I think, from our point of view, we'd much rather you elected a conservative. we can more accurately

[eastgermanautos]

predict your behavior. USA USA!

[Snin]

Cameron so not sure if thats true really

[Mo Britain less Europe]

taken a leaf out of that.

[Classic Jorge]

I mean, on balance, like

[Berni]

This should be good. :hehe:

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Berni]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Classic Jorge]

Presumably there were just all these english people there by accident?

[Berni]

Ireland's High King Diarmuid MacMurragh to help him fight other Irish lords.

[Classic Jorge]

[Luis Anaconda]

Thought the Irish must have been pissed the day they let a kid invade.

Who exactly are these English Normans, j? A coalition of messrs Fowler Lamont and Wisdom? :shudder:

[Berni]

And since Ireland (or at least the Pale, which was where troops landed) was part of the dominions of Henry VIII, it's hard to see how he could 'invade' his own country. He convinced the lords who ruled The Colony (the area around the Pale) to govern the country with him and the Irish Parliament then recognised him as King of Ireland in 1541 - thus for the first time creating an entity you could meaningfully call 'Ireland'. No violence was done other than to defeat a rebellion within the Pale by Thomas Lord of Kildare. No invasion there.

And Cromwell took an army to Ireland (part of the Kingdom of Britain) in order to crush Royalist opposition after the Civil War and to mop up the vestiges of the anti-Protestant rebellion. Again, you can't 'invade' your own country.

Honestly, you display an almost provo-like level of historical ignorance.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Berni]

Also, they weren't English and had no governmental or royal authority for what they did. No invasion.

[Classic Jorge]

I see there was no Norman Whiteside on your list

[Luis Anaconda]

[Classic Jorge]

Ireland has been invaded and repressed by successive english kings for the best part of a millennia.

[Peter]

I would politely suggest these render the technicality of invasion as relstively meaningless.

[Peter]

Which, you know,cwasnt very nice of them.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

brutal times and the colonisation in Ulster was as you know mostly by Scots who now complain of English colonisation of Ireland!

[Berni]

Ireland has not been 'invaded' at any point. That's just a lie made up by people who like to pretend that 'Ireland' and 'England' have always been these complete, distinct and separate entities that have existed perpetually in an antagonistic and colonial relationship. They simply haven't. For one thing, there was no such thing as 'Ireland' until English rule invented it. Plus, Ireland was an integral part of Britain long before Scotland was.

For hundreds of years, the Irish landowning nobility made mutually beneficial deals with English kings and willingly bent the knee to the Crown in a quasi-feudal relationship that generally suited all parties. Occasionally, one would kick off in order to acquire more land or power - but never, crucially, to gain 'independence', since they had no interest in that idea at all.

The big change came with the Reformation, when Ireland's persistent Catholicism placed much of its population - and more crucially its nobility - in opposition to the Crown. This situation lasted until the Catholic Emancipation Act. However, even after this the relationship was not the one of bloody slaughter and constant repression that republicans like to pretend. Were brutal things sometimes done to keep the population in line? Of course. But they were brutal times and the brutality was no more than that shown to the people of England when they got uppity.

So basically, Ireland needs to look at its actual history rather than the comforting '******* English' myths it tells itself and acknowledge that Ireland and England's pasts are rather more ambiguous and collaborative than the Irish like to admit. All this 'Poor auld Ireland' **** is bull**** and doesn't help.

[Berni]

(at least not in the sense j means).

As for subjugation, show me a pre-modern society that didn't subjugate its own population to a greater or lesser extent. And that's before we come to the inconvenient fact that much of the 'occupying' and 'subjugating' was done by Irish troops and police, of course.

[Classic Jorge]

Who were pretty much consistently sold out by their 'nobility' who were legitimised by the english/british crown. Mind you, the same english crown that brutally put those lords down whenever they were deemed insufficiently pliant.

In that sense we share a lot more history in that we've pretty much been solidly f**ked by a ruling norman elite for the last thousand or so years. This is why I'll never recognise the sovereignty of the queen, sing the anthem or fight for them in an effort to preserve their rule.

[Berni]

Still, I'm glad at least that you've moved on from the silly 'Nasty English/Poor suffering Irish' dichotomy. This is progress. :thumbup:

And still holding it against the Normans is a bit strong. The Anglo-Saxon kings weren't exactly sweetness and light either.

[Peter]

I suppose i can agree that irisih nstionalism didnt exist before, errrr, nationalism :hehe:

As a political ideal it is f**king absurd to talk about it without referencing the french revolution, the emrgence of 19th century nationalism in europe, 1848 etc etc.

On the invasion. Cromwell's forces arrived in an ireland where he controlled one port. One f**king port. Tovdismiss the notion of invasion on the basis that you cant invade your own country at a time when that country was in civil war is just weird. It is also rank pedantry.

Of cpurse you are right that notions of 800 years of british rule is *******s. Surely even you, in this mood, cant try to diminish what happened in ireland in the 19th and early 20th century as simply par fpr the course in those days. And it certsinly doesnt compare with how the english were treated at home for any number of reasons.

As much as you ,ay dislike nationalists, dont come on here and talk *******s in the name of historical accuracy, if for no other reason than accuracy requires balance.

[Classic Jorge]

And it's all still ultimately the fault of the british crown so I'm not dropping the whole '******* brits' thing.

[Peter]

Let us not get into these silly things on a day like today.cyou know i am going to start droning on about wolf tone, the famine (or hunger depending on your point of view), drogheda, the plantation, wexford, the gpo, land ownership, the anglican church, gladstone, michael collins.......

It is all so avoidable, b. i fancy a pint :-)

[Berni]

It wasn't 'the Irish'. In fact it was Royalist English forces. In that sense, it was no more an invasion to take back Ireland than it was an invasion to take Royalist-held areas of England. Either way, it was not the 'taking Ireland off the Irish' scenario that is suggested by Jorge.

Of course the actions of the English in the early 19th and 20th centuries were extraordinary, but both stemmed from localised risings that had taken place at times of life-or-death continental wars that Britain was involved in. It hardly takes a genius to realise that feelings are likely to run high the result of such things is likely to be a level of repression over and above the ordinary, does it? Of course no-one is saying that England's governance of Ireland in those 120-odd years was exemplary. It was a f**king disgrace in certain instances. And no-one would pretend that Ireland's catholicism didn't poison attitudes amongst the English towards the Irish peasantry. However, to represent English rule in Ireland as a constant process of brutality is simply untrue. And yet people are still allowed to get away with this assertion.

[Ashberto]

The English get the blame for Ireland and Scotland but it was the same Norman ruling class which was buggering the English.

[Berni]

[Ashberto]

[Peter]

The stroke of a pen, in theory, constitutes a form of brutality. And i noticed you kind of brushed over thst whole 90 year period where britain wasnt involved in a huge war.

I dont really see how snyone could argue that that period of british rule was anything but brutal. It was the operation of a feudal regime at a time where the rest of europe was changing dramatically and where notions of humanitarianism simply didnt seem to apply.

I suppose the thing tob ear in mind os that it is easy to see it as the conscious act of a bureacracy when in fact you are talking about a government that held little sway over the economic interest that actually ruled ireland, that of your landed aristrocracy. Hence my remark about preventing the famine is purely theoretical and, in fairness, peel did actually try.

On balance, nationalism comes from somewhere. You may like to point out that the nationalist version of history is inaccurate. It is. It just isnt untrue.

[Snin]

true brits :-)

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Ashberto]

[Classic Jorge]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Luis Anaconda]

it was only about a million people

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I'm looking forward to this.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Classic Jorge]

That's not a wildly controversial statement, is it?

[Classic Jorge]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Apart from giving you a peaceful, stable, successful homeland in which to run a business and raise a family in a secure and benign environment, I mean. You don't need to mention those bits, I know them.

Tell me again how these bad people effect you. If you're too embarrassed you can show me on the doll.

[Classic Jorge]

It effects all of us because it's spent 1000 years informing our governmental, legal and social systems.

[Snin]

or as its better known the basement poolroom bar in pub at village in near Bangor where i stayed at any rate :hehe:

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

concerned with getting on with the responsibilities of life rather than peering over a fence worrying about what someone else has got that I haven't. Blaming my failings on a wave of immigration 1,000 years ago seems to me as ridiculous for decrying another for his success work or good fortune.

In short, no one is to blame but you.

[Classic Jorge]

Listen, wanting equality, fairness, freedom of opportunity and rights is not lealously looking over a fence at someone.

It's wanting people in this country to have a fair crack at the whip wherever they're born. It's about raising everyone up to an equal level.

[Berni]

That suggests a level of communications, logistics and prescience that simply could not have existed in 1847. Equally, it suggests that simply overriding centuries of monoculture and poor soil could be easily achieved. This is just the sort of simplistic, glib nonsense republicans always come up with because it suits their 'Good Irish/Evil Brit' paradigm.

Thousands of factors created the famine, but English 'brutality' was not one of them. Were failures of imagination, management and empathy contributory factors to the famine? Of course. But I'm not having 'brutality'. That's just an emotive and inaccurate term that plays into the classic myth of Irish nationalism that the English are at all times heartless, brutal and cruel.

You're right that nationalism doesn't come from nowhere. However, what it does always do is rely on myths. Therefore, exploding those myths is a good thing, since it dismantles the poorly-built foundations of Irish Brit-hatred.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

People in this country DO have 'a fair crack of the whip'. Everyone has the chance of a decent life.

'Equality' is another issue entirely. I suggest that it is impossible to raise everyone up to be equal; with a world of limited resources, the only equality is for the majority to move down to the same level. Like what they done in Russia and that.

[Berni]

Sorry, but both of you were doing it and it was driving me mad.

[Classic Jorge]

But if you took a serious look you'd realise that the readjustment wouldnt even be that painful or dramatic. Given the wealthiest 1pc own as much as the poorest 55pc (who cant all be scroungers, layabouts and goodfenuthins) I'd say it would be fairly painless and a sound utalitarian move.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

2. I am perfectly aware of the fact, but did not wish to correct j due an old-fashioned concept I like to call 'good manners'.
3. Take a long, long look at point 2.

[Classic Jorge]

an americanised z, now that is pushing it

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Now that's what I call a Long Term Economic Plan.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Classic Jorge]

I just dont want successive generations to have to drag themselves up like I did

[Classic Jorge]

In my defence, I was up half the night greasing the wheels of capitalism.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I think your ways are ultimately self-defeating and guaranteed to cause nothing but envy and misery, you think mine are evil and self-serving.

One day soon we'll be dead and none of it will matter a damn.

[redgunamo]

[Classic Jorge]

I dont think your ways are evil, I just think they're unfair and ultimately counter productive.

[Classic Jorge]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I **** manners like rusty bum gravy.

[Classic Jorge]

[Peter]

Has to do with anything.

If you can find nothing cruel, violent or brutal in the cause of or response to the famine then I despair of you.

Also, don't lurch through a clumsy semantic argument that kind of fits your narrative and then accuse me of being glib. It isn't thoroughly unbecoming.

We shall continue this later. I must go and speak with them voters.

[redgunamo]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

It must come with Jaguar ownership.

[redgunamo]

[Classic Jorge]

Still, nice to see you've not forgotten everything you learned growing up on a south london council estate

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

from her mother in Ireland. At the appointed time, my sister and I would run to the telephone box and await the call. She would then pick up the phone when it rang and I would run back to fetch my mum.

I wondered how many people there are who cannot afford a phone of any description nowadays.

Pay as you go mobile? No credit? Looxureh.

[Berni]

clumsy semantic' argument, then you can piss off and wallow in your wilful stupidity.

[Classic Jorge]

The phone would ring and I would leg it to the requested house with a message for the recipient, buoyed by the potential pennies of profit coming my way.

Of course, I now realise it was mostly me facilitating a drugs business and potentially opening myself up to pedophiles.

That said, if the social now call/text you and you dont answer you can face benefits sanctions meaning at least a month without food.

Simpler times, happier times, and in so many ways.

[Classic Jorge]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Classic Jorge]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[Peter]

And a very conservative one. Most models place the figure between 1 and 1.5 million but they dont take into account the poverty of the census records the numbers are basedon nor the fact that the census never covered the most remote sreas which were hardest hit by the famine. They also dont include the hundreds of thousands of emigrants who died en route and on arrival.

I would place the overall figure at over 1.5 million but that is also a guess.