Seems Lizzy's on the way...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19/05/2011, 3:32 AM
SkStu

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBoss

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lad in the Celtic top. I think this picture sums it up.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...42_634x379.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by awec

Protestors love a bit of irony :

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OvD7y01ozn...+RSF+style.jpg

or else the best football jersey related ambush marketing since Larissa Riquelme.

Carling - laughing all the way to the bank! ;)
19/05/2011, 6:07 AM
mypost

Quote:

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

I thought about Queen Elizabeth's visit earlier today and came to the realisation that it actually has been a great success and that we should have done this sooner and here's why:
We got to show that we're willing to move beyond our history and create a better future in terms of our relationship with Britain by welcoming the Queen with open arms, which is important...but we also got to put her through one heck of a guilt-trip!

It's been an ego trip for McAleese, it's been journo heaven for the press, it's done the Irish Government no harm.

For a lot of the rest of us, it's been a nightmare, it's cost us an enormous amount of money and manpower, not to mention inconvenience. I didn't want her in the first place, and never want to see her here again.

We'll always have our history against the Brits, that hasn't been eradicated by an 86-year old oul' wan turning up. It never will be.
19/05/2011, 7:40 AM
BonnieShels

Ah come on...
19/05/2011, 9:21 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Ah come on...

I agree with a sentence of that - I don't think they were honest about the disruption. They should've at least organised this for over the weekend, rather than disprupt people trying to go to work or go about business. Now whether that's the Brits, or a total overreaction by the cops, I don't know. I've no idea why they see the need to reduce the N7 to 2 lanes hours before she's even due to pass through, for example.
19/05/2011, 9:25 AM
BonnieShels

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

I agree with a sentence of that - I don't think they were honest about the disruption. They should've at least organised this for over the weekend, rather than disprupt people trying to go to work or go about business. Now whether that's the Brits, or a total overreaction by the cops, I don't know. I've no idea why they see the need to reduce the N7 to 2 lanes hours before she's even due to pass through, for example.

I'm with you to an extent there Macy. But there's an air of begrudgery about his initial statement.

I think the security services may have over reacted however its better safe than sorry.
19/05/2011, 9:43 AM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

For a lot of the rest of us, it's been a nightmare, it's cost us an enormous amount of money and manpower, not to mention inconvenience.

Absolutely -and that was just to SEND an act to Eurovision. Imagine what hosting it would be like?

Oh sorry ...wrong thread.
19/05/2011, 9:43 AM
dahamsta

I remain delighted that she came, I think it shows great reconciliation. If I was going to highlight anyone for acting immaturely or insensitively, it would be Sinn F�in and those Eirigi spastics. And you can hardly blame the queen for the inability of Irish governments to organise a **** up in a brewery.

On a less political note, does anyone know where I can get my hands on a pack of the bright blue bin bags McAleese was wearing? I think they'd really bring some punch to my wheelie bin.

Speaking of punches, I reckon the baldy close protection guy on the right as they came into the Mansion House could've taken the entire room Jason Statham-style and walked away without a scratch. He was like 3 SAS guys rolled into one.
19/05/2011, 9:59 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

I'm with you to an extent there Macy. But there's an air of begrudgery about his initial statement.

I think the security services may have over reacted however its better safe than sorry.

Well it was only the statement about cost, manpower and inconvenience I was supporting. I was stuck on the Naas road this morning, with a completely empty lane coned off, and about 10 bike cops clear a path through the bumper to bumper traffic for feckin horse box! Horses are more important than the citizens of the bloody state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

If I was going to highlight anyone for acting immaturely or insensitively, it would be Sinn F�in and those Eirigi spastics. And you can hardly blame the queen for the inability of Irish governments to organise a **** up in a brewery.

Wouldn't have seen too much wrong with the shinners stance, or Eirigi tbh. As far as I'm aware, it's been the even more extreme "Republican" groups protests that have ended in trouble, rather than eirigi ones which have apparently been properly stewarded. It's perfectly legitimate to abstain, and/or protest this visit. The SF stance more akin to the majority view of "meh" regarding the visit (which would, disruption aside, be my own view).

I'm totally embarassed by the media's collective fawning over the visit, however. If we'd been given Home Rule would we even be independent now, given how easily some have slipped back into Union Flag waving mode?
19/05/2011, 11:22 AM
Eminence Grise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

Horses are more important than the citizens of the bloody state.

Yeah, but when we can charge up to 20-40k to cover a female of the species, then we'll have equality with the equines!
19/05/2011, 12:34 PM
Wolfie

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

For a lot of the rest of us, it's been a nightmare, it's cost us an enormous amount of money..........

Britain can take it out of that 3 Billion they recently gave us to help keep the entire country afloat, eh???
19/05/2011, 12:35 PM
Rasputin

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

Neither the elected UK parliament nor the people would choose to get rid of the monarchy, therefore it's understood that they choose to have a monarchy. Any referendum on the issue would be a foregone conclusion.

No no they dont and never have chosen to have a monarchy, that is the point of monarchy, you DONT get a choice.
How difficult is that to comprehend?
Using the democratic will of the people to endorse the monarchy, ohh the irony.
19/05/2011, 12:38 PM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

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

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?
19/05/2011, 12:52 PM
peadar1987

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasputin

No no they dont and never have chosen to have a monarchy, that is the point of monarchy, you DONT get a choice.
How difficult is that to comprehend?
Using the democratic will of the people to endorse the monarchy, ohh the irony.

There's no functional difference between the situation they have now, and the situation they would be in if they had a referendum on the monarchy, and the population voted resoundingly to keep it, as all metrics indicate that they would.
19/05/2011, 12:53 PM
Eminence Grise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasputin

No no they dont and never have chosen to have a monarchy, that is the point of monarchy, you DONT get a choice.
How difficult is that to comprehend?
Using the democratic will of the people to endorse the monarchy, ohh the irony.

So remind us again, how did the British republic work out? An absolute monarch deposed for an absolute Lord Protector, deposed for a constitutional monarch. It suggests a choice at some point in British history.
19/05/2011, 4:05 PM
Rasputin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peadar1987

There's no functional difference between the situation they have now, and the situation they would be in if they had a referendum on the monarchy, and the population voted resoundingly to keep it, as all metrics indicate that they would.

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.
19/05/2011, 4:07 PM
Rasputin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

So remind us again, how did the British republic work out? An absolute monarch deposed for an absolute Lord Protector, deposed for a constitutional monarch. It suggests a choice at some point in British history.

I dont see choice, just political power play at the highest levels of British society.
Yet again the British people have never had a choice on "their" monarchy.
19/05/2011, 5:10 PM
bennocelt

Quote:

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

We got to show that we're willing to move beyond our history and create a better future in terms of our relationship with Britain by welcoming the Queen with open arms, which is important...but we also got to put her through one heck of a guilt-trip!:

Agree with most of what u said but can it really be looked on as open arms when the general public have been mostly shut out within sight of the Queen? I wouldnt be too sure of that "maturity" that the press keep going on about
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 has been impressive.
Its just a pity that it cost so much, and that fool Mcaleese's ego must be massive at this stage.
19/05/2011, 5:16 PM
bennocelt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

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

A loan with some juicy interest?:(
19/05/2011, 6:32 PM
mypost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

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

It's not to keep the country afloat, but even if it was, it's mere pocket money to them.
19/05/2011, 8:15 PM
Eminence Grise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasputin

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.

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page