Gaye Mitchell's comments today?

ildaite

Anybody else put out by Mitchell's statements regarding rejoining the commonwealth?

wolfpawnat

ildaite wrote: »

Anybody else put out by Mitchell's statements regarding rejoining the commonwealth?

Sure what else can you expect? The man cannot count the amount of counties that are in the Republic!!!!

What I find ironic is that he does not seem to grasp that to rejoin the Commonwealth, we would have to take the British Monarch as our Head of State and in turn removing the President of Ireland, meaning he would not be elected regardless, not that it was much of a concern at this stage anyway.

The man is an idiot!

Einhard

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Sure what else can you expect? The man cannot count the amount of counties that are in the Republic!!!!

What I find ironic is that he does not seem to grasp that to rejoin the Commonwealth, we would have to take the British Monarch as our Head of State and in turn removing the President of Ireland, meaning he would not be elected regardless, not that it was much of a concern at this stage anyway.

The man is an idiot!

It's a daft proposal alright, but it wouldn't necessitate QE II becoming head of state, nor Ireland abolishing the office of presidency. While the British monarch is head of state of many Commonwalth states, that is independent of their Commonwealth status. Rwanda and Mozambique are both members for example, both have their own presidents, and neither recognise Bess as first citizen.

Marcusm

Einhard wrote: »

It's a daft proposal alright, but it wouldn't necessitate QE II becoming head of state, nor Ireland abolishing the office of presidency. While the British monarch is head of state of many Commonwalth states, that is independent of their Commonwealth status. Rwanda and Mozambique are both members for example, both have their own presidents, and neither recognise Bess as first citizen.

Other interesting facts about Rwanda and Mozambique include that neither were ever British colonies or possessions and have never had a UK or British monarch as head of state. Membership of the Commonwealth may bring them advantages but I'm not convinced that there is any compelling case for membership.

LordSutch

Not so sure that the Queen would have to be the head of State of the Republic, please check that out and get back to us . . . . .

And what Gay Mitchell actually said was, words to effect that > "Yes If I was President I would consider re joining the Commonwealth if I thought it would help create a United Ireland" and Surely this is what all you Republican folk want?

wolfpawnat

LordSutch wrote: »

Not so sure that the Queen would have to be the head of State of the Republic, please check that out and get back to us . . . . .

And what Gay Mitchell actually said was, words to effect that > "Yes If I was President I would consider re joining the Commonwealth if I thought it would help create a United Ireland" and Surely this is what all you Republican folk want?

No, because Republican people want a republic, not to go back to the position we were in less than 100 years ago, surely that would be a step backwards?

GSF

Commonwealth didnt exist 100 years ago.

So what EXACTLY are the powers of the Commonwealth then?

dvpower

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, because Republican people want a republic, not to go back to the position we were in less than 100 years ago, surely that would be a step backwards?

What? Republicans would turn down a UI if the 'price' was joining the Commonwealth?
Nuts.

Monty Burnz

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, because Republican people want a republic, not to go back to the position we were in less than 100 years ago, surely that would be a step backwards?

But, AIUI, the trade-off was Irish unity in exchange for joining a club of former British colonies. The British monarch would not be the head of state. Seems like a pretty small compromise to me, to be honest. It's funny how we expect the unionists to give up so much and for us to offer them so little (i.e. nothing at all).

dvpower

If MMG had said what Mitchell said, republicans would be lauding him as a pragmatic bridge builder.

GSF

dvpower wrote: »

If MMG had said what Mitchell said, republicans would be lauding him as a pragmatic bridge builder.

MCGuinness has settled for a lot less up north so he is just playing to his base, which suggests that he is ruling out winning the presidency now.

pubview

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/

Monty Burnz

pubview wrote: »

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/

The London Declaration of 1949 stated that the British monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. These words meant that republics could be members - they could accept the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without being their own Head of State. Thus when Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth.

I guess this should be acceptable to anyone, unless they also object to Ban Ki Moon being head of another club we are members of. Otherwise they would be putting themselves in the ridiculous position of having to pull out of the UN if a British monarch became the general secretary.

Gregor Samsa

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, because Republican people want a republic, not to go back to the position we were in less than 100 years ago, surely that would be a step backwards?

I think you need to read up on what the Commonwealth actually is before commenting on it.

Manach

I'm not naturally a Norris supporter, but his raising this issue had made me slightly more inclined to listen to him. The current Commonwealth seems to be a cultural/sporting club, and if we join be a place where Irish diplomats could network and encourage business investment.

Teclo

I don't agree with the proposition but it's not inconsistent to be a nationalist and a republican to advocate membership. If it were put to the electorate I think it would be passed, except for maybe the united Ireland bit.

irish147

Mitchell is not a safe man to be president, good he only was 10% in the polls.... :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

irish147 wrote: »

Mitchell is not a safe man to be president, good he only was 10% in the polls.... :rolleyes:

Not safe? Do you think he might burn down the Aras or something?

LordSutch

Manach wrote: »

I'm not naturally a Norris supporter, but his raising this issue had made me slightly more inclined to listen to him. The current Commonwealth seems to be a cultural/sporting club, and if we join be a place where Irish diplomats could network and encourage business investment.

Well said Manach, the networking being the most important part of the club, a network of 54 economies that we could have untilised & been part of for decades had not some narrow minded smart arse ejected us in the late 40s (much to De Valera's disgust). If we re joined the commonwealth it would certainly bring North & South closer together, much closer, as Ireland would most certainly be seen as one commonwealth country, and we would have a massive 'ready made' network of economies that we could plug into at once!!!

Shame we ever left the Commonwealth, IMO.

riffmongous

Sounds like a good plan to me, get in, get a united Ireland, then leave again after a year or two saying it wasnt really working out and there we go!

Monty Burnz

riffmongous wrote: »

Sounds like a good plan to me, get in, get a united Ireland, then leave again after a year or two saying it wasnt really working out and there we go!

Why leave? What are the drawbacks?

Sunnyisland

I would say the majority of people in this country would not want to rejoin the commonwealth, no matter what benefits we got,To much bad history with England much like a lot of people dont want MMg as president,and I also think Gay mitchell would have lost votes by saying that,

Monty Burnz

realies wrote: »

I would say the majority of people in this country would not want to rejoin the commonwealth, no matter what benefits we got,To much bad history with England much like a lot of people dont want MMg as president,and I also think Gay mitchell would have lost votes by saying that,

Probably. There are a lot of ignorant folk who are stuck in the past and think that the Commonwealth is the British Empire or something.

riffmongous

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Probably. There are a lot of ignorant folk who are stuck in the past and think that the Commonwealth is the British Empire or something.

Do you not think the commonwealth is a bit stuck in the past though by having the Queen as a symbolic head? Why not just get rid of her? Other than symbolic reasons nothing else comes to mind as drawbacks, but symbolic reasons would be important to a lot of people here.

Monty Burnz

riffmongous wrote: »

Do you not think the commonwealth is a bit stuck in the past though by having the Queen as a symbolic head? Why not just get rid of her? Other than symbolic reasons nothing else comes to mind as drawbacks, but symbolic reasons would be important to a lot of people here.

As another poster pointed out, the queen is the head at the moment. In a few years, it could be Martin McGuinness who heads the Commonwealth.

The first Head of the Commonwealth was King George VI, who was succeeded by the second and current Head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth II. The office is personal to Queen Elizabeth II and there is no agreement concerning whether the office will pass to her heir along with her other offices.

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

riffmongous

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As another poster pointed out, the queen is the head at the moment. In a few years, it could be Martin McGuinness who heads the Commonwealth.


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

But do you not think having the Queen of one of those countries at the moment is being a bit stuck in the past?

Should they not just abolish the position now? Maybe elect a ceremonial leader instead.

Monty Burnz

riffmongous wrote: »

But do you not think having the Queen of one of those countries at the moment is being a bit stuck in the past?

Should they not just abolish the position now? Maybe elect a ceremonial leader instead.

She is a ceremonial leader. Same as the next person will be. It's not like they wield any authority. She does seem to be a pretty innocuous person to be fair.

riffmongous

Monty Burnz wrote: »

She is a ceremonial leader. Same as the next person will be. It's not like they wield any authority. She does seem to be a pretty innocuous person to be fair.

I know she is a ceremonial leader but she's also the leader of one of the countries in the commonwealth, which to me marks one of those countries out as being a bit more special than all the other countries. If it was some kind of elected position or rotating position fair enough, but it's for life.

From reading about it most of the aims of the Commonwealth seem cultural and rights based rather than just materialistic and yet as it's head it has a person who carries a lot of symbolic weight.

whubee

i foresee a strong possibility of martin mcguinness being head of the commonwealth. no really.

Monty Burnz

riffmongous wrote: »

I know she is a ceremonial leader but she's also the leader of one of the countries in the commonwealth, which to me marks one of those countries out as being a bit more special than all the other countries. If it was some kind of elected position or rotating position fair enough, but it's for life.

Fair point. I don't think she'll be the head for too much longer though...

riffmongous wrote: »

From reading about it most of the aims of the Commonwealth seem cultural and rights based rather than just materialistic and yet as it's head it has a person who carries a lot of symbolic weight.

That's presumably a hangover of the 'British Commonwealth' era. If it's to have any relevance in future, the next head will not be British. Check out how long the Catholic Church went before they got a non-Italian Pope.

riffmongous

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair point. I don't think she'll be the head for too much longer though...

That's presumably a hangover of the 'British Commonwealth' era. If it's to have any relevance in future, the next head will not be British. Check out how long the Catholic Church went before they got a non-Italian Pope.

I agree, and since it's not a British organisation anymore they should just remove this last reference to it, and then of course there's no real reason for Ireland to oppose joining it, as full equals.

Thinking about it, I wonder are they waiting for her to pass on, rather than offend some British nationalists by removing her?

Monty Burnz

riffmongous wrote: »

Thinking about it, I wonder are they waiting for her to pass on, rather than offend some British nationalists by removing her?

I imagine that's exactly what's going on.

HivemindXX

So in the absence of any links from the OP I assume it went something like this...

Gutter press reporter notices people jumped on a statement by Norris about there not being any legal or constitutional barrier to rejoining the commonwealth and decides he can come up with a loaded question.

"Mr. Mitchell, if we could solve all the countries problems by rejoining the Commonwealth would you consider it?"

Of course there is no correct answer to this. If you say yes then the sort of people who'd rather burn the country to the ground than have the queen on our money will go crazy. If you say no then the people who think it's a good idea to consider options without discounting them out of hand will mark you down as an idiot. If you give a standard politicians answer to a loaded question like "that would never come up" then you get branded a typical two faced politician and the republicans just replace "agree" with "refuses to deny" and they carry on as before.

R P McMurphy

The GFA outlines the conditions necessary in order for unification to occur. I fail to see where membership of the commonwealth is part of this

Monty Burnz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The GFA outlines the conditions necessary in order for unification to occur. I fail to see where membership of the commonwealth is part of this

I don't think anyone is saying that it is?

Tayla

LordSutch wrote: »

And what Gay Mitchell actually said was, words to effect that > "Yes If I was President I would consider re joining the Commonwealth if I thought it would help create a United Ireland" and Surely this is what all you Republican folk want?

He was all for giving away power to the queen back in 2006 also!

dvpower

Tayla wrote: »

He was all for giving away power to the queen back in 2006 also!

What power specifically.

Monty Burnz

Tayla, what would you concede for a united Ireland? Or do you think it should be down to threats, intimidation, and murder? Because that didn't seem to be working very well for SF/IRA.

R P McMurphy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Tayla, what would you concede for a united Ireland? Or do you think it should be down to threats, intimidation, and murder? Because that didn't seem to be working very well for SF/IRA.

Surely now the future of the 6 counties is now bound by self-determination of the people that reside there. If the majority decide that these counties should join with those in 26 of the republic and is approved there then that is what will happen. So I don't understand where this talk of concessions/threats/intimidation/murder are stemming from. The discussion is pointless

Monty Burnz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Surely now the future of the 6 counties is now bound by self-determination of the people that reside there. If the majority decide that these counties should join with those in 26 of the republic and is approved there then that is what will happen. So I don't understand where this talk of concessions/threats/intimidation/murder are stemming from. The discussion is pointless

I presume the idea is that people on either side of the debate might try to persuade the people on the other side. The 25 or 30% of people in NI who want a united Ireland have an uphill task in persuading the remainder to abandon the warm bosom of the UK.

R P McMurphy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I presume the idea is that people on either side of the debate might try to persuade the people on the other side. The 25 or 30% of people in NI who want a united Ireland have an uphill task in persuading the remainder to abandon the warm bosom of the UK.

I can't see any amount of debate making the traditional unionist communities switch and wish to join in a united Ireland. Maybe in the next generation although looking at what is coming up next that is not gonna happen either.

Monty Burnz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I can't see any amount of debate making the traditional unionist communities switch and wish to join in a united Ireland. Maybe in the next generation although looking at what is coming up next that is not gonna happen either.

Yeah, you are probably correct. More alarming for SF is that so many Catholics aren't actually that keen on the idea either - I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think only a thin majority of Catholics are in favour (I'm subject to correction on this, of course).

R P McMurphy

For anyone to think that the offer of joining the commonwealth would in any way persuade unionists to enter into a united Ireland certainly displays a lack of understanding of the strength of the convictions held by this community

R P McMurphy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, you are probably correct. More alarming for SF is that so many Catholics aren't actually that keen on the idea either - I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think only a thin majority of Catholics are in favour (I'm subject to correction on this, of course).

You are thinking of the life and times survey I think. Would not put a lot of faith in that TBH but at the moment is likely that the thoughts of entering a UI would be unpallatable given the mess that Ireland finds itself in. I think that they should have conducted a border poll as part of the GFA and then at intervals after that, I don't see the harm in it. But you have a point that the debate might be in persuading the trad nationalist community

T runner

R P McMurphy wrote: »

For anyone to think that the offer of joining the commonwealth would in any way persuade unionists to enter into a united Ireland certainly displays a lack of understanding of the strength of the convictions held by this community

Or the strenght of sectarian bias that still pervades society in Northern Ireland. These convictions are ultimately based on a sectarian (explicit or implicit) model for NI.

T runner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, you are probably correct. More alarming for SF is that so many Catholics aren't actually that keen on the idea either - I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think only a thin majority of Catholics are in favour (I'm subject to correction on this, of course).

The statistic had a loading question. It was do you want a united Ireland now? Many people being practical said "not now". Obvioulsy the economic crises and the perrrenial threat of serious Protestant civil disturbance, makes an imminent united Ireland very unrealistic.

If the question included the word "eventually" the proportion may be more realistic.

Id accept the figure is low though. SF have only themselves to blame.

When teh troubles started it was quite clear to teh world that NI was a poisonous and sectarian state, evidenced markedly by teh State attack on the non sectarian civil rights parades.

That was arguably the weakest moment for NI. The Protestant (state) clamp down on the civil rights movement was different in that it was witnessed by teh world. Similar pushes in the past that would mean Catholic social advances or heightened relations between ordinary Catholics and Protestants were brutally repressed safely behind closed doors.

This time they could have pushed on for civil rights with the State muzzled, and Republicans could have justifyably had nothing to do with the administartion. They could point to an uninterupted sequence of over 400 years of documented sectarian policy that was worsened by the creation of NI as proven by what everyone witnessed on TV.

Sticking to this justifyable conviction and not resorting to unnecessary violence would have meant a very strong position for those wanting no British involvement and a weakening position for those arguing to remain in the UK.

Instead what did they get? Sunningdale for slow learners? Not even? Sunningdale for slow learners minus articles 2 and 3.