Should Ireland join the commonwealth?

FreedomJoe

Should Ireland join the commonwealth?

Ok before I get all the anti brit bashing, lets just make one point clear.

If Ireland votes yes tommorow in the lisbon treaty we will be creating even closer ties to Britain aswell as europe. Even if its a no vote we are still politically tied to the UK through the EU.

In my opinion Ireland would be miles better of with the commonwealth than further interaction with the EU.

It is clear the EU wants to be a superstate, Is that what Ireland wants? We joined the EU as a trading pact, however that has since become a larger and larger club reducing Irelands trade further smaller.

The commonwealth would offer trading ties, Common history and language, Further enhance our sporting ambitions and we could even host a commonwealth games bringing billions to the country. The benefits are endless, furthermore we would could still remain part of the EU without any disadvantages.

So whats your opinions, without the Brit bashing!

FreedomJoe

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

800 years of murder and slavery makes me say - NEVER!!! - over simplistic I know but you get the point

Thats really sad.

Im really feel for you that you still carry a large chip on you shoulder for something that has never actually had any effect on you.

Sure our great grandads may have fought a war, but lets not forget the vast majority of Irish decided to remain a British free state during the elections for the Free State Parliament. The people were asked to vote, not merely, as was originally contemplated, for or against the treaty, but for or against the detailed constitution prepared for the Free State. It amazes me how the Irish of then dont go on about 800 years and wanted to remain tied to the UK.

It also amazes me how other nations such as India, Australia, Africa all enjoy the benefits of the commonwealth and bang on about history and the past.

the fact is that no one alive today British, Irish or other really can say the British were bad to me.

Do you really blame the 60 millions brits for something that had nothing to do with them?

Would you really like to disadvantage Ireland for something that happened years ago in another time?

Will you be voting yes tommorow and increasing further ties with the UK? Or will you be demanding the Irish withdraw from the EU because of current ties with the UK?

wes

Well I don't think it would make a difference if we joined it really. I am not sure what benefits it would bring.

Having said that, I don't think it would do any harm. If the likes of India and Pakistan can get over colonialism to join, then I don't see why Ireland wouldn't as well.

mikemac

I realy can't agree with this.

But I'm interesting to hear what benefits if any there are. I don't see any in the OP's post so come on, convince me

FreedomJoe

micmclo wrote: »

I realy can't agree with this.

But I'm interesting to hear what benefits if any there are. I don't see any in the OP's post so come on, convince me

Rwanda: Country Under Commonwealth Scrutiny

One of Rwanda's interest in joining the Commonwealth is to target the economic benefits of joining the purely Anglophone bloc.

With its present membership of 53 countries, the Commonwealth constitutes over 40 per cent of the World Trade Organisation making it influential in global trade.

Commonwealth countries handle trade worth $2.8 trillion annually and with foreign direct investment outflows of $100 billion, which account for more than 20 per cent of international trade and investment.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200806041069.html

dlofnep

Absolutely not. I would not at any point ever want us to be associated with the Queen of Britain. We are NOT the same people as the British. You talk about common history and language? The language that Britain evaporated from our people... The history that involved total oppression of the Island?

History or not, Ireland is only now getting back on it's feet restoring it's culture. I say no to the commonwealth and 100% reject the idea.

menoscemo

FreedomJoe wrote: »

Thats really sad.

Im really feel for you that you still carry a large chip on you shoulder for something that has never actually had any effect on you.

How do you know it has had no effect on him? he might be a northerener like me.

FreedomJoe

menoscemo wrote: »

How do you know it has had no effect on him? he might be a northerener like me.

what ? Irish fighting Irish?

menoscemo

FreedomJoe wrote: »

what ? Irish fighting Irish?

well it would mean he was born and brought up in a British occupied/controlled territory which would definately have a direct effect on him.

eoin5

however bad we are at the moment the economy in england is dismal. We should keep our trade agreements open and on our terms as much as possible at the moment.

WoollyRedHat

No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7449268.stm

gordon_gekko

absolutly not

the commonwealth is an outdated institution and its reason for existance is nothing but a way of feeling nostalgic about the past glorys of empire

the reason india is booming has nothing to do with them being in the commonwealth , britian trades more with the usa or the rest of europe including ourselves then it does with any of the commonwealth nations

diamondgeezer

You are a about 40 years too late. This kip of a country will be joining a one world government within 15 years unless the plebs start making their voice heard.

The politicians have been bought and paid for long ago, they do not represent you. It is about time people realised this.

humanji

diamondgeezer wrote: »

You are a about 40 years too late. This kip of a country will be joining a one world government within 15 years unless the plebs start making their voice heard.

The politicians have been bought and paid for long ago, they do not represent you. It is about time people realised this.

Best reset my sig.

turgon

FreedomJoe wrote: »

It amazes me how the Irish of then dont go on about 800 years and wanted to remain tied to the UK.

IN fairness, freedomJoe, that is overly simplifying it to titanic levels. I'm sure if our country was threatened with a war by one of the biggest superpowers of the time, we'd be pretty keen to vote yes to almost anything. Plus people voted to stay in cause its not like they had any other choice, there was no "form a republic" on the ballot paper.

As regards the Commonwealth, who needs it? We have the EU.

Fratton Fred

gordon_gekko wrote: »

absolutly not
the commonwealth is an outdated institution and its reason for existance is nothing but a way of feeling nostalgic about the past glorys of empire

The commonwealth may be a legacy of a bygone era, but it is not outdated. The Commonwealth has moved on significantly over the years and is much more than a group of ex-colonies patting each other on the back.

The most vocal members of the commonwealth are in reality Australia and Canada with Britain taking a back seat. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth because the members voted for her to be, but she is not the head of state in all commonwealth countries, many, such as India, are secular republics.

In reality though, Ireland probably benefits from close ties to Britain more than any member of the Commonwealth so apart from a pretty good mini olympics every few years (at which the Australians win all the medals anyway) there is not much point Ireland joining.

It would however, send a good signal to the loyalists up north though and may help build bridges.

Ireland I believe is the only country eligible for membership that is not a member. The question to ask is are these countries all foolish or do they know something Ireland does not?

luckat

What would "send a good signal to the loyalists up north" (are you aware of the difference between a loyalist and a unionist?) is having a successful economy and a successful independent republic.

And making sure of a stringent separation of church and state; twould be a good example to them.

Fratton Fred

luckat wrote: »

(are you aware of the difference between a loyalist and a unionist?)

Is that a trick question?

luckat wrote: »

And making sure of a stringent separation of church and state; twould be a good example to them.

not sure what that has to do with the Commonwealth, but yes it would.

brianthebard

FreedomJoe wrote: »

Thats really sad.

Im really feel for you that you still carry a large chip on you shoulder for something that has never actually had any effect on you.

Sure our great grandads may have fought a war, but lets not forget the vast majority of Irish decided to remain a British free state during the elections for the Free State Parliament. The people were asked to vote, not merely, as was originally contemplated, for or against the treaty, but for or against the detailed constitution prepared for the Free State. It amazes me how the Irish of then dont go on about 800 years and wanted to remain tied to the UK.

QUOTE]

You should read angela's ashes.

luckat

Have read Angela's Ashes, but it actually isn't anything to do with nationhood. It's to do with having a poor childhood in a country in the midst of recession and with parents who can't cope.

Loyalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_loyalism

Most Northern unionists would not be at all happy to be called loyalists.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, dear. But my plans for my country do not include any outdated links, reminiscent of an unhappy history.

Ireland needs to go into the future, increasing its strength, maintaining its independence, and fostering its culture of democracy.

I certainly think that the 'Protestant Ethic' - in its true sense - has a great deal to offer Ireland, and especially our polity. But that's another discussion.

luckat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not sure what that has to do with the Commonwealth, but yes it would.

Separation of church and state - many unionists in the North are worried that Ireland, being predominantly a Catholic country, might have a greater loyalty to the sway of the Catholic Church than to ethical government.

The historical slogan was "Home Rule is Rome rule".

In the days of battling bishops, the Catholic Church did try to interfere in government, sometimes successfully.

However, today, with personal Jesuses whispering in the ear of Northern polliticians that homosexuality is curable, the shoe (or spade) is on the other foot.

Fratton Fred

luckat wrote: »

Have read Angela's Ashes, but it actually isn't anything to do with nationhood. It's to do with having a poor childhood in a country in the midst of recession and with parents who can't cope.

Loyalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_loyalism

Most Northern unionists would not be at all happy to be called loyalists.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, dear. But my plans for my country do not include any outdated links, reminiscent of an unhappy history.

Ireland needs to go into the future, increasing its strength, maintaining its independence, and fostering its culture of democracy.

I certainly think that the 'Protestant Ethic' - in its true sense - has a great deal to offer Ireland, and especially our polity. But that's another discussion.

They're a complicated bunch up there aren't they

Thanks for that, I obviously meant Unionists.

Mad Finn

Let's be realistic about this.

There is no beneficial need to join the Commonwealth. The ties between Ireland and Britain are as close as they could possibly be, thanks to the EU and the "common travel" arrangement that existed prior to that.

The only possible benefit, apart from being able to compete in the Commonwealth Games, would be the "signal that it sends" regarding reconciliation between the northern and southern communities.

On that I think we need to tread carefully. There are many people, only too willing to be "reconciled" and to "enjoy greater co-operation" with our Northern brethern but who want to maintain a healthy arm's length distance between being partners in Europe and part of an anachronistic club.

Then of course there are the extreme nationalists who view the appearance of rugby and cricket on Irish TV, never mind in Croke Park, as a heinous sell out to the ideals of nationhood.

You don't want to push the former into the arms of the latter. And you will do so if you decry any misgivings people may have about unnecessary ties with the Old Empire as outdated mere anti-Britishness.

As Fratton Fred says, what do we need the commonwealth for if we've already got the EU?

whitser

brianthebard wrote: »

FreedomJoe wrote: »

Thats really sad.

Im really feel for you that you still carry a large chip on you shoulder for something that has never actually had any effect on you.

Sure our great grandads may have fought a war, but lets not forget the vast majority of Irish decided to remain a British free state during the elections for the Free State Parliament. The people were asked to vote, not merely, as was originally contemplated, for or against the treaty, but for or against the detailed constitution prepared for the Free State. It amazes me how the Irish of then dont go on about 800 years and wanted to remain tied to the UK.

QUOTE]

You should read angela's ashes.

actually the irish people overwhelming rejected british british rule in ireland in the 1918 election which was ignored by westmiinster and this led to the war of independence. we are not british. and its not acient history,look at the collusion and murder the british state has been involved in the 6 counties for the last 30 yrs.

CerebralCortex

Maybe when Ireland has a population of Ireland reaches close to 40million people then it might be considered.

guinnessdrinker

I can't think of any real benifits of joining the commonwealth. I don't even think it would send any real message to loyalists or unionists in the North.

I think FF's Eamon O Cuiv did suggest one time that Ireland should consider joining the commonwealth for that very reason. Although if Ireland did join the commonwealth maybe Fianna Fail's tag line of "the republican party" would have to be changed to "the commonwealth party"!

gordon_gekko

diamondgeezer wrote: »

You are a about 40 years too late. This kip of a country will be joining a one world government within 15 years unless the plebs start making their voice heard.

The politicians have been bought and paid for long ago, they do not represent you. It is about time people realised this.

is that you jim , corr that is

turgon

luckat wrote: »

However, today, with personal Jesuses whispering in the ear of Northern polliticians that homosexuality is curable, the shoe (or spade) is on the other foot.

Slightly off topic but the writer of the editorial in the Irish Examiner made an excellent point in regards to the homosexuality issue. He said

Irish Examiner Editorial 12/06/08 wrote:

'I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me ... he tries to help homosexuals - trying to turn them away from what their engaged in' she said.

I wonder would it be possible for DUP members to be "turned around" to a position of tolerance and respect if they received psychiatric help.

Absolutely on the ball. Only equaled by the time Ryle Dwyer, in commenting about the American Election, said that he only wished the political openness evident in America by electing a black man could be mirrored here in electing a protestant president. Which obviously is never going to happen.

Flex

turgon wrote: »

Slightly off topic but the writer of the editorial in the Irish Examiner made an excellent point in regards to the homosexuality issue. He said



Absolutely on the ball. Only equaled by the time Ryle Dwyer, in commenting about the American Election, said that he only wished the political openness evident in America by electing a black man could be mirrored here in electing a protestant president. Which obviously is never going to happen.

Electing a Protestant President of Ireland you mean? Pretty sure theres already been 2 elected, the first was Douglas Hyde who was the first Persident of the country, cant recall the second persons name though

gordon_gekko

Flex wrote: »

Electing a Protestant President of Ireland you mean? Pretty sure theres already been 2 elected, the first was Douglas Hyde who was the first Persident of the country, cant recall the second persons name though

i think mary robinson is a protestant and im pretty sure she was president of ireland too

Mad Finn

Mary Robinson is not a Protestant although I believe her husband is.

The other Proddy President was Erskine Childers in the 1970s.