Brexit panic takes hold in Ireland

In just 250 words the Irish Times reports the scale of  Brexit panic in Ireland, north and south.

Promising “a huge campaign all over the world”, an informed source said a strong campaign is needed in the US, China and India and elsewhere to drive home the message that Ireland is separate from the UK and that it intends to stay in the EU.

 … Mr Cameron infuriated unionists yesterday when he warned travel restrictions may be needed between Northern Ireland and Britain if Brexit occurs – not just between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

“If we were to leave – the leave campaigners want to make a big issue about our borders – we will have a land border between Britain outside the European Union and the Republic of Ireland inside the European Union,” he told the House of Commons.

“Therefore, you can only have new border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland or, which I would regret hugely, you would have to have some sort of checks on people as they left Belfast or other parts of Northern Ireland to come to the rest of the UK.”

However, Democratic Unionist MP Gavin Robinson accused Mr Cameron of fear-mongering, while Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said any attempt to introduce travel restrictions on people from Northern Ireland – as happened during, and after the second World War – would “destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom”.

Meanwhile, former president Mary McAleese warned Irish people living in Britain could become “outsiders” after an exit vote. “If any Irish person thinks that they are exempt from the box called ‘immigrants’, let them think again.”

London editor Denis Staunton identifies the Norway option as the least worse for Ireland – though it’s opposed by the cabinet leavers led by Michael Gove.

As the campaign has progressed, most leading Leavers have ruled out an arrangement similar to Norway’s, which is part of the European Economic Area and has access to the single market. In return, Norway must pay into the EU budget, adopt most regulations from Brussels and accept the free movement of people.

For a campaign focused on the promise to control immigration, such an arrangement is unacceptable. But Remainers believe the economic shock they expect to follow Brexit could increase political pressure in Britain to retain access to the single market.

Of all the post-Brexit options, however, it would be the least disruptive for Britain’s EU partners, notably for Ireland.

The Common Travel Area could continue, there would be no need for a hardening of the Border and because economic damage to Britain would be limited, the knock-on impact would also be smaller.

Sky News reported that in the first five months of 2015, 1,518 Britons applied for an Irish passport.

In the same period this year that figure had increased by 25% to 1,901. Almost 1,000 were made in April alone.




, , , , , ,

  • aquifer

    DUP accuses Conservatives of fearmongering. Priceless.

  • colmh

    To be fair some of the increase in passport applications is down to the Euros.

  • chrisjones2

    Hi Investor…you can come to Ireland locked into the declining EU or into NI with guaranteed access to the growing UK Market and none of the disadvantages of the EU and low Corporation Tax

  • Sir Rantsalot
  • scepticacademic

    Hmm, somehow I don’t think that’s how investors will see it. Ireland has been attracting plenty of FDI since the crisis and I can’t see why that would change after a Brexit. A lot of pull factors down there. If anything Brexit would make Ireland even more attractive. It’s true that the UK will still be attractive to some investors after a Brexit due to the size of its market but that’s more of an advantage for London & SE England than NI.

  • John Devane

    An unnecessary panic. The Irish community in England are not one homogeneous group voting for Bremain. In fact many support Brexit because the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and hell bent on economic political union; an EU superstate.

  • Nevin

    “In just 250 words the Irish Times reports the scale of Brexit panic in Ireland, north and south.”

    Brian, the ‘Ireland’ in the Irish times article is the Irish state, not the island. I think that should have been clear from the opening paragraph:

    Promising “a huge campaign all over the world”, an informed source said a strong campaign is needed in the US, China and India and elsewhere to drive home the message that Ireland is separate from the UK and that it intends to stay in the EU.

  • Anglo-Irish

    I agree, if you were an investor you would want to be as certain as you could possibly be as to the situation that you were getting yourself into.

    Given a choice between Ireland, a member of the EU with access to a market of 450,000 million and agreed contracts in place, and the UK with a market of 65 million and trading contracts to be negotiated at some future date Ireland would be the more attractive option.

    Uncertainty, whilst unavoidable to a certain degree is not what investors are looking for.

    There is also the problem that if the UK votes leave – which is looking a possibility at present – it will need to renegotiate agreements with a ‘club’ that it has just rejected.

    The idea that we could then obtain contracts which are equal to those that the remaining members have seems fanciful to me.

    There is far too much unjustifiable jingoistic optimism coming from the Brexit campaign for my liking.

  • Chingford Man

    Lots of things are fanciful to you. If someone does invest in another country it is usually as a springboard to the whole world, much of which is growing faster than the EU.

  • Anglo-Irish

    We’re a springboard to the whole world are we?

    In which case perhaps you’d care to explain how it is that we currently export more to the ROI than we do to Brazil,Russia,India and China combined?

    What’s been stopping us using this ‘springboard’ to date in order to trade with the whole world?

    And what’s going to change if we leave the EU that will suddenly make us so attractive that we couldn’t have done whilst remaining a member?

  • Chingford Man

    “Promising “a huge campaign all over the world”, an informed source
    said a strong campaign is needed in the US, China and India and
    elsewhere to drive home the message that Ireland is separate from the UK
    and that it intends to stay in the EU.”

    Quite amusing to think that after almost a century of trying to distance your country from the hated colonial oppressors, people far away still think you’re British.

  • Chingford Man

    Do a bit of research for yourself and don’t expect to be spoon-fed. Dan Hannan’s blog is good value. So is John Redwood’s. Or the official Leave site.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Lot’s of stupid people in the world, there are people not born in Britain and who’s ancestors for generations weren’t born in Britain that suffer under the delusion that they are British.

  • scepticacademic

    Most trade is regionalised and most multinational firms operate regionalised strategies. If the UK is springboard to the world, why do British multinationals invest directly in overseas markets?

  • Anglo-Irish
  • kensei

    For what, bullshit?

  • kensei


  • Angry Mob

    What’s your views on the ~35 million Irish Americans?

    Luckily, anyone born in NI was born in the British Isles so that particular problem doesn’t affect us.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Irish Americans are simply doing what virtually all Americans do, let you know their family background but include the fact that they are American.

    Given the fact that everyone in America other than the Native Americans are immigrants it’s understandable.

    Calling the archipelago on which we live the British Isles is ill mannered in my view and it doesn’t alter the fact that Ireland is not and never has been a part of Britain.

    To try to claim that being born anywhere in these islands makes you British is nonsense, otherwise people born in the ROI would be British and they aren’t, are they?

    That official document makes it quite clear even for the hard of thinking.

    The inclusion of the word AND together with the additional location is proof positive to any rational person that Britain and Northern Ireland are two totally separate entities which should not be confused with one another.

  • Angry Mob

    So it’s good enough for those of Irish ancestry, but the British are stupid and deluded? Double standards?

    The word “Britain” is meaningless and I never claimed that being born anywhere in these Islands make you British, merely that being born in Northern Ireland which is located within the British Isles (whether you like this or not) and a member of the UK you can be British if you want to; otherwise you can claim an Irish passport or even both.

    Calling it the British Isles is no less ill mannered than the assertion that I cannot be British given the name of the island I live upon does not match that of my citizenship. That’s akin to saying the Dutch aren’t Dutch because they live in the Netherlands.

    Are you going to assert those that live on the Isle of Man can not be British? Absolutely disgraceful.

  • Reader

    Anglo-Irish: Given the fact that everyone in America other than the Native Americans are immigrants it’s understandable.
    I disagree – the vast majority of people living in the USA were born there, and are therefore not immigrants.
    If you have a different definition of immigrants; what is it, and how does your definition relate to (1) Planters and (2) Irish-Americans.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Should have said ‘ descended from immigrants’ my bad.

    The point being that Americans acknowledge the fact that their family originated elsewhere but at the same time they are proud of being Americans.

    If after generations of living there they still insisted that they were Italian, German,Spanish or Irish and wished to be referred to as such I would think them weird,

    Answer your question as to my view of Planters?

  • Anglo-Irish

    You said ” Luckily, anyone born in NI was born in the British Isles ” in response to my pointing out that some people were under the delusion that they are British despite neither they or their family not being born there for generations.

    So what did you mean by that?

    Because it looked very much as if you were saying that being born in any of these islands entitled you to call yourself British.

    Being born in NI entitles you to British citizenship it does not make you British, because if it did it would mean that a person of Irish stock with no British connections but born in NI would be British also wouldn’t it? And that would be ludicrous.

    The passport is quite clear and unequivocal, the inclusion of a separate description is meant to include those who cannot be included in the description ‘ United Kingdom of Great Britain ‘.

    They cannot be included in that description because they do not come from Great Britain.

    Love the ‘ Absolutely disgraceful’ by the way, talk about hyperbole and over the top drama queen reaction.

    If you were born in NI you are entitled to call yourself a British citizen no more no less, I was born in England and can if I wish refer to myself as British.

    I hold an Irish passport but it would be incorrect to refer to myself as an Irishman, I’m not, I’m an Irish citizen, no more no less.

  • Thomas Barber
  • Angry Mob

    I’m well aware thanks.

  • Angry Mob

    In response to your statement that people not born in Britain or directly descended from someone who was (which doesn’t mean anything as there is no place called Britain) and who was born in NI by extension is born in the British Isles has a right to call themselves British. I never said anyone born in Ireland has the automatic right to do so or actually is.

    If I hold citizenship of a country I can claim myself as of that nationality as many people do in the USA for example even though there descendants go back much further or have never actually stepped foot in the country they claim to be from.

    To base your argument upon the idea that the mere name of the land that you live upon defines your nationality or citizenship is ludicrous.

    Again, what about those who live in the Isle of man or the Channel Islands are they not British? Or are the people of Gibraltar only worth considering themselves Spanish/Gibraltarian?

    It is absolutely disgraceful to tell someone that they can’t self-identify as what ever particular nationality they choose when they are a citizen.

  • Chingford Man

    I asked him to look at Hannan and Redwood, not to your own work.

  • Chingford Man

    Why are you concentrating on multinational firms when SMEs are far more important to the UK economy and are the engine of future economic growth?

  • Anglo-Irish

    First of all, there is a place called Britain, it is the description used to describe England and Wales, Great Britain being the description which includes Scotland.

    Although I do like the idea that ” there is no place called Britain ” which, if it were true would make many of these NI arguments otiose.

    Yes. if you hold citizenship of a country you can indeed call yourself a national of that country, what you shouldn’t do however is refer to yourself as a native of that country.

    I have cousins and a niece that have become Australian citizens, and that’s what they are, citizens.

    Where have I said that the name of the land that you live upon defines your nationality?

    I said that I was born in England and am an Irish citizen, did you miss that bit?

    Isle of Man? Not British, British citizens

    I am not telling anyone that they can’t self identify, people born in NI are entitled to British citizenship as a birthright in the same way as I’m entitled to dual British- Irish citizenship by birthright.

    NI born people calling themselves British however is a step too far, citizens is what they are, no more no less.

    Learning to live with facts and accepting reality is the first step towards happiness and contentment, be happy.

    ” Absolutely disgraceful ” once again the totally over the top reaction, learn to live with and accept the words of that great philosopher Popeye ” I yam what I yam ” it has stood me in good stead and brought me acceptance and enjoyment of the fact that I am the product of two nations with an 800 year turbulent shared history.

  • Chingford Man

    Disqus just chucked away an erudite contribution so I will just have to summarise:

    1. Bertelsmann has a long history of support for EU causes and does projects for the EU for which it received almost 500,000 Euros in 2013 from just 3 projects. Permit me to be sceptical as to its polling.

    2. You don’t seem to understand how financial markets work. They fall and they rise. You can’t extrapolate anything from a limited period of trading, only show your ignorance as to how the City works.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Yes that’s happened to me in the past and by strange coincidence it was also my most erudite post. : )

    You can be as sceptical as you wish it is my normal default position.

    Actually I do understand how financial markets work, at least as much as most people do, in other words not particularly well, in that the so called experts who were being payed ludicrous amounts of money to predict these things proved useless when they were needed.

    If in fact you fully understood how the financial markets worked, instead of trying to make out that you do in a failed attempt to impress you wouldn’t be posting on here would you?

    You’d be in Mauritius drinking a mojito and enjoying the sunset with a supermodel wouldn’t you?

    Never try to bullshit a bullshitter.

  • Jollyraj

    Indeed so. Obviously not everyone living in NI is comfortable with calling themselves British – and I’ve no quarrel with that – just as not everyone in NI wants to remain as British people in the UK. But, luckily, a healthy majority do.

  • Jollyraj

    “Never try to bullshit a bullshitter.”

    So you self-identify as both Anglo-Irish, and a bullshitter.

    I hadn’t realized the depth of your self awareness, and I congratulate you for it.

  • Reader

    Thomas, there are three bold titles in your link: there is a title The United Kingdom; there is a title Great Britain; there is a title British Isles.
    Was your Google search for a (semi-)official definition of Britain unsuccessful, then?

  • Reader

    Anglo-Irish: First of all, there is a place called Britain, it is the description used to describe England and Wales, Great Britain being the description which includes Scotland.
    Your definition of ‘Britain’ seems to be unique to yourself. It looks like Thomas Barber had an unsuccessful search for a definition of the term. Now it’s your turn.
    But so far as I can see, ‘Britain’ has multiple informal meanings, and no formal meanings.

  • Reader

    Irish Times: …an informed source said a strong campaign is needed in the US, China and India and elsewhere to drive home the message that Ireland is separate from the UK and that it intends to stay in the EU.
    Such nonsense. Everyone knows about Ireland. The most popular people on the planet, and a country that has been an international byword for economic success for nearly three decades now.
    There is no way anyone could possibly confuse them with the dastardly Brits.

  • scepticacademic

    …because I was commenting on a discussion under a post by Chris Jones on inward investors’ decisions between Ireland inside the EU and the UK after Brexit?

    I don’t deny that SMEs are an important part of the economy but if SMEs account for ~60% of UK employment, 47% of turnover and 54% of GVA that means non-SMEs are almost as significant to the economy (BIS, 2015).

  • kensei

    “I know I am but what are you”? Really?

    Hannan is a right wing lunatic who will happily pop up on US cable news to trash talk the NHS. Redwood is a Vulcan on the extreme right of the Tory Party. May be just a touch biased.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Why do the DUP even exist?

    Surely they had the type of UK they wanted when they formed?

    Was it just jealousy over Terence O’Neill being in power and Ian Paisley not being in power?

    No EEC, No EU, no Migration, no Irish unity, no Troubles as we were yet to know it … what was wrong with Northern Ireland that it needed to form and protest that administration?

    The DUP seems to suggest everything that has happened since the 1960’s has been a net loss to Northern Ireland.

  • Kevin Breslin

    As much as I admire Switzerland, I don’t see the UK matching its democratic culture in either vote result. UK political power, not political reform is on the agenda.

    Also from Russia Today, we’ve had a bit of Brexitsceptism from the NHS.

  • Anglo-Irish

    ‘Multiple informal meanings and no formal meanings’

    In which case my definition is as good as the next mans isn’t it?

    I was always taught that Britain referred to England and Wales when Scotland was Caledonia, and that the term Great Britain came into usage after the act of Union in 1707.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Self awareness is essential if you are not going to live a life believing in myths and nonsense.

    Of course I’m a bullshitter, and a very good one if I may say so.

    The trick is to know when you are bullshitting and just as importantly when the other guy is bullshitting you.

  • Thomas Barber

    Being part of a group of islands that are within the British isles has no bearing whatsoever on Nationality it says so at the bottom of the article. Northern Ireland is simply a member of the UK not Great Britain or Britain therefore people born in Northern Ireland who wish to “Claim” British citizenship can do so but but for those who dont and who qualify, they have a “Right” to Irish citizenship not a claim as AM states above.

    A person from the Isle of Man is a British citizen but they’re still Manx just like a person from Scotland is a British citizen but is still Scottish. Its therefore logical to assume that people born in Northern Ireland to parents born in Northern Ireland are Irish but can claim British citizenship just like people from the Falklands, Gibralter or the various tax havens around the world owned by the Crown.

  • Despite the claims Brian makes about fear of Brexit, the opinion poll detailed this morning on the BBC shows the support for the Leave campaign growing strongly in Northern ireland as the people get the real facts and start to see through the smokescreen of “project fear”. In truth the republic of Southern Ireland has far more to lose in the event of a Brexit vote (which will happen either this year or at some point in the near future) as they are far more dependent on the UK for trade than the UK is on the EU, the south will be very isolated sitting on the western extreme of europe on its own and depending on the UK for its route to EU market by land. Indeed my feeling is that if it were not for the historic animosity toward the UK which the south has never really got over they would be best served by rejoining the sterling zone and leaving the EU to flounder in its own mire

  • The DUP exist as a strong voice and force for unionism with by far the largest mandate in election after election with a strong and capable block of MPs at Westminster who are very highly thought of across the house.

  • I live in British Northern Ireland and very proud of it, the British came up to the mark to financially rescue the Irish republic when it was broke a few years ago. In my experience most people around the world view the Irish and the British in a slightly different light from what you say but maybe your comments come from an old embittered heart which I hope you get over.

  • Kevin Breslin

    What was wrong with the UK and Northern Ireland 40 years ago in the view of the Democratic Unionists?

    It had none of the problems that the DUP complain about today. So why in the past was it set up to challenge the then status quo?

    Also would Paisley even be a First Minister, and his party get such a huge profile if he wasn’t an MEP?

    Would Jim Allister have his profile as large as it is now, if there wasn’t a European Parliament?

  • Jollyraj


  • Firstly Kevin, 40 yrs ago the old unionist party controlled this country, governed it very poorly especially for anyone who was not a unionist member or an orangeman (it was usually nothing to do with religion it was just a case of your not in our club so we exclude you) In the late sixties and early seventies it was clear that the UUP was going to sell Northern Ireland out to an enforced united Ireland and the DUP was formed to stand up to that and stop it and given that around 80% of the Northern Ireland population are happy to stay in the UK I think the DUP has been very successful in what it set out to do.

    As for whether the euro elections had anything to do with the fortunes of Dr Paisley or Jim Allister I think if you look at the results of all elections it is the party and its supporters which defines the success of the candidate. jim Allister was elected as a DUP candidate and very quickly dispensed with when he wasn’t. I dont know any reason why you would think that the EU was in any instrumental in the support Dr Paisley achieved, virtually every MEP in europe hated him because he told them what they were on a regular basis.

  • Brian Walker

    Darrell, I’m referring to poll trends UK wide not the less than 2% which NI represents

  • Anglo-Irish

    Ahh now you’re using logic, not a commodity often used or indeed recognised in the case of this particular subject on this forum. : )

  • Kevin Breslin

    So what you are saying is that …

    Elites can defend their own interest the UK with or without the EU or migration

    Bad governance can happen in the UK with or without the EU or migration,

    Working class people can be left without jobs or opportunities with or without EU or migration,

    Consolidation of democracy by a political elite can happen with or without EU or migration

    And finally politicians scaremongering about the end of the Union or the security of the border can happen with or without the EU or migration.

    As was in the beginning of the 1960’s … so beith in the here and now.

  • Anglo-Irish

    ‘Britain came up to the mark to financially rescue the Irish Republic’.

    Do you ever allow facts to interfere with your views on matters?

    Britain ‘ came up to the mark ‘ because it had no choice.

    British banks had a £140 Billion exposure to Ireland’s banking crisis caused by the fact that they had jumped on the ‘Celtic Tiger’ bandwagon and carried out bugger all due diligence when assessing the risk involved, just like the Irish banks in fact.

    Had Britain not ‘ come up to the mark ‘ British banks would have followed Irish banks into the mire.

    Britain provided the LOAN by the simple process of borrowing money at a better rate than Ireland could at the time and charging a ‘commission’ thus making a profit on the deal.

    Nothing wrong with that, simply a matter of business, but please spare us the sanctimonious ‘ aren’t we the kind hearted saviour ‘ BS.

    Maybe your comments come from an overload of jingoism which I hope you get over.

  • Anglo-Irish


  • Kevin Breslin

    If they wanted to be sanctimonious they’d simply have to give the Republic of Ireland outright Aid rather than a loan.

  • Anglo-Irish

    As a British taxpayer I’m quite happy with the loan arrangement. : ).

    But to attempt to portray it as some kind of magnanimous gesture of kindness rather than the hard headed self interested profitable necessity that it was takes either enormous brass neck or a complete lack of the facts.

  • Reader


  • Reader

    Anglo-Irish: Britain provided the LOAN by the simple process of borrowing money at a better rate than Ireland could at the time and charging a ‘commission’ thus making a profit on the deal.
    Had Ireland no better friends at the time?
    Or (here’s the long version) the ‘commission’ – I assume you mean a differential interest rate – is because Ireland was perceived to be a a higher risk than the UK on the international markets. Either the UK assessed the risk at a lower level than the rest of the world markets did, or the UK took on the risk cheaper than any other lender in the world did. That all turned out OK in the end; but remember there were people talking about a voluntary default at the time. Ireland got a better deal from us than they could get anywhere else in the world.

  • Reader

    Anglo-Irish: In which case my definition is as good as the next mans isn’t it?
    But it hardly carries any authority. Anyway, start here for what other people think of it:
    And for an example of just how unofficial the mere word ‘Britain’ is, see here:
    (You won’t see the word on its own very often, and you won’t like it when you do)

  • Anglo-Irish

    British banks decided of their own volition to join in the unconstrained lending frenzy and supposed high return of the Irish Celtic Tiger greed fest.

    No one forced them to, they did it out of greed.

    That meant that they were also culpable for the disaster that ensued and it left them exposed to the tune of £140 Billion.

    Which meant that if the Irish banks went down a number of British banks went with them.

    In order to limit damage to the British banking sector the British government had little choice but to LOAN the money to help stabilise the situation.

    Let’s not have any gratuitous crap about ‘better friends’ given that Britain had little choice, it was in it’s own self interest, British banks had got themselves into the situation of their own free will and Britain made a profit on the deal.

    Do you understand and accept that?

  • Anglo-Irish

    You have already stated in your previous post that the word Britain as far as you can see ‘ has multiple informal meanings and no formal meanings. ‘

    I haven’t bothered opening your links because unless you are going back on that statement it would be somewhat otiose to do so, wouldn’t it?

    If there is no formal meaning then no definition carries any more authority than any other does it?

    And in the words of a great man. ” everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own fact. ”

    So, unless you can come up with an actual fact with regard to the word please don’t bother to reply, it’s getting tedious now.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Just had another look at my last post and realised that it could be taken as insulting.

    Apologies, it wasn’t intended to be.

    It’s just that it looked like developing into one of those ongoing debates that will have us going around in a circle and get neither of us anywhere.

    If there’s no definitive and official meaning for the description then fair enough, as I said I was always led to believe that Britain was England and Wales and the Addition of ‘Great’ included Scotland.

    As it’s over 50 years since I attended school and at that time there used to be a Rhodesia and no such place as Kyrgyzstan who knows?

  • John Collins

    Why don’t you go back to the points made by William Hague, at the time of the Queens visit to the Republic, in which he clearly stated it was in GBs own interest to help Ireland with that loan. And remember that loan will be paid back, not like the ‘loan’ your country gave West Germany in 1953, which they did not have to be pay back, after they doing their level best to wipe you people out on three different occasions in the previous eighty years.

  • John Collins

    Irish Americans are first and foremost AMERICANS. They have fully integrated into their native land.

  • John Collins

    William Hague , the then British Home Secretary, made a statement in 2011, which confirms what AI said about those British exports.

  • Jollyraj

    Well, yes, much like the people of NI have fully integrated into our native land. I’m very comfortable with my status as a British person native to NI. So what’s your point?

  • John Collins

    As a family ‘historian’/genealogist I occasionally meet with American, and indeed Australian and New Zealander, distant relatives tracing their Irish roots. They all are very interested and often proud of their Irish back ground but they first allegiance is always to the country of their birth. So this argument that Irish Americans are Irish in any meaningful way is a fallacy.
    In passing, I might say that prior to the early Seventeenth Century most people who migrated here seem to have become ‘more Irish than the Irish themselves’ and the English actually passed laws like the Statutes of Kilkenny to discourage this integration of their people with what they called the ‘mere Irish’.

  • Jollyraj

    What does ‘more Irish than the Irish themselves’ actually mean?

  • Sir Rantsalot

    Wheeling someone out to say they are convinced to stay, just does not cut it anymore. No one is listening to msm any more. If you look at the comments on the article, they all scoff at the article and are all voting brexit. ????

  • John Collins

    What it appears to have meant were than the English newcomers were over time adopting Irish customs, wearing Irish dress, inter marrying with the natives, speaking Irish and even playing ‘with the smalle ball’, an activity which may have been an ancient form of hurling. The latter suggestion may be borne out in the fact that modern day Kilkenny have been the supreme hurling craftsmen.