Gay Mitchell would rejoin the Commonwealth - would you join?

CoolHat

Link

Fine Gael’s presidential candidate Gay Mitchell has said he would join the British Commonwealth in exchange for a United Ireland.

Speaking on The Last Word’s debate on Today FM, alongside the other six presidential hopefuls, he said he would be “disposed” to the idea if it meant having a 32-county republic.

He told the host Matt Cooper, “If it was the price of a United Ireland I would be disposed towards the idea...We have to stop thinking like this – we have blinkers on our heads all the time, we all think that we’re inclusive, so long as we’re inclusive of our own narrow view.”

Mitchell’s comments were an attack at McGuinness who called the Commonwealth “wrong”.
McGuinness said, “Gay is saying that he would accept that the Queen of England would have precedence over the Irish president.

“I don’t accept that at all. I believe that would be totally and absolutely wrong.”

Speaking after the debate, Mitchell said the Commonwealth had evolved since 1949, when Ireland left. He described it as a trading bloc that doesn’t necessitate the Queen as its figure head.

Mitchell said “The majority of members are republics – 33 – and five countries have different monarchs…Mandela led South Africa back to the Commonwealth in 1994. Regardless, it is a matter for the government.”

McGuinness called the debate pathetic.



Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Gay-Mitchell-would-rejoin-the-Commonwealth-if-it-meant-an-United-Ireland--131583633.html#ixzz1abifKb2j

So the ultimate question. Would you join/support this? or would you not?

Local-womanizer

This thread will probably join the commonwealth of other locked presidential threads! :pac:

CoolHat

Well actually, I am not talking so much about what Mitchell believes. But what he said. Hence the poll. Its a question to the boards users as oppose to yet another presidential thread.

Local-womanizer

CoolHat wrote: »

Well actually, I am not talking so much about what Mitchell said.
Hence the poll. Its a question to the boards users as oppose to yet another presidential thread.

I didnt see the poll at the start!

And no. Think it has been pointed out here before. A united Ireland in the commonwealth, kinda defeats the purpose of a united Ireland.

Lirange

I think the only good thing about it is that we could participate in the Commonwealth Games.

mossyc123

No reason we shouldn't be in the Commonwealth.

Hardly any of the Countries in it have the Queen as Head of State.

United Ireland would be nice, this would only be a very small concession on our part.

Biggins

No. ABSOLUTE NO.

Mitchell is off his head. A nutter.

AnamGlas

This dip**** doesn't even know how many counties we have

Badgermonkey

No.

And not because of the inferiority complex prevalent among members of Provisional Boards.ie, but because it's a pointless talking shop, junket fest and most crucially of all, an excuse for a shoddy athletics event where even Tim Henman's capable of becoming a gold medalist.

Hande hoche!

McGuinness something something Mandela.

pragmatic1

That would be a giant slap in the face to all the people who died for this country. **** no.

mike65

Ireland would not be re-joining the Commonwealth, it would be applying for membership, which would be given all due consideration no doubt. But there is always the chance they would reject a bankrupt banana republic :pac:

thee glitz

Great stuff from Mitchell - as head of state, I would turn that duty over to the British queen.

mossyc123

Biggins wrote: »

No. ABSOLUTE NO.

Mitchell is off his head. A nutter.

He's about as far from a "nutter" as a Politician can be.

Very, very middle of the road IMO.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

That would be a giant slap in the face to all the people who died for this country. **** no.

I don't think so.

We were in the Commonwealth until 1949 so many of those who fought for Independence would have governed when we were in The Commonwealth.

thee glitz wrote: »

Great stuff from Mitchell - as head of state, I would turn that duty over to the British queen.

The Queen wouldn't be our Head of State.

She isn't in South Africa and 30 odd other States in the Commonwealth.

starbelgrade

I wouldn't even join Mitchell for a drink.

He's a complete & utter gimp.

Sonics2k

thee glitz wrote: »

Great stuff from Mitchell - as head of state, I would turn that duty over to the British queen.

Joining the Commonwealth =/= Queen as head of State.

Deedsie

It's not a yes/no question... If someone said to me... In order to bring about a United Ireland, the state would have to rejoin the commonwealth. Well then perhaps yes I would...

I would prefer not to, but I can accept that there are a large number of Irish people that are in favour of the commonwealth!

Peep O'Day

Absolutely not.

Anyone who thinks this could act as a compromise with unionists for a United Ireland has absolutely no respect for their intelligence.

voz es

No, We're down, but we're not out !

mossyc123

Peep O'Day wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Anyone who thinks this could act as a compromise with unionists for a United Ireland has absolutely no respect for their intelligence.

That's a fair argument.

The Commonwealth issue would be the most minor of points in what would be an almost impossible negotiation.

thee glitz

mossyc123 wrote: »

The Queen wouldn't be our Head of State.

True, not necessarily. Is this all about a chance of winning at the sports?

mossyc123

thee glitz wrote: »

True, not necessarily. Is this all about a chance of winning at the sports?

Hmmm,

The Aussies would own the Pool... The Africans/Caribbeans have the Track... we might nick a Bronze in the Hammer throw

:pac:

bnt

Would the President have any kind over authority in such a matter? I imagine it would require a Constitutional Amendment, meaning that it would have to go to a Referendum, right? If that's correct, you have nothing to fear from such ideas, not if the people get to vote on it.

General General

Absolutely, opens up avenues for trade, international organisation, sports, Pimm's on the lawn, Lottie will miss Alexandra but she'll know half her class in Art Hist', she plays the viola, you know... Cream, Strawberries & Cream, England, Honestly, Nanny, it wasn't me... Grass, Lovely... Ovaltine, Lawnmowers, Sticklebacks... sit up straight, elbows off the table...

My name is URL

I'd have no major problem with it tbh. If those with the power to make the decision saw it as a middle ground in reaching an agreement which would unite Ireland as an all island republic then I'd support the idea.

gurramok

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd have no major problem with it tbh. If those with the power to make the decision saw it as a middle ground in reaching an agreement which would unite Ireland as an all island republic then I'd support the idea.

I wouldn't trust those in power. Just look at how they(FF) sold us to the IMF, can we trust the present set on anything? Wouldn't just yet.

Joining the British Commonwealth(which it is under another name), i'd support joining when the rest of the EU joins first!

Can we get ze Germans to join the British Commonwealth?:D

whubee

Couldn't we just agree to the proposal. Join the commonwealth, unite Ireland, say 'no, no really unionists we're all in this together' and then throw our membership card back in the queens inbred face.

Kojak

I'd rather Ireland join the Soviet Union than join the Commonwealth.

grenache

The Commonwealth today is more an economic entity than a political one. We're already tied into the EU so i don't see how being linked to sterling would be of benefit. A United Ireland would bring only needless suffering to this island through the war waged by Loyalists, against Irish unity. So it would be a futile exercise with Ireland and its citizens being the big losers on both economic and national security fronts.

Dotrel

Nah. The guy's an idiot. He said tonight that 7 gardai had been shot since the troubles and that it'd had left 26 children WIDOWED.

Finally he uses '26' somewhere but still makes a mess of it.

policarp

Gay or Norris for Queen?

mickoneill30

Can't say yes or no but after reading this I'd consider it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

I would have thought that Martin McGuinness should have known this wouldn't mean the queen was above the Irish President. So either he was ignorant of this fact or playing politics to appeal to the ignorant. Neither seems presidential to me.

flas

where is keith??

jugger0

Who the hell wants a united Ireland if we have to share it with those queen worshiping bellends, Ireland for the Irish, Ian paisley is a gay.

Bergkamp 10

gay mitchell hopefully will never get to make a decision that will impact this country.

so its irrelevant what he thinks. I would make us into a Socialist state but I will never get to decide such things.

PeterIanStaker

The idea of tugging the forelock to a monarch will appeal to people who write for the Indo/Sindo and live in Dublin 4.

But its actually a backward step, but if you even try to point that out to them they'd call you a "muurderrin liberal provo appeaser sneakin' regarder hush puppy who doesn't drive a SUV".

Maybe we should be thinking about exiting the Euro or something to regain national & economic sovereignity after FF p!ssed it away?

Besides, Mitchell hasn't a hope of being elected, man's a dullard.

Joey the lips

Ha ha the blue shi(r)ts do it again

Absurdum

What's all this about the state of the Queen's head? She's a pensioner FFS, show some respect :rolleyes:

Napper Hawkins

Don't worry folks, I'm pretty sure the Brits don't want us anyway. Can't imagine why anyone would.

Crazy Horse 6

Rejoin the commonwealth? Is Mitchell gone mad or what.

KeithAFC

grenache wrote: »

The Commonwealth today is more an economic entity than a political one. We're already tied into the EU so i don't see how being linked to sterling would be of benefit. A United Ireland would bring only needless suffering to this island through the war waged by Loyalists, against Irish unity. So it would be a futile exercise with Ireland and its citizens being the big losers on both economic and national security fronts.

Agree. Things are fine the way they are.

Absurdum

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Don't worry folks, I'm pretty sure the Brits don't want us anyway. Can't imagine why anyone would.

Well Gay's father died when he was 5 and he had to go work in a coalmine and stuff, so yeah let's go for it.

Monty Burnz

Biggins wrote: »

No. ABSOLUTE NO.

Mitchell is off his head. A nutter.

Still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why not from the 'NO' camp. And I'm also wondering exactly what concessions 'nationalists' would be prepared to make to the Unionist community to secure a UI.

Just for those who aren't arsed to look it up before spouting nonsense, Britain is no longer the leader of the commonwealth, and when the current ceremonial head, QE2, dies, then the new head could be drawn from any of the component countries. It could be Neslon Mandela or Martin McG or someone.

So what's the big problem? It's just a voluntary club.

The Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth and formerly known as the British Commonwealth, is an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four independent member states. All but two of these countries (Mozambique and Rwanda) were formerly part of the British Empire, out of which it developed.
The member states cooperate within a framework of common values and goals as outlined in the Singapore Declaration. These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace.[1] The Commonwealth is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation through which countries with social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status.
Activities of the Commonwealth are carried out through the permanent Commonwealth Secretariat, headed by the Secretary-General, and biennial meetings between Commonwealth Heads of Government. The symbol of their free association is the Head of the Commonwealth, which is a ceremonial position currently held by Queen Elizabeth II. Elizabeth II is also monarch, separately and independently, of sixteen Commonwealth members, which are known as the "Commonwealth realms".

Under that formula of the London Declaration, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, a title that is currently individually shared with that of Commonwealth realms.[22] However, when the monarch dies, the successor to the crown does not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth.[23] The position is symbolic: representing the free association of independent members.[22] Sixteen members of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth realms, recognise the Queen as their head of state. The majority of members, thirty-three, are republics, and a further five have monarchs of different royal houses.

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

passive

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why not from the 'NO' camp. And I'm also wondering exactly what concessions 'nationalists' would be prepared to make to the Unionist community to secure a UI.

Just for those who aren't arsed to look it up before spouting nonsense, Britain is no longer the leader of the commonwealth, and when the current ceremonial head, QE2, dies, then the new head could be drawn from any of the component countries. It could be Neslon Mandela or Martin McG or someone.

So what's the big problem? It's just a voluntary club.



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

Good points, but I doubt you're going to get through to the rabid, foaming at the mouth haters of anything that looks or sounds British. This thread is really depressing... Can we try a similar poll in politics and maybe have some rational discussion?

Oh, I feel really out of place... I meant "rabble rabble Queen bad, grr, argh, 800 years, ****in' Brits! I think we should just hang all the unionists and be done with it! Declare war on the commonwealth!"

Monty Burnz

passive wrote: »

Oh, I feel really out of place... I meant "rabble rabble Queen bad, grr, argh, 800 years, ****in' Brits! I think we should just hang all the unionists and be done with it! Declare war on the commonwealth!"

Yeah, it's very odd. I'd love to know just how tiny the concessions people would be willing to make to the Unionist community really are. We expect them to give up their whole national identity - what are we offering in return? A big f*ck you?

I'm also baffled at how people can pronounce absolute opposition to something even though they are perfectly ignorant as to what they are talking about. 'Under the thumb of the Brits again' - FFS :rolleyes:

Mark200

AnamGlas wrote: »

This dip**** doesn't even know how many counties we have

Fortunately that's not true.

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

gay mitchell hopefully will never get to make a decision that will impact this country.

Ignoring the fact that, you know, he is an MEP and has been for many years.

mickoneill30

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm also baffled at how people can pronounce absolute opposition to something even though they are perfectly ignorant as to what they are talking about. 'Under the thumb of the Brits again' - FFS :rolleyes:

We all say we want honest politicians then when somebody tells the truth even though it's unpleasant to the majority they get shot down.
How much easier would it have been for him to say "absolutely not" to appeal to the people who don't know what the commonwealth is (and apparently can't be bothered educating themselves)?

Didn't the country vote in the politicians who only ever told us what we wanted to hear over the last decade. How did that work out for us?

I still won't be voting for him but I respect that he answered the question even though I'm sure he knew he'd get ****e for it.

Napper Hawkins

Absurdum wrote: »

Well Gay's father died when he was 5 and he had to go work in a coalmine and stuff, so yeah let's go for it.

Right. What?

SEPT 23 1989

Well if people want a united Ireland this is the first concession our orange friends will want

ambid

It's only a cosmetic issue and doesn't really matter. Our sovreignty is already gone.

With coming fiscal union in the EU our country will have no more sovreignty than Iowa.

Monty Burnz

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Right. What?

Gay has a small habit of dropping the fact that his father died when he was 5 or six (leaving his mother a widow with about 30 children) into every interview. It really, really makes me want to vote for him.

Did you know that he was on the Public Accounts Committee too?