Gay Mitchell advocated British Monarch as Head of All Irleand State

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/letters/dubious-stance-on-sovereignty-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

anymore wrote: »

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

sceptre wrote: »

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 :pac:

Winty

SlabMurphy wrote: »

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

anymore wrote: »

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

sceptre wrote: »

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

Madd Finn wrote: »

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

Nijmegen wrote: »

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/letters/i-never-wanted-a-role-for-monarch-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/letters/i-never-wanted-a-role-for-monarch-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

SlabMurphy wrote: »

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 :pac:

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.

getz

sceptre wrote: »

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.

UK should be a republic /no thanks,we tried it once and look what happened,cromwell invaded ireland and started all the problems,anyway why would you want a british monarchy,when you already have a roman one ?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

UK should be a republic /no thanks,we tried it once and look what happened,cromwell invaded ireland and started all the problems,anyway why would you want a british monarchy,when you already have a roman one ?

Cromwell led a dictatorship not a democratic republic. And nothing he did surpassed the crimes of the monarchy throughout British history. Who had previously invaded Ireland as it happens, Cromwell was just finishing their handiwork of murder, plunder and torture.

Home Rule is Rome Rule eh? What is this, 1920?

getz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Cromwell led a dictatorship not a democratic republic. And nothing he did surpassed the crimes of the monarchy throughout British history. Who had previously invaded Ireland as it happens, Cromwell was just finishing their handiwork of murder, plunder and torture.

Home Rule is Rome Rule eh? What is this, 1920?

you just havent read your history have you,?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

you just havent read your history have you,?

The ironing is delicious.

matthew8

Genius, Gay. Trying to reach out to the unionists with such a proposal. Home rule will remain Rome Rule unfortunately. The idea is that though scrapping the monarchy would never pass in the 6 a united Ireland would pass it.

Not gonna happen though.

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

It is hardly surprising they outlawed slavery before the US given there werent any slaves at work in the UK

There was slavery in England prior to 1102, but that year the Council of Westminster banned it.

The English actually banned slavery 900 years ago.

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

There was slavery in England prior to 1102, but that year the Council of Westminster banned it.

The English actually banned slavery 900 years ago.

....actually no. 1772 in Britain, 1830 or so in the colonies.

getz

Nodin wrote: »

....actually no. 1772 in Britain, 1830 or so in the colonies.

good for them,now the catholic church didn'tcondemn all forms of slavery untill 1890,when pope leoX111 issued his ;encyclical catholicae; in other words,the condemnation of all forms of slavery came late in catholic history,long after western countries had banned it.

Nodin

getz wrote: »

good for them,now the catholic church didn'tcondemn all forms of slavery untill 1890,when pope leoX111 issued his ;encyclical catholicae; in other words,the condemnation of all forms of slavery came late in catholic history,long after western countries had banned it.

....whats that to do with anything?

getz

Nodin wrote: »

....whats that to do with anything?

following your quote

baalthor

Madd Finn wrote: »

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.

In the Dual Monarchy each country was sovereign, had it's own parliament and prime minister and full control over it's territory. The Monarch, Foreign Affairs and Defence were shared. They key point was that each country was equal under the union.
When Arthur Griffith promoted this idea for Ireland, Sinn Fein was a small party with very little influence. The only reason Dual Monarchy is remembered today is because Sinn Fein later became the dominant party in Irish politics by which time they had abandoned Dual Monarchy - something the British (and the Unionists) would never have agreed to anyway.

Home Rule was quite different, it meant a local Irish governemnt with limited powers subject to overall British sovereignty. This was the policy of John Redmond and the Irish Parliamentary party.

Nodin

getz wrote: »

following your quote

...what has that to do with my quote?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Getz appears to be believe that all Irish people worship the pope and follow his advice on everything. Standard anti-Irish propaganda from about two centuries ago in other words.

delos

I wonder where the baying mob who appeared on the "Norris wants us back in the commonwealth" thread have disappeared to?

anymore

getz wrote: »

good for them,now the catholic church didn'tcondemn all forms of slavery untill 1890,when pope leoX111 issued his ;encyclical catholicae; in other words,the condemnation of all forms of slavery came late in catholic history,long after western countries had banned it.

No actually slavery continued in Catholic labour camps until the 1960's in Ireland !

Cú Giobach

getz wrote: »

UK should be a republic /no thanks,we tried it once and look what happened,cromwell invaded ireland and started all the problems,anyway why would you want a british monarchy,when you already have a roman one ?

