Eamon Delaney trolling Ireland over the Commonwealth

darkman2

The former diplomat Eamon Delaney is consistently bringing up the issue of whether or not Ireland should join the Commonwealth (IMO "no")...


What I find odd about this is that if any of you have ever read his book "An Accidental Diplomat" which documents his time working in the Department of Foreign Affairs (a fairly good book incidentally) in the early 90's he ridicules the British and extols the virtues of Irish nationalism. That book was only published in 2002 or 3 I think.

Now, since he started writing articles for the Sunday Independent he is coming out with all this Commonwealth stuff and how we are a failure as a country and should go grovelling to the British and this sort of thing. He even gave an interview like this in the Unionist "Newsletter" newspaper up North of all places a few days ago. And he also speaks at the neo unionist "reform" events aswell...


Either the guy is very confused or he is just a hypocrite. I used to have time for Mr Delaney but he cannot be taken seriously as a commentator anymore IMO.

What do make of a flip flop like this? I reckon he is just trying to be controversial. I do wonder is there something more to it but i'd rather not go down that road! He is far from the only public commentator to do this. Conor Cruise O'Brien for example jumped back and forth between different agendas and philosophies many times too! Curiously he was also in Foreign Affairs and went on to write for the Sunday Indo.....seems like a trend.

tricky D

Well it is the Independent he is writing for. Most ink on that rag should be ignored.

He was trolling rugby last week: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77931753
Article: Rugby:A better class of arrogance by Eamonn Sweeney

I've had the displeasure of working with him for a thankfully very short while.

NinjaK

He is playing up to his west-brit readership.

AllGunsBlazing

Well if his intention is to pander to a west brit mentality then attacking rugby is the wrong way to go about it tbf.

He seems more a like a general shít stirrer to me and is just looking for a reaction with this back to the commonwealth stuff. Economically we're already attached at the hip with Britain as it is. On any number of levels their relationship with us is far more involved than it is with many of it's fellow commonwealth members.

His next article will probably be a call for either the abolition of the Catholic church in Ireland or bypassing the dail in favour of direct Papal rule from Rome. Depending on which ever one he thinks will create the biggest ruck.

later12

A Martian arriving on our little island from outer space on the 31st of December 1998 would look at the British and Irish economy and ask why on Earth are these two economies not under the same administration? He just wouldn't get it.

That all changed on the 1st of January, 1999, when the single European currency would have answered that question for him.

However, there remain strong logical reasons why Ireland, a small open economy as it is, ought to enhance its trade relationship with Britain and with Britain's Commonwealth partners: yes, the likes of Canada and Australia, but perhaps more notably the likes of significant emerging economies like India, South Africa and Nigeria.

While I am unsure about the cultural arguments that Delaney has made, the economic & trade arguments would at least appear to be pretty obvious.

But of course, people will always want to introduce nationalism into the question.

I think it would be rather a shame if a chip on our shoulder held this economy back from enhancing its growth opportunities either by greater co-ordination with the British or with its potentially valuable trading partners within the Commonwealth.

LordSutch

So Eamon Delaney joins Eamon De valera and a long line of Irish politicians who wants the ROI to rejoin the Commonwealth!

Hardly newsworthy these days, and like many others I think we should never have left the Commonwealth in the 1st place, John A Costello has a lot to answer to. I also think that if we did rejoin, the message to Unionists would be akin to a friendly hand been offered across the border, and who knows . . . Maybe political unification would come a big step closer? I certainly can't see any downside to rejoining, specially now that we have discovered that the Queen is not a dragon, but a rather lovely person greatly admired by many in the ROI, as well as the UK and across the globe.

AllGunsBlazing

later12 wrote: »

However, there remain strong logical reasons why Ireland, a small open economy as it is, ought to enhance its trade relationship with Britain and with Britain's Commonwealth partners: yes, the likes of Canada and Australia, but perhaps more notably the likes of significant emerging economies like India, South Africa and Nigeria.

How could our trade links possibly be any stronger with the UK than they already are? As it is Britain exports more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China together. George Osborne highlighted this fact himself during his budget speech saying that was the road to Britain's economic irrelevance.

That in itself indicates that the UK government doesn't see an awful lot of mutual benefit in aligning ourselves closer.

serfboard

tricky D wrote: »

Well it is the Independent he is writing for. Most ink on that rag should be ignored.

