Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

Wolfe Tone

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

No, just no. After everything Ireland went through to distance itself from Britain? Quite simply is not going to happen.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No, just no. After everything Ireland went through to distance itself from Britain? Quite simply is not going to happen.

Don't you see how much pain and suffering our current methods have caused? We've distanced ourselves from the majority protestant populace in the North and have been paying the price for the last ninety years. If the only way to lasting peace and the ultimate goal of a united Ireland is by joining the commonwealth to officially recognise the culture of northern Unionists then what have we got to lose by doing so?

My Grandfather was a very proud nationalistic supporter of De Valera yet regardless of this he lived peacefully in a majority protestant area and the majority of his friends were dyed in the wool protestants! Yet that never seemed to bother either of them, and although they would have arguments there were never any paramilitary organisations around!

This got me thinking and I've come to the conclusion that protestants and catholics can live together as long as there is a degree of tolerence between the two ideals. And how better to show our tolerance of unionist ideals but to welcome their Queen with open arms?

But then maybe I'm just an idealist.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't you see how much pain and suffering our current methods have caused? We've distanced ourselves from the majority protestant populace in the North and have been paying the price for the last ninety years. If the only way to lasting peace and the ultimate goal of a united Ireland is by joining the commonwealth to officially recognise the culture of northern Unionists then what have we got to lose by doing so?

My Grandfather was a very proud nationalistic supporter of De Valera yet regardless of this he lived peacefully in a majority protestant area and the majority of his friends were dyed in the wool protestants! Yet that never seemed to bother either of them, and although they would have arguments there were never any paramilitary organisations around!

This got me thinking and I've come to the conclusion that protestants and catholics can live together as long as there is a degree of tolerence between the two ideals. And how better to show our tolerance of unionist ideals but to welcome their Queen with open arms?

But then maybe I'm just an idealist.

There is a fair bit of difference between welcoming the Queen and rejoining the commonwealth.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

There is a fair bit of difference between welcoming the Queen and rejoining the commonwealth.

You're right, there is. But welcoming The Queen with open arms can only help relations between Republicans and Unionists.

Wolfe Tone

And reconciliatory actions by her will also accomplish the same goal. I will partially reserve my condemnation of her visit until I see an itinerary and what she will actually do here. Her actions will be a big factor.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And reconciliatory actions by her will also accomplish the same goal. I will partially reserve my condemnation of her visit until I see an itinerary and what she will actually do here. Her actions will be a big factor.

She most likely won't do anything. What would you like her to do?

aDeener

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

oh come on, the commonwealth games? thats it. i dont think our athletes are too pushed about not being able to compete in them.

paky

i cant see the queen visiting unless it been a suprise visit. too dangerous

Nodin

getz wrote: »

AS I SEE IT,its part of a long term plan,first it will be a visit by the queen ,just to get the feel of how the people of the republic except her ,next [if things go well]will be the rejoining of the commonwealth,this will send a signal to the loyalists in the north that ireland has reconized their british heritage,politically this give ireland for the first time[as a mother country] a long side the UK canada and australia a large say on the international stage[the commonwealth is far bigger than the EU or any other international group] from the sporting side,more irish sportsmen and woman would be able to compete on a international stage,and we all know that sport unites citizens more than any politics.there are allso many trade advantages in being part of this big club.then maybe just maybe a better chance for a united ireland,it may be a bitter pill for some irish people ,but i would be a good move for both countries,nothing i have said here hasent already been said by irish politicians.

"A bigger say"....Hmmmmm. Like during the Apartheid South African era, when the heads of nearly every commonwealth country wanted sanctions taken against the regime and Thatcher said no....."a bigger say" by hanging on the coat tails of a discredited post imperial scheme run by a former power that now clings to the coat tails of the USA to try to maintain the pretence of influence....Why would we hang around the monkey and not go to the organ grinder?

Judgement Day

A bit off topic, but I have noted a marked reluctance amongst many posters here and on other similar threads to even contemplate rejoining the Commonwealth as a step to a united Ireland - if this is reflective of the broad nationalist community there is zero possibility of any 32 county state. Just my opinion as I couldn't care less whether or not Ireland is united/rejoins the Commonwealth or even the UK - it won't affect my life one jot.

Elmo

Judgement Day wrote: »

A bit off topic, but I have noted a marked reluctance amongst many posters here and on other similar threads to even contemplate rejoining the Commonwealth as a step to a united Ireland - if this is reflective of the broad nationalist community there is zero possibility of any 32 county state. Just my opinion as I couldn't care less whether or not Ireland is united/rejoins the Commonwealth or even the UK - it won't affect my life one jot.

Too many Partisioners in the country. They would come up with the same old lines of how Ireland Unite would be far to expensive etc etc etc.

Fine Gael in 1949 took us out of the Commonwealth without really considering the consequences. And we were very effective within the Commonwealth at the time, e.g. Allowing Commonwealth countries to have a President e.g. Douglas Hyde and Sean T. O'Kelly. (Oh and Mugaby :eek: )

The Unionist would still find issues with the idea, possible the reasons they gave for not want home rule.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are you talking about? I'm not being smart I honestly didn't understand your post.

I thought I explained it. Football is not Soccer. I am neutral on this subject it is Soccer, Gealic and Rugby just so that I don't offend anyone.

mathepac

The degree of ignorance in this thread is staggering.

20goto10 wrote: »

She's been invited to the Republic of Ireland. ...

She has actually been invited to visit Ireland by the Government of Ireland. There is no country called "the Republic of Ireland"; check previous posts in this thread or refer to our Constitution ( Article 4, discussed here )

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And you would know it is The British Government that awards those honours, not the Queen herself. ...

Lizzie (on her birthday) grants honours based on the recommendations of her Government. They are in her gift, not her Government's.

The loyal subjects to be honoured by the monarch get an invite for cucumber sandwiches and tiffin on the lawn at Buck House on Lizzie's birthday and she gives them a bit of paper, a little Christmas cracker-type enamelled brooch and a MLA to tag onto their names.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

... For those that want Wilfords honour removed they need to petition the right people, which is not the Queen.
...

Lizzie grants these honours, only Lizzie can take them away.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

All this Commander-in-Chief business is a red herring, ...

All British servicemen and women, private soldiers and commissioned officers alike swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown - the Monarch and her heirs and successors, not to the Government. The Monarch is the Supreme Commander and exercises direct control over the armed forces through family members who are colonels-in-chief over various sections of it.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

... it wasn't the Queen who sent the troops into the north, it was her Government. She is merely a figurehead and couldn't have stopped them sending them in if thats what they wanted.

As Colonel-in-Chief she bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of her armed forces, but as is normal in these circumstances some minor functionary will do the right thing and take one for Queen and country in a trumped-up kangaroo court, sparing Lizzies's blushes again.

Iwasfrozen

mathepac wrote: »

The degree of ignorance in this thread is staggering.

I often find it funny how the people who call other people ignorant are often the ignorant ones themselves.

mathepac wrote: »

She has actually been invited to visit Ireland by the Government of Ireland. There is no country called "the Republic of Ireland"; check previous posts in this thread or refer to our Constitution ( Article 4, discussed here )

The poster was refering to Ireland as the Rep. of Ireland to differ it from Northern Ireland which is a home country of the United Kingdom and not a Republic.
Do you always call countrys by their official name? Such as using the term Côte d'Ivoire instead of the Ivory Coast? I doubt it.

mathepac wrote: »

Lizzie (on her birthday) grants honours based on the recommendations of her Government. They are in her gift, not her Government's.

Lizzie grants these honours, only Lizzie can take them away.

You're right when you say it's her gift but are you right when you say she can take it away? I've never seen a case where an OBE has been taken away from someone and I doubt it's even possible.

mathepac wrote: »

All British servicemen and women, private soldiers and commissioned officers alike swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown - the Monarch and her heirs and successors, not to the Government. The Monarch is the Supreme Commander and exercises direct control over the armed forces through family members who are colonels-in-chief over various sections of it.

You're right she is Commander in Chief of the British army. Just like Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the American army and our own dear Mary McAleese is Commander in Chief of the Irish army. However just like Obama and our own dear Mary she does not operate any control over the army. Indeed there would probably be an uproar in Britain if she did.

mathepac wrote: »

As Colonel-in-Chief she bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of her armed forces, but as is normal in these circumstances some minor functionary will do the right thing and take one for Queen and country in a trumped-up kangaroo court, sparing Lizzies's blushes again.

No she doesn't. She cannot take any responsibility for something she wasn't even involved in. Not that I see what any of this has to do with her visit.

Dirty Frank

Whats the fuss about it? Why are people opposed to it? I don't see a problem, I'd consider myself biased as a free stater but can't see any harm in her coming to visit.

aDeener

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I often find it funny how the people who call other people ignorant are often the ignorant ones themselves.

The poster was refering to Ireland as the Rep. of Ireland to differ it from Northern Ireland which is a home country of the United Kingdom and not a Republic.
Do you always call countrys by their official name? Such as using the term Côte d'Ivoire instead of the Ivory Coast? I doubt it.


You're right when you say it's her gift but are you right when you say she can take it away? I've never seen a case where an OBE has been taken away from someone and I doubt it's even possible.


You're right she is Commander in Chief of the British army. Just like Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the American army and our own dear Mary McAleese is Commander in Chief of the Irish army. However just like Obama and our own dear Mary she does not operate any control over the army. Indeed there would probably be an uproar in Britain if she did.


No she doesn't. She cannot take any responsibility for something she wasn't even involved in. Not that I see what any of this has to do with her visit.

Roger Casement had his honours stripped off him

mathepac

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I often find it funny how the people who call other people ignorant are often the ignorant ones themselves...

You'll probably find my explanation to another poster above useful.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... The poster was refering to Ireland as the Rep. of Ireland to differ it from Northern Ireland ...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... You're right when you say it's her gift but are you right when you say she can take it away? I've never seen a case where an OBE has been taken away from someone and I doubt it's even possible...

Instances of honours bestowed by the monarch being taken away are numerous. From an Irish perspective a pertinent example is that of Roger Casement (formerly Sir Roger Casement KB, CMG) civil servant, diplomat, human rights activist, who was stripped of all his British honours (knighthood, Knight Bachelor of The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George) prior to his execution having been tried and found guilty of treason. He died a poet, Irish Nationalist, patriot and is best remembered here as a revolutionary and martyr.

sceptre

Mod instruction: tone down the idiotic personalisation of the discussion. Now, please. Mutual politeness is both required and expected.

I've deleted about 10 posts that were off-topic to the point of silliness, some also very silly. Also one or two that referenced them, making better points than the sillies but alas, off-topic. Some left that are little better but at least ostensibly trying.

/mod

Cormac2791

Only if it's to give back the 6

DublinWriter

Dirty Frank wrote: »

Whats the fuss about it? Why are people opposed to it? I don't see a problem, I'd consider myself biased as a free stater but can't see any harm in her coming to visit.

I'm not opposed to it on political grounds, but ffs won't someone think of the Garda overtime bill?!?

Remember when Bush came to visit and *every* attested member of AGS was on the double-tap? They even spent thousands taking the speed-bumps out of Phoenix Park then re-installing them after the visit.

lugha

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm not opposed to it on political grounds, but ffs won't someone think of the Garda overtime bill?!?

Remember when Bush came to visit and *every* attested member of AGS was on the double-tap? They even spent thousands taking the speed-bumps out of Phoenix Park then re-installing them after the visit.

I believe the cost argument to be entirely spurious but if you want to make it, surely you must be consistent. I.e. put paid to all symbolic visits by foreign dignitaries as they all cost some money. And of course we would have to expect foreign governments to respond in kind and decline to invite Irish dignitaries to their shores. And thus we would piddle away the unique and invaluable opportunity that St. Patrick’s day affords us.

rovert

cormacharraghy wrote: »

Only if it's to give back the 6

Yep as it is that simply isnt it.

Dub in the Sticks

If you believe in any history, we have been interacting with the Brits since St. Patrick came here from Wales in 432 AD.

That's only about 1700 years ago.

We talk a lot about the past 800 years, conveniently forgetting that we invited the English in to subjugate the Normans (who we also invited in).

As far as I am concerned the Queen is welcome.

Her Government is taking care of far more Irish people than the "Irish" government is.

Do the sums. Where did all the people go that Brian Lenihan begged to get out?

After 1700 years interaction with the Brits we still don't get it.

DitS.

Richard

Dub in the Sticks wrote: »

If you believe in any history, we have been interacting with the Brits since St. Patrick came here from Wales in 432 AD.

I think if Home Rule and the Easter Rising had played out differently, views of previous events would have been viewed in a different light. The same can be said of the modern Bloody Sunday.

The fact that the Scoti, an Irish tribe, invaded what is now Scotland (giving it the name Scotland) and overwhelming the native population is conveniently overlooked because it doesn't serve a modern purpose.

Atrocities by the Vikings are also ignored.

Judgement Day

Heard this announcement on the radio this morning: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/queen-visit-to-cost-taxpayer-8m-463225.html

and it reminded me of the last time 'a ring of steel' was put in place by Ireland's security services - remember this: http://www.rte.ie/tv/gardaarlar/09prog5.html

Hope someone has passed on this info to the Brits - perhaps they can bring the Life Guards over with the Queen as it would add a splash of colour to the event.



Certainly the Love Ulster march fiasco would not inspire confidence in the ability of the State to keep the lid on things.

nuac

I support ths invitation to QE II

Because

1. The referenda on the GFA have settled the polical problem in the Nothe of Ireland and make it clear that any further changes there will be by consent.

2. The UK is a huge market for out exports and for tourism. A successful state visit would help with these and thus sustain employment here.

Denerick

I'm sure the little Irelanders will be appaled by this. Let them stew in their rural pubs, lamenting the way the modern world has gone, and ditch these unrepresentative, bigoted, small minded losers once and for all.

karma_

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sure the little Irelanders will be appaled by this. Let them stew in their rural pubs, lamenting the way the modern world has gone, and ditch these unrepresentative, bigoted, small minded losers once and for all.

There yee go all who disagree with this poster, you are just a 'little Irelander' and a looser to boot. Case resolved, lets move along now.

Denerick

karma_ wrote: »

There yee go all who disagree with this poster, you are just a 'little Irelander' and a looser to boot. Case resolved, lets move along now.

Is there any other explanation for opposing the visit of a foreign head of State, one who is our largest trading partner, a compatriot within the European Union, and a host nation for millions of people of Irish descent?

rovert

Denerick wrote: »

Is there any other explanation for opposing the visit of a foreign head of State, one who is our largest trading partner, a compatriot within the European Union, and a host nation for millions of people of Irish descent?

The cost of €8 million suppose :rolleyes:

cagney88

I wouldn't mind the queen coming here per se, however, the rest of the world still has trouble realising that we are no longer apart of the UK.

Ask any american tourist or just watch the Late Late when american celebrities remark 'how great it is to be here in the U.K.'

Many English people still think Ireland is apart of the U.K. Just this week Grazia had an article on the best U.K boutiques and low and behold there was a Dublin store on the list.

I find it maddening.

And as an aside, when I see posters suggesting that its time we move on, I think they should look at how England has yet to move on from its history with Argentina and Germany. The crowd were booing through the latter's anthem today.