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/i...-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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

[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!