Mr President,
As you are aware, there’s a lot of sabre-rattling in Europe at the moment. Certain countries, having encouraged Ukraine to wage war on Russian civilians in the Donbass and elsewhere following the 2014 coup – and provoking the desired response – are now determined to draw Russia into a wider conflict.
I’m referring to countries whose politicians are, in the main, stooges of a transnational elite bent on controlling every aspect of our lives; using allies and useful idiots motivated either by religion or ideology. In fact, the very evils that you and your administration are combatting on your own soil.
Countries whose social security expenditure rockets while their economies collapse, whose borders are open to extremists and criminals from around the world, whose militaries have been run down for decades, are now trying to provoke the country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal into a continent-wide, or even global, conflict.
With politicians in one particular country, one in terminal decline, and farthest down the dark road to a full surveillance society, openly demanding we go to war on behalf of the most corrupt country in Europe – to defend democracy!
This hypocrisy on steroids exposes the puppets’ realisation the tide is turning. As people wake up to the catastrophic effects of net zero deindustrialisation and open borders; and opinion polls tell them France and Germany might soon elect leaders and governments that will act in the interests of the French and German nations.
Which will be the end of their European Union pet project.
They must therefore have a distraction, an excuse to impose (even greater) censorship, cancel elections, and maybe take unfettered control. Unable to arrange an asteroid strike, and hesitant to release a plague, war is their only option.
And so they’re stepping up the supply of drones and other military hardware to Ukraine designed to strike deep into Russian territory, at civilian targets. Secure in their recklessness because they believe that if or when Russia responds, the USA will ride to their rescue, as before.
It is this belief, and this belief alone, that encourages their insane behaviour.
And so I appeal to you to pull these lunatics back from the brink. For all our sakes.
Either withdraw the USA from NATO (if only temporarily), or else make it clear to all that the USA will not be drawn into another European conflict. Nor will the USA aid either side with financial support and/or materiel.
As for me, I’m just an awkward old Welshman who doesn’t want his teenage grandsons dragged off to fight for those offering us the victory prize of “benign containment” . . . while they plunder Russia’s resources.
Respectfully yours
Royston Jones
© Royston Jones 2026
For info, AI generated reply below to my question;
Do global think tanks influence UK government policy?
Yes, global and international think tanks significantly influence UK government policy, primarily through research citations and advisory roles. Organizations such as the RAND Corporation (US) and the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI) (France) are frequently cited in UK government policy documents, particularly in areas like culture, economy, and health. While domestic entities like the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Chatham House hold prominent positions in shaping fiscal and foreign policy, international think tanks contribute by providing evidence-based analysis and global perspectives that complement domestic expertise. Their influence is often measured by the frequency of their reports being referenced in official policy papers and parliamentary debates, although their direct impact can vary depending on the political priorities of the governing party.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
Chatham House is regarded by many as the mouthpiece for MI6.
MI6 has always worked closely with the CIA. From the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953.
The CIA was captured by the Deep State many decades ago. Before the JFK assassination in 1963.
The Deep State morphed into or united with the Globalists to give us the shit-show the West is experiencing today.
Interesting interview for those who have the time to watch it.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/j-michael-waller-discusses-his-book-big-intel-how-the-cia-and-fbi-went-from-cold-war-heroes
It also appears 9/11 – with CIA involvement – was the justification for the “global war on terror” resulting in the death of millions of civilians in the Middle East. .
This year 2026 has been one of a few hot summers and we are told it’s a global crisis especially with the forest and moorland blazing fires, many started by arsonist yobboes. Remember 1976? We’d not heard then of zero carbon or the now new need for Wind Turbines all over Cymru Fach to save the planet.
Forest fires are partly a crisis because our State politicians planned these vast monoculture pine forests without large fire breaks. The State forestries crammed them in so intensly without real manageable fire breaks into mostly Scotland and Wales but not in the Cotswolds or South Downs. Remember the Poet Gwenallt warned of this. Then ‘drought’ now is caused partly by lack of reservoir planning in England now that the Welsh valleys cannot take many more community drownings like Trywerin.
Are our Welsh politicians really making decisions of any real big decisivness or are they just running in a baton race started by globalists. There is compelling evidence that the pompous petty Cardiff based politicians are enforcing decisions made at supra-national level i.e they are the puppets, or useful fools, tasked with enforcing [not making] global policy. That policy is designed to benefit policy makers to the detriment of us policy subjects [us the people] who pay for the policy through taxation and state subsidies via levied taxation on us: a constant transfer of wealth from the middle class to the global elite [policy makers]. That is why the rich become richer and the middle class are becoming the new poor. The real poor have always been poor and will remain more poor.
We now have a trillionaires [not billionaires] with half the world starving not by weather but by greed alone or the results of greed.
Policy is not designed to benefit the public: we are the ones paying for the policy through taxation and ever-increasing utility energy bills etc. filling our hills with erratic giant foreign Wind Turbines erected by travelling teams from overseas.
We are subject to a lot of crisis scaremongring by globalists who have convinced the pompous small town politicians in Cardiff’s Senedd to believe they are rightious and virtuous into scaring us. If you disagree with their imposed second hand globalism they make you a pariah and refuse to discuss issues any more with you as you plummet down into poverty. Think about what’s going on around you. Did it originate in a meeting in your local Community or did you read of it first on a Public Notice nailed on an obscure lamp post at the bottom of a dark village lane on behalf of a foreign multi national business consortium via their faceless useless pawns in the Senedd Cardii Bay. We live in a non violent dictatorship of no tear gas; not baton charges; no bullets; no prison without trial. The violence we face day to day is long waits to see a Hospital Consultant for treatment for a life threatening or agonising illness even the pain of not having a dentist or a hip replacement. That pain imposed is itself a form of violence at the hands of our Senedd pawns.
Not A.I. generated. I just made this up as to what I believe is true today as I cannot get my own six local Senedd Members to answer or discuss anything with me. Do other readers of this Blog get answers, let alone action, from their six Senedd Members.If so – from which Parties?
50% of your note appears to be a “copy and paste” from a note I preciously circulated on email with the other 50% your own observations. Well done. You appear to be on-board and understand how globalism works. You now also probably understand why I do not write letters to the Western Mail or any other mainstream newspaper. The role of a newspaper is to hold the government to account not to copy and paste a government press release and call it news. That is why we rely on Jac to keep us informed with proper investigative journalism and excellent analysis of world events.
Is there democracy today? Please read and scroll down to END
and please circulate it :- From Ioan Richard in Swansea
I was an elected Councillor at all levels in Wales for 41 yrs from 1976 to retirement undefeated in year 2017. For most of those years the local newspapers would send a Journalis to sit in the ‘gallery’ of Council meetings – especially if there was something controversial on the Agenda. Towards the end of my political career that situation stopped. Debates ceased to be reported as they happened. Reporters ceased coming to meetings. The press reports then originated from Press Releases from Council Leaders (one ruling party only) and from Chief Executives. Debates ceased to be reported. It became all just one ruling party line. The current situaion needs to be understood. So I’ve just put together this below using A.I. :-
QUESTION – Local and regional newspapers now have staff journalists they call “Local Democracy Reporters” in Wales they report on County Councils and the Senedd which in fact are just regurgitating Press Releases from Council or Senedd leadership one party leaders they never attend meetings these days to report live two sided debates. Are their salaries funded by the newspaprs or pulicly?
Short answer: Local Democracy Reporters (LDRs) in Wales are publicly funded via the BBC, not by the newspapers that employ them. Newspapers host the jobs, but the salaries and costs are covered by BBC money allocated under the Local News Partnerships scheme.
How the funding actually works1. BBC pays for the rolesThe BBC provides a fixed annual payment to each publisher that wins an LDRS contract. According to Press Gazette, the BBC currently pays about £38,000 per reporter outside London (which includes Wales) to cover salary, NI, and management costs. Minimum salaries are set around £24,000 outside London.
This means:
The BBC is the sole funder of the scheme.
The money is intended to cover the reporter’s pay plus overheads.
Publishers (Reach, Newsquest, National World, etc.) employ the reporters but do not fund their wages.
2. Reporters are employed by newspapers, not the BBC
Although the BBC funds the scheme, LDRs are employees of the host news organisations (e.g., Reach for WalesOnline/South Wales Evening Post). They are not BBC staff.
3. The scheme is part of the BBC Charter commitment
The BBC funds LDRS as part of its obligation to support local public-interest journalism. The scheme currently supports around 165 reporters across the UK, including Wales.
4. Welsh Government also funds separate public-interest journalism posts
This is distinct from LDRS, but relevant:
In 2023 the Welsh Government funded a dedicated Senedd reporter based at Caerphilly Media Ltd, with content shared freely across Wales.
This is not part of the BBC LDRS scheme but shows additional public funding for Welsh journalism.
Why LDRS stories often look like press releases
Your observation is widely shared. Several factors contribute:
Publishers sometimes pressure LDRs to write non-democracy stories, diluting their brief. NUJ has raised concerns about this.
Shrinking newsroom resources mean fewer reporters attend meetings in person.
Council and Senedd communications teams produce ready-made copy, which some outlets rely on heavily.
However, the scheme’s stated purpose is to attend meetings and scrutinise councils, even if practice varies.
Bottom line
Funding source: Public (BBC licence fee).
Employer: Private news publishers.
Purpose: Provide impartial coverage of councils and the Senedd.
Reality: Quality varies; some reporters rely heavily on official releases.
QUESTION How long has this been going on and which Party introduced it?
ANSWER The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has been running since 2017–2018, and it was introduced under a Conservative UK Government as part of the BBC Charter renewal process. The scheme itself is BBC‑funded, not created by any political party directly, but the enabling policy and Charter settlement that made it possible were set by the Conservative administration.
QUESTION How long it has been going on
2017 – The BBC and News Media Association agree the Local News Partnerships proposals, including the creation of Local Democracy Reporters.
Autumn 2017 – Procurement begins; contracts awarded to local publishers.
January 2018 – The first Local Democracy Reporter starts work (in Kent).
2018 onward – Full rollout across the UK, including Wales.
So the scheme has been operating for 8–9 years from the year 2017 which is when I retired from my local politics Councillor role.
Do you think this is in the spirit of democracy?
I was an elected Councillor at all levels in Wales for 41 yrs from 1976 to retirement undefeated in year 2017. For most of those years the local newspapers would send a Journalis to sit in the ‘gallery’ – especially if there was something contoversial on the Agenda. Towards the end of my political career that siuation stopped. Debates ceased to be reported. The press reports then ooriginated from Press Releases from Council Leaders (one ruling party only) and from Chief Executives. Debates ceased to be reported. It became all just one ruling party line. The current situaion needs to be understood. So I’ve just put together this below using A.I.:-
QUESTION – Local and regional newspapers now have staff journalists they call “Local Democracy Reporters” in Wales they report on County Councils and the Senedd which in fact are just regurgitating Press Releases from Council or Senedd leadership leaders they never attend meetings these days to report debates. Are their slaries funded by the newspaprs or pulicly?
Short answer: Local Democracy Reporters (LDRs) in Wales are publicly funded via the BBC, not by the newspapers that employ them. Newspapers host the jobs, but the salaries and costs are covered by BBC money allocated under the Local News Partnerships scheme.
How the funding actually works1. BBC pays for the rolesThe BBC provides a fixed annual payment to each publisher that wins an LDRS contract. According to Press Gazette, the BBC currently pays about £38,000 per reporter outside London (which includes Wales) to cover salary, NI, and management costs. Minimum salaries are set around £24,000 outside London.
This means:
The BBC is the sole funder of the scheme.
The money is intended to cover the reporter’s pay plus overheads.
Publishers (Reach, Newsquest, National World, etc.) employ the reporters but do not fund their wages.
2. Reporters are employed by newspapers, not the BBC
Although the BBC funds the scheme, LDRs are employees of the host news organisations (e.g., Reach for WalesOnline/South Wales Evening Post). They are not BBC staff.
3. The scheme is part of the BBC Charter commitment
The BBC funds LDRS as part of its obligation to support local public-interest journalism. The scheme currently supports around 165 reporters across the UK, including Wales.
4. Welsh Government also funds separate public-interest journalism posts
This is distinct from LDRS, but relevant:
In 2023 the Welsh Government funded a dedicated Senedd reporter based at Caerphilly Media Ltd, with content shared freely across Wales.
This is not part of the BBC LDRS scheme but shows additional public funding for Welsh journalism.
Why LDRS stories often look like press releases
Your observation is widely shared. Several factors contribute:
Publishers sometimes pressure LDRs to write non-democracy stories, diluting their brief. NUJ has raised concerns about this.
Shrinking newsroom resources mean fewer reporters attend meetings in person.
Council and Senedd communications teams produce ready-made copy, which some outlets rely on heavily.
However, the scheme’s stated purpose is to attend meetings and scrutinise councils, even if practice varies.
Bottom line
Funding source: Public (BBC licence fee).
Employer: Private news publishers.
Purpose: Provide impartial coverage of councils and the Senedd.
Reality: Quality varies; some reporters rely heavily on official releases.
QUESTION How long has this been going on and which Party introduced it?
ANSWER The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has been running since 2017–2018, and it was introduced under a Conservative UK Government as part of the BBC Charter renewal process. The scheme itself is BBC‑funded, not created by any political party directly, but the enabling policy and Charter settlement that made it possible were set by the Conservative administration.
QUESTION How long it has been going on
2017 – The BBC and News Media Association agree the Local News Partnerships proposals, including the creation of Local Democracy Reporters.
Autumn 2017 – Procurement begins; contracts awarded to local publishers.
January 2018 – The first Local Democracy Reporter starts work (in Kent).
2018 onward – Full rollout across the UK, including Wales.
So the scheme has been operating for 8–9 years from the year 2017 which is when I retired from my local politics Councillor role.
Do you think this is in the spirit of democracy? END.
This was exposed by Mark Anderson [U K Column]
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/bbcs-local-democracy-service-broadens-mass-media-cartels-monopolistic-network
Another proper investigative journalist.
Given that support for Trump or varying degrees of hostility towards him appear to be flavours of the day on here let me draw your attention to this little piece in N.C.
https://nation.cymru/news/the-end-for-farage-plaid-cymru-mp-calls-for-investigation-into-reform-uks-foreign-donations/
The article itself is a shallow piece about LSR having yet another go at Farage, seen by many as Trump’s friend in the UK. Quite shocking to find commenters piling in with a load of puerile comments while a number of other arguably more important matters reported drew hardly any comments at all. It seems that the “nationalist” commentariat as seen in N.C. is more concerned with “stop Farage”, don’t this, don’t that, than offering some saner reasoned thoughts about improving this nation’s general social and economic well being. Maybe it’s time we adopted a spot of small state isolationism.
Obvious to all that in any conflict or war, both sides put out propoganda from which it becomes difficult to get to the truth unless you’re on the ground in battle and when it ends the victors usually claim the high ground. I was born during WW2 so I will not comment on anything before 1950. I do know that in my childhood there were issues in the colonial liberation conflicts with the Mau Mau that took Barbara Castle to unravel British propoganda issues that the UK were behaving badly to say the least. As for me, ignorant or not, I am by instinct, not true fact, I am not on Putin’s side in all this present day Ukraine situation. By instinct again, not fact, I do not trust Trump. I always give my full details every time I post something on this JAC BLOG whereas most others just give a ‘pen name’. What are they scared of? Their own biased ideas?
The only people who knock my door are teenage ‘bobby knockers’ nuisances on the way home from under age drinking not the KGB or UK Special Branch Police.
What is the source of your information / knowledge regarding the special military operation by Russia in Ukraine? Is it official government sources or BBC / ITV / mainstream media, or is it based on independent research you have undertaken?
Using Press Reader I frequently read English language overseas papers.
What do you read? Pravda? Are you the Cardigan Wynne who will not write to any Welsh papers with your version of truth on UK / Welsh energy policies?
Yes, I can confirm that I am the “Cardigan Wynne who will not write to any Welsh papers” regarding energy policy, simply because government energy policy – or indeed any other policy – is not influenced by public opinion and letters sent to the Western Mail. It is clear that you are still struggling to understand how policy is made, how policy is distributed and how policy is enforced; as it cascades down through the global public / private partnership network as explained in the attached chart, previously provided to you. You have been writing letters to newspapers for 30 years with no impact on government energy policy. You have seen a change of government in Wales from Labour to Plaid Cymru with no change in energy policy because policy is made at supra-national level.
Keep writing to the Western Mail and let us know how you get on. I subscribe to Jac’s blog because of the quality of his investigative journalism. It was not the Western Mail, or any other mainstream newspaper, that exposed the anthropogenic climate change scam that drives renewable energy policy in countries around the world. That scam was exposed by Jac on this blog.
If you disagree with the attached chart the onus is on you to explain how you consider policy is made, distributed and enforced.
Ioan, you’ve been attacking wind turbines for decades. I think you understand there’d be very few of them without the ‘climate crisis’. This is what justifies them. You also seem to understand that only banks and big corporations profit from this scam. It’s the same with carbon capture tree-planting. And the assault on farming.
The same profiteers are behind the war in Ukraine. Companies like BlackRock now own big chunks of Ukraine. (And they bought Zelensky a long time ago.) But the real target is Russia. The richest country on Earth in terms of natural resources.
These same profiteers have bought most Western political parties and politicians. When one gets unpopular, he’s replaced. We’ve seen it in Canada, and more recently, the UK. They also control the media. The media you still trust.
But now this transnational elite is under pressure as never before.
Open borders is seen for what it is, and is being rejected. Marine le Pen is set to win next year’s French presidential election. The AfD is leading the polls in Germany. After Ceuta, Spain is turning on PM Sanchez. In the USA the Democrats seem to have blown their chances in November’s mid-term elections because the party has been taken over by people who openly hate the USA; they want to abolish Thanksgiving, defund the police, open the borders, etc., etc.
The Globalists and their puppets are being rejected in the West and the war in Ukraine is going badly. Russia is within shelling distance of Kharkov, the second-biggest city; while the third-largest city, and main port, Odessa, is unusable due to Russia controlling the skies and the sea. If Ukraine can’t export its grain harvest it’s in even deeper trouble.
Put it all together and you’ll realise the Globalists are cornered, with only one option – direct war with Russia. This explains all the talk of conscription (even in this week’s Cambrian News!), and then there was that hilarious ‘Russian drone’ found at Leipzig/Halle airport.
War would mean the cancellation of elections. Total censorship. Forced recruitment into the armed forces. And the imprisonment or worse of dissidents.
I just hope things have gone too far for the Globalists to win. That enough people realise our enemies are not in Russia. They’re much nearer home.
So stop insulting people who’ve joined up the dots as “Putin lovers”.
Well said Jac.
P.S. to all Putin lovers – all the daily TV newsreels are too immense to be fake.
Yeah, I bet people said the same thing walking out of cinemas in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR.
I assume, from your supplementary note, that the source of your information is mainstream media / BBC / ITV and that you have not undertaken any independent research.
Myself, like you Jac, believes that Trump is a force for good for our western identity. The problem with Trump is that he is a blunt tool, and gives the idiotic lefties so much ammo to fire at him. Like what, I think, Oscar Wilde once said: ” all great truths begin life as blasphemy”. If only Trump had Reagan’s finesse – then that would be ‘the real deal’!
I agree with much of that. But in his defence Trump is not a politician. Regan got away with not being a politician because he was an actor. Though he had been governor of California before becoming president, so he had some experience.
Actors and reality TV ‘stars’ / real estate grifters getting a pass for not being up to the job of statesmen because of their chosen careers is circular reasoning. Perhaps if I ever botch a surgery hopefully I’m afforded the same grace of “Ah you know, he’s not a surgeon”.
All I really know about Reagan was he had a hand in ending the cold war, and was a bit of a nut for deregulation (pharmaceuticals, an idiotic idea) and personal freedom (apart from that whole War on Drugs bit, when people attempt to exercise the ‘wrong’ personal freedoms).
No doubt Donny T has his good points but even apologists for him will have a hard time defending his harmful trade war with allies, his obnoxious blowhardery about annexing sovereign territories, and the fact that the man is demonstrably a complete and utter prick and a grifter, as are his hideous scions, with all the impulse control and tact of a spoilt, menstrual teenage girl.
So I take it you’re not a fan of DJT. But you seem to agree with me that the West is in a dangerous place with unelected rulers dictating to those we think we’ve elected.
Where do you stand on the obvious attempts to whip up anti-Russian feelings preparatory to an unnecessary war? Do you really believe that Russia is a threat to the West?
Another thing I’d forgotten about Reaganomics was the Laffer curve, how cutting the tax rate increases the tax take. Surely, regardless of the methodology, seeking greater tax take for more money to do government business with, constitutes ‘Big Government’? 😉
I don’t think Russia is a threat, but I’ll admit I don’t know much about the whole story. What I do know is we made a mistake in buddying up with all of Russia’s erstwhile satellites/allies and aligning them against it in NATO, if only on the basis of it being a Versailles-grade national humiliation.
I also know that in Crimea and the ‘occupied’ border territories like the Donbas have majorities or at least large minorities of ethnic Russians. Isn’t Ukraine trying to retain these areas equivalent to what those fighting for a United Ireland were striving for, in the face of the Six Counties being populated with a comparable settlement of ‘ethnic Brits’?
Not sure how you can equate lower or fewer taxes with Big Government.
Large areas of Ukraine, including Crimea, have Russian majorities, including the second- and third-largest cities, Kharkov and Odessa. The front line is edging closer to Kharkov every day and Odessa is useless as a port because Russia controls the sea. Which means Ukraine is effectively land-locked, and unable to get out its grain exports, a massive earner.
Ireland may be a valid comparison, but Ireland, being an island, had always been considered a single political unit until Partition. The borders of Ukraine moved many times in recent centuries. And Crimea only became part of the Russian empire in 1783 to put an end to the Tatar slave trade, shipping Christian Europeans down to Istanbul and other Muslim destinations.
So it’s boxed off from the world, surely the war is a worthwhile cause if only on that basis?
If an island is a natural unified political entity, well that kind of pisses all over our own particular cause doesn’t it, which boils down to dividing the island of Great Britain politically.
If you go back far enough borders have shifted on every corner of the globe, on islands and continents. Considering Ireland, what about the myriad Gaelic kingdoms, Dal Riada and the like, The Earldoms, The Pale, Viking Dublin, and God knows what else?
You’re struggling now.
The situation of Ireland is not analogous to Britain, which was only unified, culturally, in the pre-Roman period, and for a short time afterwards. Then came the Germanic invasions in the south and the Irish in the north. Next came the Vikings, then the Normans. The UK is a single state now through the conquest and subjugation of the Welsh minority and the Union with Scotland in 1707.
Ireland was culturally united until the Vikings showed up in the ninth century. Yes, there were different kingdoms, but there was one, Gaelic culture. And don’t foget that there was always a High King.
The Act of Union with Ireland was passed in 1800. Before then there was an Irish parliament – but one limited to Anglicans. This disenfranchised both the Catholics (native Irish and Old English), and the Presbyterians (Scots settlers). Which explains why Catholics and Presbyterians fought together in the United Irishmen, and the Rising of 1798.
Despite these differences Ireland was still treated as a single political unit. In the last elections held for the whole island, in December 1918, Sinn Fein won a majority of seats and set up the first Dail Eireann. Not being recognised by Britain resulted in the War of Independence, Partition (and the creation of the Free State), then the civil war.
The Irish Volunteers became the Irish Republican Army to defend the new state, then split after the Treaty, with Free Staters fighting their former comrades who refused to accept anything less than a 32-county Republic.
While I always appreciate a bit of a history lesson, it seems it is you who appears to be struggling by seemingly considering cultures and identities as being separated by hard lines, rather than existing as continua with many facets and contradictions.
Britain is certainly not a homogenous culture but in no way is it split into three wholly heterogeneous ones. We do indeed have plenty in common all across this island; indeed in these islands.
How is it that the Old English in Ireland became ‘more Irish than the Irish themselves’ and the homogenous culture persisted, but here there’s apparently always been a hard dividing line between the incomers and the native Celts?
My point was that identities, senses of belonging and the political makeups that pragmatically as possible reflect them, are fluid, sometimes paradoxical, and shift over time.
The electoral map of the 1918 Irish election reflected the schism which Ireland lives with today. 35 or so years ago Russia and Ukraine were one state; both share a common Slavic culture and language.
“How is it that the Old English in Ireland became ‘more Irish than the Irish themselves’ and the homogenous culture persisted, but here there’s apparently always been a hard dividing line between the incomers and the native Celts?”
In a word, the Reformation. The Old English stayed Catholic.
After the fright of 1798, and the abolition of the Irish (Anglican Ascendancy) parliament, the Scots Presbyterians in the north were brought into the fold, being favoured above their Catholic neighbours. Helped by British imperial expansion and of course, the nineteenth century saw the great rise of the Orange Order.
Helped by the fact that many of the more intransigent Prods from the north crossed the Atlantic where they were dubbed the ‘Scotch Irish’.
I take ‘British Imperial expansion’ to refer both to there being plenty of shipbuilding jobs for the favoured and loyal, and the full incorporation of Ireland into the Union?
The abolition of the Anglican Parliament and replacement with direct rule I take as them being seen as not up to the job of running the show given the recent 1798 Rising?
In answer to the first paragraph; the North industrialised, shipbuilding, linen, and in other ways, while Catholic Ireland remained largely rural and agricultural. Then, in the 1840s, came the potato blight, and the Famine, which affected the North far less severely.
In answer to the second paragraph; a bit of both.
The Civil War was fought strictly on the wording of the Oath to the Sovereign sworn by Dail members (and more generally on whether Dominion status as set out in the Treaty was enough) rather than Partition. Never side wanted it but, equally, neither could do anything about it. The success of the War of Independence could not be replicated in an area where 70% (then) of the population was hostile. As to the general question, Collins was proved right a quarter of a century after his assassination when he forecast that if the 26 county Dominion became a peaceful and unthreatening democracy, the British would never intervene if it decided to become a Republic instead and it should therefore be implemented as a stepping stone.
Lloyd George promised Collins and the other signatories a Boundary Commission. Here’s what AI says:
2. The Boundary Commission
To win the support of Irish negotiators who demanded a united Ireland, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George included a provision for a Boundary Commission.
The Expectation: Michael Collins and other Irish republicans believed the commission would redraw the border based on the wishes of the local populations. They expected large nationalist areas (like Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry City, and South Down) to be transferred to the Free State.
The Goal: Nationalists assumed this would leave Northern Ireland too small to survive economically, forcing it into an eventual union with the rest of Ireland.
The Outcome: The Commission’s final report in 1925 recommended only minor, piecemeal border changes (and even suggested transferring some nationalist land to the Free State). The report was suppressed, the existing border was locked in place, and the promise of a path to reunification failed.
Sure I read somewhere that a deal was cut to stick with the border in exchange for dropping the Free State’s share of British State national debt obligations. The Treaty Ports were a factor here too I think.
It was the consequence of a “kick the can” down the road part of the Treaty. London expected a tidying up exercise, Belfast wanted no change at all, Dublin expected South Armagh and most of Fermanagh and Tyrone. Both Collins and Griffiths who negotiated the Treaty died in the Civil War and weren’t around to argue or protest. The Free State had been bankrupted by it so it saved face all round to leave things alone entirely in return for the Free State’s share of the National debt, assigned to it in the Treaty, written off and assumed by the UK. The Army must have cursed it during the Troubles- Bandit Country and Crossmaglen would have been in the Republic.
Oh my point regarding taxes was it’s seemingly to my mind a bit of a contradiction when Reagan was all about limited government, and yet sold tax cuts on the basis of speculate to accumulate by said same government, i.e. by cutting the rate it’ll have more money in its pocket at the end of the day to do serve more functions.
Actors can be quite dangerous influencers. Often felt that Morgan Freeman’s presidential role playing was way up there with the best but Obama should not have mimicked him in the real world
That used to be the case with Hollywood, but too many people have seen through the posing, the Wokeness, the hypocrisy, that the magic has dimmed. And with it the influence.
Your letter to Donald Trump reads like pro-Russian propaganda. Those ruthless, brutal invaders would be quite amused, if they were to see it, and glad that someone is apparently denouncing Western values for them. I had been under the impression that you always championed our values. I suppose it’s just possible that the article was penned by a Russian agent working with you in a local bar.
I’m not going to waste time on a clown like you. And anyway, I gotta go down the cellar and count my rubles.
Wing has obviously absorbed all the propaganda thrown at him by the BBC and mainstream media on a daily basis instead of doing independent research to establish the facts.
Impossible to take people like that seriously.
Dear Jac
I acknowledge receipt of your open letter, the content of which is noted.
I would be grateful if you would accept my invitation to give a presentation at the White House at your earliest convenience so that your interesting observations can be examined in detail.
I can arrange for you to be transported to America on Air Force 1.
I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.
Kind regards
Donald
On my way, Big Man!
And Jac
I will ensure that the red carpet is cleaned and laid out for you
You’re a real gent.
All arranged, as attached.
That’ll do nicely.
When has the States come to the rescue from a prior Russian response? Are you referring to within Ukraine itself? Notice the latter-years binning of ‘The’ as a prefix and the adoption of the ‘Kyiv’ spelling as a prevailing style. I’ve also spotted a correlation between how sympathetic a publication is to Zelensky and how many Y’s they put at the end of his name.
Unclear with first two sentences. Correct after that.
You implied to ‘Trump’ that the USA has come to the rescue from Russian aggression before. I was wondering if it was a reference to the ‘collective effort’ in Ukraine.
No, I was referring to WWII. Not the so-called “Coalition of the willing” propping up the Kokehead Klown of Kiev.
Ironically the Russian front opened up by Hitler would have been more of a deciding factor than the Yanks’ not-so-timely intervention in saving us all, surely. Don’t want to be feeding their worst excesses of national self-confidence now do we, Jac? Ha.
Lots to unpack with your choice of soubriquet for Zelenskyyy. Hard drugs and harder rightism? Do spill!
It’s well known that he enjoys snorting. He was a clown. But “harder rightism”?
I assumed the KKK initials were by design and a reference to the Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist types found round that way?
Your mind works in mysterious ways. Though he does have a close working relationship with Nazis in the Azov Battalion and other units
Strange that, how the West condemns the far-right, fascists, Nazis, but hasn’t hesitated to co-operate with same when they could help in a bigger project. We know there are Nazis in Ukraine, and they go back to WWII. But a while back, in the Balkans, NATO, CIA, and others had no qualms about funding and arming the revived Croatian Ustashe after the decision had been taken to dismember Jugoslavia.
UK, USA, NATO, all got form when it comes to consorting with hardcore Nazis. The abuse of Serbia while enabling Croatia and the Islamofascists of the Balkan beggar/bandit states, BzH and Kosovo, is ample evidence of their bias.
Middle East is an even bigger mess of corrupt stances with Israeli bigots up against a mixed bag of Islamic groups who privately hate each other as much as they want the Jews gone!
The Middle East is of course a mess. The USA blundered around for decades without thinking beyond tomorrow.
Fund and arm Saddam against the Ayatollahs in the 1980s. Then . . .
Ditto the Taliban in the same decade when they were fighting the Soviets. Then . . .
Ditto ISIS when they wanted to get rid of Assad. Then . . .
Encourage the Shia in the south to rise against Saddam and his Sunni regime. Not realising that they were opening the door to Shia Iran.
How many ‘strikes’ did Hitler get before the Third Reich was declared war upon? We then made bedfellows with our ideological opposites in the Communist USSR, until that fell apart when Adolf’s regime was extinguished as a mutual threat. And now that supposed ultimate expression of the freedom to make it in this world, Western capitalism, runs to a large degree on Chinese manufacturing and Gulf State oil. I believe they call it Realpolitik?
No, it’s called Globalism. I’ve explained it many times. The deliberate policy of destabilising, deindustrialising, and ultimately, destroying the West.
I was being satirical by invoking how defenders might refer to what the cynical would describe as holding on to principles or ideologies so long or how far it suits.
Please explain.
The examples I referred to here: https://jacothenorth.net/blog/an-open-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump/#comment-50042
What some might call Realpolitik, pragmatism, expediency, etc, others might call abandonment of principles or going the way the wind blows.
By analogy, Is Capitalism a harsh system that produces haves and have-nots, where everything is commoditised and there’s no room for the common good if there’s no profit to be had?
Or is it a system where go-getters are able to freely innovate and pursue their dreams, where the hardest-working and most efficient producers win out, to the benefit of the consumer? Both statements contain truth.
You came closest with the final paragraph.
If by whisky…