EU Lobbyists desperate for Irish yes vote in cash shocker
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
Lobbyists at the EU have been after more cash to fight the evils of democracy getting in the way of their profits.
How on earth can clowns like Eaomonn Bates sleep at night knowing that their selling their entire country into oblivion for the sake of a few shiny coins, wonder how happy he'd be if I circulated an email round Brussels asking fro donations to have him shot!
Lobbyists at the EU have been after more cash to fight the evils of democracy getting in the way of their profits.
How on earth can clowns like Eaomonn Bates sleep at night knowing that their selling their entire country into oblivion for the sake of a few shiny coins, wonder how happy he'd be if I circulated an email round Brussels asking fro donations to have him shot!
Ryanair have also got in on the action to the tune of €500,000
http://www.ryanair.com/site/IE/news.php?yr=09&...
http://www.ryanair.com/site/IE/news.php?yr=09&...
Conian said:
Muntu said:
Is this the same nation that objected to being ruled by the British?
some might call it irony that after years of trying to shake off british rule, they could (but wont) vote yes on europe, just as tony blair applies for the job of european president.Ireland to "shake off british rule" and be pro EU (Social, political, Economic stability) is not ironic or comparible, regardless of who the European President is.
Edited by mrmarcus on Saturday 19th September 23:40
mrmarcus said:
Conian said:
Muntu said:
Is this the same nation that objected to being ruled by the British?
some might call it irony that after years of trying to shake off british rule, they could (but wont) vote yes on europe, just as tony blair applies for the job of european president.Ireland to "shake off british rule" and be pro EU (Social, political, Economic stability) is not ironic or comparible, regardless of who the European President is.
Edited by mrmarcus on Saturday 19th September 23:40
Muntu said:
mrmarcus said:
Conian said:
Muntu said:
Is this the same nation that objected to being ruled by the British?
some might call it irony that after years of trying to shake off british rule, they could (but wont) vote yes on europe, just as tony blair applies for the job of european president.Ireland to "shake off british rule" and be pro EU (Social, political, Economic stability) is not ironic or comparible, regardless of who the European President is.
Edited by mrmarcus on Saturday 19th September 23:40
If you fancy a less 'Irish-American victim' view of the famine, this is a worthwhile read:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshir...
Whatever about the historical perspective, the general view in Ireland is that Briish rule was "bad" for Ireland but that membership of the EEC/EC/EU has been "good". I'm not saying that is the actuial reality of the situation, but that is the view held by the bulk of people in Ireland |(the Republic).
You also have to remember, that although Ireland was part of England/Britain's domain for almost 800 years, it was only from 1801 to 1921 that Ireland lost complete control over its own destiny. For most of "British" rule Ireland had its own independent parliament.
You also have to remember, that although Ireland was part of England/Britain's domain for almost 800 years, it was only from 1801 to 1921 that Ireland lost complete control over its own destiny. For most of "British" rule Ireland had its own independent parliament.
Guam said:
Eric Mc said:
Whatever about the historical perspective, the general view in Ireland is that Briish rule was "bad" for Ireland but that membership of the EEC/EC/EU has been "good". I'm not saying that is the actuial reality of the situation, but that is the view held by the bulk of people in Ireland |(the Republic).
You also have to remember, that although Ireland was part of England/Britain's domain for almost 800 years, it was only from 1801 to 1921 that Ireland lost complete control over its own destiny. For most of "British" rule Ireland had its own independent parliament.
What always winds me up Eric is the fact that "English rule" wasnt even good for he english through most of history!You also have to remember, that although Ireland was part of England/Britain's domain for almost 800 years, it was only from 1801 to 1921 that Ireland lost complete control over its own destiny. For most of "British" rule Ireland had its own independent parliament.
The majority of the history complained of was characterised by brutal totalitarian monarchies that behaved appallingly to the domestic population in England (let alone the rest of the UK).
It was the nature of the time back then, when a definition of a sucessful king was one who died of old age natually in his bed.
Maybe the different outcomes and historic events that transpired in England and Ireland were related to the different national characteristics of the two countries. The Irish fought relentlessly for escape from monarchical rule. The English just said, "Oh well, mustn't grumble"
Guam said:
Worse than that though Eric you dont hear the Boston Irish slagging off the Dutch much Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??
On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
Yes - you are. Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
Irish immigrants to the US were angry with the British rulers of the mid 19th century, not some Dutch "blow-in" from 200 years earlier.
In fact, at the time of the Battle of the Boyne, it was the Catholic Irish who were trying to keep the legitimate heir to the English throne in place. It was Protestant English nobles who brought in William from Holland to ensure a Protestant remained on the throne, even though his claim on the English throne was extremely tenuous.
Guam said:
Worse than that though Eric you dont hear the Boston Irish slagging off the Dutch much Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??
On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
They do; the more extreme GOP types regard the EU as the worst kind of commie pinko conspiracy, a socialist workers' paradise(sic) that keeps them awake at night even more than China does these days(which is curious, seeing how the Chinese basically own the dollar...) Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
Guam said:
Eric Mc said:
Guam said:
Worse than that though Eric you dont hear the Boston Irish slagging off the Dutch much Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??
On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
Yes - you are. Given William of Orange (the main issue where NI is concerned) was Dutch and Invaded us and siezed the throne why werent they funding the IRA to bomb the Hague??On that Basis why arent the republicans kicking up a stink about the EU continually?
Or am I missing something?
Irish immigrants to the US were angry with the British rulers of the mid 19th century, not some Dutch "blow-in" from 200 years earlier.
In fact, at the time of the Battle of the Boyne, it was the Catholic Irish who were trying to keep the legitimate heir to the English throne in place. It was Protestant English nobles who brought in William from Holland to ensure a Protestant remained on the throne, even though his claim on the English throne was extremely tenuous.
I dont remember the funding being due to the Potato famine (although I accept not strictly on topic vis a vis the memorial).
I guess the point I am making following on from your posts and the reasonable comments in that link, is a complete misunderstanding seems to be prevalent between the Boston Irish and the British in general?
Cheers
Most Irish Americans owe the fact that they ARE Irish Americans to these historic events.
The Irish have long memories - which is both a good and bad thing.
You are entitled to your opinion but you must remember that, to many of these Americans, the "historic slight" was not confined to the 1840s. In their minds, the slight was a live and immediate issue - and there is no doubt that Catholics in Northern Ireland were not being treated terribly fairly in the period from 1921 up to the early 1970s. This meant that, to them, supoport for the struggle against British "oppression" and "occupation" was not JUST a "famine" related problem - but a live and current one.
I am not for one moment condoning what they did or their view on these matters - but it is wrong to insult people and accuse them of being moronic when, in their minds, their views were logical and still relevant.
I think Ireland's problem is that it remembers history too well - and Britain's problem is that they aren't even taught it.
I am not for one moment condoning what they did or their view on these matters - but it is wrong to insult people and accuse them of being moronic when, in their minds, their views were logical and still relevant.
I think Ireland's problem is that it remembers history too well - and Britain's problem is that they aren't even taught it.
The initial problems in Northern Ireland (commencing in 1968) had absolutely nothing to do with organised crime. If you recall, the initial problems began with peaceful protest against unfair treatment of the Catholic minority in the province. The over the top response to this by the largely Protestant security forces (the UDR and RUC) prompted the British government to send in troops to keep the two sides apart. Unfortunately, the arrival of large numbers of British troops in Irish soil (in the eyes of Nationalists) was too much to bear and a moribund IRA suddenly sprang back to life again.
It was only as the "troubles" progressed that the IRA (and the other Nationalist and Protestant para-militaries) began to get involved in criminal (as opposed to politically motivated) activities. Sometimes this was to fund "the cause" but increasingly crime became a cause in itself.
And, of course. the Famine was not 200 years ago. In 1969, it was only just over 120 years in the past - which is "yesterday" in the eyes of many Irish - and still within the folk memory of many Irish people of the mid 1960s - who had grown up with grandparents and even parents who had direct contact with the Famine itself.
We sometimes forget how much has changed in such a relatively short time. At the launch of Apollo 17 in 1972, a guest of honour was an individual who had been freed as a slave in 1865.
It was only as the "troubles" progressed that the IRA (and the other Nationalist and Protestant para-militaries) began to get involved in criminal (as opposed to politically motivated) activities. Sometimes this was to fund "the cause" but increasingly crime became a cause in itself.
And, of course. the Famine was not 200 years ago. In 1969, it was only just over 120 years in the past - which is "yesterday" in the eyes of many Irish - and still within the folk memory of many Irish people of the mid 1960s - who had grown up with grandparents and even parents who had direct contact with the Famine itself.
We sometimes forget how much has changed in such a relatively short time. At the launch of Apollo 17 in 1972, a guest of honour was an individual who had been freed as a slave in 1865.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 21st September 11:20
Eric Mc said:
You are entitled to your opinion but you must remember that, to many of these Americans, the "historic slight" was not confined to the 1840s. In their minds, the slight was a live and immediate issue - and there is no doubt that Catholics in Northern Ireland were not being treated terribly fairly in the period from 1921 up to the early 1970s. This meant that, to them, supoport for the struggle against British "oppression" and "occupation" was not JUST a "famine" related problem - but a live and current one.
These Americans you talk of were breathtakingly hypocritical though, living in a country that had conducted a planned campaign of far worse 'oppression' and 'occupation' against the native inhabitants of America, just as they accuse the British of doing against the native inhabitants of Ireland. The greatest difference of course was that the famine and starvation that native Americans suffered was largely engineered by the American govt by moving the natives off their hunting grounds and forcing them into infertile land, whereas the potato famine was a natuarally occuring disaster made far worse by bad politicians.But of course the Irish are white and native Americans aren't.
I think that the Irish who emigrated to Britain assimilated into British culture much more effectively than those who emigrated to Noerth America did to theirs. The social circumstances were very different. In Britain, the Irish probably found that the culture wasn't THAT different to home and within a couople of generations, their Irishness had diluted so much that it wasn't obvious any more.
In North America, the Irish were just another bumnch of immigrants who had to fight their corner against all the other immigrants - Poles, Itlaians, Germans, Euoropean Jews etc. They therefore stuck together far longer as a community and found that their knowledge of English language gave them an advantage over their Continental immigrant rivals. However, their Catholicism held them back when up against the old, mainly English derived, WASP "ruling elite".
This contributed to "the Irish Must Stick Together" atitude and the need for a common enemy to help keep the community bound together. The old British "bogeyman" was therefore very useful in this respect.
In North America, the Irish were just another bumnch of immigrants who had to fight their corner against all the other immigrants - Poles, Itlaians, Germans, Euoropean Jews etc. They therefore stuck together far longer as a community and found that their knowledge of English language gave them an advantage over their Continental immigrant rivals. However, their Catholicism held them back when up against the old, mainly English derived, WASP "ruling elite".
This contributed to "the Irish Must Stick Together" atitude and the need for a common enemy to help keep the community bound together. The old British "bogeyman" was therefore very useful in this respect.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff