Seems Lizzy's on the way...

[mypost]

As for myself, was initially against it but have to be honest the symbolism of where she has visited and the (what seems) genuine sense of respect shown by the Queen.

That's all for show. I didn't expect her to go to the War Memorial, Dublin Castle, Croker etc, and make a pig's breakfast of it. But no doubt she was advised what to say and do, before she turned up.

[boovidge]

Very cynical, Mypost. A Queen with advisors, whatever next?

[peadar1987]

As the metrics would indicate AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
The problem being that the Monarchy is an institution that will continue into the future without the democratic will of the people being voiced on an institution that is unnellected and largely unnacountable and still wields significant power purely based on a birth right, the idea is ridiculous, a throwback to medievel society.
Quite bizarre people on here defending the institution that is monarchy.

We don't know that. If, at some point in the future, there were large demonstrations against the monarchy, and public opinion swung against the royals as an institution, there could well be a referendum called on their future. Nobody can say for sure what would happen in that situation, so it's pointless to speculate either way.

[backstothewall]

Why is it bizarre? Even Arthur Griffith was a monarchist!

If as citizens of a republic (albeit a dictionary republic) and democrats, we choose to accept the system of government of a friendly sovereign nation as entirely their affair, it’s hardly bizarre behaviour on our part.

That said, I do distinguish (as I suspect most people here would) between ceremonial, virtually powerless constitutional monarchies, which describes the British and all European ones (except the Vatican, I think) and those which are absolutist, kleptocratic or oligarchic, and utterly unsupportable as forms of government.

I would make that distinction also.

Given the obvious success of this trip, what would peoples opinion be on re-joining the Commonweath, or even doing away with the office of president and returning to Dominion status?

[Eminence Grise]

It’s an interesting proposition. It might even put an end to the interminable player eligibility threads here, if nothing else!


Even though I see myself as a republican in the Burke/Tone/Davis tradition (actually, because I see myself that way) I have no ideological issue with rejoining the Commonwealth, but only as an independent republic, not as a Dominion. Since it now has republics and states independent of Britain, and even a small few with no historic link to Britain at all, there is no longer a threat to our sovereignty, and, while maintaining our presidency, we would simply recognise the British monarch as the head of the Commonwealth. That's not all that far removed from de Valera’s Document No.2 during the Treaty talks. It’s a less onerous membership than the EU has ever required; requires less political commitment and pooling of sovereignty; and it might help to realign our politics away from the Boston-Berlin axis.


If it opened up new trade possibilities, gave our athletes an opportunity to compete in the Commonwealth Games, continued normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland (and, maybe, opened up the possibility of reunification) it’s something that should be considered. But I don't see it happening any day soon.

[TiocfaidhArmani]

Britain can take it out of that 3 Billion they recently gave us to help keep the entire country afloat, eh???

Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.

[Not Brazil]

Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.

It's amazing what a friendly visit to Dublin can do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/may/18/ireland-bailout-terms-interest-rate

[mypost]

Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.

You see, this week here everything connected with red, white and blue is supposed to be great. The last 900 years never happened you know.:rolleyes:

Suddenly the "loan" isn't a cold-blooded interest-profiting exercise at all, it's a "bailout" which we should give eternal thanks to Cameron, Osborne, and Hague for. We're 200 billion in the red, so the few quid the Brits decided to give us off their own bat for their own reasons, will help us no end. :rolleyes:

Lizzy's on the way finally today. Good luck and Good riddance. We've got a real Head Of State arriving here on Monday, and he will get a warm welcome.

[Rasputin]

Why is it bizarre? Even Arthur Griffith was a monarchist!
I am fully aware of Griffiths monarchist ideology, it ties in nicely with his all round reactionary politics, i.e. what his writings around 1913. Using Griffith as some sort of justification for supporting the institution of monarchy in no way justifys an unnelected, unnacountable and unjustified institution that chooses its successors on a birthright, what a throw back.

If as citizens of a republic (albeit a dictionary republic) and democrats, we choose to accept the system of government of a friendly sovereign nation as entirely their affair, it’s hardly bizarre behaviour on our part.
Its highly bizarre to blindly accept relics of feudalism merely because they are attached to 'a friendly nation'.
Im not advocating direct intervention but what I am stating is we as a Republic should not pander to such a ridiculous institution such as monarchy, be that the English Monarchy or the Spanish or Norwegian Monarchy.

That said, I do distinguish (as I suspect most people here would) between ceremonial, virtually powerless constitutional monarchies, which describes the British and all European ones (except the Vatican, I think) and those which are absolutist, kleptocratic or oligarchic, and utterly unsupportable as forms of government.
The English monarchy are not powerless, that is the very point.
They still wield significant power in English politics and are an unnaccountable institution.
Either way the principle remains the same, a monarchy that has significantly more power than the English Royalty do not warrant that power purely on birth right just as a monarchy such as in England dont warrant ANY power because of a birth right.
Its the same principle.
An unnelected institution that is unnacountable to the people it wields power over and who ironically pay for their life of absolute luxury because of a birth right, bizarre.

[hoops1]

You see, this week here everything connected with red, white and blue is supposed to be great. The last 900 years never happened you know.:rolleyes:

Suddenly the "loan" isn't a cold-blooded interest-profiting exercise at all, it's a "bailout" which we should give eternal thanks to Cameron, Osborne, and Hague for. We're 200 billion in the red, so the few quid the Brits decided to give us off their own bat for their own reasons, will help us no end. :rolleyes:

Lizzy's on the way finally today. Good luck and Good riddance. We've got a real Head Of State arriving here on Monday, and he will get a warm welcome.

Well if we didnt like the terms we didnt have to take the loan.
900 years zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[razor]

There's a hardcore in Cork up the northside that love the man, but most of us think he's a knacker like everyone else. Bit of a generalisation there dahamsta.
I nether love nor hate the man, for me he's a local lad who did alright for himself.
Good on him.

[Eminence Grise]

Its highly bizarre to blindly accept relics of feudalism merely because they are attached to 'a friendly nation'.
Im not advocating direct intervention but what I am stating is we as a Republic should not pander to such a ridiculous institution such as monarchy, be that the English Monarchy or the Spanish or Norwegian Monarchy.

The English monarchy are not powerless, that is the very point.
They still wield significant power in English politics and are an unnaccountable institution.
Either way the principle remains the same, a monarchy that has significantly more power than the English Royalty do not warrant that power purely on birth right just as a monarchy such as in England dont warrant ANY power because of a birth right.
Its the same principle.
An unnelected institution that is unnacountable to the people it wields power over and who ironically pay for their life of absolute luxury because of a birth right, bizarre.

WEll, just what are the powers of the British monarchy? As for pandering to monarchies, I think the exigencies of diplomacy to render respect rather than the obsequiousness that you seem to see at every turn is the distinguishing factor here. I'm sure Obama will get similar treatment as defined by protocol.

Britons are quite content to have a monarch. They don't see themselves as living in a feudal society, because it isn't one - at least, not as far as my understanding of feudalism from reading Marc Bloch goes.

Now, you clearly don't like monarchies. Fair enough. They're not my government of choice either. But for reasons of comity, I accept their existence. To rail against them ineffectually is to be somewhat redolent of Canute - if you'll pardon the regal reference.

[dahamsta]

Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.

Wasn't that the EU loan? The IMF loan wasn't that onerous, and I was under the impression the UK loan was the same or better.

[awec]

It’s an interesting proposition. It might even put an end to the interminable player eligibility threads here, if nothing else!


Even though I see myself as a republican in the Burke/Tone/Davis tradition (actually, because I see myself that way) I have no ideological issue with rejoining the Commonwealth, but only as an independent republic, not as a Dominion. Since it now has republics and states independent of Britain, and even a small few with no historic link to Britain at all, there is no longer a threat to our sovereignty, and, while maintaining our presidency, we would simply recognise the British monarch as the head of the Commonwealth. That's not all that far removed from de Valera’s Document No.2 during the Treaty talks. It’s a less onerous membership than the EU has ever required; requires less political commitment and pooling of sovereignty; and it might help to realign our politics away from the Boston-Berlin axis.


If it opened up new trade possibilities, gave our athletes an opportunity to compete in the Commonwealth Games, continued normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland (and, maybe, opened up the possibility of reunification) it’s something that should be considered. But I don't see it happening any day soon.

Great post sir!

Though, I do think that because of the symbolism involved in joining the British Commonwealth the hardline republican parties would fill people's heads with muck and it would never happen.

[Eminence Grise]

Though, I do think that because of the symbolism involved in joining the British Commonwealth the hardline republican parties would fill people's heads with muck and it would never happen.

I think that's a given, alright.

[Wolfie]

Gave us to keep us afloat? Or gave us to sure up their banks debts in Ireland, as well as give some kind of prop to their retail outlets and other business interests in Ireland?


A loan with some juicy interest?:(


It's not to keep the country afloat, but even if it was, it's mere pocket money to them.


Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.

I suppose we could say "thanks, but no thanks" and take up one of the various better offers that other countries are queing up to make us.

[Spudulika]

I think we can go one further, and in a more substantial way, than rejoining the group of death (commonwealth). At the time of the royal-commoner wedding, in the Russian duma there was a motion raised to invite Prince Harry to take the throne of Russia. At first I couldn't believe it, but the people who proposed it (LDPR) would kind of go alone with his swastika wearing thing. Maybe we can invite him to take over as a new head of state of Ireland, he'd be great craic. Imagine him on the loose in Temple Bar, brilliant! Then again his father was a commoner, so it might not work.

[awec]

Live from the Mall in Cork: :D

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/302375914.jpg

[peadar1987]

I think we can go one further, and in a more substantial way, than rejoining the group of death (commonwealth). At the time of the royal-commoner wedding, in the Russian duma there was a motion raised to invite Prince Harry to take the throne of Russia. At first I couldn't believe it, but the people who proposed it (LDPR) would kind of go alone with his swastika wearing thing. Maybe we can invite him to take over as a new head of state of Ireland, he'd be great craic. Imagine him on the loose in Temple Bar, brilliant! Then again his father was a commoner, so it might not work.


There is this one loon advocating an Irish theocratic monarchy: http://irishmonarchism.blogspot.com/

[bennocelt]

I suppose we could say "thanks, but no thanks" and take up one of the various better offers that other countries are queing up to make us.

See Iceland have been upgraded in the banking classifications, despite their people rejecting paying back Holland/Uk twice - funny that


Dont we already have a queen - Mary Mcaleese!

[Spudulika]

See Iceland have been upgraded in the banking classifications, despite their people rejecting paying back Holland/Uk twice - funny that


Dont we already have a queen - Mary Mcaleese!

Well, we could have a Queen in the Aras if the meeja have their way in the next Presidential election :-)

[backstothewall]

It’s an interesting proposition. It might even put an end to the interminable player eligibility threads here, if nothing else!


Even though I see myself as a republican in the Burke/Tone/Davis tradition (actually, because I see myself that way) I have no ideological issue with rejoining the Commonwealth, but only as an independent republic, not as a Dominion. Since it now has republics and states independent of Britain, and even a small few with no historic link to Britain at all, there is no longer a threat to our sovereignty, and, while maintaining our presidency, we would simply recognise the British monarch as the head of the Commonwealth. That's not all that far removed from de Valera’s Document No.2 during the Treaty talks. It’s a less onerous membership than the EU has ever required; requires less political commitment and pooling of sovereignty; and it might help to realign our politics away from the Boston-Berlin axis.


If it opened up new trade possibilities, gave our athletes an opportunity to compete in the Commonwealth Games, continued normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland (and, maybe, opened up the possibility of reunification) it’s something that should be considered. But I don't see it happening any day soon.

Have to say my thinking on this issue has changed dramatically on this issue in a week. But Last week I could only ever see the British monarchy as a force for division in Ireland. The visit has certainly proved me wrong on that one, and I'm happy to think again based on that.

In my opinion the single greatest problem faced by the Irish people today is the partition of the island. It causes one problem after another, and although I accept the point about how much of the cost of Northern Ireland is actually paid for by the people of Northern Ireland, the fact remains that an island of 6m people runs 2 government's with all the expense and duplication of expenditure that comes with that.

With that in mind, if Ireland is to join the commonwealth, I would hope that it would be a means of uniting, rather than dividing the people of the island. If joining the Commonwealth means a Northern Ireland team running against a Republic of Ireland team in the 4 x 100ms relay in the Commonwealth Games, I'd say thanks, but no thanks to that arrangement. It will only end with a boxing final on a Saturday evening turning into a running battle on the Malone Road after a feed of drink in the Bot.

Similarly, I think I would now be quite prepared to see a return of the Monarch as head of state, but again only if that unites people, rather than dividing them. Presumably if we were to become a commonwealth realm, we would have a Govorner General. But in the 21st century there is no reason why all the people of the island couldn't elect someone to live in Aras, perform all the same functions as the President, but technically be performing those functions on behalf of the monarch.

I'd imagine there will be 3 main reactions to this suggestion

(1) Monarchies are undemocratic, and we should never give up sovereignty etc. To that I would say that Canada is no less sovereign than the United States. The impact on real peoples live, especially in the North, of bringing people together would be worth the talking heads being upset about constitutional technicalities.
(2) If we are going to invite a foreign queen, why would we invite the Queen of England and not the Queen of Belgium or Spain. To that I would say that after almost a century of a Republic, the only people who call her "The Queen of England" rather than simply "The Queen" are a few Shinners, and even they slip out of character from time to time.
(3) If the changes are so technical, what's the point? Especially with proposals on the table to give Northerners a vote in Presidential elections...

The difference as I see it is that it would stand a great chance of getting the buy in of Unionism. In all honesty I can't see many unionists coming out to vote for a President of Ireland, but if they were electing someone to represent the Queen on the Island, I think they would show up. It would manage that without threatening the position of the 6 Counties within the UK, or the independence of the Republic.

Can't see it happening in the short term though. Certainly not before the centenaries of the Easter Rising or establishment of Northern Ireland

[SkStu]

who are you? Diarmuid MacMurrough? ;)

[awec]

You're going to let us vote for the President? Cool! :D

[bennocelt]

who are you? Diarmuid MacMurrough? ;)

Exactly, steady on boys - jeez people already talking about the commonwealth! Will be about changing the flag and anthem next!

[Magicme]

I hate green so wouldn't mind a new flag....

[Eminence Grise]

I agree with parts of Backtowalsall’s post regarding partition and the desirability of a united island with a single team representing it in the Commonwealth Games. But I’d stress again that we could rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations (not the British Commonwealth as it was previously called) as a republic, without having to recognise the Queen as anything other than the head of the associational structure. A bit like von Rompuy in the EU, similarly unelected, but without the periodic change of leadership.


The national anthem and flag is a red herring. But copyright on the anthem runs out soon, so who knows? It was never a popular choice. It was adopted witih no formal announcement or legislation, and even Tomás Derrig (FF minister for Education in the 1930s) twice declined in the Dáil to have it taught in schools....


It’s all moot, really. We’re unlikely to apply, and perhaps it would be best if, in the run-up to 2016, we first decided what kind of republic we wanted. Because, God knows, we’ve made a poor fist of this one.

[awec]

I agree with parts of Backtowalsall’s post regarding partition and the desirability of a united island with a single team representing it in the Commonwealth Games. But I’d stress again that we could rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations (not the British Commonwealth as it was previously called) as a republic, without having to recognise the Queen as anything other than the head of the associational structure. A bit like von Rompuy in the EU, similarly unelected, but without the periodic change of leadership.


The national anthem and flag is a red herring. But copyright on the anthem runs out soon, so who knows? It was never a popular choice. It was adopted witih no formal announcement or legislation, and even Tomás Derrig (FF minister for Education in the 1930s) twice declined in the Dáil to have it taught in schools....


It’s all moot, really. We’re unlikely to apply, and perhaps it would be best if, in the run-up to 2016, we first decided what kind of republic we wanted. Because, God knows, we’ve made a poor fist of this one.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is in 2016? Am I missing something obvious?

[Spudulika]

Euroepan Championships in France I think. Or it could be the Easter Resurrection.

[mypost]

Have to say my thinking on this issue has changed dramatically on this issue in a week. But Last week I could only ever see the British monarchy as a force for division in Ireland. The visit has certainly proved me wrong on that one, and I'm happy to think again based on that.

In my opinion the single greatest problem faced by the Irish people today is the partition of the island. It causes one problem after another, and although I accept the point about how much of the cost of Northern Ireland is actually paid for by the people of Northern Ireland, the fact remains that an island of 6m people runs 2 government's with all the expense and duplication of expenditure that comes with that.

With that in mind, if Ireland is to join the commonwealth, I would hope that it would be a means of uniting, rather than dividing the people of the island. If joining the Commonwealth means a Northern Ireland team running against a Republic of Ireland team in the 4 x 100ms relay in the Commonwealth Games, I'd say thanks, but no thanks to that arrangement. It will only end with a boxing final on a Saturday evening turning into a running battle on the Malone Road after a feed of drink in the Bot.

Similarly, I think I would now be quite prepared to see a return of the Monarch as head of state, but again only if that unites people, rather than dividing them. Presumably if we were to become a commonwealth realm, we would have a Govorner General. But in the 21st century there is no reason why all the people of the island couldn't elect someone to live in Aras, perform all the same functions as the President, but technically be performing those functions on behalf of the monarch.

Can't see it happening in the short term though.

Don't want to see it happening in the short, medium, or long term. Our future is in the European Union, not the Commonwealth. We are Irish and Europeans, not here to serve the UK's interests, in any form. We did it for long enough.

[Eminence Grise]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is in 2016? Am I missing something obvious?

326th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. Going to be sponsored by Mazda, for obvious reasons. Already republicans are planning a boycott because their inferiority complex (Chippus Epaulettues Hiberniae) cannot accept the fact that there is no Irish car manufacturer since Ford and Volkswagen departed these shores.

[backstothewall]

Don't want to see it happening in the short, medium, or long term. Our future is in the European Union, not the Commonwealth. We are Irish and Europeans, not here to serve the UK's interests, in any form. We did it for long enough.

Jaysus. Who said anything about serving the UKs interests. The only interests being discussed are our own.

There's no reason why we can't be in the commonwealth and EU. The point is if we are to join, we will be doing it on our own terms


Exactly, steady on boys - jeez people already talking about the commonwealth! Will be about changing the flag and anthem next!

The state has a flag and anthem that aren't going anywhere. The nation has Irelands call. What we lack is an agreed flag for the nation, so we have this daft situation where there is a tricolour and an Ulster flag at rugby games. A new agreed flag would probably be worth having.

[strangeirish]

New flag, joining a commonwealth...meh! We may have our own Queen soon enough...

http://www.lisamcinerney.com/resources/David-Norris.jpg
;)

[SkStu]

David Norris stroking a pussy? Now theres a first.


sorry... :o

[bennocelt]

The state has a flag and anthem that aren't going anywhere. The nation has Irelands call. What we lack is an agreed flag for the nation, so we have this daft situation where there is a tricolour and an Ulster flag at rugby games. A new agreed flag would probably be worth having.

Thats awful to be fair:eek:

[Eminence Grise]

It's very charitable of you to leave it at just awful....

[backstothewall]

Its awful without a doubt. But at least we have it. And in fairness Amhrán na bhFiann isn't great either.

[awec]

Its awful without a doubt. But at least we have it. And in fairness Amhrán na bhFiann isn't great either.
Not least because nobody seems to know the words.

Sing the first line and a big roar at the end and you're grand.

[backstothewall]

In 1936, James Dillon, later leader of Fine Gael, proposed that A Nation Once Again should be the Irish national anthem.

Why is it they always get rid of the good policies?

[Hurt Locker]

Not least because nobody seems to know the words.

Sing the first line and a big roar at the end and you're grand.

Know it off by heart was hammered into us in national school our teacher was a great gaeilgeoir.

[Lim till i die]

Sing the first line and a big roar at the end and you're grand.

Until I was 16 or 17 I thought the end of our national anthem was a crescendo of airhorns and shouting "G'wan Heffo ya big hoor, give him timber"

[Eminence Grise]

In 1936, James Dillon, later leader of Fine Gael, proposed that A Nation Once Again should be the Irish national anthem.

Why is it they always get rid of the good policies?

That might have been a reaction against what FG saw as FF’s appropriation of Amhrán na bhFiann, and the “Sinne fianna fáil, atá fá gheall ag Éirinn” opening rather than the less partisan “Sinne laochra fáil”. But as FF had paid Peadar Kearney and Patrick Heeney’s estate £1,000 for the copyright in 1933 change was unlikely.

Cumann na nGaedheal hoped people would just get used to the anthem and they wouldn’t have the problem of officially adopting one. The air and lyrics were considered substandard for an anthem, and it was often derided as a Sinn Fein marching song. It wasn’t until Col Fitz Brase of the Army School of Music arranged the air that it got some gravitas. Even FF didn’t legislate for it as an anthem.

The most popular alternatives were A Nation Once Again (considered unsuitable while partition remained, and anyway, had been adopted by the Irish Parliamentary Party) Let Erin Remember (which has treachery and serfdom as its theme!) and God Save Ireland (which opens with a triple hanging, and gets progressively less cheerful!). In fact, Sean Lester in the Government publicity department suggested that eminent poets be asked to write new lyrics for Let Erin Remember which could be translated from English to Irish since most of those poets spoke no Irish! Alas, nobody listened and we are where we are.... I like the air, but I think we need new more relevant lyrics.

[TiocfaidhArmani]

Jaysus. Who said anything about serving the UKs interests. The only interests being discussed are our own.

There's no reason why we can't be in the commonwealth and EU. The point is if we are to join, we will be doing it on our own terms



The state has a flag and anthem that aren't going anywhere. The nation has Irelands call. What we lack is an agreed flag for the nation, so we have this daft situation where there is a tricolour and an Ulster flag at rugby games. A new agreed flag would probably be worth having.

People like you make me sick. How can our interests be served being in that backward archaic institution? Nobody actually cares about it or gives it any credence. Why do people always wanna hang on the coat tails of Britain as if it will give us some sort of status?

[mypost]

Jaysus. Who said anything about serving the UKs interests. The only interests being discussed are our own.

There's no reason why we can't be in the commonwealth and EU.

There is a reason. We withdrew from it in 1949. Few of the other countries in it are EU provinces, like we are.

[Eminence Grise]

Tiocfaidh, take a chill pill if you're feeling discommoded. It's possible to explore the hypothetical desirability or otherwise of rejoining the Commonwealth without starting posts with "people like you make me sick" - antipathy to posters is contagious, you know. One moment you're feeling it, next you're a carrier...

As it happens, I think we have a very limited view of what the Commonwealth is about, and it has been made so by knee-jerk reactions to anything that threatens our sense of nationhood (without the nature of the threat being spelled out).

There's a lot of research over the last 20 years by historians that suggests our membership of the former British Commonwealth was what actually dragged it into the 20th century, and forced Britain to allow the dominions more authority eg Canada won the right to appoint a High Commissioner to Washington in about 1920, but didn't use the right until after the Free State appointed its HC around 1924. Free State passports from 1924 expunged the phrase "British Subject" from the cover - the Foreign Office was in consternation, but the Dominions Office simply accepted the decision. We need to seriously re-evaluate what we contributed to the Commonwealth and what it might contribute to us today before we resort to atavistic 1910s republicanism (with a deliberate lowercase r).

[backstothewall]

People like you make me sick. How can our interests be served being in that backward archaic institution? Nobody actually cares about it or gives it any credence. Why do people always wanna hang on the coat tails of Britain as if it will give us some sort of status?

Ignoring the insult...

It has got nothing to do with hanging on anyone's coat tails, to suggest that is symptomatic of the chip on the shoulder mentality that has held this country back for generations. This country should be bold enough to define itself positively, rather than by not being part of Britain.

Can you explain to me what a clearly independent nation would have to fear from rejoining the commonwealth, or becoming a commonwealth realm? To my eyes Canada, Australia and New Zealand are no less independent of Britain than former British colonies who have chosen not to be members such as ourselves, the USA and Egypt.

In my opinion OUR interests could be served by taking one or both of those steps, because it could unite all the people of this island in a positive way. Take the commonwealth games for example. From Bantry Bay to Ballycastle the people of this island love their sport. All those people getting behind the same team every four years, under a common flag and anthem would be hugely powerful in allowing unionists to embrace their Irishness. I live in a fairly unionist area of the North, and in the weeks following the rugby Grand Slam kids here started wearing the green for the first time. BOD and the lads did a hell of a lot in 6 and a bit hours of rugby to unite this country in the hearts and minds of all its people.

For me this is about ending partition as quickly as possible, with as little hassle as possible, whilst retaining our independence. I don't think the technicalities and constitutional niceties are terribly important if that can be done, as I believe partition is the biggest problem the Irish nation has faced every day since 07/12/1922, and the biggest problem it will face tomorrow morning. I mean, we could just wait about for 50% + 1 in the North, and then drag Unionism kicking and screaming into Pearce's 32 County Republic, but it has to be better to let unionism reclaim their Irishness over time, and reduce what separates us to the point that everyone simply agrees we would all be better of not paying for 2 of everything.

[mypost]

drag Unionism kicking and screaming into Pearce's 32 County Republic, but it has to be better to let unionism reclaim their Irishness over time, and reduce what separates us to the point that everyone simply agrees we would all be better of not paying for 2 of everything.

They don't want to be Irish, they wreck the Irish flag in July, want their own "anthem" in rugby and cricket sung for the Irish team, swear allegiance to the Queen, and pay her taxes, amongst other things. In short, they want nothing to do with Ireland, so my attitude is "leave them be".

[awec]

They don't want to be Irish, they wreck the Irish flag in July, want their own "anthem" in rugby and cricket sung for the Irish team, swear allegiance to the Queen, and pay her taxes, amongst other things. In short, they want nothing to do with Ireland, so my attitude is "leave them be".
What a terribly ill informed post. Everyone born in Northern Ireland is irish (and also british), the clue is in the name. Sure, some of the hard liners try to deny this but that's the way it is.

The rugby team is representative of 2 countries (under 1 rugby association), it's not actually that surprising that the other country would want their anthem sung if the team is playing north of the border. Personally I'm not bothered if it's sung or not.

Have to laugh at your "swear allegiance to the queen and pay her taxes" crap. What do you expect them to do? Every single person north of the border engage in tax evasion? Or do you just want everyone born up there to instantly move south of the border? I imagine the dail might have something to say about that.

It's people like you that give the irish a bad name, and it's people like you that are doing the most damage to the cause for an end to partition.

[mypost]

What a terribly ill informed post. Everyone born in Northern Ireland is irish (and also british), the clue is in the name. Sure, some of the hard liners try to deny this but that's the way it is.

The rugby team is representative of 2 countries (under 1 rugby association), it's not actually that surprising that the other country would want their anthem sung if the team is playing north of the border. Personally I'm not bothered if it's sung or not.

People who hang Union Jacks and sing anti-Irish songs at sports stadiums, are not doing things that Irish people do. People that desecrate the Irish flag every summer, and openly declare the rest of the year that they want nothing to do with Dublin or Ireland in general, are not Irish imo. I appreciate you see it differently, and technically there may be grounds to support your view, but that's what I think. I have made my point so I'll leave it at that.

[Macy]

People who hang Union Jacks and sing anti-Irish songs at sports stadiums, are not doing things that Irish people do. People that desecrate the Irish flag every summer, and openly declare the rest of the year that they want nothing to do with Dublin or Ireland in general, are not Irish imo.
Is that even a majority of people from unionist background? But sure what would us load a papist RA men know...

btw looking at the photo's of all the Union Flags from 1912 and the fawning over the queen by many just last week, there's an awful lot of non Irish people in this part of the island too.