David Norris wants Ireland to be part of the British Commonwealth

Seanchai

Some people appear to be very keen on David Norris being President of Ireland. In this regard, everybody else should know that he is on record repeatedly as being supportive of the neo-unionist agenda of Ruth Dudley Edwards' Reform Group and, more importantly for his aspiration to be President of this republic, is supportive of Ireland becoming part of the British Commonwealth (or the "Commonwealth" as its increasingly desperate apologists now like to propagate it as):

Republic of Ireland should rejoin Commonwealth, says senator (Belfast Telegraph, 21 May 2010)

Reform Group & David Norris (21 May 2010)

At least you now know what you're voting for.

PeakOutput

"should it be demonstrated that this is what the Irish people wish I believe that it could be accomplished with a minimum of fuss"

whats the problem?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Its not he'll be in a position to do anything about it as president.

Einhard

Don't want to see Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth, but I fail to see how its part of some "neo-Unionist" agenda. Are NZ and Australia also part of this agenda?

Gregor Samsa

Seanchai wrote: »

British Commonwealth (or the "Commonwealth" as its increasingly desperate apologists now like to propagate it as).

Actually, its official title is "The Commonwealth Of Nations". Incorrectly referring to it by the former name "British Commonwealth" reveals pretty much the same bias as calling the PSNI "the RUC". Which is fine, if you're an increasingly desperate apologist of a different colour.

JonJoeDali

I think Ireland re-joining the Commonwealth is a great idea.

We might need it if/when we get kicked out of the Euro or a EuroA/EuroB currency comes into play.

later12

Im pretty sure Mary McAleese wants a united Ireland, some people would say that its something of a relief that Presidents dont get a say in issues of such policy matters.

P_1

Ah sure we were in it before. What difference will it make? We'll end up making some more trade contacts and we can win some more medals in sporting contests.

Sounds like a win win to me.

caseyann

Just lost my vote.:mad:

gandalf

What is the big deal. We get closer to our nearest neighbour, open up new markets and maybe our sports people finally might win a few medals.

As for David Norris I didn't realise the President had the power to sign us up to the Commonwealth by themselves. I have a feeling that would be something that would maybe require a referendum or at least have the support of the elected government.

Norris still has my vote.

LordSutch

Didn't De Valera want us to stay in the Commonwealth ???

I remember my Mother telling me many years ago that the break from the Commonwealth was done in a very underhand way, one morning they woke up & were told that Ireland had left the Commonwealth "just like that" there seemed to be no build up to it, we were told that we had left it, and that was that, end of (apparently). She also claimed that this one small move sent a very big message to the North, telling them (just in case they didn't already know) that the Republic was moving even further from them, and further away from any reconcilliation that might occur with the North & Britain . . . . . .

I think that leaving the Commonwealth was the last nail in the coffin for any chance of a reconciliation between the North & the Republic, and I think that Mr Norris has a good point about the possbbility of re-joining, specially with a view to closer ties with the North & Britain.

Ste.phen

So to summarise,
* He didn't say he wants to join the Commonwealth, but instead said if most Irish people wanted to join it would be straightforward enough
* Joining the Commonwealth isn't the same thing as abandoning independence and asking the UK to take over
* He's running for president, which even ignoring what he actually said and pretending he has a 'pro Commonwealth conspiracy' going on, wouldn't actually help him further said conspiracy.

Nothing to see here, move along, rabble rabble rabble.

That about right?

Seanchai

Einhard wrote: »

Don't want to see Ireland rejoin the Commonwealth, but I fail to see how its part of some "neo-Unionist" agenda. Are NZ and Australia also part of this agenda?

1. The situation of Ireland and those two British settler-colonial countries on the other side of the planet, which have enormous discrimination against both the indigenous populations and Asians, is hardly comparable. In the first place, the British queen is still Head of State of those states. In the second place, they are dominated by people who are proud of their British heritage to the extent of wanting her to be Head of their respective states. In the third place, these white residents of primarily British Protestant origin are notable for the enormous discrimination which they implemented against the native populations. In short, if they were in Ireland they wouldn't be the first to look for Irish freedom from British rule.

2. In this case the so-called "Reform Group" is an explicitly "unionist" organisation and as the main proponent of Ireland rejoining the British Commonwealth, which is always presided over by the British monarch, and the organisation to whom Norris was speaking, joining the British Commonwealth is clearly a "neo-unionist" agenda at least.

captain caveman

I certainly dont think it would be the worst Idea in the world... Would be nice to think there was another support there if the Euro ever fails.. Given how we were treated in terms of a bail out etc...

Seanchai

phutyle wrote: »

Actually, its official title is "The Commonwealth Of Nations". Incorrectly referring to it by the former name "British Commonwealth" reveals pretty much the same bias as calling the PSNI "the RUC". Which is fine, if you're an increasingly desperate apologist of a different colour.

Of course, with that analogy you're omitting:

1. that the RUC was 97% Protestant and did not have the support of the majority in the nationalist community. Can the same be said for the PSNI? Most definitely not.

2. That regardless of the British dropping "British" from the British Commonwealth's title, the British queen remains the only person who has a right to be head of the British Commonwealth still today in 2011.

3. Dropping the "British" from the title was, and remains, an example of the British trying to extend their imperial powers beyond the lifetime of their empire. Why you believe Ireland should facilitate this nationalistic egotrip for the British is unclear.

4. Not all of us are keen to sell cosmetic changes as radical signs of inclusiveness and racial equality when that is clearly not the case. Take Kenya, a part of the British Commonwealth where its people were tortured by the British in horrendous numbers, over 10,000 were executed and near 1,000,000 were interned in "enclosed villages" in the 1950s by the British. Crimes which the British could not get away with any other people except, on a lesser scale, with the Irish in the North of Ireland from 1969 on.

Seanchai

captain caveman wrote: »

I certainly dont think it would be the worst Idea in the world... Would be nice to think there was another support there if the Euro ever fails.. Given how we were treated in terms of a bail out etc...

Yes, because the British have been so supportive of the Irish throughout the centuries?

captain caveman

Well its that or somehow become one of the states of America... As it stands, France and Germany call the shots in the EU, and neither are too sympathetic towards poor oul Eirin's Isle. As patriotic and all as I am, I dont think we can make it on our own economically...

zuroph

caseyann wrote: »

And i have shown any other way how exactly?
Do you know me? NO
Making lame comments with no reason.:rolleyes:

I'm making the comment because you were so easily influenced to change your vote that I sincerely doubt you were set on voting for him in the first place.
if you read the articel you'd see that he was talking at a book launch and said that if the irish people decided they wanted to be part of the commonwealth, that it would happen pretty easily

that's all it took for you to change your vote???

Seanchai

captain caveman wrote: »

Well its that or somehow become one of the states of America... As it stands, France and Germany call the shots in the EU, and neither are too sympathetic towards poor oul Eirin's Isle. As patriotic and all as I am, I dont think we can make it on our own economically...

Germany and France would give us a much better society - as in more equitable with a better health system, higher environmental standards and a principled avoidance of the boom-to-bust economic cycles which Ireland currently follows. And higher income taxes to pay for it. I'm willing to pay those higher taxes to create a better, more balanced, society for my children.

If the French and Germans are treating us bad (and, in fairness, they currently are), its origins rest in our representatives going around as cock-a-hoop for so long, most embarrassingly Charlie McCreevy who wanted all the continent to follow the Irish (ie Anglo-American) example. The Irish people deserve their comeuppance. We deserve to be humbled. We really, really do. Our socio-economic philosophy - if we can call it that - is awful, really really dreadful and myopic. Our name and reputation in Europe has been besmirched because of the Charlie McCreevy type mé féiner right-wing Euroscepticism (read: Thatcherism) which misrepresents our people hideously.

At the end of the day both Germany and France offer Ireland a better, more balanced, economic and social model than the Thatcherite policies of successive post-Thatcher British governments offers us.

Lastly, the metric system is far more intelligent and intelligible than the imperial system. I'm glad I never had to endure learning ounces, pounds, stones and the like.

caseyann

zuroph wrote: »

I'm making the comment because you were so easily influenced to change your vote that I sincerely doubt you were set on voting for him in the first place.
if you read the articel you'd see that he was talking at a book launch and said that if the irish people decided they wanted to be part of the commonwealth, that it would happen pretty easily

that's all it took for you to change your vote???

I am Irish not British and when a majority of Irish vote themselves into something that my family fought and died to get away from.That represents oppression murder and genocide for decades of the Irish people.Then they are no longer Irish in my eyes and this country would be not my country nor those people my country men.And weak.
Doesnt matter how he wrote it that he would even think it shows enough to me.
Now move along.;)

celtictiger32

i was seriously considering voting for him, although wasnt sure of the other candidates at this time. he has now lost my vote.

Einhard

Seanchai wrote: »

1. The situation of Ireland and those two British settler-colonial countries on the other side of the planet, which have enormous discrimination against both the indigenous populations and Asians, is hardly comparable. In the first place, the British queen is still Head of State of those states. In the second place, they are dominated by people who are proud of their British heritage to the extent of wanting her to be Head of their respective states. In the third place, these white residents of primarily British Protestant origin are notable for the enormous discrimination which they implemented against the native populations. In short, if they were in Ireland they wouldn't be the first to look for Irish freedom from British rule.

What a nonsense of a post! It's nice to see, I suppose, that it's not just the Brits who are the target of your ire, but the white populations of former British colonies, who might or might not have emigrated from Britain! Nothing at all to do with my point though, but I've long noticed that, when people with an anti-British agenda are challenged on their statements and claims, they often respond with a rant against the "old enemy" rather than just answer the bloody question!

2. In this case the so-called "Reform Group" is an explicitly "unionist" organisation and as the main proponent of Ireland rejoining the British Commonwealth, which is always presided over by the British monarch, and the organisation to whom Norris was speaking, joining the British Commonwealth is clearly a "neo-unionist" agenda at least.

Hold up a moment. You claim above that, in the case of NZ and Australia, membership of the Commonwealth is not necessarily part of a "neo-Unionist" agenda (I hate this bloody "neo-" suffix- if we're discussing contemporary reality, it's hardly doing to be anything else), yet a few lines later, claim as proof of this nefarious agenda, that the Queen is head of the Commonwealth. Usually when consistency breaks down, it does so over entire threads- yours has entirely collapsed in the space of one post!

I've checked the reform website, and there's nothing to suggest that they seek re-union with Britain. Nothing whatsoever. So I ask again, where is your evidence that either Norris, or this group, seeks such an eventuality?

Seanchai

zuroph wrote: »

I'm making the comment because you were so easily influenced to change your vote that I sincerely doubt you were set on voting for him in the first place.

Perhaps it's a vote in principle? To take the piss out of a poster because of this is unbecoming and, at best, lacks good faith. There are many people who still vote on principles and among those principles could be the maintenance of Irish sovereignty, something which would be threatened by membership of the British Commonwealth.

The EU, and not some egotrip of an overthrown world power like Britain, is Ireland's future. No matter how many lost souls harping after the glory days of the post-Waterloo British Empire there are, this reality of modern politics will not change.

I've liked David Norris but he wasn't getting my vote because Michael D. Higgins was standing. Had Michael D. not been standing Norris would have got it. His ideas on this issue, as promoted by Dudley Edwards' Reform Group, would ensure he'd never get my vote.

later12

gandalf wrote: »

What is the big deal. We get closer to our nearest neighbour, open up new markets and maybe our sports people finally might win a few medals.

