Britain leaving the European Union.


I meant to comment on this the day it was posted - I didn’t find that weird at all, she basically was plonked in front of the camera to sell the fix, that “No Deal” was gone/off the table, for Britain to use as leverage. :icon_rolleyes:

Brexit is but a battle in a greater War, you could lose the battle to Win that War. However to me it looks like May entered into surrender negotiations a long time ago to end the War, under the pretence of wining this battle.

The Betrayal begins around 39/40 seconds onwards (its official). Remember this moment. We’ve seen it before too many times before. :icon_confused:


Ah, a victim of cultural inferiority complex? Do stand up for yourself and your bog. Meanwhile the Irish Ambassador calls it out for the anti-Irishness it is.


It’s a snarky opinion piece. But what makes it “anti-Irish”?


Of course Bogman wasn’t really agreeing with the piece. He was enjoying its swivel-eyed gibberish - as I did too immensely !

What’s “anti-Irish” about it?
Well apart from its inaccuracies (I’m pretty sure that Churchill in 1940 used to refer to “Britain and her Commonwealth”) the tone and content is that of an abusive husband going nuts because their spouse is daring to not do what they want.

That’s what you need to keep in mind when you hear an apologist talk nonsense about “our shared history of these two islands” etc - it would be like saying a rape is a “shared sexual experience”. British rule of Ireland was entirely the product of conquest and is therefore devoid of any moral authority, in any way.


I don’t really see it as anti-Irish. It’s just a silly opinion piece. It’s more directed at the actions of our political representatives. The author over egged the rhetoric so it comes across as a bit unhinged.
“our shared history of these two islands”…“shared history”, yea that sounds like a bit of spin job. There’s just history (the account of what happened in the past).




This might be be weird you were sensing. :icon_eek:


@Open_Window That article is a particularly low piece of gutter snipery

  • The use of the term “Anglican Catholic” about High Anglicans to link it in undereducated people’s heads to Catholic Church and child abuse

  • the use of the term “Traveller” about the other Grandfather - when someone with any knowledge of the mid 20th century, knows that meant “commercial traveller” ie salesman


I guess is well named. The author seems a bit undereducated himself. Apart from the numerous typos, he doesn’t seem to know what he means by “Anglican-Catholic”. The (non-hyphenated) “Anglican Catholic” movement is a continuity wing of Anglicanism dating only from the 1970s. They were the people who disagreed with female ordination. To use it of anyone in the mid 20th century would be a gross anachronism.

He could mean “Anglo-Catholicism” which is the form of high Anglicanism dating from the early 19th century Oxford movement. That was the movement which sought a rapprochement between Anglicanism and Catholicism after Catholic Emancipation, as being Catholic no longer implied being a political dissident.

But while the first-mentioned Community of the Resurrection Seminary was indeed Anglo-Catholic, the use of Anglo-Catholic (let alone Anglican-Catholic) makes no sense in the context of the two parishes mentioned later, and “men of the Anglican-Catholic cloth” makes no sense at all.


My take away is both her parents died when she was in her mid 20s in rather tragic circumstances and maybe Wikipedia revisionism/censorship in play.


Interesting. Your takeaway from a piece of black propaganda, probably every second line of which is maliciously false…is that wikipedia is covering something up.


Ah, sorry @Bogman
Yes, I quite agree with how you describe the “shared experience”.


Not sure this tallies with the official narrative


Not sure there was an official narrative. Its fairly obvious Brexiteers would do well in a European election


Eh no. British rule of Ireland was not at all the product of conquest.
In case you never noticed, Ireland for generations until 1800 had it’s own parliament in College Green in Dublin, making rules for Ireland entirely independently of Westminster.
The fact that Irish parliamentarians decided to throw their lot in with the parliamentarians of Britain in 1800 is an entirely different discussion.


I said British Rule was the product of conquest. That has nothing to do with the puppet Parliament set up in Dublin; one that first excluded Irish (Gaelic) and later Catholics.
Wikipedia helps.

Even prior to 1800, Ireland was ruled directly from London:

My Irish history is sketchy at best, but I’m not sure that you could ever call Ireland at large a willing partner in the United Kingdom.


VPRO together with Indian writer Pankaj Mishra investigates the reasons for anger and angry citizens in Europe and America. The Indian writer Pankaj Mishra, was born and raised in India, but since 2006 is living in London. Pankaj Mishra published the book Age of Anger: A History of the Present in 2017. In Age of Anger, he tries to indicate where the ‘wave of paranoid hatred’, as he calls it, comes from. Against whom that anger is directed and where it has led to during the last decades.



As far as I can tell, barely a quarter of Brits know that Ireland is a country.


Cracker of a showdown between Ian Duncan Smith and Pascal Lamy on BBC’s The Daily Politics today, in which the former’s notion that Brexit could be sorted in 30 minutes if only the EU would drop their silly backstop is peremptorily dispelled.

Unfortunately the whole encounter doesn’t seem to be available anywhere yet. IDS claimed that no NI border is necessary because we trust New Zealand sheep. Lamy tore him a new one, explaining that the EU wouldn’t need border checks for, maybe, Scottish beer because beer is beer is beer. On pretty much everything else it depends on the degree of regulatory divergence, and on that score the Brits have not even begun to decide where they want to be. So IDS is talking through his proverbial.