The pope is only a head for the catholics in Ireland not our head of state, therefore, why did you make this comment?

getz

anymore wrote: »

No actually slavery continued in Catholic labour camps until the 1960's in Ireland !

it went on into the 80s,the fallout on the laundries is still ongoing,locking up people,for not committing any crime,sometimes for life,forced labour,without any pay,that is slavery.

getz

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The pope is only a head for the catholics in Ireland not our head of state, therefore, why did you make this comment?

the roman church has immeasurable influence and power over political and social trajectory of irish politics and society control over,education,health,welfare and morals,we see the likes of sheila hodgers in a catholic hospital who died ,because she was refused treatment for cancer,because she was pregnant,eileen flynn fired from her job as a teacher because she was pregnant and not married,all this is catholic dogma ,and not the laws of the land.no other organization could have got away with things like this ,unless they are pulling the strings of the goverment, laws to limit out abuse payments by the church,the tax payer [you] are funding it,proves that they have the irish goverment in their pocket,at this moment what the head of the roman church wants he gets, pope first ,head of state second

anymore

Nodin wrote: »

....whats that to do with anything?

It is a response to your previous post.

Cú Giobach

getz wrote: »

the roman church has immeasurable influence and power over political and social trajectory of irish politics and society control over,education,health,welfare and morals,we see the likes of sheila hodgers in a catholic hospital who died ,because she was refused treatment for cancer,because she was pregnant,eileen flynn fired from her job as a teacher because she was pregnant and not married,all this is catholic dogma ,and not the laws of the land.no other organization could have got away with things like this ,unless they are pulling the strings of the goverment,

What do these 30 year old events have to do with Ireland today?
Are you posting from the 1980's?

at this moment what the head of the roman church wants he gets, pope first ,head of state second

So how come we have legal contraception, divorce and abortion(ish)?

Liam Byrne

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Getz appears to be believe that all Irish people worship the pope and follow his advice on everything. Standard anti-Irish propaganda from about two centuries ago in other words.

Well considering that the Irish Government forced us all to foot the bill for their child abuse and very few people objected, Getz definitely has some grain of justification for believing that.

getz

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What do these 30 year old events have to do with Ireland today?
Are you posting from the 1980's?


So how come we have legal contraception, divorce and abortion(ish)?

OK ireland to day ,the new blaspheny law,is a religious based nonsence aimed to protect the irish catholic church, keeping in mind that the credibility of the irish catholic church is about zero,following nemerous sex abuse allegations,the blaspheny law is illegal in terms what EU legislationsays , in terms of freedom of speach, advice given to irish citizens by ILCF is to fully ignore at their leisure as any blaspheny alligation must be based on religious fact not religious fiction.now do you believe it was the church that was pushing the buttons ?

Cú Giobach

getz wrote: »

OK ireland to day ,the new blaspheny law,is a religious based nonsence aimed to protect the irish catholic church, keeping in mind that the credibility of the irish catholic church is about zero,following nemerous sex abuse allegations,the blaspheny law is illegal in terms what EU legislationsays , in terms of freedom of speach, advice given to irish citizens by ILCF is to fully ignore at their leisure as any blaspheny alligation must be based on religious fact not religious fiction.now do you believe it was the church that was pushing the buttons ?

The new blasphemy law was the result of a supreme court ruling and nothing to do with the church.
You state the credibility of the catholic church is zero, and you also state The Pope is our de facto monarch, that's a very amusing position to take.

getz

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The new blasphemy law was the result of a supreme court ruling and nothing to do with the church.
You state the credibility of the catholic church is zero, and you also state The Pope is our de facto monarch, that's a very amusing position to take.

if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck....its a duck,,the timing was to much a coincidence

dlofnep

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose his intentions were to appease Unionists to make a single Irish state more viable, rather than some subconscious yearning for being apart of a British state.

What would it entail to have the British monarch as head of state of Ireland? Well, it would firstly imply that Ireland and Britain are united. The monarch is not only head of state, but also head of the British armed forces - therefore, she would be the head of the Irish armed forces. If that was the case - Ireland's 'neutrality', and I use that term very loosely would be eroded, and the British war policy would become normalised in time in Ireland.

That would mean that any actions by Britain, would also be reflected in Ireland. Ireland would be subject to any attacks, just like the London Tube bombings. Irish civilians abroad would be placed under more danger.

Irish tax would go towards funding the monarchy, a monarchy that recently wanted to use a state poverty fund to fund the heating for their palace instead.

I mean, do we seriously need such an archaic form of head of state in these days and ages? I certainly recognise that if Ireland is ever re-united, it will involve some form of compromise for Unionists - but having the Queen as head of state is utter claptrap.

