Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 6:35pm

Richard wrote: »

Was Ireland?

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Fighting for at, minimum, Home Rule 1878 (Butt) to 1914 (Not complete separation but the nearest Constitutional effort - still sought a continued link with the Union)

Ah, you trying to be smart of course, suggesting that meant 150 years continuous ? Or getting nose out of joint that it's not 150 years exactly? Or maybe to will try to suggest that not every man woman and child picked up a gun , ignoring that they voted a certain way. Nice Try dear boy.

Anyway, my last statements are merely in response to others and / or replies to questions/points directed at me. Posters have referred to facts being "obvious" yet failed, entirely to support those statements

I am sure it would be fair to suggest we all deal with more modern issues regarding the pro's and con's of joining the Commonwealth?

Yours Lovingly

alastair · 25-04-2014 6:42pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Scousers? Not repeatable here. Too many sensitive souls

I have been the one that has demanded the posters to explain the "obvious" cultural identities of Scots/Welsh. Why should I help those people who make those bland comments?

No one is suggesting that a Cardiff guys acts or thinks different to a Glasgow guy; whether attitudes to life, politics, view of the Union etc......

Their Nationality and citizenship is British. No passport is going to say that they are Welsh / Scot (bar state place of birth) That is the point being made not only by me but by the original poster who kicked off the sub issue.

It concludes by pointing out how utterly laughable it is to compare Scots/Welsh and the Irish, in relation to links with the Union.

Alas, the points went over the heads , and we have people waffling about "obvious" identities - yet not trying to give Specific and general examples

So - afraid to answer a simple question. Not particularly convincing attempt at dissembling either.

Different languages
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 7:01pm

alastair wrote: »

So - afraid to answer a simple question. Not particularly convincing attempt at dissembling either.

Different languages
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

I dealt with all of that actually. Read back!

Rugby is hardly distinctive and unheard of in England or Scotland (or France or New Zealand) and also could be considered a national sport of their areas, as much as it is for Welsh, admit tingly, the latter play more of it. Soccer, ha, only because of their historical background and role in establishing Association Football, does FIFA tolerate 3/4 British teams to act as International Teams.

No matter what way you put it, the monarch of Wales and Scotland, will, unless some abdication crisis ala Dev's exploitation of same, is the same family, from the same part of England .Many of the laws that are passed in England have the same territorial effect in Wales and Scotland , as were assented by the Head of the UK

So, the Church of Scotland or Church of Wales, or other various Protestant Churches or Catholic Church in Scotland / Wales much different , in beliefs as in England? One more Catholic than the other? Does religion truly play a bigger role in their respective societies as oppose to the other?

Music, you know damn well that the British Tourist board tries to package it as being British. After all, these 3 regions are ONE NATION. Anyway, just as well as you don't refer to modern music or you would be going way off the wall, lol.

Political structures, as I already said, the Scottish and Wales Assemblies, like the North, are glorified county councils! Westminster still dictates and control the more important issues. Each area sends members to Westminster House of Commons. Labour and Conservatives have for a very long time dominated both areas of Wales and Scotland. Their respective leaders are based in England. (though they may personally be Scots or Welsh) Oath of Allegiances are still sworn to the Crown, they are all, ultimately answerable to the Crown(s) - completely different to the South of Ireland (Read back, I dealt with this point already - no response thereafter from you or others)

Cultural Touchstones, I see where you are coming from, but, why should I spell it out for you, care to provide some distinct examples of Scottish , Welsh and English "cultural touchstones"?

Funny now, since you quoted the "try harder" comment, you don't give a bash in providing evidence that joining the Commonwealth is a "no brainer" or definite economic benefit to Ireland , as your friend has tried to do. After all, the comment "try harder" is in response to the suggestion that joining would be a "no brainer" .....

alastair · 26-04-2014 10:13am

walrusgumble wrote: »

I dealt with all of that actually. Read back!

Rugby is hardly distinctive and unheard of in England or Scotland (or France or New Zealand) and also could be considered a national sport of their areas, as much as it is for Welsh, admit tingly, the latter play more of it. Soccer, ha, only because of their historical background and role in establishing Association Football, does FIFA tolerate 3/4 British teams to act as International Teams.

No matter what way you put it, the monarch of Wales and Scotland, will, unless some abdication crisis ala Dev's exploitation of same, is the same family, from the same part of England .Many of the laws that are passed in England have the same territorial effect in Wales and Scotland , as were assented by the Head of the UK

So, the Church of Scotland or Church of Wales, or other various Protestant Churches or Catholic Church in Scotland / Wales much different , in beliefs as in England? One more Catholic than the other? Does religion truly play a bigger role in their respective societies as oppose to the other?

Music, you know damn well that the British Tourist board tries to package it as being British. After all, these 3 regions are ONE NATION. Anyway, just as well as you don't refer to modern music or you would be going way off the wall, lol.

Political structures, as I already said, the Scottish and Wales Assemblies, like the North, are glorified county councils! Westminster still dictates and control the more important issues. Each area sends members to Westminster House of Commons. Labour and Conservatives have for a very long time dominated both areas of Wales and Scotland. Their respective leaders are based in England. (though they may personally be Scots or Welsh) Oath of Allegiances are still sworn to the Crown, they are all, ultimately answerable to the Crown(s) - completely different to the South of Ireland (Read back, I dealt with this point already - no response thereafter from you or others)

Cultural Touchstones, I see where you are coming from, but, why should I spell it out for you, care to provide some distinct examples of Scottish , Welsh and English "cultural touchstones"?

Funny now, since you quoted the "try harder" comment, you don't give a bash in providing evidence that joining the Commonwealth is a "no brainer" or definite economic benefit to Ireland , as your friend has tried to do. After all, the comment "try harder" is in response to the suggestion that joining would be a "no brainer" .....

You didn't 'deal' with those points at all - you attempted some half-baked dissembling. The points stand for anyone who isn't blind to the realities.

And still afraid to acknowledge the national identification issue?

Sad really.

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:09pm

alastair wrote: »

Again: they have different monarchical traditions. I'm not disputing they share the same monarch at the moment, same as Canadians and Australians do (are they all the same nationality then?)

And again, you seem to have missed this:

Australia and Canadia are indisputably Nations, in their own right. Little if any of the Laws of Westminister or House Of Coomons/Supreme Court have any binding effect on the said countries. Their people are citizens of their respective countries.They hold passports of their countries. Their association with Britian concerns external affairs not. Domestic

The same can not be said about Scotland or Wales. Unlike Australia and Co, Scotland and Wales are part of a nation called , United Kingdom of Great Brtain (ie England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. A Scot is NOT a citizen of Scotland, they are SUBJECTS of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Both Scotland n Wales don't hold passports of their own "country", neither are they completely free ,(outside EU law) to legislate without some direction from London

This is getting utterly ridiculous. Now you are comparing Australia n Canada to Scotland and Wales. STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:12pm

alastair wrote: »

Quite a large African market within the Commonwealth though, and don't we already compete successfully with NZ on the agribusiness front - half a world away?

Why haven't Britain tapped into it so? I have shown links already, no African nation comes within Britians top 5 trading partners. None of the commonwealth's do bar Canada.

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:19pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A Scot is NOT a citizen of Scotland, they are SUBJECTS of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:29pm

alastair wrote: »

You didn't 'deal' with those points at all - you attempted some half-baked dissembling. The points stand for anyone who isn't blind to the realities.

And still afraid to acknowledge the national identification issue?

Sad really.

Sadder when posters can't deal with reading and comprehension well.

All of those issues have been addressed in full in several posts. Read back and stop trolling.

TheIR point was not a lack of national identity the point was whether there was "obvious" national identity. It is laughable that you waffle on,considering at no stage have you attempted to state clear, precise, and actual "obvious' national identities of the 3 areas that make up Great Britian. The differences with Scotland,Wales n England, though not huge, makes up a Nation, that nation is called Great Britian. All are subjects to that nation, not citizens of subjects to Scotland,Wales,England.

The second point and issue, is the nonsensical notion of (a) comparing Scotland and Wales with Ireland, an independent and sovereign nation and one that has had an utterly different relationship with England. And. (b) now, comparing Scotland and Wales with other commonwealth countries like Australia, who,like Ireland, are de facto independent countries

The further issue was to address association with the commonwealth as a "no brainer" economically. Rely on a faulty source, and not even reading it in full and utterly failing to prove proofs of why,economically, it is a "no brainer" - while you did not state that, you preferred to quote statements made by me on that issue, thus, you were invited, but refused, to deal with that.

Bland comments like "obvious" and "no brainer" have been bandied about ,yet absolute no effort was made by you or others to substantiate them. And you have the nerve to waffle on about half baked ideas?

It is patently clear that there is little desire to associate with the Commonwealth, from this country's point of view. Tha same arguments of economic benefits have been made with little support (ie ability to achieve that as we are compared to joining) this topic has been dealt with several times over the last few years on this site,by the usal minority types. It is blatant trolling, when they fail and refuse to actually address their comments.it aint for others to hold their hands

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:38pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Mother of god, of course it refers to the area of birth. All passports, birth certs refer to the place of birth.

Have a big look at the front of the passport! Any Scottish Embassies around the world? No, but there are British Embassies.

A Scot is not a citizen! They are subjects, subjects of the crown, the crown of UK of GB and NI. Britian Aint a Republic.not citizens or subjects to " Scotland" but to "UK of GB and ni"

Scotland have no legislation that allows them recognise who can be a citizen of their area. That is made in London.

Afraid? Why don't you accept it, you can't read, understand or actually support what you are saying. Move on and stop trolling. Even the Olympics, a Scot does not have the flow of Scotland or St Andrew's flag, they have God Save the Queen n Union Jack (which does include St Andrew's) so to the outsider, its hardly "obvious" proof of separate identity

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:40pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

TheIR point was not a lack of national identity the point was whether there was "obvious" national identity. It is laughable that you waffle on,considering at no stage have you attempted to state clear, precise, and actual "obvious' national identities of the 3 areas that make up Great Britian.

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

walrusgumble wrote: »

The differences with Scotland,Wales n England, though not huge, makes up a Nation, that nation is called Great Britian. All are subjects to that nation, not citizens of subjects to Scotland,Wales,England.

The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:49pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Scouser, Cardiff taffy, Glasgow jock, are, to the world, British nationals, subjects of UK GB and NI, as repeatedly stated, not comparable to Ireland or other commonwealth countries

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:53pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A Scot is not a citizen! They are subjects, subjects of the crown, the crown of UK of GB and NI.

A Scot is a citizen of the UK, you don't have to have a republic to be a citizen.
Note the word following British below?

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:54pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Scoucer, Cardiff taffy, Glasgow jock, are, to the world, British nationals, subjects of UK GB and NI, as repeatedly stated, not comparable to Ireland or other commonwealth countries

Still afraid to answer the question, eh?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:05pm

alastair wrote: »

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

Lol, as repeatedly stated

NONE of them are remotely that distinctive from the other, and most certainly NOT "obvious" to the rest of the world. Sure dome of those things could apply equally to many different parts of the US ,yet, the States are not different nations, but one American.

As heartedly stated the exAmples above are nonsense. Political allegiance, in the majority , is allegiance to the UK and not to Wales etc. Oaths of allegiance are not made to Scotland etc but to UK. Political parties based in London have for most part of their histories ruled Scotland n Wales, the assemblies are TALKING SHOPS! Westminster is still the boss

Sports, don't make me laugh, ruby and soccer are just as much a national and major sport in England as it is in Wales or Scotland.

You then waffle
The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:
Obvious to all? Sure about that? Who are all? Why would a Yank know you are a citizen/ subject of Scotland when your passport says your "British"

You then say

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.[/QUOTE]

If you can't rule your own affairs, outside EU law, without being dictated by another region, if you can't dictate who can become a national of your nation, or have a true say in who your monarch will be, share essentially, the same religious beliefs, same political parties,just different accents, share the same sports (Christ Cardiff and Swansea play in the English Premier League) you can't truely call yourselves distinct, hence they are nothing countries.

Richard · 27-04-2014 2:08pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Fighting for at, minimum, Home Rule

But not 'Ireland' as a whole. Not for 150 years. "Some people in Ireland" =/= "Ireland"

Ah, you trying to be smart of course

Nope.

Or getting nose out of joint that it's not 150 years exactly? Or maybe to will try to suggest that not every man woman and child picked up a gun , ignoring that they voted a certain way. Nice Try dear boy.

I'm suggesting, correctly, that Ireland as a whole (or even in large numbers) was struggling for independence. Home rule was popular, but not independence for much of that time, and there was a significant proportion of the population that didn't even want Home Rule.

I am sure it would be fair to suggest we all deal with more modern issues regarding the pro's and con's of joining the Commonwealth?

Absolutely, which is why bringing up 150 years of this, that or the other is a bit pointless.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:10pm

alastair wrote: »

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

Lol, as repeatedly stated

NONE of them are remotely that distinctive from the other, and most certainly NOT "obvious" to the rest of the world. Sure some of those things could apply equally to many different parts of the US ,yet, the States are not different nations, but one ,American.

What is different " cultural touchstones""!?

As repeatedly stated the exAmples above are nonsense. Political allegiance, in the majority , is allegiance to the UK and not to Wales etc. Oaths of allegiance are not made to Scotland etc but to UK. Political parties based in London have for most part of their histories ruled Scotland n Wales, the assemblies are TALKING SHOPS! Westminster is still the boss

Sports, don't make me laugh, ruby and soccer are just as much a national and major sport in England as it is in Wales or Scotland.
FIFA only tolerate UK having 4 teams because of their history to football.
Olympic you are Team GN and.NI

You then waffle
The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:

Obvious to all? Sure about that? Who are all? Why would a Yank know you are a citizen/ subject of Scotland when your passport says your "British" a minister in Europe does nit represent Scotland, but the UK. The English will be more concerned about them than how laws effect the Scots.

You then say

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.[/QUOTE]

If you can't rule your own affairs, outside EU law, without being dictated by another region, if you can't dictate who can become a national of your nation, or have a true say in who your monarch will be, share essentially, the same religious beliefs, same political parties,just different accents, share the same sports (Christ Cardiff and Swansea play in the English Premier League) you can't truely call yourselves distinct, hence they are nothing countries.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:10pm

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:29pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen of the UK, you don't have to have a republic to be a citizen.
Note the word following British below?

A passport compliance with EU law that refers to "citizenship"

Now.look at British Law, one is a subject. Granted, in practice, subject and citizen mean the same, to the outside world, but, citizens can elect their heads of state, a subject CANT!

The other point made was it is "obvious" that Scots are "disctinct" .

Well you have just proven that is nonsense. The passport does not say citizen of Scotland, but citizen of Britian. So, it is not obvious to everyone that a Scot is a distinct national, unless you were aware that Britian is made up of Scotland England and Wales. Can you truely say the rest of the world sees the distinction?

"obvious" to you and I, not obvious to the rest of the world. That was the point being made, in response to people stating it was "obvious" and "distinct" . Posters try to compare Scotland and Wales with Ireland and Australia and co and wonder why that can't be.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:38pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A passport compliance with EU law that refers to "citizenship"

Now.look at British Law, one is a subject.

Clearly you haven't. Scots are citizens.

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

Citizen: A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

And still unable to answer a simple question.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:38pm

alastair wrote: »

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

I have answered each point, in detail. You have given NO examples of how the said regions differ in religion (in reality) or politically (to rebut the fact that they have the same parties and swear allegiance to the British Monarch as oppose to Scottish monarch or that what goes on in England really is all that matters), you failed to explain how the sporting culture is truely disctinct from the other,

And despite several requests for you to explain it, you have failed, miserably, to explain the bland description of " different cultural cornerstones"

It aint for me to hold your hand on that. You stated it, you prove them.you simply cling onto label differences and ignore the reality that there is no core distinction that make them obvious

Again, just to spell it out, yet original ststatement was about "obvious" and "disctinct" cultural identity that makes it a nation, separate from the others in the UK.the key ti the issue are the words obvious and "distinct"

NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY YOU BAR BLAND COMMENTS

What is wrong, "afraid"?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:46pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Does it? Richard posted a copy of a passport. No where does it say "scottish" or "english" or "welsh". It does say "british"

Have you read the passport? Unless one knows what Britian is, it is not "obvious" that one is a national of Scotland, England,or wales. Amazingly over 3 pages has been spent pointing that out and you are still in denial.it gets worse then by comparing the countries to Ireland and Australia

Poster talk about "obvious" and "distinct" yet evidence suggests otherwise.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:47pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

I have answered each point, in detail. You have given NO examples of how the said regions differ in religion (in reality) or politically (to rebut the fact that they have the same parties and swear allegiance to the British Monarch as oppose to Scottish monarch or that what goes on in England really is all that matters), you failed to explain how the sporting culture is truely disctinct from the other,

And despite several requests for you to explain it, you have failed, miserably, to explain the bland description of " different cultural cornerstones"

It aint for me to hold your hand on that. You stated it, you prove them.you simply cling onto label differences and ignore the reality that there is no core distinction that make them obvious

Again, just to spell it out, yet original ststatement was about "obvious" and "disctinct" cultural identity that makes it a nation, separate from the others in the UK.the key ti the issue are the words obvious and "distinct"

NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY YOU BAR BLAND COMMENTS

What is wrong, "afraid"?

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:50pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Does it? Richard posted a copy of a passport. No where does it say "scottish" or "english" or "welsh". It does say "british"

Have you read the passport?

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 3:00pm

Richard wrote: »

But not 'Ireland' as a whole. Not for 150 years. "Some people in Ireland" =/= "Ireland"

Dear god. There were many loyalist to Britian born n bred in America when America strove for Indepndence, likewise South Africa and India. I suppose that stops them from saying that they didnt fight for independence?

From 1880-1923, the main political parties on the island of Ireland was not Unionist groups but either the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Fein! There is no mistake what the latter looked for and they had seats all over the island.

At no stage, did the Scots and Welsh amonut much of an action to go it alone (the original point)

You then said
I'm suggesting, correctly, that Ireland as a whole (or even in large numbers) was struggling for independence. Home rule was popular, but not independence for much of that time, and there was a significant proportion of the population that didn't even want Home Rule.

As I pointed out about Home Rule, I acknowledged the reality of continued links with Britian being diserable. You of course ignore one reality, who was allowed to vote and stand for election.

Support in the South for Home Rule was large, unionists were a tiny minority compared to that. IPP had the majority of seats and quite a few in the north.

You said
Absolutely, which is why bringing up 150 years of this, that or the other is a bit pointless.[/QUOTE]
150 being evidence of some attempts, admittingly disastrous, of some groups seeking independence,afterall Dublin Castle and the RIC went to great lengths to prevent on outbreak of IRB support. It's more than what went on in Wales n Scotland.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 3:08pm

alastair wrote: »

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

British law says subjects.

Nice to see you are ignoring the other issue.the passport does not say "scottish", "welsh" or "englsih" or "irish" it says British.

You talk about these groups being " obvious" and "distinct" The passport suggests other wise, that is the point being consistently made. It is not obvious to the international world, that one is specifically a Scot, or specifically Welsh by looking at the passport. They know you are British though. You are assuming that the international world is intelligent enough to know that Britian = Scotland, wales,northern Ireland,England. To the idiot looking at the passport, he could mistake you for a welsh man when you are scottish or worse,lol, English.

It is there in print. Stop denying it. it is not "obvious"

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 3:15pm

alastair wrote: »

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

Wow, slow day today. Despite the quotation marks, you miss the point and address the other point,well done

You talk of the word "citizen" when I point out that no where in the passport does it say that Mary is "Scottish" or "Welsh"..... We know Mary is British, but could be mistaken as being "Scottish" as oppose to her being "welsh"

So, hardly obvious and distinct is it.? To spell it out: the central issues of contention. You talked about it being disctinct and obvious, I suggested other wise, you refuse and fail to counter that bar bland comments. You even put up a passport that proves my point. "obvious" and "distinct" deal with those two terms used by you.

Oh, care to give details to the bland statements made earlier or explain cultural cornerstones? How are they obvious and disctinct? Afraid?surely not?

Richard · 27-04-2014 3:36pm

Walrusgrumble,

The reason I posted "Or Ireland" was to do with the fact that Irish opinion has been, and remains, diverse on these issues.

Implying "the Irish" have been fighting for independence for X years implies a cohesive nature to opinion which simply isn't true.

You later mentioned Home Rule, but that isn't the same as the independence you mentioned earlier.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 4:05pm

alastair wrote: »

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

It has been answered, in full, in detail, across several posts, across at least three pages.

You evidentially do not understand the words, "obvious" and ",distinct". Why use these words when you don't understand them? You also clearly do not understand that actual points being consistently made. You Clealry suffer from an in ability to stick to a point and to read. You clearly prefer to make statements using words that you do not understand and refuse to substantiate the said statements.

It is very clear that you have no intention of actually supporting your arguments despite being called to do so. What "cultural cornerstone"? What are the specific and actual cultural distinctions that mark them out?it aint sport ,it aint politics either,it aint religion, it aint monarchy really either (6th time of asking)

You just prefer to troll.

alastair · 27-04-2014 7:36pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

It has been answered, in full, in detail, across several posts, across at least three pages.

