live in Ireland, so I have actual experience rather than something you decided was 'good information'.
Lets drill down into some of your 'good information', shall we:
'People have always been Ireland's greatest export and that will always continue.'
A glib meaningless statement. Emigration is part of Irish culture, but this has morphed into migration for many who leave, as most who leave today tend to return with new experiences, money and a broader mind. Hopefully this will indeed continue.
'The average Irish person is not better off now then they were in the 90s, in fact like everyone else they have went backwards - prices of things like housing and food are astronomical now and the average person is breaking under that strain.'
Thirty years ago the average Irish income was about £13kIRL and unemployment was rife, so how you can come make such a claim is impossible to understand. Expectations of Irish people are much higher now than they were 30 years ago. When compared with the UK, Ireland is much better off, as we have no need for foodbanks, as there is no major 'working poor' class in Ireland, and we don't have widespread destitution like in Britain.
'Ireland seems rich because so many corporations have used it as a tax haven while employing few people directly and paying very little (if anything) in taxes.'
This comment betrays you as a Brit. The British come out with this nonsense because of high profile reports of foreign 'brass plate' companies using Ireland for tax purposes and employing nobody. While these did exist, it is also the case that the majority of 1700 FDI companies in Ireland employ about 250,000 people in Ireland in mostly high end, graduate, level jobs.
'Ireland will not be able to keep up this facade forever and when it crumbles Ireland will be in a worse state then it ever was because it is essentially doing nothing to prepare for this future.'
Everything changes, but unlike the UK, Ireland will have a large sovereign fund to transform its economy in the coming years. What will the UK have? Millions of destitute people, too proud to emigrate, waiting for jobs to come to them, that's what.
You sir, are a bitter and envious British person, and you would be better off fixing your own country instead of trying to pretend the UK is not falling behind the Ireland, a country you obviously look down your nose at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leroy Jenkins Alpha The UK is notorious for not proposing solutions, but instead for proposing problems and issuing red lines, and expecting the other side to solve it. It never brings solutions. This is not entirely the UKs fault of course, it has not had to negotiate a trade deal for half a century, while the EU Commission does it every day. The mistake the UK makes is that when the EU concedes, it sees it as weakness and presses for more; when it does not, it sees it as 'punishment'. This is how children and narcissists behave. And the EU is heartily sick of it.
The ECJ is non-negotiable for the EU as it underpins all of its trade deals, and it will not undermine those for a third country. Good negotiators know the limits of what the other side can offer and that's been the UKs biggest handicap. It has been a steep learning curve for Brexiters over the last few years, but 'looking hard' is very important. As is 'being seen as important' - there is a lot of baggage there, but I digress.
In any case, I hear the UKs position has softened in relation to the ECJ, and since the US Ways and Means Committee told the UK it saw the NIP as the solution to the Brexit problem in relation to the GFA last October, the UK has started to negotiate like grown ups. Truss will throw shapes for domestic consumption - but we all know she loves to sign things.
The NIP will stay, but there will be some greasing of the wheels to make it work more smoothly; the ECJ will remain but some cosmetic work around will be put in place so the UK can claim a victory; the DUP will be will be unhappy, Northern Ireland will continue to prosper and will not look back. Farage will shout 'betrayal'!
The UK will be back in the Single Market in a few years, in any case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ireland leads the UK in almost every socio-economic index you care to look at. Ireland has a more productive workforce, for example, and Irish people have a longer life expectancy at birth than UK people; higher minimum wage and better benefits. How do you over inflate life expectancy?
Ireland is no utopia, and housing is a serious issue. But if you can't afford 50 euro to go to a GP (you can claim much of it back under your health insurance), you can get a medical card.
Despite our problems, unlike the UK we don't have large numbers of foodbanks to subsidise the working poor, we don't have 5% of our population technically destitute, and poorest 20% of the population of Ireland are 63% better off than the poorest 20% of the UK (according to the Financial Times).
About 30,000 Irish people leave Ireland each year to go to other parts of the world. This year about 30,000 are returning after a few years away with money, professional experience and a broader mind. Relatively few are going to the UK (or the US) anymore, Europe, the Middle East and Australia are proving to be more more popular.
Grass is not always greener, indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure that's grand so. Unionists always have an answer, and yet are always insecure. Why is that?
Oh, and I'm not a Sinn Féiner. I've never voted for them. I have never cried 'Brits out' in my life, and I welcome the 100,000 Brits living in the republic - some of them are my friends.
