Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

aDeener

rovert wrote: »

I think most people who associate those images more than peaceful protests with nationalist movement.

and thats wrong, this image that all nationalists are violent is wrong.

i doubt you would label all muslims like this

sensibleken

rovert wrote: »

I think most people who associate those images more than peaceful protests with nationalist movement.

i don't think thats either here nor there. most nationalists are peacefull and you will always have some people, nationalists or not, who are just up for a row. for example I doubt many people could call John Hume a violent man

Livvie

bmaxi wrote: »

I've no objection to the Queen visiting but I can imagine a few regular posters on this forum will be apoplectic. The English are proud of their monarchy and its heritage, why should it bother us how they choose them?

Proud of the history of the monarchy maybe. I do think they're back on the up a bit, but they've had a rough ride (but more about Camilla later) in the past because they were so out of touch with us common people.

The Queen is one thing, but all these distant cousins five times removed need weeding out.

Charles would be a very unpopular king I think.

Elmo

rovert wrote: »

What were the Love Ulster protesters if not boneheads:


There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not.

The problem with the "Love Ulster" Parade was that it was not inclusive rather it was a march across dublin city by Ulster Unionist for Ulster Unionist, and yet those in the media seem to have forgotten those that died in the Dublin Monaghan boomings. Had the Love Ulster parade been an inclusive parade I would have had no issue with it but it was not an inclusive parade something that many people forget.

BTW that in no way defends the actions of the protesters on that day, there should have been a peaceful protest about the sectarianism of the Love Ulster Parade.

Boneheads is just a silly term in any conversation, Ya feckin' Bonehead

Nehaxak

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Bohs fans do

Eh... ? Ye wha' ?
I'm presuming you're a Rovers fan if you're saying something rediculous like that.

..but back on topic I suppose, I've yet to see an actual realistic and non-emotionally based argument put forward from anyone on here as to why she should not visit Ireland.
They're already out polishing the monument erected some years back in her honour out in Dun Laoghaire so I'm told so I presume she'll be visiting there too.

rovert

aDeener wrote: »

and thats wrong, this image that all nationalists are violent is wrong.

i doubt you would label all muslims like this

Seriously what are you are jabbering on about where did I say or even imply all nationalists?

sensibleken wrote: »

i don't think thats either here nor there. most nationalists are peacefull and you will always have some people, nationalists or not, who are just up for a row. for example I doubt many people could call John Hume a violent man

Sorry but it is pertinent as that is were most of the eye rolling about the nationalist movement comes from. If they had a track record of peaceful protests you wouldn’t see such resistance from people on here. You can claim that the characterisation is unfair but there is still validity to it.

Elmo wrote: »

Boneheads is just a silly term in any conversation, Ya feckin' Bonehead

I didn’t introduce that word to the thread I just ran with it.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just as soon as McGuinness apologises for all the soldiers killed.

McGuinness does not represent the Irish people, the British Queen represents the British people.

Some people tend to forget the difference between the head of state and what they call a terrorist.

aDeener

rovert wrote: »

Seriously what are you are jabbering on about where did I say or even imply all nationalists?



Sorry but it is pertinent as that is were most of the eye rolling about the nationalist movement comes from. If they had a track record of peaceful protests you wouldn’t see such resistance from people on here. You can claim that the characterisation is unfair but there is still validity to it.



I didn’t introduce that word to the thread I just ran with it.

your reference to the "nationalist movement" suggests you mean it in its entirety, plus then you attempt to justify this by going on about this "image" of the nationalist movement

rovert

aDeener wrote: »

your reference to the "nationalist movement" suggests you mean it in its entirety, plus then you attempt to justify this by going on about this "image" of the nationalist movement

Id rather you quote me directly than badly paraphase. Your point would be shot down if you did.

aDeener

"There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not."

where you then attempt to justify below: taking in the nationalist movement in its entirety.

rovert wrote: »

I think most people who associate those images more than peaceful protests with nationalist movement.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

McGuinness does not represent the Irish people, the British Queen represents the British people.

Some people tend to forget the difference between the head of state and what they call a terrorist.

McGuinness is/was an IRA commander as well as a recognised leader of Sinn Fein and the nationalist movement. As such he represents the IRA and his apology would go a long way to mend wounds.

Also at least McGuiness actually carried out the things he would be apologising for. The Queen is not responsible for anything.

Coillte_Bhoy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

McGuinness is/was an IRA commander as well as a recognised leader of Sinn Fein and the nationalist movement. As such he represents the IRA and his apology would go a long way to mend wounds.

Also at least McGuiness actually carried out the things he would be apologising for. The Queen is not responsible for anything.

It has already been pointed out to you thet the IRA made a formal apology in 2002 but you chose to ignore this. no surprise really.

rovert

aDeener wrote: »

"There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not."

where you then attempt to justify below: taking in the nationalist movement in its entirety.

2+2=5 here

Keep paraprhasing.

Wolfe Tone

rovert wrote: »

2+2=5 here

Keep paraprhasing.

He quoted you exactly. Stop digging a hole here and just back up a bit.

rovert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He quoted you exactly. Stop digging a hole here and just back up a bit.

He didnt quote me exactly the second part of his post was paraphrased. Im amazed you actually posted instead of blanketly thanking him.

If I meant the entire movement I would say it.

P.S. Im still waiting on a explaination on how unification would change lives for the better.

silliegillie

rovert wrote: »

P.S. Im still waiting on a explaination on how unification would change lives for the better.

Maybe it would force the FAI & IFA to amalgamate and we would have a better chance of qualifing for the world Cup

Sand

I hate when this topic arises. Its as if the national inferiority complex takes on human form and rings up Joe Duffy.

The head of state of a neighbouring country visits. My response "Meh".

Iwasfrozen

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

It has already been pointed out to you thet the IRA made a formal apology in 2002 but you chose to ignore this. no surprise really.

Wher did you point that out? Anyway it isnt relevent. Here was my original post:

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Just as soon as McGuinness apologises for all the soldiers killed.

Here is the news extract I found when I googled the apology you mentioned:

BBC News wrote:

In an unprecedented move, the IRA apologised and offered its condolences to families of all the civilians who died as a result of its campaign of violence.

The IRA used the term "non-combatants" in the statement, to mean those who are not members of any paramilitary organisation, members of the police, Army or anyone connected with the security forces.

They apologised to "non-combatants" the next paragraph deals with combatants:

BBC News wrote:

The group said there had been "fatalities amongst combatants on all sides".
"We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives. The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt.

They never actually apologised to the families of soldiers killed in the conflict.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2134320.stm

caseyann

How does it always end up about what IRA did when not talking about them?

So long as she flies in,and they dont spend a penny on her and she spends her millions of pounds in Ireland and she doesnt expect a parade and roads blocked for her and using our police force and security to spend money on her arrival and protection.Then let her come wont even notice her here.Or expect royal treatment as to me no king or queen or anything like that is any one important.

BryanL

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

McGuinness is/was an IRA commander as well as a recognised leader of Sinn Fein and the nationalist movement. As such he represents the IRA and his apology would go a long way to mend wounds.

Also at least McGuiness actually carried out the things he would be apologising for. The Queen is not responsible for anything.

McGuiness was head of the republicans not the Nationalists

Have you heard of John Hume? He was head of the Nationalists and got a Noble prize for his actions. He was an organiser of the civil rights movement that her majesty's soldiers shot dead. Showing peaceful protest to be ineffective.
This gave the Republicans that advantage they needed to recruit and outstrip the peaceful nationalists. Now they have power and the leaders of those soldiers given OBE's by the Queen. God Save The Queen yeah?

Elmo

McGuniness is the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. However I don't expect that the British or the Unionist apologize for the deaths of IRA members, in the same way as they possibly don't expect an apology for the killing of British soldiers.

They only people in wars that should be apologized to are the "collaterally damaged".

aDeener

rovert wrote: »

He didnt quote me exactly the second part of his post was paraphrased. Im amazed you actually posted instead of blanketly thanking him.

If I meant the entire movement I would say it.

P.S. Im still waiting on a explaination on how unification would change lives for the better.

the meaning i took from the posts i exactly quoted is perfectly legitimate, it sounded clear to me and others that you meant the entire movement. i appreciate here that it seems that wasn't your intention.

you never asked how unification would change lives for the better. you asked how it would change lives and i duly answered that, but as sceptre has deleted posts on that topic, he clearly doesnt want that discussed anymore.

rovert

aDeener wrote: »

the meaning i took from the posts i exactly quoted is perfectly legitimate, it sounded clear to me and others that you meant the entire movement. i appreciate here that it seems that wasn't your intention.

It was you badly paraphase and came to a silly conclusion read posts before and after it obviously wasnt my intention. If I think nationalist have an image problem wouldnt that imply that I think their image is doing them a disservice?

aDeener wrote: »

you never asked how unification would change lives for the better. you asked how it would change lives and i duly answered that, but as sceptre has deleted posts on that topic, he clearly doesnt want that discussed anymore.

I was asking your thank buddy MUSSOLINI....

Wolfe Tone

I didn't answer for the fact that I already answered that, and for the same reason that aDeener outlined.


His "thank buddy"? Thats a very immature comment and a pointless one. I have thanked his posts as I have agreed with them.

rovert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I didn't answer for the fact that I already answered that, and for the same reason that aDeener outlined.

Where did you already answer? aDeener's case was that it would life changing both potentially postivie and negative.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

His "thank buddy"? Thats a very immature comment and a pointless one. I have thanked his posts as I have agreed with them.

So is claims I was digging holes for myself etc.

sceptre

aDeener wrote: »

you never asked how unification would change lives for the better. you asked how it would change lives and i duly answered that, but as sceptre has deleted posts on that topic, he clearly doesnt want that discussed anymore.

Feel free to start a thread on it (handy link). Call it "How unification would change lives", putting "for the better" after it is optional. We're not short of space for new threads any time soon, don't be shy about starting one.


Less of the "thank buddy" criticism stuff please folks (adds nothing but goading wah) - people are free to thank as many posts as they like and the thanks system doesn't ask them for a reason, nor do I. I believe you've also settled the nationalist/nationalist movement clarification question as well, well done there, not that it was particularly relevant.:)

/mod

weepee

Id like to know this: Whats in it for the Republic? having a British Monarch visit?

Dudess

weepee wrote: »

Yeah I bet you can, some joke, 'The rebel county'.

I don't think it's a joke that I can live with myself for not having an issue with the queen visiting Ireland, I do think it's a joke though to speculate whether I and others with the same point of view can live with ourselves for something so trivial.
And I don't define myself according to the county I happen to have been born in.

weepee wrote: »

Whoever said Irelands a modern country.

So you're berating Irish people who don't have an issue with the queen visiting for not being true to their Irishness... yet then you make a sweeping criticism about Ireland as a country?

weepee wrote: »

Hmmm, never heard that 'term' before-thanks.

"West Brit" is one of the stupidest, most inane expressions there is, in my opinion - I don't think I've ever seen it used intelligently, or other than to describe a person who isn't remotely like Conor Cruise O'Brien/Kevin Myers/Eoghan Harris/Ruth Dudley Edwards etc (criticism of them I'd agree with) but simply objects to hatred of Britain.

weepee

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think it's a joke that I can live with myself for not having an issue with the queen visiting Ireland, I do think it's a joke though to speculate whether I and others with the same point of view can live with ourselves for something so trivial.
And I don't define myself according to the county I happen to have been born in.

If I offended the good people of County Cork-I apologize.

Dudess wrote: »

So you're berating Irish people who don't have an issue with the queen visiting for not being true to their Irishness... yet then you make a sweeping criticism about Ireland as a country?

I have an issue with the British head of state visiting Ireland, yes. Whats in it for the Republic? Is the Republic so keen to be viewed as some super modern nation that can overcome its yet unfinished history, that it has to prove so, by inviting the head of state of the UK?

Dudess wrote: »

"West Brit" is one of the stupidest, most inane expressions there is, in my opinion - I don't think I've ever seen it used intelligently, or other than to describe a person who isn't remotely like Conor Cruise O'Brien/Kevin Myers/Eoghan Harris/Ruth Dudley Edwards etc (criticism of them I'd agree with) but simply objects to hatred of Britain.

Possibly.
PS: I dont hate Britain-I just hate them being here.

Dudess

weepee wrote: »

If I offended the good people of County Cork

Well certainly not me! That was my point - coming from Cork makes no difference to me...

I have an issue with the British head of state visiting Ireland, yes. Whats in it for the Republic? Is the Republic so keen to be viewed as some super modern nation that can overcome its yet unfinished history, that it has to prove so, by inviting the head of state of the UK?

Why should there be anything in it for Ireland though? That wouldn't be asked if e.g. the Belgian head of state visited - and that's all it is, a visit from a head of state. The political and historical connotations it's being imbued with seem to be largely coming from the objectors.
The stuff about certain Irish people wanting to look all "forward-thinking": well I think that's less applicable to people who don't have a problem with the queen visiting/welcome it for no reason other than it signifying we're bigger than being bitter now (a good thing, no?) and more applicable to certain peeps down here who just love to go against the grain and only slam republican atrocities rather than slamming both republican and loyalist atrocities equally, claim to be unionists (rather than simply respecting moderate unionists) and brush aside the injustices experienced by catholics or else barge in with whataboutery.

PS: I dont hate Britain-I just hate them being here.

I'd like a united Ireland too but that's not gonna make me have a problem with the queen visiting.

weepee

Dudess wrote: »

Well certainly not me! That was my point - coming from Cork makes no difference to me...

Why should there be anything in it for Ireland though? That wouldn't be asked if e.g. the Belgian head of state visited - and that's all it is, a visit from a head of state. The political and historical connotations it's being imbued with seem to be largely coming from the objectors.
The stuff about certain Irish people wanting to look all "forward-thinking": well I think that's less applicable to people who don't have a problem with the queen visiting/welcome it for no reason other than it signifying we're bigger than being bitter now (a good thing, no?) and more applicable to certain peeps down here who just love to go against the grain and only slam republican atrocities rather than slamming both republican and loyalist atrocities equally, claim to be unionists (rather than simply respecting moderate unionists) and brush aside the injustices experienced by catholics or else barge in with whataboutery.

I'd like a united Ireland too but that's not gonna make me have a problem with the queen visiting.

Well, Im opposed to it, but if the majority are for it, who am I to get all worked up. I dont get worked up when she visits here, I only bitch about the traffic chaos

sensibleken

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They never actually apologised to the families of soldiers killed in the conflict.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2134320.stm

They are not going to apologise for killing combatants any more than we would expect the BA to apologise for the killing of IRA members. though they have acknowleged it.

'There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides.

We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.

The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt.

That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.'

note description as victims.

I am arguing for the same thing as yourself but we cannot selectively quote if we are to make an honest arguement.

This as well as the saville report and two steps on the long road to the truth as can be written to the history books. yes there is more to come but we cannot expect instant gratification in that regards. another step is the welcoming of the British head of state in the spirit of diplomacy because the alternative is a snub, and we cannot expect co-operation from those we have snubbed.

jordan..

I welcome the queen to Ireland but on one condition.

She takes her planters from our country so that this whole island will be united again!

I dont care if she is just a figurehead, her soldiers murdered and terrorised in her name!

sensibleken

jordan.. wrote: »

I welcome the queen to Ireland but on one condition.

She takes her planters from our country so that this whole island will be united again!

I dont care if she is just a figurehead, her soldiers murdered and terrorised in her name!

what do you mean united again? in irish history ireland was only united under british rule. before that is was a series of provinces often at conflict with one another. historically ulster has always been closer to scotland and northumbria than the other provinces, from the iron age, through dal riada to the plantations. the planters are all since long dead. she is not an archaeologist

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

I wonder who's going to foot the bill for security?

who foots the bill for any security operation, the securocrats of course.:rolleyes:

The bill will be footed by the Irish State. Surely a state that can sink 22Billion into a failed bank can spend a few quid on a state visit by a foreign head of state.

getz

weepee wrote: »

Id like to know this: Whats in it for the Republic? having a British Monarch visit?

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

weepee

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

That is a distinct possibility. Interesting to see what sort of feed back your post gets during the day.

getz

weepee wrote: »

That is a distinct possibility. Interesting to see what sort of feed back your post gets during the day.

i hope for all the irish race,we can all move on,

Livvie

sensibleken wrote: »

what do you mean united again? in irish history ireland was only united under british rule. before that is was a series of provinces often at conflict with one another. historically ulster has always been closer to scotland and northumbria than the other provinces, from the iron age, through dal riada to the plantations. the planters are all since long dead. she is not an archaeologist

Very true point about the planters - that was so long ago, that all the descendants of those times consider themselves native Irish and it's unrealistic to expect them to leave.

I think a united Ireland will happen, just not soon. To force it would just mean more violence.

Your initial point is interesting and one I don't think I've heard before. I suppose the point there is that at least the provinces were Irish, at conflict or not.

karma_

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

This will certainly not be happening. It's a mad suggestion to be perfectly honest.

Wolfe Tone

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

No, just no. After everything Ireland went through to distance itself from Britain? Quite simply is not going to happen.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No, just no. After everything Ireland went through to distance itself from Britain? Quite simply is not going to happen.

Don't you see how much pain and suffering our current methods have caused? We've distanced ourselves from the majority protestant populace in the North and have been paying the price for the last ninety years. If the only way to lasting peace and the ultimate goal of a united Ireland is by joining the commonwealth to officially recognise the culture of northern Unionists then what have we got to lose by doing so?

My Grandfather was a very proud nationalistic supporter of De Valera yet regardless of this he lived peacefully in a majority protestant area and the majority of his friends were dyed in the wool protestants! Yet that never seemed to bother either of them, and although they would have arguments there were never any paramilitary organisations around!

This got me thinking and I've come to the conclusion that protestants and catholics can live together as long as there is a degree of tolerence between the two ideals. And how better to show our tolerance of unionist ideals but to welcome their Queen with open arms?

But then maybe I'm just an idealist.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't you see how much pain and suffering our current methods have caused? We've distanced ourselves from the majority protestant populace in the North and have been paying the price for the last ninety years. If the only way to lasting peace and the ultimate goal of a united Ireland is by joining the commonwealth to officially recognise the culture of northern Unionists then what have we got to lose by doing so?

My Grandfather was a very proud nationalistic supporter of De Valera yet regardless of this he lived peacefully in a majority protestant area and the majority of his friends were dyed in the wool protestants! Yet that never seemed to bother either of them, and although they would have arguments there were never any paramilitary organisations around!

This got me thinking and I've come to the conclusion that protestants and catholics can live together as long as there is a degree of tolerence between the two ideals. And how better to show our tolerance of unionist ideals but to welcome their Queen with open arms?

But then maybe I'm just an idealist.

There is a fair bit of difference between welcoming the Queen and rejoining the commonwealth.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

There is a fair bit of difference between welcoming the Queen and rejoining the commonwealth.

You're right, there is. But welcoming The Queen with open arms can only help relations between Republicans and Unionists.

Wolfe Tone

And reconciliatory actions by her will also accomplish the same goal. I will partially reserve my condemnation of her visit until I see an itinerary and what she will actually do here. Her actions will be a big factor.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And reconciliatory actions by her will also accomplish the same goal. I will partially reserve my condemnation of her visit until I see an itinerary and what she will actually do here. Her actions will be a big factor.

She most likely won't do anything. What would you like her to do?

aDeener

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

oh come on, the commonwealth games? thats it. i dont think our athletes are too pushed about not being able to compete in them.

paky

i cant see the queen visiting unless it been a suprise visit. too dangerous

Nodin

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

"A bigger say"....Hmmmmm. Like during the Apartheid South African era, when the heads of nearly every commonwealth country wanted sanctions taken against the regime and Thatcher said no....."a bigger say" by hanging on the coat tails of a discredited post imperial scheme run by a former power that now clings to the coat tails of the USA to try to maintain the pretence of influence....Why would we hang around the monkey and not go to the organ grinder?

Judgement Day

A bit off topic, but I have noted a marked reluctance amongst many posters here and on other similar threads to even contemplate rejoining the Commonwealth as a step to a united Ireland - if this is reflective of the broad nationalist community there is zero possibility of any 32 county state. Just my opinion as I couldn't care less whether or not Ireland is united/rejoins the Commonwealth or even the UK - it won't affect my life one jot.