BS: G.B. and N.I.?

Subject: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 05:14 PM

Just wondering why the athletics squad for us over here is referred to as Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Isn't it the U.K.? Isn't there a title that includes all of the nations? Why do we add Northern Ireland?

Just asking... no agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 05:44 PM

I know. It's a very clumsy moniker. However, didn't the relay lads and lasses do well!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:06 PM

Well, it is complicated. I remember a breakfast in a hotel sharing a table with some Americans who asked me to explain it. Off the cuff, it was a challenge, I admit.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:09 PM

Bloody brilliant performance, especially Gemili, but maybe wrong to single him out.So sad that Bolt and Farah didn't go out on a high, but all credit to them for appearing and for what they've done in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:14 PM

DMcG, thanks for that, complicated but just about understandable. So why isn't the team called the 'United Kingdom'.
Not asking you, just wondered if there was an expert on this sort of thing to tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:21 PM

Great night for sport. At least Gatlin was well buried in a team that didn't win.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:26 PM

My guess would be that officially there is no l

Aplace called the "United Kingdom"; only the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However both "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland" are official terms. So it might be a jobsworth at work. Or there might be some obscure legal reason. Or that fact that the United Kigdom used to include the whole of Ireland might be a touch sensitive when the border issue is live at the moment. Or any number of other reasons I havent thought of!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 08:16 PM

I suppose it's as well to remind people that Northern Ireland has never been part of Great Britain, and never could be, since that's the name of the island, not of a country.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:01 AM

I think for some reason unknown the team representing us at the Olympics has always been called Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom. I'm not sure but I suspect "and Northern Ireland" was maybe originally added way back because the Olympic Association in Ireland has since its inception claimed to represent the whole island and not just the Republic. In modern times the British team has used the term Team GB for its branding which has, maybe not surprisingly, rankled with some unionists in Northern Ireland. Folk from NI can choose which country to compete for and the bulk of them choose Ireland. Not sure if that'd be out of allegiance or maybe in some cases they have more chance of actually qualifying for the team that way!!!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 06:04 AM

It always amuses me how Irish sportsmen like Roy Keane ( a Corkman) suddenly become 'British' when they find fame
An interesting situation in the Six Counties at present
For nearly a decade the Unionists have had and abused their majority
Now the gap has narrowed and the DUP is starting to seek Nationalist Support
Wonder of the Nats will demand a £Billion bung for co-operation as the DUP did for Brexit
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 09:36 AM

'Team GB' is actually the short form of the name of the UK's Olympic team. The official name is actually: 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team'.
The British Olympic Association started using the brand name Team GB in 1999...

British Olympics Committee issued a statement explaining that the name 'Team GB' represented not only England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and UK Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
These Overseas Territories, it said, are not represented by the name 'Team UK' and would therefore exclude Olympians such as Mark Cavendish, a cyclist who is Manx, and Carl Hester, a dressage rider who from Sark.


Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/15/rio-olympics-2016-why-is-team-gb-not-called-team-uk-6068065/#ixzz4pdrLdnUkThe

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:00 PM

"Team GB' is actually the short form of the name of the UK's Olympic team. "
Wonder what they'll call it when Brexit breaks up the Union as it looks like it might
Little England Disunited,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:55 PM

If they are really "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", then that would exclude athletes from the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Which would be silly (Mark Cavendish for one could not compete at the Olympics). The United Kingdom is what they really should be called (until as Jim says the union dissolves).

I think that strictly, in a geographical context and forgetting politics, DMcG's link is wrong, and Great Britain cannot include the Isle of Wight, Skye, Hebrides, Anglesey etc. It seems to be a political convenience to state that they are included.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 06:40 PM

Ok then, to turn the question on it's head, 'Why can't we have simple name such as ABC *(Associated British Conglomeration) that encompasses all of those regions/territories mentioned in the earlier posts.


They could all vote independently as to whether they wanted to be in the ABC or to apply for status as a competing nation in their own right

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 06:58 PM

i just like watching fabulous athletes doing their best, win or lose. It's been fantastic.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Aug 17 - 01:55 AM

Mrs. Fenswoman and I attended the IAAF World Championships 2017 on the first Saturday and Sunday. Great atmosphere, loved the stadium, one of the best sporting events I've been to.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 01:13 PM

i suppose we are a mixture - we could be called The Vindaloo Gang.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 17 - 08:49 PM

The thing is, there has only been a country called Great Britain during the period between the Scottish Act of Union in 1707, when it was established, and the Irish Act of Union in 1800, when it ceased to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Aug 17 - 06:40 PM

call it something else then, call it Brechin City and neighbouring provinces

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:06 AM

David Carter but your point isn't logical. The state is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are part of neither so even calling it Team UK would still exclude them from the official title anyway. Calling it Team GB still excludes them from the title but it also excludes one of the constituent parts of the state itself. I can't see how calling them Team GB and NI excludes Guernsey anymore than Team GB does!!! It may be a clumsier name and that is maybe why the easier Team GB was chosen but I can't see how Jersey or Man have any real relevance there. Don't follow that line of argument.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:23 AM

Does any of this really matter? 99.9*% of Americans think that the correct name for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 'England', so...

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:38 AM

It's going to become an issue as the "United" Kingdom become more disunited after Brexit - watch what happens when the borders do back up in Northern Ireland and the lorries start having to queue up for hours Al
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 04:39 AM

its the way of things. the first night i ever went to Spain i was in a bar in lloret de mar. the locals were saying - we get pissed off- theres no such country as Spain. We are Basques. WE speak Basque. The songs we sing aren't in Spanish. We hate speaking Spanish and paing taxes to Madrid.

The key to the thing is that some people are prepared to kill over these differences. other just smoulder with the injustice. others just want to carry on with their lives and leave the politicians to act like arseholes, which is what they're best at.

Charles Dickens had it right two hundred years ago. The only proposition that will ever work is if we stop trying to generalise and work out doctrinaire solutions. we have to simply act as decent human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 05:17 AM

why the incident in lloret always stuck in my mind is that i timidly asked about the flamenco sounding music that was being played on the bar stereo.

THat's not flamenco! THat's the great Basque Folksinger, Ramon. He's our Bob Dylan! Flamenco is played by gypsies down in the South. That's another country! that's not Spain either!!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 06:23 AM

The UK doesn't want a hard border, but it wants things that make a hard border inevitable. Its position is incoherent and somewhere along the line it will have to compromise with itself. A high tech border for trade for example doesn't address population movement.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:17 AM

the position isn't so much incoherent as acknowledging that its a complex situation. using language to diminish your perceived enemy's position isn't going to help.

the idea of a hi-tech border seems a bit daft on the face of it. but one thing we can be certain of regarding NI, the answer doesn't lie in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:27 AM

"UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU."

Any evidence to support the assertion that Dublin wants a hard border.

It is not what is being said by the media in the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:40 AM

Rag,
Any evidence to support the assertion that Dublin wants a hard border.

How dare you ask me to jump through hoops Rag, but since you have, yes.
The Irish government have made statements about it.

DMcG
The UK doesn't want a hard border, but it wants things that make a hard border inevitable.

UK says a hard border in not necessary.

A high tech border for trade for example doesn't address population movement.

UK has no problem with population movement across the border. Ireland is not in Schengen and anyway UK wants EU citizens to have visa-free entry.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:41 AM

Sorry, I didnt intend to use language in that way: it was not supposed to be a value judgement, just a factual statement that the proposals do not currently cohere. Finding a resolution is possible but it will involve balancing the competing views within the UK.

I see only three solutions to the border problem, each of which will be hugely problematic. I hope someone comes up with an idea I havent thought of.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 08:53 AM

What statements professor, I have seen none, nor have I heard about or read any statement from the government in Dublin to that effect.

I would suggest you're making it up as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:04 AM

What "statements?" No-one has said they want a hard border. You are clearly being taken in by the nonsense-megaphoning of the DUP. But the obstinate fact is that if we leave the EU, and by doing so leave the single market and customs union and end free movement, there is inevitably going to be a tightening-up on the border. Maybe no-one wants it but the EU is not going to let the UK enjoy soft exceptions. Too many other member countries are watching like hawks, some of them not especially happy with their lot.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:10 AM

Rag, asking someone to support opinions and assertions has been decreed unreasonable behaviour by Jeri.

However, I disagree with Jeri. We can not make people justify their claims, but assumptions can be made when they can not.

Irish News,
"
FORMER taoiseach John Bruton has warned that Brexit could increase smuggling along the border in Ireland.
The ex-European Union ambassador to the US said he does not envisage passport checks on routes in and out of Northern Ireland once the UK completes the split.
But in response to a direct question at the House of Lords EU Select Committee on whether Brexit could be abused and become a smugglers' charter, Mr Bruton said: "Yes is the answer to that question too."
Mr Bruton joined former taoiseach Bertie Ahern to set out their biggest concerns for the Irish and Northern Irish economies and communities post-Brexit.
A recent suggestion that Irish ports and airports would become proxy points of entry into the UK and a type of frontier for British immigration checks was dismissed out of hand by Mr Ahern.
"I quite frankly just found that unbelievable," he said."

"Prime Minister Theresa May has said there should not be a hard border after Brexit, but Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan has voiced scepticism over the reassurances."
http://www.irishnews.com/news/republicofirelandnews/2016/10/26/news/new-irish-border-would-lead-to-increased-smuggling-says-bruton-755554/

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:15 AM

Steve,
But the obstinate fact is that if we leave the EU, and by doing so leave the single market and customs union and end free movement, there is inevitably going to be a tightening-up on the border.

UK government says it is not necessary.

Maybe no-one wants it but the EU is not going to let the UK enjoy soft exceptions.

Not UK's fault then. Or even Ireland's. Its that pesky EU.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:16 AM

Expressing concerns and doubts is not calling for a hard border. You've been sidelined for a little while now, Keith, but it seems that you can't wait to get back to being thoroughly vexatious.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:17 AM

"I would suggest you're making it up as you go along."

Gasp! Surely not?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:30 AM

There is absolutely nothing in the statement you provided to suggest that Dublin wants a hard border. Nothing at all. Zilch, Nil, Nought.

You may have also noticed that John Bruton is an EX European Ambassador and that Bertie Ahern is an EX Taoiseach and while they may be more aware of movements inside the Rialtas na hEireann, the Oireachtas, the Seanad Eireann and the Dail Eireann than you and I are they do not, and cannot, speak for it.

Back to the drawing board professor, you have no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:37 AM

"UK government says it is not necessary."
Given that Theresa May is still in charge we can safely assume that The Government' hasn't a clue as to what is happening
"the Government says" - you cannot be serious!!!
The border and the future of Irish security remains real cause of conscern in the real world
A few weeks ago the Bank of England made it clrear that the detrimental aftershocks of Brexit dure to the economic uncertainty will continue t effect the standard of living of the British people foor at least a decade
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:41 AM

UK government says it requires no changes to the current border.
Where is the disagreement coming from?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:46 AM

You made an unsubstantiated claim, you cannot back up that claim.

Forget it professor ............ to use one of your favourite expressions you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:52 AM

Sinn Fein's Stormont leader, Michelle O'Neill, said the proposals were "big on aspiration but light on clarity".
"Whilst the British Government might say they don't want to see any kind of hard border or technology put in place, it will not be within their gift to deliver that," she said. "It will be the other European member states, who clearly think and believe we need to see customs controls."

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-16/brexit-keeping-irish-border-free-of-checkpoints-is-top-priority/

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:56 AM

Rag, UK government is adamant it wants no change to the border.
EU, which includes Ireland, does.

I am so glad that you support my case that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for substantiation here, and it is actually to be expected in a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 10:05 AM

You stated "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just DUBLIN and the EU"

You now quote a Stormont Leader and the UK Government.

Now I know you have difficulty with comprehending written English but a Stormont Leader and UK Government do not equate to the Government in Dublin.


You lose !!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 10:41 AM

The party of that leader is well represented in the Dublin Parliament too.
UK government is adamant it wants no change to the border.
EU, which includes Ireland, does.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 10:47 AM

I repeat you stated "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just DUBLIN and the EU"

You have no evidence that the government in Dublin wants a hard border so your statement is false.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 12:23 PM

This is a completely ridiculous discussion. Keith has lost it. Just ignore the silly sod.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 12:34 PM

UK government has stated unequivocally that it does not want or require any change to the border post Brexit.

UK will not be imposing any changes, so if they happen it is not our fault.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 12:48 PM

You are talking about the British Government. Tell us about the Irish Government wanting a hard border.

You lose !!!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 01:02 PM

"Prime Minister Theresa May has said there should not be a hard border after Brexit, but Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan has voiced scepticism "

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 01:39 PM

Keep trying. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:12 PM

You lose.

Teresa May in case you had forgotten is the leader of the British Government !

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 02:46 PM

"Prime Minister Theresa May has said there should not be a hard border after Brexit"
Would that be the same Theresa May who took Britain into a General Election in order to give her party a firm majority in the Brexit negotiation - failed miserably and did a deal with a sectarian party with terrorist links and paid them a £billion bung for their support.
A woman to be trusted, no doubt - with your lives even!!!!!
Apart from the fuck-up in British living standards which, according to the Bank of England, will last at least a decade, Brexit not only risks the break-up of the British Union, but also has set back the Irish PEACE PROCESS back decades
"Prime Minister Theresa May has said......" - you cannot be serious!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 09:53 PM

i thought the plan was that the catholics were going to copulate like mad and the resultant kids would vote for a united reland.

you can't help but wish they'd shift their arses and get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:12 AM

Jim, May was just reiterating Britain's stated position on the post Brexit border. Britain does not require or want any change.

Teresa May in case you had forgotten is the leader of the British Government
Yes, but Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan is not.

If no-one wants a change to the border there will not be one, and this is not an issue.
The problem is that EU wants to make things difficult, and Dublin has to toe their line.

EU wants there to be a problem with the border and will make it an issue, and Dublin will have to choose which side it is on.

(One obvious solution would be for Ireland to join us in leaving EU.)

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

""UK does not want a hard border Jim, just DUBLIN and the EU"

We know what the UK's position is professor but you stated above that Dublin and the EU wanted a hard border.

I asked what evidence you had to support the assertion that DUBLIN wanted a hard border.

You have not given any ................... You Lose !!!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:26 AM

You have not given any ................... You Lose !!!

I gave you what Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan said.
I also reminded you that Ireland is remaining in the EU which seems to want to create difficulties for us, including on the border situation.

If that means I have lost something, I can live with it thanks Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:31 AM

You haven't said what Charlie Flanaghan is alleged to have said though have you.

I very much doubt if you will find him seeking a hard border.

You lose .............. (I must stop saying that it's boring.)

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:38 AM

I don't believe that either Ireland or the UK WANT to harden the border; the problem is that anything that crosses from the north into Ireland can then move freely to anywhere else in the EU.

The EU wants to see a system that ensures that anything that does cross into Ireland is compliant.

If we can come up with the means of doing this then a hard border will not be necessary.

But it will be interesting to see how they approach this given that in many places there are farms that straddle the border and so moving say a load of potatoes from one end of a barn to another effectively takes them from outside to inside the EU

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:44 AM

"May was just reiterating Britain's stated position on the post Brexit border."
No she was repeating a promise they are not in a position to make
She fucked up her majority - why on earth should anybody trust here on anything (especially when many of her own party regard her an embarrassment)?
And why should any right thinking person believe someone who consorts with a party linked to terrorism?
You'd think all your birthdays had come at once of Corbyn bunged a million to such a party
Your party is corrupt, now has indirect links with terrorists and is incompetent
And it stands to have racist Boris Johnson as a leader should Mayfly fly away
You couldn't make them up if you were a scriptwriter for 'Yes Minister'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 08:04 AM

It is amazing that the same party that warned that should an independent Scotland not be in the EU then there would be border posts at the crossing into England now assures the people of Northern Ireland that there is no need for a border on an island where part is in the EU and part not!!!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 11:58 AM

No she was repeating a promise they are not in a position to make

No, she was stating a fact that Britain does not want or need to change the border.
Obviously it can be imposed on us from the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 12:14 PM

if it does provide a backdoor for EU people/goods getting into England, house prices in NI will sky rocket. it will become a place of enormous economic strategic importance.

the celtic tiger will be on the loose once again.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:23 PM

it takes two sides to create a border. Insisting the person on the other side does what you want when they disagree is just as much you creating the border as them.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:33 PM

No. One side can set up border controls without the other.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:40 PM

I'll tell you what, good people. Keith is very, very frustrated about his precious Labour thread being shut down, he spent a week hardly being able to get his oar in at all (wasn't it wonderful), and now he's decided to try absolutely anything he can to resume his attritional, vexatious nonsense games. He's at it here and he's at it now in the Glorious Twelfth thread. It's solid trolling. Let's ignore him.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:46 PM

I do not think I am posting more or less than I ever have.
You seem to be engaged in a deranged vendetta Steve.

It is a pity that we can not discuss the sacking of Ms Champion from the Shadow Cabinet though.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:55 PM

'it takes two sides to create a border. Insisting the person on the other side does what you want when they disagree is just as much you creating the border as them.'

i think all the countries annexed by Russia after the war would probably give you an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 05:56 PM

Oh, isn't it just. Go and discuss it with your mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 06:12 PM

That was to Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 03:23 AM

I understand that point, Al, and I also understand that things like the Berlin wall and - if it happens - the Mexican wall are built by one side. But the actual border is the distinction between two sides, whether trade, nationality, taxation, religion, ethos or whatever. The walls and checkpoints are just a means of strengthening and enforcing the border. Annexation is when one side regards itself as so powerful that it can ignore the border, so once again, the requirement both sides agree on the border to maintain it applies.


Anyway, that's my two pennyworth. Other people are perfectly entitled to their opinion. As usual I will stick to my "state-explain-shut up" approach to threads.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 03:36 AM

The Border in the case of Ireland is a line drawn by politicians in order to divide one country into two halves - the secret lies in the name "Ireland'
Whiile it remains, we will still be filling body bags, as has happned wheever a country has bee divided artificially
to suit one side or the other.
Brexit has risked the progress that has been made to remove that barrier.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:00 AM

So you think that the people of NI should subsumed into the Republic against their will?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:21 AM

Do I belive that the residents of Chipping Sodbury should be allowed to secede from Britain because they decide that their life is better than that of the rest of the country - what an incredibly stupid idea
To divide a nation artificially - whether it be six counties, or The Southern States, or Cyprus, or Korea, or Viet-Nam, or India and Pakistan... is a recipe for filling body bags for generations to come - go count the dead of Ireland or the million who died in the India-Pakistan dispute.... or wherever.
The politicians made the decisions, not the people - all the latter want is to be allowed to get on with their lives in peace, without political'religious self-interested interference.
The Irish are a very self-aware people as far as their culture is concerned - spend time moving about the diffrent part s and you would become very aware of that fact
For a little England British nationalist, you show very little knowledge for the cultural awareness of others
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 04:29 AM

The politicians made the decisions, not the people

Not true. The people have spoken enough times on this. The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it.
You would force them at gun point if you could.

The majority is dwindling, so be patient.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 06:00 AM

i don't bloody care whether they want to be ruled from Dublin. they obviously want to still be in the EU. THey can't do that and be in the UK. THey could work out something with Dublin if they had the will to.

It would be a good time for them to sod off. Scotland too.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 06:09 AM

"You would force them at gun point if you could."

Brainless.

By the way, how was the "Conservative Party at prayer" this morning? Good turnout? Hope you all sat on the right-hand side of the church where you belong!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 06:21 AM

"Not true. The people have spoken enough times on this.
No they haven't Keith - how could anybody possibly vote to be British rather than Irish
They have voted for peace and quiet
The Idea that politicians could make a country British died with the Empire
When Catholics demonstrated for equal rights in the late sixties, the police guided them through stone throwing loyalist mobs.
The Six Counties have ben held by force of arms and a repression imposed on them by repression by a sectarian administration set up by Britain - that is not choice
In a few years there will be a Catholic majority in the North East - we can only hope they don't treat the population in the same way your lot did.
Your support for Unionist bigotry is no less disgusting than is your support for the Slave States
The last thing Ireland needs now is the bigoted views of an ignorant and antagonistic Englishman - please don't try to tell me that someone who describes Irish children as "brainwashed to hate Britain" isn't a raving bigot
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 08:22 AM

Fascinating development has just been announced in the Six Counties
The three opposing parties on Brexit, all of whom wish to retain links with Europe, now have a clear majority
The D.U.P., having done a deal with Tessa the Tossa in order to get her through the negotiations, are now in the minority.
Shape of things to come??
Incidentally Keith, the Tory spokesman has said that no deal can be done on the border unless two other conditions are met first - that's how genuine your/Two-Gun Tessie's promises of an open border are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:07 AM

You resort to lying about me again Jim.
Your support for Unionist bigotry is no less disgusting than is your support for the Slave States

I never have and never would support either, liar.
Why don't you quote me, liar?
Because it is just more of the lies you resort to telling when you have no reply to what I actually say, liar.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:10 AM

Childish in the extreme, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:14 AM

It is not childish to object to lies being told against you.

I do think it wrong to mock someone's faith instead of discussing the actual issues.

Your behaviour drives decent folk away from this forum, but it is completely wasted on me.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:17 AM

Steve,
"You would force them at gun point if you could."
Brainless.

Not brainless, but the actual truth.
Jim has argued more than once that the British Army should have taken on the Unionists instead of partitioning Ireland.
(The Army refused to do it.)

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:22 AM

Ah, but your point wasn't about "the unionists," was it?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:32 AM

You have always supported Orange bigotry (sectarian marches="pleasant days out) - now you are equating the Amertican Civil war with heroic struggle and suggesting that English counties leaving the UK would be permissable
No lies there Keith
You are lying when you say I have not replied to you - you choose to ignore what has been said, that doesn't mean it hasn't been said
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 12:43 PM

'In a few years there will be a Catholic majority in the North East - we can only hope they don't treat the population in the same way your lot did.'

And let's hope Dublin treats its new citizens better than it treated their own citizens. Denying them basic human rights like birth control and divorce, putting education into the the hands of a paedophile sect.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 01:09 PM

"Denying them basic human rights like birth control and divorce, putting education into the the hands of a paedophile sect."
Peadophils operate throughout the Church - north and south Al - and both sides of the border
It now transpires that it is not just a "Catholic" problem but one common to all denominations - only the North has not got around to looking into theirs yet.
As for family matters, the North refuses to recognise pregnancy termination or same sex marriage
Not an excuse, but plebe don't confuse church matters with the politics that has created an unequal society for Catholics - voting, property ownership, work boycotts - for nigh on a century, which is what I was referring to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 01:24 PM

Steve,
Ah, but your point wasn't about "the unionists," was it?

Ah, but it was.

Jim,
You have always supported Orange bigotry

I never have. You should not equate the parades with bigotry. When they are an excuse for it I join you in condemnation, but overwhelmingly they are not.

now you are equating the Amertican Civil war with heroic struggle

There was much heroism by the soldiers of both sides Jim.

suggesting that English counties leaving the UK would be permissable

Unrealistic, but permissible. It only arises where there is a distinct and different culture.
N.I., Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are such places, and a majority of 1% is all that is needed.

Your support for Unionist bigotry is no less disgusting than is your support for the Slave States

Blatant lies. I never have and never would support either.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

You can't lie to me, Keith. When will you ever learn. You said:

"Not true. The people have spoken enough times on this. The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it.
You would force them at gun point if you could."

The people, Keith, is what you said. Not a dickie bird about "unionists." When the people of Northern Ireland "speak," they don't need to have qualified as unionists first. You speak carelessly then you deny it. Very Wheatcroftesque of you. I find your approach to be vulgar (it was a silly thing to say anyway) and fraudulent (because you lied).

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 02:52 PM

"I never have. You should not equate the parades with bigotry."
What!!!!!!!
"When they are an excuse for it I join you in condemnation, "
On the contrary - you excused them as I just described
You have never at any toime condemned them - and now you are excusing them further saying thay are not about bigotry
I grew up with the sound of "fuck the Pope" and "Eee ay - Paddy is a bastard" ringing in my ears from those bigots - and dodging the bottles
"Unrealistic, but permissible"
Insane gibberish - there wouldn't be a definable country on the planet if it was possible to vote bits of it away
Maybe on the Planet Zog, where you apparently reside
"N.I., Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are such places, and a majority of 1% is all that is needed.
"
You have argued this before and have nevet made this stapulation
The last time, it was in response to my putting up the Southern Counties - now of which, with the possible exception of Carnwall
You described the Southern States as heroes fighting for freedom and you defend the statutes commemorating a war to maintain slavery - 'nuff for me
Mad as a bag of rats
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:03 AM

Steve, I do not lie.
The people, Keith, is what you said. Not a dickie bird about "unionists

The Unionists are the majority in NI.
They are called that because they overwhelmingly demand to remain part of the Union.

So my statement, " The people have spoken enough times on this. The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it." was totally accurate.

Jim has argued that they be forced to join the Republic by armed force.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:12 AM

Wrong again professor.




Demographics of Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim, here is a BBC report on the 2014 Orangefest.
No problems then or since.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28266902

"Tens of thousands of Orangemen and women have taken part in 12 July celebrations across Northern Ireland."

"Thousands of people have also attended flagship parades in Markethill, Larne and Limavady.

Chief Constable George Hamilton said: "I am pleased that today's Twelfth parades have passed off largely successfully and that those taking part were able to enjoy their day."

2016 BBC
"'Celebration'
First Minister Arlene Foster attended the demonstration in Maguiresbridge and watched her children parade.
"This really is about celebration, it's about doing things in a way that we've done so for generations," she said.
"I always think of the Twelfth when I used to get two sandwiches in a plastic bag and a bun and that is still going on today but it is good fun and we really enjoy ourselves every year." "

Wiki,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parades_in_Northern_Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:16 AM

Rag, please quote anything in your link that says I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:17 AM

Read it yourself, that's what I posted it for.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:18 AM

true enough Jim. But you can always try to do something about your own faults. Its more problematic getting the other bloke to see he's got faults and he needs to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:30 AM

"The Unionists are the majority in NI. "
No longer Keith - the Unionist POLITICIANS have he an overall majority since independence - that is no longer the case
The actual Unionists - who actively subscribe to Unionist Parties are, and have always been a small minority of the people as a whole
" The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it."
There has never been a referendum as to whether people would "resist" unification if it ever came about
Do you have any proof of this statement?
The necessity of a change by referendum was only introduced in the late 1980s, in fact there have only been 2 referendums on Unity - in 1973 and 1998, the first gave a 98% majority, the second, nearly 20 yeas ago reduced that majority to 71%
Given the shift in population proportions, Brexit and political corruption by the DUP, it is possible that any present referendum would give a majority to leave.   
Some actual Unionists may resist, but nobody else would
And - as I said - the DUP is now a minority party and could be voted out of office by the three combined parties tht oppose leaving Europe - perhaps it should bung the UK £billion for its support !!
Now - where did this "resistance" come from, or is it yet another of your makkie-ups?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:31 AM

"would give a majority to leave."
Should read -"unite" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 06:55 AM

Jim, I said the majority was dwindling and in recent months may have gone.
There is still no majority for a United Ireland in either the North or the South.

Wiki,
"In demographic terms, the six counties of Northern Ireland taken as a whole contain a majority of Ulster Protestants[5] who almost all favour continued union with Great Britain."
"Surveys identify a significant number of Catholics who favour the continuation of the union without identifying themselves as Unionists or British.[8]"

"Opinion polls of the Northern Ireland population have consistently shown majorities opposed to a United Ireland and in support of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom. For example, in a November 2015 survey RTÉ and the BBC, 30% of the population expressed support for a United Ireland in their lifetime"
"The 2013 annual Northern Ireland Life and Times survey conducted by the Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University found that a united Ireland was the favoured long term option of 15% of the population while remaining part of the United Kingdom was the favoured long term option of 66% of the population.[38] When the same survey was carried out in 2015, support was 22%"

"A 2011 survey by Northern Ireland Life and Times found that 52% of Northern Irish Catholic respondents favoured union with Great Britain over a united Ireland."

"In October 2015 an opinion poll commissioned by RTÉ and the BBC and carried out by Behaviour & Attitudes asked those in the Republic of Ireland" 36% wanted United Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:32 AM

"There is still no majority for a United Ireland in either the North or the South."
So what Keith?
Apart from the two referenda, all votes in Northern Ireland have been economic ones - The Northern Counties were wealthier and employment was not a major problem - until now
In the South, a poll carried out over a year ago indicated that 65% of the population would vote for a United Ireland
Given the changing circumstances since then, the effects that Brexit is already having on the Republic, the detrimental effects that it has brought to Irish people living in Britain, and the likelihood of a hard border, there is little doubt that there would be a landslide victory for a United Ireland
Add to this, the pride shown by the Irish people in the 1916 commemorations and the forthcoming anniversaries of the War of Independence, the fight against the Tans and the treaty, it will be surprising if a United Ireland does not become a major issue in its own right, economics aside.
Partition has always been a grotesque British solution to the problems of Imperialism - in Ireland, it has filled body bags since it was introduced
It really is time it was ended before we end up with a hard border, a maimed economy like Britain's and yet more bloodshed
Ireland is Ireland and the Irish people have always recognised that fact
It is only the self-interested religious nutters who have ever claimed otherwise
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:45 AM

FOR REUNIFICATION
WHAT THE POLITICIANS SAID
STALEMATE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 08:34 AM

There is a majority against a United Ireland in both the North and the South.

Would you still force it on them against their will Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:46 AM

Rag, I have read and re-read your linked article.
There is nothing there to contradict anything I have said.
The fault is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 02:01 PM

Professor you posted "The Unionists are the majority in NI."

Simple

My post was in a response to that SIMPLE statement. Once again you were incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:01 PM

The people have spoken.

The Unionists are the majority.

The Unionists have spoken.

The Unionists are the people.

Have I missed something...?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 07:32 PM

"There is a majority against a United Ireland in both the North and the South."
You have just been given the fact that over 60% of the republic;w population would vote for a United Ireland
The DUP no longer had a majority and circumstances have wrought about changes that would probably vote the same
Only an agenda-driven moron would choose to ignore those facts
Business as usual with Keith then - he "wins" again (in his head)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 01:49 AM

'grotesque British solution to the problems of Imperialism'

come on Jim. That's less than honest. There has been a hell of a lot of collusion from the people native to the island of Ireland perpetuating partition.

And throughout history there have been a lot of supporters of home rule for Ireland this side of the Irish sea.

If you never face up to your own share of the responsibility for this situation, which has been unacceptable to so many for so long, when can it ever get solved?

Its so easy to just point the finger at the other guy.

The thing Keith is guilty of is not distortion of the facts. Facts are like wriggly eels - you can come up a kaleidoscope of interpretations. (First world war generals whose men were massacred were competent - being a good case for example). Its the suggestion that that partition is somehow justifiable or possibly desirable - even with all its history of bloodshed and rabble rousing that is so utterly wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:12 AM

"There has been a hell of a lot of collusion from the people native to the island of Ireland perpetuating partition."
Go read your history books Al
Partition was forced on Ireland at gunpoint - "sign in three days or go to war" - the result was a brutal year-long civil war - not a lot of "collusion" there.
The country was divided by gerrymandering - first it was to be the whole of the nine counties, then Britain did the math and realised that that would give the Catholics a majority, so they lopped three counties off to give the Unionists power - that's how "democrat" a Unionist Ulster was reached (sort of like deciding the nature of Britain's Govenment by only including the wealthy South East soft underbelly.
From the word "go", the division was unequal - voting rights were based on property ownership - the property owners were predominantly Protestant.
Regular Anti-Catholic riots, employment boycotts, inability to purchase land..... and a whole mass of laws and practices, became permanent features of life for a third of the population
Members of my family were forced to flee Derry - including two young cousins and a babe in arms - when their house was burned down by a protestant mob.
When the Catholics protested in the late sixties, their peaceful marches were navigated though screaming mobs o stone- throwing Loyalists, despite this, the first sectarian murders of 'The Troubles' were carried out by Protestant terrorists led by Gusty Spence - a pub bombing.
As I said - go read a history book
I'm putting this up for you - it's been dealt with ad-nauseum on other threads and justified (or ignored) by out two resident anti- Irish racists
I have no intention of covering it again with two people who have made clear trheir hatred for the Irih - one who thinks all Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain, the other who claims the Irish were stupid enough to not want independence for themselves but were "conned into it by foreigners" and both who claim that last years dignified and critical commemoration of the Easter Uprising was "celebrating mass murder" - which makes every other nation who has taken up arms to obtain independence from Britain - The United States, Israel, India, Kenya, Cyprus..... "mass murderers"
It is a grotesque hangover of Empire that Britain should still dominate the life and politics of Six Counties in Northern Ireland - the shadow of a system that brought misery, slavery and death to generations throughout the world for many centuries in order that Britain should grow and remain rich and powerful (while, of course, the ordinary British people remained as poor and oppressed as their colonial counterparts)
Ireland is now, hopefully, closing the book on eight centuries of outside interference - not before time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:31 AM

Jim,
You have just been given the fact that over 60% of the republic;w population would vote for a United Ireland

You have been given the fact that numerous surveys show that not to be true.

Steve and Rag, in recent months the Unionist parties have finally lost their majority vote. I have referred to the fact that it has been dwindling for years.
There is still a majority in the North who want to stay in the Union, and a majority in the South who do not want the North in the Republic.

My statement, "The people have spoken enough times on this. The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it." was entirely accurate and you were wrong to challenge it.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM

Al,
First world war generals whose men were massacred were competent

That suggest that there was something else they could have done.
A hundred years of research has not come up with anything.

They were tasked with driving back a cruel invader, but defensive military technology had become so advanced that it could not be done without incurring those appalling casualties.

British generals did better than any of the others. They were the most competent.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:19 AM

"You have been given the fact that numerous surveys show that not to be true."
You have been given the last one that says it is and you haev been given an up-to-date assesment which shows that that majority is likely to increase thanks to a corrupt Govenment, an incometent Westminster administration and a Brexit that is likely to bring a hard border and an unstable economy for at least a decade (based on Bank of England assesments0
The day of the billy boy is over Keith
You don't respond to my description of the history of partition - it is based on documented fact which you have been provided with ad nauseum
No administration which behaves like that is fir to rule - it is a Banana Republic type of administration that allows those things
Empire is now an outlawed sytem of government throughout the world - Northern Ireland is the last remnants of that oppressive system - time it was put to bed along with racist morons who describe the children of a nation as "brainwashed to hate"
Way past your bedtime Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:22 AM

Yes but the aforesaid protestant mob weren't a gang of Latvian plumbers on a weekend break. They were your fellow countrymen, were they not?

that's the point. To suggest people like Carson and Paisley were anything other than Irish is disingenuous.

somewhere along the line in this equation are two lots of Irish people who have to coexist peacefully.

You won't do anything about the English tories being a pile of shits who occasionally rely on the unionist mp's. we can't do anything so you can't.

but you could do something about this endless fantasy that its all a problem created by England.

Since Victorian times there have been large numbers of English politicians (occasionally in power) who would have been only too willing to rid themselves of involvement in Irish affairs.

If in the interim, you had sorted yourselves out and found some mutually agreeable solution, THEN when there is a sympathetic administration would be the the time to sort this out for all time

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:25 AM

"The majority do not want to be ruled from Dublin and would resist it." "
The people have been asked twice - that is not "many times"
You lied
No referendum has ever asked if they would resist a United Ireland - you made it up - you lied again
"They were tasked with driving back a cruel invader,"
Strait out of Biggles - jingoistic jargon
What comic book did that piece of flag - wagging melodrama did that come from
You are an anachronistic joke
Rule Britannia -eh what
Where's me whiskey and soda?
Jay-sus!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:38 AM

Jim,
You have been given the last one that says it is

Not true. You just said, "In the South, a poll carried out over a year ago indicated that 65% of the population would vote for a United Ireland."

You got that wrong Jim.
In that 2015 survey in the Republic, which was in my link, only 35% said there should be unity "in the short to medium term."

65% said they would like to see it as "long term policy," "in their lifetime." They would not vote for it now. Only 35% would, as I said in my earlier post.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

Jim,
The people have been asked twice - that is not "many times"
You lied

I do not lie Jim. There have been many surveys as well as the referenda.

No referendum has ever asked if they would resist a United Ireland - you made it up - you lied again

They do not want it. Of course there would be resistance. Probably an "armed struggle." It was not implemented originally because the Army refused to fight them.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

"I do not lie Jim. There have been many surveys as well as the referenda."
There have been only two referenda - TWO IS NOT "MANY"
The Only time the "people" were asked to resist was when the UNIONISTS ONLY in 1912 when half a million of them signd The Covenant
To put a clause about resistance in any survey or referendum would have been an open incitement to violence - not even the Ulster administration would dare have done that
You made it up and are continuing to defend your invention
"You got that wrong Jim."No I did not - you were given a comprehensive article from 'The Journal' which said exactly what I have said
Stop making things up to defand an archaic hangover of Empire

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:16 AM

22 August
Now please go away and take your 'Little England Colonialism with you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:08 AM

Thanks Jim, an interesting link.

As you say, it shows a 2/3 majority for a united Ireland (at present). That's clear enough.
Apart from a brief comment about the number of people in 'the North' who wish to remain in the EC, it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be.
Would the Republic join Northern Ireland as part of the UK, or would Northern Ireland become part of the Republic and therefore part of the EC?

The closest the article comes to quoting the question doesn't seem to address this point:
Asked how they would vote if a referendum was held tomorrow, 65% of the sample electorate said they would vote in favour of a united Ireland.

Cheers
Nigel
(looking forward to Dublin 2019 The Dublin Worldcon)

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:57 AM

"it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be."
That is surely up to the Irish people to decide?
The problems that have arisen in the last century were caused by a foreign power imposing conditions from outside
The days when that was the practice went with the Empire.
Morally and logically, any referendum should include the entire population of the Island of Ireland - the six counties state was an artificially created one in order to suit a majority rather than the population as a whole - that's what brought about so many deaths in 'The Troubles' - caused by a deprived minority dominated by a belligerent administration
Brexit has brought the question of a United Ireland into the limelight again - probably the only positive thing to come from the increasingly shambolic decison
Not even the Republic's politicians are in the mood to compromise now
Wake up time for a dead Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:33 AM

Jim,
You got that wrong Jim."No I did not - you were given a comprehensive article from 'The Journal' which said exactly what I have said

I linked you to the full results of a number of surveys.
Here it is again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion

That latest survey appears to show a majority in the Republic who want the North to join them.

That still would leave a majority in the whole island against, and more to the point a large majority against in the North itself.

Should they be forced against their will?
Supposing many did decide to resist, as previous experience would strongly suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Kampervan
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:34 AM

I wonder if we could have a vote on the mainland to say whether we still want NI to be part of GB or not?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:37 AM

I am sure we would all vote to be rid of them.
I certainly would.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 08:49 AM

Jim,
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:57 AM

"it doesn't clarify what this 'United Ireland' would be."
That is surely up to the Irish people to decide?

I fully agree that it is for the Irish to decide.
But isn't it a little disingenuous to leave that 'little' matter out of a discussion on whether they wish to be unified?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:03 AM

"Here it is again,"
he last survey on the question of a United Ireland on your list was in 2014
The latter chart shows those in favout of a border poll - to quote
Respondents were not asked how they would vote in such a poll.[52][53] yet you continue to inist there is a majority against a United Ireland - how stupidly dishonest can you get
All your link shows is how positions have changed radically in three years - just as they have been changing since the first referendum
What the **** are you7 trying to prove Keith - that Britain should still retain the right of Empire over its former colonies?
"who want the North to join them."
That phrase in itself, is dishonest politicking
"join" who?
Irealand is Ireland and the Irish are the Irish.
The people of Ireland want the six stolen counties back - they aren't looking for members, like a golf club.
Your jingoistic ignorance appears to know no bounds.
The only reason that the six counties remained part of Britain was that economically, it suited many people that it should do so
That is no longer the case
Like Scotland, the Six Counties stand to come off very badly out of Brexit, both in terms of trade and in respect to the Peace Process.
Despite yours and Terry the Tosser's promises, Ireland is quite likely to end up with a hard border and all that means for trade
"I am sure we would all vote to be rid of them."
We know well your view of foreigners Keith - I'm sure you would
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:12 AM

If in the Republic 2/3rds would want to unite and allowing that not all 6.3 million people could choose, I would take a conservative guess that roughly 65% of people could voice an option, that is over the age of 18.

65% (approximately) of 6.3 million is near enough 4.1 million.

Of that 4.1 million 65% would want a united Ireland, that is 2.6 million.

Now the population of Northern Ireland is approximately 1.8 million.

You do the maths

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 09:59 AM

"'little' matter out of a discussion on whether they wish to be unified?"
No more than ignoring the fact that it appears that, put to the vote, most of them now do.
That aside - a section of a country can't 'vote' to be under another nation.
Partition was never put to the vote - it was forced through at gunpoint
Where is your consensus there?
What happened after partition removes any claim to democracy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 11:16 AM

to be honest Jim, I think it's you that hasn't realised the British Empire went out of business and went into flogging double glazing a while back.

I'm sorry but the guarantee of a sympathetic hearing on your tales of evil repression expired when the old firm went out of business.

The service depot has closed, and not before time.

There is a users website for all for people who are attached to using the old stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

"expired when the old firm went out of business."
Tell that to the Peace Marchers that were stoned with the assistance of the police
Tell the victims of Bloody Sunday
Tell that to the victims of the UVF (assisted bt the British Security Forces)
Some progress has been made since then but Brexit has put a stop to that one
You people still have to respond to the point - no country should have domain over another - certainly not since the Empire went belly-up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:05 PM

we have no domination over you. the vast majority of English people just want you stop to giving yourselves excuses for acting badly. there are dozens of towns in England and Scotland where we could be rioting and bomb chucking from the way we've been treated by central government, but most people realise - the way forward is to stop examining the entrails of the past and make something of the future.

the troops weren't there until things kicked off, and no one wanted to be there.

if we did dominate you, the first thing we'd do is get you to stop insulting and provoking each other. some chance

the other blokes fault and the cops have got it in for me. yeh sure - get in the van!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:09 PM

Big Al there may be a point about the movement of goods but this back door for people getting into Britain idea doesn't really make sense. Why would say a Polish person fly to Dublin, then get a train to Northern Ireland, then either sail or fly to mainland Britain - when they can just fly straight to Britain or come through the Tunnel. Anyone from Europe can come on holiday anyway! Why would they need to come in via Ireland first. We surely aren't going to stop people visiting us? The issue is who is going to be able to work and claim benefits etc - not how they enter!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:21 PM

You fellers have always made the excuse that we can't give the six counties back because the majority don't want to leave the UK
Now the majority look like opting for a United Ireland, you seem to be doing a backward two-step
Funny that!!
You seem so concerned about what the people think - then how about this
The people of the North voted to remain in Europe (as did the Scots)
It seems that Brexit is going to hit these two places the hardest, and in Northern Ireland, destabalise the Peace Process into the bargain
Why not tell them, "Look lads and lasses - we want to leave Europe; you don't; so how about if we leave it like that - you stay, we'll go?"
Wouldn't that be the "democratic" thing to do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:35 PM

"just want you stop to giving yourselves excuses for acting badly."
So wanting independence is "acting badly2
No need to ask which side you are in Al
You sound like a Keith Jingoist
Don't think I've ever read anything so partonising in my life
"he troops weren't there until things kicked off, and no one wanted to be there."
The troops should have been there to protect the catholic Britishers from the Unionist thugs - don't be proud of the fact that they only came in when things "kicked off"
When thet got ther, they culluded with terrorist like the IVF, they wreaked ther own particular havoc, and they did their share of killing and maiming non-combatant.
Back home, the authorities were fitting up innocent Irish people and leaving them to rot in prison - had hanging still been in place there would have been dozens of dead martyrs for the Irish to hold up as examples of British justic
About "yourselves" - I'm a Brit, I was born in Britain, as were my parents
I am in the postion of having to consider dual citizenship thanks to Brexit - bu I don't know if I'm entitled to is because my Irish roots are as far removed as they are.
You are as big a little Englander as your mate Keith
Go get someone to read you a history book Al - you obviously haven' the ability or the inclination to do it off your own bat
The religious divisions came about because the British gave power to sectarian thugs - spend time in the North and you'll find that the ordinary people get on very well with each other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:37 PM

Did I really write IVF? - there's a Freudian slip, if you like
I meant UVF of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

This was from the 2016 social attitudes study in Northern ireland which seems to suggest that 'unionists' are well short of being a majority of the population. When asked if they were unionist or nationalist etc only 29% defined themselves as unionists; and only 24% described themselves as nationalists. A greater number didn't describe themselves in those terms. Being a majority does not mean there are more than unionists than there are nationalists - it means the majority of the people are unionist. That doesn't seem to be the case. So it may show nationalists have a long way to go but it also suggests that a great many may be more open to persuasion than some suggest. In the same survey only 17% described themselves as "very strong" unionists. I take it only a fraction of those would favour an actual uprising should there be a democratic vote to unite Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 01:16 PM

"I take it only a fraction of those would favour an actual uprising should there be a democratic vote to unite Ireland."
That's always been the case Allan
The Unionists weer the first to introduce the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland, but the militants represented only a small minority - and armed minority, mind you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 03:53 PM

Jim,
What the **** are you7 trying to prove Keith - that Britain should still retain the right of Empire over its former colonies?

Absolutely not. We do not want any part of Ireland.
But, we believe in people's rights to self determination. We need just a 1% majority from the people involved.
I doubt either of us will see that, sadly.

Allan, they may not vote Unionist but they still want to stay in the Union, as do many "nationalists."

Read the results of the surveys in my link, or the whole of Jim's article.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 04:04 PM

There is something VERY telling in your last post professor.

You refer to Unionist's as just that, Unionists, you refer to "Nationalist's" as "Nationalists"

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:16 PM

well my Irish roots go back to the 1930's and my family was involved on the fenian side.

however thankfully my grandparents had the wisdom not make that bloody nonsense the story of our lives. they didn't need a history book to see no possible good could come from inculcating hatred in young people.

if you want to go on with these two legs good, four legs bad mantras. that's your choice, but i really don't think you have the right to stand in judgement of those of us who choose to distance ourselves from this long running horror story.

If the Scots and Irish want no part of Brexit - they know where the door is. All the Irish have to do is agree with each other long enough to go through the door. some chance of that!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 06:48 PM

Yes Keith but my point was that although many people may currently want the status quo in Northern Ireland it does not mean that they are necessarily very strong unionists or that they would not accept the outcome of a vote! If we are to believe that social survey then 83% of the people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as very strong unionists and 71% do not see class themselves as unionist at all. Hence there is a softer underbelly of people supporting the status quo and no doubt a great many would at least theoretically be open to persuasion. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Hence of course people can campaign for that so I don't get "the people have spoken enough times on this" thing. Democracy doesn't end at one specific time. It is ongoing so people can speak about issues as much as they want. There can be major changes in opinion over relatively short periods of time. For instance at the start of the Scottish referendum no-one gave the Yes side a hope in hell and they were lagging well behind in the polls. Around the time of the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 they were only at around 30% and some had them in the 20s but by Sept 2014 they were hotting 49% in one poll and ended at 45%. So a massive swing to yes during the campaign itself. So with all that is happening there is every possibility that the support for a united Ireland could mushroom during a run up to a referendum. Especially as there is such a high proportion of people who don't class themselves specifically as either unionists or nationalists then both sides have potential voters in big numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:01 PM

"If the Scots and Irish want no part of Brexit - they know where the door is."

The SNP were pressed and pressed as to under what circumstances they would hold another referendum! Eventually they stated when that would be considered and it was included in their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections. When there was a major shift in public opinion towards Yes (which is I am sure is what they'd prefer) or if there was a major change and the example stated in the manifesto was if Scotland was to be taken out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people. The SNP won the said election and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives openly stated that it would be undemocratic for a British PM to block a second vote. The Scottish Parliament then voted to give the Scottish gvt the mandate to hold a second vote if they chose to and the motion was passed. However the British PM has blocked that for the time being. It will still likely come to a head at some point, but Al it is fine knowing where the door is - but if constitutionally you need the permission to open it from another parliament where you make up only 8% of the seats yourself then it is not quite so easy as you suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:14 PM

another parliament with a knife edge majority. i think if i wanted out i would chance my arm. start campaigning now!

i think it would be really exciting if the two countries departed. would Scotland reinstate a Stuart monarch? That would be something!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 17 - 07:24 PM

We do not want any part of Ireland."
Whoops - another referendum I missed !!!
How long have you been speaking for the British people Keith?
Stupid little man
"But, we believe in people's rights to self determination. "
Then why do you keep denyting what those rights are when you have been given the present situation?
"Allan, they may not vote Unionist but they still want to stay in the Union, as do many "nationalists.""
There oyu go again ignoring the figures
"Read the results of the surveys in my link, "
The result of those surveys have been pointed out to you - two thirds of the Republic want a United Ireland and its quite likely the North will equal that as Brexit shows what a complete shambles it has turned out to be
Why do you thin the Government has turned to a party with terrorist links for support - they no longer have an overall majority
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 01:48 AM

The official SNP policy is for the monarchy to remain unchanged though if independence came about I suspect it wouldn't take too long for that issue to be at least looked at to see if there was enough support for a republic in Scotland at large. There probably isn't at the moment. I don't think they'd be likely to dump the monarchy within this monarch's lifetime though. If they did it would be for a republic though rather than them choosing a new monarch.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:00 AM

Rag,
You refer to Unionist's as just that, Unionists, you refer to "Nationalist's" as "Nationalists"

I put them in quotes because they are Nationalists who want the Union.
I would do the same if discussing Unionists who wanted out of the Union.

Jim,
Stupid little man

Can we drop the silly abuse please Jim?

We do not want any part of Ireland."
Whoops - another referendum I missed !!!

Jim, NI is a vast money pit into which our national wealth has been squandered. I have never met anyone here who would not like to be rid of it. Have you? The British government never wanted it in the first place. They wanted the army to get rid of them, but they refused.

Allan, whatever your "Social Survey" says, we are still a long way from a majority against the Union in the North.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:07 AM

"Partition was forced on Ireland at gunpoint - "sign in three days or go to war" - the result was a brutal year-long civil war - not a lot of "collusion" there."

Utter nonsense and a total misrepresentation. Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations that resulted from a ceasefire called in the Anglo-Irish War - Of course if the agreement wasn't signed it would result IN THE RESUMPTION of hostilities - the "brutal year long CIVIL WAR you refer to had S.F.A. to do with the British Government it had everything to do with certain sections in the South of Ireland not agreeing with the deal that Good Ol' Dev sent Michael Collins to negotiate in London.

"The Unionists weer the first to introduce the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland, but the militants represented only a small minority"

The Unionists might have been the first to introduce (i.e. Import) the gun into 20th century politics in Ireland Jom - but the "Nationalists" who "imported" their own just a few months later were the first to use them - Nearly half a million Unionists signed their Covenant voluntarily whereas the Irish Volunteers numbered roughly 180,000. The vast majority of both volunteered to fight in the First World War against the Germans.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:32 AM

"Can we drop the silly abuse please Jim?"
Can you stop this hatred of the Irish Keith and answer the points honestly?
"Jim, NI is a vast money pit into which our national wealth has been squandered."
Northern Ireland was created by Britain in order to appease a sectarian group who were natural allies to British Imperialism
The Six Counties that were annexed were the most lucrative parts of the Island - that's why they were granted as settlements way back in history
Britain continued to profit from those counties from the produce of the land and from the industries that were developed there - the industrial North was an investment, not a "money pit" (statements like that earn you the description "stupid little man" every time you make them
The idea of Britain as a benefactor pouring money into a State out of the goodness of its heart is as stupid at it gets.
Unionist Northern Ireland has always been a part of Britain's right wing political strategy - hence the present deal which has cost the British taxpayer £billion as a bung - a bribe to give a political party support - the fact that this deal has been done with a party with terrorist links is an indication of British ruthlessness.
The party that Britain left in charge has shown its true mettle throughout its reign - sectatian violence, inequality, religious bigotry.... all part of the British influence
Your bleating about giving the people what they want has never taken the inequality and oppression Unionist brought to a sizeble minority of the people whose "rights" you shed your crocodile tears over
You have supported the sectarian violence by minimising it (and on one sick occasion, blaming it on "schoolchildren")
You have either justified it or, as you are doing now, refused to discuss it.
The idea that any country can rule another or part of another is now a historical anathema - you refuse even to acknowledge that fact.
You have denied the historical violence and the appalling misrule that has twisted and deformed six counties, and now you present it as an act of charity "a money pit"
Your ignorance and hatred of the Irish is a shining example of many centuries of British rule - it is the one valuable contribution you make to these discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 04:37 AM

Please note that the current SNP Government in Scotland has gone extremely quiet about a second Independence referendum - there is a very good reason for that - they know the answer would be a resounding NO. They have not resolved, or formulated answers to any of the "difficult questions" they failed to answer in the run up to the last referendum and with Leave winning the Brexit Referendum it makes answering those questions even more difficult.