Your analysis is rather incoherent has completely ignored Irish nationalism and its aspirations - hardly a surprise, its a long tradition in your culture. This is a recipe for problems, but in the real world, that would not be permitted to happen as there are guarantees against one side ignoring the other in pursuit of its agenda thanks to the Belfast Agreement. Your analysis also places SF as the arbiters of Irish nationalism and I can tell you that they are not.
Ulster Unionism has strong links to Scotland, but they will be in the minority in the future, and they will be divided between hardliners and the more open minded liberal wing of unionism. Irish nationalists in NI have strong links with the rest of Ireland and will be involved in shaping the future just as unionists are- why ignore that reality?
Any independent Scotland will seek membership of the EU, and with a united Ireland already guaranteed EU membership, any notions of NI independence can hardly be considered worthy of serious consideration: there is no political or economic argument for it. Furthermore, as you have demonstrated, many unionists still seem to have a great difficulty with the notion of equality and many lack confidence in their culture holding its own in the face of Irish nationalism.
I cannot see the idea of an 'Independent Northern Ireland' gaining any traction.
Britain will always exist - it is an island like Ireland - but the UK may not; the EU will continue to exist, though not in its current form, it is always evolving anyway. Things will always change. An independent Irish state will always exist, though it will continue to evolve too.
What is 'lunatic' about Irish nationalism anyway?
Are any of your other scenarios based on any realities?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Ricardo Thomas
'...it will never happen in this life or The next, the unionist are the majority in that part of the world, and they are British...'
The nationalist population is set to become the majority, possibly by the time of the 2021 census. Middle class liberal unionists are open to the idea of a future withing a united Ireland, as they are facing economic ruin with Brexit and political insecurity due to an English nationalism that would throw them under a bus at the first opportunity.
'In fact the referendum was a UK vote, not a Scottish or Irish
English or welch vote...'
This is true, but of course against a backdrop of a diminishing British Demos, it is also the case that Brexit does not account for the the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. In the last 20 years since the GFA and devolution, we can see what way the wind is blowing...the UK is slowly breaking up. Brexit will speed it up, as the current constitutional arrangement is no longer fit for purpose.
'...how can you ignore the 17.4 million...'
The vast majority of your 17.4 million are English. If you are Scottish or Irish, the English are irrelevant in terms of your own aspirations. For them, if the English want to leave the EU, then they should - but why should the Scots or the Irish leave also? Their nationalism share none of the English insecurities.
1
-
1
-
@spartanconscience2693 I never said being on your own means isolation, my point is, that it is impossible to be on your own and better off in the modern world - I cited the hermit nation of North Korea as an example of it. 'On your own' is a meaningless slogan today, as we are all interdependent and the trick is to maximize the the advantages of that interdependence. The UK will not be able to make any meaningful laws that will benefit its people that it could not already make as part of the the EU, and it will only flourish for its elite who will line their pockets at you expense and the promise of cheaper shoes. Your country can look forward to a future as a rule taker and not a rule maker, when dealing with the United States and the European Union, becoming a vassal of one and a satellite of the other.
I of course do not like to share my house with others as you state, but I have no difficulty sharing my country. We already have laws dictating what say these people have and I am happy with them. In my country, immigrants integrate well and I know that democracies that are open and diverse tend to prosper more than those that do not.
In my view, sovereignty is not something to be judiciously shared, not to be jealously guarded and horded away in a tower
; my country goes global through EU trade deals while trading with the neighbours, something the UK has failed at by its own account. My country maximises control over the important issues which by definition do not stop at borders – from trade to energy to international crime – these must be addressed on a cross-border basis and we know the EU remains the most effective cross-border mechanism in the world.
Brexiteers are driven by the idea that they are putting their country first. But so, of course, does my country. The real issue is whether national interests are to be defined narrowly and pursued as if the aim is to be masters of our own little world or whether, as we believe in my country, that those interests should be defined broadly and pursued in the knowledge that the real world is necessarily one of interdependence, compromise and shared interests. In my country, we support the principle of free movement of people and welcome those who are building up our economy, enriching our culture and making us proud to be Europeans; Brexit voters were influenced by the notion of the UK becoming more “independent”. Some even went so far as to call June 23rd, 2016, “Independence Day”. It requires myopia, when one thinks of say Finland or Lithuania, for any of our British friends to believe that they alone truly value independence. Independence for us is not something to celebrate in lonely isolation - rather it allows us to take our place among the nations of the earth.
This is something that Scottish Nationalists understand, they already practice many of these values under devolution. This is why Scotland will eventually become independent of Westminster and will be welcomed into the European Union assuming it still chooses to join.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me help you here:
In 1987 Ireland went to the world cup under prepared because two of the Ulster players were nearly killed in an IRA bomb. We crashed out in the QF. Nobody choked, it wasn't mental
In 1991, perhaps the worst decade in Irish rugby history, Ireland were beaten in QF by Australia, the even eventual winners, by a last minute try. Ireland lost by a point. Nobody choked. It wasn't mental
In 1995, Ireland were beaten twice by second tier Italy on the way to the World Cup - absolutely crap side.
