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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Anglo Irish Economic War - Is History repeating itself and where are we at now ??

Options
13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »



    Yes MD - you are very bold


    Jeez - I knew it would all catch up with me someday. It was the Wikileaks right? Or maybe Doozie - as he once said to me between sips of tea - "just because it's not recorded"...;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    PatsytheNazi
    Quote:


    As part of the terms of the Treaty, we had to pay the ex British civil service pensions who served in Ireland if I remember rightly and that included the RIC ( not sure about those from the new Free State who were in the British army). Quite a draining wage bill for a new state I think you'd agree.
    Perhaps draining but absolutely understandable I would think, i.e. why would English, scottish, welsh taxes pay for RIC who served their careers in Ireland. The RIC were the Garda of the day as opposed to the revisionist view of them as evil brits going around comitting cruel acts against the poor irish.
    For most of the 19th century Ireland gave Britain more wealth than it received back in investment, etc. However for a short period before independence with the arrival of oap and other things Ireland was actually receiving slightly more than it gave Britain I believe. So I don't think it would have been cost neutral tbh.

    This is very interesting when the cost to Britain of running NI in recent years is considered (NI being the most industrially developed area of Ireland in 1921).
    CDfm
    Quote:

    More impoertantly, from a Marxist persective and Marx was primarily an economist , you had had the redistribution of the land etc.

    Where did we go from there.

    What were our opportunities and cock-ups ?

    The land redistribution of the 30's was a legacy of British rule, continuing the policies of the congested districts board and various labour acts. Standing up to Britain in the 30's would no doubt have been quite popular given the recent history (at the time). Therefore the hardships resultant on the economic war would not have been viewed harshly at the time. This is reflected in election results from the time. If patriotism is omitted from this discussion I would not agree with the original suggestion that the economic war was positive for Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »




    Was there money in the country.How big were the repayments ? and as a percentage of tax take.

    Haven't a clue what percentage they were, Marchdub might know, hopefully someone would inform us. The redistribution of land wasn't exactly a classic marxian move. The Wyndham act and the others allowed farmers who were renting to buy from the landlord. redistribution in itself didn't improve the economy although it did provide potential for control of the land by Irish people/farmers.

    OK did some looking around. Lee says that the annuities amounted to ‘over £3 million a year’ for the Free State government. Taxation for 1924 in the Free State was £30M but this was falling during the 1920s largely due to the world wide slump in agricultural prices - prices had risen during WWI which is typical for wars - and by 1930 taxation was reduced to £24 million. So the annuities were becoming a heavier burden.

    There was discussion throughout the 1920s about the ‘legitimacy’ of the annuities payments. Peadar O’Donnell had formed the ‘Anti-Tribute League’ in 1926 which called for stopping the annual payment to Britain. He got little support but De Vlera took up the idea and imposed it when FF came to power in 1932.

    In 1938 over £100 million was still owed by the Irish but De Valera struck a deal with the Brits and they agreed on a onetime payment of £10 million.

    The budget was actually balanced throughout the 1920s it seems but this was at the cost of cuts in social programmes. Ernest Blythe was heavily criticised over this - especially his cuts in Old Age pensions which were reduced from 10 shillings to 9 shillings per week. These programmes were greatly improved under FF in the 1930s.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub




    The land redistribution of the 30's was a legacy of British rule, continuing the policies of the congested districts board and various labour acts. Standing up to Britain in the 30's would no doubt have been quite popular given the recent history (at the time). Therefore the hardships resultant on the economic war would not have been viewed harshly at the time. This is reflected in election results from the time. If patriotism is omitted from this discussion I would not agree with the original suggestion that the economic war was positive for Ireland.

    The Congested Districts Board was part of the "Constructive Unionism" policy of the British Conservative Party after the shock of what to them was a too close vote on Home Rule in 1886 - this new policy was also known as "Killing Home Rule with Kindness" and came under much criticism by nationalists for the way it was run.

    The British government actually gave a lot of power to local Catholic priests and Bishops who used the laws to fund church projects like industrial schools. In case no one knows, the Catholic Church in Ireland was not squarely behind the Home Rule movement. A situation that Parrnell had to deal with.

    The board was abolished in 1923 by the Free State Government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I don't know where the poster could have come up with that statement - Lee does make comments about the Ulster region being a better off place than the rest of the country in the nineteenth century but he then modifies this to only Belfast and to Protestant businesses. Lee says:

    "Ulster flourished relative to the rest of the country during the nineteenth century. Unionists attributed this good fortune as axiomatically to the Act of Union whereas Nationalists attributed the relative decline of the southern economy to the same Act. Ulster was in fact far from an economic success story by Western European standards...[and] it was Belfast not Ulster that was the success story".

    Lee pulls no punches in describing the Ulster Unionists as being 'racist' - his term - by saying "Whereas to most Ulster Protestants Catholics were not only different but inferior, to most Irish Catholics Ulster Protestants were merely different, not inferior".

    Edit: My bold
    Well from what I remember I suspected it was yet again one of our unionist BSers on boards.ie - posing as been from Cork, Dublin or wherever - making the kind of claims to put British occupation in the best possible light and when the thick nationalists took over they made a mess out of Britain's efficent and fair previous rule etc :rolleyes:. Lee is correct in in describing the Unionists as being 'racist' . But then that's unionism to this very day, and will be tomorrow, although they cannot make it too public anymore unlike back in the "good old days".

    It's a bit hazy but I remember reading an article by James Connolly where he pointed out how the industry's of the north east i.e. linen and ship building benefitting greatly from direct British forces contracts. Shipbuilding by been getting preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts from the British navy, linen for British army and navy uniforms etc. I'll see if I can find it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Perhaps draining but absolutely understandable I would think, i.e. why would English, scottish, welsh taxes pay for RIC who served their careers in Ireland.
    :rolleyes: The RIC were part of the forces of occupation. You didn't see, say, the Belgians or French paying the pensions of the police forces raised to maintain German rule during WW2 now did you :rolleyes:
    The RIC were the Garda of the day as opposed to the revisionist view of them as evil brits going around comitting cruel acts against the poor irish.
    To a point true, I have cited in other posts how several times they tried to stop the Tans and reguliar British army from burning and looting private property, there's one account in senior IRA man Ernie O'Malley's On Another Mans Wound. This was probaly due to the fact that they were recruited as an all Ireland body, so 80% of it's membership would have come from non unionist backgrounds. Nevrtheless, their role was to uphold British occupation, and some of them did it accompanied by shooting alleged " escaping prisioners ", and Republican suspects were claimed by them to " fall down the stairs " and " beat themselves up " to discredit the good name of the RIC etc

    But to be fair to them, they never stooped to the level of the British army.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    :rolleyes: The RIC were part of the forces of occupation. You didn't see, say, the Belgians or French paying the pensions of the police forces raised to maintain German rule during WW2 now did you :rolleyes:

    In actual fact this was the case as the main policing particularly in Vichy France was carried out by collaberating civil forces who continued their 'law and order' roles on behalf of the Germans. After the war the Gendarmerie mostly stayed in their roles and thus would have received pensions form the french government despite upholding the law on behalf of German occupation. Im way off the thread subject so should leave it there.
    Nevrtheless, their role was to uphold British occupation
    I would say that was the role of the army, The RIC role would be law and order although it obviously became conflicted after they became an easy target in the war of independence. Most of the RIC were just ordinary irishmen who had little or no knowledge of republicanism- most abandoned their posts as the war of independence proceeded.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    In actual fact this was the case as the main policing particularly in Vichy France was carried out by collaberating civil forces who continued their 'law and order' roles on behalf of the Germans. After the war the Gendarmerie mostly stayed in their roles and thus would have received pensions form the french government despite upholding the law on behalf of German occupation. Im way off the thread subject so should leave it there.
    I know we're off topic a bit but nevertheless I made a relevant example and point in my post. Not surprised if the Belgian or French pre war police/civil service etc comtinued to work and received pensions etc after WW2 as they had served the state in a normal capacity pre 1939. Anything else would have been unjust.

    As regards " paying the pensions of the police forces raised ( recruited/whatever) to maintain German rule during WW2 ". Pro fascists volunteerily joined to serve the occupiers the German state, not France or Belgium, their's an important principle there.
    I would say that was the role of the army, The RIC role would be law and order although it obviously became conflicted after they became an easy target in the war of independence. Most of the RIC were just ordinary irishmen who had little or no knowledge of republicanism- most abandoned their posts as the war of independence proceeded.
    So your telling me the RIC weren't at the fore front of combatting the IRA ? I suppose he'll tell us now that they were only helping old ladies across the road and fining fellas for having no light on their bicycle etc. Try reading On Another Man's Wound or Guerilla Days in Ireland or Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA sometime.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Lee is correct in in describing the Unionists as being 'racist' . But then that's unionism to this very day, and will be tomorrow, although they cannot make it too public anymore unlike back in the "good old days".

    But we are not discussing that here - if there is a point about structural discrimination I would like to hear it. I believe there were issues in Guinness recruitment.

    You also had AIB as an amalgamation of Catholic Banks and Bank of Ireland an amalgamation of Protestant banks (some time in the 60's)- so there were barriers to economic integration between the faith communities.
    It's a bit hazy but I remember reading an article by James Connolly where he pointed out how the industry's of the north east i.e. linen and ship building benefitting greatly from direct British forces contracts. Shipbuilding by been getting preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts from the British navy, linen for British army and navy uniforms etc. I'll see if I can find it.

    Was this as a subsidy or were labour costs lower.

    Linen wasn't exactly a nice industry -which is probably why it died out.
    :rolleyes: The RIC were part of the forces of occupation. You didn't see, say, the Belgians or French paying the pensions of the police forces raised to maintain German rule during WW2 now did you :rolleyes:

    But the Germans paid war pensions and civil service pensions to Nazi's and I am not so sure the french did not pay pensions to their police and public servants.

    I heard an interview with the CEO of Tullow Oil who commented that after revolutions you end up doing business with the same public servants as they are the only people who know how the thing works.

    So it seems to be a truism.

    However, our inherited civil servants may not have been well up on setting policy as that had been set in the UK. So we may have inherited colonial administrators and not policy makers.

    I know we're off topic a bit but nevertheless I made a relevant example and point about " paying the pensions of the police forces raised ( recruited/whatever) to maintain German rule during WW2 ". They served the German state, not Belgium, their's an important principle there.

    Not surprised if the Belgian or French pre war police/civil service etc comtinued to work and received pensions etc after WW2 as they had served the state in a normal capacity pre 1939. Anything else would have been unjust.

    Very off topic Patsy, on coloboarators, but the civil service remained in place and at some level public service pensions have to be paid.

    So we settled repayment terms of 10% of the land annuities debt with Britain. Did we continue to collect repayments from farmers ??

    What little nuggets have you come accross on these topics.

    So maybe if you know the facts you will be able to tackle unionist arguments. Wouldn't it be a good idea to know the value these subsidies had to the Northern Economy ?

    For example, Brian mentioned that the Co-op Movement concieved by Horace Plunkett by partition effectively floundered with negative outcomes for both communities north and south. So the why this happened and its cost are important too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1




    So your telling me the RIC weren't at the fore front of combatting the IRA ? I suppose he'll tell us now that they were only helping old ladies across the road and fining fellas for having no light on their bicycle etc. Try reading On Another Man's Wound or Guerilla Days in Ireland or Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA sometime.

    Im no fan of RIC but it is both selective and naive to paint them in this light. The RIC existed for 100 years, not just from 1919 to 1921.
    I don't think your reading tips which are much appreciated deal with the full period involved (RIC) thus are not relevent in deciding whether the Irish government or the British government should have payed RIC pensions after independence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    For example, Brian mentioned that the Co-op Movement concieved by Horace Plunkett by partition effectively floundered with negative outcomes for both communities north and south. So the why this happened and its cost are important too.

    Leading on from Marchdub's post no.65 the co-op movement and Plunkett were considered unionist thus 'bad'. Thus the co-ops were restricted in the 20's and Plunkett was burned out of Dublin. The co-op creameries are often still in place today as a legacy that tells a tale regarding their real legitimacy. It is important when considering this treatment that there was war and civil war at the time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A bit of what I am trying to do here is to look at the money angle and relationships. The situation we are in at the moment is similar to that of the economic war.

    So its to see what skills they had and how they handled it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    A bit of what I am trying to do here is to look at the money angle and relationships. The situation we are in at the moment is similar to that of the economic war.

    So its to see what skills they had and how they handled it.

    I would say the situation we are in now is similar to 1923 with the Land annuities being compared to our IMF repayments now. 1925 saw renegotiations following the border commission, our equivalent will be when FG/labour seeks renegotiation of terms next year.

    Following several years of stagnation we may have to default on our repayments to IMF/ EU, (this will bring us up to date with the comparison being the economic war) with the international community shunning us and with great irony Britain will be the one lifeline we have.....

    I doubt everyone here will like the idea of Britain being our lifeline but Economic collapse here would damage them greatly, thus they would have most to lose of our international partners!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    ...

    I doubt everyone here will like the idea of Britain being our lifeline but Economic collapse here would damage them greatly, thus they would have most to lose of our international partners!!!

    Its best not to predict the future - but there is a branch of economics called transactional analysis that is often used as a tool. The trade is mutually beneficial.

    I don't think the British mind throwing us a lifeline is a surprise as 12 % of the British population has an Irish parent or grandparent so its a big section of society.The diaspora. And, the Conservatives are Eurosceptics and our natural ally at a time like this.

    Ireland applied to join the EU in 1960 and DeGaulle blackballed the British - some thanks for WWII.

    Our guys in the 30's, 40's & 50's handled similar challenges and had victories and disasters.

    DeV used the League of Nations ,which came and went, he participated in the mechanisms -which was something he had to learn to do.

    In the 1960's these guys thought they were the most modern people ever in the same way as the guys in the 1929 Wall Street thought they were the first to face a speculative bubble.

    I am getting the impression that these old guys were a bit more focused.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Here is a great link on the conclusion of the Anglo Irish Agreement 1938 -check out page 60 onwards for around 10 pages and a real highlight is that the tariffs really hurt Northern Ireland and some of there industries were under threat of collapse.

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=asK9EjEpcYAC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=james+ryan+%26+de+valera+in+london&source=bl&ots=3VFsEeOR2X&sig=CyE8i3fNaNIHpcJdfBxAY_nqNG4&hl=en&ei=7_T7TILPJIbKhAft6PWlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=james%20ryan%20%26%20de%20valera%20in%20london&f=false

    Notice how , appeasement came into the question for Britain and DeValera's grandstanding .

    Here is an account of DeV meeting Churchill for the one and only time in 1953 and Churchill saying to his doctor " I like the man".(Dev had told him he would never have taken Ireland out of the Commonwealth which Costello had done).

    http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationship

    So with this and Lemass's approach to the EU recognised the importance of Britain to our national & international interests.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    CDfm wrote: »
    But the Germans paid war pensions and civil service pensions to Nazi's and I am not so sure the french did not pay pensions to their police and public servants.......Very off topic Patsy, on coloboarators, but the civil service remained in place and at some level public service pensions have to be paid.
    :rolleyes: Example, guy joins RIC/British civil service 1900. 1922 Free state takes over. Guy works until retirement in 1955. Brit state should be respondcible for his pension 1900 - 1922, Free State/Republic 1922 - 1955.

    But that fact was that many, many of the former RIC/British civil service didn't even do a bloody days work for the Free State from the day it was founded - and still the we had to pay their pensions for their service to the British due to the terms of the treaty :eek:
    Im no fan of RIC but it is both selective and naive to paint them in this light. The RIC existed for 100 years, not just from 1919 to 1921.
    I don't think your reading tips which are much appreciated deal with the full period involved (RIC) thus are not relevent in deciding whether the Irish government or the British government should have payed RIC pensions after independence.
    " selective and naive " If their's anyone been selective and naive around here buddy it's you and throw in obstinate with that :). Clearly in the Irish struggle for independence the RIC acted as an oppresive force - and that was long before 1916 - 1921 against the Fenians, Young Irelanders etc. Besides, they had a earned a deep resentment of the Irish people in the century previous for evictions etc during the Famine, Land War, assaults on Dublin workers in the Great Lockout 1913 etc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    :rolleyes: Example, guy joins RIC/British civil service 1900. 1922 Free state takes over. Guy works until retirement in 1955. Brit state should be respondcible for his pension 1900 - 1922, Free State/Republic 1922 - 1955.

    But that fact was that many, many of the former RIC/British civil service didn't even do a bloody days work for the Free State from the day it was founded - and still the we had to pay their pensions for their service to the British due to the terms of the treaty :eek:


    " selective and naive " If their's anyone been selective and naive around here buddy it's you and throw in obstinate with that :). Clearly in the Irish struggle for independence the RIC acted as an oppresive force - and that was long before 1916 - 1921 against the Fenians, Young Irelanders etc. Besides, they had a earned a deep resentment of the Irish people in the century previous for evictions etc during the Famine, Land War, assaults on Dublin workers in the Great Lockout 1913 etc

    No need to get personal. I understand why some people would view the RIC in a suspicious light, but I also think it is reasonable to assume that if Ireland had never been colonised it would still have needed a police force by the mid nineteenth century. Therefore while the RIC was a police force created by the British government it was nonetheless for the benefit of law and order in Ireland. To deny that the RIC did keep the peace and carry out the same role as the modern Garda Siochana is to deny that the country ever needed a police force, or that because a force may be flawed it must be entirely negated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    If their's anyone been selective and naive around here buddy it's you and throw in obstinate with that :). Clearly in the Irish struggle for independence the RIC acted as an oppresive force - and that was long before 1916 - 1921 against the Fenians, Young Irelanders etc. Besides, they had a earned a deep resentment of the Irish people in the century previous for evictions etc during the Famine, Land War, assaults on Dublin workers in the Great Lockout 1913 etc

    Didnt mean naive in an offensive manner- I do think that your overemphasised anti-brit tendancy is not allowing you to see the facts in this point. The RIC were of course targeted in the war of independence but prior to that their role was almost fully 'law and order'. They were mainly Irish people who chose to fulfill role of policing their country and were thought of in the same way as other police services at the time. Don't take my word for this-
    Life in the constabulary during the 19th century could certainly, on occasions, be difficult. There was periodic agrarian unrest and constant simmering discontent in relation to the land question, particularly in the south and west. Indeed the dominant image of the R.I.C. for many people often stems from its responsibility to give protection to bailiffs executing distress warrants and evicting tenants, an unpleasant duty that was greatly disliked by members of the force (most of whom were themselves from a rural background). Nevertheless, the duties of the averagepoliceman were otherwise usually varied and uncontroversial.

    These extensive civil and local government duties as well as routine patrolling in their districts ensured that the police constable was a very familiar part of daily life, someone with whom people would expect to have regular contact. It was the constable's job to acquire a thorough knowledge of his district and good relations with the local community made this easier. Indeed, good community relations, then as now, were essential for effective policing.

    By the end of the 19th century there was a total of around 1,600 barracks dotted around the Irish countryside and some 11,000 constables. The territorial division of county and district on which the command structure had been based since the 1836 reorganization continued throughout the life of the R.I.C. Each county was supervised by a county inspector, with the counties sub-divided into a number of districts, each headed by a district inspector. They in turn were assisted by a head constable based at the district headquarters, on whom rested the main responsibility for operational policing and the conduct of the men in the barracks. There were a number of barracks in each district, usually with a sergeant and four constables.

    The R.I.C. was characterised by a strict code of discipline. There was no official system of duty, rest days or annual leave, and in the interests of political impartiality members were even banned from voting at parliamentary elections. There were strict instructions laid down in police regulations concerning standards of conduct and appearance (for example, at one time police were absolutely prohibited from entering a public house socially). Other regulations were principally designed to maintain the standing of the police within the community. Members were forbidden to marry until they had at least seven years service and any potential bride had to be vetted by the constabulary authorities to ensure her social suitability. It was forbidden for policemen and their wives to sell produce, take lodgers or engage in certain forms of trade (for example, wives could be dressmakers but could not employ apprentices).

    By the early years of the 20th century the R.I.C. had evolved into a thoroughly domesticated civil police force, reflecting in its operations the needs of relatively law-abiding communities. During the 19th century the force had also become increasingly representative in its religious composition. (Until the Anglo-Irish War it was more than 70% Catholic, and thus very close to the recorded Catholic proportion of the population during 1861-1911. ) From the 1870's most regular policing duties did not call for the carrying of firearms. Indeed familiarity with firearms had to be maintained by a once yearly target practice laid down in the regulations. Between the Land War (1879-82) and 1916 the R.I.C. was not seriously challenged by major unrest or controversy. The Constabulary had settled down to low-key routine policing, with the members of the force enjoying a position of high regard in the local areas in which they served.
    http://homepage.eircom.net/~celtichistories/constabulary.htm
    Due to their ubiquity from the 1850s the RIC were tasked with a range of civil and local government duties together with their existing ones, closely tying the constables to their local communities. By 1901 there were around 1,600 barracks and some 11,000 constables. The majority of the lower ranks in rural areas were of the same social class, religion and general background as their neighbours. Through their enforcement of evictions in rural Ireland and their approach to Land league leaders, the RIC had attracted widespread opprobrium among the Irish Catholic population during the nineteenth century. However, during the relative calm of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, the RIC won general acceptance as an efficient organisation which served as a model for similar forces elsewhere in the British Empire and was no more unpopular at home than effective police forces generally are. The military ethos of the RIC with its "barracks" (usually simply rented houses), carbines and emphasis on army style drill and smartness distinguished the force from civil police in Great Britain and Dublin. Throughout its history the RIC wore a distinctive dark green uniform with black buttons and insignia, derived in style from the Rifle Brigade of the British army.

    The comparative ease of the RIC's existence was however increasingly troubled by the rise of the Home Rule campaign in the period prior to World War I. Sir Neville Chamberlain was appointed Inspector-General in 1900. His years in the RIC coincided with the rise of a number of political, cultural and sporting organizations with the common aim of asserting Ireland's separateness from England.

    By the December 1920, 'Government of Ireland Act' which created the two states on the island, and the 1921 truce, 418 RIC personnel had been killed in two years. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the cause of the Irish Civil War. In January 1922, it was agreed to disband the RIC, replacing it with the Garda Síochána in the Free State and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland.
    http://www.royalirishconstabulary.com/

    There is no need to refer to the ribbonmen or the Fenian rising- they are clear to all who have an interest (and dealt with purposefully in the link above) but had no real effect on the overall policing of the country.

    http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=2283 The Garda's own history seems to imply they are a continuation of RIC???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm



    But that fact was that many, many of the former RIC/British civil service didn't even do a bloody days work for the Free State from the day it was founded - and still the we had to pay their pensions for their service to the British due to the terms of the treaty :eek:


    " selective and naive "

    LOL Patsy :D

    But Bertie Ahern and lots of others get pensions and what have we ever done to them.

    Forget about the pensions as it was a cost of the Treaty and DeV got a result on the land annuities

    What have you come up with in terms of financials and trade ?

    I hadnt seen the economic war as trying to put Northern Ireland out of business and see it differently now.So while it hurt us -it also hurt the North and probably the Welsh coalmines as well.

    So it was an effective economic weapon but only one you could sustain for a period of time.

    An aside did Ireland ever send a team to the Commonwealth Games ???


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »

    An aside did Ireland ever send a team to the Commonwealth Games ???

    Yes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_at_the_Commonwealth_Games


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    No matter what its function or intention the RIC became an unwanted antagonistic force of intrusion into the lives of many people in nineteenth century Ireland.

    I once traced the number of times that Ireland was placed under marital law in the nineteenth century and the list was so long that it amounted to a great majority of the time. It was the job of the RIC to enforce these unwelcome laws and to the average person this was just a force - no matter what its ethnic makeup - that behaved against the right of assembly and to 'keep the people' from any form of political protest. O'Connell's meetings are a case in point.

    The whole issue of 'law and order' was contentious in Ireland. Was it 'law and order' or something else? The RIC were widely regarded as the visible representation of British rule and laws that impacted the political scene. It was a job - someone had to do it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm



    A guy Bill Britton won a Silver Medal at the 1930 Commonwealth Games. The Irish dominated hammer throwing in Britain and the US at different times.

    http://www.lindienaughton.com/letters_and_articles/irish_olympians.html

    One guy Dr Pat O'Callaghan unable to acquire a hammer "acquired" a cannonball from Macroom castle and a blacksmith did the rest .:pac:

    Thinks like sport were very mixed up for a few years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    One guy Dr Pat O'Callaghan unable to acquire a hammer "acquired" a cannonball from Macroom castle .......
    He would have been handy against the RIC 10 years earlier:D...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    He would have been handy against the RIC 10 years earlier:D...

    Tut tut . Peelers please.

    It was a balancing act between the two traditions and lots of people had to make judgements.

    http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/2010/06/15/for-dusting-the-flies-off-the-peelers-on-hot-summer-days/
    “Damn it” he said in an argument with Terence Mc Swiney in Dundalk jail in 1918, “I would rather one peelers barracks than all your moral victories.

    ^ I lolled at this - I could imagine it being said :pac:

    Anyway -lets get back on track-show me the money .


Advertisement