Scottish trade is distributed roughly as follows:

15% with the rest of the world (Would remain unaffected by Brexit)
65% with the rest of the UK, primarily England (Would remain unaffected by Brexit)
20% with other EU member states

So economically and socially the Union with the rest of the UK is a damned sight more important to Scotland than any "union" with Europe.

Time lines for a second Scottish Referendum and an Independent Scotland rejoining the EU:

29th March 2017 - Article 50 triggered
29th March 2019 - Brexit negotiations concluded
Summer 2019 - Second Independence Referendum called for and agreed (Last one involved two years of preparation and campaigning)
Summer 2021 - Second Independence Referendum which hypothetically results in a YES vote (The previous timetable for Scotland to divorce itself from the rest of the UK was two years)
Summer 2023 - Scotland becomes and Independent country - it will either have a currency over which it has no control, or it will have to have established it's own brand new currency.
Summer 2023 - Scotland applies for membership of the EU - The EU will look at Scotland to measure suitability and compliance and advise Scotland on what must be achieved before membership can be applied for and for that application to be considered by each member state. (In the case of the Baltic States this process took 15 years)
Summer 2038 - Scotland finds itself an independent country?? and a member of whatever size, shape and form the EU has evolved into by 2038 which could mean that Scotland isn't independent at all.

Both Big Al and Keith A are perfectly correct in what they have said so far. Oh and just as an aside my first trip to Northern Ireland WAS to protect the "nationalist" Catholic population against the Ulster "unionists" and to oversee and ensure the disbanding and disarming of the RUC's B-Specials.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

"Both Big Al and Keith A are perfectly correct in what they have said so far"
Both have made racist statements - Keith consistently so - no surprise that you support it
Nothing in your meaningless list makes them in any way correct
Brexit will Northern Ireland detrimentally - your meaningless list carefully skates around that one
It is this fact that has brought The North and Scotland to leaving the Union
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:35 AM

here we go- racism again!
its such a cop out way of taking on no criticism.

what's all this about terrorist connections? you keep trotting that one out.
like the other side are devoid of terrorist connections.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 05:41 AM

"here we go- racism again!"
Never gone away Al
You have just descriibed the role of the British as keeping the fighting Irish from killing each other
That is racist stereotyping which goes back as far as at least the 19th century - a favourite of 'Punch Magazine'
"what's all this about terrorist connections?"
The ruling party - the DUP, had traceable links to the terrorist UVF - and is actively supported by them
"the other side "
Which "other side" to you mean - please say the Southern Irish and make my "racist" point for me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 06:15 AM

BTW
The right's dependence on Unionist support lies in the title of the ruling party "the Conservative and Unionist Party"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 06:18 AM

no i meant sinn fein.

i've never promulgated the idea that the English were in NI out of charity. merely that the english soldiers were being shot at by both sides, so the oft repeated idea from your posts that the average soldier had any more complex loyalties than 'a plague on both your houses' is a bit daft. they were as scared of the loyalists as the IRA. no one gives a shit about the beliefs of the guy with a gun pointing at them.

you've recommended i look at history books. can i recommend you look at the work of one of your greatest poets, Seamus Heaney. he was writing throughout the period. his insights and responses are just phenomenal so full of compassion and decency, and intelligence.

you confuse a more measured response for racism.

your harping on like some tedious rebel ballad. England as the pantomime villain. its not going to do either of our countries any favours. there are people out there who might believe you. i can't believe you believe it yourself. you've lived in England - you know its not full of people or politicians even who hate Ireland and the Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 06:50 AM

"no i meant sinn fein."
So inn Feinn hads been bunged a billion by Britain (or anybody)?
Didn't know that !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 08:44 AM

"Both [Big Al & Keith A] have made racist statements"

No they most certainly HAVE NOT Carroll - as well you, or anyone else reading what they written, knows. Flinging out accusations of ".....isms" and "....ists" is your standard tactic against anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you in the slightest degree.

"Brexit will Northern Ireland detrimentally - your meaningless list carefully skates around that one
It is this fact that has brought The North and Scotland to leaving the Union"

You must be privy to far better information than anyone else on the planet then Jom because aat present no-one knows for certain whether the results of Brexit will be beneficial or not for whoever. One thing though Jom which must really grate your gears is that it might well be economic and trade considerations that ultimately unite Ireland as opposed too a bunch of "bombers" and clowns in masks waving AK-47s about.

As far as "facts" go Brexit has not brought anybody as yet to leave the UK. It is however a fact that Brexit has brought the UK into leaving the European Union - or was that the one you were referring to Jom?

Oh here is another FACT for you Jom - No political Party in Northern Ireland has been "bunged" anything - the GOVERNMENT of Northern Ireland has been granted an additional £1bn of funding for various projects, I will not bother listing them here, as they were detailed in newspaper reports - NONE OF IT WENT TO THE DUP. If you wish to maintain the myth that it did then prove it or STFU.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 08:56 AM

well it looked like a bung to most people, Terry. fair does..?

would they have got the support without a bung...according to Jim the tories are still calling themselves the unionist party in their title. i thought they'd dropped that. if that's right they were in the pocket from the start. but surely its a spoonful of sugar, with a bit of amphetamine in the right horse for their right result.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 09:25 AM

Jim,
Can you stop this hatred of the Irish Keith and answer the points honestly?

Jim the liar again.
You resort to lying about me. I have no hatred and have never expressed any.
If I have, quote me liar.

Both have made racist statements - Keith consistently so

Quote one then liar.
The very worst one, liar.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 11:08 AM

"Jim the liar again."#
Keith the denier again
Anybody who describes a nation's children to be "brainwashed to hate" has made the most hate-filled statement I have ever encountered.
Wanna deny you claimed this/
You were asked to describe this hate - you could not
Wannna claim this is a lie?
"No they most certainly HAVE NOT Carroll -"#
See above for Keith's - yours is in describing the Irish as celebrating mass murder and claiming they never relly wanted independence but were connned into demanding it by foreigners.
"bunch of "bombers" and clowns in masks waving AK-47s about."
Describing those demanding what is justifyably theirs by right - is pretty racist
Sure - gunmenn have been part of the call for peace, but Ireland didvided into two halves in a Civil War because of partition - wonder how many of those were "clowns in masks waving AK-47s about."
Plenty more, but that'll do for now
"he results of Brexit will be beneficial or not for whoever."
The Bank of England has said that Brexit will effect the incomes of all concerned for the next decade
No need to wait for a result - the question of the border and the peace process is already an issue
The Bung was to support the failing DUP (and possibly to pay off the forthcoming corruption trial)
"well it looked like a bung to most people, Terry. fair does..?"
That is what it's being described as
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-dup-deal-billion-pound-bribe-magic-money-tree-criticism-latest-a7809416.html
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 11:13 AM

Keith I have never suggested that there is a majority for a united Ireland. Simply stated that there is room for change to opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 11:24 AM

Sturgeon hasn't gone quiet on the referendum as such. The plans are still to hold one certainly if Scotland is taken out of the single market. It is the timing that has been confirmed as being once the results of the Brexit negotiations are clearer. I think Teribus is right in that she probably doesn't want one too quickly and probably never wanted one too quickly. Rather than being taken into the situation by the manifesto commitment re the change to our EU status, I am sure they would rather have played the long game as they have done for years. Unless there is a sea change in opinion (which I admit can happen) then sheer demographics mean a Yes majority will likely come about at some point as the older voters are replaced by younger voters. In Scotland the division between Yes and No is not so much sectarian like Northern Ireland can be. Much of it is age related. Supposedly about 70% or above elderly voters are No supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 11:29 AM

Big Al on page one of the 2017 manifesto they state it is the manifesto of the Conservative And Unionist Party


https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 11:59 AM

"i thought they'd dropped that."
I had to, but it's immaterial Al
Throughout the terror o the Unionist Government, they have been "the Conservative and Unionist Party" - so all the inequality and repression is down to both of them
Now Britain just bungs them out of taxpayers money - wonder if the Tories will declare it as election expenses!!
That is its purpose - to make up the numbers lost by an ill-judged election
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 12:25 PM

"Anybody who describes a nation's children to be "brainwashed to hate" has made the most hate-filled statement I have ever encountered.
Wanna deny you claimed this/"

Ruth Dudley Edwards certainly did.

Previously I also directed you to the television documentaries made for RTE about the disastrous border campaign fought between December 12, 1956 and February 26, 1962 - a complete and utter farce. The young "volunteers" from the South "brainwashed" into believing that they fighting to "liberate" the North were absolutely astonished to discover the ferocity with which their attempts at "liberation" were rejected by the people from the North. I used the word "brainwashed" above there Carroll because that is what some of the "veterans" claimed in interviews in those documentaries. As these programmes challenge and refute some of your dearly held myths you obviously did not bother watching them.

"yours is in describing the Irish as celebrating mass murder and claiming they never relly wanted independence but were connned into demanding it by foreigners"

It was you who claimed that the Irish Government were "celebrating" the events of the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Week Uprising. I, on the other hand pointed out to you that in all official statements regarding the events the word used was COMMEMORATION - different thing entirely Jom.

Ah so Chief O'Neill never went to the Spanish for assistance in his war against the English? The price by the way was not Irish Independence but that Ireland would be come a colony of Spain and that O'Neill be appointed Viceroy. Oddly enough at the time England was at war with Spain.

Wolf Tone never went to the French to seek assistance in his rebellion at a time when Britain and France were at war?

The seven men who in secret in 1914 decided to mount an armed rebellion in Ireland at some point during the First World War did not send Sir Roger Casement to Germany to seek German assistance in this proposed rebellion?

Odd thing is, Jom, that there is documentary proof that all of the above took place, and the thing that thwarted ever single one of them was the Royal Navy.

Ireland was offered Home Rule in 1914 and again after hostilities in Europe had ended in 1920. The North accepted Home Rule in 1920 it was rejected in the South and a war was started which rapidly stagnated into a stalemate in the summer of 1921. A ceasefire was arranged and negotiations begun. The whole of Ireland was declared as independent in December 1922. Within 24 hours of that happening the Parliament of the North of Ireland exercised it's right to cede from the Irish Free State and rejoin the Union with Great Britain. You Jom, would appear to be a man who only selectively champions the right of self determination of people. A man who believes that people can be bombed and terrorised into a Union they want no part of.

Had the people of Ireland accepted Home Rule and Dominion Status both North and South as was offered in 1920 then Ireland more like as not would have been united and as independent as Canada, Australia and South Africa in 1931. Instead the mugs chose the gun.

"The Bank of England has said that Brexit will effect the incomes of all concerned for the next decade"

Dare say it did Jom - seems rather a good case of stating the fuckin' obvious to me. But you see Jom, Brexit is not just a one sided thing is it? But from the way things are being reported it would appear that it only affects the UK. The EU loses it's second largest net contributor (Effect here is that the others will have to up their subs to make good the shortfall if it wants to continue on a "business as usual" manner) and it loses one of it's best customers (The UK buys more from the EU than the UK sells to the EU).

"The Bung was to support the failing DUP"

Any proof of that Jom? Or is it more of your famous "Made-up-Shit".

As far as I am aware not a penny of that £1bn has been transferred to anybody and not a penny of it has been spent. If you want to state anything different then please prove it.

The link to the Independent article states:

"the agreement boosting health, education and infrastructure spending in Northern Ireland, as well potentially handing Belfast new tax-raising powers"

Sound like a "bung" to any particular party to you Jom? Big Al?

"the full amount of money would only be delivered if Sinn Fein returned to power-sharing in Northern Ireland, breaking a three-month deadlock at Stormont."

Also from your link Jom. Sounds a bit of an odd condition to put on a "bung" to the DUP don'tcha think Carroll Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 12:37 PM

Jim, T is right.
I knew little about it, but quoted Irish historians who said that it was so.
That does not make me a racist!

Why do you always have to make these things personal?
Why not just discuss the issues without making accusations and being abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 01:34 PM

"Ruth Dudley Edwards certainly did."
Ruth Dudley Edwards is a self-described "revisionist historian", a right-wing crime-writer and journalistwith a good, protestant education at UCD, an apologist for Britain's atrocities during the war of independence
Your reference to the Border Campaign was as irrelevant to your racist description of the Irish as it was when you first made it
You may quote who you waqnt but in order to describe the children of Ireland as hate filled, you need to specify how that hate manifests itself
No serious historian has ever described Irish Children as "brainwashed" - that is the language of racists such as yourself.
"It was you who claimed that the Irish Government were "celebrating" the events of the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Week Uprising."
The events of 1917 were not mass murder - and not considered such byy anybody other than racists such as yourself.
It was a rebellion which eventually brought partial freedom to Ireland and set in motion the fall of The British Empire - an act of International self-determination
Only jingoists like yourself fail to recognise that fact.
Any proof of that Jom? Or is it more of your famous "Made-up-Shit".
One of the alternatives being put forward at present is direct rule from Westminster - proof enough for me
The rest is your usual bullshit
"Sound like a "bung" to any particular party to you Jom?, Big Al"
THere's a hell of a lot of peole regard it as such - left, right and centre
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/27/tuesday-briefing-bung-parliament-mays-1bn-bill-for-dup-support
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/821441/Theresa-May-DUP-deal-Northern-Ireland-Wales-Welsh-First-Minister-Carwyn-Jones-Plaid-Cymru
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gove-denies-controversial-1bn-deal-with-dup-is-a-bung-1.3140807
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-dup-tories-conservatives-1-billion-deal-in-power-marr-show-brexit-a7819016.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4658074/DUP-leader-flew-Belfast-20-000-RAF-flight.html
"Jom"
You never learn do you - your sttubu=id bullyiong tactics have led to your humiliating yourself over and over again, yet you still bully and bluster
I can't fight, but I can spit - eh?
"Carroll Carroll?"
Reduced to typos again eh - ah well, just as we were doing so well (not!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 01:54 PM

"I knew little about it, but quoted Irish historians who said that it was so."
You deliberately misquoted historians Keith and when it was pointed out to you, you continued to do do
The period covered by your "quotes" were up to the 12 years after independence, and even then, you didn't get that right - deliberately
But you could refdeen yourself by giving exampls of thet "brainwashing" of course - you were unable to last time
"Jim, T is right.
I knew little about it, "
At least you nearly got that right - you know "nothing" about it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 02:48 PM

they saying that one page 1 now, because they are toadying to the gang who will keep them in power.

its rumoured Theresa will dance the can can to The Sash Me Father Wore at the party conference.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Aug 17 - 06:31 PM

Well then Jom, a song from someone who most certainly was NOT "a self-described "revisionist historian", a right-wing crime-writer and journalistwith a good, protestant education at UCD, an apologist for Britain's atrocities during the war of independence" - Dominic Behan:

The Patriot Game

(The Song Jom is all about those who joined to fight "Up North" in the Border Campaign 1956 to 1962)

Come all you young rebels and list while I sing
For love of ones land is a terrible thing
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame
And makes us all part of the patriot game

My name is O'Hanlon, I'm just gone sixteen
My home is in Monaghan there I was weaned
I LEARNED ALL MY LIFE CRUEL ENGLAND TO BLAME
And so I'm part of the patriot game.

Tell me Jom who was it that taught Fergal O'Hanlon in the song and Dominic Behan CRUEL ENGLAND TO BLAME

Oh Jom, here's the verse that the Clancy's would not sing:

This Ireland of mine has for long been half-free
Six Counties are under John Bull's Monarchy
But still DeValera is greatly to blame
For shirking his part in the patriot game

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 03:49 AM

Your pathetic point is.........?
I don't go to crime-writers or song makers for my history
If the Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain, then the Irish people, generation after generation, would hate Britain
As a whole, the Irish are a welcoming hospitable race, both at home and abroad - ask anybody who lives here or has spent time in their company
The Irish have every reason to hate Britain- centuries of oppression and contempt have given them every reason to
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/irish-butt-of-english-racism-for-more-than-eight-centuries-1342976.html
There is something ludicrous about two hate-filled extremist Little Englanders accusing anybody of hate when every word they type exudes hate and contempt - you are even incapable of conducting a simple discussion without attempting to talk them down -
"Well then Jom" - The Song Jom - Tell me Jom - Oh Jom, - (the contents of one short posting)
Your very presence oozes contempt and hate for anybody who disagrees with you
The pare of you are supreme examples of the hate and contempt for others you regard as inferiors
And you come here and tell us how others hate us
You are a pairt of pathetic racists - get a grip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 03:57 AM

Jim,
You deliberately misquoted historians Keith and when it was pointed out to you, you continued to do do

Not true. I quoted with links for there statements to be seen in their intended context.
One actually described what has gone on as indoctrination.

If I misquoted, produce the genuine quote. (Ha ha ha)

But again, why do you post accusations based on threads from years ago.
Are you incapable of debating the issue before us, referring only to what has been said in this discussion?

It should not be about me and your attempts to prove me some knd of "ist" by misrepresenting years old statements.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 04:08 AM

According to Kineally "nationalist myths" were taught instead of history, and according to O'Callaghan the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 04:13 AM

The issue first raised was:

"Just wondering why the athletics squad for us over here is referred to as Great Britain and Northern Ireland?"

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 05:03 AM

Yes, and if 'Team GB' represented not only England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and UK Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. maybe it's time for a new name. How about "Unites States of Britain". It would even avoid the problem of a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.
Customs could be dealt with electronically at any "USB port"


Boom tish!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 05:09 AM

"According to Kineally "nationalist myths" were taught instead of history,"
Kineally referred to what happened twenty years after independence, when, se said quite clearly, the education system finally caught up with many centuries of suppression of actual history
Irish history proper was never taught or properly researched uder British rule - even the language was outlawed
At no time has any serious historian claimed that "Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain" - as you arrogantly claimd - that is your Little Englander interpretation of what she wrote
You, like your arrogantly strutting mate, are typical of the British hatred of the Irish   people, and the fact that you express that hatred under pseudonyms and from a distance, makes you the "heroes" that you are.
The Irish aren't alone - you express the same hatred and contempt for other cultures - Muslims, Travellers - taking the behaviour of a few criminals and fanatics as being typical of the entire "implanted" people.
You are ludicrous - the pair of you - hate-filled little Englanders whining about how children have been "brainwashed" to hate you when your own strutting behaviour invites contempt
You are typical of the worst aspects of an English education and culture that taught us to despise and pity foreigners.
THe Irish don't "hate" us, but, given your behaviour as an example, there is every reason why they should
"But again, why do you post accusations based on threads from years ago."
Because your attitude comes to the surface every time we discuss other cultures
You have never withdrawn a single insult you have made of other races or cultures - it remains your attitude to foreigners
You pollute this forum with your hatred
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 05:12 AM

When the American people take to the streets to oppose their president, your obnoxious mate describes it as "whining"
What are you pair on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 05:35 AM

Jim, the priests told my cousin about the martyrdom of Roger Casement when he was seven.

Hate was in the curriculum. I'm sorry you don't get it. Truly sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 05:42 AM

Sorry All - how do you construe teaching history as it happened as "hate"
Do you think teaching The Battle of Trafalgar is about hating the French
Please don't be silly
Under British rule, Casement was criminalised and hanged - he was a hero
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 06:15 AM

he wasn't criminalised. he was a criminal for gawdsake! trying to get people to fight on the other side and bringing in guns to shoot at the home side's soldiers in time of war, is a crime. sort of Benedict Arnold crime - wouldn't you think?

anyway. they never told Bernard what he'd done. only that he was saintly poet, and that it was wicked cruel thing to do, which of course it was.

i know cos Bernard told me. Bernard and I shared a bed when we went to visit him. He was 7 and I was 6. It was a story he told me before we went off to sleep. Not being in possession of the facts, I couldn't give him much of an argument. Just as well, we'd probably have started fighting.

Which was presumably the aim of telling a small child that story. to get people fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 06:35 AM

Jim,
At no time has any serious historian claimed that "Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain

Yes they have and I have quoted them.
Turn to page 35-36 of this book. Unequivocal.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1LIYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=irish+school+education+indoctrinated+anti+british&source=bl&ots=6jFtelHfPN&sig=Nf3bTTHzwZiXECb8qnU_RoFW3tY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSs53kue_VAhUKCMAKHYsZBCUQ6AEIPDAD#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or the summary on page 60.

And, here is Kinealy saying the same.
" Accordingly, in many Irish schools, a heroic but simplistic view of Irish history emerged, a morality story replete with heroes and villains. This approach, however, was subsequently challenged by the Irish academic establishment. IIn the 1930s, a number of leading Irish academics—following the lead of British historians earlier in the century—set an agenda for the study of Irish history, which placed it on a more professional and scientific basis in terms of research methods and source materials. At the same time this approach also demanded the systematic revision and challenging of received wisdoms or unquestioned assumptions. What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 07:01 AM

For someone who frequently complains about his old posts being quoted back to him, and says such should not be used, it is quite ludicrous for that same poster to then use a statement about the way history may have been taught over 80 years ago.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 11:10 AM

i'm not that old. not quite!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 12:03 PM

Why is it ludicrous to respond to Jim's accusation that I am racist just because I repeated the findings of historians, or to demonstrate that Jim was wrong when he denied that I did?

It is a perfectly reasonable response to refute those accusations but
I do object to Jim dredging up these old forgotten discussions when they have no direct relevance to the current issues.
Why do you always do it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Aug 17 - 04:39 PM

Basically professor because time and time again you show yourself to be a bigotted, blinkered racist.

Any evidence that the Dublin government want a hard border yet?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:14 AM

I am not bigoted or racist Rag.
None of you have been able to find a single quote of me being bigoted or racist.
It is just something you say when you are trounced in debate and have nothing else you can say.
It is an admission of defeat.

Look at this discussion with Jim.
Unable to make a case for forcing Ulster from the Union against the will of the majority, he calls me racist against the Irish.
His justification? That I once quoted eminent Irish historians on aspects of education in Irish schools!

It is just something he says when he is trounced in debate and has nothing else to say.
It is an admission of defeat.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:18 AM

Oh there are loads professor but you just deny them.

No evidence for Dublin wanting a hard border, you didn't mention that bit ..............

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:25 AM

Oh there are loads professor but you just deny them.

I deny them because they are ludicrous.
Historians say that there has been "indoctrination" in Irish education.
Repeating that does not make someone a racist.
Of course I deny such nonsense.

The Republic will suffer if a hard border is imposed, but EU may demand it to punish GB. I quoted a Dublin minister saying he had reservations, and Dublin will have to do what the EU tells them to do.

A hard border if it is imposed will be imposed by the South, not the North.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:31 AM

No Dublin minister has stated any such thing nor have you quoted one.

You have mentioned people but have not given a single quote that even vaguely mentions a hard border being wanted by the Government in Dublin.

Your initial post was:

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU.

Now you have a choice, you can either provide evidence or withdraw your post.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 07:02 AM

He won't withdraw anything ever, Raggytash. What he's done is what he always does. He's made this all about him. It's his trolling hobby. We caught him good and proper with that silly throwaway remark about Dublin (making those is another of his vulgar, fraudulent habits). But never expect him to back down. Let's just lose.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 02:00 PM

The EU is threatening to impose a hard border.
The Republic is determined to remain in the EU and so will have to toe its line even though it will create hardship for Irish people on both sides of the border.
Deny any of that?

The quote I provided,
"Prime Minister Theresa May has said there should not be a hard border after Brexit, but Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan has voiced scepticism over the reassurances."
http://www.irishnews.com/news/republicofirelandnews/2016/10/26/news/new-irish-border-would-lead-to-increased-smuggling-says-bruton-755554/

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 02:06 PM

Steve, your personally abusive post was completely uncalled for.
Why not just ask me to justify my claim, something which you usually refuse to do but I always can.

"Dublin and the EU"

If EU wants a hard border, that has to be Dublin's line too.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 02:59 PM

I repeat your initial post was:

"Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU"

There is no quote from Charlie Flanagan apart from to suggest he voiced scepticism over Tereasa May "assurances"

That is not saying the Dublin Government want a "hard border" which is your claim.

When you can provide such ...................

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:14 PM

There is no quote from Charlie Flanagan apart from to suggest he voiced scepticism over Tereasa May "assurances"

Scepticism over assurances of an open border.

"UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU""

That is what I said and it is totally accurate.
Britain does not want it, but EU probably does.
The Republic is part of EU. What EU wants Dublin has to want too. Members of EU can not decide how their own borders are controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 17 - 05:21 PM

You are talking complete rubbish, Keith, and you know it. You said that that Dublin and the EU want a hard border. We've repeatedly asked you to support that VERY VERY VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD STATEMENT OF YOURS, Keith, but you can't. And we all know why you can't. Because it isn't true, Keith. Go ahead, Keith. Fudge and divert and dissemble and equivocate as much as you like. After all, that's what you've been doing for days now, ever since you said it and ever since we picked you up on it. Unfortunately, Keith, we are on your case. You think you're clever and devious, but we know that you're dishonest and disreputable. Thing is, though, Keith, you're a Christian. A follower of Christ. He said, let your speech be yea yea, nay nay. So how come us atheists can manage it yet you can't? Huh??

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 03:44 AM

It is not accurate though is it, you have no evidence that DUBLIN wants a hard border, none at all.

Everybody else seems to accept that apart from one Little Englander with known bigoted and racist views.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 04:02 AM

More abuse and even an attack on my faith now.
No wonder the forum is dwindling while vile abuse from Steve replaces reasoned discussion.
What decent person would willingly put themselves in the firing line for that, apart from me?

EU is threatening a hard border. Dublin is with them. Deny that?

UK says it does not want one, but Dublin's foreign Minister "expressed reservations."
Why? Because it can not stop EU imposing one, just to punish UK for leaving.
Deny that?

As I accurately stated, "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU""

Britain does not want it, but EU does.
The Republic is part of EU. What EU wants Dublin has to want too. Members of EU can not decide how their own borders are controlled.
Deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 04:19 AM

I don't have to deny anything, it is up to you to PROVE a statement you made.

I will repeat it just for you: "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just DUBLIN and the EU"

Now go away and find some evidence that DUBLIN wants a hard border.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 04:35 AM

PS

Who "expressed reservations" and about what exactly. No mention of "expressed reservations" up to now.

Another of your fantasies perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 04:45 AM

... "Both sides want to avoid a hard border ... " according to this.

But I agree with the 'magical thinking' comment. The U.K. wants all the benefits of a hard border in terms of control without actually having one. Wanting something and getting it are, as many a parent has told their child, quite different things.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 06:25 AM

I made a mistake. Sorry.
Dublin's Foreign Minister did not "express reservations" he "voiced scepticism "
Not much difference.
He was sceptical UK could achieve an open border because the other side, Dublin and EU, would not allow it.

EU is threatening a hard border. Dublin is with them. Undeniable fact.

UK says it does not want one, but Dublin's foreign Minister "voiced scepticism."
Why? Because it can not stop EU imposing one, just to punish UK for leaving.
Undeniable fact.

As I accurately stated, "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU"

Britain does not want it, but EU does.
The Republic is part of EU. What EU wants Dublin has to want too. Members of EU can not decide how their own borders are controlled.
Undeniable fact.

All that nastiness achieved nothing.
You lose again.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 06:31 AM

Your naivety is astonishing.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 06:35 AM

it all gets too personal.

i wish you could disagree without calling Keith and Terribus vile names. THey obviously think differently from most of us, and feel differently. But that is a privilege we enjoy being members of a decent liberal society.

most of us would be for the chop in several countries that exist on the globe - just for stuff we've said on mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 07:56 AM

The only I've called Keith is Keith. I've described him as dishonest, disreputable and Christian. I stand by all three and cite his behaviour in this thread ever since his blatantly inaccurate and unsupportable statement that the EU and Dublin WANT a hard border. He's playing his usual dissembling trolling game, Al, and he's enjoying himself. I'm amazed that he seems to have duped you into defending him.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 11:04 AM

Steve, your earlier post to me was one of the nastiest I have seen here.
Why?
You only wanted me to justify a sentence I used. A perfectly reasonable request. No issues. You could have just asked nicely.

I had no trouble justifying the sentence, so now you both look very silly indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 11:12 AM

"He was sceptical UK could achieve an open border because the other side, Dublin and EU, would not allow it"

What he was sceptical of was Teresa May saying there should not be hard border, not that Dublin wanted a hard border.

"Prime Minister Theresa May has said there should not be a hard border after Brexit, but Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan has voiced scepticism over the reassurances."

He was sceptical of the reassurances proffered by Teresa May.

Can you not comprehend the English language, Dublin do not want a hard border.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary ..........

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 11:26 AM

A hard border would be very bad for the Republic, but they have no veto and will have to agree to whatever EU wants.
The EU seems to want it, and the Republic will have to go along with it.

I was careful to refer to "Dublin and the EU." They are a block. What EU wants Ireland gets.

It is pointless you demanding they be treated separately.
My statement was correct.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 11:29 AM

You haven't justified it one scrap. And the first time we ask you to justify a statement you've made, a request that has to be made far too frequently as a consequence of your dishonest approach to discussion, we always ask civilly. You were asked civilly to back up your Wheatcroft balls-up and you were asked civilly to back up this. In both cases you utterly failed to do so, instead deciding to hedge and ditch around in order to demonstrate that Keith speaketh ex cathedra at all times. Our civil requests generally trigger a tirade of evasions and dissembling from you. As in this case. You cannot remotely demonstrate that the EU and Dublin WANT hard borders. The best you can come up with is that one threatens it and the other has to tag along. In neither case, even if they are true (which they are not), does it have diddley squat to do with your declaration that it's what they WANT. The jury isn't even out on this. You made it up in order to bolster whatever case you were trying to make. Vulgar and fraudulent.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 11:33 AM

He's a bloody waste of bandwidth, Raggytash. And that's being kind. What an ego.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 02:16 PM

Steve, as you said, it was just a "throwaway remark" but you are so desperate to catch me out that you seized on it.
And failed!

I said, "
"UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU."

I was right.
UK said it does not want a hard border.
Dublin "voiced scepticism" knowing EU would not allow it.
EU is determined to punish UK and deter others from following us out.
Ireland is part of EU.

I got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

"Dublin "voiced scepticism" knowing EU would not allow it.
EU is determined to punish UK and deter others from following us out.
Ireland is part of EU"

Dublin voiced scepticism about Teresa May assurances, nothing more, nothing less.

Have you any evidence to show that DUBLIN, which was your claim, wants a hard border.

No, you haven't nor will you find any.

But as ever you will make this thread about yourself and your pathetic existence, and I know you will now bleat about "personal abuse"

You really are a sad little cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 04:29 PM

'sad little cretin'

i used to have a Latin teacher who called us names like that for not being able to remember lists of words that sort of stuff has resonances for me. we are all gentlemen of a certain age. do we really want stuff like that and the feelings it generates?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 05:32 PM

Who's bloody side are you really on, Al? We have here this moronic and dishonest individual who even a saint would rail against, and you have got it into your head that we need a good bollocking for "calling him names." You even expressed sympathy for poor Teribus a couple of posts ago fer chrissake, accusing US of calling HIM vile names. May I suggest that you readjust your mindset by reading a decent selection of Teribus's posts in recent weeks?   Get a grip, Al.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Aug 17 - 08:44 PM

i'm not giving you a bollocking. i never would.

i just wonder why ake, Teribus and Keith keep coming back for more abuse.

occasionally things get to me. like the business of the world war one generals. that really upset me. loads of my family - both English and Irish - got slaughtered in that business. and every town had loads of casualties from it when i was a kid, families blighted.....

but the world is full of people who don't agree with me. i've had more than a few years to get used to the fact.

no tv station or even radio station plays the music i like. no political party agrees with me about anything much.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 02:25 AM

Britain does not want or need changes to the border.
If they are imposed, it will be from the other side.
The side of the EU and the Republic.

That is what I am saying.
That is all I have said, and it is correct.
Calling me names does not change that, it just reveals you for what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 03:35 AM

well in truth Keith you have no reason to think you're privy to government thinking - as far as i know.

if Brexit ever happens, none of us really know how its going to work out. second guessing political situations is something we've all been wrong about. if we're honest. the unexpected is always on the cards.

who knows what's going to happen - perhaps the ulster unionist faction will demand having the border. perhaps Dublin will think - keep your stupid problems up there - it won't be the first time.

perhaps Corbyn will be elected and say it stops here. we are cutting NI free. Brexit won't work otherwise.

all kinds of things could happen. all kinds of extraordinary people could do and say extraordinary things.

the other side are too free with their insults. you are far too positive in your opinions, like you're some emissary from Planet Superior Knowledge.

theres an old Lancashire saying - when you get down to it, none of us know nowt! THink on la!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 03:55 AM

"Britain does not want or need changes to the border.
If they are imposed, it will be from the other side.
The side of the EU and the Republic.
That is what I am saying.
That is all I have said, and it is correct"

But that is not all you have been saying, you said clearly:

"UK does not want a hard border Jim, just DUBLIN and the EU."

You have no evidence that DUBLIN wants a hard border.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 06:12 AM

We can only keep saying it, Raggytash. He is the king of denial, generally of the things he has plainly said in black and white himself. His last post is a typical example of his twisting and turning. There are bigots, nutjobs, obsessive, head-bangers and wearers of blinkers aplenty on this forum, as in the real world. But this guy is without peers when it comes to dishonesty. I don't think he can see it too clearly, because he's utterly dishonest with himself first and foremost. It's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 06:28 AM

I know Steve, I watch Irish Television, I read Irish newspapers, I listen to Irish radio. Since Brexit was announced not one single member of the Dail has ever suggested that Dublin want a hard border.

Not a single one.

Simon Coveney the Irish Foreign Minister said "Any barrier or border on the island of Ireland in my view risks undermining a very hard-won peace process and all of the parties in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist or nationalist, recognise that we want to keep the free movement of people and goods and services and livelihoods."

Leo Varadkar the Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach) said he and his government did not want to see any kind of economic border on the island of Ireland when the UK leaves the European Union.

Not a single person has spoken even vaguely suggesting the Dublin government want a hard border.

That SHOULD be easily understood.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 09:54 AM

I am not "privy to government thinking" Al.
The PM stated it publically and it was widely reported.
UK does not want or need any change to the border.

When she said that, Dublin's Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan voiced scepticism over the reassurances. UK might not want or need changes but his side might.


Not a single person has spoken even vaguely suggesting the Dublin government want a hard border.

Dublin will have no say in it. Dublin gets what the EU wants.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 09:57 AM

you are far too positive in your opinions, like you're some emissary from Planet Superior Knowledge.

Just like Steve, Jim, and Rag then.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 10:10 AM

You can buy Mammoth tusk dirt cheap if you don't mind dark discolored ivory that still smells like cadaver.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 11:04 AM

"Charlie Flanagan voiced scepticism over the reassurances. UK might not want or need changes but his side might.

"Dublin will have no say in it. Dublin gets what the EU wants."

So his side might "want changes" but Dublin gets "no say." To Keith, this adds up to "Dublin wanting a hard border." We have now moved into high comedy.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 11:37 AM

Your twisting my words in comedic.

UK does not want a hard border according to the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No such statement from EU leadership.

If a hard border is imposed it will not be on the UK side.
EU will decide if there is one, but it will be Dublin uniforms behind the barriers.
A hard border will cause hardship on both sides of the border, but the other 26 governments only want to make sure that UK suffers so others do not follow.

UK on one side. Ireland/EU on the other.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 12:50 PM

Well Big Al, what can you say to that.

The professor has taken Charlie Flanaghans scepticisms over Teresa May comments regarding the border and decided with, no other evidence, that Dublin wants a hard border.

Please remember his EXACT quote was: "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU."

There is absolutely no evidence that DUBLIN wants a hard border. On Irish Television, Radio and press in the past 15 months not one politician has suggested any such thing.

I know you think that personal abuse should not come into the equation but as another poster once said what do you do with a "Thick c**t"

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 12:52 PM

I should add that he is clinging on to that one quote rather than lose face, he really is a sad little cretin.

Even his normal running mates are keeping out of this one.

No apologies for the abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 01:24 PM

"No such statement from EU leadership."

Precisely. No statement that they WANT a hard border. No statement from Dublin that they WANT a hard border. No evidence that either WANTS a hard border. But YOU asserted, without qualification, that they BOTH want a hard border. I'm a very simple man, Keith. I haven't twisted anything. I'm simply saying that you made something up, hoping to get it past us, and you are going to the ends of the earth to deny it. You are insulting and abusing us by taking that stance. You are assuming that we are too stupid to see through you. Well we're not. Vulgar and fraudulent. That's you through and through.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 01:27 PM

Theresa said she didn't want Brexit.

Now she is in charge of a government implementing Brexit.

What she says is....liable to change Keith.

its not worth arguing about.

talks concerning NI are never what they seem. Remember all the time THatcher was saying she didn't negotiate with terrorists and all the time she was doing just that in secret.

we simply don't know and we can't trust anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 02:43 PM

Al, it was a statement of the position of the UK government and UK negotiators from the Prime Minister.
It sets out our position to the EU Brexit negotiators, the country and the world.

Steve, if no-one wants a hard border, there will not be one and there is no issue to discuss.

We know UK does not want one, but the indications are that EU does. They refuse to discuss it.
If they were content with the status quo why would they not say so as UK has?

Rag, I did not employ a team of lawyers to draft my post. As Steve said, it was a throwaway remark.
I did not expect you two to scrutinise every word for meanings I never intended.
I see where you misunderstanding crept in.

I said, "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin and the EU."

I withdraw and apologise for that statement.
Instead, insert, "UK does not want a hard border Jim, just Dublin/EU."

Dublin has no veto and is one out of 27.
Effectively it has no say.
What EU wants, Dublin gets.

There are only two sides on this. UK who do not want a hard border, and EU who are showing every indication that they do.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 02:58 PM

If you take Dublin out of the equation we JUST might be getting somewhere.

As I have already stated not one single person in the Dublin government has expressed one single remark to suggest that Dublin wants a hard border.

Not one single quote from any single person.

So if withdraw Dublin from your post we can draw a line under the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 17 - 03:06 PM

Agree Rag.
Dublin will have no say in how its border will be operated.

EU dismiss the idea of no border posts.

The Independent
"It(UK) suggested there should be no border posts on Northern Ireland's border with the Republic of Ireland border, which has almost 300 crossing points, but that a mix of technology and physical checks should ensure big businesses were complying with customs rules. 
Labour at the time branded the idea a "fantasy frontier" and said the proposal lacked practical detail.
Speaking to reporters, the senior EU official also dismissed the idea.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-negotiations-talks-northern-ireland-border-magical-thinking-eu-david-davis-paper-theresa-may-a7913056.html

EU dismiss the idea of no border posts.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 02:27 AM

I know I am going to regret asking this but you said "It(UK) suggested there should be no border posts ... but that a mix of technology and physical checks..."

Where are those physical checks carried out? A temporary border post put in place for a day many have worked before the era of mobile phones, but as a means of ensuring smuggling is not going on it is fair to describe it as 'fantasy'.

And pointing out the proposed approach would not work is not to say I want a hard border: I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 02:29 AM

theres going to be a wall, and the Mexicans will pay for it

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 03:14 AM

The reality is that nobody has a clue as to the border being hard or soft after Brexit. The entire issue is still up for grabs. Personally I see a hard border being introduced more out of EU spite than common sense. A hard border will pose far more of a problem for Ireland than the UK.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/taoiseach-very-confident-no-border-controls-after-brexit-457836.html

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 04:02 AM

One of the strongest 'NO!!!' moments for me in the lead up to the Brexit vote was hearing Andrea Leadsom wave away discussion of the Irish border as a non-issue. Her case was that as we had a border pre-EU which worked (-ish), there would not be any difficulty doing that again. Brain not engaged, in my view at the time, and it is certainly turning out that way.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 04:28 AM

The reality is that nobody has a clue as to the border being hard or soft after Brexit.

The British side is clear that it does not want or need border posts.
Nobody has a clue what EU will agree to, but they do not want us to benefit from Brexit.

There has always been some smuggling across that border.
The paramilitaries raised millions by smuggling fuel at one time, and tobacco smuggling is still rife.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:01 AM

When I said "ensuring smuggling is not going on", I freely admit I chose the words carelessly. It is not a binary matter (it happens or not), but a quantitive one (how much does it happen).

So while Keith is right that 'some smuggling' has always gone on across that border, what matters is the amount, not whether it does.   And standard security analysis says if you want more control you have to harden the border, but if you are willing to accept a greater degree of cross border crime, you can soften it.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:11 AM

you keep saying that Keith - the British side is clear.

you've got a bloody funny idea of clarity. and the main ruling party has been running round like a headless chicken for decades on this very issue of Europe.

the idea that John Redwood and Theresa May would have similar views about anything regarding Europe is crazy. Both factions have some sort of claim to the middle ground.

how this translates into reality...god alone knows. and he's not letting on.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

"A hard border will pose far more of a problem for Ireland than the UK."

I'm not sure about that statement Iains. The 2016 cross border trade from the Republic to the North amounted to 9.1 Billion.

The cross border trade from the North to the Republic was 13.6 Billion.

Together with all the other imponderables it is not clear who, if any, will benefit most and who, if any, will suffer most.

Border Control

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:23 AM

I hope Brexit does not reopen old wounds. The article below outlines the possible issues along with the history.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/23/northern-ireland-brexit-border-old-wounds-troubles

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:27 AM

One bit of the article which made me smile was:

"Critics pointed out that the absence of border checks would appear to contradict a key aspect of leave campaigners' pledge to "take back control"

A bit of a kick in the pants to some I would think, Farage, Gove, Johnson et al.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:46 AM

Unfortunately the British side is not clear as some would believe. As Iains link states:

"In the EU referendum, Northern Ireland voted Remain by a majority of 56% to 44%. THE DEMOCRATIC UNIONIST PARTY, WHICH VIEWS THE RETURN OF A HARD BORDER AS REINFORCEMENT OF BRITAIN'S LOYALTY TO NORTHERN IRELAND at a time of increasing uncertainty about the future of the United Kingdom, will place Brexit at the heart of its general election campaign" (my highlights)

Now that the government has to rely on the DUP for support who knows what may happen.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 06:06 AM

"Taking back control" was just one of the more brainless pro-brexit slogans. Now that the net immigration figures are plummeting, the phrase is redundant as far as controlling immigration is concerned. It never was an issue as far as taking back control of our laws, as all bar an infinitesimal number of EU laws were agreeable to us in any case. It seemed to me that every high-profile pro-brexiteer had been instructed to chant the slogan at least four times a minute. The tragedy now is that we have lost control over the outflow from the country of doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers and the other highly skilled people that we don't train ourselves. "Control of our borders" works one way only as far as people are concerned. Never mind. All those thousands of young people who are currently on "apprenticeships" (aka floor-sweeping and tea-making) on half the minimum wage will be able to step into the breach, I'm sure.

What a balls-up. Cheers, call-me-Dave. What a git.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 06:49 AM

"Now that the net immigration figures are plummeting" ...

We need to be a bit careful here. We have the number of immigrants, the immigration rate (1st differential) and the change in the immigration rate (2nd differential). As I read the figures it is the second differential which is unusually high, but it is the number of immigrants that those who do object tend to object to.

I remember Mrs T once heralding an achievement because of a change in the third differential of whatever it was.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 07:08 AM

" The tragedy now is that we have lost control over the outflow from the country of doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers and the other highly skilled people that we don't train ourselves."

Unmitigated rubbish! People came and went long before The EU was even dreamed of. Please give a link to the legislation where the UK prevented free travel of foreign nationals pre EU days.
And the idea that we do not train highly skilled people is a joke.
Perhaps a little rephrasing is in order?
and perhaps better research instead of quoting tired old ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 07:21 AM

Now that the government has to rely on the DUP for support who knows what may happen.

May made her statement under the current circumstances.

you've got a bloody funny idea of clarity. and the main ruling party has been running round like a headless chicken for decades on this very issue of Europe.

May spoke to clarify. All parties have their dissidents, but May is still the leader.
She said,
"Today, we publish a position paper which sets out how we want to approach these and other issues in the negotiations."

"I hope people in Northern Ireland and Ireland will see the UK Government is determined to protect the unique arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and the wider relationship between the UK and Ireland. Protecting your citizenship rights, and protecting the Belfast Agreement, are at the heart of our approach.
On the citizenship rights guaranteed by the Belfast Agreement, our position is clear. Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, but it is also the permanent birthright of the people of Northern Ireland to hold both British and Irish citizenship.
This will remain the case, and people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens will remain EU citizens. The UK wants this guarantee confirmed alongside the other aspects of the Belfast Agreement as part of our withdrawal agreement with the EU.
We also want the EU funding that has helped victims of the Troubles and cross-community groups to continue at least until the current programme finishes.
We then want to go further, and explore a potential future programme of peace funding after we leave the EU.
This will need to be agreed between the EU, along with the UK and Irish Governments, but I have always said that as part of the deep and special partnership I want to negotiate between the UK and the EU, there may be specific and valuable EU programmes for which we want to agree the continuation of funding. Peace funding in Northern Ireland is one of them.
For those concerned about freedom of movement across Northern Ireland and Ireland, our proposal is clear: we want to maintain the reciprocal arrangements for the Common Travel Area and all the rights for our citizens that have existed in some form since 1922.
It allows British and Irish people to move freely across our islands, and is at the core of the deep social, cultural and economic ties that link us together.
It goes beyond just the ability to move between our islands without passport controls, and also means guaranteeing continuing rights for UK and Irish nationals to work and access public services.
We believe it is inconceivable that it could change, and we believe that can be agreed early in the talks.
Of course making sure the border remains as seamless as possible isn't just about free movement of people. We need to ensure there is no hard border enforced on the movement of goods.
While the UK will no longer be a member of the EU customs union, we have set out plans in this week's paper on customs to seek a deal that allows for the most seamless possible movement of goods between the UK and EU.
This is especially important for the movement of goods, not least in relation to agriculture. As Michel Barnier has said, we will need an unprecedented approach for the border here, and this will mean careful work and imaginative approaches but today we set out our key principles.
The first of those principles is stark: there should be no physical border infrastructure of any kind on either side of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I want people to be absolutely clear: the UK does not want to see border posts for any purpose.
There are other vital issues we want to address: preserving North-South and East-West cooperation, and making sure the all-Ireland energy market is protected. All of this work only underlines the importance of getting the Northern Ireland Executive back up and running. That is an urgent goal for me and Secretary of State James Brokenshire. And it is one the Irish Government shares.
Today I want to reassure everyone in Northern Ireland, that the UK leaving the EU will not jeopardise things you value profoundly.
Your citizenship rights are permanent and inviolable; you will be able to work and live in Northern Ireland and Ireland exactly as now on a reciprocal basis; and we do not want any border posts between Ireland and the UK.
In addition, there can be no question of imposing a new customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That would be totally unacceptable to the UK Government.
I am determined to deliver a good Brexit deal for the whole UK, and my first priority is protecting the unique and special relationship between the UK and Ireland."

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 07:31 AM

1. Teresa May spoke earlier this year and said there would be no General Election.

What May says and what May does are not necessarily the same thing, that truth applies to most politics and politicians.

2. "The first of those principles is stark: there should be no physical border infrastructure of any kind on either side of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I want people to be absolutely clear: the UK does not want to see border posts for any purpose"

How on earth is she going to equate 2. with the DUP's stance of:

"The Democratic Unionist Party, which views the return of a hard border as reinforcement of Britain loyalty to Northern Ireland"

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 09:51 AM

Steve Shaw - 26 Aug 17 - 05:32 PM

"Who's bloody side are you really on, Big Al?"

Thanks for asking that rather childish and idiotic question "Biologist" Steve. Reveals and speaks volumes about you.

By the way WE WILL see exactly what happens with regard to the border in Ireland - but it will be decided by Brussels and London - Dublin no matter what they want will be told what to do by Brussels - it's one of the main reasons the electorate of the UK decided to leave - It should be up to sovereign independent countries to decide what type of borders and border controls they have - not some remote, unelected "commission" sitting elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 10:02 AM

There you have it.

A reasoned, well thought out, eloquent and intelligent resume of the picture.

Absolute Bollocks of course, but our resident oracle knows all.

Please feel free to put fuck into that last sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 11:29 AM

May is the leader. But only because Gove stabbed Boris in the back. She doesn't believe in Brexit - doesn't understand the faction of her party that does.

her hold is very fragile. if she had won the election convincingly, you could say with some confidence that she was in charge, as it is who knows how long she will keep this wonky wagon on the road.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

It is not just May herself speaking personally Al.
This is the UK policy for the negotiations.

"Today, we publish a position paper which sets out how we want to approach these and other issues in the negotiations."

Not the "Royal We."
That is the stated position of the UK government, agreed by the UK government.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 12:18 PM

That may be the stated position but how do they get the DUP to go along with it.

As the DUP effectively hold the balance of power any "stated position" could have the same chance as a snowball in hell.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 12:37 PM

You haven't a clue as to why the people voted to leave, Teribus, because they were asked only if they wanted to leave or not, not why. As for this Dublin thang, Keith said, without qualification, that the EU and Dublin WANT a hard border. We want to know what evidence he has for that. We know now that the answer to that is that he hasn't got any evidence. Nothing to do with what the EU might force Dublin to do. He clearly stated that Dublin WANTS a hard border. Why don't you read the thread properly before doing your feet-first Johnny-come-lately stunts?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 01:48 PM

"You haven't a clue as to why the people voted to leave, Teribus, because they were asked only if they wanted to leave or not, not why."

Oh Dear, wrong again!

Sovereignty

On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting. This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK".

Immediately prior to the vote, Ipsos MORI data showed that Europe was the third most highly ranked problem by Britons who were asked to name the most important issues facing the country, with 32% of respondents naming it as an issue.
Immigration

Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."'

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 01:58 PM

Steve, as I explained, I refer to EU/Dublin as a block because the nature of the border will be decided by EU.
Even Rag has accepted that.

I acknowledged from the start that a hard border will be detrimental to the Irish on both sides, but Dublin gets whatever EU decides.

And we do have a clue that border sovereignty was an issue for many voters because surveys found it to be and it was a major item of the leave campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 03:29 PM

Ah well Raggy, that's the trouble with "Biologist" Steve's SIDE - you fuckers wouldn't know Reality if it jumped up and slapped them about the face with a dead Flounder.

However, as usual, with you and your pals, while deriding something as being "bollocks", you somehow always seem to be unable to pick any holes in the line of reasoning or argument.

As someone who claims to read and listen to "news" from Ireland you seem to have forgotten that on two previous occasions the electorate of Ireland has said "NO" to the EU and on both occasions the EU told Ireland what to do and the Dublin Government secured the vote that the EU wanted and the electorate of Ireland did not.

What sort of border there will be between the EU and the UK will be dictated by the EU as far as their side of it goes ( - that Raggy is reality and another is that the Republic of Ireland is on the EU's SIDE ( "Biologist" Steve likes sides).

