Should Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth

Zambia

ninja900 wrote:

No it won't - not unless a majority in the Republic vote for it also - and nobody I know will vote for the admittance of a lawless sectarian economic backwater into our modern, increasingly secular economically successful republic, thank you very much.

Yeah like you ever lived here with a stinking attitude like that...

But some of the rest of your coments make sense

Gobán Saor

ninja900 wrote:

....that's ignoring the 49% of disgruntled Unionists and whatever retaliatory action a small minority of them may take. No thanks....

So, we should not try to unite Ireland because a minority of a minority might take some retaliatory action. Sounds like an abject surrender to unprincipled, undemocratic terrorism to me. Surely you are not advocating we should seriously make policy on this basis? In any event, we've been here before - there was no backlash from the (very large number of) unionists, disgruntled or otherwise, who remained in the Irish Free State post independence.

ninja900 wrote:

I confidently predict it will not happen in this century and that suits me fine.

That's some confidence you've got:rolleyes: If Ye Olde Boards dot ie had existed in 1907, I doubt whether many contributors might have predicted anything like the eventual course of Irish history right up to 2000. Equally, few of us today could expect to have any idea how things might look in 2100. But shorter term predictions could be more accurate:)

Personally, I expect to see a United Ireland before 2020. I base this on simple demographics. If you look at recent election results in Northern Ireland, the total nationalist vote is rising and the total unionist vote is falling by anything from about 0.25% to 1.0% per annum. The gap in the recent
Assembly elections was less than 4% between DUP/OUP and SF/SDLP. Do the math. (Qualifier: I am open to being convinced by any plausible reason why this trend will not continue)

Dub13

Gob&#225 wrote: »

(Qualifier: I am open to being convinced by any plausible reason why this trend will not continue)

Their is a body of argument that not all nationalist's would vote for a United Ireland so the simple demographics you base your argument on is to simplistic.

LordSutch

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Personally, I expect to see a United Ireland before 2020. I base this on simple demographics. If you look at recent election results in Northern Ireland, the total nationalist vote is rising and the total unionist vote is falling by anything from about 0.25% to 1.0% per annum. The gap in the recent
Assembly elections was less than 4% between DUP/OUP and SF/SDLP. Do the math. (Qualifier: I am open to being convinced by any plausible reason why this trend will not continue)

Thats your Pro-Nationalist opinion & thats all it is (an opinion) ..............
In reality there are far too many imponderalbes in the Mix, like will the Unionist/ Loyalist population keep declining? will the Nationalist/ Republican population keep increasing (at a greater rate)? will those fifteen to twenty% Pro-Union Nationalists change their minds about wishing to stay within the Union? will the influx of people from arould the World effect the political balance in any way (Pro-Union? or Anti-Union)? ...........

Soooooooooo many imponderables so few answers.

Liam Byrne

ninja900 wrote:

Get out of the insular Ban-era attitude that one is
either a "GAA man" or a "soccer man" or a "rugby man".

As someone who comes from a city that supports and participates in almost every sport, I can assure you that those Ban-era attitudes and pigeon-holes do not apply.....Limerick wasn't chosen for the shots during the Heineken Cup final for nothing, I've been at more matches of different codes than a lot of people, and (having worked Sat night til 5am with the result that I was up too late to actually go) I watched the Limerick v Tipp match on TV yesterday while wearing a Munster jersey.

So no, I don't have the attitude that you assume; my point was that while the local station here covers rugby or hurling with full live coverage, the local Dublin stations don't. And while a lot of the other output on the station here is predictably and annoyingly identikit formatted, should UTV ever pull the plug on the live rugby or GAA coverage there would be war, because of the level of support for it - it's a requirement. Period.

I would have liked to think that the same would apply everywhere, but apparently not - surely if Dublin was as culturally open as you suggest there would be a huge audience for live coverage, and surely one of the stations there would cover it - live and in full ?

For the record, I've no issue with watching the Premiership - I do it regularly as it's one of the top soccer leagues in the world and I'm still waiting for Spurs to reach their full potential. But - IMHO - Dublin's "culture" does seem to be focussed more on apeing the Brits and the Yanks, and I was quoting the lack of live coverage of local sports as just an example of this.

Back (fully) on-topic, I had to laugh at Gobán Saor's comment:

Gob&#225 wrote: »

So, we should not try to unite Ireland because a minority of a minority might take some retaliatory action

It's not that long ago that SF/IRA were precisely RELYING on the fact that the "retaliatory action" of a minority of a minority could (and did, far too much) influence policies and decisions.

Why do I keep on feeling the need to use the phrase "kettle, pot" when it comes to nationalistic posts on the boards :rolleyes:

cailin_donn

Ibid, you're still calling it "The Pale"?? Sounds like the wistfull thinking of a West-Brit to me!

will those fifteen to twenty% Pro-Union Nationalists change their minds about wishing to stay within the Union?

well it wont really matter if they do or not because the majority will want a united ireland sooner or later. Personally, I think the British Gov. should let the N.I Catholics decide what to do about N.I. Not just because they would most likely vote for a United Ireland, but it's the least it can do for the discrimination and brutal treatment of Catholics up there by the Loyalists throughout the years.

blorg

Personally I think the descision should be down to Ireland's Jewish community due to the Limerick pogroms and the shameful refusal to allow significant Jewish immigration during the Emergency.

At the same time the franchise in the United States should be limited to Blacks- and maybe Hispanics.

cailin_donn- are you quite mad?

hullaballoo

blorg wrote:

Personally I think the descision should be down to Ireland's Jewish community due to the Limerick pogroms and the shameful refusal to allow significant Jewish immigration during the Emergency.

At the same time the franchise in the United States should be limited to Blacks- and maybe Hispanics.

cailin_donn- are you quite mad?

Lol.

Either mad, or 14 years old.

I think the prospects of a 'united Ireland' are of little importance these days. I mean, what seems to me to be important for the people of NI is that their government (whoever that is) can take advantage of the strong position they're in for an economic boom (or strengthening, at the least).

Beyond that, since we're all members of the EU, and it's 2007, I don't see why we should be clinging on to parts of the past that really don't bear heavily on today. The British government aren't hanging on to NI - why would they? In this day and age, it's more of a cost to them than lending to the UK's reputation as an imperial power. What it comes down to is those Northern Irish people who wish to remain as part of the UK. That's their prerogative, and personally, though I'd like to see a 32-county Ireland, they're probably better off in the UK.

Until the Irish government can prove themselves fit to govern a 26-county country, I don't think they can be charged with taking on a further 6. As it is, the UK are handling NI just fine.

Edit: apologies for the legibility, my head is all over the place!

SeanW

Ibid wrote:

No, you're making an illogical step there. We are in the World Trade Organisation, which is headed by a Frenchman but we don't have a problem with that. We are in the United Nations, which is headed by a Korean, but we don't have a problem with that. Whatever about France and our relations within the EU (which is applicable to Britain as well), we're certainly "not Korea or any part of Korea whatsoever" so should we pull out of the UN too?

Again, what qualifies Elizabeth Windsor II to be head of the Commonwealth? Versus Ban-Ki-Moon of South Korea to head the UN, the heads of othe other bodies you mentioned.

5starpool

I very much doubt that a United Ireland will happen anytime soon. National borders are less important than they once were, and that is a good thing as hardening nationalistic viewpoints almost always only lead to conflict, whether domestic or international. Also, as things (hopefully) stabilise further in the North people will generally grow more content in a normalised society so will be less inclined to change. Once the economic burden that is Northern Ireland starts to pay its own way (it has probably made great headway in recent years in this respect), then people down here might be less hostile in this regard, but as said, this might paradoxically be at a time when NI citizens are mostly content.

Gobán Saor

Dub13 wrote:

Their is a body of argument that not all nationalist's would vote for a United Ireland so the simple demographics you base your argument on is to simplistic.

How then do you define an Irish "nationalist?" If those who want to maintain the union are "Unionists", (a reasonable assumption, I'd think!) then, those who want to break the link are..........??

Nationalists?

Gobán Saor

ArthurF wrote:

Thats your Pro-Nationalist opinion & thats all it is (an opinion)

Well, of course it's an opinion.:rolleyes: What else could a prediction be?

ArthurF wrote:

In reality there are far too many imponderalbes in the Mix, like will the Unionist/ Loyalist population keep declining? will the Nationalist/ Republican population keep increasing (at a greater rate)? will those fifteen to twenty% Pro-Union Nationalists change their minds about wishing to stay within the Union? will the influx of people from arould the World effect the political balance in any way (Pro-Union? or Anti-Union)? ...........

Soooooooooo many imponderables so few answers.

The presence of imponderables does not equate to an absence of answers. It's just a measure of the reliance that can be placed on those answers. I have pointed out that since sinn Fein started to contest NI elections, every election (on a like with like comparison) has seen an increase in the SF+SDLP vote and a decline in the OUP+DUP+miscUP vote. This doesn't prove that there will eventually be an eventual electoral majority for a United Ireland, but it is sufficient evidence to ground a valid opinion.

Gobán Saor

ArthurF wrote:

will those fifteen to twenty% Pro-Union Nationalists change their minds about wishing to stay within the Union?

Wtf is a Pro-Union Nationalist, anyway? If you're pro-Union, you're hardly a nationalist. The concept of a Pro-Union Nationalist makes as much sense as the concept of a Pro-United Ireland Unionist.

Liam Byrne

Gob&#225 wrote: »

How then do you define an Irish "nationalist?" If those who want to maintain the union are "Unionists", (a reasonable assumption, I'd think!) then, those who want to break the link are..........??

Nationalists?

Depends on what you define as a "nation".

We can certainly opt to oblige and assist anyone who wants to expand or join our nation, particularly those in the North who wish to be part of the Republic, but the fact is that we have a nation.

So being "nationalist" could have meanings other than what you're implying; the words "nationalist" or "republican" are definitely not for the exclusive uses that have been associated with them for the last few years.

The only reason most people have been slow to use them is because of the perceived guilt-by-association.

LordSutch

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Wtf is a Pro-Union Nationalist, anyway? If you're pro-Union, you're hardly a nationalist. The concept of a Pro-Union Nationalist makes as much sense as the concept of a Pro-United Ireland Unionist.

Just to clarify ~ when refering to Pro-Union Nationalists I was pointing out that not all Nationalist (catholics) who vote for the SDLP want Northern Ireland to leave the Union, or in other words, those 15~20% Nationalist (Catholics) are Pro-Union in addition to the 99% Unionist (Protestant) population who also wish to maintain the "Union"............

As regards the Commonwealth, I suspect that even if the North does leave the UK within the next 100 years? they will still be part of the Commonwealth (if the Commonwealth still exists)?

Its all conjecture.

Alastriona

Confused here...I didn't envision a united Ireland so much as being part of the UK, but as having the north become part of the republic. Isn't that where it's going? Isn't that the future in spite of Unionst objections that I feel will eventually be unable to stop this.

LordSutch

Alastriona wrote:

Confused here...I didn't envision a united Ireland so much as being part of the UK, but as having the north become part of the republic. Isn't that where it's going? Isn't that the future in spite of Unionst objections that I feel will eventually be unable to stop this.

Now I am confused?
Alastriona, Can you please clarify what you mean .........................

Time Magazine

SeanW wrote:

Again, what qualifies Elizabeth Windsor II to be head of the Commonwealth? Versus Ban-Ki-Moon of South Korea to head the UN, the heads of othe other bodies you mentioned.

She's the interim leader, with the implicit acceptance of the member states.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/ wrote:

When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role.

Gobán Saor

ArthurF wrote:

Just to clarify ~ when refering to Pro-Union Nationalists I was pointing out that not all Nationalist (catholics) who vote for the SDLP want Northern Ireland to leave the Union, or in other words, those 15~20% Nationalist (Catholics) are Pro-Union in addition to the 99% Unionist (Protestant) population who also wish to maintain the "Union"............

I think the problem is the shorthand equation of Catholic with Nationalist and Protestant with Unionist. I would readily accept that there are pro-Union Catholics; mostly they appear to vote for the Alliance party. I still think a pro-Union nationalist is a contradiction in terms - if you're pro-Union, you're a UNIONIST! Catholic or Protestant. If you're pro-Union and you vote SDLP, you are behaving contradictorily - the SDLP explicitly wants to see an end the Union.

ArthurF wrote:

Its all conjecture.

Of course! Isn't that what makes it interesting.....?

LordSutch

You might have a point? but I am not sure?
I happen to know know a family of SDLP voters on the falls road Belfast, they are Roman Catholic, they vote SDLP, they are to all intents & purposes as Irish as yourself but ~ They would not want to leave the UK because of the Northern 'system' including the NHS, VAT, Car Tax, Car prices, the Pound, & hundreds of many other smaller differences between the UK & the South, + the fact that Northerners do feel slightly different & removed from the South & Southern culture, add the big Scottish connection (& not being Governed from Dublin)!

Dunno if this helps, its a good question about 'Pro-Union Nationalists' but as you can see, they do exist .....................

murphaph

Definitely a lot of SDLP and even a fair few SF voters would actually be unionists if it came a referendum on leaving the union.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote:

Definitely a lot of SDLP and even a fair few SF voters would actually be unionists if it came a referendum on leaving the union.

which is, I suspect, why sinn fein are so keen on free health care.:rolleyes:

Dub13

This is back in the limelight again after a British Labour MP called for an official invitation to be extended to Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth.

Full Story Here

Pride Fighter

Maybe we should. Our crappy athletes would kick ass at the Commonwealth games as it is so low quality. I watched some of the last one and most of my time was spent laughing at 100m "sprinters" finishing in 15 seconds. That is slower than ME.

lancemotown

Now, I'm far from nationalist but I would never ever ever ever ever want to be in the commonwealth again. Ever.

fly_agaric

lancemotown wrote:

Now, I'm far from nationalist but I would never ever ever ever ever want to be in the commonwealth again. Ever.

I don't think we were ever in it.

There is something which rubs me up the wrong way about the idea of good Auld Little Eire joining the commonwealth but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's bound up with all the indoctrination we get in school...
We'd probably hurry up if we want to go one better and rejoin the Union.:D

Pride Fighter

We were in the commonwealth and we were a very big player in it too. Ourselves ,Australia and Canada were responsible for the statute of Westminster which allowed Dominions change their constitution without British consent. Fine Gaels inter party govt of 1948 used this to declare a republic and took us out of the commonwealth in the same year. So we were in the commonwealth until 1948.

sceptre

It was rather a different organisation when we were members though. One could argue that it was a different organisation - the Secretariat, which resulted in much of the administrative power passing from the UK Foreign office to the commonwealth itself, wasn't set up until 1965. The London Declaration, a necessary ingredient of republics staying within the organisation and usually regarded as the beginning of the modern commonwealth, wasn't made until ten days after Ireland left it.

Finally, as Pride Fighter said, the Irish Free State fought along the two other dominions of Australia and Canada to get the Statute of Westminster passed but it merely formalised the 1926 Balfour Declaration, later restated by the 1930 Imperial Conference (which also abolished the supremacy of the British parliament that previously existed through the Colonial Laws Validity Act which is always ignored and arguably of greater significance than the Statute of Westminster). It's only of significance as it gave a statutory right to the already-existing right that dominions had to make constitutional changes like we made prior to the enactment of the 1937 constitution. Because of the 1926 declaration it could have been done in any case, we'd just have had to push the case through the Privy Council.

I'm not a big fan of us rejoining the union. I'm pretty open to the current subjects in the UK becoming citizens when they become a republic themselves though. As for the commonwealth, as I've probably said before, I'm not all that pushed either way. Depends on whether there's free cake or not.

Dish

I've just came into this conversation so I havent rea dall that has been said apart form the first reply!

My answer to this would to be go and shyt! We fought enough years for what we have! Y would we want to join the commonwealth? Its useless! lol! Plus having the queen in charge? May throw ourselvs back into the 1800s!

Fratton Fred

Dish wrote:

I've just came into this conversation so I havent rea dall that has been said apart form the first reply!

My answer to this would to be go and shyt! We fought enough years for what we have! Y would we want to join the commonwealth? Its useless! lol! Plus having the queen in charge? May throw ourselvs back into the 1800s!

I suggest you do indeed go and read the whole thread