The Visit of Queen Elizabeth

seiphil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

May as well ban every head of state comming to the country then. Hell, why not get rid of our own while we are at it? We could make the Queen our head of state again and save ourselves a few bob if that's all you care about.

Maybe I should expanded my point..

Personally I would not want Lizzy anywhere near this country because still to this day her armed forces are occupying the 6 counties..

Sure while were at it lets get Maggie Thatcher over.

Our country is basically bankrupt yet us tax payers have to give out more cash for this.

This in no way beneficial for us infact I would bank on Dublin City being turned into a war zone when/if she comes over.

Iwasfrozen

seiphil wrote: »

Maybe I should expanded my point..

Personally I would not want Lizzy anywhere near this country because still to this day her armed forces are occupying the 6 counties..

It'c not occupation when the majority are in favour of Britains presence.

seiphil wrote: »

Sure while were at it lets get Maggie Thatcher over.

I was thinking more of other world leaders like Christian Wulff, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama.

seiphil wrote: »

Our country is basically bankrupt yet us tax payers have to give out more cash for this.

Yep, it's called diplomacy and every country has to do it. It helps prevent attitudes like the ones on display in this thread.

seiphil wrote: »

This in no way beneficial for us infact I would bank on Dublin City being turned into a war zone when/if she comes over.

Good relations with our nearest neighbour is very much in our interests.

later12

The Queen has been to Ireland before and Prince Charles has been here on an even greater number of occasions, most informally. I really don't see why they cannot visit who they need to visit here on the same basis, or why an official state visit is required. Pomp and ceremony for what? For whom?

Why we must formally entertain such ceremonial heads as McAleese and Mrs Schleswig-Holstein in the first place I really don't know. I'd rather give the money to the old cats home tbh.

PeterIanStaker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what do we do when her army comes looking for her?

I'm sure one of our esteemed journos will rat out her location in exchange for a seat in the Seanad.

seiphil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It'c not occupation when the majority are in favour of Britains presence.


I was thinking more of other world leaders like Christian Wulff, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama.


Yep, it's called diplomacy and every country has to do it. It helps prevent attitudes like the ones on display in this thread.


Good relations with our nearest neighbour is very much in our interests.

So what would you call the situation with Palestine and Israel?

I'm sorry but I don't wanna play "happy families" with Britain and that all this is..

Its to show how normal things are with the two states and that is simply not the case.

Iwasfrozen

seiphil wrote: »

So what would you call the situation with Palestine and Israel?

Not that it was anything to do with the thread I believe israel's building of settlements in Palestine is wrong but I respect Israel's right to exist within it's own territory.

seiphil wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't wanna play "happy families" with Britain and that all this is..

Its to show how normal things are with the two states and that is simply not the case.

What isn't normal between the two countries? We have solved the Norn Iron situation with the gfa and Britain recognises us as an independent state. I don't see anything wrong with the status que.

And why don't you want to play happy families with Britain? It is important that neighbouring countries get on. Would you rather be at war? I'm going to assume not.

Wolfe Tone

We have solved the Norn Iron situation

LOLOLOL

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

LOLOLOL

You don't think we've solved the Norn Iron situation?

seiphil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not that it was anything to do with the thread I believe israel's building of settlements in Palestine is wrong but I respect Israel's right to exist.


What isn't normal between the two countries? We have solved the Norn Iron situation with the gfa and Britain recognises us as an independent state. I don't see anything wrong with the status que.

Its relevant because I find both situations to be somewhat alike. Of course Israel has a right to exist but they do not have a right to destroy the existence of another country.

Whats so normal about bombs being planted on a weekly basis to try and destroy British police forces and Army forces in the north. And this is rapidly growing

The GFA has been a complete failure in the eyes of many republicans...Has changed nothing. PSNI/RUC still as cprrupt as always.(Just because they say they have changed doesn't mean its true).People are loosing faith in this joke of an agreement.

History tends to repeat itself.

later12

seiphil wrote: »

People are loosing faith in this joke of an agreement.

Sounds like wishful thinking. They really, really do not seem to be. I cannot seriously see a return to violence apart from the sporadic outbursts we have been seeing, tbh it isn't popular enough to be significant.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You don't think we've solved the Norn Iron situation?

Nope.

seiphil

later10 wrote: »

Sounds like wishful thinking. They really, really do not seem to be. I cannot seriously see a return to violence apart from the sporadic outbursts we have been seeing, tbh it isn't popular enough to be significant.

There was something like 20 repubican attacks on British forces last year.

It has doubled this year.

Iwasfrozen

seiphil wrote: »

Its relevant because I find both situations to be somewhat alike. Of course Israel has a right to exist but they do not have a right to destroy the existence of another country.

Whats so normal about bombs being planted on a weekly basis to try and destroy British police forces and Army forces in the north. And this is rapidly growing

The GFA has been a complete failure in the eyes of many republicans...Has changed nothing. PSNI/RUC still as cprrupt as always.(Just because they say they have changed doesn't mean its true).People are loosing faith in this joke of an agreement.

History tends to repeat itself.

Israel have a right to defend themselves though, as long as they are only defending their own territory and not territory captured from Palestine.

I think you're exagerating the situation.

The PSNI are not nearly as corrupt as the old RUC. Don't be silly. Also nationalists are much better off under the gfa the only ones who reject it are the hard core republicans who would have rejected any deal short of full unification.

Also don't forget this is the agreement the people of Ireland on both sides of the border voted for, with a huge majority in the south.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Nope.

Please do explain.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Please do explain.

Its only a stopgap I think, will collapse within 15 years, the only way it will ever be resolved is by a UI.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its only a stopgap I think, will collapse within 15 years, the only way it will ever be resolved is by a UI.

Some would say the only way it will be resolved is by Ireland rejoing the UK. But you are venomly opposed to that just like unionists are venomly opposed to a United Ireland. Therefore as long as there are unionists to cause trouble there will be no United ireland.

seiphil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel have a right to defend themselves though, as long as they are only defending their own territory and not territory captured from Palestine.

I think you're exagerating the situation.

The PSNI are not nearly as corrupt as the old RUC. Don't be silly. Also nationalists are much better off under the gfa the only ones who reject it are the hard core republicans who would have rejected any deal short of full unification.

Also don't forget this is the agreement the people of Ireland on both sides of the border voted for, with a huge majority in the south.

Israel would not be under any threat if they didnt take Palestines land..A bit like here.

It is not like it used to be your right but as I said history repeats itself and its getting worse and more frequent.

Places like Ardoyne, Short Strand and Bogside are hard core republican areas. Still to this day they are terrorised by the the police forces. The nationalists who are better off now are the same ones the troubes never affected. If you wanted something to change then the places I mentioned would be the ones that should be looked at.

Pretty sure if that vote took place now it wouldnt be so one sided. The reson being the recession and Ireland going bang. People were too happy with their money and couldnt of given a **** about Irish people up the North or that situation.

Just look at Ireland in the height of the troubles..We were poor.

When we were "rich" nobody gave a ****.

Iwasfrozen

seiphil wrote: »

Israel would not be under any threat if they didnt take Palestines land..A bit like here.

It is not like it used to be your right but as I said history repeats itself and its getting worse and more frequent.

Places like Ardoyne, Short Strand and Bogside are hard core republican areas. Still to this day they are terrorised by the the police forces. The nationalists who are better off now are the same ones the troubes never affected. If you wanted something to change then the places I mentioned would be the ones that should be looked at.

Pretty sure if that vote took place now it wouldnt be so one sided. The reson being the recession and Ireland going bang. People were too happy with their money and couldnt of given a **** about Irish people up the North or that situation.

Just look at Ireland in the height of the troubles..We were poor.

When we were "rich" nobody gave a ****.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Israel with you, this isn't the thread.

Those hard core also known as dissident republicans were never going to be happy with anything other then a united Ireland. Which wasn't on the table.

As for the gfa it was a very good agreement from Ireland's perspective. It gave us a say in the running of Northern Ireland and allowed it's citizens to be recognised as citizens of Ireland. All good from a nationalist view.

And I don't really think people's wealth has anything to do with their motivation on Northern Ireland isssues. Nobody cared during the boom and nobody cares during the bust.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Some would say the only way it will be resolved is by Ireland rejoing the UK. But you are venomly opposed to that just like unionists are venomly opposed to a United Ireland. Therefore as long as there are unionists to cause trouble there will be no United ireland.

It will get to stage wher the demographics will mean that it doesnt matter what unionists think. They will figure this out sooner or later and the gfa will be done.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a debate about Israel with you, this isn't the thread.

Those hard core also known as dissident republicans were never going to be happy with anything other then a united Ireland. Which wasn't on the table.

As for the gfa it was a very good agreement from Ireland's perspective. It gave us a say in the running of Northern Ireland and allowed it's citizens to be recognised as citizens of Ireland. All good from a nationalist view.

And I don't really think people's wealth has anything to do with their motivation on Northern Ireland isssues. Nobody cared during the boom and nobody cares during the bust.

Those hard core also known as dissident republicans were never going to be happy with anything other then a united Ireland. Which wasn't on the table.

Educate yourself.


That suggests that all anti gfa republicans are "dissidents" and planting bombs, which is not the case at all.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It will get to stage wher the demographics will mean that it doesnt matter what unionists think. They will figure this out sooner or later and the gfa will be done.

It depends, Britain may make us offer them concessions like they offered nationalists.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Educate yourself.


That suggests that all anti gfa republicans are "dissidents" and planting bombs, which is not the case at all.

Please don't read between the lines.

I can argue with you over what I've said but when you read between the lines I can't argue with the conclusions you've made up in your head.

seiphil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a debate about Israel with you, this isn't the thread.

Those hard core also known as dissident republicans were never going to be happy with anything other then a united Ireland. Which wasn't on the table.

As for the gfa it was a very good agreement from Ireland's perspective. It gave us a say in the running of Northern Ireland and allowed it's citizens to be recognised as citizens of Ireland. All good from a nationalist view.

And I don't really think people's wealth has anything to do with their motivation on Northern Ireland isssues. Nobody cared during the boom and nobody cares during the bust.

Fair enough.

There was also a hard core group in 1916 and 1922. Don't try differ from what was then and what is now. Just because your happy you got your part of the country back doesn't mean you should forget about the other Irish who couldn't get there area back. In fact theres more support now for these groups then there was in 1916.

It certainly does play a part..

Explain the increase in republican activity then?

Its one factor of many for it.

While the 6 counties are occupied there will always be armed ressisstance whether you like it or not

later12

seiphil wrote: »

There was something like 20 repubican attacks on British forces last year.

It has doubled this year.

Is that all?

seiphil

later10 wrote: »

Is that all?

They have not just doubled their attacks they have increased the size and support of these groups.

Their methods of attack are advancing. A year ago these groups couldnt detonate a car bomb now they are blowing up barracks.

You would be in denial if you didnt think that activity is increasing and will continue to.

later12

seiphil wrote: »

They have not just doubled their attacks they have increased the size and support of these groups.

Their methods of attack are advancing. A year ago these groups couldnt detonate a car bomb now they are blowing up barracks.

You would be in denial if you didnt think that activity is increasing and will continue to.

They have increased the size and support? Really, significantly? Didn't think so.

To be honest, when this gets significant, or when the dissidents stop being dissidents and become mainstream, maybe then get back to me.

Denerick

seiphil wrote: »

They have not just doubled their attacks they have increased the size and support of these groups.

Their methods of attack are advancing. A year ago these groups couldnt detonate a car bomb now they are blowing up barracks.

You would be in denial if you didnt think that activity is increasing and will continue to.

How do you feel about these attacks and these dissidents? I'd love a non ambiguous answer from a Republican, for once.

Next person who mentions Israel/Palestine in this thread wins themselves a 3 day vacation away from the politics forum.

KeithAFC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol. Sorry danbohan but she won't be apologizing for anything and she certainly won't be handing over any repatration money.

And the fact that you're pissed off about something that happened many hundreds of years before you were born shows how silly this whole arguement is. There will be no riots when the Queen comes to Dublin the event will pass without a hiccup. And everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.

I agree. Nothing will happen.

junder

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It will get to stage wher the demographics will mean that it doesnt matter what unionists think. They will figure this out sooner or later and the gfa will be done.

So it doesn't matter what we think?

Wolfe Tone

junder wrote: »

So it doesn't matter what we think?

I said eventually with the demographics going the way they are it wont particularly matter when it comes to a vote.

Not that I dont care.

Treason

I think opposing the queens visit would be most ethical. Israel and other rogue states get away with their war crimes because there is little consequence for when they carry them out.

It is not so long ago that the combined mass mechanisms of violence of the US and UK states lined up to slaughter and gas tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. This should not be forgotten.

A crisp clear **** off to the queen would set an ethical precident. Others might follow.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I said eventually with the demographics going the way they are it wont particularly matter when it comes to a vote.

Not that I dont care.

What is that? That more Catholics are now being born than Protestants? Like that means a lot. Like i have said on here before, a lot of people in Northern Ireland know what they have and its a good thing.

Denerick

KeithAFC wrote: »

What is that? That more Catholics are now being born than Protestants? Like that means a lot. Like i have said on here before, a lot of people in Northern Ireland know what they have and its a good thing.

Got to agree with that. One of the great funny sights of the Troubles will always be that many of the Provo's used to queue up at the post office to sign on for the dole.

The British welfare state is quite generous. There isn't an NHS down south.

lugha

Treason wrote: »

I think opposing the queens visit would be most ethical. Israel and other rogue states get away with their war crimes because there is little consequence for when they carry them out.

It is not so long ago that the combined mass mechanisms of violence of the US and UK states lined up to slaughter and gas tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. This should not be forgotten.

A crisp clear **** off to the queen would set an ethical precident. Others might follow.

Well if we are going to take such a stance then on what basis can we continue to engage with the British primeminister and other ministers of the crown which we do formally and routinely? If Britain really is such a rogue state, should you not be advocating that we close our embassy in London and advise Irish citizens (all one million or so of them) to get out as quickly as possible? :rolleyes:
Preposterous of course. Much as in pains the Anglophobes, we have as good a relationship with Britain as we do with any other country in the world, and better than the majority. It is truly bizarre that a state visit should in any way be controversial.

Wolfe Tone

I see all the usual heads are here now, same old again lads? Wheres rebelheart?

Sir Oxman

seiphil wrote: »

Maybe I should expanded my point..

Personally I would not want Lizzy anywhere near this country because still to this day her armed forces are occupying the 6 counties..

Sure while were at it lets get Maggie Thatcher over.

Our country is basically bankrupt yet us tax payers have to give out more cash for this.

This in no way beneficial for us infact I would bank on Dublin City being turned into a war zone when/if she comes over.

I think the supposed visit should not happen.
It is of no material benefit to Ireland or Britain - we will still trade with each other and we will still owe them 7billion euros at whatever rate they've charged so as to stave off the collapse of some of their banks.
It doesn't mean anything only to the likes of McAleese who is as useless and ironic as her counterpart across the sea.

It will cause wide disturbances for the local population with NO BENEFIT for the local population.
Those that like royalty and all it's gimpyness can watch Sky and read feckin Hello till their eyes bleed.
I feel it's one of those things that just should not happen - we get on okay but no need for their queen to prance across the sea and grin and nod like a mad aul'wan for three days.
No material benefit whatsoever.

Shea O'Meara

A lot posted here is outdated, on both sides.

The Queen is in reality a tourist attraction. If the U.K. are fine with that, fair play, none of our business.

If she comes here, I couldn't care less.
However, if we pay one red cent to accomodate such a trip, I say send Lilly Savage instead, (another Queen who comes to mind).

If people are fool enough to facilitate the fancies of such an out moded and undemocratic concept as a Queen, be it on their head, but not the republic's pocket.

Davidth88

I am British and I have lived in Ireland now for 10 years.

I actually would welcome a visit by The Queen to Ireland.

I truly think the times for finger pointing and laying blame for what happened in the latter half of last century has past.

As for the cost , well there are state visits all the time , I am sure if The Pope or The President of the USA decided to come to visit there would be little debate about cost.

A visit by your next door neighbours would show everyone how things have moved on .

So I for one will be making the cucumber sandwiches ( without crusts of course ) and awaiting a knock on the door from Lizzie !

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

Got to agree with that. One of the great funny sights of the Troubles will always be that many of the Provo's used to queue up at the post office to sign on for the dole.

The British welfare state is quite generous. There isn't an NHS down south.

the irish wellfare state is more than twice as generous and those on wellfare have an NHS down south too

Lapin

Lapin wrote: »

Over one million people turned out in the Phoenix park and elsewhere to welcome the only absolute monarch in Europe to these shores in 1979. A monarch whose institution has inflicted greater harm and hindered further progress to the development of everyone on this island over the last century than the British have. I don't recall any protests then.

I see no problem in having the maturity to welcome to our shores, the Head of State of our nearest neighbour, closest ally, biggest trading partner and provider of a generous portion of our recent request for a loan to keep our country going.

I hope those who are advocating protests riots will bear in mind the opportunities generations of Irish people found in Britain when their own country was unable to support them. And given the state of our republic after almost ninety years of independence, it looks like generations more will be looking towards Britain for employment in the future.

Perhaps the potential rioters might think a little more about what we have in common with British people rather than our differences the next time they watch Coronation Street in their Manchester United jerseys.

We have welcomed monarchies to this country many times in the past and dictators including Robert Mugabe.

I don't think the little old lady from London with an interest in horseracing is going to do us any harm.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Who is 'advocating protest riots', whatever that means?

People like this gobshíte and other assorted muppets of his ilk.......

OhNoYouDidn't

Lapin wrote: »

People like this gobshíte and other assorted muppets of his ilk.......

So no-one then?

deanh

irishh_bob wrote: »

the irish wellfare state is more than twice as generous and those on wellfare have an NHS down south too

What an inaccurate statement! Welfare rates are higher in the republic. But, in Northern Ireland, everyone gets fully free education, G.P. and basic health cover including prescriptions. There is widespread provision of affordable social housing and lets not forget that the cost of living is significantly lower in N.I. Indeed, I believe that after 6 months, all those screaming for a united Ireland would be changing their opinions.

OhNoYouDidn't

It strikes me reading this thread that those who support the visit of Mrs Windsor are often the dogged and unreasonable ones.

Its clear from the surge in dissident activity and ongoing loyalist campaign that the situation in the 6 counties is far from normalised, political peace or not. Its clear that there are major skeletons in the British military closet. Its clear that there are legitimate democratic and anti-sectarian issues around her office.

Now pragmatism might suggest that we ignore all that for diplomatic reasons, but the patronising and aggressive tone from some of the posters here to those with issues is the unreasonable stance.

Treason

lugha wrote: »

Well if we are going to take such a stance then on what basis can we continue to engage with the British primeminister and other ministers of the crown which we do formally and routinely?

On a basis in which the British priminister understands true well that the Irish state is opposed to war crimes and the rogue actions of his state. And if that priminister is a war criminal like the previous one, then they should be cast out or arrested on Irish soil when they visit.

I would be embarrassed for life dealing on a formal or routine basis with Iraqi's knowing that my state collaborates with war criminals and rogue states who mutilated and slaughtered thousands of Iraqi's.

If Britain really is such a rogue state,

It really is. Is it even questionable?

should you not be advocating that we close our embassy in London and advise Irish citizens (all one million or so of them) to get out as quickly as possible? :rolleyes:

The first step would be to close the US airbase in the west coast of Ireland. That alone would cut the Irish states direct involvement with war crimes.

Preposterous of course. Much as in pains the Anglophobes, we have as good a relationship with Britain as we do with any other country in the world, and better than the majority. It is truly bizarre that a state visit should in any way be controversial.

Of course it would be controversial. We do not all want to accept and pay out accomodation costs for figure heads from rogue states. Particularly Queens of those states.

KeithAFC

The way some people go on, you would think they are jealous of the history of Britain or something. Seems odd.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

The way some people go on, you would think they are jealous of the history of Britain or something. Seems odd.

I doubt many of us want the blood on our nations hands Britain has.

Its very simple. Some people are willing to ignore objections and welcome her, some are not willing to ignore them and the third group see no objections to begin with.

Same dynamic within your community when an Uachtarain vists the 6 counties.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I doubt many of us want the blood on our nations hands Britain has.

Its very simple. Some people are willing to ignore objections and welcome her, some are not willing to ignore them and the third group see no objections to begin with.

Same dynamic within your community when an Uachtarain vists the 6 counties.

I don't mind. Its just another state visit.

Bottle_of_Smoke

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is because they recongise Northern Ireland as its own state, and a state which is part of the United Kingdom. So she is welcome to Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a different country though, so she isn't welcome. Seems pretty clear.

Thats pretty much my point, I was talking about republicans. Republicans don't recognise NI as a state they see it as six counties under British rule. So if there's a massive protest in the republic and there isn't when she visits NI it sends out the message that they see the republic as a different state, which goes against everything republicans stand for

windsurfer99ie

Treason wrote: »

On a basis in which the British priminister understands true well that the Irish state is opposed to war crimes and the rogue actions of his state. And if that priminister is a war criminal like the previous one, then they should be cast out or arrested on Irish soil when they visit.

I would be embarrassed for life dealing on a formal or routine basis with Iraqi's knowing that my state collaborates with war criminals and rogue states who mutilated and slaughtered thousands of Iraqi's.



It really is. Is it even questionable?



The first step would be to close the US airbase in the west coast of Ireland. That alone would cut the Irish states direct involvement with war crimes.



Of course it would be controversial. We do not all want to accept and pay out accomodation costs for figure heads from rogue states. Particularly Queens of those states.

I've lived here for many years, but I am delighted that my Queen is finally to be allowed to visit here. It is something that both I and my Irish children will look forward to and feel proud about when the day finally arrives.

All this historical huffing and puffing smacks more of jealously than anything else. However, for the record, I am proud to be a subject of a Queen who's country has consistently defended it's own interests and those of it's neighbours in international affairs; retains a healthy skepticism of the intentions of its European partners whilst accepting its responsibilities towards them; continues to function as a right-minded financially and politically independent state; even though some of its actions are inevitably unpopular at home and abroad better that than neutered irrelevance.