He was trolling rugby last week: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77931753
Article: Rugby:A better class of arrogance by Eamonn Sweeney

I've had the displeasure of working with him for a thankfully very short while.

You are referring to an article by someone called Eamonn Sweeney. This thread is about an article by Eamonn Delaney.

Sunnyisland

Lord Sutch wrote: »

So Eamon Delaney joins Eamon De valera and a long line of Irish politicians who wants the ROI to rejoin the Commonwealth!

Hardly newsworthy these days, and like many others I think we should never have left the Commonwealth in the 1st place, John A Costello has a lot to answer to. I also think that if we did rejoin, the message to Unionists would be akin to a friendly hand been offered across the border, and who knows . . . Maybe political unification would come a big step closer? I certainly can't see any downside to rejoining, specially now that we have discovered that the Queen is not a dragon, but a rather lovely person greatly admired by many in the ROI, as well as the UK and across the globe.

If you really are wondering why Ireland will never join the commonwealth maybe its because there are some unionist people like you who are having wet dreams about something that will not be happening. People who are of the view that Ireland is some sort of wayward and confused younger sibling that Britain patiently and benevolently tolerates. People who see our national sovereignty as something so trivial that we would should need no better justification for rejoining the Commonwealth other than it being "a wonderful present for the Queen on her Jubilee and sure she is a grand old lady. As for you many people claim and your long list of ROI politicians who support your view,Name them or show a link to such a long list.

gordon_gekko

would be a massive step backwards although so would agreeing to an EU superstate which many seem a lot less concerned about , the support for a YES result in the upcoming referendum is deeply worrying

thecommietommy

darkman2 wrote: »

The former diplomat Eamon Delaney is consistently bringing up the issue of whether or not Ireland should join the Commonwealth (IMO "no")...


What I find odd about this is that if any of you have ever read his book "An Accidental Diplomat" which documents his time working in the Department of Foreign Affairs (a fairly good book incidentally) in the early 90's he ridicules the British and extols the virtues of Irish nationalism. That book was only published in 2002 or 3 I think.

Now, since he started writing articles for the Sunday Independent he is coming out with all this Commonwealth stuff and how we are a failure as a country and should go grovelling to the British and this sort of thing. He even gave an interview like this in the Unionist "Newsletter" newspaper up North of all places a few days ago. And he also speaks at the neo unionist "reform" events aswell...


Either the guy is very confused or he is just a hypocrite. I used to have time for Mr Delaney but he cannot be taken seriously as a commentator anymore IMO.

What do make of a flip flop like this? I reckon he is just trying to be controversial. I do wonder is there something more to it but i'd rather not go down that road! He is far from the only public commentator to do this. Conor Cruise O'Brien for example jumped back and forth between different agendas and philosophies many times too! Curiously he was also in Foreign Affairs and went on to write for the Sunday Indo.....seems like a trend.

" since he started writing articles for the Sunday Independent " Says it all, I'd only use it for toilet paper.

Pat D. Almighty

Ah, the Sunday Independent. What a paper.

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

So Eamon Delaney joins Eamon De valera and a long line of Irish politicians who wants the ROI to rejoin the Commonwealth!

Hardly newsworthy these days, and like many others I think we should never have left the Commonwealth in the 1st place, John A Costello has a lot to answer to. I also think that if we did rejoin, the message to Unionists would be akin to a friendly hand been offered across the border, and who knows . . . Maybe political unification would come a big step closer? I certainly can't see any downside to rejoining, specially now that we have discovered that the Queen is not a dragon, but a rather lovely person greatly admired by many in the ROI, as well as the UK and across the globe.

Speak for yourself.

Only for the current economic problems and the usual self loathing, most Irish People would not consider joining the Commonwealth. It was not an idea entertained much in the past, so why now? Ah, but you have your own reasons.

**** the Unionists, they had spent long enough dictating Irish life, they can shag off now. They have no interest in reunification, so sod them, their kind won't be around for much longer anyway.

Who said the Queen was a Dragon? She is admired, but it does not mean we want to get into bed with her and her nation.


As I have asked so many times to the pro common wealth brigade, and it is NEVER answered

+ Considering that we have membership of the EU along with the UK; we already have had our own economic treaties with the UK; considering that the only thing stopping Ireland from expanding markets etc to other Commonwealth States is product, quality, energy and competition

Why the hell would we NEED to join the Commonwealth?

You suggesting that Commonwealth Membership would get us over the bargaining line?

China is the new America, Ireland does not need the Commonwealth to go digging there. We survived on America Investment.

Not everyone can be sought and sold for a few pieces of silver and gold.

LordSutch

walrusgumble wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

**** the Unionists, they had spent long enough dictating Irish life, they can shag off now.

OK then, bye.

Fratton Fred

gordon_gekko wrote: »

would be a massive step backwards although so would agreeing to an EU superstate which many seem a lot less concerned about , the support for a YES result in the upcoming referendum is deeply worrying

Why a step backwards? There are a lot of countries commited to the commonwealth and a number applying to join. They obviously see the commonwealth as being advantages, why would it involve a step backwards for Ireland?

NinjaK

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why a step backwards? There are a lot of countries commited to the commonwealth and a number applying to join. They obviously see the commonwealth as being advantages, why would it involve a step backwards for Ireland?

Because we were ruled by the Brits (our brothers in the North still are) and we dont want to connected with that lot again. You probably see nothing wrong with their 800 years of occupation of Ireland, the rest of us normal Gaels do.

COYW

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why a step backwards? There are a lot of countries commited to the commonwealth and a number applying to join. They obviously see the commonwealth as being advantages, why would it involve a step backwards for Ireland?

There are no economic negatives to it unless you are blinded by nationalism. The 800 year nonsense is the only reason nationalists ever come up with. Yet, they are more than happy the build stronger links with countries like China, who threat their own citizens so well, right ...... :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

NinjaK wrote: »

Because we were ruled by the Brits (our brothers in the North still are) and we dont want to connected with that lot again. You probably see nothing wrong with their 800 years of occupation of Ireland, the rest of us normal Gaels do.

what does a "Normal Gael" look like?

You may find yourselves out of touch there with a rather considerable number of our fellow "Gaels" because quite a lot of them still like to be associated with "That Lot", by either studying there, working there or attending a hospital there for a transplant.

joining the commonwealth does not give the UK nor the monarch any form of control over Ireland and consists of some pretty heavyweight economies, such as Canada, Australia and India. Surely any ties to them is no bad thing?

T runner

LordSutch wrote: »

So Eamon Delaney joins Eamon De valera and a long line of Irish politicians who wants the ROI to rejoin the Commonwealth!

Hardly newsworthy these days, and like many others I think we should never have left the Commonwealth in the 1st place, John A Costello has a lot to answer to. I also think that if we did rejoin, the message to Unionists would be akin to a friendly hand been offered across the border, and who knows . . . Maybe political unification would come a big step closer? I certainly can't see any downside to rejoining, specially now that we have discovered that the Queen is not a dragon, but a rather lovely person greatly admired by many in the ROI, as well as the UK and across the globe.

Unfortunately she is a creature from an era where peoples titles and power are legally determined by what family they were born into: not a dragon but a dinosaur certainly.

Friendship has to be extended both ways: irradicating sectarianism, and ensuring secularity and equality of esteem andf prosperity for all on both sides of the border will bring teh peopels of this country closer together.

The idea that this country will only be united under some kind of British umbrella is a pipe dream.

The revoking of articles 2 and 3 was a massive concession to Unionism and in my opinion unwarranted and unreciprocated. The unionists gained a lot using improved civil liverties for Catholics as a bargaining chip.

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why a step backwards? There are a lot of countries commited to the commonwealth and a number applying to join. They obviously see the commonwealth as being advantages, why would it involve a step backwards for Ireland?

Any countries similar to the republic of Ireland. i.e. any western European countries looking to join the British commonwealth?

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

Any countries similar to the republic of Ireland. i.e. any western European countries looking to join the British commonwealth?

the ones that are eligible are already members.

T runner

COYW wrote: »

There are no economic negatives to it unless you are blinded by nationalism. The 800 year nonsense is the only reason nationalists ever come up with. Yet, they are more than happy the build stronger links with countries like China, who threat their own citizens so well, right ...... :rolleyes:

I think we have all seen quite clearly how the UK has treated Irish people in Northern Ireland apparently "their own citizens".

The economic arguments are not by any means clearcut. The only emerging economy in the common wealth may be India and I think we stand more to gain by our current position re. trade there.

There is a lot more to a move like this than economics. You ahve to look at what a country stands for. After Independence we rightly took the independent approach of neutrality. We are not a warring country and the population here by and large believes in elected representatives and deplores Imperialism. This was the basis of our declaration of independence and that has been our philosophy through our peacekeeping efforts.

The British state is a warring nation. Most recently the illegal war on Iraq was responsible for the deaths of arguably over 250,000 people.

For this one reason alone we should not join any collaboration with Britain, especially one so linked with the British empire.

This is just a case of national integrity.

later12

T runner wrote: »

Any countries similar to the republic of Ireland. i.e. any western European countries looking to join the British commonwealth?

They have to have an historic and constitutional link to the Commonwealth for eligibility, except in exceptional situations.

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the ones that are eligible are already members.

Which European countries are members and what makes you eligeable? Do only countries subjected to British subjegation get this honour?


And tell me this Fratton: If England had been occupied since Napoleanic times by a French Empire would you as an Englishman be arguing for England to re-enter some kind of Freanch imperial remnant? Might your English countrymen tell you to get to ****?

Substitute Ireland and England with England and France and youll get your answer.

T runner

later12 wrote: »

They have to have an historic and constitutional link to the Commonwealth for eligibility, except in exceptional situations.

The historic link in almost all cases being that they were colonised, occupied or annexed by the British Empire.

Again, another reason on the basis of national integrity why this idea should be ruled out.

later12

T runner wrote: »

The historic link in almost all cases being that they were colonised, occupied or annexed by the British Empire.

Again, another reason on the basis of national integrity why this idea should be ruled out.

Look you asked a question, there's your answer.

The main argument against this seems to be emotive arguments as per the above, and I'm not convinced these can be logically addressed so...

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

OK then, bye.

Ah avoiding the question as to whether joining the commonwealth would truly be of benefit to Ireland or how joining would allow us do things that Ireland could not do without joining.

I remember you and two others making unspecific claims about the "economic advantageous" but saying little.

Next time, you express an opinion, stick to what You believe, and not assumptions of what others or most people would think

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why a step backwards? There are a lot of countries commited to the commonwealth and a number applying to join. They obviously see the commonwealth as being advantages, why would it involve a step backwards for Ireland?

A step back ward would be unfair, more of a side step.

Ireland is in Europe. Most of the Commonwealth Countries (excluding Malta and Cyprus - which was pointed out to me previously) are not in the EU (though Cyprus and Malta only joined in 2007) Those countries needed the link more than Ireland.

walrusgumble

NinjaK wrote: »

Because we were ruled by the Brits (our brothers in the North still are) and we dont want to connected with that lot again. You probably see nothing wrong with their 800 years of occupation of Ireland, the rest of us normal Gaels do.

We are still connected to the UK via the European Union

later12

walrusgumble wrote: »

A step back ward would be unfair, more of a side step.

Ireland is in Europe. Most of the Commonwealth Countries (excluding Malta and Cyprus - which was pointed out to me previously) are not in the EU (though Cyprus and Malta only joined in 2007)

Eh, surely that makes your argument redundant.

If the commonwealth is a community of nations which Ireland is eligible to join, and which can be a useful vehicle for promoting trade and business links, and most of the members are non EU members, then that seems like a strong prima facie basis for seriously considering an application to join as these relationships (particularly those with the emerging economies) are not directly facilitated by our membership of the EU.

walrusgumble

COYW wrote: »

There are no economic negatives to it unless you are blinded by nationalism. The 800 year nonsense is the only reason nationalists ever come up with. Yet, they are more than happy the build stronger links with countries like China, who threat their own citizens so well, right ...... :rolleyes:

Whatever about China, the British can never get on the high horse on how, historically, it treated its own citizens / subjects.

800 year nonsense? Well, technically, I would only go back as far as 1790's when a movement actually sought to remove British influence and control . The Boyne 1690 etc should be ignored , they were fights for who got to be King of Ireland and England.

There is no incentive's to joining either. We can do it ourselves. Actually, the only people who really want to join are probably those who have or want links to Britain. Too afraid to accept their own nationality perhaps? Some people still have family members, alive, who have legitimate issues with Britain.

Links with China are money links, no one gives a flying feck what they do, so long as they keep it to themselves. Ireland' s link with Britain was not always voluntary.

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what does a "Normal Gael" look like?

You may find yourselves out of touch there with a rather considerable number of our fellow "Gaels" because quite a lot of them still like to be associated with "That Lot", by either studying there, working there or attending a hospital there for a transplant.

joining the commonwealth does not give the UK nor the monarch any form of control over Ireland and consists of some pretty heavyweight economies, such as Canada, Australia and India. Surely any ties to them is no bad thing?

Ireland can forge ties with Canada, Australia and India on their own bat, if they tried to do so; If they have the product, the service, the capability and the willingness to look beyond Britain and the US, anything is possible. You don't need the Commonwealth for this.

The power of the $ is often more important than what club tie you wear

Dotsie~tmp

A lot of people claiming to know the minds of the Irish electorate in this thread. The tired old script of us good them bad is falling apart. Deal with it. We are moving on.

darkman2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what does a "Normal Gael" look like?

You may find yourselves out of touch there with a rather considerable number of our fellow "Gaels" because quite a lot of them still like to be associated with "That Lot", by either studying there, working there or attending a hospital there for a transplant.

joining the commonwealth does not give the UK nor the monarch any form of control over Ireland and consists of some pretty heavyweight economies, such as Canada, Australia and India. Surely any ties to them is no bad thing?

Consists of some pretty heavyweight despots too.

Anyway the Commonwealth is irrelevant to this country. There is no solid reason whatsoever to even consider joining this ex colonial club.

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

Ireland can forge ties with Canada, Australia and India on their own bat, if they tried to do so; If they have the product, the service, the capability and the willingness to look beyond Britain and the US, anything is possible. You don't need the Commonwealth for this.

The power of the $ is often more important than what club tie you wear

Of course Ireland can forge ties itself, just as it could build a space shuttle and fly to the moon.

It is much easier to join an association though and not reinvent the wheel.

LordSutch

walrusgumble wrote: »

Ah avoiding the question as to whether joining the commonwealth would truly be of benefit to Ireland or how joining would allow us do things that Ireland could not do without joining.

I remember you and two others making unspecific claims about the "economic advantageous" but saying little.

Next time, you express an opinion, stick to what You believe, and not assumptions of what others or most people would think

Well you did say this (below) in post#13, so I wasn't in the mood to debate with you that night.

walrusgumble wrote: »

"**** the Unionists, they had spent long enough dictating Irish life, they can shag off now".

Anyway, on a geographical level it is interesting to note that we here in Ireland (as part of this little group of islands), have become so removed from everybody else since independence! Look at the map > http://www.themapshop.co.uk/images/OSButtons/physicalbib.jpg and the obvious question would be "Why are we not part of the Commonwealth"? And I say this considering the fact that we are physically connected to the UK, then consider our deep family/cultural connections with everybody else living on these islands and the wider Commonwealth, one might also consider that we helped form the Empire (which became the Commonwealth) in the 1st palce, along with the Scots, English and the Welsh. Maybe the OP should be asking "Why and how did we leave the Commonwealth" and what signals might our departure send North re "Unity" :cool:

walrusgumble

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

A lot of people claiming to know the minds of the Irish electorate in this thread. The tired old script of us good them bad is falling apart. Deal with it. We are moving on.

Being against joining the Commonwealth is not moving on so?

Can you provide any legitimate poll that supports joining the Commonwealth?

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of course Ireland can forge ties itself, just as it could build a space shuttle and fly to the moon.

It is much easier to join an association though and not reinvent the wheel.

Ireland has a better chance in forging ties with these countries, than flying to the moon. The fact that you link such extreme examples is very arrogant and dismissive. Typical British nonsense

Ireland has membership of the European Union. That fact alone (along with the goods and services and capabilities) is what would attract these countries, not being an associate in the Old Boys Club.


What association did Ireland join to start relationships with China? The proposed Chinese Hubs in Athlone came from forging a relationship with the Chinese via the Local IT, a local Irish-Chinese Businessman and help from IDA (NOT GOVERNMENT)(one example - I think this will end in tears btw)


Why is Britain and fellow commonwealth states so low in the top 10 of India's main trading partner's?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/186/top-10-trading-partners-of-india/
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_India

Who are Britian's? Hong Kong, US, Germany? ,Of course India is there Ireland dare I say in a very very small capacity



Which countries truely benefit from the gig? Clearly, not all of them


Oh look , the position in some countries a couple of years ago, they don't seem that arsed
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/boost-needed-to-commonwealth-trade-links/story-e6frfkui-1111114908494

It always seems, that more could be done. Yes it would not hurt joining, but it is not necessary. Ireland still needs to be competitive and sell something others want


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/commonwealth/com05.htm

In relation to Trade Agreements (no wonder Britain ain't so pro Europe when it still has its own club)
" However, this clearly presents Britain and the other EU Member States (Cyprus and Malta) with a major difficulty as they cannot freely negotiate or unilaterally belong to a Commonwealth FTA whilst they are members of the EU’s Customs Union. "

charlemont

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the ones that are eligible are already members.

I'm eligible to do a lot of things, Does that mean I should ?

Another layer of bureaucracy is all joining the Commonwealth will bring.
Being an EU state is enough for us, We don't need anymore pointless elitist clubs to squander our tax money on..

Us common folk wouldn't see any benefits from membership of the Commonwealth.

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

Well you did say this (below) in post#13, so I wasn't in the mood to debate with you that night.



Anyway, on a geographical level it is interesting to note that we here in Ireland (as part of this little group of islands), have become so removed from everybody else since independence! Look at the map > http://www.themapshop.co.uk/images/OSButtons/physicalbib.jpg and the obvious question would be "Why are we not part of the Commonwealth"? And I say this considering the fact that we are physically connected to the UK, then consider our deep family/cultural connections with everybody else living on these islands and the wider Commonwealth, one might also consider that we helped form the Empire (which became the Commonwealth) in the 1st palce, along with the Scots, English and the Welsh. Maybe the OP should be asking "Why and how did we leave the Commonwealth" and what signals might our departure send North re "Unity" :cool:

I would not imagine you would have been in the mood. Bear it in mind when you are raving your rubbish about the South then. And , anyway, to hell with the Unionists, they have no right to dictate or be considered.

I think you will find, Ireland is far more into the idea of the European Union than Britain is.

You really are clutching at straws.

Our deep physical connection with the UK is shared in the European Union, a far more worthier club than the Commonwealth. Clutching at straws again.

Helped form the empire, yes, the Irish did. The Irish also got their lands confiscated and houses burned for showing any criticism of the Empire, had their cultural groups banned and derided and were not painted all too kindly in Punch magazine. Face it, Irish history does not look too kindly to Westminster (I am not referring to the ordinary Brit themselves)

Do us a favour, just because you are unashamedly Unionist and have positive attitude and positive experience of Britain, your "motherland", don't assume that all or most Irish people share your views.

Just face it, suck it up, Ireland will never join the Commonwealth (probably would not be wanted either)

. The South made its attitude clear in 1922, the South don't really care about Unity, it would be nice, but not willing to do anything about it. Unionists have no intention of unity either, the SOuth ain't stupid to fall for that argument - defeats the purpose of their existence. Why would Northern Unionists and Republicans give up their cosy little number in government to risk obscurity in a Dublin Parliament?

European Union is the nearest we have, to hell with it. More advantageous expanding Ireland' scope to other mainland Europe than the same tried and trusted girlfriends that are handy for the causal booty call.

later12

walrusgumble wrote: »

. The South made its attitude clear in 1922, the South don't really care about Unity, it would be nice, but not willing to do anything about it.

Who was "the south"? Partition was effectively one of the major causes of the Irish civil war, and unification of the island was always one of the major stated goals of the Fianna Fail party and CnaG, later Fine Gael.

The only thing that died after the Irish civil war was any realistic prospect of revolutionary means to unification. But it is quite another thing altogether to say that "the south made it's attitude clear" in not caring about unity.

LordSutch

walrusgumble wrote: »

I would not imagine you would have been in the mood. Bear it in mind when you are raving your rubbish about the South then. And , anyway, to hell with the Unionists, they have no right to dictate or be considered.

You say "To hell with the Unionists", but arent they the key to a United Ireland? do you not want to Unite with them to form a United island of Ireland where all the children are cherished equally, Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist, Republican, Green White & Orange United?

walrusgumble wrote: »

Do us a favour, just because you are unashamedly Unionist and have positive attitude and positive experience of Britain, your "motherland", don't assume that all or most Irish people share your views.

Yes I can see that you are not a fan of Irish Unionists or Britain, that much is very clear, your views are noted.

walrusgumble

later12 wrote: »

Who was "the south"? Partition was effectively one of the major causes of the Irish civil war, and unification of the island was always one of the major stated goals of the Fianna Fail party and CnaG, later Fine Gael.

The only thing that died after the Irish civil war was any realistic prospect of revolutionary means to unification. But it is quite another thing altogether to say that "the south made it's attitude clear" in not caring about unity.

Let us not kid ourselves. Southerners won't compromise in order to get any of the North.

Your understanding of the Irish Civil War is utterly laughable. Seriously, not even a Primary School history teacher will tell you that. What books have you being reading? Who the hell told you that

Partition was only uttered properly 2-4 times , briefly , during the Dail Treaty Debates. Many in the South could not give a rats ass about the North. THe oath was the issue. Both fractions refused to join forces and attack the North, leaving Frank Aiken's men very aloof in the North.

The North was no where near the taught of Southerner s during the Civil War. That is the sad reality. There was no dissent, the Northerner side with Collins due to promises he gave, and may have offered had he remained alive.


Fianna Fáil's promise of getting unity was RHETHORIC and no more. If Dev really wanted it, he would not have written such a strong Republican and Catholic Constitution. He turned to the North to excuse Ireland for not going to WW2. After that it was just words.

Haughey was the same, he turned to it to side track his party's bad performance in economics

Fine Gael rarely uttered a thing. John Bruton is not Johnny Britain for nothing. It was a shock that it was a FGer who , took us out the Commonwealth

(Today is the anniversary of the Act of Ireland)

Of course the South would like unity, but many southerners , sadly have a very partitionist mindset, and there is far too much to loose (votes, seats, jobs) . Sure look at the cross boarder shopping carry on the reaction to it .

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

You say "To hell with the Unionists", but arent they the key to a United Ireland? do you not want to Unite with them to form a United island of Ireland where all the children are cherished equally, Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist, Republican, Green White & Orange United?

That attitude alone is justifiable to cease the cow towing that goes on in hopping not to upset the Prods and Loyalists. Loyalists know this and will use it to their advantage. United Ireland is never going to happen, that is the reality. We just need to get on and work together.

Unionists won't be "unionists" if they one day vote to seek a united Ireland independent to the UK.

How can you be accepted as a Loyalist, if that loyalty is not to Ireland but to Britain. That is a fine distortion of what Wolf Tone said.

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes I can see that you are not a fan of Irish Unionists or Britain, that much is very clear, your views are noted.

Actually, its people like you who I despise. I never said I dislike Britain (well the mainland) its the Unionists of Northern Ireland and many of the chip on the shoulder republicans (as oppose to the more up beat) ones I despise.

Francie Barrett

Eamonn Delaney, didn't he used to be a runner, sometimes does athletics presenting on RTE?

later12

walrusgumble wrote: »

Your understanding of the Irish Civil War is utterly laughable. Seriously, not even a Primary School history teacher will tell you that. What books have you being reading? Who the hell told you that

Ok, I'm not sure what the point of this ad hominem is. I don't see a point in debating this very reasonable point if you're just going to dismiss it as being primary school stuff.

It was very clear in the earliest months of the negotiations that a Republic was out of the question, and that partition of some form would be a reality. DeValera himself said so in the Dail during the treaty debates, and that is why partition did not form a major part of the debates, whereas the oath and the issue of 'breaking the crown' was a major talking point instead.

My point in saying that partition was "effectively" one of the reasons for civil war was that if partition had been more open to negotiation in the months leading up to the Anglo Irish Treaty, then I think it likely that the failure of external association and the necessity of the oath would be more 'swallowable' to many of what went on to become the anti-treaty faction.

On the other hand, you are certainly over-stating your case when you say "the South didn't really care about Unity".

The Corinthian

I find this thread a bit ridiculous. On one side the pro-commonwealth belief that it might somehow solve all our economic woes, when in reality it would make little difference given our existing membership to the EU (which both limits non-UK commonwealth trade and already facilitates UK trade). On the other hand the armchair republican anti-commonwealth belief that regardless of any benefit that the 800 years of oppression argument should trump all others and if you disagree you're not really Irish.

Not sure which is sillier. Personally I see little benefit in joining the commonwealth on a practical economic level.