Should we stop bullying the United Kingdom?

An Claidheamh · 10-06-2018 1:32pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/shelagh-fogartys-interview-with-senior-brexiteer/

Dear god. Ireland were neutral in WW2 and are one of the nations we rescued/defeated so fcuk em says Brexiteer MP.

So we refused to take orders from Churchill, a drunken racist who partitioned Ireland and wanted to invade the Free State and overthrow our democracy - but was too much of a coward to do so - 8 decades ago
Essentially, these Brits are just complaining that they couldn't even defeat Ireland.
The Americans told them to forget about it, so junior partner Britain did.

+

The British (whose failed war in the North cost us billions and had us help bail them out in the 70s) and their banks lost money on the Republic's housing sector which they invited themselves into to gamble on, and gave an incompetent FF govt 3% of funds compared to 97% from Europe - so the Brits could make a profit

= Ireland should allow Britain to Brexit without following international law, an international treaty and stop pointing out facts to their idiot backward politicians and jingoistic media.

That's Brexiteer logic right there.

That's just stupid Britain.
Stuck in the past.
A victim complex.
A joke of a country.

Sorry, but you brought this on yourselves.

Taytoland · 10-06-2018 1:49pm

How did Churchill partition Ireland? Churchill was not Prime Minister in 1921. Partition was decades, if not a century in the making.

10-06-2018 1:54pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

You must love talking jack while taking it up the arse from Jacques.

Good luck with the transhumance based economy when Brexit kicks in properly. Tent sellers will do a booming trade as a consequence........

TheValeyard · 10-06-2018 1:54pm

Taytoland wrote: »

How did Churchill partition Ireland? Churchill was not Prime Minister in 1921. Partition was decades, if not a century in the making.

He signed the anglo irish treaty, although he was against it. Think it was Birkenhead who persuaded him.

10-06-2018 2:11pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

So we refused to take orders from Churchill, a drunken racist who partitioned Ireland and wanted to invade the Free State and overthrow our democracy - but was too much of a coward to do so - 8 decades ago
Essentially, these Brits are just complaining that they couldn't even defeat Ireland.
The Americans told them to forget about it, so junior partner Britain did.

+

The British (whose failed war in the North cost us billions and had us help bail them out in the 70s) and their banks lost money on the Republic's housing sector which they invited themselves into to gamble on, and gave an incompetent FF govt 3% of funds compared to 97% from Europe - so the Brits could make a profit

= Ireland should allow Britain to Brexit without following international law, an international treaty and stop pointing out facts to their idiot backward politicians and jingoistic media.

That's Brexiteer logic right there.

That's just stupid Britain.
Stuck in the past.
A victim complex.
A joke of a country.

Sorry, but you brought this on yourselves.

Congratulations, you have just won the “most bizarre post of the day” award.

vg88 · 10-06-2018 2:16pm

Any of this is hardly surprising. I was on a walking tour in Santiago Chile last week and meet a British woman who was also there. She seemed educated (worked in finance london city), voted against brexit and thought Corbyn was awful etc etc.

However, from what see listened and believed off the British media, she believed the EU weren't interested in a "deal" to be sorted regarding the border with technology. When I asked what technology she meant it start to all cave in. I asked how it would stop people crossing from Ireland to Northern Ireland to UK she seemed shocked and said some sort of hard border would be needed. When I asked her does she know how many crossings there was and told her how many there was she was shocked and said some sort of deal is needed for no border. I gave up after this as it started to repeat itself.

Even if this is say 30% of the British public had similar views, it was shocking to hear even today how ignorant they really are about what they were doing. It kind of felt like a divorce the way she way going on it about, but as if she wanted most of the benefits of marriage still.

10-06-2018 2:25pm

moloner4 wrote: »

Any of this is hardly surprising. I was on a walking tour in Santiago Chile last week and meet a British woman who was also there. She seemed educated (worked in finance london city), voted against brexit and thought Corbyn was awful etc etc.

However, from what see listened and believed off the British media, she believed the EU weren't interested in a "deal" to be sorted regarding the border with technology. When I asked what technology she meant it start to all cave in. I asked how it would stop people crossing from Ireland to Northern Ireland to UK she seemed shocked and said some sort of hard border would be needed. When I asked her does she know how many crossings there was and told her how many there was she was shocked and said some sort of deal is needed for no border. I gave up after this as it started to repeat itself.

Even if this is say 30% of the British public had similar views, it was shocking to hear even today how ignorant they really are about what they were doing. It kind of felt like a divorce the way she way going on it about, but as if she wanted most of the benefits of marriage still.

Why exactly should she know? You do realize the obsession some people have with the uk is not reciprocated.

Taytoland · 10-06-2018 2:30pm

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

How did Churchill partition Ireland? Churchill was not Prime Minister in 1921. Partition was decades, if not a century in the making.

He signed the anglo irish treaty, although he was against it. Think it was Birkenhead who persuaded him.

But he wasn't "responsible" for it. It was a negotiation.

10-06-2018 4:08pm

Taytoland wrote: »

Partition was decades, if not a century in the making.

Nah, it wasn't. The first Unionist suggestion to partition Ireland only came in 1912, and that was entirely because the Parliament Act of 1911 limited the time the House of Lords could veto House of Commons legislation to 2 years. That meant that the Third Home Rule Bill of 1912 would become law in 1914 and all Ireland would have a parliament. Accordingly, with democracy about to overthrow Unionist domination in Ireland, Unionists started proposing partition. Ireland had always been the political, religious and cultural entity favoured by Unionists. As is seen in the names of their organisations from the Church of Ireland to the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland to the Irish Football Association. In 1920 "Northern Ireland" was not their historic entity.

It was only in May 1920 that Unionists decided they wanted six counties rather than all nine counties of Ulster. Please familiarise yourself with the facts.

The partition of this small country in December 1920 has only ever been a temporary little arrangement.

Taytoland wrote: »

But he wasn't "responsible" for it. It was a negotiation.

So...how do you feel about the current British "negotiation" with the much greater power of the EU?

Donald Trump · 10-06-2018 4:16pm

moloner4 wrote: »

Any of this is hardly surprising. I was on a walking tour in Santiago Chile last week and meet a British woman who was also there. She seemed educated (worked in finance london city), voted against brexit and thought Corbyn was awful etc etc.

However, from what see listened and believed off the British media, she believed the EU weren't interested in a "deal" to be sorted regarding the border with technology. When I asked what technology she meant it start to all cave in. I asked how it would stop people crossing from Ireland to Northern Ireland to UK she seemed shocked and said some sort of hard border would be needed. When I asked her does she know how many crossings there was and told her how many there was she was shocked and said some sort of deal is needed for no border. I gave up after this as it started to repeat itself.

Even if this is say 30% of the British public had similar views, it was shocking to hear even today how ignorant they really are about what they were doing. It kind of felt like a divorce the way she way going on it about, but as if she wanted most of the benefits of marriage still.

I met an English woman about 6 months ago. Was apparently well educated, an accountant, working in Toronto (or at least somewhere in Canada), I'd say late 30's.

Talk turned to Brexit. Her view was that the "The EU won't give us a deal - we just want a deal like Norway. Why will they do a deal with Norway and they won't do one with us" . She seemed surprised when I said "The EU will give the Norway deal but UK already stated they won't accept those conditions"
She then went on "We didn't need to leave. They should have just allowed us to change the rules. It wasn't fair".

I asked her "What rules".

She said "Too many people coming in. We shouldn't have to let them in".

I said "What people" and she replied "The Polish - they are everywhere".

She did not see the irony in the fact that she herself was an economic migrant. Also told me that she had just recently got permanent status there. Wasn't even going back to the UK

Taytoland · 10-06-2018 5:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Partition was decades, if not a century in the making.

Nah, it wasn't. The first Unionist suggestion to partition Ireland only came in 1912, and that was entirely because the Parliament Act of 1911 limited the time the House of Lords could veto House of Commons legislation to 2 years. That meant that the Third Home Rule Bill of 1912 would become law in 1914 and all Ireland would have a parliament. Accordingly, with democracy about to overthrow Unionist domination in Ireland, Unionists started proposing partition. Ireland had always been the political, religious and cultural entity favoured by Unionists. As is seen in the names of their organisations from the Church of Ireland to the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland to the Irish Football Association. In 1920 "Northern Ireland" was not their historic entity.

It was only in May 1920 that Unionists decided they wanted six counties rather than all nine counties of Ulster. Please familiarise yourself with the facts.

The partition of this small country in December 1920 has only ever been a temporary little arrangement.

Taytoland wrote: »

But he wasn't "responsible" for it. It was a negotiation.

So...how do you feel about the current British "negotiation" with the much greater power of the EU?

Again ignoring the historical reality of the situation. The push for Irish Independence for decades was always going to end up with some state created in the South, but the Ulster Protestants weren't going to accept being dragged out of the Empire. You could trace this all the way back to the time of Emmett.

The fact that some Irish Republicans thought that they could separate from the Empire and the Protestant regions of Ulster would just take it was either naive or just ignorant. If you had a large amount of the population on the Island wanting separation but a significant amount in the Northern region not, then don't be surprised at partition.

EdgeCase · 10-06-2018 5:40pm

I don’t really get this “but the French did x, y and z” too.
Both have a had a disgracefully aggressive history and have done horrible things over the years. The fact the French or anyone else did terrible things doesn’t absolve the British Empire of its history.

It’s better to accept the past for what it was and learn from it as a society. What worries me about aspects of the British establishment and the right wing is that some of them tend to glorify the empire and sanitise history.

Modern Britain isn’t the British Empire. Hanging onto notions of carefully edited history that sees the world in terms of past glories is really not healthy or helpful. It’s quite deluded and toxic.

I genuinely find a lot of modern French people are at least more uncomfortable with their past, as it doesn’t really fit very well with their ideals of post war European socialism, republicanism etc

You have to accept history, warts and all. Otherwise you are defined to repeat its mistakes.

An Claidheamh · 11-06-2018 1:56pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I met an English woman about 6 months ago. Was apparently well educated, an accountant, working in Toronto (or at least somewhere in Canada), I'd say late 30's.

Talk turned to Brexit. Her view was that the "The EU won't give us a deal - we just want a deal like Norway. Why will they do a deal with Norway and they won't do one with us" . She seemed surprised when I said "The EU will give the Norway deal but UK already stated they won't accept those conditions"
She then went on "We didn't need to leave. They should have just allowed us to change the rules. It wasn't fair".

I asked her "What rules".

She said "Too many people coming in. We shouldn't have to let them in".

I said "What people" and she replied "The Polish - they are everywhere".

She did not see the irony in the fact that she herself was an economic migrant. Also told me that she had just recently got permanent status there. Wasn't even going back to the UK

They're just not a reasonable people.

They cannot be taken seriously as a nation.
The whole refusal to acknowledge their own immigration always appeared locked in with their imperialist background ie it's OK when they do it.

Corbyn needs to - and I note the irony - take back control and present a reasonable outgoing British position on Europe.

He's their only chance to salvage some dignity.

12-06-2018 3:45am

Aegir wrote: »

Why exactly should she know? You do realize the obsession some people have with the uk is not reciprocated.

She voted. Obsession isn't needed to be aware of the broad strokes.

12-06-2018 8:40am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She voted. Obsession isn't needed to be aware of the broad strokes.

She voted to remain, why would/should anyone voting remain know or even care how many border crossing points there are between NI and RoI?

Peregrinus · 12-06-2018 8:56am

Aegir wrote: »

She voted to remain, why would/should anyone voting remain know or even care how many border crossing points there are between NI and RoI?

I think the point is that, although she voted to remain, she subsequently formed the view, based on what was presented in the UK media, that the EU weren't interested in a technology-based agreement to resolve the Irish border. I think we could interpret this two ways:

1. She understood that the EU weren't interested in a technology-based solution, and she also understood the good reasons for this.

2. She understood that the EU weren't interested in a technology-based solution, but she believed their were no good reasons for this; the EU was simply being inflexible or rigid.

It's clear from the tenor of the rest of moloner4's post, however, that it's the second meaning that he intends.

So the implication is that a remain voter, who is presumably open to arguments that point to the inherent difficulties/contradictions of Brexit, hasn't picked up that those arguments exist or are relevant in this context.

Which might suggest that the UK media hasn't done a great job of presenting the issue.

Or - and I think this is what you are getting at, Aegir - it might suggest that she's a bit over Brexit. She lived through the referendum campaign; she didn't like the result but she accepted it; now she expects politicians to implement it in the best possible/least awful fashion; she doesn't have the interest or commitment to keep researching micro-judgments about the nitty-gritty of Brexit.

Which I think is fair enough. We can criticise Leave voters in the referendum, who voted to break the eggs when they had no clue as to how an omelette could be made from the resulting mess, but we cannot criticise her for voting for a Brexit that she did not understand; she voted against it. And I don't think we can criticise her for the failure major failings of the British political class since then; she is not a member of that class. She is being badly let down by them and, so far, has failed to notice that, but all she is guilty of is expecting politicians to do their jobs. And, really, citizens should be able to expect politicians to do their jobs.

12-06-2018 8:59am

Aegir wrote: »

She voted to remain, why would/should anyone voting remain know or even care how many border crossing points there are between NI and RoI?

I misread.. Missed the "against" part.

EdgeCase · 12-06-2018 9:18am

The fallback plan should be something like this:

If no deal is ageeed by October:

New Brexit poll and a general election.

12-06-2018 12:21pm

EdgeCase wrote: »

The fallback plan should be something like this:

If no deal is ageeed by October:

New Brexit poll and a general election.

A general election, as already shown, could cause even more chaos. Whilst the Tories have been pretty crap, I would guess Comrade Corbyn is thanking his lucky red stars that he isn’t in power.

eric hoone · 12-06-2018 12:28pm

EU going to make Brits suffer for as long as possible, we're in a strong negotiating position, they're cracking up.

Peregrinus · 13-06-2018 8:17am

Aegir wrote: »

A general election, as already shown, could cause even more chaos. Whilst the Tories have been pretty crap, I would guess Comrade Corbyn is thanking his lucky red stars that he isn’t in power.

I kind of doubt that. Politicians want power. They have a fairly strong instinct to dislike being out of power; it wouldn't be easily overcome.

I think Corbyn probably thinks as follows.

1. If May falls, and there's a general election, I'll probably win.

2. I won't be dependent on the DUP.

3. In negotiating Brexit, I won't be constrained by the DUP, or by my own principles or interests, from differentiating between NI and GB. That greatly increases the scope for solutions to the Irish border problem, and so makes negotiating Brexit easier in that respect.

4. In negotiating Brexit, I won't have the Tory fetish about global trade deals, and I'm much more relaxed about some kind of customs union or close customs arrangement. That helps too. Plus, as a Genuine Lefty™, I don't have faith in free trade/free markets to solve all problems.

5. I don't have May's fixation on the European Court of Justice. I won't join the EEA (see below) so there will be no general subjection of the UK to the ECJ, but I am quite open to sectoral subjection in order to secure, e.g., UK participation in the European Aviation Space.

6. My red line for Brexit would be "no subjecting ourselves to market regulations which control or prevent state participation in the economy, state ownership, state aids, etc, etc.". That does rule out straightforward membership of the EEA (or, at least, I believe it does) but it's a lot less restrictive than May's absurd collection of shibboleths. I'd have much more room for manoeuvre to hammer out a deal that was attractive both to me on behalf of the UK and to the EU.

7. Therefore, I'd make a better fist of this than she has. Bring it on!

Foxhound38 · 13-06-2018 10:55am

They are doing this to themselves and they are just in shock that we are for once not going against our own interests to fall in behind them.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are many in the British public and establishment who have never really understood in any true sense that we are an independent quantity, not some wayward vassal of theirs and we can do as we like.

We don't owe them our indulgence on this fantasy or our cooperation in this collective act of self-harm they are imposing on themselves in the form of Brexit.

ancapailldorcha · 13-06-2018 11:07am

Foxhound38 wrote: »

They are doing this to themselves and they are just in shock that we are for once not going against our own interests to fall in behind them.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are many in the British public and establishment who have never really understood in any true sense that we are an independent quantity, not some wayward vassal of theirs and we can do as we like.

We don't owe them our indulgence on this fantasy or our cooperation in this collective act of self-harm they are imposing on themselves in the form of Brexit.

To be fair, Parliament is notoriously unrepresentative of the population as a whole. Not much more than a third of the electorate vote Conservative so they don't even have a popular mandate.

EdgeCase · 13-06-2018 11:21am

It’s quite an attempt at inverting the narrative into the UK being a victim of Irish bullying. We haven’t done anything other than point out reality and hold our ground.

They think bullying is not capitulating to their every whim.

The world doesn’t owe the UK a living and they are probably going to learn that negotions aren’t entirely one way discussions and compromises are something you have to be able to cope with in life.

It reminds me of a guy in school who broke his hand and tried to blame the guy he was trying to punch in head for blocking his punch with a heavy book. He and his parents went to the principal complaining that he had been injured!

Kermit.de.frog · 30-06-2018 10:02pm

I take it this appeared in the Irish edition too.

badtoro · 30-06-2018 10:16pm

That sun piece (of...) reflects a lot of what I've seen on British forums. Those people can't see past the end of their own noses and do believe that we should capitulate entirely to their will. While I feel a degree of sympathy with the remainers I can't but hope that the EU screws the UK to the fullest extent possible due to the repellent attitudes of brexiters towards my country. In short, they won't like it up'em.

Taytoland · 30-06-2018 10:20pm

No deal as I predicted over 18 months ago.

zapitastas · 30-06-2018 10:37pm

Taytoland wrote: »

No deal as I predicted over 18 months ago.

The will take whatever scraps are thrown from the table ... in due course

OldMrBrennan83 · 30-06-2018 10:46pm

This post has been deleted.

30-06-2018 11:15pm

Foxhound38 wrote: »

They are doing this to themselves and they are just in shock that we are for once not going against our own interests to fall in behind them.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are many in the British public and establishment who have never really understood in any true sense that we are an independent quantity, not some wayward vassal of theirs and we can do as we like.

And it still hasn't sunk in for Boris, and his fellow rightwing populist opportunists, that in 2018 it is Britannia itself and not the northeast of Ireland, that is that very tail trying to wag the European dog.

Courses in political reality 2018 are desperately needed for the Tories, with lesson 1: it's not 1880 so wake the fúck up you delusional, conceited clowns with your dreams of world power and glory.

Should we stop bullying the United Kingdom?

Comments