Gay...Gay...oh Gay!

DublinWriter

So there I was, driving around Dublin just before lunch today, stuck in gridlock in Phibsbourough when I heard an interview with Gay Mitchell on Newstalk 106.

Gay was espousing a little bit of ‘thinking outside the box’ and was seriously suggesting that in order to obtain a united Ireland that we include the monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into having a say into our domestic matters.

I nearly rear-ended the car in front when I heard this. I mean, sure Fine Gael used to be known originally as ‘The Commonwealth Party’, but there’s getting back to your roots and there’s going completely Cro-Magnon.

Anyway, queue Sine Fein’s Aongus O’Snodaigh to counter the argument, at which point auld Gay pointed out the roots of Aongus’ party by reminding him that its founder, Arthur Griffith, suggested something along similar lines back in 1905.

How deserpate must Gay be for new ideas when he has to borrow from a Sine Fein manifesto dating back over a hundred years ago?

However, presented with a complete clear shot at the goal, O’Snodaigh hit woodwork by failing to mention Fine Gael’s own political pedigree as being Ireland’s first and only fascist party in the 30’s.

Have all those years in the Euro wilderness left poor auld Gay’s finger so far off the political pulse that he’s now exploring other body-political crevices in the hope of finding a heartbeat?

Blackjack

Neither politicians I have any respect for, but Mitchell must have been on Mushrooms to come out with that in all reality.

InFront

DublinWriter wrote:

Have all those years in the Euro wilderness left poor auld Gay’s finger so far off the political pulse that he’s now exploring other body-political crevices in the hope of finding a heartbeat?

Perhaps his time in Europe has widened his horizons and matured him. This is a big topic in Pakistan at the moment, ie rejoining the commonwealth

Ireland and the other ex-Commonwealth countries, share a unique history with Britain that in fairness, wasn't all bad.
I personally have a lot of respect for Britain despite the current Labour leadership, in a way that I would never feel about the US or other European states. We are connected to it, and even if not by using the monarchy, I think that relationship should be improved and strengthened.

Lets be mature about it. I doubt any of us have good reason to feel angry towards British people, it would be nice to improve the relationship given our shared histories.
Sending irish teams to the Commonwealth Games would be a good start.

Blackjack

I strongly support improving relationships, but not going to the extent Mitchell was raving about.

darkman2

I like the Britsh too but I wont like them if were interfered with. What happens here is none of their buisness or that of their monarch's.

the_syco

Jeebus H Christ. The f*cker thinks that we should let them dictate our matters to us? After years of bloodshed, we are to invite them back in? F*ck that sh|t, tbh. I don't mind the Brit's, but if we were to back to Rome rule again, I certainly would. The 'RA takes a break, and suddenly some wacko thinks we should reunite with Britain?

Cronus333

*Gay Mitchell to lose FG whip and runs as an independent, who then divides FG votes and allows PD Cllr Cait Keane to slip through and claim Dublin SC's right wing seat!!!*

We can live in hope!!!

Mick86

We had a united Ireland under the British monarch and Gay's antecedents started a bloodbath to end that state of affairs. Not much point in trying to roll back the clock now.

Besides, if we had no presidential elections, how would the govt fix a cushy job and massive pension for it's geriatric/incompetent/useless hangers on. They can't all be senators.:D

Tricity Bendix

DublinWriter wrote:

However, presented with a complete clear shot at the goal, O’Snodaigh hit woodwork by failing to mention Fine Gael’s own political pedigree as being Ireland’s first and only fascist party in the 30’s.

I'm sorry, but could you please explain how an argument along this line would counter Mitchell's suggestion to accept the British monarchy?



Not that I think that what Gay said has any merit whatsoever - it clearly doesn't - but there are so many other relevant arguments that could be made. I would see any attempt at linking modern Fine Gael to fascism (other than focusing on their 'lets shoot the travellers' policy) as unhelpful, and would degenerate the debate into one of historical interpretation, rather than one on modern-day politics.

Morlar

I think gay has a great idea - only its the wrong way round. Why dont they give us more of a say in their domestic affairs (for the sake of improved relationships, to prove were all mature and lovey dovey and all).

constitutionus

Mick86 wrote:

Besides, if we had no presidential elections, how would the govt fix a cushy job and massive pension for it's geriatric/incompetent/useless hangers on. They can't all be senators.:D

ah mick, mick. your forgetting this is ireland. the solution obviously would be to have both president and monarch. pretty much the same way we have the HSE and all the 11 old health boards employees still being employed on the same wages and the same pensions and perks . if decentralisations taught us anything its we can pay twice as much for half the work!

i'll be honest this put me off voting FG, i mean if people in that party still think that way im not touching em with a ten foot pole. to be honest the thing that got me the most if apparently according to Gay theres actually a facility in the constitution to allow this, i think he said section 24 or so? (open to correction, was in shock when i heard it) feck another abortion referendum. we need to get that crap written out now. we're a republic for gods sake, what the hell are we talking about monarchys in the 21st century for?

flogen

InFront wrote:

Perhaps his time in Europe has widened his horizons and matured him. This is a big topic in Pakistan at the moment, ie rejoining the commonwealth

Ireland and the other ex-Commonwealth countries, share a unique history with Britain that in fairness, wasn't all bad.
I personally have a lot of respect for Britain despite the current Labour leadership, in a way that I would never feel about the US or other European states. We are connected to it, and even if not by using the monarchy, I think that relationship should be improved and strengthened.

Lets be mature about it. I doubt any of us have good reason to feel angry towards British people, it would be nice to improve the relationship given our shared histories.
Sending irish teams to the Commonwealth Games would be a good start.

I'm not opposed to the idea of joining the Commonwealth on the basis of it being a British institution, I've just yet to hear a single justification for re-joining other than it might make the Unionists feel better about the RoI (which, in reality it will not).

If there was perhaps even a single economic reason, I'd think about it but the fact is Ireland has done just fine from the EU and doesn't need anything on top of that; our relationship with the UK is stronger than ever, which is a great thing (they are our closest neighbour and so a rational partner in business; they occupy a portion of this island and so close ties should be nurtured for the good of both sides) but just because they're close to us and we get on well doesn't mean we should join up with them again, especially not for some flimsy theory that it might create a UI
This isn't thinking outside the box, it's ignoring the realities and making excuses.

b.ie curious wrote:

I'm sorry, but could you please explain how an argument along this line would counter Mitchell's suggestion to accept the British monarchy?

Well you see SF ridiculed Mitchell's suggestion of a dual monarchy, to which Mitchell pointed out that SF was created by a leader that supported that very idea... the response should be that if we were all to follow the exact principals of our eras gone by then FG would still have the Blueshirts/ACA protecting their meetings and they would still support the Mussolini-inspired ideals on which CnaG and the Blueshirts merged to form FG.
In other words the ideas of older generations are not really applicable in the modern world; Griffith's Dual Monarchy was suggested as a compromise between an independent Ireland and a British Ireland, now that Ireland is independent the concept has no basis.

T6

To be honest the point seems to have been missed by everyone. An argument by these two fine gentlemen was a waste of the frequency waves on wich their words travelled. European countries signed up to various European conventions have seeded considerable power to the Union. We see this with common foreign policy enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty. Our powers will be seeded as will our states to central figures in Brussels. So a UI is redundant as we will be at some stage the United States of Europe. The Queen of England will be made redundant and Biffo will be made Congressman Cowan.

Malone

Nothing this man does or says surprises me.This is a man who has gone to court to give character refrences to drug dealers because their family vote for him.he has blocked DCC from evicting convicted drug dealers and has objected to Garda search warrants for searching the homes of known drug dealers.:mad:

DublinWriter

b.ie curious wrote:

Not that I think that what Gay said has any merit whatsoever - it clearly doesn't - but there are so many other relevant arguments that could be made. I would see any attempt at linking modern Fine Gael to fascism (other than focusing on their 'lets shoot the travellers' policy) as unhelpful, and would degenerate the debate into one of historical interpretation, rather than one on modern-day politics.

Well it was Gay who brought up Sinn Fein's 1905 manifesto in the debate. I just thought he was walking into a minefield considering Fine Gael was founded by the fascist Eoin O'Duffy (he of the Blueshirts fame).

Personally, I lost all respect for FG when I heard Enda Kenny suggesting with a straight face a few years back that the Eircom shareholders should be compensated.

Ohyeah

There is a typical but midly amusing front page on Daily Ireland of Gay Mitchell with the Queens Crown

not sure how to link it properly but it is on the left of this page.

www.dailyireland.com

flogen

flogen wrote:

Well you see SF ridiculed Mitchell's suggestion of a dual monarchy, to which Mitchell pointed out that SF was created by a leader that supported that very idea... the response should be that if we were all to follow the exact principals of our eras gone by then FG would still have the Blueshirts/ACA protecting their meetings and they would still support the Mussolini-inspired ideals on which CnaG and the Blueshirts merged to form FG.
.

Were the blueshirts not set up originally to stop CnaG meetings being attacked by sinn fein?Smart move by CnaG.They assimulated the blueshirts.Eoin O'Duffy was put in political exile.So Fine Gael had a Mussolini like agenda during the 1930's?How so?

ScottishDanny

So Fine Gael had a Mussolini like agenda during the 1930's?How so?

• Wearing Blueshirts (UK and Italy Fascists wore black, German Nazis wore Brown).
• Adopting the Fascist Salute
• Recruiting Irishmen to fight for the Spanish Fascist Franco and his allies Hitler and Mussolini against the democratically elected Government of Spain.
• Attempting a march on Dublin inspired by Mussolini's March on Rome when he seized power. (FF Govt banned the march).

You know, that sort of thing.

LostinBlanch

He's obviously one of the any publicity is good publicity school. It's still the silly season remember?

Personally speaking I'm still waiting for the winter Olympics to come to Dublin :rolleyes:

As for all this rejoin the Commonwealth crap, I thought that the main political personality behind that was O'Cuiv who's obviously has his nose out of joint that it wasn't Dev who took us out of the Commonwealth. "FF the commonwealth party" has a nice ring to it no?

InFront

flogen wrote:

I'm not opposed to the idea of joining the Commonwealth on the basis of it being a British institution, I've just yet to hear a single justification for re-joining other than it might make the Unionists feel better about the RoI (which, in reality it will not).

ThE Unionist theory didn't even occur to me tbh.
There are a lot of worthy arguments for rejoining the Commonwealth I think. The main advantage that I was thinking of was economic ties with a block of countries with a united GDP of trillions of USD, countries that are outside of the EU such as Canada and Australia and India that have very valuable economies whose interaction could be to our financial benefit.
Why not take the approach of the other countries, which is that 'we were in it for long enough, why not get something good out of it?'... "Payback", as it were:)

Morally it would be beneficial, not only as a move of goodwill towards Britain, but indeed to sub Saharan African countries, who already have strong relationships with Ireland through Christianity. Why not create an economic friendship there as well? Again, this could also end up to be to our financial benefit.

The Commonwealth would also be a wonderful platform on which to raise our profile in the area of international human rights and human rights violations.

Plus, very notably, we could have Commonwealth Day here... and make it a public holiday!:D

bottlerocket

InFront wrote:

I personally have a lot of respect for Britain despite the current Labour leadership, in a way that I would never feel about the US or other European states.

I in no way agree with what Gay is saying but like you I have a lot of respect for Britain in terms of social policy, human rights etc. Light years ahead of us, hopefully they won't let themselves get too carried away with the war on terror crap.

As regards the north, don't think it would make a huge differnce and anyway there is no way rejoining would ever be accepted in a referendum. Gay is talking through his hole, as is his wont.

Time Magazine

Lads, just to let ye know, this was the way country was run from the enactment of the Constitution (in 1937) until the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949. It's not totally mad.

I don't know if it would particularly help with relations with the North, certainly when one considers European integration.

I don't want the monarch to have any force in Ireland. I've no problem with further integration with Britain, and with our comrades in what I consider our six counties who feel British, but what's the point of re-joining the Commonwealth (or anything like it) with the Treaty of Rome fifty years passed?

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - we need to lose our anti-British attitude if we ever want to democratically re-integrate the North; but I don't think this is the way to do it at all.

pucan

ScottishDanny wrote:

• Wearing Blueshirts (UK and Italy Fascists wore black, German Nazis wore Brown).
• Adopting the Fascist Salute
• Recruiting Irishmen to fight for the Spanish Fascist Franco and his allies Hitler and Mussolini against the democratically elected Government of Spain.
• Attempting a march on Dublin inspired by Mussolini's March on Rome when he seized power. (FF Govt banned the march).

You know, that sort of thing.

That was the blue shirts not Fine Gael. Fine Gael got rid of O'Duffy fairly quickly when C Na G and the blue shirts amalgamated. Labour contains elements of the old Workers Party which was linked to the IRA, does that mean that Labour can be considered to have terrorist roots?

And the article of the constitution referring to the monarchy does not give the monarchy any powers over Ireland but allows the government to confer certain powers on the monrach of the commonwealth to represent us, if it chooses.

Gay was talking about what measures we would be prepared to consider in order to get the Unionists to agree to enter a United Ireland. His point was that if we claim to be Republicans, we must explore all options to unite the Island. Otherwise we are only paying lipservice to the notion of Nationalism and we will allow Sinn Fein/IRA to monopolise republicanism.

Malone

Being a Republican means you are against monarchies,so Gay is not a Republican.

constitutionus

Malone wrote:

Being a Republican means you are against monarchies,so Gay is not a Republican.

indeed in the interview he continually stated he was a "constitutional nationalist". nice to know whos not getting my vote

sovtek

InFront wrote:

Morally it would be beneficial, not only as a move of goodwill towards Britain, but indeed to sub Saharan African countries, who already have strong relationships with Ireland through Christianity. Why not create an economic friendship there as well? Again, this could also end up to be to our financial benefit.

Irish millionares are already rapidly speculating on property in places like Cape Town and driving the property prices out of reach for the locals...and then paying no tax here (or there). So "we" are already benefiting without a queen getting into it all.
I would like to see the look on Mcdowell's face when all those Africans start legally pouring into Ireland though.

Sparks

Seems like a rather restrained idea for Gay "We *must* have a fully operational Eurofighter wing to defend against Al-Quaeda" Mitchell, to be honest.

SeanW

InFront wrote:

ThE Unionist theory didn't even occur to me tbh.
There are a lot of worthy arguments for rejoining the Commonwealth I think. The main advantage that I was thinking of was economic ties with a block of countries with a united GDP of trillions of USD, countries that are outside of the EU such as Canada and Australia and India that have very valuable economies whose interaction could be to our financial benefit.
Why not take the approach of the other countries, which is that 'we were in it for long enough, why not get something good out of it?'... "Payback", as it were:)

Morally it would be beneficial, not only as a move of goodwill towards Britain, but indeed to sub Saharan African countries, who already have strong relationships with Ireland through Christianity. Why not create an economic friendship there as well? Again, this could also end up to be to our financial benefit.

The Commonwealth would also be a wonderful platform on which to raise our profile in the area of international human rights and human rights violations.

Plus, very notably, we could have Commonwealth Day here... and make it a public holiday!:D

No f'ing way. There's a reason why we're a republic and they're a kingdom. The monarchy is an old, obsolete, imperfect structure that the Brits keep around for posterity. That's fine for them. But Ireland is a seperate country, with different background, ideals, etc. No reason to get back into national unity with the Brits or to make the Queen head of state or anything like that.

I'm not a republican per-se but crap like this makes me want to join Sinn Fein :mad:

murphaph

Seems like a load of cobblers to me. We're a republic for heaven's sake. That's a fundamental change to our status. I've no problem rejoining the commonwealth however. Why the constant BS about luring a bunch of Ulstermen into a united Ireland anyway? Why do we even care? Let 'em live in their corner of the UK on this island and just ignore them. I'm sick of my government putting so much time and effort into NI tbh. We elect them to govern the Repulic of Ireland. The northerners have their own bloody government.

darkman2

Sparks wrote:

Seems like a rather restrained idea for Gay "We *must* have a fully operational Eurofighter wing to defend against Al-Quaeda" Mitchell, to be honest.

Did Gay say that??????:eek: I'll vote for him if he did:D

darkman2

murphaph wrote:

Seems like a load of cobblers to me. We're a republic for heaven's sake. That's a fundamental change to our status. I've no problem rejoining the commonwealth however. Why the constant BS about luring a bunch of Ulstermen into a united Ireland anyway? Why do we even care? Let 'em live in their corner of the UK on this island and just ignore them. I'm sick of my government putting so much time and effort into NI tbh. We elect them to govern the Repulic of Ireland. The northerners have their own bloody government.

No to Commonwealth
No to United Kingdom

Why we would join either is beyond me......

SeanW

ditto. FG/Labour was almost assured of my vote this election, gonna have to think about it really hard now. Sure the current wasters aren't much use but there's no bloody way I'm going to vote for someone who wants to bring Ireland back into the British Empire.

InFront

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

darkman2

InFront wrote:

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

Most of the countries in the Commonwealth are despotic states. Were part of the EU. There is no reason to join the Commonwealth. In fact I think we should be proud were not a member of it!

ScottishDanny

It seems daft to go back to monarchy to me. Australia is in the commonwealth and they are getting closer to being a republic all the time.

LostinBlanch

darkman2 wrote:

No to Commonwealth
No to United Kingdom

Why we would join either is beyond me......

I'm with Darkman and Murphaph on this. It is a non runner (as it should be IMO).
I'm perfectly happy to have harmonious relations with the UK and to recognise and acknowledge the longstanding historical links between our two countries. But rejoining the commonwealth would be a backward step as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said before this is just Gay Mitchell sounding off to get a couple of headlines in the silly season. It is not going to be part of FGs election manifesto AFAIK. Not that I'd know, not being a member of FG.

constitutionus

InFront wrote:

Does anybody have any argument against it apart from 'no way not the brits, not the british empire' line? Britain is not the head of the commonwealth, it is not called "The British Commonwealth" anymore and it is an autonomous community. The vast majority of Commonwealth countries don't even have the Queen as head of state (I think 15/53 do).

But are there any economic reasons not to join up? (thats a genuine question btw I can't think of any)

well im in the " not the british empire " camp but seems to me if we did rejoin the commenwealth we'd have to leave the euro seeing as none of the commonwealth countries are in it. the idea of liz's mug looking back at me on the money is reason enough for me not to do it, let alone the disasterous effects it would have on our trading relationship with europe and the consequent constitutional issues of the prior treaties

InFront

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

darkman2

InFront wrote:

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

IF I want you to consider this carefully:

Do you want us in an organistation that puts us in the same bracket as such great nations like Nigeria, Bangladesh and Cameroon!!!!!!? Eh thanks but no thanks....

darkman2

InFront wrote:

We wouldn't have to leave the euro at all. Britain doesn't have to leave the Commonwealth to join the euro (as I believe they will), so that's not correct.

You can be a member of the EU and the Commonwealth - surely the very existence of Britain in both unions proves that much.

The fact that places like Pakistan and India have their own currencies with no British insignia whatsoever proves that it's not a requirement for the Commonwealth.

Republics exist in the commonwealth e.g. Cameroon, India, Nigeria, BanglaDesh.

I'm not some sort of Anglophile, Im mostly thinking in economic terms here. I'm not knocking the anti Britishness part of it btw, was just wondering if there were any other reasons. What sort of prior treaties were you thinking of?

Just economically there is no benefit whatsoever for us to join the Commonwealth. Its like the queen, a figure head organistation.

Tricity Bendix

darkman2 wrote:

Just economically there is no benefit whatsoever for us to join the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth represents nearly a third of the world's population. Economically, it would make sense to be able to market Irish goods and services to these 1.8bn people at all possible levels. This could include returning to the Commonwealth. With the breakdown of the World Trade Talks, Ireland needs to learn how to take care of its own interests.

It is interesting to note that the Queen will not be automatically succeeded by the next British queen or king, but a vote must be taken by all Commonwealth members for a successor to this ceremonial position. Perhaps it would be more palatable for the Irish public if a British monarch was not chosen as the next head of the Commonwealth.

Mick86

Malone wrote:

Being a Republican means you are against monarchies,so Gay is not a Republican.

Who wants to be a Republican.

DublinWriter

b.ie curious wrote:

Perhaps it would be more palatable for the Irish public if a British monarch was not chosen as the next head of the Commonwealth.

Our future lies in Europe, not in the British Commonwealth

Without sounding like a rabid shinner, to me the British Commonwealth was basically a rebranding of the Empire, a mechanism to allow the UK to continue to rape India's vast resources without pesky international trade barriers.

FlutterinBantam

I freely admit I havn't read the full thread ,but I heard Gay Mitchell on Tubridy during the week.All the guy was asking is that we look at things a little differently. He didn't seem to be advocating any major solution...just that we look at things a bit differently???

Not a bad idea in my opinion

Hotblack Desiato

constitutionus wrote:

the idea of liz's mug looking back at me on the money is reason enough for me not to do it

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

juliuspret

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

In all honesty thats another 10 years down the road, at the earliest!

Still it will be funny when it happens!

Victor

I don't see the huge problem. Being "republican and nationalist" hasn't worked. How about trying the "not-very-royalist and nationalist" route?

Mick86 wrote:

Besides, if we had no presidential elections, how would the govt fix a cushy job and massive pension for it's geriatric/incompetent/useless hangers on. They can't all be senators.:D

You could have a governor general, with no election at all.

SeanW

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

Well when lizzie kicks the bucket it will be King Charles.

Since UK practice is to put a side profile of their monarch on their coins, the UK Euro/Sterling coins will just show a big ear ... fun times ahead.

DublinWriter

ninja900 wrote:

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

The UK will *never* join the Euro. It's too much of a cultural leap for them.

constitutionus

ninja900 wrote:

Commonwealth or not (and I can't see it happening, thankfully) you'd better prepare yourself.

If/when the UK joins the euro, a large proportion of the coinage in circulation here will bear the head of your favourite monarch and it'll be legal tender too :eek:

it'll never happen for two reasons

1. they still have delusions of being a world power, the idea of giving up the pound is just beyond them. particularly with the commonwealth being there reminding them of the old empire days

2. they cant even decide on one note for themselves. seriously theres about 10 different notes that ALL call themselves british sterling and the banks love having the liscence to print em. hell theres four in the north alone and not one of those banks will willingly give up that

juliuspret

constitutionus wrote:

it'll never happen for two reasons

1. they still have delusions of being a world power, the idea of giving up the pound is just beyond them. particularly with the commonwealth being there reminding them of the old empire days

2. they cant even decide on one note for themselves. seriously theres about 10 different notes that ALL call themselves british sterling and the banks love having the liscence to print em. hell theres four in the north alone and not one of those banks will willingly give up that

I think never is too strong and permanent a word.

Yes they still very much have delusions of Empire due to their closeness to the US....brown noseing the teacher etc...

When the Euro was about to be introduced didnt the Bureau de Changes want some sort of pay off due to the imminent loss of business?

And gettting back on the original idea of this thread....dual heads of state?....its almost certainly a dream for a very small Royalist population in Ireland.