Cú Giobach

getz wrote: »

if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck....its a duck,,the timing was to much a coincidence

If this is all you can say then your argument has been shot down, like a duck in an explosion of feathers.

Batsy

Nodin wrote: »

....actually no. 1772 in Britain, 1830 or so in the colonies.

It was actually the Council of Westminster 1102.

The trade in slaves in England was made illegal in 1102, and the last form of enforced servitude had disappeared in Britain by the beginning of the seventeenth century. However, by the eighteenth century, black slaves began to be brought into London and Edinburgh as personal servants. They were NOT bought or sold, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somerset forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Stuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations.

While in London, Somerset had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus (yet another great instrument of English freedom. Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, which originated in the English legal system but has now spread around the world, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention). As a result Lord Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law as there was no legislation for slavery in England. In his judgement of 22 June 1772 he declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." It was thus declared that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law. This judgement emancipated the 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.

After reading of the Somerset case, a black slave in Scotland, Joseph Knight, left his master, John Wedderburn. A similar case to Steuart's was brought by Wedderburn in 1776, with the same result: that chattel slavery did not exist under the law of Scotland (nevertheless, there were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation).

First steps
Despite the disappearance of slavery in Great Britain, in the American and West Indian colonies of the British Empire, slavery was a way of life.

By 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That year the first English abolitionist organization was founded by a group of Quakers. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. On 17 June 1783 the issue was formally brought to government by Sir Cecil Wray (Member of Parliament for Retford), who presented the Quaker petition to parliament. Also in 1783, Dr Beilby Porteus issued a call to the Church of England to cease its involvement in the slave trade and to formulate a workable policy to draw attention to and improve the conditions of Afro-Caribbean slaves.

Black people played an important part in the movement for abolition. In Britain, Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography went into nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade.

Growth of the movement
In May 1787, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed, referring to the Atlantic slave trade, the trafficking in slaves by British merchants who took manufactured goods from ports such as Bristol and Liverpool, sold or exchanged these for slaves in West Africa where the African chieftain hierarchy was tied to slavery, shipped the slaves to British colonies and other Caribbean countries or the American colonies/USA, where they sold or exchanged them mainly to the Planters for rum and sugar, which they took back to British ports. This was the so-called Triangle trade because these mercantile merchants traded in three places each round-trip.

Political influence against the inhumanity of the slave trade grew strongly in the late eighteenth century. Many people, some African, some European by descent, influenced abolition. Well known abolitionists in Britain included James Ramsay who had seen the cruelty of the trade at first hand, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and other members of the Clapham Sect of evangelical reformers, as well as Quakers who took most of the places on the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, having been the first to present a petition against the slave trade to the British Parliament and who founded the predessor body to the Committee . As Dissenters, Quakers were not eligible to become British MPs in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, so the Anglican evangelist William Wilberforce was persuaded to become the leader of the parliamentary campaign. Clarkson became the group's most prominent researcher, gathering vast amounts of information about the slave trade, gaining first hand accounts by interviewing sailors and former slaves at British ports such as Bristol, Liverpool and London.

Mainly because of Clarkson's efforts, a network of local abolition groups was established across the country. They campaigned through public meetings and the publication of pamphlets and petitions. One of the earliest books promoted by Clarkson and the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was the autobiography of the freed slave Olaudah Equiano. The movement had support from such freed slaves, from many denominational groups such as Swedenborgians, Quakers, Baptists, Methodists and others, and reached out for support from the new industrial workers of the cities in the midlands and north of England. Even women and children, previously un-politicised groups, became involved in the campaign although at this date women often had to hold separate meetings and were ineligible to be represented in the British Parliament, as indeed were the majority of the men in Britain.

One particular project of the abolitionists was the negotiation with African chieftains for the purchase of land in West African kingdoms for the establishment of 'Freetown' - a settlement for former slaves of the British Empire and the American colonies/USA, back in west Africa. This privately negotiated settlement, later part of Sierra Leone eventually became protected under a British Act of Parliament in 1807-8, after which British influence in West Africa grew as a series of negotiations with local Chieftains were signed to stamp out trading in slaves. These included agreements to permit British navy ships to intercept Chieftains' ships to ensure their merchants were not carrying slaves.

In 1796, John Gabriel Stedman published the memoirs of his five-year voyage to Surinam as part of a military force sent out to subdue bosnegers, former slaves living in the inlands. The book is critical of the treatment of slaves and contains many images by William Blake and Francesco Bartolozzi depicting the cruel treatment of runaway slaves. It became part of a large body of abolitionist literature.

1805 – Slave Trade Bill
Wilberforce’s bill of 1804 was passed by the commons in but fell in the Lords, as many peers, including Bishops, decided to go to the opera instead of voting!