In 1999, Ireland failed to make the QF. The professional Ireland side was beaten by a mainly amateur Argentina by double scores. Lack of preparation was cited as the reason. This is considered the lowest point in Irish rugby.
In 2003 Ireland were beaten by Australia by a point in the QF. Unlike in 1991, it was not down to bad luck, Ireland played well but Australia were the better side. Some blamed the loss of our fullback to a injury in a warm up game for the defeat.
In 2007 it was decided to use the opening games of the tournament as warm up games in order to reduce the chances of losing players to injury. This points to a lack of strength in depth. Ireland went into the tournament cold, and never made the Quarter final.
In 2011. Ireland topped their pool, beating Australia. They lost against Wales in the QF having left their game in the dressing room. Some put it down to the shock of beating Australia and the expectation that they would beat Wales as they knew the Welsh so well. Ireland should have won that game.
In 2015, in an effort to avoid meeting New Zealand in the QF, Ireland gave everything to defeat France and top their pool. In a very physical game Ireland lost several top players including Sexton, Sean O'Brien and others to injury. Argentina defeated Ireland comfortably in QF, Ireland having lost Paul O'Connell early in the game. Lack of strength in depth was to blame. But Argentina claimed they targeted Ireland in that match and had their homework done.
In 2019, having won every game in 2018, Ireland's game plan had been worked out. Ireland finished 3rd in the 6 Nations. There was no panic as it was expected Joe Schmidt would have a new plan for the RWC. He didn't. Ireland were destroyed by NZ in QF, having been beaten even by Japan in pool stage.
The idea that Ireland's defeats in knock out games must all be due to a mental problem is not supported by evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Amongst the reasons for Ireland, is that they don't have the crippling costs of a National Health Service, much in the way of Defence Costs, or pay anything like the State benefits the UK does.'
Ireland spends more on its public health service per capita than the UK does, which actually gives Ireland a higher ranking in the league of public health services than the UK; Ireland does not spend enough on defence as to do so would be political suicide for any government; many of our state benefits are better than in the UK. How can 3.8 million people be destitute if the UK has a better benefits system? You used to, but not anymore.
'Its' citizens also have free access to the UK and our NHS and Benefits System. So in bad years they come here, in good times go back and the ones who want to live on benefits stay.'
UK citizens also have access to Irish benefits, and while you do get drop outs living an alternative lifestyle funded by Irish by the taxpayer in certain parts of Ireland, the British are generally sedentary and like to wait in the their estates for the jobs to come to them. So be it. In general in Ireland you hear English, Scottish and Welsh accents throughout Irish society.
'Ireland has also been in receipt of large handouts from the EU for decades (more paid for by the UK's net contribution) which have only recently ended. Money which they've spent well keeping tax down and making Ireland into a capitalist paradise.'
Oh the bitterness here. In fact all member states, including Ireland contributed to the EU budget. This notion that the rest of the EU was living off the UK is wholly inaccurate nonsense. It is also ironic as the UK drained the resources of an empire to bolster its status for centuries. Ireland received transfers from the EU to develop its economy and has been successful in making life better for its citizens. What would you expect?
'It also has road and sea access to the whole UK and EU Market through the UK infrastructure, without paying a penny for it.'
This is just pure bitterness at this stage. You will be delighted to hear that Ireland no longer uses the UK as a landbridge anymore. Rosslare is now the Dover of Ireland, with increased sailings to the continent to more ports and to more countries, and it has created hundreds of jobs.
'Following the 2008 crash the UK also loaned Ireland £7 Billion to bail out its' banks so that it wouldn't be so reliant on the EU.'
That was in November 2010. George Osbourne outlined the reasons at the the time: he was helping to prop up the 5th largest export market for UK goods. The ECB and the IMF provided the rest. The debt has been repaid with interest.
What a bitter and spiteful post.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanashley7875 I'm not Scottish and my opinions are my own - but I think they are well founded.
Once the UK leaves the EU and Brexiters begin to roll away the workers rights, sell off the NHS to American interests etc we can properly compare the EU v Brexit UK. Will it be worth it for the promised 'cheap shoes'?
I never said being British is a badge of dishonor, but it is a fact that the British Demos is in decline across the UK. We know from comparing the last census with leave areas, that leave voters tend to identify as English first or English only. We know from the General Election last month that it was a victory for all of the UKs nationalisms: the SNP increased their seats by 13, English Brexiters swept Labour away, Northern Ireland elected a majority of Irish nationalists for the first time, the Welsh nationalists held on to the extra seat they won in 2017. British identity has never been more weak.
Without the English, you can take responsibility for your own mistakes and credit for your own achievements. In any case, it is likely the English will eventually leave the UK themselves, especially when Brexit fails to deliver for the ordinary people of England. They will decide that Scotland, Wales and NI don't appreciate the money they give them...
As for the English not buying Scottish products, I find this kind of spite hard to understand. You would expect Brexiters to be more understanding of a country that was seeking independence. However, it is also short-sighted. If we take it that Ireland is the UKs 5th biggest export market a century after independence, it is reasonable to assume that Scotland is the 4th or 3rd most import destination for English goods once it leaves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StokieStokie Most nations saw international trade collapse at the height of pandemic. Since then, the rest of the G7 countries have seen trade, when compared to the size of their economies, bounce back in a way that hasn't happened in the UK.
If you look at the UK's trade with the rest of the world, as well as trade with the EU, overall it has fallen relative to the size of the UK economy. Trade hasn't bounced back post-pandemic as fast as it has in other major nations, it has become less important in contributing to UK prosperity. "Global Britain" has become less open. It is lagging behind.
A total 71 trade deals have been struck, which is swift progress, but the vast majority just replicate deals Britain had when it was part of the EU. The UK has signed new deals with Australia and New Zealand - but they are only expected to deliver a tiny boost to trade and even that will take several years
A study by the think tanks Centre for European Reform and UK in a Changing Europe suggests that there are 330,000 fewer workers in the UK as a result of Brexit. That may only be 1% of the total workforce - but sectors such as transport, hospitality and retail have been particularly hard hit. A lack of workers has resulted in shortages and pushed up bills for customers.
The pound has taken a beating, making imports more expensive and stoking inflation while failing to boost exports, even as other parts of the world have enjoyed a post-pandemic trade boom.
Brexit has erected trade barriers for UK businesses and foreign companies that used Britain as a European base. It’s weighing on imports and exports, sapping investment and contributing to labor shortages. All this has exacerbated Britain’s inflation problem, hurting workers and the business community.
Researchers at the London School of Economics estimate that the variety of UK products exported to the European Union declined by 30% during the first year of Brexit. They said that this was likely because small exporters had exited small EU markets. There is no sign of a recovery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aligattor2639 On the contrary, the Republic of Ireland is an excellent example.
EU funds allowed the Irish to modernise and diversify its economy away from the UK, through the provision of infrastructure, education and access to the vast markets of other EEC/EU members and the rest of the world through trade deals. This is what the Scots seek. This is different to say the British and the French who acquired their status in the world through European Imperialism.
Today Ireland leads the UK in almost every social and economic index you care to look at, even after suffering a massive economic crash a decade ago. Irish people live longer, earn more money, are more innovative, have a more dynamic economy and a more productive workforce that the British. The sense of Irish cultural identity is stronger than it was 50 years ago and Irish culture punches way above its weight on the global stage considering the size of the country, whether through music, literature, film etc.
As this has only been possible through membership of the European Union, it is an excellent example of what independence from the UK and membership of the EU can do for Scotland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Ireland joined the EEC at the same time as the UK 1973, they only just qualified with a much bigger economy than Scotland. You should research a little more.'
So why did you say the EU? In any case, so what? If eastern europe could qualify 15 years after communism, Scotland should be able to achieve it in 10. And of course, Ireland achieved it. The Irish economy grew steadily from 1961 onwards. Why don't you save me time and show me the research on Ireland that you used?
"Brexit ambitions"????? Are you suggesting that the will of the majority to leave the EU is not going to be carried out by the powers that be?'
What on earth are you talking about?
Back in 2016, the Brexiters spoke of 'sunny uplands', lucrative trade deals and an EU that needed the UK more than the UK needed the EU. It was going to set the agenda regarding the negotiations, not pay a divorce fee and it would signing a deal with the EU would be 'the easiest in history'. Later that changed to it 'might take 50 years to see the benefits of leaving' to 'Leaving without a deal is not the end of the world'. This is now the extent of Brexiter ambitions.
'LOL! I admire your optimism but if countries could raise their economic growth so easily then everyone would be doing it wouldnt they.'
Countries do it all the time when they hit recession. What will carry people through it is an agreed coherent goal - in Scotland's case, entry to the EU and access to the the trading bloc. Never under estimate the power of Nationalism, you can see its power in relation to Brexit. The difference between the Scots and the English is that the Scots have a coherent plan, the English don't even have consensus on what Leave means.
