Should Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth?

Our man in Havana

We don't want the north back.

Kev_ps3

Bond-007 wrote: »

We don't want the north back.

Well I know Unionists dont:pac:

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

...and bleaker for Britain than for others. Despite the commonwealth.

I know. Thats what I said. The idea that "sterling" is some form of talisman against whats happening is essentially magical thinking, probably coming from the same crowd that said it would collapse in disaster years ago wanting to be proved right for not wanting to join.

If it did happen it would be 'by other Eurozone countries'. The DM is no longer extant.

However its more likely they will give aid in this time of need, and survive with far less social turmoil than here or Britain. Thats what the EU is for, after all, mutual aid to avoid war and conflict, not wave around the ghost of Empire.

Theres no such country in the EU.

Sterling isn't a talisman, but its weak position is helping the Uk economy at the moment, if Britain were in the euro it would probably be in an even worse position.

The EU has nothing to do with the Commonwealth, it is a red herring and tbh is nothing more than an excuse for a bit of Brit bashing.

EU aid has been mentioned on these boards many times, but where is it going to come from? the EU draws its money from the member states, none of which has no money at the moment. OK, Germany may be in a better position than the UK, but we are talking marginally less deep levels of ****e here, their economy is forecast to shrink by not much less than the UK's and they have only just got over the mess unification left them in.

Britain gets nothing from the commonwealth, its membership is a throw back to the Empire, in fact it costs Britain a serious amount of money every year, so for britain membership is a hinderance.

Fratton Fred

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I would consider it, only if they gave back the north and apoligised for 800 years of rape and murder with the odd genocide thrown in;)

only when the Irish apologise for Westlife, Boyzone and Bewitched:D

turgon

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I would consider it, only if they gave back the north and apoligised for 800 years of rape and murder with the odd genocide thrown in;)

The commonwealth doesnt have the north, nor were they ever occupying Ireland.

Does every thread with even a wiff of the letters UK have to always be derailed?

thebman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

only when the Irish apologise for Westlife, Boyzone and Bewitched:D

Now that is below the belt! :pac:

We'll join if we can get a commitment that those shower of idiots will be banished from Ireland forever! :P

dragonkin

I'd like Ireland to be able to take part in the commonwealth games!

Our man in Havana

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Well I know Unionists dont:pac:

There are loads of unionists in the republic don't ya know.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EU has nothing to do with the Commonwealth, it is a red herring and tbh is nothing more than an excuse for a bit of Brit bashing..

Not at all. It's an example of a modern democratic multi-national modern alliance of states, as oppossed to the legacy of an Empire with a monarch as titular head. Throwing in "brit bashing" is the only red herring here.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain gets nothing from the commonwealth, its membership is a throw back to the Empire, .

...as has been pointed out.

It's hardly the kind of thing the country should turn to. Australian and NZ have been there for many years now, and thats their business, but it has nothing to offer a modern European state seeking to move on in the 21st century.

SeanW

From an irish perspective, I would say the only benefit is extending an olive branch to the unionists.

And even that is a fairly thin case.

Soldie wrote: »

The biggest misnomer seems to be that the Commonwealth is a symbol of oppression, and joining it would be a betrayal of our history, and a sign of submission. ... The Commonwealth regards each country as having an equal status, and indeed, the current secretary-general and chairperson are Indian and Ugandan, respectively. It is not run by the UK, nor is the UK considered as being more important than any other members.

To clarify; the Commonwealth is an international forum featuring some of the bigger economies in the world (such as the Australia, Canada, India, the UK, etc.), and its goals and activities involve the promotion of democracy, free trade, individual liberty, etc. Again, it is an international forum, not a club for waving Union Jacks and eating prawn sandwiches.

Ok first of all, you need to reevaluate your inclusion of Australia and Canada.

In the first place, Australians really don't have their own identity. They still have the UK Monarch as their Head of State (and this position was reinforced by a nationwide referendum about 12 years ago), their flag has a union jack occupying the upper left quarter (as does New Zealand) AND they still print a picture of the UK Monarch on their money AFAIK. Their accent is almost indistinguishable from certain London accents.
Canada also still puts the Queen's standard on their money as well, though I believe a lot of Canadian deference to the U.K. comes from a peaceful sucession (independence) agreement that may still be legally binding.

Assuming that your interpretation of the British Commonwealth is true, answer for me two questions:
1) Why is the British Monarch still the figurehead of the whole thing?
2) Why are they not having this "rejoin the Commonwealth" debate in countries like Belgium, Holland, Mexico, etc?

diverdriver wrote: »

People who seem to think that hating the Brits is being 'patriotic'. But wanting the best for your country and disliking what it has become is somehow unpatriotic and self hatred ... It's the same for anything, we should do what's best for this country. Knee jerk anti Britishness has held us back for years. Move on for everyone's sake.

Straw man. If you want to talk about "hating the Brits" I think there are some active dissident Republicans in Northern Ireland that might be able to help you out.

My opposition to Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth comes from two grounds.
1) I don't like monarchies in general: with the advent of democracy, I think monarchies belong in the Middle Ages
2) The Commonwealth in particular has all the hallmarks of a sop to the Empire. Look at it's history and composition. There really isn't any other explanation.

For Ireland to rejoin such an institution, I would need some very strong justification and evidenced reasoning for doing this given it's background. You're going to need something more than cries of 'let's show that we've grown up' or taunts of "Armchair republicans" or "hating the Brits"

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

but it has nothing to offer a modern European state seeking to move on in the 21st century.

Oh the irony

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh the irony

Nothing ironic about it. Its based on a past Empire, and has as its titular head an unelected monarch. Its as unacceptable as a league of catholic countries with its titular head as the Pope.

Communicationb

I have looked through all the posts and I have not seen one single reasonable argument put forward in favour of joining the Commonwealth.

Can anyone tell one single economic benefit? After all thats what everything comes done to..money

The only pro argument I have seen relaled to extending an olive branch to Unionists?

Why? Is the North not in the Commonwealth? Is its place not frimly secure within the UK.

Why do they need an olive branch?

Very flimsy argument

Plus, Ireland is a Republic. It would not be possible to join without substantial Consitiutional changes which I doubt anyone would agree to

Communicationb

Bond-007 wrote: »

We don't want the north back.

LOL:D:D

The misguided level of self importance amongst the Mods has reached new levels..

Who is this "we"?:)

Communicationb

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh the irony

explain?

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing ironic about it. Its based on a past Empire, and has as its titular head an unelected monarch. Its as unacceptable as a league of catholic countries with its titular head as the Pope.

That is not a reasonable comparison. membershiip does not depend on religion, or any other criteria for that matter, other than a willingness to participate in the common goals.

Communicationb wrote: »

I have looked through all the posts and I have not seen one single reasonable argument put forward in favour of joining the Commonwealth.

Can anyone tell one single economic benefit? After all thats what everything comes done to..money

The only pro argument I have seen relaled to extending an olive branch to Unionists?

Why? Is the North not in the Commonwealth? Is its place not frimly secure within the UK.

Why do they need an olive branch?

Very flimsy argument

Plus, Ireland is a Republic. It would not be possible to join without substantial Consitiutional changes which I doubt anyone would agree to

Membership is often talked about as a concession towards unionists should a united Ireland ever be properly discussed. That way Unionists can join the Republican of Ireland but keep a degree of Britishness. It is flimsy, but often when negotiating, flimsy things can clinch a deal.

I'm not sure why Ireland would have to make considerably changes to the constitution, the commonwealth has a lot less effect on the laws of a country than the EU, or the UN for that matter.

Communicationb wrote: »

explain?

Many of the posters who are anti the commonwealth appear to have trouble recognising the 21st century and need reminding that it is not 1972, 1916 or 1798 for that matter.

Yes the UN is a modern forward thinking economic union, but I would argue that 60% of this country are forward thinking, 30% will do whatever the Priest tells them to and the other 10% still think Cromwell is alive.

Our man in Havana

Communicationb wrote: »

LOL:D:D

The misguided level of self importance amongst the Mods has reached new levels..

Who is this "we"?:)

99.99% of people in the republic do not want it.

thebman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Membership is often talked about as a concession towards unionists should a united Ireland ever be properly discussed. That way Unionists can join the Republican of Ireland but keep a degree of Britishness. It is flimsy, but often when negotiating, flimsy things can clinch a deal.

Many of the posters who are anti the commonwealth appear to have trouble recognising the 21st century and need reminding that it is not 1972, 1916 or 1798 for that matter.

Yes the UN is a modern forward thinking economic union, but I would argue that 60% of this country are forward thinking, 30% will do whatever the Priest tells them to and the other 10% still think Cromwell is alive.

Sorry but the argument that people think it is still some period in the past can easily be applied to Unionists desire to retain a degree of Britishness especially if a united Ireland was achieved.

The argument is essentially:
Homer: Before, before! You're living in the past, Marge! Quit living in the past!

I don't think it is a valid argument in this case. People can hold on to past grievences if they want, who are you to tell them to move on if it still upsets them? Would you tell a grieving widow to get over it?

Communicationb

Bond-007 wrote: »

99.99% of people in the republic do not want it.

Source?

Fratton Fred

thebman wrote: »

Sorry but the argument that people think it is still some period in the past can easily be applied to Unionists desire to retain a degree of Britishness especially if a united Ireland was achieved.

The argument is essentially:
Homer: Before, before! You're living in the past, Marge! Quit living in the past!

I don't think it is a valid argument in this case. People can hold on to past grievences if they want, who are you to tell them to move on if it still upsets them? Would you tell a grieving widow to get over it?

Apologies if I have offended any grieving widows.

I said the argument was flimsy and I am more than happy to include people still living in 1641 if that makes you happier.

Communicationb

Originally Posted by Communicationb
explain?
Many of the posters who are anti the commonwealth appear to have trouble recognising the 21st century and need reminding that it is not 1972, 1916 or 1798 for that matter.

Yes the UN is a modern forward thinking economic union, but I would argue that 60% of this country are forward thinking, 30% will do whatever the Priest tells them to and the other 10% still think Cromwell is alive.

That does not explain the "ironic" post you made?

You seem to be suggesting that history is of no relevance or should not be a determining factor..this is fanciful. Its hard not to regard the Commonwealth as relic of the past. I think earlier post alluded to it...

Reminding people of history or using history to back up a point does not equate to living in the past. Whats the expression...does who forget the past are doomed to repeat it or something to that effect.

Communicationb

That does not explain the "ironic" post you made?

You seem to be suggesting that history is of no relevance or should not be a determining factor..this is fanciful. Its hard not to regard the Commonwealth as relic of the past. I think earlier post alluded to it...

Reminding people of history or using history to back up a point does not equate to living in the past. Whats the expression...does who forget the past are doomed to repeat it or something to that effect.

Fratton Fred

Communicationb wrote: »

That does not explain the "ironic" post you made?

You seem to be suggesting that history is of no relevance or should not be a determining factor..this is fanciful. Its hard not to regard the Commonwealth as relic of the past. I think earlier post alluded to it...

Reminding people of history or using history to back up a point does not equate to living in the past. Whats the expression...does who forget the past are doomed to repeat it or something to that effect.

so if joining the commonwealth was a condition of a united ireland, you would rather maintain the status quo?

There is a difference between remembering the past and learning from it than living in it.

it is 2009 and people are stil harping on about Britain's war with the Zulus for gods sake

gurramok

Bond-007 wrote: »

99.99% of people in the republic do not want it.

Source?

Funny that the vast majority of political parties in the Dail want a United Ireland in one shape or another.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Membership is often talked about as a concession towards unionists should a united Ireland ever be properly discussed. That way Unionists can join the Republican of Ireland but keep a degree of Britishness. It is flimsy, but often when negotiating, flimsy things can clinch a deal.

So you are talking about a 'compromise'. Would it keep the Irish identity and remove the Queen as its head?
Would it change its name from 'British Commonwealth' to maybe a 'Worldwide Commonwealth' for example?

I just can't see Unionists buying it.

getz

Communicationb wrote: »

That does not explain the "ironic" post you made?

You seem to be suggesting that history is of no relevance or should not be a determining factor..this is fanciful. Its hard not to regard the Commonwealth as relic of the past. I think earlier post alluded to it...

Reminding people of history or using history to back up a point does not equate to living in the past. Whats the expression...does who forget the past are doomed to repeat it or something to that effect.

i think ireland would be better off if it joined the commonwealth i know that most countrys in it say thay are better off- i can understand why a lot of people in the republic hate the idea of joining anything that sounds british after all the irish version of irish history has been pushed into them by the church and republician dogma-i noticed the stink that came about after the showing of cromwell on tv-as far as the EW.has anyone thought what would happen if the uk left the commen market ?ireland would lose 60% in exports-and the cost of shipping to the eu main land would be far to high-before you have ago at me, yes i went to school in ireland and at times i felt just like the little jewish boy must have felt in germany [because i was born in england]

Communicationb

getz wrote: »

i think ireland would be better off if it joined the commonwealth i know that most countrys in it say thay are better off- i can understand why a lot of people in the republic hate the idea of joining anything that sounds british after all the irish version of irish history has been pushed into them by the church and republician dogma-i noticed the stink that came about after the showing of cromwell on tv-as far as the EW.has anyone thought what would happen if the uk left the commen market ?ireland would lose 60% in exports-and the cost of shipping to the eu main land would be far to high-before you have ago at me, yes i went to school in ireland and at times i felt just like the little jewish boy must have felt in germany [because i was born in england]

You must remember that the UK has not adopted the Euro so the costs of importing to the UK is very high anyway..Ireland was exporting to the Uk long before the EU was established so I dont buy that argument.

Why would the UK leave the Common Market? they will join the Euro before that happens

You say that Ireland wld be better off in the Commonwealth.. How exactly?

Absolam

I'd say no.. I'm proud to be Irish and proud that we are independant of English rule. I would like to see a united Ireland, but wouldn't compromise our independance for it. We are already economically dependant on the UK in lots of ways, but that's a feature of geography and not one of political will (on either side of the Irish sea). I doubt that membership of the British commonwealth would bring sufficient economic value to be worth it.. unlike for instance membership of a federal Europe, which might yet.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Bond-007 wrote: »

Commonwealth games for starters.

Also it would give Irish citizens the option of becoming British Subjects.

For what it's worth, the "Common Travel Area" is being put to rest. The UK is going to stop treating Irish and Channel Islands arrivals as "domestic" and will start keeping records of everyone coming in through their air and sea borders.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-abroad/freedom-of-movement-within-the-eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_UK
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/closedconsultations/strentheningthecommontravelarea/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/15/uk-irish-republic-border-passports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/04/immigration-eu


...so I'm not sure if there's any chance that the UK will let us into their circle. Playing on the same sports team is one thing. I cant see them letting Irish people claim British citizenship ad hoc .

Red Sleeping Beauty

The UK is trying to move further away from Europe and Ireland, not closer.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Source?

Funny that the vast majority of political parties in the Dail want a United Ireland in one shape or another.



So you are talking about a 'compromise'. Would it keep the Irish identity and remove the Queen as its head?
Would it change its name from 'British Commonwealth' to maybe a 'Worldwide Commonwealth' for example?

I just can't see Unionists buying it.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/34493/38150/modern_commonwealth/

The Quenn is the head of state of 15 of the 52 members, not all of which were past members of the empire.

The London Declaration of 1949 was a milestone on the road to developing the modern Commonwealth. India provided an interesting test case: it desired to become a republic yet wanted to remain a member of the Commonwealth and this posed a fresh challenge to the entire concept. Would Commonwealth membership only be for countries "owing an allegiance to the Crown" as the Balfour Report had stated? A conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1949 decided to revise this criterion and to accept and recognise India's continued membership as a republic, paving the way for other newly independent countries to join. At the same time, the word 'British' was dropped from the association's title to reflect the Commonwealth's changing character.