Of course. All obviously true. Alas, entirely irrelevant to the point I am making.

So did I. I might be even somewhat older than you - I graduated high school back in the Soviet Union. I am, obviously, not saying that antisemitism is justified: it never is.

Well, if I believed in Him, I might have agreed. Again, that is not what I have been saying.

Have I said that?

Back in 1625 the Dutch where starting both in Manhattan and in Formosa. Nice and cute - and entirely irrelevant for any contemporary notion of justice or guilt. The whole history of settlement of the islands is fun - as all history is. And I see how much you enjoyed talking about it.

Not unusually, you know everything, and understand nothing.

They would be protecting themselves. The help to the "natives" would be a collateral consequence.

The fact was: there were no more lucrative settlers. In fact, by 1847/48 the wealthier renters were leaving. One of the major reasons for clearance was avoiding paying the "rates" (taxes) collected for famine relief. Those were so unaffordable that losing all income from the land was preferable.

Nope, that is not my point. An Irish parliament representing that very elite would still be taking very different decisions. There is a reason why the main demand of the Irish nationalists was the Repeal of the Union. They knew they what they'd be dealing with. They still thought it was essential.

Yep. But that does not mean that they had major role in their parties in Westminster.

Nobody in Ireland had either taxation or regulation authority. Not even the Brits in Ireland, really. Not even the viceroy.

Only in Ireland was potato the main source of food for so many. Yes, you can discuss the reasons for that, the land tenure, the rental arrangements, etc., etc.

But Brits were the ones making decisions. They had the authority to define the course of action: but felt no responsibility for the outcome. The Irish were supposed to follow the British prescriptions, but they were held responsible for these failing.

Well, they did not win elections on the eat-your-face platform :) Brits hated the Irish landowner almost more than they hated the Irish farmer. They blamed him for all the evil: including the failure to provide for his countryman.

An Irish parliament would have had tools available to force nationwide (i.e., Ireland-wide) redistribution of that food and/or revenue from its sale: these tools were not available to local authorities, charged with provision of aid. And the UK Parliament simply did not consider these.

A major problem was that the Irish farmer produced food (other than potato) primarily to pay rent. He did not dare eat it: because if he did not pay rent he'd be evicted and starve.

An Irish Parliament could have imposed, say, export tariffs on grain and other food - which continued to be exported throughout the period. Or requisition some of those stocks.

Even major landowners at some point were faced with effectively ruinous bills. The insistence on entirely local financing of aid meant that in ruined districts everybody was eventually ruined - even if not everyone was starving.

Avoiding a ruin is an incentive enough even if one disregards paternalism, altruism or mere compassion. Corpses do not pay rent. And after 1847 the British government insisted on all aid to be provided by local taxpayers: which, in many cases, ruined these.

Well, there were quite a few there that would deserve the hatred. But, at the end of the day, Brits effectively absolved them of direct guilt in many cases. They were equally cut off from the decision-making.

As it was, the merchants and landowners of Ireland were still ruined by the famine. They had no incentives to insist on policies that led to their own ruination.

Possibly, but likely not. At the very least, it would be able to tax the entire population of Ireland and would be able to decide how to provide relief. There were resources within Ireland that could be used - avoiding starvation is not cheap, but neither it is entirely unaffordable.

In the sense that they did not starve to death, sure. But they were ruined, and ruined deliberately, assigned responsibilities that they had no ability to fulfill. The attitude of the Treasury was consistently that they should be "forced" to do things at the scale they could not possibly do.

Had there been an Irish Parliament in existence, it might not have had access to the British resources, but it would be able to pass more realistic laws, implementing policies that had some connection with the facts on the ground.

The poorer farmers may not have had representation, but it did little good for their wealthier neighbors that they did. The Irish ratepayer (taxpayer) was vilified and abused by the Brits, and so was the Irish landlord.

That may be the case: but, still, there was a huge difference - there has not been a famine in England in a long, long time. And there is a good political reason for that.

For that matter, even many resident British civil servants did. The striking fact is that Ireland was not much represented in London even in the bureaucratic sense. The British civil service within Ireland was tiny. The Irish in British government employ were, mostly, rank-and-file soldiers.

Yes, of course - exact figures may be discussed, but the substance won't change. And many MPs represented urban areas that were not directly hit by the famine. Still, at the height of the famine even many Protestant residents of Ireland had very different reactions than did the Brits.

A close later parallel, really, would be Algiers. The country was formally an integral part of France: but the bulk of its population was not perceived, or treated, as French. Some (heavily discounted) representation in Paris could not solve the problem.

Well, it had a responsible government. And starting with the 1832 Reform Act it was gradually becoming more responsible to the electorate. The problem was that Ireland did not really have that: it was notionally preceived as part of the UK, but its population was not perceived as compatriots.