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

" 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. "
Keith
What Kineally said, in full
"interpretive distortions'
Your interprative distortions" referred to the fact that up to independence, no history including the Irish point of view was taught - none whatever.
Following independence, the new regime began to teach the bit that was banned - filling in the gaps and including the national Liberation struggles
These were filling in the gaps left by British censorship – the famine, the mass evictions, the forced emigrations, the land wars of the late 19th early 20th century, the centuries of national liberations rebellions – all the facts that had been left out of the British history books and had never taught in schools prior to independence
They were "simplistic" because, thanks to British administrations, they had never been deeply researched – they were there to give the Irish the culture that had been suppressed – no historian has ever at any time claimed that the facts were inaccurate, just that they were "simplistic".
This form of education, as Kinealy point out, went on till the late 1930s when, thanks to 'The Emergency', Ireland entered into economic crisis and needed a place to send its emigrants – Britain was the natural place to go
That's when the revisionists moved in and began writing history without blaming anybody 'value-free history'
All the bad deeds under British rule were totally ignored and an anodyne account was taught in schools
A typical example was that, up to that point, there was not a single work dealing with Ireland's great disaster - which included gross mismanagement, an accusation by the relief administrator that the famine was "God's Punisment"
The first book totally dedicated to "Ireland's Holocaust" ' The Great Hunger' did not appear until 1962, nearly 120 years after the events – and written by an Englishwoman, and that, while it castigated Britain for its cruelty, avoided political analysis – It certainly never CONTAINED ANY OF THESE DETAILS
It was not until the 150th anniversary of the famine in 1995 that Britain's role was examined in any depth and revealed the deliberate nature of the mismanagement.
The same with the 1917 uprising – it has taken a century to deal with it in any detail – now the Irish shops are full of scholarly studies.
Kinealy, who you quote without having read what she has to say , now totally supports Tiim Pat Coogan's view that the Famine was deliberately mismanaged. – but you have already agreed that
Britain has now officially apologised for its deliberate mismanagement o tha famine
For Christ's sake, if you are going to quote historians, read what they have to say instead of grabbing unrelated passages and quoting them out of context.
Irish historians are now back to examining Irish history in full and her Maj has all but apoliogised for history Britain's part in Irish history as a whole .
"It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss ... with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we wish had been done differently, or not at all." "It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss ... with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we wish had been done differently, or not at all."
MADGE SAYS SORRY
Al
If you believe Caement was a criminal, then so was Ghandi, Mandela, Moishe Dayan….. and every other national liberator who has fought for their country's cause
If any of you lot have any evidence that what was taught in schools was false – feel free to point it out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 03:45 PM

"but Dublin gets whatever EU decides."
Typical flag wagger
If Britain goes for a closed border Ireland gets the six counties back - even the North will not stand fro that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 04:30 PM

Up until 09.51am this thread had been fairly reasonable, tolerant and given the various protagonists polite, even the professor and myself have conducted yourselves with a good degree of sense.

However, one poster, who has in the past complained vociferously about personal abuse has posted:

"Thanks for asking that rather childish and idiotic question "Biologist" Steve. Reveals and speaks volumes about you"

and

"Ah well Raggy, that's the trouble with "Biologist" Steve's SIDE - you fuckers wouldn't know Reality if it jumped up and slapped them about the face with a dead Flounder"

This one poster has altered the entire tone of the discussion, the same poster who has objected so much to abuse in the past.

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 04:38 PM

"Steve, as I explained, I refer to EU/Dublin as a block because the nature of the border will be decided by EU.
Even Rag has accepted that"

Sorry KAOH I have not "accepted" that, although there MAY be some discussion to be had there.

The ONLY point I have argued is that DUBLIN does not want a hard border.

At present it would seem that the only party in this debate who DO want a hard border is the Democratic Unionist Party who hold the balance of power within the present UK Government.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 04:45 PM

"If Britain goes for a closed border Ireland gets the six counties back - even the North will not stand fro that"
Jim Carroll

Hope so Jom, but unfortunately what you state above is based on a founding assumption that to use Raggy's word is "Bollocks" because you see Jom - Britain is not going "for a closed border" as you put it. As Keith A has been at pains to point out it will be the EU who will dictate the border on the Irish side, not Britain, not London, not the Republic of Ireland, not Dublin.

But anyway the EU insist on a hard border, it is then up to the electorate of Northern Ireland to decide whether or not they want to be in the EU, and place that over all previous differences. They then call for a referendum, as is their right. They vote for Union and then the electorate of the Republic then get their chance to agree to that union with a referendum of their own. The Government of the Republic then get to take on an additional 1.8 million people along with all their advantages and problems. Irish unity would then have been brought about by concerns over trade instead of by the gun and bomb.

My guess? Northern Ireland will not vote for union over Brexit, they, like sensible people, will wait and see how it pans out. As for the electorate of the Republic I do not think that they will wish to take on the financial burden of the North.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:21 PM

Oh dear Raggy:

Raggytash - 27 Aug 17 - 12:52 PM

"I should add that he is clinging on to that one quote rather than lose face, he really is a sad little cretin."

How civil, pleasant and reasonable of you.

Raggytash - 27 Aug 17 - 12:50 PM

"I know you think that personal abuse should not come into the equation but as another poster once said what do you do with a "Thick c**t"

Another example of what Raggy thinks is "fairly reasonable, tolerant and given the various protagonists polite, even the professor and myself have conducted yourselves with a good degree of sense.

Raggy you are a complete and utter JOKE.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 05:36 PM

Would you like me to trawl back through your posts Teritowel.

I am confident that you are far more aggressive than any other poster on this site.

Ever thought of taking an Anger Management course?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 06:03 PM

I missed the bit where Ghandi toured POW camps and tried to persuade members of his ethnic group to fight for Germany. Or where he tried to import guns to kill Englishmen.

Obviously that was left out of our textbooks.

England's behaviour contrasts so dramatically with the wise compassionate line on traitors taken by the IRA.

I certainly had been told about the Irish famine of the 1840's by the last year of my primary school in 1960. We were also told about England's disgraceful behaviour towards the people of Ireland. It was in our textbooks.

the relentless line about the perfection of Ireland gets a bit wearing you know.
Even Keith and Teribus aren't daft enough to pretend that.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 06:08 PM

Actually, Raggytash, I rather like being called "Biologist Steve",though what biology has got to do with this thread does escape me somewhat. Anyway, to be called such a nice name by "Historian-manqué Bill" is rather a privilege. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Aug 17 - 08:47 PM

you get called all sorts of stuff on mudcat. sometimes you'd be made of iron not to get offended.

by and large. i suppose we ask for it - hanging round on this site. after a while you know which characters are going to trot out which insults.
basically theres two classic ploys to avoid saying 'you have made a fair debating point':-
1) gratuitous insult
2) cut and paste a load of garbage that no one has time to read

where does the biology jibe have its origins?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 02:31 AM

The "biologist jibe" Big Al comes from Steve Shaw boasting of his University degree and his specialisation in "The (in)glorious Twelfth" Thread. Where he attempted to academically intimidate and put down Iains who was absolutely slaughtering him in the discussion point by point - there was also something about Shaw's belief that:

- Heather (Calluna vulgaris), the sole species in the genus Calluna in the flowering plant family Ericaceae found widely in Europe and Asia Minor was not natural - On the other hand I do believe that the vast expanses of heather that can be found in Scotland are perfectly natural and that no-one planted them.

The thread which was proving to be very informative, in quite a number of ways, was closed for some obscure reason - ours not to fathom why.

Liked your point about debate indicators Big Al - Raggy has just demonstrated it perfectly. Having danced on the head of a pin over Keith A's "throw away remark" for long enough he reacted exactly in the manner described when the reality of the situation, i.e. that Eire is a member of the EU and will have to abide by the decision the EU Commission makes on the border between the North and the South when the time comes - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the other hand can have whatever border they want and decide upon on their side and, as Keith A has pointed out a definite statement has been made by the British Government that they wish to see no change in the nature of that border.

Also totally agree with you on the attempts to portray "Oirland" as being an idyll of peace, tranquillity, equality, harmony and prosperity in the days before the arrival of those nasty Normans.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:13 AM

in truth its more the repeated claims of total blamelessness of Ireland for its many problems that piss me off.

its so bleeding obvious that it kept worrying at religious differences that the rest of the UK was getting secular and sensible about. not only that - they export this trauma. my own mother was threatened by Irish priests as a child with hellfire and damnation, because for some reason she wasn't brought up like the other kids in the family as a Catholic.

I think she spent the rest of her life trying to compensate for that - trying to be as holy as her sister, albeit as a Quaker. guilt merchants!

on your other point. To state the bleeding obvious once again. THe UK can't have whatever border it likes. It has to reach agreement with people on the other side of the border. Which leads me to think - we should up sticks and leave them to it. They want to be part of the EU - great! Let 'em go for it!

whatever happens, they're going to blame us. being blamelees must be marvellous. i suppose its the burden of all that original sin - its got to be shared out somehow.

Steve has every right to be proud of his academic achievement. i wish i had a few more. i suppose the heather is a bit like the hydrangea and the coypu rat. welcome immigrants. if only we could get the hairy mammoth back on the same basis!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:28 AM

"Jom,"
My you really are an insecure little flower
Your bulling attempts to talk down people are living examples of little the Britain strutting that plundered the world for cunturies and left behind a legacy of destroyed cultures and impoverish people
Pakistan is at present remembering the million dead that partition brought to that part of the world
"it will be the EU who will dictate the border on the Irish side, not Britain"
It is the Little England, racist nature of Brexit that has brought about a situation of ruined economies and a possibly destroyed peace process.
Blaming Europe for the consequences and above all, the total incompetent way the Prime Minister has handled theses negotiations really is a joke.
Your "guess" as to whether the six counties will remain is on per with the amount of thought that has gone into this whole sorry affair, which has included billion£ bungs to political parties with terrorist connections at a time when the Government screams poverty whenever the health service is mentioned.
Your crowd has degraded Britain - its efforts on negotiation have become a daily running joke and any claims of democracy have become, like Woody Guthrie's soup - "so thin you could read a newspaper through it"
Rule Britannia eh !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:44 AM

"To state the bleeding obvious once again. THe UK can't have whatever border it likes. It has to reach agreement with people on the other side of the border."

Graphic illustration to disprove the above:

Eire - X to XX - Border - Northern Ireland

Where X = vehicle and goods checks, XX = checks on persons (Passport Control)

Everything on the Eire side of the border is dictated to the Irish Government by the EU Commission as the Republic of Ireland is an EU Member State and MUST abide by rules set by the EU Commission.

What happens on the UK side of the border is decided by the UK and as shown above that can consist of nothing (OUR choice - which is the whole point of leaving).

Your assumption on "Heather" is incorrect it is a species of plant life indigenous and native to the British Isles.

"Biologist" Steve can be as proud as he likes but what he has no right to do is to attempt to say in a discussion that "You cannot contradict me because I've got a degree in (whatever) and you must accept what I say". Which is basically what he did on that thread - Iains however stood his ground and subsequently demonstrated, with relevant links to back his argument up, that he did know what he was talking about.

The "Irish" have been fighting the "Irish" since the beginning of time (Note to Gnome and to Raggy in this context the phrase "the beginning of time" is merely an expression - it does not mean literally from the beginning of time). The very first thing they embarked on having won their "independence" was a civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:56 AM

The UK can't have whatever border it likes. It has to reach agreement with people on the other side of the border

That is true, but our aim is to achieve an open border, and if that is not achieved it will be because the other side does not want it.
That will hurt Ireland but EU is willing for its members to take a hit as long as UK is hurt too.

What they fear above all is UK emerging unscathed or more prosperous after leaving. They will accept a high price to be paid by remaining members like Ireland to avoid that.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:01 AM

Ah Carroll my little whinging scouser, to me, you will always be - Jom - an incoherent ranting prat who gets so apoplectic that he cannot even get his own name right.

Here by way of an example you have done yourself proud - a real "Jom" classic - "examples of little the Britain strutting that plundered the world for centuries and left behind a legacy of destroyed cultures and impoverish people - effin' Priceless!!!!

What legacy of destroyed cultures Jom? What impoverished people?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:01 AM

"Heather (Calluna vulgaris), the sole species in the genus Calluna in the flowering plant family Ericaceae found widely in Europe and Asia Minor was not natural - On the other hand I do believe that the vast expanses of heather that can be found in Scotland are perfectly natural and that no-one planted them."

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding both of what I said in the thread and of how plant communities come about. As I have no wish to "boast" about my academic prowess (oh, how the jealous and educationally-deficient do moan!), I won't belabour the thread with further explanations. Perhaps someone could be arsed to start a dedicated heather thread, in which I'd be delighted to put both "Historian-manqué Bill" and Iains right apropos of their lack of knowledge. Naturally, it would be an uphill struggle, as with any endeavour that has to begin at point zero, but I believe I'd be man enough to address the task.   

On the substantive, all we want to know is how Keith knows that Dublin WANTS a hard border. Stop shirking that very very very very VERY simple issue, Teribus. Otherwise you make yourself look like the willing captain of a ship of fools.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:07 AM

God, is he still at it?

"Your assumption on "Heather" is incorrect it is a species of plant life indigenous and native to the British Isles."

No-one has said any different. I haven't seen anyone making that assumption. You accuse others of being too apoplectic to get things right, etc., yet you yourself routinely misread posts, fail to follow threads before wading in feet-first and regularly completely misrepresent others. Go and have a lie down. The older you get, the worse you become.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM

That simple issue Shaw is relates to a question that you and your pals have asked of Keith A and I believe that he has fully explained it.

Now here is an equally simple issue for you and your pals to address:

The EU Commission dictates that hard borders must be imposed between the EU and non-member states - Does Eire as an EU member state comply with that ruling or is it free to negotiate it's own arrangements regarding the border between it and the UK?

Wonder how well they will cope with EU correspondence after we leave and English is no longer an "official" EU language.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:12 AM

no our aim is to leave the EU.

i was watching nigel lawson on late night telly a couple of days ago.

he was saying, that basically the remainers didn't understand that the game has moved elsewhere. the areas of rapid economic expansion in the world are the pacific nations and we have to get our relationship sorted out with these countries, tying up with Europe would screw that up.

its a point of view i hadn't considered.

either way - we can't afford to get bogged down with Ireland still re-jigging the Battle of the Boyne.

they've wanted independence for yonks. let them have it for gawdsake. they deserve each other.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:15 AM

Couldn't agree more with what you have stated in your last post Big Al.

The "game" has indeed moved on.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:30 AM

Dublin should tell the EU that if a hard border is to be imposed on them, they will leave too.
Perhaps, in private, they do.

Steve, of course Dublin does not want a hard border, but it is part of EU.
EU/Dublin does want a hard border.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:31 AM

"Ireland still re-jigging the Battle of the Boyne."
You seem to have found your level with out two Little Englanfders Al
May you be very happy together
"Ah Carroll my little whinging scouser, to me, you will always be - Jom -"
Yup - insecure as ever - with a lack of imagination that has never taken you beyond a typo for invective
To me you will be the epitome of the worst of a dead Empire and, from the looks of it, a Britain that has been sunk by its own self-importance and fear of anything foreign
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:38 AM

Steve Shaw - 29 Aug 17 - 04:07 AM

God, is he still at it?

"Your assumption on "Heather" is incorrect it is a species of plant life indigenous and native to the British Isles."

No-one has said any different. I haven't seen anyone making that assumption.

Now let us just refresh our memories shall we Shaw:

"Little if any heather moorland in the UK is natural vegetation." - Steve Shaw

Are you now denying that you wrote that Shaw?


In actual fact Shaw the UK possesses 75% of all the natural heather moorland left on the planet it is environmentally more endangered than the rain forest.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:40 AM

Well you never know Jom your new word "cunturies" might just make it into the new Irish dictionary

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:57 AM

Just for Teritowelling

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 04:59 AM

Think the likes of yourself and Jom would get more benefit out of it Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 05:27 AM

Not a pray Teritowelling, I seldom get angry about life and certainly not by things on this forum.

However, I am concerned about others, I do feel empathy, sympathy and sometimes pity with and for other people, I care about people.

I cannot recall one single post from yourself where such emotions have ever been apparent, that course on the link may do you a lot of good.

These might be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 05:36 AM

"Dublin should tell the EU that if a hard border is to be imposed on them, they will leave too."

Why would they? Only an idiot would vote to leave there EU.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 07:00 AM

"Think the likes of yourself and Jom "
Not just me then - you feel inferior to everybody
"cunturies"
More typos, - havve you really nothing more to offer othan these and a cowerdly behavior you would never dare present anybody face to face?
Grow up for Gods sake - cyber-blustering from the safety of distance and anonymity appears to be the level you have never risen above
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 08:05 AM

Jim I haven't called you a name.

You call me a Little Englander.

All I'm saying is that the endless litany of Irish blamelessness and English villainy...well if it doesn't insult your intelligence - it should do.

They're two countries. THey've tried living together. It doesn't work.

Time for a divorce. You get to keep the Eurovision Song Contest, the Euro, the Daniel O'Donnell cds.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 08:29 AM

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen_en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93Sweden_border

The issue of a border between the north and south of Ireland can be as simple or as complex as the participating sides want it to be.
Border controls have had no uniformity for a considerable time.
Norway is in the Schengen area but not in the EU and shares a long border with Sweden(EU member). The UK is in the EU but not part of the Schengen area.

Is the purpose of border controls to control the passage of people, or goods, or both? In recent years the supposed threat of terrorism has been used to suspend/alter the schengen agreement for various lengths of time.
To my mind having passport control at an airport is just to irritate people. The passenger manifests have a complete passenger profile before departure. Anyone flagged could be easily met at the gate, prior to the remaining passengers deplaning.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 10:35 AM

"You call me a Little Englander"
A reference to what you wrote
Your dismissive attitude to what I said is as good as name calling as far as I'm concerned and your refusal to respond to what I wrore is insulting
You described Britain's role in Ireland as keeping the fighting Irish apart - racist stereotyping, just as "still re-jigging the Battle of the Boyne" - and, "they deserve each other".
It is those who regard themselves as "British" who are still fighting 'The Battle of the Boyne' - Irish people walked away from that centuries ago, but it is still foisted on them every 12th of July by aggressive little men in bowler hats sporting Orange sashes and screaming "fuck the Pope"
It's about time that Britain took responsibility for such savagery rather than walking away from the mess they created.
If you want a discussion, be civil enough to respond to what people have to say or live with the consequences.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 12:38 PM

Rather off thread, but apropos "Biologist Steve". There was a cartoon in New Scientist a few weeks back where Satan is saying something like "Welcome, professor Jones. Let me introduce Mr Smith who once read something about your speciality on the internet and will be lecturing you about it."

