tayto lover wrote: » Is he not entitled to his opinion?
Spook_ie wrote: » words
Lingua Franca wrote: » Just pointing out that the British were less than honest/blatantly untrustworthy about it, and that the controversy continues despite what anyone on this forum says.
Spook_ie wrote: » No
it would seem to me that a lot of people are caught up in the glare of the "Sun's" headlines and blame MT even for the "Gotcha" headline they used.
The British were fighting a war, declared or not, with Argentina, even without the sovereignty of the islands the Argentinians were holding and threatening British Citizens against their will.
If the situation arose that Irish citizens were being held against their will would you like the Irish Gov to do everything possible or just to limit themselves to telling the aggressors to go sit on the naughty step?
Latchy wrote: » For the Popes 3 day visit in 2011 it also cost the UK taxpayer £10 million which had many asking the question ,why didn't the richest organisation in the world pay for it at it's own expense ?
true wrote: » good question. As the British are paying ( along with the IMF and EU ) for our current bailout, and historically have been the ones to invest in this country / give us handouts ( through infrastructure decades ago or through the EEC / EC in seventies, eighties, nineties + noughties ) we should care about how the British spend their money, in case they have none left to throw our way.
Spook_ie wrote: » The British were fighting a war, declared or not, with Argentina, even without the sovereignty of the islands the Argentinians were holding and threatening British Citizens against their will.
gurramok wrote: » At least try to speak the truth. The bailout was not a handout, it was a LOAN with interest to be paid on it.
end of the road wrote: » they would have been better off negotiating with the argentines to facilitate the removal of the people from the islands and then sign them over to the argentines, would have cost less and would save a large amount of money in the long run
Weathering wrote: » The British give us a loan which will be paid back with interest.
Weathering wrote: » What nonsense. The British give us a loan which will be paid back with interest. It's a business deal for them not a charitable act. According to UK government figures, trade with Ireland exceeds total UK trade with Brazil,China,India and Russia so it's in their best interests. I love the line "Historically been the ones to give us handouts" haha that made me chuckle. Did you ever hear of the famine?
true wrote: » If we do not look for debt write down / default on the interest. We are still borrowing 20 billion a year just to keep the lights on. Do you ever see a time when we can repay the hundreds of billions plus interest, when we cannot even come close to breaking even, despite all the "cutbacks"? Ah well, at least they gave us good infrastructure, from the harbours canals / railways / historic old buildings to the farm grants to the new motorways. They cannot take that back.
Happyman42 wrote: » What do you think they built that infrastructure with? Their own money or the money plundered from this and other colonies. That hat you are doffing must be obstructing your vision.
delthedriver wrote: » Gosh, I think the Famine was long before Mrs Thatcher's time in office
delthedriver wrote: » Perhaps, using the above logic, Ireland could negotiate with Iceland and sign Co. Donegal over to them, saving the Irish taxpayer a small fortune
Weathering wrote: » Yeah well done. True said historically britain gives Ireland handouts. It was in relation to that
end of the road wrote: » no, nice try but your point is ridiculous, the falklands cost a lot of money to defend and also the equipment used to defend it could be better used at home to protect the british mainland
drakshug wrote: » A lot of Maggie apologists on here and a lot of people who didn't live in the UK under her government. I was 13 when she came to power. she defined my generation. Her way of talking down to people, her disdain and dismissal of people forced out of work. The way she destroyed whole communities and yet protected her own. Her talk of a classless society whilst creating a society of two classes - the haves and have nots. She never understood us Scots and her ideology never got a foothold in Scotland as it did in the home counties. Thatcherism is repugnant and even though the UK media are trying to whitewash and reinvent her legacy I was reminded of it all too vividly last Monday getting a train through Lanarkshire coming back to Ireland. Going past what used to be Ravenscraig steel works and seeing what used to be coal bings and down through North Ayrshire where there was 40% unemployment - it brought it all back. She destroyed it all and ripped the heart out of whole areas. as for her successes. It was a time of boom and bust, of the beginning of casino economics, of a rise in poverty and inequality and of the destruction of the public housing stock Thatcher may be dead but Thatcherism is still alive and prosperous in Tory and Labour policies. I won't be mourning.
Weathering wrote: » I see you ignored most of my post,probably as you knew it was correct and you had no lies to counter it.
Weathering wrote: » Yeah well done. True said historically britain gave Ireland handouts. It was in relation to that
Happyman42 wrote: » ......that turned a blind eye when vast swathes of the 'homeland' was laid waste.
Norwesterner wrote: » I'm not a Maggie apologist, but getting fed up with this idea that there were no factories closed before Maggie or after Maggie. Then you must remember the IMF in Britain, soaring inflation, continuous stikes, rubbish piling up in the street, the Winter of Discontent....when you were 12.
