Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’
Comments
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The population of the Ireland had been continually falling since the famine, the Irish state actually stopped it's decrease with the British leaving and eventually to rise. This took a few decades, but in fairness to the Irish state, it couldn't undo the colossal damage and underdevelopment the British had been doing for centuries over night.Largely imaginary. Yes.
You're aware that the rising was preceded by weeks and months of men *openly* drilling in and outside Dublin? The actual Rising itself was masked with an open, public call for three days of "parades and manoeuvres". It was treated in the same bemused fashion as it would be today. There was no military clampdown or reaction to large groups of militant nationalists and socialists openly training for all to see.
For largely the same reasons: that it was unimaginable to anyone that there would be a rising. There was no obvious cause or reason. I still remember my bemusement at seeing an open backed trucking racing down the quays with a group of men in military uniforms wearing balaclavas on the back of it. Still technically illegal I thought, but some sort of Provo commemoration I presumed. Most Dubliners and obviously the British reaction was the same to the militant groups openly organising and training in their midst. It doesn't sound like the Orwellian nightmare Provos like to portray today.
Largely speaking which flag was flying over Ireland didn't make a whole heap of difference to the lives of the people living there. It didn't then, and sadly enough, it still doesn't now.
After 6 years of murder, atrocities and mayhem, they kept the garrison civil service, painted the post boxes green and carried on as normal. Indeed, Irish people were *less* free and has *less* rights under Dev's constitution than they would have had under British rule - something Irish people voted on by moving in *droves* to the UK over the following decades to gain freedom. Irelands population declined over the first decades of independence despite Catholic birth rates. It took until 1979 for the Irish population to recover to the level of 1911 (under British rule). It doesn't seem like the violence secured a better way of life for Ireland or the Irish given they seemed to flee from it to the UK primarily.
And this is the guy who tries to claim he's not a unionistI dont agree with Eamonn McCann on a lot of topics, but I believe he summed Irish "republicanism" with admirable sarcasm:
1916 and all that didn't end the exploitation or repression of Irish people. It simply changed the ruling class (which has become almost aristocratic) and certainly in the early decades increased and deepened the exploitation and repression.
I might have to clarify something here - I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to applying violence to solve a problem under the right conditions. I have no instinctive objection to violence being applied to achieve a better way of life or to end a demonstrated tyranny. I just don't think 1916 met those conditions, nor do I think that any of the ends achieved (an overt reduction of personal freedoms) in the next 3-4 decades justified the means.
I don't know why I bother though. I'm pretty sure all you see is [WestBrit]Blah blah blah [/WestBrit].
The British economy from WW1 to the early 80s was in a near permanent state of decline with it’s collapsing empire from which it had extorted wealth, cheap materials and cheap labour (and an economy which ours, for varying historical reasons, was unfortunately closely bound to). Then the Great depression hit, which started towards the end of 1929 effectively shutting down Irish emigration to Britain and the US resulting in mass unemployment and growing social unrest. However the overwhelming FF victory in the 1932 general election (I’m not a FFer BTW) was won on the back of massive public discontent with Cosgrave and the appeal of FF's "new deal" type industrial policy which mandated developing Irish industry behind tariff barriers. Ireland was one of the few countries where employment actually grew during the depression years so these policies did have some success but in hindsight we can see that the internal market in Ireland would never be big enough to support large scale industry which is why Ireland now has an export orientated economy. As Conor McCabe states in his excellent history of the Irish economy Sins of the Father P77, FF increased employment by 40,000 between 1932 - 1936 with the building of very badly needed social housing, electrification, the development of companies such as Bord na Mona, Siucra Eireann etc, This was the first large scale increase in industrial employment in Ireland since the Act of Union.
Then of course came WW2 with Britain getting routed on the battlefields and it’s economy wrecked by the Luftwaffe until Hitler attacked the USSR and America came in. After the war Britain was effectively destroyed and had to borrow off the USA $4.34 billion. The loan was negotiated at a 2% interest rate, payable over 50 years starting in 1950. The final payment was actually six years late, the British Government having suspended payments due in the years 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because of continual poor performance fo the British economy. Upon joining the EU in 1973, Britain was one of the EU's three poorest states going bankrupt in the mid 70’s with the IMF bailing it out several decades before we ruined ourselves bailing out the banks of Europe including the British ones of course. It should be pointed out that in the UN Human Development Index which is a measure of countries health, education, income etc findings have been tabulated since 1980, the RoI has consistently been higher in the rankings than Britain. There can be no doubt that Ireland was much better off out of the British state as much as our unionist friends try to pretend that the UK is some sort of all round success story.
Human Development Index trends, 1980-2013
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-2-human-development-index-trends-1980-2013
Britain pays off final instalment of US loan - after 61 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan--after-61-years-430118.html0 -
-
ChicagoJoe wrote: »The population of the Ireland had been continually falling since the famine, the Irish state actually stopped it's decrease with the British leaving and eventually to rise. This took a few decades, but in fairness to the Irish state, it couldn't undo the colossal damage and underdevelopment the British had been doing for centuries over night.
And this is the guy who tries to claim he's not a unionist
The British economy from WW1 to the early 80s was in a near permanent state of decline with it’s collapsing empire from which it had extorted wealth, cheap materials and cheap labour (and an economy which ours, for varying historical reasons, was unfortunately closely bound to). Then the Great depression hit, which started towards the end of 1929 effectively shutting down Irish emigration to Britain and the US resulting in mass unemployment and growing social unrest. However the overwhelming FF victory in the 1932 general election (I’m not a FFer BTW) was won on the back of massive public discontent with Cosgrave and the appeal of FF's "new deal" type industrial policy which mandated developing Irish industry behind tariff barriers. Ireland was one of the few countries where employment actually grew during the depression years so these policies did have some success but in hindsight we can see that the internal market in Ireland would never be big enough to support large scale industry which is why Ireland now has an export orientated economy. As Conor McCabe states in his excellent history of the Irish economy Sins of the Father P77, FF increased employment by 40,000 between 1932 - 1936 with the building of very badly needed social housing, electrification, the development of companies such as Bord na Mona, Siucra Eireann etc, This was the first large scale increase in industrial employment in Ireland since the Act of Union.
Then of course came WW2 with Britain getting routed on the battlefields and it’s economy wrecked by the Luftwaffe until Hitler attacked the USSR and America came in. After the war Britain was effectively destroyed and had to borrow off the USA $4.34 billion. The loan was negotiated at a 2% interest rate, payable over 50 years starting in 1950. The final payment was actually six years late, the British Government having suspended payments due in the years 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because of continual poor performance fo the British economy. Upon joining the EU in 1973, Britain was one of the EU's three poorest states going bankrupt in the mid 70’s with the IMF bailing it out several decades before we ruined ourselves bailing out the banks of Europe including the British ones of course. It should be pointed out that in the UN Human Development Index which is a measure of countries health, education, income etc findings have been tabulated since 1980, the RoI has consistently been higher in the rankings than Britain. There can be no doubt that Ireland was much better off out of the British state as much as our unionist friends try to pretend that the UK is some sort of all round success story.
Human Development Index trends, 1980-2013
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-2-human-development-index-trends-1980-2013
Britain pays off final instalment of US loan - after 61 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan--after-61-years-430118.html
It also probably didn't help with the British Army blowing up the middle of Dublin in 1916 & 1922, burning down the the center of Cork & countless towns & villages from 1919 -1921.0 -
-
ChicagoJoe wrote: »The population of the Ireland had been continually falling since the famine, the Irish state actually stopped it's decrease with the British leaving and eventually to rise.
Wrong. The population declined for the first five to six decades of independent rule. The majority left to rejoin British rule in the United Kingdom, or to, well, Chicago.
Independent rule was not a panacea for the ills that assailed Ireland. People voted with their feet.And this is the guy who tries to claim he's not a unionist
I'm not - I couldn't give a toss if Northern Ireland stays in the UK or doesn't. I do have a view that the Republic would do better with Northern Ireland and its infantile, twisted politics quarantined.The British economy from WW1 to the early 80s was in a near permanent state of decline
Reality vs. dreams.
British GDP was on a pretty much constant climb through the 20th century. A dip in the 1930s, a levelling of the growth in the 1970s, and a dip in the mid 90s. Other than that, constant growing in real terms. That's why the Irish emigrated there...Then of course came WW2 with Britain getting routed on the battlefields and it’s economy wrecked by the Luftwaffe until Hitler attacked the USSR and America came in.
Again, reality vs. dreams.
I think an MP in the House of Commons in or around the time summarised the damage that the Luftwaffe inflicted on British manufacturing as being roughly equivalent to two days strike action. The Luftwaffe mainly targeted airfields an ports to begin with, and then moved on to indiscriminate bombing of urban areas - they never had the tools or the know-how to "wreak" the British economy.There can be no doubt that Ireland was much better off out of the British state as much as our unionist friends try to pretend that the UK is some sort of all round success story.
And yet people fled in their hundreds of thousands to the UK and the US. Strange we didn't have economic migrants fleeing from such a benighted place as the UK you portray.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As former British PM Harold Wilson once said, unionists don’t do economics, they just expect Britain to throw money at them in return for their conditional ‘loyalty’ and then winge it’s not enough for them regardless. Anyway…….Wrong. The population declined for the first five to six decades of independent rule. The majority left to rejoin British rule in the United Kingdom, or to, well, Chicago.
Independent rule was not a panacea for the ills that assailed Ireland. People voted with their feet.
The 26 counties population was in continual sharp decline under the British. With the formation of the Irish state 1926 to 1971 the population decline was slowed in the 45 years and has been rising since 1971 as you can see from the link below.
Yeah sure, your not a unionist and I have a date with Miss World tonight.I'm not - I couldn't give a toss if Northern Ireland stays in the UK or doesn't. I do have a view that the Republic would do better with Northern Ireland and its infantile, twisted politics quarantined.
Oh dearReality vs. dreams.
British GDP was on a pretty much constant climb through the 20th century. A dip in the 1930s, a levelling of the growth in the 1970s, and a dip in the mid 90s. Other than that, constant growing in real terms. That's why the Irish emigrated there...
Irish GDP also was on a pretty much constant climb through the 20th century as can be seen from the graph below but I wouldn’t be getting too excited about using GDP as measure of ‘success’ as GDP for example doesn't take into account the level of debt a country has. (For example, Japan has the fourth highest GDP in the world behind the EU, US and China (in that order) and yet it has the highest debt to GDP ration in the world, higher than Zimbabwe and many other "less stable" countries.) And as stated if Britain was doing so great all the time, how come it had to borrow Billions from the USA and then defaulted in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 and had to be bailed out by the IMF in the mid 70’s !!!!!
http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/gdp.ireland.gifAgain, reality vs. dreams.
I think an MP in the House of Commons in or around the time summarised the damage that the Luftwaffe inflicted on British manufacturing as being roughly equivalent to two days strike action. The Luftwaffe mainly targeted airfields an ports to begin with, and then moved on to indiscriminate bombing of urban areas - they never had the tools or the know-how to "wreak" the British economy. Lucky for the Limeys the USA came into the war eh
Again as stated, most of the reason for the Irish population having to emigrate was due to the colossal damage and underdevelopment the British had been doing for centuries which in fairness to the Irish state it couldn't undo in just a few short years. (Even look at the countries of Eastern Europe who even though they are free of communism for two and a half decades are still trying to catch up with western Europe.) You keep trying to ignore the economic elephant in the room and I’ll keep reminding you of itAnd yet people fled in their hundreds of thousands to the UK and the US. Strange we didn't have economic migrants fleeing from such a benighted place as the UK you portray. 0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtkJYKfCDhA
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement