Ah to be British

BarryFry

Originally posted by Victor
Didn't "Great Britain" come about when Britain (England and Wales, "Britain" originally being an English sop to the Welsh) joined Scotland in the first Act of Union (c1700)?

The point I am making here is that "Great Britain" was a geographical term before it was ever a political one. "Great" referred to the size of the land mass, and not some proposed national excellence.

[/B]We don't mind it there, once Northern France is there as well. [/B][/QUOTE]

Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands ARE generally included on BBC weather maps. My point here was that the many Irish immigrants in Britain (as opposed to the small number of Belgian ones), may wish to know what the weather is like "back home". They may also, if they are as small-minded and petty as yourself, perceive some conspiratorial reason for the Republic's absence - "Ah! they don't want to acknowledge we exist!" etc.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by Elmo
I don't think we do have an inflated sense of our place in the world.

I think we don't appreciate the British not knowing anything about a country that they once ruled (and still part rule).

Much of the population of the most powerful nation in the world has absolutely no idea about the reality of how that nation was created. It took until the last few decades for a reasonable proportion of American history books to acknowledge the Native American as a human being capable of rational thought. Moving on to my point, the President of said nation (you know, the fella in charge of the most powerful armed forces in the world) can't find his ass on a map. And you're bothered that some dumb showbiz 'journalist' thinks Colin Farrell is a Brit.
Incidentally Britain owned many countries. Ireland gets a mention in British schoolbooks, many of those other countries don't.

Originally posted by Elmo
It is unlikely on a British quiz that the follow question would be asked:-

Who was the 1st female MP?

why because she was part of Sinn Fein and that is a part of history that the british don't want to know about. A stain on the Empire.

A stain on the Empire? What a fascinating concept. A stain on the otherwise proud history of... genocide, land-stealing and destruction of cultures. It's a bit like referring to something as "A stain on the Third Reich".

Originally posted by Elmo
Also I get the impression from the English Media (Not the British media or the english people) that they dont like the Welsh, Scottish or Irish that much.

I'm not sure how you get to that. Very little I've seen on English TV recently shows bias against the Irish or Welsh. Anne Robinson said she didn't like Wales, to decidedly mixed response. English TV is a little more hostile to the Scottish. Maybe the English Media isn't that fond of the Welsh, Scottish or Irish. But you won't see talentless fvckwits on English TV talk about how they spit on the Welsh border sign, as your Dirty Sanchez man's said. And any bias pales in comparison with the representation of the English in, say, the American media, as the most spineless, evil little bastards ever to step foot on the planet. Oh sh!t I forgot, they love the English now... until Blair (hopefully) finally gets round to saying something they don't like, that is.

Basically my point here is that England and Britain, like most nations, contains that species known as Stupid People. There are Stupid People in the UK who think that Ireland is part of the UK. But there are far more Stupid People in the UK who can't tell the difference between one Asian people and another. You're reading way too much into this.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by rcunning03
to see what type of information they are getting about us in school check out this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=bbcmeta%3Asoslevel%3AALevel%2Bbbcmeta%3Asossubject%3AHistory+&q=ireland&scope=sosteachertest&go.x=30&go.y=12

"my essay title is: how was ireland important to peel?"
Well, obviously it was important to peel because you had to peel it before you could eat it.

"What was the impact of Catholic emnacpation?"
I don't know, but clearly addressing the issue of dyslexia was not involved.

Sorry, just getting more depressed and snobbish about the state of literacy.

gurramok

I would support the Irish Republic rejoining the multi-cultural Commonwealth though

McAleese replaced as head of state by a foreign monarch, what would she think ?

We watch the same football teams and television programmes, even Eastenders, and read many of the same papers

As we do of American entertainment, shall we join the American commonwealth as well

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by gurramok
McAleese replaced as head of state by a foreign monarch, what would she think ?

Not every country in the Commonwealth has the queen as head of state. In fast India, the second(?) country (after us) to gain independance forced the issue and does not have the queen as head of state.

Samson

Originally posted by daveirl
McAleese is already a foreign head of state to me

What exactly do you mean?

Victor

Originally posted by Samson
What exactly do you mean?

McAleese is from Norn' Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

Does she hold dual nationality ?

Then again most of us are as British as the Royal Family.

Victor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Then again most of us are as British as the Royal Family.

Well if your father was born before 1948, he can get British citizenship and so can you.

rcunning03

Well if your father was born before 1948, he can get British citizenship and so can you.

how come 1948 ?

Also regarding joining the commonwealth that would confuse things even more, if we were to do that we might as well go the whole way and rejoin the union, i would see commonwealth membership as a stepping stone to joining the uk again

Slutmonkey57b

"Those English ba$tards, they're always nicking our irishness, don't they know any better?"

"Those Irish, they're always nicking everyone whose grandmother was farted on by an Irish dog, why don't they grow up?"

"Those Americans, they're totally thick."

Tell us something we don't know.

More revealingly, this country is a sh!thole populated by knackers.
So any country that *wants* to claim it, more fool them.

ruchna

Undoubtedly and understandably, many Irish people instinctively mistrust and dismiss the Commonwealth, historically associated with the British Empire's previous power and pomp. I know where ye're coming from.

But times have changed. The Commonwealth of Nations cannot in any way be described as Britain's stooge but has developed into a very different institution since the Republic of Ireland left in 1948. The Commonwealth of Nations has been reshaped by those countries which struggled for freedom from colonialism and now value their independence.

At worst, it might be a talking shop. But it mostly provides a forum for a unique international dialogue that often pays dividends and costs little. In my opinion, I don't see the Commonwealth as a selfish organisation, and self-interest has no part to play in its policies.

The Commonwealth is flourishing. Even countries with no British imperial past, like Mozambique, have joined. Others are asking to be let in, symbolizing the Commonwealth's dynamism, relevance (and) usefulness.

I strongly believe that the Commonwealth will confirm itself as a growing force for the sustenance and promotion of democracy and good governance.

From the Caribbean to Southeast Asia, the British Commonwealth is perhaps the most diverse of all global clubs. The challenge now is to make sure all those differences don't preclude any real consensus.

I urge my fellow countrymen and women to re-consider the benefits of Republic of Ireland re-entry. I'm still a lower case r republican but I am post-nationalist as I am now a European Union(ist)

P.S) did you know that within the Republic of Ireland there are approx 540,000 men and women who hold British passports. The statistic derives from the British Embassy, and is construed from the fact that each year, on average, 70,000 passports are either renewed, changed, or issued, to people resident in the Republic of Ireland.

ruchna

In retrospect, I would say that the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland could have worked, if the whole population were treated as first class citizens. The demoralised Catholic majority of the Irish population had spent the 19th century recovering from their dispossession, the theft of their land, and the long systematic denial of Catholic rights to property, education and professional membership.

Keeping us within the Union would have required radical change in the nature of the UK, and that was never going to happen. It is important to re-iterate that the UK never stood for democracy in Ireland. The Irish never voted to join the Union, and when they were, years later, finally allowed the vote, they voted again and again to leave. But they could not vote to leave - they had to wait until Parliament deigned to allow them to go. Can I just be clear on that. The idea that British rule was democratic is ludicrous. The first democratic election in Ireland was held in 1885, the first chance that the natives ever had in 300 years to say what kind of society they wanted. It was a triumph for democracy after centuries of coercion. And the will of the people was quite clear and understood. It should have been a final, peaceful end to the long sordid story of disenfranchisement.

But instead, needless to say, the results of that election, and all subsequent elections in the following 40 years, were now ignored and overruled by London, as if they had never taken place. Having been finally granted the vote by their superiors, the Irish people now found that the vote was useless. Today, Northern Ireland is promised that if there is ever a majority vote for a United Ireland, the UK will not stop them leaving. Southern Ireland was never granted such a promise. Indeed, quite the opposite, they had no alternative but to resort to an armed struggle in the civil war.

However, Ireland's independence was in many ways a mess. It caused the Civil War, partition with a sectarian Catholic state in the South, and a sectarian Protestant state in the North. But it was made inevitable because no serious attempt was made to reform the UK to stop nationalists leaving. In particular, it was made inevitable because the extremists in London consistently refused to allow the much more modest idea of Home Rule within the United Kingdom. Just as 30 years of war in the North have happened because the extremists there have refused to allow the much more modest idea of Catholics sharing power within the UK.

The Irish problem has always been, and is today, basically a simple problem, about the nature of disenfranchisement. The problem lasts as long as the disenfranchisement lasts. The question of nationality is only secondary (as is shown by nationalist enthusiasm for the latest, partitionist, Belfast Agreement settlement). Having our own nation was not a good way of achieving a free and equal society. We traded the hostility, prejudice and thoughtlessness of our foreign rulers for a new set of home-grown, tribal majoritarian oppressions and Catholic-fascism.

Who knows, maybe someday the Republic will join a Union with Britain again. Irish Unionism may well be a worthy cause but I for one will not be contemplating such thoughts just yet, not until Britain repeals its Act of Settlement to form a new constitutional republican settlement. Britain must face the reality that their monarchy is doomed, just as we have to accept the failures of Irish Nationalism in uniting the peoples of Ireland.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
McAleese is from Norn' Ireland.

So? Personally speaking, I don't believe the 6 counties are "foreign" territory just because the Brit establishment and the unionist fascist bastard bigot scum bullies "claim" them.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ruchna

I agree with you Dave, comments of that nature are wholly unnecessary - a respectable chatroom is one which (ideally) should be based on issues and line of argument where need be. Blind hatemongering towards our fellow Irishmen and women in the North gets us no-where

But Redleslie did make an interesting comment, which I will attempt to elaborate on if I can.

That is, that the Irishman living in North is no less Irish than the one living in the Republic. The border is irrelevant since he lives on the island of Ireland, he speaks the same language as the rest of the island, he probably shares a church with the rest of the island. If he plays sport the odds are that it is a sport organised on an all-island basis. If he plays rugby, cricket, hockey, tennis, golf or almost any other sport well enough he can represent ‘Ireland’. If not, he can still support ‘Ireland’.

He travels freely throughout the island, with no passport requirement, no border controls. His literary heritage can be the same as the southerner, including Shakespeare and Joyce, Milton and Heaney, Yeats and the writers of the Gaelic revival. The National Gallery in Merrion Square will be of as much relevance to him as that in Trafalgar Square, and a lot closer. He can read a Dublin daily newspaper and watch RTE.

He cannot, admittedly, vote in a Dail election, nor does he pay his taxes to the Dublin Government, nor live under its jurisdiction. But to suggest that diminishes his Irishness is to fall into the trap of equating identity with citizenship, or nationality with place of residence. But the Irishman of the North does live in, vote in, and pay his taxes to a state which is partly Irish – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The question facing nationalism in the North now is what policy best serves the interests of those in Northern Ireland up to now identified as nationalists. Is it one which insists its primary aim is something it knows is not going to happen – Irish unification? Or is it one which promotes the economic, social and cultural interests of those same people, which seeks to preserve and develop their Irish identity within the existing constitutional framework, and which perhaps seeks to persuade others in the North of their Irishness. This latter task is made infinitely more difficult if not impossible when Irishness is constantly linked to the existing Irish state, and to the demand for separatism from our sister island.

Crucially, all nationalists, both SDLP and SF/IRA, really have to contemplate the possibility that unionists will neither be outbred, and that a united Ireland which is separate from its sister island is incomprehensible to the Irish unionist.

ruchna

Catholic-fascism

I've put this in the wrong context. It was the fascist Catholic Hierarchy who imposed a semi-theocratic state on us until the early 70s when the special position of authority granted to the Catholic Hierarchy was removed from our Constitution. To say that the Catholic faithful people were fascist is ludicious.

P.S) The DUP Unionists of the North consider SF and their henchmen, the IRA, as the Irish representatives of fascism. I, as a democrat, would take the DUP stance in that respect, along with many southerners.

Redleslie

Originally posted by daveirl
It was me who said McAlesse was from a foreign country. Victor just clarified the point. I said it in jest but clearly you can't even handle that.

Now "unionist fascist bastard bigot scum bullies" that's mightly articulate isn't it. Clearly showing a full grasp of all the issues. Now can you imagine what the Unionist facist scum bastards think of you, people from the republic who want to take control of their country? hmmm?

See, it is not "their" country. They share it with the rest of us. Excuse me if I've offended some fluffy liberal sensibilities but my patience with them ran out some time ago. It's amusing that it's become politically incorrect to call the likes of the peace process destroying DUP exactly what they are. Even their Orange brothers the white South Africans (who really are despicable people, like the Spitting Image song I've never met a nice white South African) are more progressive and realistic than those mad old axe-faced gits up there.

sceptre

Originally posted by Redleslie
like the Spitting Image song I've never met a nice white South African

I have. White South Africans who weren't fans of apartheid, didn't like the way their country was being run and were overjoyed that it's becoming a genuine democracy. And I've met some dead-on black South Africans as well.

Redleslie

Originally posted by sceptre
I have. White South Africans who weren't fans of apartheid, didn't like the way their country was being run and were overjoyed that it's becoming a genuine democracy. And I've met some dead-on black South Africans as well.

Bit of a generalisation I know. Guilty as charged yer honour but every one of them I've worked with here and in the UK takes about 30 seconds to bring in the awfulness of the "blicks" into a conversation. It drives me potty.

sceptre

Oh I don't doubt you. I'm sure quite a few whites left the country scared of the, er, devils taking over their own country. I've only ever met one person from SA outside the country (except for a few people I knew from there that I met again in the UK) and that chap was here on holidays. I'm sure of two things: that people who actually stayed are more hopeful of the future of their country than people who left because of it and that there are probably plenty of racist types still there.

ruchna

Redleslie comment

unionist fascist bastard bigot scum bullies

Your comment beared the characteristics of a narrow-minded sectarianist. Your demonstration of sectarianism was based on preconceived and fabricated notions of others and putting these people into boxes to suit your own petty prejudices.

Secondly, you have demonstrated very little substance on the integrity of the unionist position - where is the evidence for their links with fascism?. The great strength of the unionist position today is its democratic legitimacy. There is no justification under the normal rules of democracy for transferring an unwilling people out of a long-established state in which both they and their ancestors have lived and into another state to which they are opposed. This viewpoint is incorporated in the Belfast Agreement, assented to by all parties including constitutional nationalists (SDLP) and the Dublin Government, and endorsed by the electorates north and south.

Within a modern European democracy like the UK, unionists have felt little need to explain their opposition to being absorbed within the Irish Republic, but their failure to specify their motivations has weakened their case in the eyes of the rest of the UK. Certainly, the archaic institutional means of expressing their opposition to being forced out of the UK through the Orange Order, anti-Catholic rhetoric, marches and flags, wins them few friends in the rest of the UK or anywhere else. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Redleslie

Originally posted by ruchna
Your comment beared the characteristics of a narrow-minded sectarianist. Your demonstration of sectarianism was based on preconceived and fabricated notions of others and putting these people into boxes to suit your own petty prejudices.

That's just knee jerk liberal rot. I'm prejudiced against ultra conservative bible
bashing religious fundamentalists and neo-nazis yes. Guilty as charged yer honour.

Secondly, you have demonstrated very little substance on the integrity of the unionist position -

As far as I can see, their position never had much integrity to begin with and that's especially true now that Mr.Paisley's DUP are the largest party there. Until rank and file protestants develop some class consciousness or something, they're going to be stuck with their pathetic sectarian mindset forever.

where is the evidence for their links with fascism?

You're confused. The links between loyalist paramilitaries and neo-nazi groups have been well documented. From this site.

The British far-right has traditionally supported the Ulster Loyalist (Protestant) community in Northern Ireland against the political demands of the Roman Catholics, whose politics range from the moderate nationalism of groups like the mainstream Social Democratic and Labour Party, through to the extreme republicanism of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army.

Throughout the 1970s, the National Front, then one of Europe’s most successful post-war fascist organisations, developed close links with Ulster Loyalists, including many in the mainstream. National Front members were often seen marching in the parades of Ulster’s leading Protestant fraternal organisation, the Orange Order.

Eddie Whicker, an NF leader and parliamentary candidate, joined the UDA in 1990, and was the organiser of the Front’s annual trips to Northern Ireland during the Orange marching season. In 1992, he defected to Combat 18, and almost immediately afterwards mysteriously disappeared from fascist politics until he was spotted a year later at a Bristol rally organised by the Democratic Unionist Party’s Reverend Ian Paisley. Alongside Whicker were several members of the UDA and several members of C18, including Charlie Sargent.

ruchna

You're confused. The links between loyalist paramilitaries and neo-nazi groups have been well documented

How can I be confused, far from it. You have offered no recent evidence (that report expired 5 years ago - 1 May 1998) that the two main unionist parties are inextricably linked to illegal paramilitary groups. That report is a far cry from your assertion that loyalist paramilitaries work hand-in-glove with parties representing constitutional Unionism. The UVF and UDA are not defenders of any community - they, like the IRA, are bloated parasites feeding off the weakest and most vulnerable.

Secondly, remind me how many UVF/UDA inextricably linked candidates were returned at the Assembly election. Then remind me how many IRA inextricably linked candidates were returned. The radicalisation of nationalism as it voted for the Sinn Fein brown-shirts should give all sensible-minded people cause for concern. Democrats, North and South have an issue which is one of principle, i.e. those in government should not have an armed terror wing, simple as. No excuses are available to any terrorists, I'm afraid.

And remarks made by our Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, on RTE radio once again highlighted the inconsistency towards Sinn Fein/IRA at the heart of the our government. Mr McDowell said that Sinn Fein/IRA were “morally unclean” and involved in criminal acts. Why should unionists be asked by Dublin to share power with Sinn Fein/IRA in the North when Bertie Ahern refuses to do likewise here. Are they to believe that there are two Sinn Fein/IRA’s? One that is acceptable and one that isn’t?

Sinn Fein/IRA are the same north of the border as they are here. The fact that the Progressive Democrats, to which Mr McDowell belongs, and Fianna Fail face electoral challenges from Sinn Fein, is no justification for embracing Sinn Fein/IRA in is no justification for embracing the fascists in the North whilst simultaneously excoriating them here.

Given that Mr McDowell is in charge of our justice department, we must now be able to look forward to a serious crackdown against the type of IRA activity he now lambastes. Our government must end its shocking inconsistency and treat Sinn Fein/IRA in the way a party allied to an armed and active terrorist group should be.

I'd also like to clarify something - I'm no liberal when it comes to dealing with the Irish representatives of globalised terrorism, whether they be Loyalist or Republican - they do not belong in any democratic government and therefore deserve to be banished to the gutters of life where they belong. That now makes me a skeptic of the Belfast Agreement then doesn't it, even though I used my vote to support it in 1998. I now realise that five years on, the puppets of terrorism have not disbanded their illegal organisation in accordance with the Agreement. I therefore wish the DUP every success in the New Year - they must now strive hard to re-negotiate the Agreement in order to generate a fair deal for ALL democrats in the North.

gurramok

they must now strive hard to re-negotiate the Agreement in order to generate a fair deal for ALL democrats in the North

In the last asembly election 70%+ of the electorate voted for pro-agreement parties therefore there should be no re-negotiation of the agreement as the majority do not support re-negotiation.

Capt'n Midnight

Just to get back on topic(ish)

The language Shakespere spoke is closer to what we speak than to what is spoken today in Avon or other parts of England.

mike65

Yea verily Capt'n....I humbly beseech thee

Yep I hear that sort of thing all the time!


Mike.

simu

The language Shakespere spoke is closer to what we speak than to what is spoken today in Avon or other parts of England.

Well, the two might have some features in common but it dosen't mean anything. Languages and dialects are always changing. There's no such thing as a more old-fashioned version of English - if it's being spoken in the present it's as modern as any other dialect.

I also suspect that this is another version of the myth that the Irish speak English better than the English do.

Victor

Originally posted by rcunning03
how come 1948 ?

Commonwealth AFAIK.

Originally posted by daveirl
It was me who said McAlesse was from a foreign country. Victor just clarified the point. I said it in jest but clearly you can't even handle that.

Actually the UK isn't a **foreign** country under the treaty / Government of Ireland Act 1921.