1980's high Irish emigration : why did 68% go to UK ?

smurgen

true wrote: »

Even now a lot of Irish are going to Australia, and saying how great Oz is, but not even Australia now is attracting / offering opportunities to 68% of Irish emigrants, the same as Mrs Thatchers Britain did.

take a look at a map or a globe and you'll see how stupid this quote of yours is. The visa requirements have been loosened for Canada and the USA and Irish people are now studying more languages than ever before so they can travel and work in much more countires and in alot of different jobs than back in the day of thatchers Britain.

R P McMurphy

true wrote: »

Because
(a) The British are a very tolerant people : look how tolerant the British were in the decade in question
(b) The British knew most Irish people did not support the PIRA.
(c) the impractilities of trying to seal the border between the UK and Ireland : not on when it had a common land border. I know the likes of the USA has a big fence between it and Mexico, and I saw a programme on the TV recently about how Saudi Arabia has a 1000 mile long fence, but imagine the furore if Maggie suggested that in Ireland? It would not have worked anyway. She wanted more security co-operation from the Irish government in the fight against the IRA, and did'nt get all she wanted as it was.

Obviously British peoples reaction / attitude to the Irish in general was very tolerant, or 68% of Irish emigrants in the 80's would not have gone to Britain. It must have been a great country and economy to be able to attract so many immigrants at the time, all attracted to its shores. And they did not come just from Ireland either. I remember meeting many Aussi and Kiwi immigrants...indeed immigrants from all over the world ...there then.

Even now a lot of Irish are going to Australia, and saying how great Oz is, but not even Australia now is attracting / offering opportunities to 68% of Irish emigrants, the same as Mrs Thatchers Britain did.

I think you will find that Thatcher had drawn up plans to:
(a) redraw the border
(b) reintroduce internment without trial
(c) 'repatriate' northern nationalists into the republic (aka ethnic cleansing)

Your sycophantic claptrap does not hold up to any scrutiny yet you are like a dog with a bone ... persistent I will give you that

Anyone

68% went because back in the '80's, 69 was still a sin

crockholm

rusheen wrote: »

Because Ted Kennedy the self expressed "great Irish man" closed the door for Irish Immigration to the USA .unless you could live with being illeagal . Oz wasnt great back then . Only in the last few years there dollar is any good .

Not wishing to be a defender of the Kennedy's and especially the odious Ted,but that was due to a request made by the Ancient Order of Hibernians,fearing that emigration would empty the country,iirc.

AlekSmart

mariaalice wrote: »

They did not see it as Thacher's Britten they just saw it as a country with more and better jobs, more opportunities and cheaper beer....while trying not to stereotyping all young people I don't think the politics of the UK was a big concern when emigrating and as I said when you are living in a situation you don't experience it as it is portrayed in the news.

Yay !! Spot-on Mariaalice

True's OP,not unsurprisingly brought out the true Republican spirit in many of the respondents,however I suspect True is smiling wryly at those responses.

I suspect True is really focusing,not on Thatchers Britain,but far deeper into our past,800 years deeper I'd suggest ?

As R P McMurphy points out here,the bould Baroness could never step into Tom Cruise's shoes as a admirer of all things Irish...

I think you will find that Thatcher had drawn up plans to:
(a) redraw the border
(b) reintroduce internment without trial
(c) 'repatriate' northern nationalists into the republic (aka ethnic cleansing)

Your sycophantic claptrap does not hold up to any scrutiny yet you are like a dog with a bone ... persistent I will give you that

Those a,b,and c, options alone infer a certain Thatcherite ambivalence towards Ireland and the Irish,which most Irish Republicans,to this day,would say merited the complete hatred of,and destruction of everything English.

But,it never happened...instead as the generations matured into middle age,the protestations of Lord Brookeborough about "Not having Catholics about the place" were turned on their head,as Irelands young Catholics embraced England as a place to Work,Rest and Play....surely not what the citizens of such a long-term cruelly oppressed country should be doing in the towns and cities of the "Ould Enemy".

It appears that most view Mrs Thatcher,and her era,as the epitome of Englands oppression of Ireland and it's people,which still leaves True's question hanging in the air......WHY,after all that has gone before,do we Irish still strive to maintain that closeness ?

Dyr

AlekSmart wrote: »

,which most Irish Republicans,to this day,would say merited the complete hatred of,and destruction of everything English.

what the f**k are you on about?

AlekSmart

Bambi wrote: »

what the f**k are you on about?

Yep,your're right Bambi,I should have used the word "many" instead of "most".

Not all Republicans would be as....fortright as some spokespersons ?

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/leader-local/republicans-issue-threat-to-british-army-targets-1-4652249

http://republican-news.org/current/news/2011/02/breakaway_groups_struggle_to_a.html

I would readily admit to confusion in attempting to comprehend much of the developments in this field....

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yep,your're right Bambi,I should have used the word "many" instead of "most".

Not all Republicans would be as....fortright as some spokespersons ?

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/leader-local/republicans-issue-threat-to-british-army-targets-1-4652249

http://republican-news.org/current/news/2011/02/breakaway_groups_struggle_to_a.html

I would readily admit to confusion in attempting to comprehend much of the developments in this field....

...none of that has anything to do with the bizarre statement Bambi highlighted.

LordSutch

Bambi wrote: »

what the f**k are you on about?

Well I believed the very same as AlekSmart until very renently, when I discovered that all those chants about "Brits out", fighting the Brits, hating the Brits, and opposing the Brits all amounted to referals to the British Army and or the Westminster Government, and not the Brits themselves!!! which is very confusing.

Previously I had always thought Republicans were constantly hating (the British/English people) whereas they are not Anti the Brits or anti English at all > and this is where a lot of confusion comes from I think. Probably hasn't done the republican cause any favours over the last few decades with the masive vocal "Anti Brits" campaign, when all along they were not hostile towards "the Brits" (Ulster Unionists or English people), but rather the British authorities.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Well I believed the very same as AlekSmart until very renently, when I discovered that all those chants about "Brits out", fighting the Brits, hating the Brits, and opposing the Brits all amounted to referals to the British Army and or the Westminster Government, and not the Brits themselves!!! which is very confusing.

Previously I had always thought Republicans were constantly hating (the British/English people) whereas they are not Anti the Brits or anti English at all > and this is where a lot of confusion comes from I think. Probably hasn't done the republican cause any favours over the last few decades with the masive vocal "Anti Brits" campaign, when all along they were not hostile towards "the Brits" (Ulster Unionists or English people, but the British authorities.

No, you were right the first time. Republicans have been known to vomit at the sight of Bill Bailey, Rowan Atkinson and the like. Pictures of Tony Benn and Ken livingstone are rumoured to act like garlic to vampires on younger Republicans.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

No, you were right the first time. Republicans have been known to vomit at the sight of Bill Bailey, Rowan Atkinson and the like. Pictures of Tony Benn and Ken livingstone are rumoured to act like garlic to vampires on younger Republicans.

Well now to be fair, Antony Wedgewood Benn & Red Ken probably have nudie pictures of Adams on their bedroom walls,
(such is their love for him) & 'the cause'. Very sad to hear that Irish Republicans don't like Bill Bailey & Rowan Atkinson

Chauncey

Heh, we tuk der jerbs.

Fratton Fred

LordSutch wrote: »

Well I believed the very same as AlekSmart until very renently, when I discovered that all those chants about "Brits out", fighting the Brits, hating the Brits, and opposing the Brits all amounted to referals to the British Army and or the Westminster Government, and not the Brits themselves!!! which is very confusing.

Previously I had always thought Republicans were constantly hating (the British/English people) whereas they are not Anti the Brits or anti English at all > and this is where a lot of confusion comes from I think. Probably hasn't done the republican cause any favours over the last few decades with the masive vocal "Anti Brits" campaign, when all along they were not hostile towards "the Brits" (Ulster Unionists or English people), but rather the British authorities.

So West Brit is actually a term of endearment?

Group hug guys!

Ray Palmer

It just kind of proves that people don't really understand the past.

Flights to Europe were much more expensive and seemed much more inaccessible than now. You needed visas to work in most countries and they weren't easily handed out. You didn't need a visa for the UK. Being English speaking and close was a big factor too. Many people had relatives there too and many people stayed with friends and family when they first went.

