OK then Christmas just to get the terminology correct and make it chrystal clear for ANYBODY that is still following this farce:

An EXPORT FROM Britain is one that is sent out of, i.e., leaves Wales, England or Scotland – GOT THAT??
An EXPORT FROM Ireland is one that is sent out of, i.e., leaves Ireland – GOT THAT??

If you have now managed to grasp that rather basic concept then it becomes blatantly obvious that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Britain to export anything out of Ireland – That is all down to command, usage and comprehension of the English language coupled with common sense and logic.

You have been given the figures covering the years 1845 to 1848 they show what was exported from Ireland and what was exported from Britain – over the period in question more was exported from Britain and IMPORTED into Ireland than was exported from Ireland and IMPORTED into Britain - FACT.

In response to your question:
"Did Britain insist that rent arrears should be acted upon, and did they not facilitate mass evictions of bankrupt families for half a century, providing the troops and demolition squads to resist all opposition"

Point 1: The British Government refused to accept as a reason for non-payment of taxes by Irish landowners and Irish farmers the argument that they could not pay their taxes because the rent income from their tenants had not been paid – The landlords had to pay taxes whether they received rents or not. It was not the job of the British Government to collect rent on behalf of the landowners.

Point 2: Non-payment of rent and bankruptcy has got nothing to do with central Government it is a matter of civil law. It is strictly a private business arrangement between landlord and tenant – TRUE?? If for any reason I cannot pay my rent, I do not view it that it is the Government's responsibility or duty to pay it for me. By the way when do you think the "Welfare State" was created?
To answer "Tick" one of the following:
A – 1845
B – 1948

3: Troops were stationed according to rotation in various garrison towns throughout the United Kingdom and the Empire, part of their duties then, as now, included acting as an aid to the civil power in areas and in situations where the rule of law and order maybe challenged and disturbances of the peace may occur that the Police Force cannot control. Such situations are determined by local authorities, not by the Government, the local authority requests assistance, the relevant Government Ministry (Home Office for inside the United Kingdom) evaluates the request then approves or rejects it.

I do not believe and have never seen any evidence that the British Government ever engaged the services of, or provided, demolition squads to assist a landlord in the demolition of his own property.

Present at any legal eviction there would be representatives of the following:
- Landowner
- Civil Court Official
- Bailliffs
- Police if trouble was anticipated
- Troops to support the Police if it had been evaluated that the situation warranted their presence.

The eviction being a purely "civil" matter under law would not involve any participation on the part of the Government.

Now then Christmas let us review what you think the British Government should have done. In your brightly coloured scream you seemed to have forgotten about the added proviso regarding any suggestions that they should reflect what ACTUALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DONE in the mid-1800s:

1: "LEFT THE WORKHOUSES OPEN"
Well when you consider that in 1838 Ireland had no Workhouses to provide refuge for the destitute, take a look at what WAS DONE. By 1845, 128 Workhouses had been built and by 1851, 163 had been built. So during the course of the period under discussion the number of workhouses increased.

Over the period in question did the problems and conditions remain universally constant or did both problems and conditions change not only in nature and scale nationally but also regionally? Obviously as things improved in some regions then resources to those regions were reduced and the finances and resources redirected to other locations where they were still needed. That to my mind seems to be both natural and sensible.

2: "THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED IMPORTING FOOD"
WHAT?? Food should not have been sent to Ireland? Or do you not know what you are talking about? I believe that you mean that EXPORTS of food FROM Ireland should have been stopped – basically as anything else just simply does not make sense.

A – Food was not the problem in Ireland to call it a Famine completely misrepresents what was going on. What was needed was money in Ireland, what was needed was employment, what was needed was urgent agrarian reform. Therefore those who were producing food HAD TO be kept in business. They HAD TO be allowed to make money in order to pay taxes to provide the authorities with revenue to sustain the relief effort and also to ensure next year's crops. The production of food in Ireland declined through-out the period under discussion and food had to be EXPORTED FROM Britain and IMPORTED INTO Ireland – FACT.

B - Irrespective of how much food was being grown in Ireland it could not be transported to the areas where it was needed, stored in sufficient quantities and distributed. One of the realities of the situation WAS THAT THE PEOPLE HAD TO MOVE. Said before not even sheep are stupid enough to remain on hills with no grazing.

C – Refusal to look at the global picture and to deliberately ignore its scale and its consequences plays a big part in the Nationalists "Victim" propaganda campaign regarding the "Famine". The blight had not just struck Ireland it had hit other places throughout Europe and mainland Britain as well. It had arrived earlier and was compounded by failures in cereal crops as well on mainland Britain and on the continent and it was this problem that caused those countries to stop exports of food NOT the potato blight.

Cereal crops available for purchase and import were in short supply world-wide and premium prices were charged. Great Britain may well have been one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world at the time but between 1846 and 1848 Great Britain was in the middle of a major financial crisis. These facts whilst inconvenient from the Nationalists arguments perspective still did factor themselves into what was possible, and what was not, from the perspective of those struggling with the problem at the time.

3: "THEY SHOULD HAVE RELEASED THE AVAILABLE FOOD LOCKED UP IN WAREHOUSES"
An apparently nice, neat, obvious, simple sort of solution – but it would not have done any good would it? It would have helped a few in the short term, but that is all it would have done, the problems would only return next year and the cupboards would have been bare. That is precisely what happened when your advice was followed in 1846, when the late harvest of potatoes survived and were distributed. Many of those who received them ate them all or sold them keeping none for planting in 1847, which oddly enough was a Blight Free year yet the "worst year" of the "famine". So the lesson learned was that if you have food stored then you release it in minimum quantities only, so that you always have some to give if things get worse, as they did do in 1848. Throughout this period the British Government and various British Charities were feeding 43% of the population of Ireland.

The main killer was not the lack of food – very few people actually starved to death during this "famine". The figures that astound me are those for 1847, supposedly the "worst year of the famine" where ~250,000 died – where only ~6,000 of them actually died because of want of food. No-one had any understanding of the diseases that ravaged the population during the period under discussion, or any idea of effective treatment or remedies at the time and they would not even begin to do so until 35 years had passed by.

4: "THEY SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED ASSISTANCE TO HELP THE SUFFERING POPULATION RIDE THE WORST EFFECTS OF THE FAMINE RATHER THAN FORCING THEM TO EMIGRATE OR DIE"

As far as was able (i.e. within their capabilities at the time) they did just that. Had the population of Ireland just hunkered down and stayed put they would have died in their millions – they didn't , they moved because THEY HAD TO there were no alternatives. The factors that reduced the population of Ireland in the period under discussion in descending order of magnitude were as follows:
Emigration – 60%
Disease – 32%
Starvation – 8%

While in the remainder of the 1800s Ireland, mainland Britain and Europe did suffer occasional food shortages there was never another "famine". In Ireland that was because the necessary agrarian reforms were implemented and farming became more efficient, less people were making a living off the land and transport infrastructure was greatly improved. All of these measures were NOT imposed on the landowners and farmers by the Government they came into being because it was in their own interests to do so and it was all funded PRIVATELY it was not brought about by Government investment. To maintain the assumption, and assert, that any government in 1845 could act and respond as any government could today is just totally ludicrous and the height of idiocy.