We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST UPDATE | 26 Nov 2021
BRITISH PRIME MINISTER Boris Johnson has no regrets about publishing a letter to President Emmanuel Macron on Twitter proposing that France take back migrants who have crossed the Channel, his spokesman has said.
Johnson last night asked France to take back all migrants who cross the Channel, after the deaths of at least 27 people trying to reach England off the northern French coast earlier this week.
France has called the move “unacceptable” and cancelled Britain’s attendance at planned talks between European Union interior ministers on the issue set for Sunday.
French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin was due to speak to his counterpart, Home Secretary Priti Patel, about the issue this weekend. But this morning he announced that he was scrapping the planned talks over Johnson’s correspondence.
Asked by reporters at a daily briefing if Johnson regretted sending and then sharing the letter on social media, his spokesman said “no”.
“As the PM (prime minister) has said himself, both he and President Macron have a shared recognition of the urgency of the situation we’re both facing,” he said.
“You’ll see from the tone of the letter this is about deepening our existing cooperation and building on the work that’s already been done between our two countries, which the PM in the letter paid tribute to.”
Macron earlier told a press conference in Rome that he was “surprised” by Johnson’s methods, which he branded “not serious”, adding: “One leader does not communicate with another on these questions on Twitter, by public letter”.
However, defending the decision to tweet, the UK leader’s spokesman insisted the British public “would rightly want to know what we are looking at in terms of trying to solve this problem”.
Relations between the two neighbours were already seen as their most tense in decades following a series of disputes over Brexit.
But the spat represents a further turn for the worse.
It comes as the crisis of migrants illegally crossing the Channel intensifies after 27 people died in the busy waterway earlier this week.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Both Parnell and JFK received the Freedom of the city of Cork. Another connection.
What would Parnell make of Ireland in 2013?
@Deaglan well if he tried to bring fourth Home Rule I think he might get elected lol
Both of them gave new hope to their nations. Both of them were a focus for unity when at the peak of their careers. Kennedy overcame the disadvantage of being a Roman Catholic to become the first Roman Catholic – and so far only- Roman Catholic President. He was supported by the Roman Catholic Church even though in his private life he did not adhere to the teachings of the Church. Parnell overcame the advantage and disadvantage of being a Protestant to become the uncrowned King of Ireland. He was not supported by the Roman Catholic Church when it became apparent that in his private life he did not adhere to the teachings of his own Church or the Roman Catholic Church. Both promised a lot, achieved a lot but were unable for different reasons failed to deliver what they could have.
They both have streets named after them in Dublin.
:)
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country’
he should of course have said; Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what we as a Nation can do together.
Then again, Kennedy wasn’t in it for the people !
He was.
Voted against his Party & state whilst in the Senate for the benefit of the United States.
No he wasn’t he was a salesman for the corporation , but we will agree to differ ; look up the clip where he’s about to address a audience and he says words to the effect “so this is what I have to sell to these guys ”
Then again you probably think that there was a “shoeshine boy”! If there was his name was “Insider Trading” ; in my totally unfounded opinion !
Parnell was a great leader who revolutionised and professionalised Irish nationalist politics- he wrested control from Fenian militarists and while he didnt deliver on all his promise he advanced the “march of a nation” considerably. The only parallel I’d draw between Parnell and JFK would be the role that Catholicism played on their respective careers, the elevation and pride in one and the utter destruction of the other.
Parnell, after O’Connell, managed to unite the Irish people. Parnell was limited in his views and saw the Island moving towards a federal type relationship with Britain (But still under the monarch). The Fenians took that visian one step further and fought for a Republic.
Without Parnell, Fenianism could not have succeeded to the extent it did. As an Island, we owe him a debt of gratitude.
Firstly, neither Parnell or O’Connell united the Irish people- they united a cause and ideology and made nationalism a viable alternative to fenianism. Secondly by the turn of the twentieth century, probably even by 1886, Fenianism was gone by its traditional standards. What emerged in Ireland after 1913/14 was republicanism which is as far removed from fenianism as you can get. No doubting Parnell was limited and his motivations, especially in the 1870s were quite selfish, his achievements are quite remarkable in that he succeeded in Westminster where many others, including British politicians, had failed.
JFK was a failure he promised to serve for four years and couldn’t even manage that.
In all fairness, it wasn’t his fault he didn’t make it to the end of term.
Steve, seriously, you need help. I hope the moderator takes your comment down.
Not allowed to crack a joke any more, ah FFS
I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis well. It was scary. We went to bed one night not knowing whether or not we would wake up in the morning. But the USA simply could not tolerate the USSR basing missiles 90 miles away in Cuba. Kennedy mobilised the armed forces and told the Soviets to remove the missiles. The whole world watched on TV until the Soviet ships sailed eastwards home. Behind the scenes a deal was done whereby the USA would not invade Cuba. Some US missiles were removed from Turkey also. In retrospect it may have been less dramatic and dangerous than it seemed at the time. Diplomatic channels and hot lines remained opened. The US and the USSR understood each others’ psychology, strengths and weaknesses. Another US President may not have handled the situation as well as Kennedy and his team.
Never understood the fixation with JFK. He was a lecherous junkie, supported by dubiously earned money and only elected because the Mafia rigged the ballot. You’d be hard pressed to name a single one of his achievements.
Whereas Parnell achieved plenty before his country spat him out.
Emily, what you say about JFK is to some extent true. The sources of the Kennedy family fortune was indeed dubious, his father Joe was very dubious, the 1960 election was bought with money, greatly assisted by the Daleys in Chicago and Mafia controlled unions. But under his Presidency, significant advances were made in terms of civil rights for black Americans, the USSR was forced to remove missiles based 90 miles from Florida in Cuba and Irish Americans and other later immigrant groups advanced significantly in many aspects of US economic, social and political life. He also was responsible for inspiring many young people all over the world to ask not what their country could do for them but what they could do for their country, and others. He was an inspiration for the Northern Irish Civil Rights Movement. On the minus side, there was the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the growing involvement in Vietnam which led to a long and bloody involvement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
People use this word “inspiration” a lot when talking about Kennedy. He was great at flowery speeches, not so great at concrete gains. The major civil rights advances were under Johnson, not Kennedy. I don’t think you can list the Cuban missile crisis without mentioning that he was the one who took us to the brink of global nuclear armageddon in the first place.
A lot of conspiracy stuff here, there is no evidence linking Joe Kennedy’s fortune to the Mafia.
I didn’t link Joe Kennedy’s fortune to the Mafia. It came from insider trading, and allegedly smuggling. The Mob nevertheless organised the electoral fraud which got JFK elected in 1960.
No there’s no evidence of bootlegging or other smuggling. The whole ties to the mafia came with conspiracy theorists, in the 1970′s, linking JFK’s assignation to the mafia, they went on saying this was all tied to Joe snr’s history of bootlegging with the mafia. No evidence has been in anyway proven or shown this, the piece in Al Capone’s bio is totally unsourced.
Joe bought the sole rights to import Scot & other liquor from the UK. He knew when Roosevelt got into the Presidency that prohibition would be removed & so got into business with Roosevelt’s son. Prior to this he had established a fortune through the stock market & investments. He had a keen eye for spotting a bargain & knowing when to sell.
He had some pull with the trade unions alright particularly in Chicago but that influence Id credit to his political contacts & his business. Trade Unions voted always voted Democrat
have your say