Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

1…457910…13

Comments

  • #302
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    aDeener wrote: »
    no need for an apology :pac:

    i only pointed that out due to there being history between the bbc and rte where rte would refer to NI as the 6 counties and bbc to roi as the irish republic. really silly shite by both parties and i thought that it was all over and one with. thats all.

    From the sounds of it, both sub editors post on here... :D


  • #303
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    • There has to be a way to differ southern Ireland to northern Ireland.
    • Southern Ireland is a republic
    • Southern Ireland is Irish
    • Southern Irish is the Irish republic.
    • Northern Ireland is not a republic.
    • Do you always call the Ivory Coast Côte d'Ivoire? Or America the United States of America.
    • If not should you apologise to the nation?
    See my friend, simple logic. It's a pity even such basic things seem to be beyond nationalists.

    You were doing quite well with your logic right up until your last sentence. Then you completely ruined it all by a sweeping generalisation.


  • #304
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Kindly take the discussion of what the BBC calls this state to another thread (there's a "new thread" button, don't let it be a total stranger). Or another thread on the News/Media forum, though it could also belong on this forum. It's got sod-all to do with this topic.

    /mod


  • #305
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Mary McAleese has visited Britain on numerous occassions, so I personally think the Queen's visit the the ROI will be a good thing, finally lancing one of the great Irish Republican taboos since the creation of this state. I think the visit will finally signal the 'normalisation' of relations between these two great islands. There will always be some bone heads living in the dark & murky past, but thats to be expected, the rest of us can move on & welcome (or just accept) her visit.


  • #306
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Camelot wrote: »
    Mary McAleese has visited Britain on numerous occassions, so I personally think the Queen's visit the the ROI will be a good thing, finally lancing one of the great Irish Republican taboos since the creation of this state. I think the visit will finally signal the 'normalisation' of relations between these two great islands. There will always be some bone heads living in the dark & murky past, but thats to be expected, the rest of us can move on & welcome (or just accept) her visit.

    This is exactly the sweeping generalisation that ruins this sort of debate.

    There are a number of reasons to support or have reservations about this visit as its a complex relationship and amplified by the fact she is the chief of staff of the British army, who as you probably saw in the press have had a tough PR week in Ireland.

    Calling those with legitimate reservations 'boneheads' is childish and helps no-one. As does calling those who support it 'west brits'.

    At utterly pointless contribution camelot.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    I have no problem with this visit, like I have no problem with other state visits of other European Monarchs to Ireland. However like the rest of the other monarchs (or elected leaders) who might come to visit I won't be running out to welcome Queen Elizabeth II. (I am just too grown up/mature to be waving a flag, most countries have enough nationalist without me joining with them).


  • #308
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    This is exactly the sweeping generalisation that ruins this sort of debate.
    I don't think so.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    There are a number of reasons to support or have reservations about this visit as its a complex relationship and amplified by the fact she is the chief of staff of the British army, who as you probably saw in the press have had a tough PR week in Ireland.
    Obama is the head of the American armed forces. Should he not be allowed to come either?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Calling those with legitimate reservations 'boneheads' is childish and helps no-one. As does calling those who support it 'west brits'.
    There are no legitimate reasons for opposing her visit.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    At utterly pointless contribution camelot.
    Ditto to you.


  • #309
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    This is exactly the sweeping generalisation that ruins this sort of debate.

    There are a number of reasons to support or have reservations about this visit as its a complex relationship and amplified by the fact she is the chief of staff of the British army, who as you probably saw in the press have had a tough PR week in Ireland.

    Calling those with legitimate reservations 'boneheads' is childish and helps no-one. As does calling those who support it 'west brits'.

    At utterly pointless contribution camelot.

    What were the Love Ulster protesters if not boneheads:

    guardonfirecrop400.jpg

    dublin.jpg

    There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not.


  • #310
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't think so.

    Then you are a west brit.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Obama is the head of the American armed forces. Should he not be allowed to come either?

    Are US soldiers stationed in Ireland? Did they issue an apology for a massacre of Irish citizens a few weeks ago? Are the US blocking an investigation into the murder of Irish citizens by US forces?

    Hardly the same thing, is it.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    There are no legitimate reasons for opposing her visit.

    Says you....


  • #311
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    This is exactly the sweeping generalisation that ruins this sort of debate.

    There are a number of reasons to support or have reservations about this visit as its a complex relationship and amplified by the fact she is the chief of staff of the British army, who as you probably saw in the press have had a tough PR week in Ireland.

    Calling those with legitimate reservations 'boneheads' is childish and helps no-one. As does calling those who support it 'west brits'.

    At utterly pointless contribution camelot.

    Ah yes, "my contribution is utterly pointless", whereas yours is somehow legit :rolleyes:
    This is exactly the sweeping 'put-down' that ruins this sort of debate. High horse, Piety, & hypocrisy are four words that come to mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    rovert wrote: »
    What were the Love Ulster protesters if not boneheads:



    There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not.

    There is a difference between protesting and rioting, and as it happens I fundamentally agree that the Love Ulster crowd are poisionous bigots who wanted to commemorate a man who killed 33 people in Dublin and those who protested were quite justified. They cannot march in Belfast for a reason.

    The rioting is a different story.


  • #313
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Camelot wrote: »
    Ah yes, "my contribution is utterly pointless", whereas yours is somehow legit :rolleyes:
    This is exactly the sweeping 'put-down' that ruins this sort of debate. High horse, Piety, & hypocrisy are four words that come to mind.

    You are the one calling people with opposing view points 'boneheads'.

    There is a legitmate debate here without you talking down to people with an opposing view.


  • #314
    RachPie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 244 ✭✭RachPie


    Is it going to affect my life in any way, shape or form? No. It'll be live any other person visiting the coutry, cept we'll hear about it in the headlines. If anything, it's a good thing. Shows things are progressing. She can't help being related to her ancestors, if you know what I mean.


  • #315
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    You are the one calling people with opposing view points 'boneheads'.

    NO, and I am sorry if it came across that way, the boneheads I refer to are people like Martin Ferris, and others who are not only opposed (thats their right), but who wish to verbally birate those who wish Her Maj to visit! I actually heard Ferris on the radio the other day, and he listed off all kinds of murderous accusations against "The British" and "The British Monarchy", this in your face hypocrasy has no place in a decade that is trying to heal old wounds between these two islands. There will be those 'boneheads' who will try and make a (physical) point against the visit, and I think thats a shame > surely we have all moved on.

    If Mary McAleese can make a state Visit to Britain, then surely the Queen can visit here?


  • #316
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    There is a difference between protesting and rioting, and as it happens I fundamentally agree that the Love Ulster crowd are poisionous bigots who wanted to commemorate a man who killed 33 people in Dublin and those who protested were quite justified. They cannot march in Belfast for a reason.

    The rioting is a different story.

    "West Brits" dont riot in Soccer jerseys


  • #317
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    There are no legitimate reasons for opposing her visit.

    Indeed there is not. If the Irish people genuinely had a beef with the British over the behaviour in the past or if we were semi-serious in our silly claim to the Northern state, then we could have individually and collectively refrained from embracing their culture and engaging with them economically. But we didn’t. We devoured their culture, more so than the culture of any other country and we made them our most important trading partner. And we were quite happy to have a place to go and earn a living when there was nothing in our own country for us. It is utterly ridiculous in that context to be articulating an objection to their head of state visiting, especially when we routinely meet the real political leaders of Britain on a regular basis.
    Many of the spurious objections that are routinely trotted out (e.g. the sectarian, undemocratic nature of the British head of state, the cost!!! etc.) can be readily rebutted by pointing out that the same argument would apply to other visiting monarchs. The truth is that the basis for much (perhaps not all) of the objections are rooted in good bad old fashioned anti-Englishness.


  • #318
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Two options:

    1. Take your hand-bagging elsewhere.

    2. Have me remove your hand-bagging and you from the forum.

    I don't particularly mind which you choose.

    (that's aimed at ONYD and Camelot btw, there's since been some clarification above so I strongly advise both of you to move in with the actual topic)

    /mod


  • #319
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    rovert wrote: »
    "West Brits" dont riot in Soccer jerseys

    Bohs fans do


  • #320
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Camelot wrote: »
    NO, and I am sorry if it came across that way, the boneheads I refer to are people like Martin Ferris, and others who are not only opposed (thats their right), but who wish to verbally birate those who wish Her Maj to visit! I actually heard Ferris on the radio the other day, and he listed off all kinds of murderous accusations against "The British" and "The British Monarchy", this in your face hypocrasy has no place in a decade that is trying to heal old wounds between these two islands.

    PSF will support this visit


  • #321
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    lugha wrote: »
    Indeed there is not. If the Irish people genuinely had a beef with the British over the behaviour in the past or if we were semi-serious in our silly claim to the Northern state, then we could have individually and collectively refrained from embracing their culture and engaging with them economically. But we didn’t. We devoured their culture, more so than the culture of any other country and we made them our most important trading partner. And we were quite happy to have a place to go and earn a living when there was nothing in our own country for us. It is utterly ridiculous in that context to be articulating an objection to their head of state visiting, especially when we routinely meet the real political leaders of Britain on a regular basis.
    Many of the spurious objections that are routinely trotted out (e.g. the sectarian, undemocratic nature of the British head of state, the cost!!! etc.) can be readily rebutted by pointing out that the same argument would apply to other visiting monarchs. The truth is that the basis for much (perhaps not all) of the objections are rooted in good bad old fashioned anti-Englishness.

    Great post, well put


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    rovert wrote: »
    There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not.

    Oh yeh, the non-national republicans who were arrested for rioting that day ruined any cause.

    By the way, I wouldn't trust the Gardai to control any public event like the proposed visit as they abjectly failed in 2006 and fail every day to win the streets of the city centre back from junkies, scum and aggressive beggars.


  • #323
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Camelot wrote: »

    If Mary McAleese can make a state Visit to Britain, then surely the Queen can visit here?

    Again, this inane two sides of the coin argument.

    Does the Irish military have the same previous in regards to murdering British citizens? Does the military she is head of occupy part of the UK?

    Completly different context.


  • #324
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Then you are a west brit.
    Nope. I'm a catholic Irish citizen.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Are US soldiers stationed in Ireland? Did they issue an apology for a massacre of Irish citizens a few weeks ago? Are the US blocking an investigation into the murder of Irish citizens by US forces?
    1. There are no British soldiers stationed in Ireland. The official name of southern Ireland after all is Ireland. They are stationed in northern Ireland though. But that is a country of the U.K so that's no big surprise.
    2. No they didn't. But you would think the British apology for the killings would have helped to heal a few scars. I consider the matter over now after the reigning prime minister apologized on behalf of the British military and indeed Britain as a whole. Perhaps you should also move on? Holding a vitriolic grudge is bad for your health.
    3. I presume you mean the Saville report? In that case they didn't block the report. It was released last week.
    4. None of these are reasons why The Queen shouldn't visit.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Hardly the same thing, is it.
    Yes, it is.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Says you....
    ....And yet you haven't proven me wrong.


  • #325
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nope. I'm a catholic Irish citizen.

    My point being you objected to me saying the use of west brit is inflammitory and pointless. So why are you objecting to being called it.
    1. There are no British soldiers stationed in Ireland. The official name of southern Ireland after all is Ireland. They are stationed in northern Ireland though. But that is a country of the U.K so that's no big surprise.

    Are you for real? Belfast isn't in Ireland?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    [*]No they didn't. But you would think the British apology for the killings would have helped to heal a few scars. I consider the matter over now after the reigning prime minister apologized on behalf of the British military and indeed Britain as a whole. Perhaps you should also move on? Holding a vitriolic grudge is bad for your health.

    I'm not holding a grudge. I'm saying she has been chief of staff of the British military for the whole of the troubles and never once commented on atrocities done in her name by crown forces or loyalists. Thats why I am opposed to this peace and love bull that this woman is just another head of state.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes, it is.


    Yes, the historical narrative between Ireland and the US is the same as between Ireland and Britain... Give me strength


  • #326
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    My point being you objected to me saying the use of west brit is inflammitory and pointless. So why are you objecting to being called it.
    Because as you say yourself it is inflammitory and pointless.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Are you for real? Belfast isn't in Ireland?
    Belfast is on the Island of Ireland, however according to the constitution, Bunreacht Na hEreann, the official name of the state Ireland. That obviously does not include territory outside the state, namely northern Ireland. Which is part of the U.K.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    I'm not holding a grudge. I'm saying she has been chief of staff of the British military for the whole of the troubles and never once commented on atrocities done in her name by crown forces or loyalists. Thats why I am opposed to this peace and love bull that this woman is just another head of state.
    The Queen has no active power over the military. She could not have stopped bloody sunday even if she wanted to. What's more the current British Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British military and State. You really need to move on.

    In the famous words of John Lennon, "Give peace a chance".
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Yes, the historical narrative between Ireland and the US is the same as between Ireland and Britain... Give me strength
    I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about today. The history is in the past and the people of both our islands deserve the chance of a fresh start and lasting peace. Opposing The Queens visit will not help us achieve that.


  • #327
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Queen Elizabeth has been invited here to the Republic by the President, and/or the Taoiseach, so I ask you OhNoYouDidn't "what would be the conditions whereby you would agree to her visit"? What would be your pre-conditions for allowing Her Maj to set foot in the Republic?

    Curious.


  • #328
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What's more the current British Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British military and State.

    For one incident. Another 150+ to go! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055946134


  • #329
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    gurramok wrote: »
    For one incident. Another 150+ to go! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055946134
    Just as soon as McGuinness apologises for all the soldiers killed.


  • #330
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because as you say yourself it is inflammitory and pointless..

    So why did you disagree with me.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Belfast is on the Island of Ireland, however according to the constitution, Bunreacht Na hEreann, the official name of the state Ireland. That obviously does not include territory outside the state, namely northern Ireland. Which is part of the U.K..

    So in short, you are contradicting yourself....

    Articles 2 and 3 chief - we still have a claim over the whole island.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The Queen has no active power over the military. She could not have stopped bloody sunday even if she wanted to. What's more the current British Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British military and State. You really need to move on..

    So you don't find it odd that Mrs Winsdor has never once condemned the violence carried out in her name?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In the famous words of John Lennon, "Give peace a chance"..

    Grow up.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about today. The history is in the past and the people of both our islands deserve the chance of a fresh start and lasting peace. Opposing The Queens visit will not help us achieve that.

    So now those with reservations are foaming at the mouths to get back to having a blatter at the Brits? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Just as soon as McGuinness apologises for all the soldiers killed.

    the IRA apologised in 2002.

    can the EU step in and say 'I don't care who started it, play nice'


  • #332
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »



    So in short, you are contradicting yourself....

    Articles 2 and 3 chief - we still have a claim over the whole island.


    um. we gave that up 11 years ago


  • #333
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Camelot wrote: »
    Queen Elizabeth has been invited here to the Republic by the President, and/or the Taoiseach, so I ask you OhNoYouDidn't "what would be the conditions whereby you would agree to her visit"? What would be your pre-conditions for allowing Her Maj to set foot in the Republic?

    Curious.

    I don't 'disagree' with her visit, and as you say she has been invited.

    I simply object to the narrative that she is just another head of state over for tea and buns in the Park. I also cringe at the hysteria that we are mature/immature as a nation depending on the level of a kick off that happens.

    There is a serious amount of unfinished business between the Irish state and the organisation she is head of in the British military and I would like to see some form laedership from her to compel agencies under her control to assist with the legal investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings being taken by the Irish state and the British investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane that has stalled because documents are being supressed.


  • #334
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    sensibleken wrote: »
    um. we gave that up 11 years ago

    We conditionally amended the wording. The claim is still there.


  • #335
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    sensibleken wrote: »
    um. we gave that up 11 years ago
    I was waiting for someone to fall into that trap.


  • #336
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    We conditionally amended the wording. The claim is still there.
    In your opinion. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of other people in Ireland (island or state), we gave up our claim that the 'national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland' and replaced it with some wishy-washy stuff about nationhood, peace, lollipops, rainbows and fluffy bunnies.

    But let's not get into a pedantic debate on the finer points of the constitution. I don't think Lizzy's all that bothered one way or another.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    We conditionally amended the wording. The claim is still there.

    I don't think so dude. It pretty much claims that a united ireland would be nice and we want one. Its not saying the counties our actually ours. Much like i would like big fancy house, but i dont claim ownership of any


  • #338
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    sensibleken wrote: »
    I don't think so dude. It pretty much claims that a united ireland would be nice and we want one. Its not saying the counties our actually ours. Much like i would like big fancy house, but i dont claim ownership of any

    Which is a claim...

    If the GFA collapses, we revert to the old wording.


  • #339
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Which is a claim...

    If the GFA collapses, we revert to the old wording.

    No a 'claim' in legal jargon is declaration of ownership. The Republic of Ireland no longer holds any such claim over Northern Ireland.


  • #340
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    So why did you disagree with me.
    When? Do you mean this quote?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    This is exactly the sweeping generalisation that ruins this sort of debate.
    Yeah, I mis-quoted that. I was actually wondering what you were talking about untill I looked back.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    So in short, you are contradicting yourself....

    Articles 2 and 3 chief - we still have a claim over the whole island.
    No we don't. Article two of the constitution.:
    Bunreacht Na hEireann wrote:
    It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
    Since it differs between the Irish nation and the Island of Ireland it is obvious they consider it a different thing. Also if we look at article three:
    Bunreacht Na hEireann wrote:
    It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
    Because it says that a United Ireland will only be brought about democratically they recognise they have no claim over the North.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    So you don't find it odd that Mrs Winsdor has never once condemned the violence carried out in her name?
    Not her place to do so. She has no power over the armed forces or the day to day running of her country.

    And she isn't a Mrs, Mrs refers any married women without a title. The Queen has many titles.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Grow up.
    What's your definition of growing up?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    So now those with reservations are foaming at the mouths to get back to having a blatter at the Brits? :rolleyes:
    I didn't say that, I said opposing The Queen's visit will not help us achieve lasting peace.


  • #341
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Which is a claim...

    If the GFA collapses, we revert to the old wording.

    no. saying you want something and saying you own something are really quite different indeed.

    also if the gfa colapses we do not revert to any old wording. the old articles were deleted and it will take another referendum to change it again. considering 94% of the electorate voted for the amendment i doubt there will be one.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Which is a claim...

    If the GFA collapses, we revert to the old wording.

    No we don't and if we wanted to go back to the old wording we would have to hold another referendum.


  • #343
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    sensibleken wrote: »
    no. saying you want something and saying you own something are really quite different indeed.

    also if the gfa colapses we do not revert to any old wording. the old articles were deleted and it will take another referendum to change it again. considering 94% of the electorate voted for the amendment i doubt there will be one.

    You are wrong... Check the wording of the question put to the electorate in 98. It went that subject to the continuation of the GFA (or whatever its legal title was) the following two articles be replaced with this wording.

    It was made very clear at the time that if Stormont collapses like it did in the 70's, so did our part of the bargain. Which is one of the reasons the DUPdidn't pull it down when they had a chance.


  • #344
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    You are wrong... Check the wording of the question put to the electorate in 98. It went that subject to the continuation of the GFA (or whatever its legal title was) the following two articles be replaced with this wording.

    It was made very clear at the time that if Stormont collapses like it did in the 70's, so did our part of the bargain. Which is one of the reasons the DUPdidn't pull it down when they had a chance.

    if the agreement fell apart before it was due to come into effect. basically we voted on this before the GFA was officially declared in place. So we amended articles 29 to say

    If such a declaration is not made within twelve months of this section being added to this Constitution or such longer period as may be provided for by law, this section shall cease to have effect and shall be omitted from every official text of this Constitution published thereafter.

    basically if the GFA did not come into effect 12 months after it was signed we would not amend 2 & 3. We then amended them in 1999 once GFA was established.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


  • #345
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    sensibleken wrote: »
    if the agreement fell apart before it was due to come into effect. basically we voted on this before the GFA was officially declared in place. So we amended articles 29 to say

    If such a declaration is not made within twelve months of this section being added to this Constitution or such longer period as may be provided for by law, this section shall cease to have effect and shall be omitted from every official text of this Constitution published thereafter.

    basically if the GFA did not come into effect 12 months after it was signed we would not amend 2 & 3. We then amended them in 1999 once GFA was established.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


    Missed the key bit there mate. The Dail extend it by a year every year.


  • #346
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because as you say yourself it is inflammitory and pointless.


    Belfast is on the Island of Ireland, however according to the constitution, Bunreacht Na hEreann, the official name of the state Ireland. That obviously does not include territory outside the state, namely northern Ireland. Which is part of the U.K.


    The Queen has no active power over the military. She could not have stopped bloody sunday even if she wanted to. What's more the current British Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British military and State. You really need to move on.

    In the famous words of John Lennon, "Give peace a chance".


    I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about today. The history is in the past and the people of both our islands deserve the chance of a fresh start and lasting peace. Opposing The Queens visit will not help us achieve that.

    whilst you do have many valid points, using john lennon to enhance your view in this particular topic is not the wisest considering:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVp7lkH10Gc


  • #347
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    rovert wrote: »
    What were the Love Ulster protesters if not boneheads:

    guardonfirecrop400.jpg

    dublin.jpg

    There is a public image problem with the "nationalist" movement like it or not.

    just because there is an image, does not mean it applies to all nationalists.
    there is an image out there that all black people love fried chicken, does not mean its true....

    i dont think anyone would deny that those who rioted are "boneheads" (although it is a silly term)


  • #348
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Missed the key bit there mate. The Dail extend it by a year every year.

    do you have a source for that. are you saying article 2 still says

    'The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.'

    Maybe we are getting slightly off topic. Unless the arguement for not welcoming the Queen is predicated on article 2 & 3, however i'll leave that up to the mods

    http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng).htm


  • #349
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    aDeener wrote: »
    whilst you do have many valid points, using john lennon to enhance your view in this particular topic is not the wisest considering:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVp7lkH10Gc
    Haha, I didn't even know he wrote that song. Regardless my JL quote was only tongue in cheek.


  • #350
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    aDeener wrote: »
    just because there is an image, does not mean it applies to all nationalists.
    there is an image out there that all black people love fried chicken, does not mean its true....

    i dont think anyone would deny that those who rioted are "boneheads" (although it is a silly term)

    I think most people who associate those images more than peaceful protests with nationalist movement.


  • #351
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    NI Policing & Justice was meant to be the Big Obstacle to the Queen's visit, then it was the Bloody Sunday report, but both of these stumbling blocks have now been addressed to most peoples satisfaction. There are no obstacles left to the Queens visit, (Mrs McAleese & Mr Cowan know this), hence the invitation for QEII to visit here next year.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement