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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Very cynical, Mypost. A Queen with advisors, whatever next?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin
I would make that distinction also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
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?
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.
Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
It's amazing what a friendly visit to Dublin can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/i...-interest-rate
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:Quote:
Oh they 'gave' us money did they? No they have us a loan with 6.7% fecking interest.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Its highly bizarre to blindly accept relics of feudalism merely because they are attached to 'a friendly nation'.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 if we didnt like the terms we didnt have to take the loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
900 years zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Bit of a generalisation there dahamsta.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I nether love nor hate the man, for me he's a local lad who did alright for himself.
Good on him.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani
Great post sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani
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.
Live from the Mall in Cork: :D
http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/.../302375914.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
There is this one loon advocating an Irish theocratic monarchy: http://irishmonarchism.blogspot.com/
See Iceland have been upgraded in the banking classifications, despite their people rejecting paying back Holland/Uk twice - funny thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
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 :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
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
who are you? Diarmuid MacMurrough? ;)
You're going to let us vote for the President? Cool! :D
Exactly, steady on boys - jeez people already talking about the commonwealth! Will be about changing the flag and anthem next!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I hate green so wouldn't mind a new flag....
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Euroepan Championships in France I think. Or it could be the Easter Resurrection.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by backtowalsall
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
Jaysus. Who said anything about serving the UKs interests. The only interests being discussed are our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
New flag, joining a commonwealth...meh! We may have our own Queen soon enough...
http://www.lisamcinerney.com/resources/David-Norris.jpg
;)
David Norris stroking a pussy? Now theres a first.
sorry... :o
Thats awful to be fair:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by backtowalsall
It's very charitable of you to leave it at just awful....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by backtowalsall
Sing the first line and a big roar at the end and you're grand.
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?
Know it off by heart was hammered into us in national school our teacher was a great gaeilgeoir.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec