Gay...Gay...oh Gay!

SeanW

ditto. FG/Labour was almost assured of my vote this election, gonna have to think about it really hard now. Sure the current wasters aren't much use but there's no bloody way I'm going to vote for someone who wants to bring Ireland back into the British Empire.

InFront

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

darkman2

InFront wrote:

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are despotic states. Were part of the EU. There is no reason to join the Commonwealth. In fact I think we should be proud were not a member of it!

ScottishDanny

It seems daft to go back to monarchy to me. Australia is in the commonwealth and they are getting closer to being a republic all the time.

LostinBlanch

darkman2 wrote:

No to Commonwealth
No to United Kingdom

Why we would join either is beyond me......

I'm with Darkman and Murphaph on this. It is a non runner (as it should be IMO).
I'm perfectly happy to have harmonious relations with the UK and to recognise and acknowledge the longstanding historical links between our two countries. But rejoining the commonwealth would be a backward step as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said before this is just Gay Mitchell sounding off to get a couple of headlines in the silly season. It is not going to be part of FGs election manifesto AFAIK. Not that I'd know, not being a member of FG.

constitutionus

InFront wrote:

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

well im in the " not the british empire " camp but seems to me if we did rejoin the commenwealth we'd have to leave the euro seeing as none of the commonwealth countries are in it. the idea of liz's mug looking back at me on the money is reason enough for me not to do it, let alone the disasterous effects it would have on our trading relationship with europe and the consequent constitutional issues of the prior treaties

InFront

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

darkman2

InFront wrote:

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

IF I want you to consider this carefully:

Do you want us in an organistation that puts us in the same bracket as such great nations like Nigeria, Bangladesh and Cameroon!!!!!!? Eh thanks but no thanks....

darkman2

InFront wrote:

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

Just economically there is no benefit whatsoever for us to join the Commonwealth. Its like the queen, a figure head organistation.

Tricity Bendix

darkman2 wrote:

Just economically there is no benefit whatsoever for us to join the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth represents nearly a third of the world's population. Economically, it would make sense to be able to market Irish goods and services to these 1.8bn people at all possible levels. This could include returning to the Commonwealth. With the breakdown of the World Trade Talks, Ireland needs to learn how to take care of its own interests.

It is interesting to note that the Queen will not be automatically succeeded by the next British queen or king, but a vote must be taken by all Commonwealth members for a successor to this ceremonial position. Perhaps it would be more palatable for the Irish public if a British monarch was not chosen as the next head of the Commonwealth.

Mick86

Malone wrote:

Being a Republican means you are against monarchies,so Gay is not a Republican.

Who wants to be a Republican.

DublinWriter

b.ie curious wrote:

Perhaps it would be more palatable for the Irish public if a British monarch was not chosen as the next head of the Commonwealth.

Our future lies in Europe, not in the British Commonwealth

Without sounding like a rabid shinner, to me the British Commonwealth was basically a rebranding of the Empire, a mechanism to allow the UK to continue to rape India's vast resources without pesky international trade barriers.

FlutterinBantam

I freely admit I havn't read the full thread ,but I heard Gay Mitchell on Tubridy during the week.All the guy was asking is that we look at things a little differently. He didn't seem to be advocating any major solution...just that we look at things a bit differently???

Not a bad idea in my opinion

Hotblack Desiato

constitutionus wrote:

the idea of liz's mug looking back at me on the money is reason enough for me not to do it

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

juliuspret

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

In all honesty thats another 10 years down the road, at the earliest!

Still it will be funny when it happens!

Victor

I don't see the huge problem. Being "republican and nationalist" hasn't worked. How about trying the "not-very-royalist and nationalist" route?

Mick86 wrote:

Besides, if we had no presidential elections, how would the govt fix a cushy job and massive pension for it's geriatric/incompetent/useless hangers on. They can't all be senators.:D

You could have a governor general, with no election at all.

SeanW

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

Well when lizzie kicks the bucket it will be King Charles.

Since UK practice is to put a side profile of their monarch on their coins, the UK Euro/Sterling coins will just show a big ear ... fun times ahead.

DublinWriter

ninja900 wrote:

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

The UK will *never* join the Euro. It's too much of a cultural leap for them.

constitutionus

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

it'll never happen for two reasons

1. they still have delusions of being a world power, the idea of giving up the pound is just beyond them. particularly with the commonwealth being there reminding them of the old empire days

2. they cant even decide on one note for themselves. seriously theres about 10 different notes that ALL call themselves british sterling and the banks love having the liscence to print em. hell theres four in the north alone and not one of those banks will willingly give up that

juliuspret

constitutionus wrote:

it'll never happen for two reasons

1. they still have delusions of being a world power, the idea of giving up the pound is just beyond them. particularly with the commonwealth being there reminding them of the old empire days

2. they cant even decide on one note for themselves. seriously theres about 10 different notes that ALL call themselves british sterling and the banks love having the liscence to print em. hell theres four in the north alone and not one of those banks will willingly give up that

I think never is too strong and permanent a word.

Yes they still very much have delusions of Empire due to their closeness to the US....brown noseing the teacher etc...

When the Euro was about to be introduced didnt the Bureau de Changes want some sort of pay off due to the imminent loss of business?

And gettting back on the original idea of this thread....dual heads of state?....its almost certainly a dream for a very small Royalist population in Ireland.

constitutionus

i work in foreign exchange and as far as i know there wasnt a call for compenstion over the euro. to be honest i dont see what leg they'd have to stand on with the issue, particularly with most money coming into this country from the UK and the US. besides being in profit never stopped banks closing down entire branches before to shore up their profits so shutting down their bureaus wouldnt be any skin of their nose's

there WAS a nice little kickback (which i got ) in terms of extra payments over having to handle the change over at new years due to the extra work involved but that was from the employers to the staff ala the millinium bug situation in the IT sector, im pretty sure the gov didnt give a hand out for it.

also its worth pointing out that while certain banks and companies (my own included) closed down many branches the fact is with the accession countries theres as much business now as there ever was. you wouldnt believe the amount of polish zloty and czech korouna that im selling now.

getting back to the thread, your right juliuspret a dual head of state wont happen, in fact the way the EUs going all head of states will be pretty much redundant in the end (unless of course they get the EU constitution gets put through where ironically our prez will have more power there than she does here )