No issue with the last issue, but we really ought not exaggerate the first or the second. In terms of trade, I can't see that we would benefit in any realistic way from commonwealth membership in terms of trade, we are already quite free to engage with commonwealth markets or strike trade agreements.

As for our relationship with Britain, it's not clear how joining the commonwealth would be of a realistic benefit.

I don't see any material harm in joining the commonwealth, but in general I think people on both sides tend to exaggerate the effects it would have. it's largely a *shrug* decision.

zuroph

caseyann wrote: »

I am Irish not British and when a majority of Irish vote themselves into something that my family fought and died to get away from.That represents oppression murder and genocide for decades of the Irish people.Then they are no longer Irish in my eyes and this country would be not my country nor those people my country men.And weak.
Doesnt matter how he wrote it that he would even think it shows enough to me.
Now move along.;)

thats not what he said. he never said we should do it, he said if the irish people wanted to do it, he was sure it would be facilitated, and would have positive implications. that is all.

Einhard

caseyann wrote: »

I am Irish not British and when a majority of Irish vote themselves into something that my family fought and died to get away from.That represents oppression murder and genocide for decades of the Irish people.Then they are no longer Irish in my eyes and this country would be not my country nor those people my country men.And weak.
Doesnt matter how he wrote it that he would even think it shows enough to me.
Now move along.;)

You know, the RIRA and the like justify their campaign of murder against nationalist PSNI recruits in much the same way- denying their Irishness, and thus denying them their lives. What gives you the right to decide who is and isn't Irishness? Simply because they choose not to share your particular prejudices and inability to leave the past in the past.

The Commonwealth does not represent the oppression and genocide of Irish people. The notion is ridiculous. It's a peaceful group of nations joinging together to foster mutual growth and international amity. Do you really think the Indians and the Pakistanis, let alone Rwanda, would join an organisation that has the continuation of imperialism at its core?

Einhard

Seanchai wrote: »

Our name and reputation in Europe has been besmirched because of the Charlie McCreevy type mé féiner right-wing Euroscepticism (read: Thatcherism) which misrepresents our people hideously.

.

And we were never shamed by the Martin McGuinness type Sinn Feiner less-wing terrorism (read: cold blooded murder) which mutilates people hideously, and more. No siree...

celtictiger32

Einhard wrote: »

You know, the RIRA and the like justify their campaign of murder against nationalist PSNI recruits in much the same way- denying their Irishness, and thus denying them their lives. What gives you the right to decide who is and isn't Irishness? Simply because they choose not to share your particular prejudices and inability to leave the past in the past.

The Commonwealth does not represent the oppression and genocide of Irish people. The notion is ridiculous. It's a peaceful group of nations joinging together to foster mutual growth and international amity. Do you really think the Indians and the Pakistanis, let alone Rwanda, would join an organisation that has the continuation of imperialism at its core?

was it not formerly known as the british commonwealth??. is the head of the commonwealth not the british queen??

caseyann

zuroph wrote: »

thats not what he said. he never said we should do it, he said if the irish people wanted to do it, he was sure it would be facilitated, and would have positive implications. that is all.

He is adding fuel to the fire,something that shouldn't even be considered.Why would he make such comments in first place?
He is projecting his own deep wishes,therefore no trust.

caseyann

Einhard wrote: »

You know, the RIRA and the like justify their campaign of murder against nationalist PSNI recruits in much the same way- denying their Irishness, and thus denying them their lives. What gives you the right to decide who is and isn't Irishness? Simply because they choose not to share your particular prejudices and inability to leave the past in the past.

The Commonwealth does not represent the oppression and genocide of Irish people. The notion is ridiculous. It's a peaceful group of nations joinging together to foster mutual growth and international amity. Do you really think the Indians and the Pakistanis, let alone Rwanda, would join an organisation that has the continuation of imperialism at its core?