'Your contradictory stance of wanting independence from the UK but then not independence from the EU is comical and frankly contemptible.'
It is only contemptible because it is a rejection of England.
I'm Irish, my country already has independence from the UK. Irish cultural identity and national confidence is stronger since it joined the EU. Irish identity is very fluid but is inclusive, and unlike its English counterpart is non-binary. The Scots are very similar. With that sense of national identity, joining the EU is easy. One is comfortable adding a common European identity alongside a national identity. It is clear from research that many English Brexiters aren't even comfortable with a British identity anymore and those who identify with being British first were more likely to vote to remain.
Its the same with the Welsh - Welsh speakers voted overwhelmingly to remain.
For the Scots too, joining the EU acts as a counterbalance to English dominance, another aspect the Scots understand from the Irish experience.
The Scots leaving will cause problems for England because they will have nowhere to put their nuclear subs.
The problem with English nationalism at present is that it is utterly incoherent as your post demonstrates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christ Robert, you are the very stereotype of the British Brexiter Ignoramus. Allow me to correct your misinformation.
There is no country called Southern Ireland - its Ireland, or Eire in Gaelic;
The British announced they were leaving the 1964 London Fisheries Convention in 2017, giving two years notice - this is the act that has damaged the Irish fishing industry in the Irish Sea, not the EU. Unlike the British fishermen, the Irish still have a market to sell into though.
The UK provided 3 billion not 300 billion towards the Irish Banking Bailout, and contrary to your claim, this has been paid back in full. It was easy to pay back, because the loan the UK took out and gave to Ireland without Ireland asking for it, was so small.
You think the Irish people have no voice? The people of Ireland not only have a voice, they express their voice more than any other country in the EU! Ireland voted for its membership of the EEC in 1972 in a referendum and for every treaty change since, sometimes rejecting treaties until the EU got it right and the Irish people were happy with it. Two anti-EU parties ran in the last Irish General Election and out of an electorate of some three million people they got 10,000 votes between them.
Brexit was the greatest example of national self-harm until Putin invaded Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. In the event that a united Ireland is a agreed through referenda on both sides of the border on the same day, discussions will begin to agree as to what that new Ireland would looks like.
I expect there will be an accommodation of the Britishness of Northern Protestants, which could include the new state becoming a member of the Commonwealth etc.
Irish national identity is no longer binary following a period of evolution. You can now be Irish and Catholic, Irish and Protestant, Irish and Muslim, Irish and black, Irish and British, Irish and American, Irish and gay, etc, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ zoreto
It sticks in your craw, doesn't it.
I merely pointed out the democratic deficit in your own country, and just look how defensive you got.
Contrary to your claim, the reason we are having this conversation, you and I, is because you don't agree with the following statement:
'You got here because you never came to terms with winning the war and losing an empire; Germany and the liberated nations of Europe grew prosperous while the UK almost went bankrupt.
Brexit is the politics of self-pity.'
Brexit is not about sovereignty or democracy, these are the vehicles co-opted to by your political elite and their media backers to provide a reason d'etra to vote leave, - its a populist trope. Whether the EU is more or less democratic than you own country is actually debatable. That's one point, which leads me to another.
Brexit and its fantasies - you expound them well - are based on insecurities, hubris, a sense of superiority, nostalgia for the past and a manufactured oppression.
The manufactured oppression is important - it appears that the raison d'être for Brexit is an appropriation of the same kind of grievances those colonised by the British empire felt - but based on fantasy. Odd, isn't it?
The English have never experienced oppression and have confused it with minor inconveniences.
When Brexit changes none of the problems in English society and the extent to which you are holding the weaker hand in trade negotiations with peoples you feel superior to become obvious, it will be exposed.
Who will be the scapegoat then?
I've got the popcorn in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@songsmith31a That's an interesting take, but it is not based on historical fact.
The King of Leinster invited the Earl of Pembroke (Strongbow) to send an army to defeat his enemies (he had run off with the wife of the King of Breffini and he and his allies were too powerful for him). In return, he promised Strongbow is daughter's hand in marriage and his Kingdom after his death. This happened in the early 1170s. It attracted the attention of King Henry II who saw one of his vassal knights acquire his own Kingdom. Henry quickly claimed all of Ireland for himself in case Strongbow got any notions above his station by setting up a rival Kingdom.
The Irish wanted to keep the Anglo-Normans out of their territory unless it was politically advantageous to them to have them there. They were a card to be played in an internal power struggle for the Kingship of Ireland and the Anglo-Normans were happy enough to insert themselves into the situation for the opportunities it presented.
The Anglo-Normans established a stronghold around Dublin which was known as 'The Pale' (it gives us the expression, 'Beyond the Pale' - outside the Pale, that territory remained in control of the Irish chieftains) and in reality of English control outside the Pale waxed and waned for centuries. Most attempts to establish English colonies, called Plantations, in Ireland failed. In 1366 laws were passed preventing the Anglo-Normans from adopting Irish ways and customs called the statutes of Kilkenny, indicating that the Irish had begun to absorb these Anglo-Norman settlers. It is also the case that the Irish were also absorbing some of the Anglo-Norman cultural influences also. The name Seán for example, became popular at this time - it is a corruption of Jean, which is French for John.
Tension remained between these settlers and the native Irish for centuries thereafter, with the Gaelic social system finally being destroyed after the Battle of Kinsale in 1601 and start of the Ulster Plantation. An alliance between the Irish and these 'Old English' as the Anglo-Irish were known by at this time emerged in the 1640s, when both sides confederated to resist Oliver Cromwell. Their defeat in 1649 saw the destruction of the Old English families and transfer of all land in Leinster, Munster and Connaught to new English ruling class of landowners - many of whom lived in England. The conquest of Ireland was complete. These landowners administered the country. It meant that the Irish were the only people in Europe to have a minority ruling class that spoke a different language, practiced a different religion and customs and had a different culture to the majority. This in turn lead to various rebellions, the Act of Union, and the Great Famine. The famine was the watershed event that ultimately led to Irish independence.
The Irish did not need order placed upon them and had Ireland been left alone for another century, probably would have devised its own hereditary Kingship, as the Scots had already done.
Instead, Ireland became England's first colony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Gazza H
It's not a dictatorship, actually. You obviously don't understand democracy. Nor do you remember Farage on the night of the count, thinking the leave vote was lost, vowing to fight on - I'm sure he would have had no problem with a second referendum if he had thought he could have had another opportunity to right the wrong.
Autocrats like 'democratic' referendums such as your one in June 2016 and share your attitude to the changing of minds. Your referendum was advisory only and your proposition that a second vote 'isn't democracy it is dictatorship' is the opposite to the truth. Napoleon Bonaparte knew this and used a referendum to make him consul for life; Hitler , Mussolini and Pinochet also used referenda to legitimise their rule. Hitler promptly abolished democracy, ensuring further votes. Referenda can be hi-jacked by autocrats and populists.
While the UK is not an autocratic state (yet?), Brexiters like you still hanker after that once-and-for all gesture that the 2016 referendum represents, the notion that all was changed and there is no going back. The public voted blindly, with no plan to vote on, no vision based on any truths or facts. None of the promises made have come to pass. This is bad democracy and bad politics. Continue on this path and it will lead to continued instability in the UK.
The June 2016 vote signaled the desire to leave and Parliament is trying to organise that. Now it must be undone only by democratic vote, but this time let the people see the truth of leaving, that it is very complicated; present a plan for leaving, outlining the options, and let the people decide. Make it binding.
Take back control!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ ElectricLabel
' I know no one likes to admit this, but while Ireland was officially neutral during WW2 there was actually a fair amount of unofficial collaboration with Nazi Germany. Most of the Merchant Navy losses in the North Atlantic supplying Britain from North America were attacked by U-Boats stationed in Irish territorial waters.'
This sir, is bollox.
Your 'fact' dates back to September 1939 when Churchill lied to the House of Commons when he announced the capture a uboat crew upon which had been found evidence that they had gone ashore in Ireland: Irish cigarettes, he claimed, had been found in their possession.
From October 1939 a British submarine H33 and later H43 patrolled the Irish coastline from west Cork to Tory Island inside the Irish Three Mile Limit and was accompanied by a ‘trawler’ – a Q-Ship called the Tamura. They patrolled the Irish bays and the coastline in January and February 1940, going ashore and inspecting mooring facilities for evidence. H 43 was patrolling the Irish coast in June 1940. They founded nothing.
Rev James Little MP, a NI Presbyterian clergyman, wrote to the Admiralty stating a parishioner on holiday in Donegal met U-boat crews on a bus near Bundoran. He stated that the Irish were harbouring U-boat crews and providing assistance. The Admiralty wrote back that rumours like this had been investigated before and proved to be baseless. They even noted in their files that the guy was rabid bigot. But still the 'story' persists.
In 23/10/1940 Lord Strabolgi stated in a speech in the House of Lords that refuelling of uboats in Eire was ‘physically impossible because submarines did not use gasoline but heavy fuel oil...such supplies could only be carried in a surface ship which could not fail to be observed and reported’. Stabolgi demanded to know the UK Government. had allowed such false rumours to circulate. Lord Snell, replied saying that the Government had no evidence that enemy submarines were supplied from Irish territory.’
The idea that heavy fuel oil could be conveyed in large quantities to submarines, which are distinctive warships without anyone knowing about it is grotesque’, according to Lord Stragbolgi
A minute from British Naval Intelligence from early December 1940 concluded that ‘no real evidence has been found that U-boats use bases in Eire.
Allied propaganda about Irish neutrality involved four distortions: 1. That the country was full of Axis spies. 2. The German and Italian legations had huge staffs 3. The Irish were refuelling German submarines 4, the lights of Irish cities were supposedly used to guide the Luftwaffe to bomb UK cities. Although these rumours were authoritatively disproven during the war, as you demonstrate, at least one of them persists to this day.
Try reading a history book. Any history book.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh no sir, this Brexit clusterf*ck is entirely yours, don't blame it on the EU. The EU set out its stall in accordance with its rules while the UK beat its chest in substitute for a planned withdrawl; the EU has been steadfast and consistent, while the UK has flip-flopped and foundered.
This claim that it was the EUs responsibility to work with the leaving member state, when the world and its dog knows the UK has yet to finish negotiating with itself, is evidence of the 'jilted' Brexiter.
Of course, today 'the UK just wants to leave' and every Brexiter claims to have voted for no deal, but that was not the narrative in the summer of 2016, or before the referendum. The UK has moved from the 'sunny uplands' of a perceived strong hand in the EU negotiations where it believed it had everybody by the balls, to the more modest 'WTO is not the end of the World', according to JRM.
We are agreed that the way the UK has conducted itself in trying to leave the EU without a 'sketch of a plan' is a failure of politics, but it is much deeper than that.
The displacement of failed political policies by all UK governments over the last 50 years onto the EU will in time prove to be the most dangerous and enduring. Why? Brexit will do nothing to reduce inequality within the UK, the real source of discontent. The EU was not the cause of the UKs social and industrial failures - it was the failure of your political class.
It is also unfortunate that Brexit has coincided with the coming to the fore of a slew of spectacularly low-grade politicians. Where are your leaders when you need them? All you have a pantomime toffs who only add to the melodrama. They have virtually no knowledge of the EU and how it works and rather amazingly are completely ignorant of Ireland and the border there.
For that you have my deepest sympathy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cathykinn4516 You are an individual expressing a commonly held point of view in the UK. There is a deep resentment towards Biden and Irish-Americans in general, perhaps because being explicitly proud of your Irish identity is not tolerated in British culture as it is in the US, a country of immigrants. It is also an incoherent resentment, because you don't resent the millions of Irish who 'buggered off' as you put it, to the UK. That is very childish and out of step with modern Ireland itself.
In Ireland we have a written constitution. Article 2 describes the 'The Nation as follows':
'It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.'
Your claim that 'Irish'-Americans are Bull or whatever, is not supported by the final sentence in the above paragraph. Indeed, that sentence is inclusive of you. Your resentment at Americans calling themselves Irish is really childish. Whenever it happens there is always an English person nearby to tell them they are American. Do English people really think they are referring to their nationality? Seriously? And what business is it of English people anyway?
Cathy, take a look at your post again. You come across as a bitter person, resenting Irish Americans because they are American. It is possible you would like to embrace your Irishness but cannot because British culture will not tolerate multi-layered identities as can be done in Ireland or the US? Or is it because you wish your ancestors had gone to America instead of the UK? The fact is, Irish-America was significant player in Ireland becoming an independent state, in the NI peace process and in US investment in the Irish economy. Tolerating Americans telling you they love Ireland is a small price to pay for that.
It is interesting that you could not tell if I was being sarcastic or serious in my last post. Why did that not give you pause?
Tom O'Connor was not Irish, but Doonican, Wogan and Thin Lizzy were from Waterford, Limerick and Dublin respectively. They did not wear their Irishness on their sleeves like they do in the US. It would not be tolerated in the UK as knowing your place is very important there. Perhaps you resent Irish-Americans for that. If so, I think it reflects badly on you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franciscook5819 'The people of Northern Ireland do not want to be a part of the Republic - not the least because the Republic, for instance, in deference to the Catholic Church, didn't even allow divorce until 1995'
'The people of Northern Ireland' is how unionists describe themselves, almost as if nationalists in NI simply did not exist. As it happens, there is not majority anywhere in Ireland for unity...yet. How past conservativism in the republic is a barrier to future unity is something only understood by you; it would seem that today the republic is far to progressive for many of the dinosaurs in the DUP.
'Biden sees Northern Ireland not as an integral part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, but as a stolen part of Ireland.'
You provide no evidence for this claim, it must be dismissed as speculation.
'My comment accurately highlights the hypocrisy of the USA and Biden (who is in many other ways admirable). As for states (and Texas, in particular) wanting to leave the USA the Civil War was fought over that very idea.'
No it does not. It accurately highlights that your obviously don't know what you are talking about: you claimed parts of the US should be returned to Mexico. I asked you if there were people in Texas seeking unity with Mexico and you instead demonstrated that you did not know what you were talking about by rambling on about the Confederacy.
'I stand by my remarks and you, frankly, look like a pro-Irish bigot, unwilling to accept that the America could ever be wrong, especially where it pertains to the myths surrounding Ireland.'
You stand by your ill-informed comment and then engage in further speculation, but indication your belief that a nationalists perspective is somehow illegitimate.
And you you're not done yet - you have another post generation by my two line response. Let's see what rambling incoherence awaits!
1
-
@franciscook5819 'Just FYI the following US States all have "independence" movements of one sort or another: Arizona, Alaska, California, Florida, New Hampshire, Texas and Vermont - and there is the perennial issue of the US colony in Puerto Rico.'
Again, all I asked was if there if there were people in Texas that wanted unity in Mexico - you know, so that it would be in keeping your claim of Biden's hypocrisy. There aren't, are there?
'And just to make clear.'Biden et al are so pleased that Ireland is now a separate state while simultaneously maintaining that no state can secede from the USA.'
Well, unlike the USA, the people of Ireland never voted to be part of the United Kingdom. But let us park the facts and continue for now.
'If you genuinely don't see the hypocrisy then I think there is something wrong with you.'
I would suggest if you don't believe in facts, then there is something wrong with YOU! Your entire argument is based on a false premise.
'There is no morality associated with the position of "Irish Americans" - it is demonstrably tied to the propaganda associated with the Irish Potato Famine (a lamentable display of incompetence by the British Government, rather than malice, as proposed by "Irish Americans").'
Actually, the American's are promoting the notion that the potato famine was genocide. I don't subscribe to this point of view, and it is not taught as such in Irish schools. However, Irish Americans know that they are Americans today because of a time in the past when the English shafted their ancestors. What you fail miserably to understand is that these Irish Americans are not prepared to stand by watch Ireland and its peace process get shafted once again by Brexiters on the other island, aided and abetted by the DUP who saw an opportunity to get a hard border in Ireland. Then they were shafted by the English instead.
'In other comments I have detailed the separation of Ireland from the UK, the casualties caused and those in the ensuing Irish Civil War and compared them with the US Civil War and the casualties caused there.'
Yes, I noticed something about that. Your figures were wrong for the Irish Civil War.
Well, it is just as I suspected. You don't have any idea about what you are talking about, and I'm bigot for merely challenging you. You have a point of view that is perfectly legitimate but only the knowledge of a barstool historian to back it up, which in fact does you a disservice.
But hey, what the hell would I know, right? Being a bigot and all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithalan9430 No, you lost - you just can't admit it. Your economy is in the toilet, your population is riven, your international reputation is damaged and what do you have to show for this exercise in self-pity? A sovereignty you always had! LMAO!
I live in Ireland, watching this hysterical psychodrama from safety of an independent, sovereign, small European country - in other words, I have no skin in the game.
IOnce again, while 17.4 million people in the UK voted for Brexit, 15.1 million of them were English. Brexit is the greatest exercise in self-harm since the Easter Islanders cut down their last tree belongs to the English. And it will be exceptionalism of the English will break the 'precious Union'.
In few years time Northern Ireland will vote to leave the UK as will Scotland, though we can debate who will be first. The Welsh are unlikely to hang around either, leaving the English to finally grow a pair, admit they are a nation and stand on their own two feet.
I hope you will be fit to rule yourselves by then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davealex6640 Its well documented that the biggest move is away from Unionism. Traditional unionism is getting old, and is being replace a young more progressive, more open-minded unionism. It is just the the hardliners make the most noise and get the most attention, but these dinosaurs (who don't believe in dinosaurs) are on the way out.
Young people in Northern Ireland are increasingly rejecting the old labels of identity and mixing more freely, intermarrying and so on. However, it remains the case that young unionists are more likely to abandon NI for college or employment prospects in GB and never return; furthermore, the more right-wing the UK becomes under English nationalism, the more attractive the next generation is like to find discussions on unity. In private, Unionists will tell you, as they have told me, that unity is just a matter of time - they just don't want it to happen in THEIR time.
I agree that most people are interested in bread and butter politics, the tectonic plates of English and Scottish nationalism are changing the status quo and soon there will be no UK to be in union with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1