Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

I suspect you dont mate....you think importing spudz added to the national debt :pac:

Importing a massive 72,000 tonnes is potatoes , most of it from Britain, like we did last year, shows we are not very good at growing humble spuds yet.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Importing a massive 72,000 tonnes is potatoes , most of it from Britain, like we did last year, shows we are not very good at growing humble spuds yet.

Except it deosnt add to the national debt


Why do you think it deos?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Except it deosnt add to the national debt


Why do you think it deos?

I did not say it directly added. Even banana Republics usually do not have governments directly borrowing money to import basic food stuffs. Neither does Ireland.

In other news, interest on the national debt last year was 7,000,000,000.00

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I did not say it directly added. Even banana Republics usually do not have governments directly borrowing money to import basic food stuffs.

Hmm.....except you did

And other shocking news, it is costing us money to import even the humble spud.
Quote: " External Debt in Ireland increased to 2331985 EUR Million in the fourth quarter of 2018 from 2293949 EUR Million in the third quarter of 2018.

Why are you lying??.....is it anything to do with the british genocide here,more commonly known as gorta mor or holocost by hunger


Youd imagine a country which done these things to its colonies would be mortified...but instead we get yous cheering on their actions


How is that

blinding

Who put that rock out there in the middle of nowhere anyway .

Whose Planners did that ?

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Hmm.....except you did



Why are you lying??.....is it anything to do with the british genocide here,more commonly known as gorta mor or holocost by hunger


Youd imagine a country which done these things to its colonies would be mortified...but instead we get yous cheering on their actions


How is that

So you compare squabbling over a rock in the Atlantic to Britain's past actions in Ireland?-pathetic..

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

So you compare squabbling over a rock in the Atlantic to Britain's past actions in Ireland?-pathetic..

You think britains past actions in relation to ireland are irrelevant??


How is that

What is patethic about ,knowing our history?


So many questions...will you answer any or just hide behind a stream of abuse...like say calling people patethic

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

You think britains past actions in relation to ireland are irrelevant??

I
How is that

What is patethic about ,knowing our history?

It is pathetic when you know only one side of the history.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

It is pathetic when you know only one side of the history.

There is only 1 side (history is factual mate)


What is questionable is thinking government imports spuds and this adds to national debt...like em.you do


You think youd be embarased to cheer on brits after genocide...but there ya have it....someone who thinks spuds add to national debt (and doubles down on it)..perhaps deosnt feel embarassment

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

You think britains past actions in relation to ireland are irrelevant??


How is that

What is patethic about ,knowing our history?


So many questions...will you answer any or just hide behind a stream of abuse...like say calling people patethic

I'm not being abusive,I understand Britain's past actions in Ireland were horrendous but if this is constantly brought up even over something as relatively innocuous as a disagreement about a piece of rock in the sea it loses impact-i imagine ancestors of people from Iceland and Denmark attacked Ireland centuries ago-have you anything against them?

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not being abusive,I understand Britain's past actions in Ireland were horrendous but if this is constantly brought up even over something as relatively innocuous as a disagreement about a piece of rock in the sea it loses impact-i imagine ancestors of people from Iceland and Denmark attacked Ireland centuries ago-have you anything against them?

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

There is only 1 side (history is factual mate)

So said Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali too. I suppose when you learn your history from an Phoblocht what do you expect.

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

If you constantly trundle out the same rhetoric every time there is a minor incident it looses impact-perhaps the British should take the same tack with the French instead of getting on with it-after all they invaded in 1066 and subjugated Britian and Ireland.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

So said Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali too. I suppose when you learn your history from an Phoblocht what do you expect.

Mate....history stands on facts....your mistaking history for proparganda....much like how you mistake government debt and think price of spuds add to it (it deosnt btw)



Deos an poblacht still exist even??

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you constantly trundle out the same rhetoric every time there is a minor incident it looses impact-perhaps the British should take the same tack with the French instead of getting on with it-after all they invaded in 1066 and subjugated Britian and Ireland.

Britain is named after brittany tbf.(perhaps if they have issue with it,they should rename their island??)....tbh i dont particularly care about britain anyway....only ireland



You think we should just get on with it....this weekend will see more british hate parades in the north....perhap the british shouldnt complain about us remembering history while they hold annual parades to remember it?

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate....history stands on facts....your mistaking history for proparganda....much like how ypu mistake government debt and think price of spuds add to it

As said to you before I am not your mate. History stands on facts but you look at it from a particular point of view, not surprising as you were subjected to the Republican slanted version.

If we did not import the 72,000 tonnes of spuds a year we do (mostly from Britain), do you really think it would have much effect on the 7 billion euro a year interest our government pays on the national debt? You are very confused.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

As said to you before I am not your mate. History stands on facts but you look at it from a particular point of view, not surprising as you were subjected to the Republican slanted version.

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate

If we did not import the 72,000 tonnes of spuds a year we do (mostly from Britain), do you really think it would have much effect on the 7 billion euro a year interest our government pays on the national debt? You are very confused.

Why you still think spudz affect our national debt is beyond me....heres a hint....the government.deosnt import spudz


How yous call me confused while peddeling falsehoods that the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt (and now trebled down on this) is brilliant.....your my fav poster btw

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate


Why you still think spudz affect our national debt is beyond me....heres a hint....the government.deosnt import spudz


How yous call me confused while peddeling falsehoods that the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt (and now trebled down on this) is brilliant.....your my fav poster btw

Lol If you read back, you will see I never claimed the government here imported spuds. Read carefully and try harder.

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Theres no slanted version....it stands on facts...how you think facts can have a slant is beyond me mate

I am not your mate. And Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali also claimed to speak the truth. I feel sorry for you.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Lol If you read back, you will see I never claimed the government here imported spuds. Read carefully and try harder.