Please stop,they built it on murder and invasion and genocide.It is a debacle of fakery.
I like my neighbours i dont want to move in with them

Einhard

celtictiger32 wrote: »

was it not formerly known as the british commonwealth??. is the head of the commonwealth not the british queen??

Yes, and yes. In the first instance, it's no longer called that though. Just as Offaly is no longer King's County...

In the second, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, but by common consent. She is not imposed on the other countries in any way. So what's your point? Are you really stating that the close to 2 billion members of the Commonwealth are really dupes in some dark imperial game, designed to promote British interests over their own? And that their leaders willingly go along with the charade?

caseyann wrote: »

He is adding fuel to the fire,something that shouldn't even be considered.Why would he make such comments in first place?
He is projecting his own deep wishes,therefore no trust.

Why would he make a comment indicating that he'd respect the democratic wishes of the Irish people? I don't know. What a horrible notion. Perish the very thought...

caseyann

zuroph wrote: »

Because he was guestspeaking at a luanch of a book about the commonwealth I love how you state this as a matter of fact, when did you first learn that you are a psychic??

Rubbish didnt have to mention a word about Ireland in that speech.

It is matter of fact.

Einhard

caseyann wrote: »

Please stop,they built it on murder and invasion and genocide.It is a debacle of fakery.
I like my neighbours i dont want to move in with them

I like my neighbours. I don't want to move in with them either. I would join them in a resident's organisation though.

Incidentally, I never claimed that British imperialism in Ireland didn't involve murder etc. I claimed that the Commonwealth as it's currently sonstituted doesn't represent imperialism.

caseyann

Einhard wrote: »

Why would he make a comment indicating that he'd respect the democratic wishes of the Irish people? I don't know. What a horrible notion. Perish the very thought...

As i said already if the Irish people voted for it,they wouldnt be Irish they would be just sell outs .

zuroph

caseyann wrote: »

Rubbish didnt have to mention a word about Ireland in that speech.

It is matter of fact.

did you read the article at all???
the book title is in bold

Ireland and the Commonwealth: Towards Membership, at the Royal Irish Academy, he said that although joining the Commonwealth is unlikely to be top of the Irish political agenda, "should it be demonstrated that this is what the Irish people wish I believe that it could be accomplished with a minimum of fuss".

and he says that it is unlikely to be at the top of the political agenda.


Please please please read the article.

Einhard

caseyann wrote: »

As i said already if the Irish people voted for it,they wouldnt be Irish they would be just sell outs .

Ah, so democracy is useful only insofar as it produces the result you desire!! Nice to know where you stand on that one so!

Seanchai

Einhard wrote: »

What a nonsense of a post!....

What a stupid post! ....

:rolleyes:

Einhard wrote: »

Hold up a moment. You claim above that, in the case of NZ and Australia, membership of the Commonwealth is not necessarily part of a "neo-Unionist" agenda (I hate this bloody "neo-" suffix- if we're discussing contemporary reality, it's hardly doing to be anything else), yet a few lines later, claim as proof of this nefarious agenda, that the Queen is head of the Commonwealth. Usually when consistency breaks down, it does so over entire threads- yours has entirely collapsed in the space of one post!

You're clearly not thinking straight.

1) It's hardly a "unionist" agenda in Australia or New Zealand when no part of their countries are part of the - wait for this - Act of Union of 1800. The British Commonwealth is, on the other hand, most definitely part of a British agenda as the ethnically British-dominated states of Australia and New Zealand would not be part of that Commonwealth had British colonialism not successfully occurred in both of those countries. Getting it yet?

2) As for consistency, it is quite silly of you to condemn inconsistency when you're denying that the British Commonwealth is British and then going irrational when it's pointed out that only the Queen of England can be head of the commonwealth which is supposedly no longer the British Commonwealth.

Einhard wrote: »

I've checked the reform website, and there's nothing to suggest that they seek re-union with Britain. Nothing whatsoever. So I ask again, where is your evidence that either Norris, or this group, seeks such an eventuality?

Evidently, you haven't done a comprehensive enough search, which judging by your form above is entirely unsurprising. At their foundation in 1998 the so-called Reform Movement claimed they were 'a coalition of "new unionists for the new millennium"'. At least have some substance to your post next time you decide to rant and abuse a poster.

celtictiger32

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, and yes. In the first instance, it's no longer called that though. Just as Offaly is no longer King's County...

In the second, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, but by common consent. She is not imposed on the other countries in any way. So what's your point? Are you really stating that the close to 2 billion members of the Commonwealth are really dupes in some dark imperial game, designed to promote British interests over their own? And that their leaders willingly go along with the charade?

both questions you answered yes to are the reasons ireland would not join the commonwealth. and before you start this crap about speaking for other people i would be so confident of this that id gladly have a referendum on same.anything to do with british imperialism is a bad thing as far as im concerned.

caseyann

zuroph wrote: »

did you read the article at all???
the book title is in bold


and he says that it is unlikely to be at the top of the political agenda.


Please please please read the article.

Again like i said,he is wishing it and can smell it a mile off.Therefore not trustworthy.
It is unlikely then was no need for him to add anything else to that IMO

zuroph

so you can't see the need to mention Ireland in the speech about "Ireland and the commonwealth", but you can see into his head about what he's thinking. That's some impressive selective vision you have there. I'm done with this thread now.

FlashD

caseyann wrote: »

As i said already if the Irish people voted for it,they wouldnt be Irish they would be just sell outs .

...and we all know about sellouts! Sure didn't we only sell the country to the IMF a few months back.....FF and FF voters :mad:, would these be the same 'irish people' / sellouts you are refering to?

Seanchai

phutyle wrote: »

I have no interest in facilitating any nationalistic egotrips

Clearly, this is not true when it comes to your earlier post promoting the British Commonwealth.

caseyann

Einhard wrote: »

Ah, so democracy is useful only insofar as it produces the result you desire!! Nice to know where you stand on that one so!

I have no issue with democracy.I said it already which said nothing about democracy in it.I said if Irish voted to be a member of that which oppressed and murdered and that was fought to get freedom from then they would be sell outs and not Irish.They can vote all they want and every right to.Still would make them not Irish in my view anymore.

Wolfe Tone

Was going to vote for him, but would rather vote for that labor fellow, name escapes me atm...

celtictiger32

Einhard wrote: »

Ah, so democracy is useful only insofar as it produces the result you desire!! Nice to know where you stand on that one so!

isnt the democratic process all about voting for the result you desire and hoping others will do the same?

caseyann

FlashD wrote: »

...and we all know about sellouts! Sure didn't we only sell the country to the IMF a few months back.....FF and FF voters :mad:, would these be the same 'irish people' / sellouts you are refering to?

Different thread different answers for that one unfortunately.That is called ransom.

Einhard

Seanchai wrote: »

1) It's hardly a "unionist" agenda in Australia or New Zealand when no part of their countries are part of the - wait for this - Act of Union of 1800. The British Commonwealth is, on the other hand, most definitely part of a British agenda as the ethnically British-dominated states of Australia and New Zealand would not be part of that Commonwealth had British colonialism not successfully occurred in both of those countries. Getting it yet?

Ummm, I'd arge you're the one having difficulty with his cognitive functioning tonight. For one, you keep going on about the "British Commonwealth" when there is no such organisation in existence.

Secondly, you claim that joining the Commonwealth is part of some grand agenda to reform the Union. There is nothing at all to support this however. Neither in the way that the Commonwealth works, nor in the agenda of the Reform movement. And yet you persist in claiming that this nefarious scheme is most definitely afoot.

2) As for consistency, it is quite silly of you to condemn inconsistency when you're denying that the British Commonwealth is British and then going irrational when it's pointed out that only the Queen of England can be head of the commonwealth which is supposedly no longer the British Commonwealth.

I think it's irrational to claim that the leaderships of Pakistan, India, Canada, and now even Rwanda, have all secretly committed themslves over the past 50 years to continuing and furthering British imperial dominance, at the expense of their own countries.

The reason that the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, is because the nations that make up the Commonwealth have agreed to this. They all have an equal voice in decision making, and the issue of the leadership has not been imposed by anyone, on anyone.

Evidently, you haven't done a comprehensive enough search, which judging by your form above is entirely unsurprising. At their foundation in 1998 the so-called Reform Movement claimed they were 'a coalition of "new unionists for the new millennium"'. At least have some substance to your post next time you decide to rant and abuse a poster.

As to your link from 13 years ago, nowhere in the summary does it state that the reform group sought Union, either then or now. Indeed, for a group allegedly interested in re-establishing the Union, that notion seeks quite conspicuous by its absence from their site, and your own link...


I think your original post was an excuse to have a go at the Brits, and attack anyone who holds a different opinion to you ("desperate apologists" anyone?). I think your response to my first post was nonsensical, and inconsistent. None of that constitutes personal abuse.

NSNO

Far from being an organisation that formerly existed purely as the successor to the British Empire, the Commonwealth of Nations is now a international organisation dedicated to peace and prosperity for all its members.

IIRC, there's currently a number of countries waiting to actually join it not leave it, and some of those countries were never even British colonies! It is seen as a great way to foster relations with nations that share a common ancestry as well as building crucial trade ties.

With India, Pakistan and Bangladesh all being members it would be a great opportunity for Irish businesses to expand into growing markets, it would embrace a shared history and ties with the homelands of many of the 'new Irish' and the benefits for Irish emigrants to Australia, Canada and New Zealand would be a welcome bonus.

Although it wouldn't offer any direct benefits to Irish people emigrating to the U.K. (as the British already treat citizens of the Republic as Commonwealth citizens anyway) it would be a milestone in Anglo-Irish relations. We've had the one-sided colonial relationship, the struggle for independence, the inevitable split in the independence movement and subsequent Civil War and the decades of self-loathing and searching for a common national identity. Surely now we've reached a point where we can accept our colonial past and move forward in a post-nationalist, post-unionist way which benefits everybody?

Then again, probably not. Sadly there are many on this forum who will see my post as some sort of hidden unionist agenda to reinstate imperialism and exploitation. They'll ignore the entire sentiment of the post and attack something based on semantics and drag the thread even further off topic.

Because that's what they do, every thread on this forum that even so much as mentions Britain or Northern Ireland ends in the same way. Every post in this thread, including mine, would be useless if a couple of posters simply read the article and saw that David Norris has no intention of even putting Commonwealth membership on the agenda. But alas that, along with a spirit of co-operation and reconciliation towards our neighbours, would be too much to hope for.

It wasn't me!

caseyann wrote: »

As i said already if the Irish people voted for it,they wouldnt be Irish they would be just sell outs .

You're not an arbiter of that. That's ridiculous. The moment you predicate "Irishness" on an antagonistic position with regard to them next door, you're stepping into an ideological area without any useful logical foundation.

Einhard

celtictiger32 wrote: »

why because we post in a different way to you....... sounds familiar.

you'll spot it after you pick up that toy you just threw out of the pram

Perhaps it's because he doesn't like people impugning his Irishness because he might dare to have a different POV?

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Ah yes, becuase accusing someone who disagrees with you of "thankswhoring" is such a fresh trend these days! Nothing clichéd about that at all!

Just to point out though, if I wanted to bump up my thanks count, the easiest way to achieve it in this thread would be to join you in a bit of Brit-bashing.

Ive been trying that for a year now, not too successful. Starbelgrade is the man