Visa for US, Canada, Australia were hard to get.

It is that simple comparing modern times misses the ease of movement now and cheap travel that is about.

Mr Tibbs

They all loved Mrs Thatcher and ye didn't have to go to mass

rusheen

crockholm wrote: »

Not wishing to be a defender of the Kennedy's and especially the odious Ted,but that was due to a request made by the Ancient Order of Hibernians,fearing that emigration would empty the country,iirc.

Why do you say that ?
Because the AOH are telling a different story now

From the Irish Echo:
"In the 1960s, AOH members participated in an effort to prevent removal of the quota of Irish visas by the Immigration Act of 1965. Those concerns were proven as successive economic downturns have left many of the Irish without the option to emigrate legally to the U.S. In the last 25 years, AOH has worked with the Irish Immigration Reform Movement, Irish Lobby For Immigration Reform, as well as many other organizations and government officials from the two nations, and elsewhere, to rectify the quota and restore the important cultural exchange between Ireland and the U.S"

swimming in a sea

Was the UK in the 80's the only country Irish people could work with out a visa no questions asked?

You needed a visa for even the other European countries back then I think.

R P McMurphy

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yay !! Spot-on Mariaalice

True's OP,not unsurprisingly brought out the true Republican spirit in many of the respondents,however I suspect True is smiling wryly at those responses.

I suspect True is really focusing,not on Thatchers Britain,but far deeper into our past,800 years deeper I'd suggest ?

As R P McMurphy points out here,the bould Baroness could never step into Tom Cruise's shoes as a admirer of all things Irish...



Those a,b,and c, options alone infer a certain Thatcherite ambivalence towards Ireland and the Irish,which most Irish Republicans,to this day,would say merited the complete hatred of,and destruction of everything English.

But,it never happened...instead as the generations matured into middle age,the protestations of Lord Brookeborough about "Not having Catholics about the place" were turned on their head,as Irelands young Catholics embraced England as a place to Work,Rest and Play....surely not what the citizens of such a long-term cruelly oppressed country should be doing in the towns and cities of the "Ould Enemy".

It appears that most view Mrs Thatcher,and her era,as the epitome of Englands oppression of Ireland and it's people,which still leaves True's question hanging in the air......WHY,after all that has gone before,do we Irish still strive to maintain that closeness ?

I am not quite sure where you are coming from with that post at all. The ideas Thatcher had regarding Ireland would have been disastrous and most likely plunged Ireland from something akin to low intensity internal strife to full scale conflict. This however would still not 'merit a complete hatred of and destruction of everything English'. I fail to see where you arrived at that conclusion. The cordial relationship between Irish and English people in general is based on personal ties and relationships built over centuries and not something manufactured by state apparatus.

Luckily the cromwellian type plan that thatcher was pushing was not implemented, as some of her cabinet could see the lunacy of the idea and foresee that mass internment and ethnic cleansing would probably result in creating either an international or non-international full scale armed conflict.

jmayo

ONeill2013 wrote: »

N.Ireland is part of the UK not Great Britain

I knew that would get someone going.
I could of course have said the Occupied Territores or The British Isles.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It just kind of proves that people don't really understand the past.

Flights to Europe were much more expensive and seemed much more inaccessible than now.

Feckin hell flights to Britain weren't cheap either.
We should thank the likes of O'Leary and Ryan Air for making access on and off this island a lot less onerous and costly.

true

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Was the UK in the 80's the only country Irish people could work with out a visa no questions asked?

You needed a visa for even the other European countries back then I think.

No. We were in the EEC and Irish people could freely migrate to France, Spain, Germany, Holland etc if they so wanted. However 68% voted with their feet in going to Mrs Thatchers Britain. Not many went in the late seventies just before she took over, with the IMF there etc, but she obviously done a great job transforming the place, judging by all the people who went there, were treated fairly and got good jobs there.

dd972

'',which most Irish Republicans,to this day,would say merited the complete hatred of,and destruction of everything English.''

I think most Anglophobia in Irish Republicanism is more quintessentially anti British than anti English, there were in all likelihood loads of IRA members who were big Man Utd fans and had a proclivity for David Bowie and Slade.

Remember there's thousands of English who are anti-monarchist, anti British Army and even anti UK, there's no English parliament, national anthem or seat at the UN, so if anything the English could be said to be more oppressed under the British yoke than we are.

true

dd972 wrote: »

Remember there's thousands of English who are anti-monarchist, anti British Army and even anti UK... .

thousands out of fifty million people or whatever is an extremely small percentage. In ever society you always get at least a small per-centage who are anti-establishment and/or anti-everything and/or anti-work and/or complete oddballs. In most if not all western countries there is a wide diversity of people of different opinions, attitudes, colours, faiths, orientation and whatever else. No harm in that, it would be a very boring world if we were all the same, and like most people while I would not agree with some of the loony left supporters I would defend their right to have their own opinions.

Madam_X

true wrote: »

So Irish people in Thatchers Britain got treated better than we did at home? Thats why 300,000 went? Thats over double the population of Cork, our second largest city in the state.

It wasn't a case of being treated better, it was a case of more jobs over there.

gallag wrote: »

All the "valid points" in the world will not explane away many hundred thousand irish men and women preferring Thatchers Britain to their home country.

true wrote: »

What part of the statement that was made ( All the "valid points" in the world will not explain away the many hundreds of thousands of irish men and women who preferred Thatchers Britain to their home country) do you not understand?

Do you not understand the other posters point that there were many hundreds of thousands of irish men and women who preferred Thatchers Britain to their home country?

It wasn't a case of preferring Thatcher's Britain (as ye well know) it was a case of there not being sufficient employment here to meet the demand.

I don't have any issue with Britain/the British - there's a lot I really like about same - but the statements above are just disingenuous and silly.

People disliking the leader of a country doesn't necessarily make them dislike the country or its people. Lots of people dislike GWB but still went to live in the USA during his eight years as president - because the USA isn't just George W. Bush.

true

Madam_X wrote: »

It wasn't a case of preferring Thatcher's Britain...

The 68% who went to Britain obviously preferred it, for whatever reason(s), to Haugheys Ireland at the time. The Britain of Thatchers reign in the eighties was a lot different to the Britain just before she took over ( The IMF there, places closing down and on strike, high taxes, no hope etc ) so she obviously done something right, at least for the hundreds of thousands of Irish who were able to go there in the eighties.(despite a few of them...er misbehaving )

Madam_X

true wrote: »

The 68% who went to Britain obviously preferred it, for whatever reason(s), to Haugheys Ireland at the time.

The "whatever reason" (and it's a pretty big one) is far more jobs over there, as you know. I'm not saying they hated Britain and grudgingly went across the Irish Sea, but to say it's just because they "preferred" Britain to Ireland is obviously a distortion. To get work, they had to emigrate.

gallag

Madam_X wrote: »

The "whatever reason" (and it's a pretty big one) is far more jobs over there, as you know. I'm not saying they hated Britain and grudgingly went across the Irish Sea, but to say it's just because they "preferred" Britain to Ireland is obviously a distortion. To get work, they had to emigrate.

Why did the miners not take the jobs the irish were flocking too?

questionmark?

It was close to home, the historical links between the two nations, even if Aer Lingus charged outrageous prices it was still cheaper and easier than America, Oz et al..., no visa requirements, social scene I.e. drink culture was similar. Nothing to do with Thatcher as they would have went at that period regardless of who was in charge. I'd safely say that most people leaving Ireland to this day go the UK no matter that everyone seems to speak about Oz!

true

gallag wrote: »

Why did the miners not take the jobs the irish were flocking too?

One reason is that some of the miners did not want to work - you get people like that everywhere.

WayneMolloy

During the boom times an awful lot of Poles migrated to Ireland and the UK.

Does that mean that Polish emigrants are big Bertie and Blair fans?

People move to access employment and a better standard of living. They dont give a fiddlers about who is in power.

WayneMolloy

true wrote: »

One reason is that some of the miners did not want to work - you get people like that everywhere.

Are you claiming that some miners were lazy people?

Miners?

Lazy?

I am a young, fit and healthy dude - but a week down the mines would floor me.

An unbelievably difficult job to hold down for a long period of time.