Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I think you will find that is disputed....

If you really really cared about the North you'd welcome the Queen to Ireland. A majority of people there are Unionists and consider the Queen to be their head of state. A slimmer minority consider her to be just another woman, and by and large pledge allegiance to Ireland. How on earth can Northern Ireland ever merge with the south if people will not even show the most basic level of respect for the loyal tribe up north? Ireland will never be unified as long as self righteous Republicans force an historical narrative down their throat. The same thing goes for the love Ulster march, when natives of this island were prevented from marching down the capital city of this island by a bunch of inner city thugs.

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I think you will find that is disputed....

Not by the majority who voted in the referendum regarding articles 2 and 3, and as we live in a democracy, the will of the majority is what goes.

junder

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If they had good reason, if we occupied part of Britain, if she awarded honours to an Irish soldier who massacred British citizens, if Irish military personell bombed British cities and then covered it up, yes, I would expect the Irish President to get a tough time.

And rightfully so.

Past irish governments helped and supported the IRA would that be reason enough, or maybe we should move on and see this as nothing more then one head of state visiting s neighbouring nation state after your head if state gad no problem meeting our head of state before even visiting buck palace itself

Denerick

livingtargets wrote: »

Good god.

Why do people here assume other people have "anti-brit sickness" because they oppose the visit of an unelected toff with no mandate from the people of Britain?

And then they say those who oppose are living in the past?Because they DON'T like the idea of a monarchy in the 21st century?Whaaaaa?

I have a problem with the queen coming here.Not just because of history;but because of the present:There are British soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan with her blessing,children in Iraq and Afghanistan being killed with her blessing,and plenty of people in Britain living in substandard council flats with never enough to eat while the queen and her inbred family live in palaces and castles.

Palaces and castles.In the 21st century.**** sake.

And no,I'm not a "Shinner",I just want to live in a world where everyone is free to decide their own determination,without an unelected blast from the middle-ages leering over them.
The queen's not better than me simply because of her family.The queen has no right to stand as a head of state(since the 50s,without a single election!)without the mandate of her subjects(ugh).

The Queen is a ceremonial role. Get off your high horse. If we really followed your insane dogmatic approach to foreign relations Ireland would be an obscure, disadvantaged, politically 'pure' backwater. Oh wait...

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

The Queen is a ceremonial role.

So she would have no problem in ceremoniously removing the title of OBE from Derek Wilford, once would imagine.

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

So she would have no problem in ceremoniously removing the title of OBE from Derek Wilford, once would imagine.

Well I hope she does. Considering the Saville enquiry incriminated its own troops and State, it does make the Republican absurdium that all Brits are evil Catholic eating monsters look rather silly.

FTA69

junder wrote: »

Past irish governments helped and supported the IRA

In a Unionist fantasy land perhaps.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

Well I hope she does. Considering the Saville enquiry incriminated its own troops and State, it does make the Republican absurdium that all Brits are evil Catholic eating monsters look rather silly.

I don't even remember hearing such a claim.

I think that it's perfectly valid to delay any visit by the Queen, until she removes honours from her soldiers for any murder of Irish civilians. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with asking for her to do so. It doesn't make one a Brit-hater. I believe that respect must be mutual between the two states in order for this process to work. To step foot on Irish soil, while honouring her soldiers for murdering Irish civilians does not demonstrate mutual respect. Is that not a fair point to make, without being accused of being a 'brit-hater'?

getz

livingtargets wrote: »

Good god.

Why do people here assume other people have "anti-brit sickness" because they oppose the visit of an unelected toff with no mandate from the people of Britain?

And then they say those who oppose are living in the past?Because they DON'T like the idea of a monarchy in the 21st century?Whaaaaa?

I have a problem with the queen coming here.Not just because of history;but because of the present:There are British soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan with her blessing,children in Iraq and Afghanistan being killed with her blessing,and plenty of people in Britain living in substandard council flats with never enough to eat while the queen and her inbred family live in palaces and castles.

Palaces and castles.In the 21st century.**** sake.

And no,I'm not a "Shinner",I just want to live in a world where everyone is free to decide their own determination,without an unelected blast from the middle-ages leering over them.
The queen's not better than me simply because of her family.The queen has no right to stand as a head of state(since the 50s,without a single election!)without the mandate of her subjects(ugh).

your not ant-brit, but you say the queen and her family are inbred ?

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

your not ant-brit, but you say the queen and her family are inbred ?

Maybe he is anti-monarch? I'm not sure how you derive a personal (and possibly childish) attack on the Royal family, as an attack on the British people as a whole.

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

In a Unionist fantasy land perhaps.

So the Charles haughey gun running was pure fantasy then?

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

Maybe he is anti-monarch? I'm not sure how you derive a personal (and possibly childish) attack on the Royal family, as an attack on the British people as a whole.

most british and commonwealth citizens ,may well say its a attack on the british ,also on one hand you cannot say the queen and her honours list meen nothing we do not recognize her,then on the other hand say she should take back her awards,i can assure you if the queen comes to ireland,all the celebs,and politicians will be stabbing each other in the back to get to meet her,i myself being english off irish stock would find that a little over the top.

livingtargets

getz wrote: »

your not ant-brit, but you say the queen and her family are inbred ?

Yes.

Her family and social group are socially inbred in that they live in an isolated ruling class fantasy where unelected monarchies are acceptable.Is that clear?

And if I was "anti-Brit",why would I have mentioned the "British lads dying in Iraq/Afghanistan with her blessing" and the british people living in "substandard council flats with never enough to eat..."?

I have absolutely no problem with Brits,I have problem with snobs who believe they have a birthright to rule a people with out their mandate.

sensibleken

livingtargets wrote: »

Yes.


I have absolutely no problem with Brits,I have problem with snobs who believe they have a birthright to rule a people with out their mandate.

I also have a problem with monarchy. I think it is the dumbest institution I have ever heard of and am glad we don't have one.

However its none of my buisness that the UK has one.If she's coming over as a representative of our nearest neighbour then id welcome her. Yes our countries have had their troubles but we're getting past that. To snub her and them would set us back not bring us forward.

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Not by the majority who voted in the referendum regarding articles 2 and 3, and as we live in a democracy, the will of the majority is what goes.

I voted for the GFA specifically as it had mechanisms to bring about a United Ireland through consent.

Don't assume that your reasons for voting yes was the same as the rest of ours. SF signed it, are you saying that they don't want a UI?

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

If you really really cared about the North you'd welcome the Queen to Ireland. A majority of people there are Unionists and consider the Queen to be their head of state. A slimmer minority consider her to be just another woman, and by and large pledge allegiance to Ireland. How on earth can Northern Ireland ever merge with the south if people will not even show the most basic level of respect for the loyal tribe up north? Ireland will never be unified as long as self righteous Republicans force an historical narrative down their throat. The same thing goes for the love Ulster march, when natives of this island were prevented from marching down the capital city of this island by a bunch of inner city thugs.[/QUOTE]

Please. They were a shower of bigots and cranks with links to terrorism who are banned from marching in the 6 counties. It was an idiotic idea to allow them to march in Dublin full stop and wasn't an attack on the 'loyal tribe'. If it was an Orange march there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

But I do take your broad point that Mrs Windsor getting hit with an egg or whathave you will not go down well with the loyalist community.

getz

livingtargets wrote: »

Yes.

Her family and social group are socially inbred in that they live in an isolated ruling class fantasy where unelected monarchies are acceptable.Is that clear?

And if I was "anti-Brit",why would I have mentioned the "British lads dying in Iraq/Afghanistan with her blessing" and the british people living in "substandard council flats with never enough to eat..."?

I have absolutely no problem with Brits,I have problem with snobs who believe they have a birthright to rule a people with out their mandate.

if the people of the UK did not want a royal family they would have removed it, they did it once before,or they would have voted for the republican party[yes there is one] so she has a mandate,the queen did not send people to afg/iraq,but in the case of afghanistan the irish goverment voted in the UN for them to go.

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I voted for the GFA specifically as it had mechanisms to bring about a United Ireland through consent.

Don't assume that your reasons for voting yes was the same as the rest of ours. SF signed it, are you saying that they don't want a UI?

It makes no difference what your reasons for voting were, if you voted yes like the majority, you voted to get rid of our claim to the North.

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

It makes no difference what your reasons for voting were, if you voted yes like the majority, you voted to get rid of our claim to the North.

No, I voted to AMEND our claim to the 6 counties.

You are oozing arrogance here and I'm not quite sure why

Dublin_Gunner

Personally, I couldn't give a flying shyte that she visits here. Just like any other head of state that visits.

Whats annoying me is the fact that apparently, our government (i.e our tax money) is funding her trip.

If that really is the case, she may go and politely fcuk off. I'm sure she could afford a Ryanair flight and a taxi. Possibly even a B&B if she wanted :rolleyes:

sceptre

Guys, I don't care why you voted for the 19th amendment or why you voted against it. Or particularly what you think it means and I don't even care about the wackiness posted about supposed renewals by the Dail or an out strategy. Mostly because it's only got relevance to the thread inside some of your heads and with all due respect, this place isn't designed as your idiocy ground (or playground, if one chooses to be more diplomatic).

This isn't an asylum, despite what some of you think. And if you have problems with other posts, report them. Do not indulge in personal attacks or personalisation of the discussion or you will no longer have access to the asylum.

See the people who are actually discussing the point of the thread? They're the reason the thread is still open. They're the only reason the thread is still open.

/mod

livingtargets

getz wrote: »

if the people of the UK did not want a royal family they would have removed it, they did it once before,or they would have voted for the republican party[yes there is one] so she has a mandate,the queen did not send people to afg/iraq,but in the case of afghanistan the irish goverment voted in the UN for them to go.

So,if they don't want a royal they should get rid of them?They should lead a revolt against the British Army?It's happened before:the Great Mutiny of 1797 when the Royal Navy rebelled against King George and ran up the red flag.And 1798 when Wolfe Tone led the United Irishmen against the forces of the monarchy.And the countless peasant revolts.The point is,that kind of thing usually ends up with anti-royalists with their heads on poles.

Or else they should vote for some minnow party nobody has heard of?

So the queen has a mandate because no one has voted for some minnow,one man and his dog Republican Party?Maybe people haven't voted for them because of their other policies.I don't think the failure of a joke shop party can be seen as a resounding cry of support for the queen.

"the queen did not send people to afg/iraq"
Yeah,she begged them to stop.She's only the bloody Queen,what could she do?....:rolleyes:

livingtargets

Hang on a bloody minute.
The "Republican Party Uk" is a one issue campaigning group!

It says on their site:

"Republic is a campaigning pressure group. Everything we do is aimed at persuading ordinary people - and our politicians - to support a republican constitution in place of the monarchy. "

I went searching for their site when you first mentioned them,but their site was down.I searched it again just there,and found not a "minnow political party",as I assumed they were as I've never heard of them,but a bloody campaigning group who don't actually run candidates!

So,no.The Queen doesn't have a mandate.Why are we welcoming an unelected toff who belongs in the middle-ages to our shores?

Lemegeton

i normally would not care but we are footing the bill for this trip so i am outgraded. the same goes for the Obama visit too

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Please. They were a shower of bigots and cranks with links to terrorism who are banned from marching in the 6 counties. It was an idiotic idea to allow them to march in Dublin full stop and wasn't an attack on the 'loyal tribe'. If it was an Orange march there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

But I do take your broad point that Mrs Windsor getting hit with an egg or whathave you will not go down well with the loyalist community.

Bigots they may be, but our constitution protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in public areas in support of whatever cause they deem appropriate. A tiny minority prevented natives of this island from exercising what should be their constitutional right. Ireland will never be united if we insist on forcing Unionists to conform to what some very small minded people who have never read a history book perceive to be their 'Irish' identity.

Iwasfrozen

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But I do take your broad point that Mrs Windsor getting hit with an egg or whathave you will not go down well with the loyalist community.

Ok this is getting on my nerves and I'm going to devote this post to address only this.

Mrs. is the title given to a married women who lacks any other title. Just like Ms. and Mr. are given to un-married women and men respectively who also lack any other title. The Queen has numerous titles to her name so she isn't given the title Mrs.

I know that you're trying to act tough and show that you care nothing about the monarch of out closest neighbour but really it only makes you look ignorant.

fontanalis

In future could people refer to the inbred relic as The Queen of England.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Bigots they may be, but our constitution protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in public areas in support of whatever cause they deem appropriate.

....I'm not sure about that, to be honest.

getz

two big visits the queen of england and the pope of rome,you takes your pick,one will be greeted with fanaticism the other with indifference,both accused of being head of a army/religion that abused its citizens,

junder

fontanalis wrote: »

In future could people refer to the inbred relic as The Queen of England.

Why? When she is the queen of the united kingdom and not just england