[anymore]

Intersting letter in irish Indo contrasting Enda Kenny's comments on proprosed EU approval of Budget plans that Mr Kenny said this would be "tantamount to "handing over sovereignty and the running of the country to the EU " with the fact that FG's Gay Mitchell advocated having the Queen of England as Head of a new All Ireland State at at the annual .Arthur Griffith / Michael Collinscommemoration in 2006.
It might also be added that prior to the first Lisbon treaty that Mr Mitchell regularily wrotE to the irish Indo porning scorn on any letter writers who suggested, amongst other things, that irish Sovereignty would be imperilled or diluted.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...y-2183479.html

So are FG just making policy up on the hoof ?
Is there a lack of communication amongst FG ?
We have previously seen where Kenny announced to the apparent surprise of all FGers his plans for abolishing the Senate.

[Liam Byrne]

I'd give that letter zero credibility, tbh....

we take the exercise of our political power seriously and value it very highly

100% false, given the type of crap that causes people to vote for a particular candidate.

You should know by now that no TD is held accountable for any comments he/she may have uttered, even when they are uttered to a tribunal or a libel hearing....their buddies will still vote confidence in them in order to maintain the status quo.

[sceptre]

Originally Posted by anymore

the fact that FG's Gay Mitchell advocated having the Queen of England as Head of a new All Ireland State at at the annual .Arthur Griffith / Michael Collinscommemoration in 2006.

Ignoring the credibility of the letter or otherwise, Arthur Griffith did the same thing - it was Sinn Fein policy until 1917 that there should be a dual monarchy with a Kingdom of Great Britain and a Kingdom of Ireland, both separate like Austria-Hungary but both with the same king. After Griffith wrote The Resurrection of Hungary in 1904 as part of a solution for Irish self-determination, a return to the constitutional status of Grattan's Parliament (1782-1800), and hence the dual monarchy, was a core Sinn Fein principle for ten years.

Then again whoever controls the purse strings has power. Whoever reads a speech once a year and opens parliament doesn't have any so while I'm solidly against the initial Griffith idea of anything resembling a dual monarchy (it was a good possible solution for its time) and also think the UK should be a republic as a point of democratic principle in modern times like 2010, some speech apparently made by Gay Mitchell in 2006 mentioning the idea for a role for the British monarchy in a united Ireland to appease unionists isn't going to keep me awake at night. I wouldn't even compare the two, but obviously the letter writer felt the need to do so for some reason. A dual monarchy-type situation just isn't going to happen here, don't be worried about it.

[anymore]

Originally Posted by sceptre

Ignoring the credibility of the letter or otherwise, Arthur Griffith did the same thing - it was Sinn Fein policy until 1917 that there should be a dual monarchy with a Kingdom of Great Britain and a Kingdom of Ireland, both separate like Austria-Hungary but both with the same king. After Griffith wrote The Resurrection of Hungary in 1904 as part of a solution for Irish self-determination, a return to the constitutional status of Grattan's Parliament (1782-1800), and hence the dual monarchy, was a core Sinn Fein principle for ten years.

Then again whoever controls the purse strings has power. Whoever reads a speech once a year and opens parliament doesn't have any so while I'm solidly against the initial Griffith idea of anything resembling a dual monarchy (it was a good possible solution for its time) and also think the UK should be a republic as a point of democratic principle in modern times like 2010, some speech apparently made by Gay Mitchell in 2006 mentioning the idea for a role for the British monarchy in a united Ireland to appease unionists isn't going to keep me awake at night. I wouldn't even compare the two, but obviously the letter writer felt the need to do so for some reason. A dual monarchy-type situation just isn't going to happen here, don't be worried about it.

I am not at all worried, though of course as the Australians found out in the seventies i think, the English Monarch has the power to decide who sits in government in certain circumstances, cant quite remember the details. However Mitchell was a very trenchant critic of those who suggested lisbon would impede on our Sovereignty pre Lisbon. He has gone very quiet since !
Liam the reason it is usful to occassionally repeat the past utterances of politicians is partly to remind them that the spoken word, once written down is now on record via the internet for ever. i dont think Politicians have quite realised the power that the internet has given the ordinary person. It may help to diminish somewhat the double talk that irish politicians have used so much.
Even sites like this help the ordinary indivIdual to disseminate ideas and opinions to a far greater audience than would have once been possible.

[SlabMurphy]

Gay Mitchell is possibly this state's biggest buffoon - and that's saying something. A decade or two ago he spoke about bringing the Olympics to Dublin

[Winty]

Originally Posted by SlabMurphy

Gay Mitchell is possibly this state's biggest buffoon

Slab and I agree on very little but he has a point, Mr Mitchell is a wally

[mike65]

Originally Posted by anymore

It might also be added that prior to the first Lisbon treaty that Mr Mitchell regularily wrotE to the irish Indo porning scorn on any letter writers who suggested, amongst other things, that irish Sovereignty would be imperilled or diluted.

Gay

[Madd Finn]

Originally Posted by sceptre

Ignoring the credibility of the letter or otherwise, Arthur Griffith did the same thing - it was Sinn Fein policy until 1917 that there should be a dual monarchy with a Kingdom of Great Britain and a Kingdom of Ireland, both separate like Austria-Hungary but both with the same king. After Griffith wrote The Resurrection of Hungary in 1904 as part of a solution for Irish self-determination, a return to the constitutional status of Grattan's Parliament (1782-1800), and hence the dual monarchy, was a core Sinn Fein principle for ten years.
.

So Sinn Fein's original policy, if I read this right, was like a latter day rugby fan to keep things pretty much as they were but rename the British Empire the "British & Irish Empire"?

Has a ring to it.

[Nijmegen]

On the general point of the monarchy, its entire strategy for survival is "Influence as little as possible", which is why they were all hyping up the possible situation that would see the Queen having to pick her new PM earlier in the month.

The monarchy in Britain acts as a good glue for the country, and Britain let us not forget is one of (if not the) worlds oldest representative democracies... They even outlawed slavery well before the U.S., for example. After World War 2 the largely dictatorial powers granted the wartime leaders were prompty handed back, and the PM of the day handed his P45 before even the negotiations on the final settlement of Europe was agreed and with war raging in the Far East still.

Meanwhile, twelve years earlier an elected President of another nearby state plotted and chose his leader of government to be a fellow who would kick off said fireworks.

I think Britain is highly democratic, and I think the current system there works because it is quite stable, and the lack of politics in the monarchy also keeps politics out of the military.

As for an all-Ireland monarchy, err, I don't think so. There is, we must allow, a substantial minority (in all-Ireland) who would consider themselves loyal subjects, and I wouldn't mind finding a way to incorporate that to Ireland, but I doubt we'll be singing God Save The Queen any time soon.

[Nijmegen]

Originally Posted by Madd Finn

So Sinn Fein's original policy, if I read this right, was like a latter day rugby fan to keep things pretty much as they were but rename the British Empire the "British & Irish Empire"?

Has a ring to it.

Don't they teach history any more? :-) Until 1914 the plan was for Irish home rule, remaining within the British Empire. That plan was shelved for the war, which is why Irish nationalist leaders signed up so many nationalist men to fight in the war - to prove our loyalty, amongst other things.

Then 1916 came, and a few hundred guys wrote those hundreds of thousands of men out of Irish history, and we fought for our - some might say - rather poor alternative, with a divided nation that still had to pay lip service to the crown.

[anymore]

Originally Posted by Nijmegen

On the general point of the monarchy, its entire strategy for survival is "Influence as little as possible", which is why they were all hyping up the possible situation that would see the Queen having to pick her new PM earlier in the month.

The monarchy in Britain acts as a good glue for the country, and Britain let us not forget is one of (if not the) worlds oldest representative democracies... They even outlawed slavery well before the U.S., for example. After World War 2 the largely dictatorial powers granted the wartime leaders were prompty handed back, and the PM of the day handed his P45 before even the negotiations on the final settlement of Europe was agreed and with war raging in the Far East still.

Meanwhile, twelve years earlier an elected President of another nearby state plotted and chose his leader of government to be a fellow who would kick off said fireworks.

I think Britain is highly democratic, and I think the current system there works because it is quite stable, and the lack of politics in the monarchy also keeps politics out of the military.

As for an all-Ireland monarchy, err, I don't think so. There is, we must allow, a substantial minority (in all-Ireland) who would consider themselves loyal subjects, and I wouldn't mind finding a way to incorporate that to Ireland, but I doubt we'll be singing God Save The Queen any time soon.

Could I point out that women have always had the vote since the foundation of the State whilst the ' most representative' democracy did not allow women to vote until much later !
It is hardly surprising they outlawed slavery before the US given there werent any slaves at work in the UK ! There was also a competitive advantage in encouraging the global banning of slavery as none of thier essential industries were employing slaves whereas some of their overseas.

The most amusing thing about the attachment of loyalists to the Royal Family, is that of course the House of Windsor- name changed from the original House of Saxe Coburg- has so little ' English blood' in it !

[anymore]

For the record Mr Mitchellhas replied to the letter yesterday :
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...h-2184979.html

True to form with other letters he has written to the media in the past ,though, Mr Mitchell has been unable to refrain from making personal remarks about the original letter writer :
" It seems to me that your correspondent is of a partitionist mentality and not capable of envisaging what a new United Ireland might be like ".

[anymore]

For the record Mr Mitchellhas replied to the letter yesterday :
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...h-2184979.html

True to form with other letters he has written to the media in the past ,though, Mr Mitchell has been unable to refrain from making personal remarks about the original letter writer :
" It seems to me that your correspondent is of a partitionist mentality and not capable of envisaging what a new United Ireland might be like ".

[anymore]

With Mr Mitchell now a Presidential candidate, perhaps it is time to ask him if he still has ambitions of having the English Monarch as our Head of State ? Indeed perhaps Enda kenny might be persuaded to have Her Majesty added on as an FG candidate, just in case his preferred option, former FF member, former PD member, former Independent, Pat Cox doesnt do the business. John Bruton could perhaps act as her Majesty's campaign manager.

[Duffy the Vampire Slayer]

Originally Posted by SlabMurphy

Gay Mitchell is possibly this state's biggest buffoon - and that's saying something. A decade or two ago he spoke about bringing the Olympics to Dublin

All that would have done was bankrupted the country without any help from the banks. All Olympic host cities lose enormous amounts of money apart from LA in 1984. And probably Beijing seeing as they don't have to worry about fair wages or other such concerns there.

On topic, I'd be very opposed to this, but Gay Mitchell's not going to single-handedly bring it about, and I can't even imagine he'll win the presidency.