You evidentially do not understand the words, "obvious" and ",distinct". Why use these words when you don't understand them? You also clearly do not understand that actual points being consistently made. You Clealry suffer from an in ability to stick to a point and to read. You clearly prefer to make statements using words that you do not understand and refuse to substantiate the said statements.

It is very clear that you have no intention of actually supporting your arguments despite being called to do so. What "cultural cornerstone"? What are the specific and actual cultural distinctions that mark them out?it aint sport ,it aint politics either,it aint religion, it aint monarchy really either (6th time of asking)

You just prefer to troll.

Still unable to answer a simple question.

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

alastair · 27-04-2014 8:00pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

British law says subjects.

They're citizens, not subjects.
Again:

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

SpaceTime · 27-04-2014 8:14pm

See: this thread sums up why the status quo is fine.

The commonwealth really has no purpose other than as a kind of nod to the old British Empire links. It's a powerless, symbolic organisation without any political or economic role.
It's hard to know that the point of it is.

There would be absolutely no reason for us to join. We already have a FAR deeper relationship with the UK than any commonwealth country has.

We share a landborder which we do not enforce anymore, we treat each other's citizens as if they're locals, even letting them vote in national elections. We have formalised intergovernmental agencies, we are both members of the EU.

No commonwealth nation has that kind of interconnectedness with the UK and our joining the commonwealth wouldn't be of any benefit.

I think we should leave well enough alone.

Richard · 27-04-2014 10:50pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

See: this thread sums up why the status quo is fine.

The commonwealth really has no purpose other than as a kind of nod to the old British Empire links. It's a powerless, symbolic organisation without any political or economic role.
It's hard to know that the point of it is.

There would be absolutely no reason for us to join. We already have a FAR deeper relationship with the UK than any commonwealth country has.

We share a landborder which we do not enforce anymore, we treat each other's citizens as if they're locals, even letting them vote in national elections. We have formalised intergovernmental agencies, we are both members of the EU.

No commonwealth nation has that kind of interconnectedness with the UK and our joining the commonwealth wouldn't be of any benefit.

I think we should leave well enough alone.

I think you're right. IMHO the only reason that Ireland should join the Commonwealth is in the event of a United Ireland.

Harry Angstrom · 28-04-2014 12:14am

"Should Ireland join the Commonwealth?"

No.

/thread

Kermit.de.frog · 28-04-2014 4:01am

I agree. NO!

/thread

Kermit.de.frog · 28-04-2014 4:07am

walrusgumble wrote: »

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Oh erm I think the British may have won some of those rounds but make no mistake they got their asses handed to them by the IRB 1920/21. All British agents assassinated, country ungovernable, Dáil operating with impunity, Irish courts, Irish police etc....It's fair to say the IRA won whether you like it or not.

walrusgumble · 28-04-2014 10:32am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Oh erm I think the British may have won some of those rounds but make no mistake they got their asses handed to them by the IRB 1920/21. All British agents assassinated, country ungovernable, Dáil operating with impunity, Irish courts, Irish police etc....It's fair to say the IRA won whether you like it or not.

The examples, were merely examples of attempts to seek Independence, no more, in the context of this discussion, their success was not relevant. Richard is right to point out that it was not really until the Tan War that a substantial proportion of the public, in the South, gave support to Independence. (The whole point of 1916 was to "reawaken" the spirit of 1798 - which itself was plauged by bribery, drunks and plenty of Irish Catholics and Prods fighting for Britain or spying - likewise Battle of the Boyne)

As for the Tan War, while Dublin was struggling by the time of the Truce, plans were in set for another assaination of British - as many good Dublin men were either dead or arrested by that time - Dublin was catching on , the Custom House attack had been a distaster (thanks Dev, maybe he was better off staying in America). Of course, guys like Tom Barry in Cork thought that they were doing okay. As Mulcahy pointed out, the IRA were unable to kick the Brits out of a fairly sizable Barracks. While many efforts were made throughout the country (including the less well known) many a Column missed out in skirmishes as Brits were tipped off or bad intelligence.

In reality, our Dail and Dail Courts, while an excellent example of democratic defiance, really never really sat that much, how could they?

One has to be carefull when they refer to the IRB, while the IRA leaders were mostly IRB men, not all volunteers were IRB men.

I don't suggest that the Tan War was a failure. My "disaterous" comment referred to the IRB skirmishes in the 1800's. I even would not suggest that 1916 was a disaster (see subsequent post), in the long run. It achieved Pearse's intentions.

walrusgumble · 28-04-2014 10:37am

alastair wrote: »

They're citizens, not subjects.
Again:

British people are, legally, SUBJECTS to the Crown, not citizens! That is afterall, Monarch tradition and "constitution". Ye don't get to elect a head of State = though abidication crisis would make things interesting for Wales and Scotland ala Dev in the 1930's

To be fair, in practice, ye are both citizens and subjects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4191613.stm
"Nationality laws introduced the word citizen during the break-up of the British Empire - but only as a means to differentiate UK residents from other British subjects for immigration purposes."

Black's legal Definitions
http://www.exfacie.com/?q=subject_vs_citizen_definitions_from_blacks_law_dictionary_9th_edition

alastair · 28-04-2014 10:57am

walrusgumble wrote: »

British people are, legally, SUBJECTS to the Crown, not citizens!

No - they're citizens. These are the only British subjects remaining:

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

todolist · 02-05-2014 9:35pm

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

sparky42 · 02-05-2014 9:37pm

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

History pretty clearly shows that's a bad idea that won't end well. And since plenty of the dominions are the same are you going to suggest that they too should be part of the UK?

walrusgumble · 06-05-2014 1:16pm

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

Eh, the counties were present long before 1893! Long before the "English" too. The English Angloised the names of many places (granted, some towns of today are more recent via Ulster Plantation and market towns, but many have longer history)

Even during British reign, Irish law OFTEN differed from English Law in many areas! The Americans retained Common Law System, should they be part of the UK? A couple of African states also contain the same system, fancy Nigeria being part of the UK?

Explain how the GAA is English Culture? (GAA did more for parish and county identity than anyone else actually) English Language only became more widespread by the end of the Famine

No such thing as the United Kingdom of England either

Anyhoo,

(a) The Debate is about joining the Commonwealth, not joining the UK of Great Britain and NI - so , everything you said , not relevant

(b) Absolutely none of that remotely supports why we should "rejoin".

SpaceTime · 06-05-2014 4:43pm

I actually think we need to be reaching out to our other neighbours too.

Joining the Commonwealth would possibly isolate us diplomatically in Europe as the UK is quite regularly very antagonistic to other EU countries.

The last thing we need is for Ireland to be seen even more so as an adjunct to the UK.

I would prefer to see Ireland developing bilateral strong relationships with the UK but also connecting much more effectively with other EU countries and also with France.

We actually share a huge amount of common ground with Western France in particular but also with most of the small Northern EU countries.

We've also huge human links to Poland and other eastern EU states due to migration and we should be building on those in a big way. These are now some of the strongest performing EU economies!

I don't think creating strange special ties the UK based on old empire stuff would do us any favours.

walrusgumble · 06-05-2014 9:17pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

I actually think we need to be reaching out to our other neighbours too.

Joining the Commonwealth would possibly isolate us diplomatically in Europe as the UK is quite regularly very antagonistic to other EU countries.

The last thing we need is for Ireland to be seen even more so as an adjunct to the UK.

I would prefer to see Ireland developing bilateral strong relationships with the UK but also connecting much more effectively with other EU countries and also with France.

We actually share a huge amount of common ground with Western France in particular but also with most of the small Northern EU countries.

We've also huge human links to Poland and other eastern EU states due to migration and we should be building on those in a big way. These are now some of the strongest performing EU economies!

I don't think creating strange special ties the UK based on old empire stuff would do us any favours.

Wow, someone with a brain and cop on. I Thought that was a rarity on this website.

Whether we like it or not, our future, is with some form of union with fellow European States, including the UK. Not some pathetic anti Irish feeling sorry for ourselves , inferior complex towards Britain.

The Commonwealth means little to Sam in Camden Town. The Stats show that few of the fellow Commonwealth Countries are the UK's main trading partners. (its ze Germans!) UK is barely in the top 10 of India's .

Ireland already has special ties with the UK. Why on earth would Ireland want to associate with third world countries? Only they hope to take advantage of union with Britain

todolist · 06-05-2014 10:17pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, the counties were present long before 1893! Long before the "English" too. The English Angloised the names of many places (granted, some towns of today are more recent via Ulster Plantation and market towns, but many have longer history)

Even during British reign, Irish law OFTEN differed from English Law in many areas! The Americans retained Common Law System, should they be part of the UK? A couple of African states also contain the same system, fancy Nigeria being part of the UK?

Explain how the GAA is English Culture? (GAA did more for parish and county identity than anyone else actually) English Language only became more widespread by the end of the Famine

No such thing as the United Kingdom of England either

Anyhoo,

(a) The Debate is about joining the Commonwealth, not joining the UK of Great Britain and NI - so , everything you said , not relevant

(b) Absolutely none of that remotely supports why we should "rejoin".

The English set up the counties in Ireland for administration purposes.The GAA wouldn't exist without those 32 counties!

CrabRevolution · 07-05-2014 3:14pm

todolist wrote: »

The English set up the counties in Ireland for administration purposes.The GAA wouldn't exist without those 32 counties!

Thats a fairly weak premise to be fair. If the British hadnt put counties in place, I'm sure the Irish would have developed their own counties or other equivalent administative unit. It's not as though the country would just have been seen as one big unit until the British showed us the light in the form of subdivisions. It's like saying that members of the GAA cant use television because a British person invented it.

There's also the fact that while there may be 32 counties defined by the British, there are 2100 clubs around the country based on civil parishes and townlands. Which were based on old Gaelic Tuatha. 32 Large counties seems light work compared to thousands of small divisions which the Irsh created themselves.

SpaceTime · 07-05-2014 4:16pm

Arguably it would be handier if the GAA were based on something else as the county setup makes absolutely no sense from an administrative point of view. Most of them with probably the exceptions of Dublin, Cork and Galway are too small of a population to continue on. Yet, the GAA county loyalties would make any reform of local government difficult.

We could probably do with about 8 counties.

CrabRevolution · 07-05-2014 4:28pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Arguably it would be handier if the GAA were based on something else as the county setup makes absolutely no sense from an administrative point of view. Most of them with probably the exceptions of Dublin, Cork and Galway are too small of a population to continue on. Yet, the GAA county loyalties would make any reform of local government difficult.

We could probably do with about 8 counties.

I have never heard one person give the GAA as a reason for not reforming county councils.

Even then its up to the central government to do it, the very government made up of TDs from constituencies like Carlow-Kilkenny, Sligo-North Leitrim, Meath West (which contains a big chunk of Westmeath), and Louth, which contains the coast of Meath.

There was clearly no objection or "GAA influence" on butchering the traditional counties for these constituencies, why would there be for reforming the county councils? Tipp North and Tipp South are ignored as far as the GAA are concerned, same with the 4 Dublin councils. No matter what way the counties are divided there will be 32 teams forever.

Too many people just look to lump blame for anything on the GAA.

daveydavey55 · 04-08-2014 12:52am

I don't see what would be wrong with joining the commonwealth. I have just watched our Irish boxers win 9 medals in Glasgow at the commonwealth games representing Northern Ireland, these same boxers represent IRELAND at the Olympics. Im sure many Irish athletes would love to compete at the Commonwealth games but they obviously cant (unless they are from NI). I watched Usain Bolt last nite representing Jamaica win the 4*100m relay, again Irish athletes would love to compete against someone like him.
From watching the games I really think we're missing out. Politically I think it wont happen in the short term anyway mainly because people think we would be re-joining some british empire thingie. This type of thinking is very naive - people seem to always forget that part of this island is in the UK - they choose to ignore it, forget about it, let it sort itself out.
Its all about history etc. its time for people to move on. If Irish sports persons can represent Ireland at the Olympics under the tricolour and also represent NI under the NI flag (with a crown in it} at the commonwealth games then I think it makes sense that we at least have a referendum on re joining the commonwealth. We only left in 1949 by default because we became a republic and republics were not allowed in the commonwealth at the time, we never actually withdrew as such. Republics are now welcome in the commonwealth.
This thing about how other countries would see us is nonsense as is the notion that we would be making ourselves 'British' again. Irish people in NI are British and Irish no matter what way you look at it.
Until we get a united Ireland, NI will always be 'in limbo' but it will also be competing at the c'wealth games !!

For Reals · 04-08-2014 6:04pm

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

Wrong on pretty much every point there.

For Reals · 04-08-2014 6:07pm

Why join the commonwealth? Politics aside....why? To play in the commonwealth games? If we're all pals already, why join an archaic group which is a hang over from a blood drenched Empire which gave us the concentration camp and numerous massacres of civilians all around the world. Why join that club? The chance of a jant on Kate?
I'd much prefer to join the Federation of Planets, just as logical.

Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

Comments