Should Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth?

luckyfrank

As a few people have said the only reason i could see us joining it would be in comprimise with unionists in a future united ireland

It means nothing to me but i could easily accept us back in the commonwealth if it meant alot to unionists

SirHenryGrattan

Blackjack wrote: »

1 - Don't you mean the Hatchet that was buried a long time ago?.
2 - how, and what?
3 - how, given there is a Common travel arrangement between here and the UK?
4 - how (and what the hell are the "pollies")?
5 - eh, how, and that's hardly enough of a reason.

1. How long is it since the last Royal visit to Ireland?
2. aka Nationalists and Unionists. See UK census classification.
3. Make English people more comfortable about travelling to Eire.
4. Pollies = politicians.
5. Croke Park.

SirHenryGrattan

stepbar wrote: »

I'll ignore all that because the commonwealth won't solve any of the above. TBH we couldn't even host the commonwealth games even if we wanted to.

Of course you could. A lot of those poor African countries have already done so.

stepbar

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

1. How long is it since the last Royal visit to Ireland?
2. aka Nationalists and Unionists. See UK census classification.
3. Make English people more comfortable about travelling to Eire.
4. Pollies = politicians.
5. Croke Park.

"Make English people more comfortable about travelling to Eire." FFS would ya stop.

Croke Park? We're been there and have hosted 2 internationals since then without an ounce of trouble.

Joining the commonwealth won't solve the divide betwen nationalists and unionists.

Most people in the south couldn't give a fcuk if the Queen came over or not.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

If ever there was an ego-boosting institution for British nationalists, all of whom are finding it difficult to come to terms with the loss of that Empire, this British Commonwealth idea is an amazing panacea for the bruised egos of these generally shockingly undereducated members of British society.

For the brief moment that they can entertain this idea of being a world power again, this marginalised section of British society can feel happy at the thought of a return to the glory days of what it terms the "British Isles."

Alas, there are let's just say "issues".

Oh if only the European Union didn't exist, the benighted ones lament over their lagers and tabloids, Britain could return to her former glory, and Ireland to her rightful place beneath her. The EU, the Euro, EU law and everything connected with it are the barrier to the rise from the ashes for that now rather marginalised little island off Europe that once controlled so much of this planet but has been in continuous decline since 1920. Their now non-existent car companies - all owned by the Germans and other foreigners - are proof of a dastardly foreign conspiracy to undermine the once great nation that civilised so many barbarians like ... the Irish, Gael and Norman alike.

So yes, we should join the British Commonwealth just to help those poor, forlorn members of British society who are having an immensely difficult time coming to terms with Britain's decline. After all Britain has done for Ireland from Mullaghmast to Skibbereen, the least we Paddies should do is know our place and that we are here simply to satisfy the egos of British nationalists who definitely have a birthright to creating a world organisation underneath Her Majesty the Queen of England that is as important as the European Union. It's all about choosing: the past or the future.

Amen.

it must really hurt you to think that whilst you have such a big chip on your shoulder, no one in England gives a **** what you think.

Johnboy Mac

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Good for you. Stripping?

Your reply seems to be a fair reflection of you. I'm not even offened or suprised. You remind me of a wannabe upper middle class but just hav'nt made it.

Johnboy Mac

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

If you find an honest Banker in the UK then let us know.

You seem like the type that's got no hard earned cash so it would be of little point.

Let me educate you again. There is no such thing as an honest banker. Of course you would'nt know that due to being cash poor.

SirHenryGrattan

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Your reply seems to be a fair reflection of you. I'm not even offened or suprised. You remind me of a wannabe upper middle class but just hav'nt made it.

You won't get far in England without a sense of humour.

Johnboy Mac

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

You won't get far in England without a sense of humour.

Is that the best retort you can give? Sounds like a smoke screen.

Oh, lucky for me even unemployed I do not need to go to the U.K. for work unlike so many others have had to do and the ten of thousands that did it in past to support their families here with really hard earned remittances. Nothing funny about that, sense of humour or not.

You don't know what hard times are, well not yet.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it must really hurt you to think that whilst you have such a big chip on your shoulder, no one in England gives a **** what you think.

I don't think many in England know much of their past relationship with this island anyway a its poorly educated in schools.

Plus about 35-40% of them don't like their monarchy and prefer a republic. (that figure was from polls carried out a few years ago and is on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Fratton Fred

Richard wrote: »

I don't think so. Australians and Canadians can't become British Subjects, and they have the Queen as their heads of state. An ROI inside the Commonwealth wouldn't have the Queen as its HOS!

But I think it might be a nice idea if the Republic did. Mind you it's none of my business.

There is a difference between subjects and citizens. I believe Irish citizens cam become British subjects but not citizens

SirHenryGrattan

Rebelheart wrote: »

If ever there was an ego-boosting institution for British nationalists, all of whom are finding it difficult to come to terms with the loss of that Empire, this British Commonwealth idea is an amazing panacea for the bruised egos of these generally shockingly undereducated members of British society.

For the brief moment that they can entertain this idea of being a world power again, this marginalised section of British society can feel happy at the thought of a return to the glory days of what it terms the "British Isles."

Alas, there are let's just say "issues".

Oh if only the European Union didn't exist, the benighted ones lament over their lagers and tabloids, Britain could return to her former glory, and Ireland to her rightful place beneath her. The EU, the Euro, EU law and everything connected with it are the barrier to the rise from the ashes for that now rather marginalised little island off Europe that once controlled so much of this planet but has been in continuous decline since 1920. Their now non-existent car companies - all owned by the Germans and other foreigners - are proof of a dastardly foreign conspiracy to undermine the once great nation that civilised so many barbarians like ... the Irish, Gael and Norman alike.

So yes, we should join the British Commonwealth just to help those poor, forlorn members of British society who are having an immensely difficult time coming to terms with Britain's decline. After all Britain has done for Ireland from Mullaghmast to Skibbereen, the least we Paddies should do is know our place and that we are here simply to satisfy the egos of British nationalists who definitely have a birthright to creating a world organisation underneath Her Majesty the Queen of England that is as important as the European Union. It's all about choosing: the past or the future.

Amen.

One thing you should remember is that no British Government has ever been elected on the basis of how well it governed abroad so you cannot pin the sins of the Empire on the mass of the British people. Modern day Brits have no interest in recreating the empire or some other form of political hegemony and there really aren't that many British nationalists. The BNP have an even smaller share of the vote than Sinn Fein.

And just who was it that said no to Lisbon?

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

I don't think many in England know much of their past relationship with this island anyway a its poorly educated in schools.

Plus about 35-40% of them don't like their monarchy and prefer a republic. (that figure was from polls carried out a few years ago and is on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom)

And?

acontadino

no to lisbon has nothing to do with being pro or anti-european. i know plenty of people who are extremely pro europe in france who would have rejected it.

junder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is a difference between subjects and citizens. I believe Irish citizens cam become British subjects but not citizens

actully if you look at a british passport it say citzens and not subjects

Our man in Havana

There is a special British Subjects passport that is very different to a British Citizens one.

Johnboy Mac

acontadino wrote: »

no to lisbon has nothing to do with being pro or anti-european. i know plenty of people who are extremely pro europe in france who would have rejected it.

What is not truly taken into account when we voted no was that the No vote was a No vote on the government not Lisbon. Just check the areas that had the largest No vote poll. Dublin is a classic example most of the No votes came from working class areas. And lets be honest not many people in general understood what they were actually voting on.

Fratton Fred

junder wrote: »

actully if you look at a british passport it say citzens and not subjects

It does, well at least mine does anyway, but citizens of other commonwealth countries and the RoI can become subjects. It it a different status

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is a difference between subjects and citizens. I believe Irish citizens cam become British subjects but not citizens

Not anymore. It's complex but the only Irish people considered British Subjects are those born in Eire prior to 1949 who did not avail of Irish Citizenship when Eire left the Commonwealth.

The term "British Subject" was abolished in 1983 and will become defunct when the last British Subjects die out.

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It does, well at least mine does anyway, but citizens of other commonwealth countries and the RoI can become subjects. It it a different status

From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:

• a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
• a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or
• one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".

In the third category were mainly people born before 1949 in the Republic of Ireland, India and Pakistan who did not acquire citizenship of their country or any other Dominion (in the case of those born in India and Pakistan), or who applied after 1949 for restoration of their British subject status (for those connected with Ireland).


On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship", and no other. In statutes passed before 1 January 1983, however, references to "British subjects" continue to be read as if they referred to "Commonwealth citizens".
British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act.


The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British subject status is not lost upon acquiring British citizenship.


The status of British subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct when all existing British subjects are dead.
British subjects, other than by those who obtained their status by virtue of a connection to the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949, automatically lose their British subject status on acquiring any other nationality, including British citizenship, under section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And?

It shows a growing call from ordinary British people to do away with the concept of monarchy.
This in turn is a reformation of the Commonwealth.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

It shows a growing call from ordinary British people to do away with the concept of monarchy.
This in turn is a reformation of the Commonwealth.

There is an ongoing healthy debate about the momarchy in Britain and to anextent it keeps them in line. The monarch has complete power and is above the law, however if that authority were ever abused then that 30% of which you speak would soon become 90%, however that is something that will be dealt with as and when it happens.

Bog Butter

Dr Richard Humphreys, a barrister and a legal advisor to the Labour Party, wrote the following on page 192 of Countdown to Unity Debating Irish Reunification.

De Valera’s official biographers point out that the Costello government never in fact withdrew from the Commonwealth - they merely ‘took certain steps which … led the British and the rest of the Commonwealth to conclude that Ireland was not a member’, so perhaps it may be contended that the state has been in law a member all along.

Nodin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I think it fairly clear I'm taking about national politics not international -there is a difference or had you nothing really to add?

So making a bags of it abroad is ok, but at home, you have to be honest....Hmmmm.

So was the whole Bernie Ecclestone thing domestic or international? And the 'cash for honours' thing....?

junder

gurramok wrote: »

It shows a growing call from ordinary British people to do away with the concept of monarchy.
This in turn is a reformation of the Commonwealth.

if that is the case why is there no british republican movement to speak of within the UK

gurramok

There is - http://www.republic.org.uk/

Includes many MP's and public faces.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

There is - http://www.republic.org.uk/

Includes many MP's and public faces.

I am talking about amoung the generl populace, we see nobody being elected on a republican platform, we see no repulican partys running in elections that garner any kind of real support

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

There is - http://www.republic.org.uk/

Includes many MP's and public faces.

MPs that are so commited to a republic they have given up their party whip to stand for the republican party, or not as the case may be.:rolleyes:

in reality, what does an elected head of state offer? what have Ireland gained form having a president?

the Queen and the Irish president are only rubber stampers as far as legislation go, its just that the Queen costs more.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in reality, what does an elected head of state offer? what have Ireland gained form having a president?

the Queen and the Irish president are only rubber stampers as far as legislation go, its just that the Queen costs more.

.....costs more and is symbolic of inherited privelege, influence without merit etc. I find it ironic that somebody who implied that 30% of the Irish population did what the Priest told them is now defending the concept of monarchy. I see no good in baseless deference, regardless of its subject.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

.....costs more and is symbolic of inherited privelege, influence without merit etc. I find it ironic that somebody who implied that 30% of the Irish population did what the Priest told them is now defending the concept of monarchy. I see no good in baseless deference, regardless of its subject.

I'm not sure i would defend the concept, its more a case of "If it aint broke, don't fix it".

Why go through a massive constitional change for little or no benefit.