Should Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

I dunno how old you are Colon_dunno but when you are older & travelled the world and been in commonwealth Countries (or even just Britain) & when you have met & made friends with commonwealth people from around the World then you will see things in a different light, and you will look back on these narrow minded postings of yours and think "what was I thinking" I dont hate Canadians, I think Aussies are OK, so too are the Welsh, and you might even end up with a protestant boyfriend from Northern Ireland

Iv been to Britain alot of times and think its a rgeat place and the people are grat, but at the same time thats no reason to want to join the lingering remnants of the British empire (or forget history either). Much the same way Iv been to the USA a few times and thought it was great and so on, but I wouldnt lobby for Ireland to become the 52nd state of the USA (Britain being the 51st state ). Like people from Poland probably wouldnt want to have their country re-amalgamated into Germany anytime in the future, regardless of how good relations between the 2 countries get.

As I said, in my own opinion the problem is down to lingering post-colonial mentality and revisionism being driven by fickleness. Theres nothing to be gained (that I can see anyway) from joining it other than a display of shameful sycophancy (along the lines of John Bruton when that member of the British Royal Family visited Ireland in the 1990's).

Flex

Fratton Fred wrote:

Like it or not, Ireland has probably closer ties to Britain still, and probably enjoys more benefits from that relationship, than most commonwealth countries do, however joining would be political suicide for any politician promoting membership, so it won't happen for years to come, if at all.

How many of those ties wouldnt exist if Northern Ireland didnt exist?

cailin_donn

joining would be political suicide for any politician promoting membership, so it won't happen for years to come, if at all.

Exactly, because the majority of people do NOT want any ties with Britain at all, unlike some on here. The people remember history and dont want to dishonor the dead. That is why it wont happen.

Flex, thats an excellent point!!!

robinph

Flex wrote:

How many of those ties wouldnt exist if Northern Ireland didnt exist?

Most of the ties with the UK would still exist regardless of the existance of NI or not just due to the UK being the nearest country that speaks the same language.

Fratton Fred

Flex wrote:

How many of those ties wouldnt exist if Northern Ireland didnt exist?

I think the only difference would be that there would be no UTV or BBC Northern Ireland, so there would be less TV channels

Dub13

cailin_donn wrote:

Exactly, because the majority of people do NOT want any ties with Britain at all, unlike some on here. The people remember history and dont want to dishonor the dead. That is why it wont happen.

And how do you know that the majority of people don't want any ties with Britain...?

Time Magazine

cailin_donn wrote:

Exactly, because the majority of people do NOT want any ties with Britain at all, unlike some on here.

I apologise for not being able to reply substantively, fecking exams, but you're talking waffle: The European Union.

cailin_donn

OK, first off: what about the EU, Ibid??

Secondly:

And how do you know that the majority of people don't want any ties with Britain...?

If they did, Éamon Ó Cuiv would be in govt. and we'd be part of the Commonwealth already

Dub13

cailin_donn wrote:

OK, first off: what about the EU, Ibid??

Secondly:


If they did, Éamon Ó Cuiv would be in govt. and we'd be part of the Commonwealth already

Éamon Ó Cuiv is in Government he is the current Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.Do you not keep up to date with Irish politics...?Here you are telling us what the Irish people want and you don't even know your own government.

Also even government ministers are entitled to there opinion and it does not even have to be government policy,its a mad system but I think you should be able to get your hear around that one.

Liam Byrne

cailin_donn wrote:

Exactly, because the majority of people do NOT want any ties with Britain at all, unlike some on here. The people remember history and dont want to dishonor the dead. That is why it wont happen.

Flex, thats an excellent point!!!

So that explains why so many people watch Premiership matches and EastEnders and Coronation St and all the satellite TV stations and buy UK rags and shop in stores like Tesco and Argos, then ?

And while I'm not 100% comfortable with all of that, or the fact that so many people do feel the need to look east for their inspiration, I'm nowhere near as anti-UK as you seem to be.

As for "honouring the dead".....there's an awful lot of those and not all of them are the UK's fault.

Kinda funny, too, considering that you had posts in SF-related threads before the election saying that people should forget about the past and the people who'd killed people..... which is it to be - forgive and forget or stick with the grudge ?

robinph

cailin_donn wrote:

OK, first off: what about the EU, Ibid??

The fact that there are ties between the UK and Ireland due to both being part of the EU, admittedly the UK were sneaky and only joined after Ireland had already become part of the EU though.

Gobán Saor

ArthurF wrote:

Britain cannot just 'hand over' the six counties just because Britain says so, the South would also have to agree to it, and more importantly the people of the North would also have to agree in princible to leaving the United Kingdom.

Ho hum, ho hum! Well, that logic would be just fine if we didn't have the precedent of Hong Kong to muddy the waters. I don't remember the people of Hong Kong agreeing, in principle or otherwise, to give up British rule. If I remember correctly, they were quite cut up about it. Didn't stop Britain "handing over" the place, though.

ArthurF wrote:

Sinn Fein's main ambition in life (indeed its very existance) is to extract the North from the UK by any means possible, thankfully now within the bounderies of the GFA and not by "other means" .......................

A perfectly legitimate aim, is it not?

Liam Byrne

Gob&#225 wrote: »

A perfectly legitimate aim, is it not?

Just as long as it's no longer preceded by "Ready," and followed by "Fire!"

blorg

robinph wrote:

The fact that there are ties between the UK and Ireland due to both being part of the EU, admittedly the UK were sneaky and only joined after Ireland had already become part of the EU though.

Eh? The UK tried to join twice before 1973 but were vetoed by de Gaulle. There are plenty of post-independence Ireland-UK ties that precede and are completely seperate to the EU (citizenship rights, currency equivalence to the 70s, free travel area, etc.)

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Ho hum, ho hum! Well, that logic would be just fine if we didn't have the precedent of Hong Kong to muddy the waters. I don't remember the people of Hong Kong agreeing, in principle or otherwise, to give up British rule. If I remember correctly, they were quite cut up about it. Didn't stop Britain "handing over" the place, though.

The New Territories of HK were on a very specific 99-year lease from China, legally they had to go back on this basis. A better example would be Gibraltar, ceded in perpetuity by Spain. Or how about Scotland, they should give that "back" irrespective of the wishes of the population. Force the Channel Islands to join France while they're at it.

If you think Britain has some great sentimental attachment to NI and wants to hang on to it for any other reason than it feels it has to due to the wishes of the population, I think you are strongly mistaken.

Anyway, wasn't this thread about the Commonwealth?

Fratton Fred

robinph wrote:

The fact that there are ties between the UK and Ireland due to both being part of the EU, admittedly the UK were sneaky and only joined after Ireland had already become part of the EU though.

From Wikipedia

In January 1960, Britain and other OEEC members who didn't belong to the EEC formed an alternative association, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). But Britain soon realised that the EEC was more successful than the EFTA and decided to apply for membership. Ireland and Denmark, both of whom being heavily reliant on British trade, decided they would go wherever Britain went, and hence also applied to join the Community. Norway also applied at this time.

The first application occurred in August 1961 under the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan, who was more favourable to Britain joining the EEC than his predecessors. Negotiations started in November 1961 and a provisional agreement was reached in July 1962. However, Britain's membership was vetoed by French president Charles De Gaulle in January 1963 (all EEC founding members had this right). Officially, De Gaulle said that Britain was not sufficiently European-minded yet to break away from the Commonwealth and accept a common agricultural policy. But other reasons include Britain's close relationship with the US in terms of defence (see Nassau agreement) and De Gaulle's fear that Britain's membership would be followed by many other countries joining the EEC, thus making the community lose its cohesion. De Gaulle refused an "Atlantic" Europe. As a result, the whole negotiations with the four countries broke off.

The second application occurred under the Labour government of Harold Wilson. Wilson said in January 1966 that Britain was ready to apply for EEC membership if essential British interests were safeguarded. Negotiations started on May 1967 with the four countries but De Gaulle once again used his veto in September 1967. Officially, De Gaulle said that Britain had to improve its economy but he actually still feared that Britain would act as the US Trojan horse. The whole negotiation broke off once again, and it seemed that Britain wouldn't be able to join the EEC as long as De Gaulle was president.

The third and last application occurred after De Gaulle resigned in 1969 and was replaced by Georges Pompidou. In October 1969, the European Commission asked for new negotiations concerning the applications of the four countries. In November 1969, during a meeting of the foreign ministers of the EC (EEC, ECSC and Euratom had merged into the EC in 1967), French minister Maurice Schumann declared that France would agree to Britain's membership if questions of agricultural finance were settled first. (Then as now the Common Agricultural Policy - for which Britain would have to contribute far more than it would receive from the common fund - was such a contentious issue that it was considered necessary to force Britain to agree to it in its current form as a condition of membership.) Negotiations started in June 1970 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath, who was one of the most strongly pro-European politicians in Britain. Britain agreed to the conditions of the EC: Britain had to accept the Merger Treaty and all decisions taken since the second application, and resolve its problem of adaptation, i.e. conflicts between the EC and the Commonwealth. Finally, Britain joined successfully on January 1, 1973. In 1972, Ireland (application from July 1961), Denmark (application from August 1961), Norway (application from April 1962) held referenda on whether to join. The results were:

Ireland - 83.1% in favour (May 10) (see also: Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland)
Norway - 46.5% in favour (September 25)
Denmark - 63.3% in favour (October 2)
Following the rejection by the Norwegian electorate (53.5% against), Norway did not join, an event that was to be repeated again twenty years later, when the government proposed joining along with Austria, Sweden and Finland.

robinph

blorg wrote:

Eh? The UK tried to join twice before 1973 but were vetoed by de Gaulle. There are plenty of post-independence Ireland-UK ties that precede and are completely seperate to the EU (citizenship rights, currency equivalence to the 70s, free travel area, etc.)

I actually did think that Ireland had joined a couple of years before the UK, oh well guess I should have checked that one out before hand.

Anyway, the reason for the EU being brought up was in response to claims that Ireland wanted no links with the UK what so ever and people wondering if cailin_donn had ever heard of the EU which the UK happens to also be part of.

blorg

robinph wrote:

Anyway, the reason for the EU being brought up was in response to claims that Ireland wanted no links with the UK what so ever and people wondering if cailin_donn had ever heard of the EU which the UK happens to also be part of.

Sure, but as pointed out it's even more than that, we effectively joined _because_ the UK did, following them into membership. Similarly we are still not in the Schengen Area as a result of our common travel area with our neighbour, who is not a member.

If anything links to the UK have been weakening since the 70s (currency seperation, closer integration with the EU) but they are still significant and we are still closer than any other country, including any Commonwealth country.

Zambia

blorg wrote:

If anything links to the UK have been weakening since the 70s (currency seperation, closer integration with the EU) but they are still significant and we are still closer than any other country, including any Commonwealth country.

The currency separated a long time ago Punts/Pounds

As the UK is in the EU by getting closer to the EU we get closer to them.

That said I dont see the reason for us being in the commonweath.

Gobán Saor

blorg wrote:

The New Territories of HK were on a very specific 99-year lease from China, legally they had to go back on this basis.

Yes, but only the New Territories had to be given back. The remaining part of Hong Kong didn't, its population overwhelmingly didn't want to be "given back" but yet it was. Perhaps the prospect of confrontation with the Chinese army might have had something to do with it.:rolleyes: More, ah, challenging than shooting dead 14 civilians on the streets of Derry, eh?

blorg wrote:

If you think Britain has some great sentimental attachment to NI and wants to hang on to it for any other reason than it feels it has to due to the wishes of the population, I think you are strongly mistaken.

Didn't Thatcher claim that Northern Ireland was "as British as Finchley?" Sounds like a pretty sentimental attachment to me.

Liam Byrne

Gob&#225 wrote: »

A perfectly legitimate aim, is it not?

OK - how about this, then....if your mum was one of those old-fashioned Irish mums who wanted to have a priest in the family......

HER aim is to have you become a priest. Unfortunately YOUR goals and aspirations are somewhat different, and you like the way you are at the moment.

Is your mum entitled to force her aim on you, or should you be entitled to make up your own mind ?

As for the bigger "Commonwealth" idea, I'm against it, since I can't see any point to it......but NOT for the same archaic reasons that most people who've posted here against it are.

Gobán Saor

Liam Byrne wrote:

OK - how about this, then....if your mum was one of those old-fashioned Irish mums who wanted to have a priest in the family......

HER aim is to have you become a priest. Unfortunately YOUR goals and aspirations are somewhat different, and you like the way you are at the moment.

Is your mum entitled to force her aim on you, or should you be entitled to make up your own mind ?

As for the bigger "Commonwealth" idea, I'm against it, since I can't see any point to it......but NOT for the same archaic reasons that most people who've posted here against it are.

The analogy is hardly relevant. I have a perfect right to try and become or not to become a priest as I see fit. By what right did Britain ever invade, colonise and rule any part of this country?

RuggieBear

Gob&#225 wrote: »

The analogy is hardly relevant. I have a perfect right to try and become or not to become a priest as I see fit. By what right did Britain ever invade, colonise and rule any part of this country?

Because they were more powerful.

Liam Byrne

Gob&#225 wrote: »

The analogy is hardly relevant. I have a perfect right to try and become or not to become a priest as I see fit.

The analogy is COMPLETELY relevant in the context that you are imposing YOUR aim on a huge number of people living there.

There's ONE possible scenario in which that is valid: if you're from the north. If so, you're entitled to do that, since you're with the group directly affected; but if you're not, you're not.

If, at some stage in the future, the majority there decide to become part of the Republic of Ireland, then it will happen. It is THEIR aims that count - so said the Good Friday Agreement which the majority, North and South, voted overwhelmingly for.

By what right did Britain ever invade, colonise and rule any part of this country?

OK - so do we then start hating the descendents of all those Vikings and everyone else who invaded along the way as well ?

Britain did what it did - that can't be changed, even if the fabled United Ireland was to happen. Likewise the relatively noble struggle was tainted by scumbags - that can't be changed either. But - at this stage - for anyone outside of the North to have an "aim" to change it is almost as bad as the Brits having an "aim" to have Ireland the way IT wanted.

Everyone's voted on it, and it was decided to leave it to themselves - that's why it's called "self - determination".

Like I said, if you're from the north, then my apologies - your profile on the left says "Dublin", but if you are from the North you are perfectly entitled to have hopes and aspirations - and even "aims" as to where the GFA might lead.

Tea drinker

RuggieBear wrote:

Because they were more powerful.

So if someone met you on the street and gave you a kickin that would be ok because: "they have the right to because they are more powerful?"
I think you are confusing capability with right.
Also nice justification for the war in Iraq Blah Blah.

It's also been mentioned repeatedly here that Ireland should get over it etc. What about the second world war? still plenty of weeping sores in the UK and elsewhere over that one, the brave sacrifice is celebrated etc, yet when someone here is proud of their heritage they are derided. Seems the old inferiority complex is back!

In any event it is the "common wealth" which must move on, and shake off the rags of it's colonial past. I do not see it being represented as an beacon of wealth, trade or some social breakthroughs in recent times.

Ireland and it's people have every right to feel affronted when presented with embracing a symbol of it's oppression.

guinnessdrinker

so said the Good Friday Agreement which the majority, North and South, voted overwhelmingly for.

People in the South didn't vote for the Good Friday Agreement.

Zambia

guinnessdrinker wrote:

People in the South didn't vote for the Good Friday Agreement.

1,442,583 people in the south (94%) of a turnout of 56% of the Population did while also voting for the Amsterdam treaty.

85,748 people (6%) voted no

In the Republic of Ireland the electorate voted upon the Nineteenth Amendment. This amendment both permitted the state to comply with the Belfast Agreement and provided for the removal of the 'territorial claim' contained in Articles 2 and 3. The Republic of Ireland voted upon the Amsterdam Treaty on the same day.

Fratton Fred

Tea drinker wrote:

So if someone met you on the street and gave you a kickin that would be ok because: "they have the right to because they are more powerful?"
I think you are confusing capability with right.
Also nice justification for the war in Iraq Blah Blah.

It's also been mentioned repeatedly here that Ireland should get over it etc. What about the second world war? still plenty of weeping sores in the UK and elsewhere over that one, the brave sacrifice is celebrated etc, yet when someone here is proud of their heritage they are derided. Seems the old inferiority complex is back!

In any event it is the "common wealth" which must move on, and shake off the rags of it's colonial past. I do not see it being represented as an beacon of wealth, trade or some social breakthroughs in recent times.

Ireland and it's people have every right to feel affronted when presented with embracing a symbol of it's oppression.

remind me again where St Patrick was from and how he ended up in Ireland?

The commonwealth has got rid of it's colonial past, as I said earlier saying that is an insult to nations such as Australia, Canada and more significantly Trinidad & Tobago, South Africa etc.

It is some parts of the Iish community whoo seem to struggle accepting what modern Britain is compared to it's empirical past.

Fratton Fred

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Yes, but only the New Territories had to be given back. The remaining part of Hong Kong didn't, its population overwhelmingly didn't want to be "given back" but yet it was. Perhaps the prospect of confrontation with the Chinese army might have had something to do with it.:rolleyes: More, ah, challenging than shooting dead 14 civilians on the streets of Derry, eh?

or maybe they didn't want more children blown to bits while trying to do their Chritmas shopping :rolleyes:

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Didn't Thatcher claim that Northern Ireland was "as British as Finchley?" Sounds like a pretty sentimental attachment to me.

You've obviously neverbeen to Finchley

guinnessdrinker

Zambia, I think there is a little bit of confusion. The Republic voted in referedum on Nineteenth Amendment, this was to ammend articles 2 and 3 which was overwhelmingly passed. It was a requirement for the Good Friday Agreement. However voters did not vote for the Good Friday Agreement itself.

CerebralCortex

Fratton Fred wrote:

It is some parts of the Iish community whoo seem to struggle accepting what modern Britain is compared to it's empirical past.

How does that point justify Ireland swearing allegiance to Britain exactly?
Besides whats wrong with the EU?