Should Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth?

gurramok

junder wrote: »

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

It looks like there is no need for a republican party. It seems to me that there is support within the major parties in that one of them will in the future become the 'republican platform'.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

The difference is one elected by the people and the other is there because of accident of birth.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

The difference is one elected by the people and the other is there because of accident of birth.

If you want to worry about that, then be my guest

you could argue that half the Dail are there through accident of birth, but that's a different topic

junder

gurramok wrote: »

It looks like there is no need for a republican party. It seems to me that there is support within the major parties in that one of them will in the future become the 'republican platform'.



The difference is one elected by the people and the other is there because of accident of birth.

then they are being very quiet about it, sorry but as for as i am concerned there is no real republican movement in the UK and until i see british republicans standing on a republican platform throughtout the UK and returning seats on that platform then i will continue to see it that way

Johnboy Mac

Nodin wrote: »

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....?

Oh, God. Your not going to try and rope people in on very single facet of Irish or British politics as well in this post surely?

Maybe you should start a post tiltled ''What's the difference between Irish & British politics based on what I pick up in media''.

I made a general comment which I believe to be true or can't you remember that with your eagerness to imply that it's not possible for another nation to more honest, especially the U.K. than us lot.

If you can't handle that.................................................................

Johnboy Mac

Just to refresh you memory as this may help you keep things in perspective. See below.

Johnboy Mac

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Not too much wrong with the U.K. when look at balls up we made here besides the international recession. Also the British are overall more honest than us lot, at least they know when to resign from important posts when the screw up. Not our lot.

!

Nodin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I made a general comment which I believe to be true or can't you remember that with your eagerness to imply that it's not possible for another nation to more honest, especially the U.K. than us lot.

It is possible that there is a country with a greater degree of honesty in public life than here. However having full access to the British media, I see no evidence that its them.

Johnboy Mac

Nodin wrote: »

It is possible that there is a country with a greater degree of honesty in public life than here. However having full access to the British media, I see no evidence that its them.

Well that's a matter of opinion and that's fine, I've no problem with your views. I do take issue with your poor attempt to point out it could not be the U.K..

I suppose if I sited a country that you aspire to that would have been o.k.? Or is it the fact your just another bigot or you just suffer from plain old narrow mindedness and still believe all our woes are directly related to past British rule of our country?

Sure sounds like you suffer from one of the above mentioned.

Blackjack

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

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.

Does that chip stretch to both your shoulders?.

Re your comments on Bankers - thats a bit of a Sweeping generalisation, isn't it?. I know plenty of honest Bankers - perhaps you don't know any people who work in banks?.

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Also the British are overall more honest than us lot,

Oh look, another sweeping generalisation.

Nodin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Well that's a matter of opinion and that's fine, I've no problem with your views. I do take issue with your poor attempt to point out it could not be the U.K.. .

It's a statement of the obvious. Cash for questions, cash for honours, the whole business with BAE and bribery in Saudi, Iraq, nationalising the rail authority, complicity with rendition.....I see no moral high ground there.

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I suppose (...........).

Presumptions and assumptions amounting to ad hominem.

Reality, however, seems to agree with me.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

Johnboy Mac

Blackjack wrote: »

Does that chip stretch to both your shoulders?.

Re your comments on Bankers - thats a bit of a Sweeping generalisation, isn't it?. I know plenty of honest Bankers - perhaps you don't know any people who work in banks?.




Oh look, another sweeping generalisation.

You my call it a 'chip' I'd say it's about time people called a spade a spade.

Bear in mind I did'nt originally use the word honesty to imply dishonesty.

I would have said the Bankers were consumed by greed as is their nature which has been proved time and again. Also just clear a matter up on the subject the of the term 'Bankers'. It s used for those sitting on the boards like Directors, Ch/exec's, Chairmen etc. And I don't know any of those and I don't think it would effect on their greed if I did. So what's your point?

I think you take things out of context, which is a very bad trait as you could very well end up with a chip on your shoulder.

Johnboy Mac

Nodin wrote: »

It's a statement of the obvious. Cash for questions, cash for honours, the whole business with BAE and bribery in Saudi, Iraq, nationalising the rail authority, complicity with rendition.....I see no moral high ground there.



Presumptions and assumptions amounting to ad hominem.

Reality, however, seems to agree with me.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

God, I hit a nerve.

Fratton Fred

so what's all the fuss about? Ireland is the 16th most honest country in the world.

Mind you, ask the people of Ireland if the government is honest then the perception is obviously that they are, I mean otherwise why keep voting them back in

Nodin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

God, I hit a nerve.

Not at all.

Would you care to comment on the information from the link provided?

Johnboy Mac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what's all the fuss about? Ireland is the 16th most honest country in the world.

Mind you, ask the people of Ireland if the government is honest then the perception is obviously that they are, I mean otherwise why keep voting them back in

:D:D

Blackjack

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

You my call it a 'chip' I'd say it's about time people called a spade a spade.

Bear in mind I did'nt originally use the word honesty to imply dishonesty.

I would have said the Bankers were consumed by greed as is their nature which has been proved time and again. Also just clear a matter up on the subject the of the term 'Bankers'. It s used for those sitting on the boards like Directors, Ch/exec's, Chairmen etc. And I don't know any of those and I don't think it would effect on their greed if I did. So what's your point?

I think you take things out of context, which is a very bad trait as you could very well end up with a chip on your shoulder.

Well lets take a look at what you said:

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

There is no such thing as an honest banker

that pretty much implies dishonesty.

Let's define the word "Banker" - from dictionary.com, not your rather limited definition:

a person employed by a bank, esp. as an executive or other official

You then go on to say - you've never met any, but you assume that it would make no difference to the "greed" if you did.

Maybe you should get to meet some, they're not all Sir Fred Goodwin's and Sean Fitzpatricks, but of course, you wouldn't know that, as you've never met any.

You then suggest you don't have a chip on your shoulder, and that I do because I take things out of context?. Get a grip mate, you're not as important as you think yourself to be.

Johnboy Mac

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all.

Would you care to comment on the information from the link provided?

I already suggested you start your thread entitled '' What's the difference between Irish & British politics based on what I pick up in the media''

Are really suggesting that we have not got similar scandels in relation to our countries size as the U.K, or do not read any Irish newspapers?

You never replied to my question, are you a bigot?

Johnboy Mac

Blackjack wrote: »

Well lets take a look at what you said:


that pretty much implies dishonesty.

Let's define the word "Banker" - from dictionary.com, not your rather limited definition:

a person employed by a bank, esp. as an executive or other official

You then go on to say - you've never met any, but you assume that it would make no difference to the "greed" if you did.

Maybe you should get to meet some, they're not all Sir Fred Goodwin's and Sean Fitzpatricks, but of course, you wouldn't know that, as you've never met any.

You then suggest you don't have a chip on your shoulder, and that I do because I take things out of context?. Get a grip mate, you're not as important as you think yourself to be.

In general terms a Banker is classed my most as an active member of the board. My bank manger would not call himself himself a Banker nor the assistants. Get real.

Are you in denial that the Banks were not greedy? I hope not because you'll only be making a fool out of yourself.

No mention of the big cheese's running A.I.B., BOI, Irish Life etc. Funny that considering they have made so many headline in the last few months.

One thing you are dead right on, I'm not important, but what is important is that people like me voice their opinion espcially when people like you do a botch job to defend the likes of our greedy Banks using platform of debate on what the exact definition of what a banker is, is a totally spurious point. The banks have been dishonest with us & our Government.

Blackjack

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

In general terms a Banker is classed my most as an active member of the board. My bank manger would not call himself himself a Banker nor the assistants. Get real.

Are you in denial that the Banks were not greedy? I hope not because you'll only be making a fool out of yourself.

No mention of the big cheese's running A.I.B., BOI, Irish Life etc. Funny that considering they have made so many headline in the last few months.

One thing you are dead right on, I'm not important, but what is important is that people like me voice their opinion espcially when people like you do a botch job to defend the likes of our greedy Banks using platform of debate on what the exact definition of what a banker is, is a totally spurious point. The banks have been dishonest with us & our Government.

In general, a Banker is pretty much any Bank official - but let's not let your definition of what you believe it to be get in the way of facts.
Have you ever asked your Bank Manager, by the way?.
So, you've not met any of these people, but yet are willing to class them all as Greedy?. What was that I said earlier about sweeping statements?.

Every Bank in every country is making headlines in their various papers these days, you really should get your head out of the sun, broaden your horizons a bit more. Read something that's perhaps a little less Tabloid and more newsworthy.

I've not once defended the banks here, just pointed out that your sweeping generalisations are pretty unfair to a significant majority of people who've not been greedy, just doing the job they've been paid to do.

The fact that a small minority in Banking have created a situation that people like yourself are using to tar an entire industry as being dishonest and Greedy, is just wrong, and shows you to be a bigot.

Johnboy Mac

Blackjack wrote: »

In general, a Banker is pretty much any Bank official - but let's not let your definition of what you believe it to be get in the way of facts.
Have you ever asked your Bank Manager, by the way?.
So, you've not met any of these people, but yet are willing to class them all as Greedy?. What was that I said earlier about sweeping statements?.

Every Bank in every country is making headlines in their various papers these days, you really should get your head out of the sun, broaden your horizons a bit more. Read something that's perhaps a little less Tabloid and more newsworthy.

I've not once defended the banks here, just pointed out that your sweeping generalisations are pretty unfair to a significant majority of people who've not been greedy, just doing the job they've been paid to do.

The fact that a small minority in Banking have created a situation that people like yourself are using to tar an entire industry as being dishonest and Greedy, is just wrong, and shows you to be a bigot.

Another nerve, bang!

Which bank do you work in, skip that I'm not that interested.

But I presume you are some sort of jumped up offical that calls himself a 'Banker' and expects others to do the same. You and your likes are not responsible as you don't have clouth to carry the policies of pure greed and dishonesty that the real 'Bankers' perpetrated.

So, have no concerns that my sweeping statement encompasses any minor officals etc of the banks other than the board, thus you are excluded.

A bit of advise, don't jump to conclusions about the paper that people buy when you don't know which one it is. Odds on you will conclude incorrectly and you may make a habit out of it, not good or very bright but then you don't sit on the board.

I hope I've not struck another nerve.

Nodin

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I already suggested you start your thread entitled '' What's the difference between Irish & British politics based on what I pick up in the media''

Are really suggesting that we have not got similar scandels in relation to our countries size as the U.K, or do not read any Irish newspapers?

The question of what happened here never arose. You stated

Not too much wrong with the U.K. when look at balls up we made here besides the international recession. Also the British are overall more honest than us lot, at least they know when to resign from important posts when the screw up.

I've pointed out, correctly, that they are as corrupt as here, and produced third party evidence to that end. You seem averse to addressing that, for some reason.

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

You never replied to my question, are you a bigot?

'have you stopped beating your wife'?

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

God, I hit a nerve. !

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Another nerve, bang!

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Odds on you will conclude incorrectly and you may make a habit out of it, not good or very bright but then you don't sit on the board.

I hope I've not struck another nerve. !

Is there any reason you're hell bent on turning this into some personal slanging match with all and sundry...?

oscarBravo

Unless this conversation gets a lot more civil, it will be ending soon.

Johnboy Mac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless this conversation gets a lot more civil, it will be ending soon.

Your call, no problems either way.

What is sad, it's sooooooooo easy to 'rock the boat' of a few people on this site. A newbie comes along makes a couple of comments,
the comments don't go in line with their thinking and most poss. unseats them from the cozy way of viewing the world that they live in and this makes them uncomfortable, thus they don't like it.

Well the heads have moved somewhat out of the sands now, which has to be a good thing.

jank

Why?

Why on earth would Ireland join the Commonwealth?

Seriously. Because of some poxy games!

Stupid idea IMO.

If it had something to do with a united Ireland then fair enough but other then that dont bother.

Dannyboy83

junder wrote: »

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

About the British Royalty/Republican movement, I've often heard English and Welsh people moaning about it and saying it should done away with.
Generally tho, they don't understand how profitable it is and the boost it gives to tourisim.

We've seen the power of the British monarchy eroded more and more from the start of the 20th Century, and with modern demographics in England (London/Leeds/Birgmingham for example), there are a massive amount of people who simply don't care about the monarchy there (although not quite on par with the amount of people who don't care about the papacy here;)).

Its ridiculed and labelled outdated by one section of society who use it to exclude themselves, because that is their end objective.
In this case, it is the Republicans in Northern Ireland.
In London, the British Muslims.
In Leeds/Birmingham, the massive Anglo-African population.

But for commonwealth countries and open minded individuals, it can be a massively inclusive tool. Nobody is ever unhappy when their countries are boosting trade and getting richer, are they?

In a United Ireland, given enough time and the passing of the people who suffered during the troubles, the visit of a British Monarch will be as exciting for the population, as the visit of the President of the United States.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE025563.jpg?size=67&uid={C2835827-6524-4567-A389-64ADFA5EC27B}


As long as it generates tourisim and cash, they will keep it.
And why shouldn't they?
I think it would be a major mistake and a major loss if the British were to do away with the monarchy.

Besides, lets not try to pretend that they weren't loved here in the past.
http://www.corkpastandpresent.ie/mapsimages/corkphotographs/corkcameraclubhistoricalphotos/kingsvisit/

http://www.corkpastandpresent.ie/mapsimages/corkphotographs/corkcameraclubhistoricalphotos/royalhorseguardsregiment/

Were it not for the Black & Tans, & Auxillaries burning down Cork, and were it not for the attempted conscription during WW1, God knows - they would still probably be loved, as Princess Diana was throughout Ireland.
http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm
http://www.corkcity.ie/aboutcork/historyofcork/20thcenturycork/
http://www.ilnpictures.co.uk/showproducts.asp?search=cork&LeftMenuSearchBox1:ImageButton1.x=0&LeftMenuSearchBox1:ImageButton1.y=0&templateid=&page=1
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65731



Of course, try and explain this to any of the ignorants who rioted at the LoveUlster Parade or those who don't know their history and you may as well be pissing into a hurricane.
They've written biased accounts by Tom Barry for example, who hated the British no differently than the old generation of British hated the Germans.
Its nothing to do with real hatred and knowing why they hate.
Its just a bunch of halfwits supporting a football time - one side United, the other Liverpool

The Germans and the British seem to get on ok now.
Funnily enough, I could walk outside the door here and point out 10 protestant/Church of Ireland households........doesn't seem to bother anybody in Cork.
I guess we've reconcilled.
One day Ulster will aswell (considering its been going on since Brian Boru and Ui Neill anyway!)

Dannyboy83

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C04E1DA1E30E132A25753C2A9619C946297D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C04E1DA1E30E132A25753C2A9619C946297D6CF

http://www.kinghallconnections.com/17-qtn.html

http://www.kinghallconnections.com/index_george.html

http://www.iarc.ie/exhibitions/0002.html


And to think they call Cork "The Rebel County":rolleyes:
(if it hadn't been for the Black&Tans and the city hall, it would've been the Royal county)

getz

jank wrote: »

Why?

Why on earth would Ireland join the Commonwealth?

Seriously. Because of some poxy games!

Stupid idea IMO.

If it had something to do with a united Ireland then fair enough but other then that dont bother.

from 1920 the republic of ireland was still a member of the commonwealth in 1948 and with that position it still had all the advantages of a commonwealth country-ie trading /exporting ect-in 1948 ireland told the commonwealth that it no longer wanted to be a part of it,the uk canada new zealand wasent happy the irish rep was told as a non comonwealth country it would be treated as a foreign country which would mean the restriction of its people in the uk and they will no longer be allowed to trade /export to commonwealth countrys.ireland had not fully understood the full implications and its gov/rep said he will go back to talk to his goverment /before restrictions had been put into place [which would has destroyed their economy]the australian gov said let them be ,only the irish can understand the irish so ireland continued to have full commonwealth benifits without being a member, read the full story on the irish website reform.org should ireland join the commonweath ? yes its been leaching off them enough

SeanW

Let's get one thing straight. Ireland's trading relations are set down by the EU Common Market. I.E. we have the same trading rights worldwide as the other EU members. We are not missing out on anything by not being a member of the British Commonwealth (headed by the Queen) nor are we benefitting in any way from it by the back door. I really don't know what the poster above is on about.

Dannyboy83

SeanW wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight. Ireland's trading relations are set down by the EU Common Market. I.E. we have the same trading rights worldwide as the other EU members. We are not missing out on anything by not being a member of the British Commonwealth (headed by the Queen) nor are we benefitting in any way from it by the back door. I really don't know what the poster above is on about.

The poster above is bang on the money.

Thats what happened.
Ireland has only been an EU member since 1973.
It was vital before the EU days.

Its an odd Situation:
A) If Britain will be kicked out of the EU in the future, because of the damage that Gordon Brown is doing to their economy (it is a possibility), we would have to join the Commonwealth anyway.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article9082.html

If Britain goes bankrupt, they will encourage the creation of a New Ireland State anyway as outlined in the GFA, because they will not be able to pay the E5billion subvention to Northern Ireland.

If it makes some Unionists in the North of Ireland happy, then why the fcuk not? It doesn't affect or bother me in any way.

If a bunch of Liverpool supporters tried to stop you going to Manchester every 4 years, would you think thats fair enough?

Try turn the tables.

getz

SeanW wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight. Ireland's trading relations are set down by the EU Common Market. I.E. we have the same trading rights worldwide as the other EU members. We are not missing out on anything by not being a member of the British Commonwealth (headed by the Queen) nor are we benefitting in any way from it by the back door. I really don't know what the poster above is on about.

uk and the eu [if britian had not joined it its doubtful that ireland would have joined] your major trading partner that is for export was the uk and still is, 60% of your exports and tourism are with the uk to export elsware is far to costly ,in 1948 the commonwealth traded between them selfs ireland wanted to pull out of the commonwealth, and if the trade plug had been pulled ireland would have been a mess-if in the next few years the uk pulls out of the eu,[as most people in the uk want ],ireland may have to look at it themselves -ireland is a export country it needs the uk for trade-rejoining the commonwealh would open other , doors that is why the goverment in the republic keep on looking at it-in the united states new laws passed by recently by the senate to allow countrys outside north america to join its free trade area have been passed. [this was asked for by a member of the british goverment [in my eyes there is no smoke without fire ] very little of this has been in the press maybe the uk is just covering back