Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Does it? Richard posted a copy of a passport. No where does it say "scottish" or "english" or "welsh". It does say "british"

Have you read the passport? Unless one knows what Britian is, it is not "obvious" that one is a national of Scotland, England,or wales. Amazingly over 3 pages has been spent pointing that out and you are still in denial.it gets worse then by comparing the countries to Ireland and Australia

Poster talk about "obvious" and "distinct" yet evidence suggests otherwise.

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

I have answered each point, in detail. You have given NO examples of how the said regions differ in religion (in reality) or politically (to rebut the fact that they have the same parties and swear allegiance to the British Monarch as oppose to Scottish monarch or that what goes on in England really is all that matters), you failed to explain how the sporting culture is truely disctinct from the other,

And despite several requests for you to explain it, you have failed, miserably, to explain the bland description of " different cultural cornerstones"

It aint for me to hold your hand on that. You stated it, you prove them.you simply cling onto label differences and ignore the reality that there is no core distinction that make them obvious


Again, just to spell it out, yet original ststatement was about "obvious" and "disctinct" cultural identity that makes it a nation, separate from the others in the UK.the key ti the issue are the words obvious and "distinct"



NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY YOU BAR BLAND COMMENTS

What is wrong, "afraid"?

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

Does it? Richard posted a copy of a passport. No where does it say "scottish" or "english" or "welsh". It does say "british"

Have you read the passport?

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

walrusgumble

Richard wrote: »

But not 'Ireland' as a whole. Not for 150 years. "Some people in Ireland" =/= "Ireland"

Dear god. There were many loyalist to Britian born n bred in America when America strove for Indepndence, likewise South Africa and India. I suppose that stops them from saying that they didnt fight for independence?

From 1880-1923, the main political parties on the island of Ireland was not Unionist groups but either the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Fein! There is no mistake what the latter looked for and they had seats all over the island.

At no stage, did the Scots and Welsh amonut much of an action to go it alone (the original point)

You then said
I'm suggesting, correctly, that Ireland as a whole (or even in large numbers) was struggling for independence. Home rule was popular, but not independence for much of that time, and there was a significant proportion of the population that didn't even want Home Rule.

As I pointed out about Home Rule, I acknowledged the reality of continued links with Britian being diserable. You of course ignore one reality, who was allowed to vote and stand for election.

Support in the South for Home Rule was large, unionists were a tiny minority compared to that. IPP had the majority of seats and quite a few in the north.


You said
Absolutely, which is why bringing up 150 years of this, that or the other is a bit pointless.[/QUOTE]
150 being evidence of some attempts, admittingly disastrous, of some groups seeking independence,afterall Dublin Castle and the RIC went to great lengths to prevent on outbreak of IRB support. It's more than what went on in Wales n Scotland.

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

British law says subjects.

Nice to see you are ignoring the other issue.the passport does not say "scottish", "welsh" or "englsih" or "irish" it says British.

You talk about these groups being " obvious" and "distinct" The passport suggests other wise, that is the point being consistently made. It is not obvious to the international world, that one is specifically a Scot, or specifically Welsh by looking at the passport. They know you are British though. You are assuming that the international world is intelligent enough to know that Britian = Scotland, wales,northern Ireland,England. To the idiot looking at the passport, he could mistake you for a welsh man when you are scottish or worse,lol, English.

It is there in print. Stop denying it. it is not "obvious"

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

The one which clearly says 'citizen', not 'subject'?

Again - their citizenship is British, their nationality is Irish, Scottish, English, or Welsh.

Wow, slow day today. Despite the quotation marks, you miss the point and address the other point,well done

You talk of the word "citizen" when I point out that no where in the passport does it say that Mary is "Scottish" or "Welsh"..... We know Mary is British, but could be mistaken as being "Scottish" as oppose to her being "welsh"

So, hardly obvious and distinct is it.? To spell it out: the central issues of contention. You talked about it being disctinct and obvious, I suggested other wise, you refuse and fail to counter that bar bland comments. You even put up a passport that proves my point. "obvious" and "distinct" deal with those two terms used by you.

Oh, care to give details to the bland statements made earlier or explain cultural cornerstones? How are they obvious and disctinct? Afraid?surely not?

Richard

Walrusgrumble,

The reason I posted "Or Ireland" was to do with the fact that Irish opinion has been, and remains, diverse on these issues.

Implying "the Irish" have been fighting for independence for X years implies a cohesive nature to opinion which simply isn't true.

You later mentioned Home Rule, but that isn't the same as the independence you mentioned earlier.

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

It has been answered, in full, in detail, across several posts, across at least three pages.

You evidentially do not understand the words, "obvious" and ",distinct". Why use these words when you don't understand them? You also clearly do not understand that actual points being consistently made. You Clealry suffer from an in ability to stick to a point and to read. You clearly prefer to make statements using words that you do not understand and refuse to substantiate the said statements.

It is very clear that you have no intention of actually supporting your arguments despite being called to do so. What "cultural cornerstone"? What are the specific and actual cultural distinctions that mark them out?it aint sport ,it aint politics either,it aint religion, it aint monarchy really either (6th time of asking)

You just prefer to troll.

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

It has been answered, in full, in detail, across several posts, across at least three pages.

You evidentially do not understand the words, "obvious" and ",distinct". Why use these words when you don't understand them? You also clearly do not understand that actual points being consistently made. You Clealry suffer from an in ability to stick to a point and to read. You clearly prefer to make statements using words that you do not understand and refuse to substantiate the said statements.

It is very clear that you have no intention of actually supporting your arguments despite being called to do so. What "cultural cornerstone"? What are the specific and actual cultural distinctions that mark them out?it aint sport ,it aint politics either,it aint religion, it aint monarchy really either (6th time of asking)

You just prefer to troll.

Still unable to answer a simple question.

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

British law says subjects.

They're citizens, not subjects.
Again:

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

SpaceTime

See: this thread sums up why the status quo is fine.

The commonwealth really has no purpose other than as a kind of nod to the old British Empire links. It's a powerless, symbolic organisation without any political or economic role.
It's hard to know that the point of it is.

There would be absolutely no reason for us to join. We already have a FAR deeper relationship with the UK than any commonwealth country has.

We share a landborder which we do not enforce anymore, we treat each other's citizens as if they're locals, even letting them vote in national elections. We have formalised intergovernmental agencies, we are both members of the EU.

No commonwealth nation has that kind of interconnectedness with the UK and our joining the commonwealth wouldn't be of any benefit.

I think we should leave well enough alone.

Richard

SpaceTime wrote: »

See: this thread sums up why the status quo is fine.

The commonwealth really has no purpose other than as a kind of nod to the old British Empire links. It's a powerless, symbolic organisation without any political or economic role.
It's hard to know that the point of it is.

There would be absolutely no reason for us to join. We already have a FAR deeper relationship with the UK than any commonwealth country has.

We share a landborder which we do not enforce anymore, we treat each other's citizens as if they're locals, even letting them vote in national elections. We have formalised intergovernmental agencies, we are both members of the EU.

No commonwealth nation has that kind of interconnectedness with the UK and our joining the commonwealth wouldn't be of any benefit.

I think we should leave well enough alone.

I think you're right. IMHO the only reason that Ireland should join the Commonwealth is in the event of a United Ireland.

Harry Angstrom

"Should Ireland join the Commonwealth?"

No.

/thread

Kermit.de.frog

I agree. NO!

/thread

Kermit.de.frog

walrusgumble wrote: »

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Oh erm I think the British may have won some of those rounds but make no mistake they got their asses handed to them by the IRB 1920/21. All British agents assassinated, country ungovernable, Dáil operating with impunity, Irish courts, Irish police etc....It's fair to say the IRA won whether you like it or not.

walrusgumble

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Oh erm I think the British may have won some of those rounds but make no mistake they got their asses handed to them by the IRB 1920/21. All British agents assassinated, country ungovernable, Dáil operating with impunity, Irish courts, Irish police etc....It's fair to say the IRA won whether you like it or not.

The examples, were merely examples of attempts to seek Independence, no more, in the context of this discussion, their success was not relevant. Richard is right to point out that it was not really until the Tan War that a substantial proportion of the public, in the South, gave support to Independence. (The whole point of 1916 was to "reawaken" the spirit of 1798 - which itself was plauged by bribery, drunks and plenty of Irish Catholics and Prods fighting for Britain or spying - likewise Battle of the Boyne)

As for the Tan War, while Dublin was struggling by the time of the Truce, plans were in set for another assaination of British - as many good Dublin men were either dead or arrested by that time - Dublin was catching on , the Custom House attack had been a distaster (thanks Dev, maybe he was better off staying in America). Of course, guys like Tom Barry in Cork thought that they were doing okay. As Mulcahy pointed out, the IRA were unable to kick the Brits out of a fairly sizable Barracks. While many efforts were made throughout the country (including the less well known) many a Column missed out in skirmishes as Brits were tipped off or bad intelligence.

In reality, our Dail and Dail Courts, while an excellent example of democratic defiance, really never really sat that much, how could they?

One has to be carefull when they refer to the IRB, while the IRA leaders were mostly IRB men, not all volunteers were IRB men.

I don't suggest that the Tan War was a failure. My "disaterous" comment referred to the IRB skirmishes in the 1800's. I even would not suggest that 1916 was a disaster (see subsequent post), in the long run. It achieved Pearse's intentions.

walrusgumble

alastair wrote: »

They're citizens, not subjects.
Again:

British people are, legally, SUBJECTS to the Crown, not citizens! That is afterall, Monarch tradition and "constitution". Ye don't get to elect a head of State = though abidication crisis would make things interesting for Wales and Scotland ala Dev in the 1930's



To be fair, in practice, ye are both citizens and subjects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4191613.stm
"Nationality laws introduced the word citizen during the break-up of the British Empire - but only as a means to differentiate UK residents from other British subjects for immigration purposes."

Black's legal Definitions
http://www.exfacie.com/?q=subject_vs_citizen_definitions_from_blacks_law_dictionary_9th_edition

alastair

walrusgumble wrote: »

British people are, legally, SUBJECTS to the Crown, not citizens!

No - they're citizens. These are the only British subjects remaining:

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

todolist

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

sparky42

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

History pretty clearly shows that's a bad idea that won't end well. And since plenty of the dominions are the same are you going to suggest that they too should be part of the UK?

walrusgumble

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

Eh, the counties were present long before 1893! Long before the "English" too. The English Angloised the names of many places (granted, some towns of today are more recent via Ulster Plantation and market towns, but many have longer history)

Even during British reign, Irish law OFTEN differed from English Law in many areas! The Americans retained Common Law System, should they be part of the UK? A couple of African states also contain the same system, fancy Nigeria being part of the UK?

Explain how the GAA is English Culture? (GAA did more for parish and county identity than anyone else actually) English Language only became more widespread by the end of the Famine

No such thing as the United Kingdom of England either

Anyhoo,

(a) The Debate is about joining the Commonwealth, not joining the UK of Great Britain and NI - so , everything you said , not relevant

(b) Absolutely none of that remotely supports why we should "rejoin".

SpaceTime

I actually think we need to be reaching out to our other neighbours too.

Joining the Commonwealth would possibly isolate us diplomatically in Europe as the UK is quite regularly very antagonistic to other EU countries.

The last thing we need is for Ireland to be seen even more so as an adjunct to the UK.

I would prefer to see Ireland developing bilateral strong relationships with the UK but also connecting much more effectively with other EU countries and also with France.

We actually share a huge amount of common ground with Western France in particular but also with most of the small Northern EU countries.

We've also huge human links to Poland and other eastern EU states due to migration and we should be building on those in a big way. These are now some of the strongest performing EU economies!

I don't think creating strange special ties the UK based on old empire stuff would do us any favours.

walrusgumble

SpaceTime wrote: »

I actually think we need to be reaching out to our other neighbours too.

Joining the Commonwealth would possibly isolate us diplomatically in Europe as the UK is quite regularly very antagonistic to other EU countries.

The last thing we need is for Ireland to be seen even more so as an adjunct to the UK.

I would prefer to see Ireland developing bilateral strong relationships with the UK but also connecting much more effectively with other EU countries and also with France.

We actually share a huge amount of common ground with Western France in particular but also with most of the small Northern EU countries.

We've also huge human links to Poland and other eastern EU states due to migration and we should be building on those in a big way. These are now some of the strongest performing EU economies!

I don't think creating strange special ties the UK based on old empire stuff would do us any favours.

Wow, someone with a brain and cop on. I Thought that was a rarity on this website.

Whether we like it or not, our future, is with some form of union with fellow European States, including the UK. Not some pathetic anti Irish feeling sorry for ourselves , inferior complex towards Britain.

The Commonwealth means little to Sam in Camden Town. The Stats show that few of the fellow Commonwealth Countries are the UK's main trading partners. (its ze Germans!) UK is barely in the top 10 of India's .

Ireland already has special ties with the UK. Why on earth would Ireland want to associate with third world countries? Only they hope to take advantage of union with Britain

todolist

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, the counties were present long before 1893! Long before the "English" too. The English Angloised the names of many places (granted, some towns of today are more recent via Ulster Plantation and market towns, but many have longer history)

Even during British reign, Irish law OFTEN differed from English Law in many areas! The Americans retained Common Law System, should they be part of the UK? A couple of African states also contain the same system, fancy Nigeria being part of the UK?

Explain how the GAA is English Culture? (GAA did more for parish and county identity than anyone else actually) English Language only became more widespread by the end of the Famine

No such thing as the United Kingdom of England either

Anyhoo,

(a) The Debate is about joining the Commonwealth, not joining the UK of Great Britain and NI - so , everything you said , not relevant

(b) Absolutely none of that remotely supports why we should "rejoin".

The English set up the counties in Ireland for administration purposes.The GAA wouldn't exist without those 32 counties!

CrabRevolution

todolist wrote: »

The English set up the counties in Ireland for administration purposes.The GAA wouldn't exist without those 32 counties!

Thats a fairly weak premise to be fair. If the British hadnt put counties in place, I'm sure the Irish would have developed their own counties or other equivalent administative unit. It's not as though the country would just have been seen as one big unit until the British showed us the light in the form of subdivisions. It's like saying that members of the GAA cant use television because a British person invented it.

There's also the fact that while there may be 32 counties defined by the British, there are 2100 clubs around the country based on civil parishes and townlands. Which were based on old Gaelic Tuatha. 32 Large counties seems light work compared to thousands of small divisions which the Irsh created themselves.

SpaceTime

Arguably it would be handier if the GAA were based on something else as the county setup makes absolutely no sense from an administrative point of view. Most of them with probably the exceptions of Dublin, Cork and Galway are too small of a population to continue on. Yet, the GAA county loyalties would make any reform of local government difficult.

We could probably do with about 8 counties.

CrabRevolution

SpaceTime wrote: »

Arguably it would be handier if the GAA were based on something else as the county setup makes absolutely no sense from an administrative point of view. Most of them with probably the exceptions of Dublin, Cork and Galway are too small of a population to continue on. Yet, the GAA county loyalties would make any reform of local government difficult.

We could probably do with about 8 counties.

I have never heard one person give the GAA as a reason for not reforming county councils.

Even then its up to the central government to do it, the very government made up of TDs from constituencies like Carlow-Kilkenny, Sligo-North Leitrim, Meath West (which contains a big chunk of Westmeath), and Louth, which contains the coast of Meath.

There was clearly no objection or "GAA influence" on butchering the traditional counties for these constituencies, why would there be for reforming the county councils? Tipp North and Tipp South are ignored as far as the GAA are concerned, same with the 4 Dublin councils. No matter what way the counties are divided there will be 32 teams forever.

Too many people just look to lump blame for anything on the GAA.

daveydavey55

I don't see what would be wrong with joining the commonwealth. I have just watched our Irish boxers win 9 medals in Glasgow at the commonwealth games representing Northern Ireland, these same boxers represent IRELAND at the Olympics. Im sure many Irish athletes would love to compete at the Commonwealth games but they obviously cant (unless they are from NI). I watched Usain Bolt last nite representing Jamaica win the 4*100m relay, again Irish athletes would love to compete against someone like him.
From watching the games I really think we're missing out. Politically I think it wont happen in the short term anyway mainly because people think we would be re-joining some british empire thingie. This type of thinking is very naive - people seem to always forget that part of this island is in the UK - they choose to ignore it, forget about it, let it sort itself out.
Its all about history etc. its time for people to move on. If Irish sports persons can represent Ireland at the Olympics under the tricolour and also represent NI under the NI flag (with a crown in it} at the commonwealth games then I think it makes sense that we at least have a referendum on re joining the commonwealth. We only left in 1949 by default because we became a republic and republics were not allowed in the commonwealth at the time, we never actually withdrew as such. Republics are now welcome in the commonwealth.
This thing about how other countries would see us is nonsense as is the notion that we would be making ourselves 'British' again. Irish people in NI are British and Irish no matter what way you look at it.
Until we get a united Ireland, NI will always be 'in limbo' but it will also be competing at the c'wealth games !!

For Reals

todolist wrote: »

Ireland is essentially an English invention.The Counties,local and national administration are all English.Law,language and culture are all English.Ireland should be part of The United Kingdom.

Wrong on pretty much every point there.

For Reals

Why join the commonwealth? Politics aside....why? To play in the commonwealth games? If we're all pals already, why join an archaic group which is a hang over from a blood drenched Empire which gave us the concentration camp and numerous massacres of civilians all around the world. Why join that club? The chance of a jant on Kate?
I'd much prefer to join the Federation of Planets, just as logical.