Slave Trade Act 1807
The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the trade continued and captains in danger of being caught by the Royal Navy would often throw slaves into the sea to reduce the fine. In 1827, Britain declared that participation in the slave trade was piracy and punishable by death.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833
After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement again became active, this time campaigning against the institution of slavery itself. The Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1827. Many of the campaigners were those who had previously campaigned against the slave trade.

http://www.leicester.anglican.org/site-includes/uploads/wygwam/070325%20Abolition%20of%20Slave%20Trade%20research.doc

Batsy

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Cromwell led a dictatorship not a democratic republic.

It was still a republic, whether it was a dictatorship or not. The reason the British are so against republicanism nowadays is because of the bad experience we had the last time we were a republic.

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose his intentions were to appease Unionists to make a single Irish state more viable, rather than some subconscious yearning for being apart of a British state.

What would it entail to have the British monarch as head of state of Ireland? Well, it would firstly imply that Ireland and Britain are united. The monarch is not only head of state, but also head of the British armed forces - therefore, she would be the head of the Irish armed forces. If that was the case - Ireland's 'neutrality', and I use that term very loosely would be eroded, and the British war policy would become normalised in time in Ireland.

That would mean that any actions by Britain, would also be reflected in Ireland. Ireland would be subject to any attacks, just like the London Tube bombings. Irish civilians abroad would be placed under more danger.

Irish tax would go towards funding the monarchy, a monarchy that recently wanted to use a state poverty fund to fund the heating for their palace instead.

I mean, do we seriously need such an archaic form of head of state in these days and ages? I certainly recognise that if Ireland is ever re-united, it will involve some form of compromise for Unionists - but having the Queen as head of state is utter claptrap.

i am not sure if the queen is the head of the canadian,australian, ect armed forces,i dont think he is talking about rejoining the union, more like the commonwealth, but even if it did i am sure it would be the british tax payer who would be suporting the irish tax payer,it woud never happen anyway

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

i am not sure if the queen is the head of the canadian,australian, ect armed forces,i dont think he is talking about rejoining the union, more like the commonwealth, but even if it did i am sure it would be the british tax payer who would be suporting the irish tax payer,it woud never happen anyway

It's not the same thing as the implication would be that it is a trade-off for unionists for Irish unification. Therefore, there would be a single Irish state under the banner of the Crown.

getz

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If this is all you can say then your argument has been shot down, like a duck in an explosion of feathers.

only country in the EU to bring up blaspheny laws ,who do you think put them up for it,and it was introduced with indecent haste,if it was not broke why fix it

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not the same thing as the implication would be that it is a trade-off for unionists for Irish unification. Therefore, there would be a single Irish state under the banner of the Crown.

i dont think any of us want that .irish or british,thats to much of a compromise,best idea is for ireland promising a new state of ireland[not a republic] then there would be a one ireland within the commonwealth,that may pacify the unionists

Batsy

anymore wrote: »

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 was Britain which gave Irish women the right to vote in local elections as far back as 1869. In 1894, married women were given the vote in local elections in Britain and Ireland. All women above the age of 30 in Britain and Ireland were given the right to vote in any elections in 1918, compared to men above the age of 21, or above the age of 19 if they fought in WWI. Irish women can thank the British for first giving them the right to vote.

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.

Britain became the first country in the world to permanently ban its slave trade in 1807 not because there was a competitive advantage in encouraging the global banning of slavery but because they really were concerned about the plight of slaves. Ever heard of William Wilberforce?

Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, became concerned about the treatment of slaves.

In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.

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

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

It was actually the Council of Westminster 1102.

The trade in

And if you read the article, you'll see what I said was essentially correct. There was a programme about the campaign to keep slavery legal in the colonies there a few months back on the beeb.

Batsy

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The pope is only a head for the catholics in Ireland not our head of state, therefore, why did you make this comment?

He is the Head of State of the Vatican City. And many of those in Ireland who condemned the visit of the Queen as she is a constitutional monarch and they "don't believe in monarchy" would be out there in numbers to slobber and worship at the feet of the Pope, an ABSOLUTE monarch, should he ever visit Ireland.

Batsy

Nodin wrote: »

And if you read the article, you'll see what I said was essentially correct. There was a programme about the campaign to keep slavery legal in the colonies there a few months back on the beeb.

You weren't correct. You said slavery in England wasn't abolished until 1772. That is what you said.

What actually happened was that slavery was abolished way back in 1102, and this black "slave" in England in 1772 was released and given his freedom because slavery had been against the law in England for almost 700 years.