Hmm except you think importing spuds adds to our national debt

And other shocking news, it is costing us money to import even the humble spud.
Quote: " External Debt in Ireland increased to 2331985 EUR Million in the fourth quarter of 2018 from 2293949 EUR Million in the third quarter of 2018.

Lolz.....these are your own words kid




Why you keep trying to convince people youve not said it...is beyond me?



Much like.more lies the british tell here....even during week stories emerged of fake stories circulated during war of independance by the british.......you do like to emulate your heroes in the lying stakes anyway it seems

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I am not your mate. And Lord Haw Haw and Comical Ali also claimed to speak the truth. I feel sorry for you.

These are progandists.....your mistaking history for propaganda (again!)


Much like how you mistaking think the government imports spuds and this adds to national debt......


Dont feel sorry for.me....im not one who keeps doubling down on brutal mistakes

janfebmar

If you quote properly, you will see nowhere did I claim the government here was importing spuds. I was replying to Francies points about trade within the EU etc. Showing how well it is doing.
And in other news, interest on the national debt is 7,000,000,000.00 per year. No wonder we have to pay so much VRT on the 100,000 or so second hand cars a year we import from the UK.

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Mate yous called me patehic....idk what friends you have...but generally that would be regarded as abusive



Did ancestors from.iceland and denmark commit genocide here as recently to have people hear 2nd hand stories of it....or have swades of posters cheer them on,inspite of it

I'm not your mate either.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

If you quote properly, you will see nowhere did I claim the government here was importing spuds. I was replying to Francies points about trade within the EU etc. Showing how well it is doing.

You literally blamed importing spudz for increasing national debt...keep.lying to yourself mate....only you believe this lie

And in other news, interest on the national debt is 7,000,000,000.00 per year. No wonder we have to pay so much get on the 100,000 or so second hand cars a year we import from the UK.

You think uk second hand car dealers decide their prices based on irelands interest repayments :pac:


Your some craic....this is almost as irrational belief that thinks price of spuds add to our national debt......boards needs a crying laughing emoji :pac:

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

These are progandists...

What is a "progandist"?

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not being abusive,I understand Britain's past actions in Ireland were horrendous but if this is constantly brought up even over something as relatively innocuous as a disagreement about a piece of rock in the sea it loses impact-i imagine ancestors of people from Iceland and Denmark attacked Ireland centuries ago-have you anything against them?

But Rob you'd think the government would remember them when they're sqaubbling over a rock and not to mention Loch Foyle on the Irish border.

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

In both cases the British government are saying they own all of it. Hardly a reasonable position.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

.

Possession and ownership is 9/10 of the law. The 1662 Charter of Charles the Second (from memory, I think it was) said Lough Foyle was part of Co. Londonderry.

RobMc59

steddyeddy wrote: »

But Rob you'd think the government would remember them when they're sqaubbling over a rock and not to mention Loch Foyle on the Irish border.

For Rockwall Ireland's saying no one owns it. It's a sea rock. For Loch Foyle we're saying we own half.

In both cases the British government are saying they own all of it. Hardly a reasonable position.

I agree that British claims about lough foyle are unreasonable-it should be joint access for both countries as should rockall-despite how I'm perceived on the brexit forum I believe I do try to see things from Ireland's point of view also!:)

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that British claims about lough foyle are unreasonable

They did not give it to use 100 years ago, why should they now? If I bought a property of a neighbour 100 years ago and there was a boundary dispute over a tiny section, I would say what was always his, and is still his, is his.
Carlingford Lough is divided 50:50 for practical purposes.
Quote:But the difficulty [with Lough Foyle] is that if you have vessels going into port of Derry, you have to go through Lough Foyle, and if you split it down the middle ships and boats would have to go on the Irish government’s side of that line in order to take the safest navigation channel.
“This wouldn’t be an issue for commercial vessels, but it might be an issue for navy vessels, for example.”
If the British did not have access to the port of Derry during WW2, it is conceivable the battle of Britain could have been lost, and if the battle of the Atlantic was lost, it is conceivable the Allies could have lost the war. Be glad and relieved the British held on to Lough Foyle. They made better use of it in defeating Nazism than we did.
I can see the British are quite reasonable in referring to the 1662 Charter on what is in Co. Londonderry. They were quite careful in what they gave us, our 26 counties and no more. I can also see merit in the Irish government wanting half of it, thus denying British navy access to the port of Derry.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

They did not give it to use 100 years ago, why should they now? If I bought a property of a neighbour 100 years ago and there was a boundary dispute over a tiny section, I would say what was always his, and is still his, is his.
Carlingford Lough is divided 50:50 for practical purposes.
Quote:But the difficulty [with Lough Foyle] is that if you have vessels going into port of Derry, you have to go through Lough Foyle, and if you split it down the middle ships and boats would have to go on the Irish government’s side of that line in order to take the safest navigation channel.
“This wouldn’t be an issue for commercial vessels, but it might be an issue for navy vessels, for example.”
If the British did not have access to the port of Derry during WW2, it is conceivable the battle of Britain could have been lost, and if the battle of the Atlantic was lost, it is conceivable the Allies could have lost the war. Be glad and relieved the British held on to Lough Foyle. They made better use of it in defeating Nazism than we did.
I can see the British are quite reasonable in referring to the 1662 Charter on what is in Co. Londonderry. They were quite careful in what they gave us, our 26 counties and no more. I can also see merit in the Irish government wanting half of it, thus denying British navy access to the port of Derry.

I can see the logic of what you're saying but wouldn't it be better if Ireland and Britain came to agreements over both areas?-Both countries are inexorably linked,if there's a 'special relationship'between Britain and any other country it should be with Ireland imo.