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 01:17 PM

severely off topic. apropos biologist steve.
ALBERT EINSTEIN. In 1894, at the age of 15, he had dropped out of 'high school'—a classical gymnasium in Munich—and had spent the next year or so with his family in Italy.In 1895, he took and failed the entrance examination at the Eidgen ̈ossiche TechnischeHochschule (hereafter the ETH) in Zurich—Federal Institute of Technology He then spent a year in a Swiss high school, from which he graduated in the spring of 1896. That diploma permitted him to enroll in the ETH,which he attended until his graduation in the summer of 1900.He did not distinguish himself in the eyes of his teachers at the ETH, and his prospects upon graduating were poor. His determined efforts to attain a university assistantship were utterly unsuccessful. Equally unsuccessful were his efforts to find a job teaching in a secondary school. He survived for several years in a series of temporary teaching and tutoring jobs. Finally, in mid-1902, the father of his friend Marcel Grossmann helped him obtain a position as a patent examiner (Technical Expert 3rd class, to begin) at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, where he remained until 1909.
Not exactly a beacon of shining academic excellence was our Einstein.
He more than made up for it later.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 01:48 PM

would it be uncivil to point out that the much derided sash wearers, fuck the pope merchants and painters of murals depicting heroic merciless gunmen are your fellow Irish men?

actually, i thought you were English.

Most Irish people I know aren't as keen on the stirring the shit. however there seems enough of you pointing a finger at the other guy to make any outsider wonder where its going to end.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 02:03 PM

B Al W. Pointing out that they are also Irish rather destroys the pet narrative of our resident hate merchant that seems to use every opportunity to denigrate both the Irish and English.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 02:54 PM

there's no joy in winning an argument.

i've known good people - really good people - on both sides of the divide.

its too bloody easy to be calling names and perpetually finding fault.

they need to look for that goodness in their beighbours.

too often - they let the name callers and trouble makers set the agenda. you could say that about us, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:03 PM

"are your fellow Irish men?"
And how many times do I have to repeat that I AM NOT IRISH
A curse on all politically motivated religions wherever they come from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 05:36 PM

So, Iains. Will you now care to tell us what was the point of your Einstein post? Are you perhaps using his story to rubbish formal education? Are you promoting the idea that a degree in Common Sense from the University of Life is more valuable than the real thing? Are you saying that teachers are basically shit so who needs them? Are you hailing the cult of philistinism? Or are you jealous because you twatted around (or, more unkindly, were not really clever enough to make it) instead of working hard to get your academic qualifications, like Teribus? Do apprise us!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 07:43 PM

Now let us just refresh our memories shall we Shaw:

"Little if any heather moorland in the UK is natural vegetation." - Steve Shaw

Are you now denying that you wrote that Shaw?


In actual fact Shaw the UK possesses 75% of all the natural heather moorland left on the planet it is environmentally more endangered than the rain forest..."

It's tough, innit, Bill. Unfortunately, you have no idea what the word "natural" means in this context. Why not take it outside? Start a heather thread. I know you won't, because both you and I know that all you've said on this emanates from both your ignorance and your insecurity. Go on, give it a whirl. Start a heather thread and I'll take you to pieces. But not here. Wrong place entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 07:58 PM

She was so natural, was Heather
Never shaved under her arms
Oh what a raver!
She didn't use a shaver
I think that was part of her charm.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 08:30 PM

Stoppit, Al, you're getting my hormones flowing...

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 05:09 AM

"Do apprise us!"
Getting rattled Shaw? Do you seriously think you are the only person on this forum with a BSc, MSc, PhD, or chartered status? Your assumed superiority and polymathic skill set may have worked on your hapless, young and naive pupils, but in the real world where some of us work using real science, we find it best to retain a little humility. The passage of time and additional research has a nasty habit of overturning longheld beliefs.
As an example when Libby introduced carbon dating it was thought to be the bees knees. Relatively simple and accurate. Later research proved this idea wrong on both counts. Correcting C14 to produce accuracy is complex and ongoing.
I do not have the feeling of inferiority that I should need to quote half the alphabet after my name to give substance to my argument. I prefer it to rise or fall on it's own merit. You know the old adage Shaw: Those that can, do..................
Having been a consultant since about 1982 I do not have any need to prove anything, least of all to an insecure little man like you.
Unlike you I do not worship qualifications. They are useful, but many people without formal qualifications also make significant contributions to science. The net worth of the individual is far more important than the number of bits of paper he/she can wave around (and I do not mean financial worth)
As I have said to you before-learn a little humility!

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 06:06 AM

"learn a little humility!"
I take it this is a 'note-to-self Iains
The permanently arrogant tone of your postings indicates that it needs to be
"Pointing out that they are also Irish rather destroys the pet narrative of our resident hate merchant"
How so - surely it doesn'ty matter what colour shape or size bigotry presents itself in?
The only "hate merchants" here are those who preeminently display their hatred of the "brainwashed" Irish who were tricked into demanding what was rightfully theirs by "foreigners".
Pleae read, mark and inwardly digest the note yoyu have just written to yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 06:14 AM

The only yo yo posting is you jimbo

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 06:16 AM

maybe.....

i was always rubbish at academic stuff. Most days I am still haunted by the humiliations and punishments heaped on me by teachers.

struggled with everything 11 plus, o levels, a levels, teacher training cert., open university degree.

but it was a struggle. i don't think ever anyone accused me of being clever.

i always felt like i was in a game intended for someone else. someone cleverer than me.

we need the clever kids to be doctors and lawyers. but the system plays rough with the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 06:18 AM

I find it quite ironic that you choose to crow about your own University Of Life "qualifications" whilst decrying mine, which, as a matter of fact, I rarely think about and even more rarely mention. I'm very comfortable with mine, thank you, whilst your rather ranting post betrays your massive insecurities and, quite possibly, a touch of jealousy. Go on, tell us more about your consultancy work in your world of science. I promise not to accuse you of braggadocio. The science you throw at us, along with your rambling and irrelevant distractions about Einstein and radiocarbon dating, is unconvincing, relying far more on links that you don't comment on than on structured argument. When you do try to comment on the facts you generally argue from ignorance, same as Teribus, and you pepper it all far too much with emotion and splenetic outbursts, same as he does. Science looks for consensus. In that regard at least, the two of you are among the most "unscientific" people I've ever come across.

It's also very amusing that both you and Teribus feel qualified to comment on my teaching career though neither of you have ever seen me in action nor are knowingly acquainted with any pupil I've ever taught. It's a bit like my presuming to comment on your sex life based entirely on the content of your postings here. In other words, try not to be so silly.

"Do you seriously think you are the only person on this forum with a BSc, MSc, PhD, or chartered status?"

Another attribute of careful science is that it deals in accuracy. I don't enjoy any kind of chartered status, nor do I have an MSc or a PhD, and I've never claimed any of them. The fact that you can come out with that falsehood over such a simple matter is hardly a good indication that we can trust anything else you say, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 07:03 AM

Big Al Whittle. The point I was attempting to make is that worthwhile contributions are also made by those without formal qualifications.
Possession of a degree does not separate the wheat from the chaff, far from it. and as a complete by the bye one of the cleverest scientists I ever worked with spent the first 15 years of his working life as a slaughterman in an abattoir.
Any teacher that uses humiliation as a weapon is not fit to teach.

Shaw go away and annoy someone else. You have no idea what my qualifications are. As a consultant scientist it should be obvious that I have formal qualifications. Unlike you I do not feel the need to draw attention to the fact.

"The fact that you can come out with that falsehood over such a simple matter ....."
Did your educashun not teach you what an implicit and/or is?
You are becoming a sad little man.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 07:40 AM

Your posts are there for all to read, if anyone can be arsed to check what you've posted. Again, you argue in favour of the cult of philistinism. I also know some wonderful people who didn't go to university, or even do 'O' or 'A' Levels. I know a good few who did do all that, just as wonderful they are too. Rather than worry about all that, or get all jealous of those with better FORMAL educations than either mine, or especially yours or Teribus's, I prefer to see people in the round, for their common humanity, aspirations and achievements. A lot of people with degrees will tell you that the actual piece of paper is irrelevant once they've launched out into tbe world beyond academia. But a sound education is a great setup for life as long as you stay grounded. Unlike with you and Teribus, that means staying cool, calm and measured, without the ranting, raving insulting behaviour and inferiority complex with all its associated insecurities that typifies most of your posts.

I'm glad I annoyed you, by the way. That could be a sign of progress. I await with relish tbe heather thread. Why don't you and Bill get your heads together in a joint effort?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 07:45 AM

"The only yo yo posting is you jimbo"
Are you really not capable of posting information rather than insult, Iains?
Every posting you make attempts to takl down to people who disagre with you
It would be unpleasant if your technique was original - as it is, it is little more than snide comments repeated almost verbatim from others.
"sad little man"
I disagree with Al strongly on some points, but I find people with inflated ego who make comments like that far sadder.
You have made your point - you have little to offer other than insult - we really do understand that
Now let's if what you have to say on the subject is any more acceptable - or can we only expect being talked down to 'spect so!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 08:09 AM

How can a "mental midge that does not know his place"t talk down to you jimmy?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 08:27 AM

"How can a "mental midge that does not know his place"t talk down to you jimmy?"
You have confirmed that you have nothing to say on.... - well anything really
Thank you for your succinct reply
Not even the entertainment value of originality - a somewhat pale shadow of Teribus's insecurity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 09:02 AM

the worse thing - well one of the worse things about the insult is that it impedes the exchange of ideas.

its bad enough because it makes us people of ill will. and the illest will always takes mean spirited delight in the shittiest insult he can think of.

i know, i've done it myself.

but take this Irish problem.. Two cultures living on a small island. it doesn't have to be India/Pakistan.

an exchange of sensible ideas without insults as to how the two cultures could be honoured. that's got to be the start - not the thin lipped negotiations we see so often - with everyone just an unguarded word away from kicking the table over.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 09:33 AM

"it doesn't have to be India/Pakistan."
Too late, I'm afraid Al
It has been suffering the Post Colonial Blues since independence
The Brits, having had their arses kicked firmly out of the Cointry, decided to maintain an interest by leaving six counties in a 'safe pair of hands' in the sahpe of a viciously sectarian party - "monsters, but our monsters' - the u.S. attitude ato all despotic regimes sympathetic to their own interests
As a people, the Irish are extremely tolerant and friendly to all - it takes the politicos and their marches and displays of 'superiority' to drive a wedge in between them
That was how the six counties were governed - an unequal society where a substantial majority were regarded as second class citizens.
The Civil Rights protests began peacefully enough but were directed through mobs of screaming mobs of bottle-throwing thugs - hence the violence of the 1970s/80s
It is simplistic to put this down to religious differences - it had far more to do with maintaining political power than it did which brand of Christianity people favoured.
I know this from personal experience living in an from English city where people worked sisde to side for 363 days of the year, but were divided into hostile clans by arrogant displays in the second week of July
Try walking down Netherfield Road or the dock area then and you took your safety in your hands
That is what I was referring to by the bowler hatted, besashed "little men"   
The balance in the North East has now levelled out and with the aid of Brexit, Ireland can return to being a single country again - hopefully without a return to violence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 10:35 AM

I was wondering where all the arguing had gone. I'm disappointed in you, lads. I thought we had learned not to let Keith lead people by the nose to where he wants to go again? Anyway, I have just spent an unpleasant 20 minutes or so wading through the mire and would only make these points.

First

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 29 Aug 17 - 03:44 AM

...(Note to Gnome and to Raggy in this context the phrase "the beginning of time" is merely an expression - it does not mean literally from the beginning of time). The very first thing they embarked on having won their "independence" was a civil war.

I have made no comment on this thread until now and I have not been involved in an argument about the troubles in Ireland of any era. Why bring me into it at all?

Second, on a more general basis.

If the EU dictates to the Republic that it must have a hard border but Dublin says no, then who is going to police that border? Can anyone see EU troops manning the checkpoints against the wish of the Irish government? Should be interesting!

Finally, I suspect that if the moderation team are drawn to read even a tiny part of this thread I believe it will have a very limited life.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 11:05 AM

Tell me Gnome what has an explanation of the use of the phrase "the beginning of time" and advice that it must not be taken literally got to do with Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 11:10 AM

You tell me! I have never been involved with any such nonsense.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 11:42 AM

none of us have a clue what will happen after brexit. my own feeling is that it won't happen. i don't think the present government is committed to it.

i hope Ireland will become a united country.

i'm fully acquainted with with Liverpool catholic perspective. My Aunt Rose was a headmistress there. She may have taught you Jim. A fierce woman.

Having heard her, i think that's the main reason i think things MUST change before things can move forward> God help anyone who had to negotiate with her.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 11:51 AM

""the beginning of time""
You, in your usal inaccurate manner, introduced the phrase into this discussion by suggesting that they first started fighting each other
"The very first thing they embarked on having won their "independence" was a civil war."
The didn't win their "independence" they won a partitioned Ireland imposed on them at gunpoint, that was what the Civil War was about - a direct result of the Empire clinging onto its former holdings - plenty of other examples of that happening - the partitioning of India lad to one million dead and fifteen million displaced.
You are usually the first to object when people use terms like "the beginning of time" yet here, you here you go excusing yourself for doing similar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 12:17 PM

From the Irish Times. Someone must be getting very worried to produce this article.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-ireland-should-seriously-consider-irexit-1.3202154

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 12:30 PM

"Someone must be getting very worried to produce this article."
That's been a debating point since the British decision to leave last year
Old news with little support here here.
There have always been opponents of membership - pity for them that Ireland, of all countries did so well (with The Celtic Tiger) until greedy bankers ***** up the economy.
We have our predatory classes same as everywhere else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 12:34 PM

You should have carried on reading, Iains. The first eight or nine comments below the article (that's as far as I got) make a damn sight more sense than the apparently rabid, fantasy-world europhobe who wrote the article.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:11 PM

You are talking rubbish as usual Carrol. The article is 16 hours old.
The Irish government is worried about the downside of brexit.
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/varadkar-reveals-the-seven-key-risks-brexit-poses-for-irish-life-36083257.html
even the gruniard repeated the article. Your own little socialist newspaper Shaw. He is also an economist, not a biologist so probably a little more clued up on the realities than your goodself, who always lets ideology over ride common sense.
With Brexit completed Ireland becomes marginalised and goods exported through the UK could attract dues for using the transport network.
The last figures I saw gave only 1% of trailer traffic shipped direct to mainland. Europe.
Until the details of brexit are settled all things are possible and Ireland will be directly impacted irregardless.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:19 PM

Opinion articles are not news, Iains. Jim referred to old news, which that sort of bleating is. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:38 PM

"The article is 16 hours old."
AND THIS ARTICLE IS TEN MONTHS OLD
and this one eight months old

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

Do you not get tired of displaying your idiocy Iains?
The question of Ireland leaving Euraope hase been a matter of debate for at least the 19 years we have lived here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

"Irregardless"

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:53 PM

Laugh away "emoji" Steve - "irregardless" IS a word that has been in use for about a century. God you must have been a useless teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 01:58 PM

Keep it up boys. So a grammarian as well as a biologist Shaw.What a multi talented buffoon you are. Perhaps you should waste some time pointing out your running mates atrocious spelling. It almost equals his arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 02:29 PM

I guess we will never find out why you decided to involve me in an argument that I was never part of then Tezzer. Probably better not knowing I suppose. If you deign to enlighten us it may warrant a response. Otherwise there is nothing more to say on the matter.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 02:41 PM

Dave,
If the EU dictates to the Republic that it must have a hard border but Dublin says no,

The same as would happen if a member state wanted to close its border to free movement of labour.

It can not do so and remain a member.

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 02:52 PM

The result of Brexit on Irish exports will be considerable if a hard border is imposed by the EU
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/majority-of-exporters-travel-through-britain-to-ship-goods-overseas-35517444.html

http://www.politico.eu/article/cargo-food-production-producers-brexit-burns-irelands-british-bridge-to-eu-markets/

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2017/Documents/An_Exposure_Analysis_of_Sectors_of_the_Irish_Economy%20_final.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 03:12 PM

"Perhaps you should waste some time pointing out your running mates atrocious spelling."

Or I could point out your atrocious punctuation in your missing out a crucial apostrophe. Or that there is no such construction as " multi talented."

Cast out the plank. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 03:14 PM

I know that people one either side of any discussion are often accused of being irrational etc etc ..........

However when one individual actually names a person in their post who has not even contributed to the thread in any way, shape, size or form, one has to consider whether any of that persons posts are valid.

I refer to:

"Note to Gnome and to Raggy in this context the phrase "the beginning of time" is merely an expression - it does not mean literally from the beginning of time). The very first thing they embarked on having won their "independence" was a civil war"

Dave, up to that point had not posted to this thread at all.

Teri-towelling attacked him without reason.

Make your own minds up !

Subject: RE: BS: G.B. and N.I.?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Aug 17 - 03:27 PM

Well Shaw I see you have an endless talent for making a fool of yourself. Please continue!