Why can't Ireland join the Commonwealth?

The Chessplayer

luckylucky wrote: »

I got an infraction(whatever that is) for playfully suggesting Chess Player was trolling (it was after all what he suggested i and others were doing in the first place), it was just a light dig, actually a very light dig considering what he called me. :eek:. I was pretty restrained in my response I thought tbh.

'The West Brit' element was hard enough to stomach imo but that takes the biscuit.

Anyway I hope you all solve Ireland's and The World's problems here. Good Luck.

While I don't think that your accusation had any foundation, I certainly didn't take offense at it.

But, let's have a look at this thread! Nevermind the spurious reasons for joining the Commonwealth - the laugh-out-loud "increased trade with the Antipodes" :rolleyes:, or the very sinister racial reasons which were also put forward - that we, being of similar racial stock to the British, would command more status over say, the African nations. I recall that Adolf Hitler had a similar racial pecking order. I believe he saw the Germans and the British on a par, while he termed the Irish and the Slavs, among others, as "sub-aryan". So, excuse me chaps, if I'd rather not accept this dubious honour.

Ok, no need for consultation here, these above reasons can be dismissed straight-away. Agreed.

I feel there is an undercurrent of monarchism at work in this thread. There have also been a couple of comments attempting to bring religion to the fore of the debate, which is a bit of a disgusting tactic.

To the Irish Anglophiles among us, I make the following points:

1. Rejection of monarchism is not an attack on Britishness.
2. Rejection of the principles of monarchism has nothing to do with religion.
3. There is nothing wrong with being Irish and an Anglophile, regardless of British lineage. The Republic does not distinguish.
4. Having the the Queen as head of the commonwealth, and accepting her as a figurehead is on a par with taking the 'Oath of Allegiance'. If joining the commonwealth was a bargaining tool for gaining a United Ireland, I would vote against it, as I am sure that many would.
5. Britishness is not synonymous with monarchism, constitutional or otherwise.
6. Britishness is not sysonymous with unionism.
7. Irishness is not synonymous with anti-Britishness..
8. Irishness is not synonymous with pro-Catholicism, and anti-Protestantism.
9. Irishness republicanism/nationalism is not synonymous with anti-Britishness.
10. Republic v Monarchy is a silly out-moded arguement. There are no serious arguements for a monarchy. In fairness lads!
11. Many countries in the CW are some of the biggest basket-case economies in the world, i.e. Africa. The likes of Cameroon (a former French colony) joined up in the desperate hope that it might be a foundation for some credibility.
12. Mainstream political parties in the Republic (FF, FG, LP) are not advocates of a United Ireland - at least not by way of policy. Cross-border social, infrastructural, and economic ties continue to prosper. Fiscal policy will remain with the British in line with EU norms, with devolved localised decision making. Northern nationalists continue to enjoy the freedom and bureaucratic recognition of their [non-British] Irishness which they now, at last, happily have the freedom to express. Similarly:

The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 passed by the Parliament of Westminster gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law.

Point 12 is a roundabout way of saying that the Britishness (of the British types from the Republic) is enshrined in United Kingdom Law. The you have it old chaps - Rejoice! You can say you are as British as roast beef, and The Chessplayer, for one, certainly won't dispute it.

moe_sizlak

The Chessplayer wrote: »

While I don't think that your accusation had any foundation, I certainly didn't take offense at it.

But, let's have a look at this thread! Nevermind the spurious reasons for joining the Commonwealth - the laugh-out-loud "increased trade with the Antipodes" :rolleyes:, or the very sinister racial reasons which were also put forward - that we, being of similar racial stock to the British, would command more status over say, the African nations. I recall that Adolf Hitler had a similar racial pecking order. I believe he saw the Germans and the British on a par, while he termed the Irish and the Slavs, among others, as "sub-aryan". So, excuse me chaps, if I'd rather not accept this dubious honour.

Ok, no need for consultation here, these above reasons can be dismissed straight-away. Agreed.

I feel there is an undercurrent of monarchism at work in this thread. There have also been a couple of comments attempting to bring religion to the fore of the debate, which is a bit of a disgusting tactic.

To the Irish Anglophiles among us, I make the following points:

1. Rejection of monarchism is not an attack on Britishness.
2. Rejection of the principles of monarchism has nothing to do with religion.
3. There is nothing wrong with being Irish and an Anglophile, regardless of British lineage. The Republic does not distinguish.
4. Having the the Queen as head of the commonwealth, and accepting her as a figurehead is on a par with taking the 'Oath of Allegiance'. If joining the commonwealth was a bargaining tool for gaining a United Ireland, I would vote against it, as I am sure that many would.
5. Britishness is not synonymous with monarchism, constitutional or otherwise.
6. Britishness is not sysonymous with unionism.
7. Irishness is not synonymous with anti-Britishness..
8. Irishness is not synonymous with pro-Catholicism, and anti-Protestantism.
9. Irishness republicanism/nationalism is not synonymous with anti-Britishness.
10. Republic v Monarchy is a silly out-moded arguement. There are no serious arguements for a monarchy. In fairness lads!
11. Many countries in the CW are some of the biggest basket-case economies in the world, i.e. Africa. The likes of Cameroon (a former French colony) joined up in the desperate hope that it might be a foundation for some credibility.
12. Mainstream political parties in the Republic (FF, FG, LP) are not advocates of a United Ireland - at least not by way of policy. Cross-border social, infrastructural, and economic ties continue to prosper. Fiscal policy will remain with the British in line with EU norms, with devolved localised decision making. Northern nationalists continue to enjoy the freedom and bureaucratic recognition of their [non-British] Irishness which they now, at last, happily have the freedom to express. Similarly:

The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 passed by the Parliament of Westminster gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law.

Point 12 is a roundabout way of saying that the Britishness (of the British types from the Republic) is enshrined in United Kingdom Law. The you have it old chaps - Rejoice! You can say you are as British as roast beef, and The Chessplayer, for one, certainly won't dispute it.

there is nothing to add to this flawless and perfectly delivered summary

luckylucky

I didn't actually believe you were trolling either, it was just a jibe after what you had written. Anyway no point in arguing with the decision of a Mod.

So you can get away with calling someone a plonker here though.

The thing is chessplayer I actually agree with most of what you say even though it's written in a condescending kinda way, as if your the sole authority, that we should all just shut up and listen. Breathakingly arrogant in parts tbh.

Also not sure how you got away with this line...

The Chessplayer wrote:

Unionism is the backward doctrine of an ignoramus

Although I'm clearly a Nationalist. I wouldn't dream of blanket labelling Unionists as ignoramuses.

murphaph

The Chessplayer wrote: »

But, let's have a look at this thread! Nevermind the spurious reasons for joining the Commonwealth - the laugh-out-loud "increased trade with the Antipodes"

If you are willing to laugh away increased trade then fair enough. Our exports have been dwindling in comparison to our imports of late. Anything that can help that situation can only be a good thing.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

or the very sinister racial reasons which were also put forward - that we, being of similar racial stock to the British, would command more status over say, the African nations. I recall that Adolf Hitler had a similar racial pecking order. I believe he saw the Germans and the British on a par, while he termed the Irish and the Slavs, among others, as "sub-aryan". So, excuse me chaps, if I'd rather not accept this dubious honour.

Agreed on this point.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I feel there is an undercurrent of monarchism at work in this thread. There have also been a couple of comments attempting to bring religion to the fore of the debate, which is a bit of a disgusting tactic.

YOU BROUGHT RELIGION INTO THIS THREAD. You stated that we live in a "secular republic" as if it were a great positive and when I proceeded to correct you you argued the point and then quietly let it slip as it is obvious to everyone that a nation which relies almost exclusively on the RC church for school & hospital patronage is NOT secular. Nevermind that the constitution clearly states we are a CHRISTIAN country.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

To the Irish Anglophiles among us, I make the following points:

1. Rejection of monarchism is not an attack on Britishness.
2. Rejection of the principles of monarchism has nothing to do with religion.

I am a republican. I do not believe in monarchism. I would not be in favour of joining the commonwealth if any oath to any monarch were required.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

4. Having the the Queen as head of the commonwealth, and accepting her as a figurehead is on a par with taking the 'Oath of Allegiance'. If joining the commonwealth was a bargaining tool for gaining a United Ireland, I would vote against it, as I am sure that many would.

The Queen is head if the commonwealth. She is not the head of state of all commonwealth members, in fact the minority. There are other republics in the commonwealth. What parts of this don't you understand?

The Chessplayer wrote: »

5. Britishness is not synonymous with monarchism, constitutional or otherwise.

Indeed. I think Britain should remove all power from the monarch, even though it is highly ceremonial. I think their tourism would suffer if they actually abolished the monarchy but that's a decision for them. Again though-why are you fixated on the british monarchy merely because the CURRENT head of the commonwealth is the Queen, a situation that will soon change with the advent of elected heads of the commonwealth.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

6. Britishness is not sysonymous with unionism.

Why even mention unionism? Being in the commonwealth does not imply any unionist sentiment. Do any of the "far flung" commonwealth members believe they will become part of the UK or something? Obviously not.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

7. Irishness is not synonymous with anti-Britishness..

It shouldn't be. However for the best part of our independence the line was quite anti-british and so it has become ingrained in our society. It's a shame, but it's true. It seems to be on the wain though, thank God.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

8. Irishness is not synonymous with pro-Catholicism, and anti-Protestantism.

Again, It shouldn't be but the mild sectarianism certainly did go on. From personal experience I remember protestants in my village keeping themselves to themselves and my brother taking an awful slagging for going out with a protestant girl. This was in the 80's. Not that long ago. Are you telling me this was isolated?

The Chessplayer wrote: »

9. Irishness republicanism/nationalism is not synonymous with anti-Britishness.

See above.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

10. Republic v Monarchy is a silly out-moded arguement. There are no serious arguements for a monarchy. In fairness lads!

Agreed.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

11. Many countries in the CW are some of the biggest basket-case economies in the world, i.e. Africa. The likes of Cameroon (a former French colony) joined up in the desperate hope that it might be a foundation for some credibility.

And there are many strong economies and the largest democracy in the world. As I said before-if joining the commonwealth leads to even a few percentage point increases in trade with the billion folks in India we would be foolish to dismiss it because lizzie is the ceremonial figurehead for a short while.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

12. Mainstream political parties in the Republic (FF, FG, LP) are not advocates of a United Ireland - at least not by way of policy.

What? "Fianna Fail, the Republican Party" (and all the other major parties) are indeed unification parties by policy. What makes you think they aren't?

The Chessplayer wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 passed by the Parliament of Westminster gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law.

So what? We wouldn't be joining so we could be "more british". We would be joining for trade and commerce reasons. I would have no interest in joining for sentimental reasons.

You seem to be a very one dimensional individual who had all of us who expressed an interest in the CW as monarchists and anglophiles. We all have different reasons for having an interest. Go figure.

All I can say is thank God the days are gone when anyone who mentioned such things in public would be shunned by the great little catholic country we live in.

oscarBravo

I think this thread has more than run its course.