Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

Artful_Badger

According to British MP Michael Fabricant Ireland should be invited to join the commonwealth as the next step in committing to peaceful reconciliation.

This is being discussed in AH at the usual AH standard. But I'd like to know the real upsides and downsides are to such a move.

From what he says in the article the commonwealth now "is founded on co-operation between English-speaking states with shared histories and legal systems."

So it wouldn't be rejoining the empire are so many see it. But would it actually be of benefit beyond just being a symbol of peace by adding Ireland to a list and having a bit of a ceremony ?

glued

I don't really see the advantage to it. It's an outdated concept with little or no advantages at this stage.

turnikett1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

So it wouldn't be rejoining the empire are so many see it. But would it actually be of benefit beyond just being a symbol of peace by adding Ireland to a list and having a bit of a ceremony ?

Nope. I am all for peace, reconciliation and coming to terms with the past but between inviting royals to the centenary 1916 commemoration and THIS, its just a bit too far. C'mon like. If this attitude keeps carrying on I honestly feel Ireland re-joining the UK in some 30 years or so isn't the craziest thing ever

Artful_Badger

turnikett1 wrote: »

Nope. I am all for peace, reconciliation and coming to terms with the past but between inviting royals to the centenary 1916 commemoration and THIS, its just a bit too far. C'mon like. If this attitude keeps carrying on I honestly feel Ireland re-joining the UK in some 30 years or so isn't the craziest thing ever

Too far in what way though ? The past is the past as far as I'm concerned and if its in the best interests of the state and people to join the commonwealth why should it be dismissed because of sentiment or resentment over historical events.

Godge

It is an interesting idea but not a new one.

Those genuinely interested in a united Ireland have previously floated the idea as a compromise i.e Ireland is united but rejoins the Commonwealth.

turnikett1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Too far in what way though ? The past is the past as far as I'm concerned and if its in the best interests of the state and people to join the commonwealth why should it be dismissed because of sentiment or resentment over historical events.

It hasn't even been 100 years since Ireland got it's independence, and only 65 since we left the Commonwealth! There are absolutely 0 benefits to rejoining the Commonwealth apart from symbolism and "peace" (which we already have). Ireland has proven itself an independent nation capable of handling itself on an international scale and has built a strong cultural identity distinct from the UK and the rest of Europe. I really just don't see the reason why we should start sucking up to the Brits again (not that we don't already). Inviting royals to the commemoration is too far for me. Yes peace and reconciliation, but some things are a bit sacred.

I'm not even overly patriotic. I'm not in favour of the current Irish government or any of their previous and probably future incarnations. But between Irish people following English clubs, watching English tv, the Irish media going crazy about royal babies and visits to the Queen, the fact we all speak English and the Union Jack still flies somewhere on this island is it not enough?

I don't know, maybe I'm ranting and completely wrong but just let Ireland be Ireland. Ireland and the UK can be friends sure, I am up for that, but at least let us have some CULTURAL independence. Irish culture is imbued with British culture enough as it is. Last thing we need is us having the Queen as our Head of State and having royals "remember" our freedom fighters. Even the thought of some poncy royal with their heads down in silence, probably thinking "what a lovely procession" as we commemorate the Rising makes me a little bit sick.

I agree re-joining the Commonwealth is harmless symbolism. But it's the completely wrong type of symbolism.

Maphisto

I don't really know enough about it but I have always joined clubs - especially when there was no or minimal entrance fee.

Given that it is no longer a requirement to accept the Queen as head of state (rest easy Michael D) and there are three other members of the EEC already in the Commonwealth, I think that chance to network with other leaders could only be good.

But there's an awful lot of baggage and symbolism too - and I wouldn't even go there.

SpaceTime

I would rather see more cooperation between Ireland and the UK & the Scottish, Northern Irish & Welsh governments on a range of practical issues like maybe a common visa system if both countries are determined to stay out of the shengen system.

The commonwealth comes with WAY too much baggage.

The key here is a relationship between modern Ireland and modern Britain, not with a relic of colonialism.

We have a lot more in common as we are now without dwelling on the colonial era.

delthedriver

Any money, grants, cheap loans , jobs etc........ going with the deal ?

Ren2k7

There's no obvious benefits to joining, so no.

alastair

Now that the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington is being turned into the new home for the Design Museum, there's not even a cool HQ. Track and field athletes might get a few more gigs?

Artful_Badger

Well if there's no real benefit beyond making a statement I'd agree it doesnt make much sense in joining.

For Reals

There's no sense in joining the antiquated remnants of a fascist empire built on the blood of other nations utilising concentration camps and genocide to ensure expansion and continuity, so we can all be pals and have tea and cake. It's ridiculous. They can keep it. Ask them to join the G.A.A.?

SpaceTime

...., so we can all be pals and have tea and cake. It's ridiculous. They can keep it. Ask them to join the G.A.A.?

Careful! The Royals like being patrons of things, particularly sporting organisations !!

Maphisto

For Reals wrote: »

There's no sense in joining the antiquated remnants of a fascist empire built on the blood of other nations utilising concentration camps and genocide to ensure expansion and continuity, so we can all be pals and have tea and cake. It's ridiculous. They can keep it. Ask them to join the G.A.A.?

Except we were talking about the Commomwealth and nobody has been offered cake.

Are you offering membership of the GAA?

ZeitgeistGlee

delthedriver wrote: »

Any money, grants, cheap loans , jobs etc........ going with the deal ?

Nope, although IIRC they want to try to add a FTA element to it the same as the EU which might make it somewhat appealing.

If the UK forget about that €3 billion they unilaterally loaned us a few years ago I imagine people would be far more amicable to the idea.

Marhay70

Rejoin the Commonwealth? no; rejoin the UK? now that's worth considering.

ZeitgeistGlee

Marhay70 wrote: »

Rejoin the Commonwealth? no; rejoin the UK? now that's worth considering.

Populist sentiment renders any discussion on that moot.

riffmongous

Marhay70 wrote: »

Rejoin the Commonwealth? no; rejoin the UK? now that's worth considering.

Why?

Fratton Fred

glued wrote: »

I don't really see the advantage to it. It's an outdated concept with little or no advantages at this stage.

In what way is it outdated?

sparky42

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Populist sentiment renders any discussion on that moot.

Can you find any popular support for discussion on such an issue? Thats ike suggesting that the US doesn't rejoin the Commonwealth because "populist sentiment renders the discussion moot".

sparky42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In what way is it outdated?

It doesn't deal with any of the underlying issues within the Commonwealth, like failures in Democracy in the African nations, discrimination (how many Commonwealth nations are in a race to make being Gay a death sentence?), religious intolerance, child marriages, FGM, corruption, military dictatorships (remember how quickly Musharraf was back in after 9/11 even though he lead a coup?), educational issues particularly regarding gender equality etc.

You have a combination of Western Nations (UK and the Dominions), African nations (who balk at most Western views/criticisms) and Asian nations (many Islamic with significantly different views to the West). Trying to find common policies/positions between those groups is almost impossible.

Other than being a talking shop point out what the Commonwealth actually does?

alastair

sparky42 wrote: »

It doesn't deal with any of the underlying issues within the Commonwealth, like failures in Democracy in the African nations, discrimination (how many Commonwealth nations are in a race to make being Gay a death sentence?), religious intolerance, child marriages, FGM, corruption, military dictatorships (remember how quickly Musharraf was back in after 9/11 even though he lead a coup?), educational issues particularly regarding gender equality etc.

You have a combination of Western Nations (UK and the Dominions), African nations (who balk at most Western views/criticisms) and Asian nations (many Islamic with significantly different views to the West). Trying to find common policies/positions between those groups is almost impossible.

Other than being a talking shop point out what the Commonwealth actually does?

You could make equally valid criticisms of the UN. Surely better to have a forum that provides debate on the issues than to stand outside harping?

sparky42

alastair wrote: »

You could make equally valid criticisms of the UN. Surely better to have a forum that provides debate on the issues than to stand outside harping?

And we are in the UN which for all its ills (and you are right about that) is still a more effective entity than the Commonwealth. There is no debate in the Commonwealth, the UK and Dominions don't push because of a combination of historic guilt in the case of the UK and fear of fracturing the Commonwealth from all of them, the Africans particularly respond to any Western position as Neo-Colonalism(look at any of the languages in relation to the Anti Gay laws at the moment).

alastair

sparky42 wrote: »

There is no debate in the Commonwealth.

Well - that's not true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15524013

sparky42

alastair wrote: »

Well - that's not true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15524013

That's the UK threatening to taking an action outside of and seperate to the Commonwealth, it's not like he called for a commonwealth meeting or statement on that law or any of the other similar laws being moved in Africa at the moment. When the Commonwealth meets and all nations put forward such a threat then I'd see it as a Commonwealth action or if the Secretary General or Chairperson issued such a statement. But they've been silent on the matter.

alastair

sparky42 wrote: »

That's the UK threatening to taking an action outside of and seperate to the Commonwealth, it's not like he called for a commonwealth meeting or statement on that law or any of the other similar laws being moved in Africa at the moment. When the Commonwealth meets and all nations put forward such a threat then I'd see it as a Commonwealth action or if the Secretary General or Chairperson issued such a statement. But they've been silent on the matter.

Not quite.

Mr Cameron told the BBC he had raised the issue of gay rights at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, in Perth, Australia, last week.

sparky42

alastair wrote: »

Not quite.

And what was the outcome? Don't remember it producing any great debate, were there any statements from the Secretary General or Commissioner on it? While he might of raised the issue of Gay Rights, I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have tried to get the Commonwealth to suspend a member over Gay Rights, or cut Commonwealth funding from that nation over it. More likely it would have been the same type of PR comment that every Western leader does about Chinese Human Rights (ie a one liner and then move on to more important matters)

The Commonwealth itself has admitted that it has issues dealing with the whole area of human rights within the Commonwealth in the past, the response more committees to review the results of the last committees.

alastair

sparky42 wrote: »

And what was the outcome? Don't remember it producing any great debate, were there any statements from the Secretary General or Commissioner on it? While he might of raised the issue of Gay Rights, I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have tried to get the Commonwealth to suspend a member over Gay Rights, or cut Commonwealth funding from that nation over it. More likely it would have been the same type of PR comment that every Western leader does about Chinese Human Rights (ie a one liner and then move on to more important matters)

The Commonwealth itself has admitted that it has issues dealing with the whole area of human rights within the Commonwealth in the past, the response more committees to review the results of the last committees.

Not disputing any of the above - but it's clearly not true to say that "There is no debate in the Commonwealth." Has anyone attempted to suspend a UN member state over gay rights btw?

WakeUp

So according to this guy the way to celebrate peace is for Ireland to be allowed not invited to join the British commonwealth, thanks for the chuckle Michael but youre alright. I can think of many more ways to celebrate peace than this I find his attitude a little condescending. Things are fine just the way they are the chances of Ireland ever joining the commonwealth are as remote as the chances of ever joining the UK personally I cant see it ever happening. Taking a look at some of his comments...

“If a country like the Republic of Ireland joined the Commonwealth,"

The correct and official term is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland as outlined in our constitution he doesnt elaborate on what he means by "like" would be interesting if he did.

what greater message could be sent to countries facing political upheaval and disputes on the other side of the world than an ancient country who had drawn a line under parts of its past,

Sending a message to the other side of the world is about as ridiculous an idea as celebrating peace as a reason for Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth.

whilst promoting its future on the best parts of its heritage?” Mr Fabricant writes.

Promoting our future on the best parts of heritage again would be interesting if he elaborated further on that. what are the best parts of our heritage I wonder Michael.

Times have certainly moved on to the benefit of everyone we have a good working relationship with Britain as it is, we have peace people are getting on with their lives things are better now so just leave them alone. Fabricants idea to me is nonsense really.

sparky42

alastair wrote: »

Not disputing any of the above - but it's clearly not true to say that "There is no debate in the Commonwealth." Has anyone attempted to suspend a UN member state over gay rights btw?

Not that I know of and with Russia on the Security council it wouldn't happen anyway.

But since the commonwealth refused to take up the recommendations of the 2011 review that included repealing the anti Homosexuality laws, and banning Forced Marriages and the creation of a Commissioner for Human Rights I'd say there is at least as active a resistance as elements of the UN towards Human Rights.

alastair

sparky42 wrote: »

Not that I know of and with Russia on the Security council it wouldn't happen anyway.

But since the commonwealth refused to take up the recommendations of the 2011 review that included repealing the anti Homosexuality laws, and banning Forced Marriages and the creation of a Commissioner for Human Rights I'd say there is at least as active a resistance as elements of the UN towards Human Rights.

So - it's not that there's no debate, it's that members refuse to play ball? Again - this isn't radically different to the frustrations and limits of any groups of nations coming together. I'm not particularly impressed with the Commonwealth's record on a number of issues, and will grant that it's intrinsically got less leverage than the UN has, but none of those are reasons to stay out. I come back to the question of whether - even if it's only a talking shop, is it better to add your voice to debate within, or stay outside harping that it gets nothing done?

For me, the cons outweigh the pros for Irish membership currently, but I don't think the grouping is without some merit.

sparky42

alastair wrote: »

So - it's not that there's no debate, it's that members refuse to play ball? Again - this isn't radically different to the frustrations and limits of any groups of nations coming together. I'm not particularly impressed with the Commonwealth's record on a number of issues, and will grant that it's intrinsically got less leverage than the UN has, but none of those are reasons to stay out. I come back to the question of whether - even if it's only a talking shop, is it better to add your voice to debate within, or stay outside harping that it gets nothing done?

For me, the cons outweigh the pros for Irish membership currently, but I don't think the grouping is without some merit.

Well I'd disagree with what actual level of debate is happening and how much is one liner PR statements (remember with the new conservative OZ PM even Australia isn't supportive of equality at the moment). We already have a voice in the UN and a fairly active one at that (no matter what the end result of it is), I don't see why we need to have a voice in the Commonwealth or what possible value it would have (it's not like our voice would make the difference to any of it's issues).

Frankly I just don't see the value of it, nor am I convinced about it's long term viability, once the Queen is gone who knows how it develops (we don't even know how the Republican feeling in Australia will develop post Queen and with the increasing relationship/reliance with the US), China is gaining massive influence in Africa due to investment and is shaping Government policies there, the social views are unlikely to realign (not with the US Christian Right pumping money into conservative Africa), democracy hasn't exactly flourished under the Commonwealth in many nations, and the Muslim member nations aren't exactly happy with the international policies of the UK/Dominions.

Khomeini

To those who say it has no benefits... would you be happy to join if there were monetary benefits?

sparky42

Khomeini wrote: »

To those who say it has no benefits... would you be happy to join if there were monetary benefits?

Not really no, I don't see it as an institution of value or of long term development.

Khomeini

sparky42 wrote: »

Not really no, I don't see it as an institution of value or of long term development.

Hypothetically, if it presented long term prosperity would you be for Ireland joining the Commonwealth?

sparky42

Khomeini wrote: »

Hypothetically, if it presented long term prosperity would you be for Ireland joining the Commonwealth?

As it's currently structured no, there are too many undemocratic forces (and anti human rights forces) that go unchecked and have blocked attempts to strengthen it's commitments outside of words in human rights or democracy. A reformed commonwealth which did actually take action on HR violations, or Corruption, Vote buying, perhaps yes.

But considering the likelihood of political instability/cost that joining would bring to the Irish political system (even to a reformed Commonwealth), perhaps not.

Either way it's not likely to be anything anyone old enough to post here has to deal with, right now the only suggestion of movement would be in the situation of NI unification, which is even less likely to happen in my view.

walrusgumble

Godge wrote: »

It is an interesting idea but not a new one.

Those genuinely interested in a united Ireland have previously floated the idea as a compromise i.e Ireland is united but rejoins the Commonwealth.

Independent United Ireland or nothing. The north is not worth joining the Commonwealth

walrusgumble

Khomeini wrote: »

Hypothetically, if it presented long term prosperity would you be for Ireland joining the Commonwealth?

Factually and realistically , it won't. To suggest otherwise is naive and down right dishonest. It is no different to the crap that came from Enda Kenny about voting for Lisbon = Jobs. Commonwealth does little for the man in Camden Street London. No matter how many times the David Norris' of this world click their red shoes and shout, Commonwealth = long term prosperity, it does not mean that it will. Hell, even the British, secretly, accept that their place is in Europe

There is little to prevent our current legislators and NGO's from going out to India, Australia , Canada, Pakistan to campagin and push for more business. We can set up our own prices and deals and set up our own immigration policies .

We don't need a big swanky dinner gala for Commonwealth chums to achieve these things.

There is enough resentment towards the EU , why the hell would we want to get involved in an irrelevant, cermonial and historical clap trap that is the Commonwealth ?

sparky42

walrusgumble wrote: »

Independent United Ireland or nothing. The north is not worth joining the Commonwealth

Short of ethnic cleansing (which Ireland itself would stop) there are going to be Unionists in Northern Ireland that are going to have to be accommodated if anything changed.

Now the reality is it's not going to change so it's not a concern.

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

You could make equally valid criticisms of the UN. Surely better to have a forum that provides debate on the issues than to stand outside harping?

UN actually do intervene in conflicts. Our boys have been risking their lives in the Leb for some time. They send aid, and do up reports.

Lack of action is due to the democractic system and ability to block action

So, no, the UN is not comparable to the Commonwealth, ask any Refugee in a camp in eg DRC, Cameroon, Rwanda.........

walrusgumble

sparky42 wrote: »

Short of ethnic cleansing (which Ireland itself would stop) there are going to be Unionists in Northern Ireland that are going to have to be accommodated if anything changed.

Now the reality is it's not going to change so it's not a concern.

That is an issue irrespective of associating the Commonwealth. You do not need to be in the Commonwealth to achieve that!

The Unionists will be a minority. They are a minority and their days are numbered (not for one minute suggesting that all Catholics are Nationalist or that even all Nationalists in the North would genuinely support a UI at this time)


Outside of the important social and civil liberties and rights that they have and entitled to have, why should we pander to them, when some of them, will be required to vote YES to a United Ireland. The way the South is now, we ain't the big Catholic country that it use to be - then again, that doesn't bother Unionists, as they will find something to get paranoid over

No pandering! Too much, not worth Uniting.

What accommdating are you referring to ? We have Unionists in the South too , so sod them!

Ethinic Cleansing? No need, the Nationalists are doing well at Queen's Belfast , the PSNI, Government Buildings

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

UN actually do intervene in conflicts. Our boys have been risking their lives in the Leb for some time. They send aid, and do up reports.

Lack of action is due to the democractic system and ability to block action

So, no, the UN is not comparable to the Commonwealth, ask any Refugee in a camp in eg DRC, Cameroon, Rwanda.........

The criticisms referenced are equally applicable to the UN. No-one suggested the UN and the Commonwealth were comparable as organisations.

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Unionists will be a minority. They are a minority and their days are numbered (not for one minute suggesting that all Catholics are Nationalist or that even all Nationalists in the North would genuinely support a UI at this time)

On what basis are 'their days numbered'? Because it doesn't look that way by any reasonable measure.

ZeitgeistGlee

sparky42 wrote: »

Can you find any popular support for discussion on such an issue? Thats ike suggesting that the US doesn't rejoin the Commonwealth because "populist sentiment renders the discussion moot".

I was referring to Ireland rejoining the UK.

sparky42

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

I was referring to Ireland rejoining the UK.

Rejoining the UK?:eek: That's not populist sentiment against it, that's national identity. It's also stupid to suggest otherwise, or do you want to start redrawing borders?:rolleyes:

ZeitgeistGlee

sparky42 wrote: »

Rejoining the UK?:eek: That's not populist sentiment against it, that's national identity. It's also stupid to suggest otherwise, or do you want to start redrawing borders?:rolleyes:

Are the Scottish, English and Welsh any less nationally identifiable for being part of the UK? The Welsh who've been part of the UK far longer than either ourselves or Scotland have managed to retain a hugely obvious sense of independent identity.

Your response basically makes my point for me though seeing as you jumped straight to "redraw national borders and lose all sense of identity" rather than actually reasonably discussing the idea. Magnify by that "800 years! Rabble rabble!" and yes, any chance for a dispassionate debate centred around genuine pros and cons is lost to "populist sentiment". No politician in this country wants to be known as the one who suggested rejoining the UK.

sparky42

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Are the Scottish, English and Welsh any less nationally identifiable for being part of the UK? The Welsh who've been part of the UK far longer than either ourselves or Scotland have managed to retain a hugely obvious sense of independent identity.

Your response basically makes my point for me though seeing as you jumped straight to "redraw national borders and lose all sense of identity" rather than actually reasonably discussing the idea. Magnify by that "800 years! Rabble rabble!" and yes, any chance for a dispassionate debate centred around genuine pros and cons is lost to "populist sentiment". No politician in this country wants to be known as the one who suggested rejoining the UK.

And at least a portion of the Scots want out from the UK, both the Welsh and Scots would argue about London centric polices that ignore them at best, disadvantage them at worse.

No politician here wants to suggest it, as there is zero pubic interest in doing so, seriously can you suggest a single study at any point from any academic or policy group that has given any percentage of support for such a suggestion. Suggesting otherwise is divorced from reality, suggesting Ireland be part of the UK is both a) Trolling and b) at least 150 years to late. It has nothing to do with "rabble", I'm quite happy with the improvements and normalisation of the relationship, but what you are suggesting is nonsense.

I can argue economic reasons why we shouldn't, I could argue the political reasons why we wouldn't have been a happy fit post 1916. If you want something else go to an AH forum and suggest it.

By the way there's nothing stopping you from living and working a long and healthy life in the UK if you feel so strongly about being part of the UK again.

riffmongous

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Are the Scottish, English and Welsh any less nationally identifiable for being part of the UK? The Welsh who've been part of the UK far longer than either ourselves or Scotland have managed to retain a hugely obvious sense of independent identity.

Your response basically makes my point for me though seeing as you jumped straight to "redraw national borders and lose all sense of identity" rather than actually reasonably discussing the idea. Magnify by that "800 years! Rabble rabble!" and yes, any chance for a dispassionate debate centred around genuine pros and cons is lost to "populist sentiment". No politician in this country wants to be known as the one who suggested rejoining the UK.

Well why don't you put forward a few pros then so and just ignore the people who argue on 'popular sentiment'? But so far no one has put forward any reason why we should have a debate on it in the first place

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

Well why don't you put forward a few pros then so and just ignore the people who argue on 'popular sentiment'? But so far no one has put forward any reason why we should have a debate on it in the first place

Exactly, would he support for example the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and demand that the Irish army have deployed in them if we were part of the UK then, when the UK gets into it's next war would he support/volunteer for deployment?

What about the UK's Nuclear weapons, what about the defence relationships with less than good people?

silverbolt

erm no we shouldnt

we dont need them and things are fine the way they are between us

restarting all that again will have the IRA bombing schools again