Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

Options
1…910121415…22

Comments

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


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »



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

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


    um. we gave that up 11 years ago


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


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

    Curious.

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

    Which is a claim...

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

    guardonfirecrop400.jpg

    dublin.jpg

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


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

    and thats wrong, this image that all nationalists are violent is wrong.

    i doubt you would label all muslims like this


  • Options
    #353
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


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

    i don't think thats either here nor there. most nationalists are peacefull and you will always have some people, nationalists or not, who are just up for a row. for example I doubt many people could call John Hume a violent man


  • Options
    #354
    Livvie
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Livvie


    bmaxi wrote: »
    I've no objection to the Queen visiting but I can imagine a few regular posters on this forum will be apoplectic. The English are proud of their monarchy and its heritage, why should it bother us how they choose them?

    Proud of the history of the monarchy maybe. I do think they're back on the up a bit, but they've had a rough ride (but more about Camilla later) in the past because they were so out of touch with us common people.

    The Queen is one thing, but all these distant cousins five times removed need weeding out.

    Charles would be a very unpopular king I think.


  • Options
    #355
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


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


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

    The problem with the "Love Ulster" Parade was that it was not inclusive rather it was a march across dublin city by Ulster Unionist for Ulster Unionist, and yet those in the media seem to have forgotten those that died in the Dublin Monaghan boomings. Had the Love Ulster parade been an inclusive parade I would have had no issue with it but it was not an inclusive parade something that many people forget.

    BTW that in no way defends the actions of the protesters on that day, there should have been a peaceful protest about the sectarianism of the Love Ulster Parade.

    Boneheads is just a silly term in any conversation, Ya feckin' Bonehead :)


  • Options
    #356
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Bohs fans do

    Eh... ? Ye wha' ?
    I'm presuming you're a Rovers fan if you're saying something rediculous like that.

    ..but back on topic I suppose, I've yet to see an actual realistic and non-emotionally based argument put forward from anyone on here as to why she should not visit Ireland.
    They're already out polishing the monument erected some years back in her honour out in Dun Laoghaire so I'm told so I presume she'll be visiting there too.


  • Options
    #357
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    aDeener wrote: »
    and thats wrong, this image that all nationalists are violent is wrong.

    i doubt you would label all muslims like this

    Seriously what are you are jabbering on about where did I say or even imply all nationalists?
    sensibleken wrote: »
    i don't think thats either here nor there. most nationalists are peacefull and you will always have some people, nationalists or not, who are just up for a row. for example I doubt many people could call John Hume a violent man

    Sorry but it is pertinent as that is were most of the eye rolling about the nationalist movement comes from. If they had a track record of peaceful protests you wouldn’t see such resistance from people on here. You can claim that the characterisation is unfair but there is still validity to it.
    Elmo wrote: »
    Boneheads is just a silly term in any conversation, Ya feckin' Bonehead :)

    I didn’t introduce that word to the thread I just ran with it.


  • Options
    #358
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


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

    McGuinness does not represent the Irish people, the British Queen represents the British people.

    Some people tend to forget the difference between the head of state and what they call a terrorist.


  • Options
    #359
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    rovert wrote: »
    Seriously what are you are jabbering on about where did I say or even imply all nationalists?



    Sorry but it is pertinent as that is were most of the eye rolling about the nationalist movement comes from. If they had a track record of peaceful protests you wouldn’t see such resistance from people on here. You can claim that the characterisation is unfair but there is still validity to it.



    I didn’t introduce that word to the thread I just ran with it.

    your reference to the "nationalist movement" suggests you mean it in its entirety, plus then you attempt to justify this by going on about this "image" of the nationalist movement


  • Options
    #360
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    aDeener wrote: »
    your reference to the "nationalist movement" suggests you mean it in its entirety, plus then you attempt to justify this by going on about this "image" of the nationalist movement

    Id rather you quote me directly than badly paraphase. Your point would be shot down if you did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


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

    where you then attempt to justify below: taking in the nationalist movement in its entirety.
    rovert wrote: »
    I think most people who associate those images more than peaceful protests with nationalist movement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement