Ireland rejoining the British Commonwealth

markodaly

At the moment no, of course, but in the event of talks to a United Ireland treaty then perhaps. Like it or not there are 1 million Unionists in the north and if we as a nation are to ever integrate them into a United Ireland then some concessions will have to be made.

Look at what Mandella did in South Africa, he could have gone in and dismantled everything from the old regime, by banning Afrikan to rugby, instead he knew that to heal the country he had to bring them on board by conceding some ground to them.

If a United Ireland is to ever happen, and I believe one day it will sooner rather than later, we as a nation will have to have a mature grown-up conversation about what that UI will look like.

Anteayer

This leaves me with an issue : FG are increasingly annoying me on stuff like this and more so inaction on health and housing, FF have a problem where they economically destroy the country every so often and historically were fence sitters / very conservative on social issues, SF skeletons in closets and populism, Labour - seems to be a lost cause, SocDems seems to just be disaffected Labour, Greens allowed blasphemy legislation to get in, AAA PBP well meaning but just no. Way to incoherent. and any new parties seem to have elements of bonkers conservatism.

So I donno.. who's left to vote for ?

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

Evidently yes.

there's is no one quite as arrogant as the Irish nationalists. :rolleyes:

Odhinn wrote: »

Why do you have a boner for the commonwealth, might I ask?

I don't particularly, but it is amusing to see the uneducated get all upset about the mention of "The British Commonwealth" (it hasn't had that name for decades) and how it would mean having da Queen as the head of state etc etc.

I don't care if Ireland joins or not and I have no doubt they will never join. Mainly because there is nothing in it for Ireland and the Irish don't do anything unless there is something in it for them.

OldMrBrennan83

Aegir wrote: »

there's is no one quite as arrogant as the Irish nationalists. :rolleyes:




I don't particularly, but it is amusing to see the uneducated get all upset about the mention of "The British Commonwealth" (it hasn't had that name for decades) and how it would mean having da Queen as the head of state etc etc.

I don't care if Ireland joins or not and I have no doubt they will never join. Mainly because there is nothing in it for Ireland and the Irish don't do anything unless there is something in it for them.

A Brit calling other people uneducated

force eleven

Yous all need to put your anti Brit attitudes and hangups away. Irish people are obsessed with Britain, we may as well rejoin so Michael D can curtsy to Elizabeth as his Supreme leader on any visit to Dublin. I don't see what most of your problems are with this. We do it for Merkel, we do it for Juncker. Just another club to join and we get to go to the Commonwealth games.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Anteayer wrote: »

This leaves me with an issue : FG are increasingly annoying me on stuff like this and more so inaction on health and housing, FF have a problem where they economically destroy the country every so often, SF skeletons in closets and populism, Labour - seems to be a lost cause, SocDems seems to just be disaffected Labour, Greens allowed blasphemy legislation to get in, AAA PBP well meaning but just no. Way to incoherent. and any new parties seem to have elements of bonkers conservatism.

So I donno.. who's left to vote for ?

Nobody. Unless you think FF are reformed, and I don’t. Although Martin is ok.

Anteayer

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Nobody. Unless you think FF are reformed, and I don’t. Although Martin is ok.

FG's lack of action on health and housing just is very disappointing but they have driven through change on sosial issues.

No I wouldn't ever trust FF again after 2008. Too many bridges burnt and they were awful on social issues that directly impact me. I think FG moved a lot further on those, although did they largely drive from Labour who've been impacted by being the mudflap with Stockholm syndrome during coalition...

Hard to know.

alta stare

Aegir wrote: »

there's is no one quite as arrogant as the Irish nationalists. :rolleyes:




I don't particularly, but it is amusing to see the uneducated get all upset about the mention of "The British Commonwealth" (it hasn't had that name for decades) and how it would mean having da Queen as the head of state etc etc.

I don't care if Ireland joins or not and I have no doubt they will never join. Mainly because there is nothing in it for Ireland and the Irish don't do anything unless there muss something in it for them.

Statements like this is one of the many reasons many people could never abide your empire.

RustyNut

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yet I bet you have no problem with the French, who did more murdering and plundering than the British.

At least Britain gave its territories their own governments. France did not. Thats why you have the back of a €20 or €50 note cluttered with French acquisitions worldwide.

Frances longest land border is with... Brazil. Google it.

Anyone that slags the British over their past but not the French, Dutch, Spanish Japanese etc are clueless hypocrites.

Just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKp5v0B3IwE

Yamanoto

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Nonsense. There are about 4-5 posters who are obviously republican. That’s about it. And that’s less than their popular vote.

Perhaps your current user account is your first.

Prior to threads on Norn Iron being banished to politics cafe, the barstool republican rabble were an ever present feature of AH.

They haven't gone away you know.

Anteayer

Aegir wrote: »

I don't particularly, but it is amusing to see the uneducated get all upset about the mention of "The British Commonwealth" (it hasn't had that name for decades) and how it would mean having da Queen as the head of state etc etc.

I don't care if Ireland joins or not and I have no doubt they will never join. Mainly because there is nothing in it for Ireland and the Irish don't do anything unless there is something in it for them.

Well, nothing like hurling insults to make friends.

Also, on your second comment, Ireland has topped it in the recent past and is currently 2nd from the top of the "Good Country Index" which aims to calculate countries' per capita contribution to the common good of humanity. So, I think objectively speaking and based on independent analysis, your statement's the rather uneducated one. There's clearly a huge amount of altruism going on here.

The simple reality of it is that the Commonwealth is the shadow of a the British Empire. There's no getting around that. It is what it is. It may well have relaunched itself as a happy-clappy symbolic organisation, but the symbolism in Ireland is extremely negative for many people (probably most people).

lawred2

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Are Canadians and new Zealanders " backward"?

Backward looking not backwards. Unionists in Ireland are backwards looking. They want ever increasing Union not the opposite. They would love nothing more than sorting the border issues with a return to January 1900.

Big difference between remaining a member of such an organisation and reaffiliating with something this state left over seventy years ago.

Avatar MIA

Squatter wrote: »

Would that have any linkage to the annual Saint Patrick's Day - "Aren't we great - we bred so many surplus kids that they have spread across the world like a Spanish Flu epidemic" - chest thumping mentality?

That's moronic in the extreme. You'll note Ireland remains under populated, millions below what it should be in 2019. That was in a large part due to being mis-ruled while part of the UK.

Anteayer

I think you also have to distinguish the histories of the colonies that were taken over from large existing populations and the "New World" countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand where the locals were unable to resist the conquest because they were small in number and very unprepared. I'm not saying that the native populations of those countries had a better time, they absolutely did not, but they weren't able to resist and were basically swamped by the incoming colonists.

If you look at those countries, or even Quebéc they have been relatively stable simply because there was no serious ability to conflict with the colonial power. If you compare that to any highly populated country that was able to resist or push back, you'd hundreds of years of conflict, often quite brutal stuff, and that would include most of the former French Empire, most of the former British Empire and so on.

The "oh the French were worse" argument tends to be quite explainable by the fact that the French didn't really colonise many sparsely populated areas. The British Empire's history is pretty grim and tends to be heavily revised by pink-tinted glasses wearing types in England. The French on the other hand tend to have a more difficult view of their former empire as it does not sit well with the ideals of French republicanism - it's a lot harder to reconcile what France did to what France would claim its values are/were. So, I'd argue that while they're both bad, the French were even bigger hypocrites over the centuries, largely because they always claimed to espouse values that they did not uphold outside metropolitan France.

1641

Simplistically there are three broad grouping in NI - 1.Nationalist/Republicans who look towards a united Ireland, 2. Unionist/Loyalists who are totally committed to the UK, and 3. those who are either uncommitted to either or who actively reject both identifications. The third grouping includes many moderate nationalists and loyalists, people who think of themselves as "Northern Irish", people who loathe the tribalism of the first two camps and people who think that there are more important issues, etc.

Even if the first group grow to supercede the second, any border poll result will depend on winning the support of the third grouping (which is growing). Economic bread and butter issues will be important for these but also respect and tolerance for diversity and cultural identities. An "up the republic" approach is unlikely to impress. Does this mean rejoining the Commonwealth ? I think it is unlikely to be a major issue. On the other hand, an unwillingness to have an open discussion on this and similar issues is likely to be alienating.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Squatter wrote: »

Would that have any linkage to the annual Saint Patrick's Day - "Aren't we great - we bred so many surplus kids that they have spread across the world like a Spanish Flu epidemic" - chest thumping mentality?

Would British imperialism have any linkage to the virulent anti Irish sentiment you just dug up? Yes I suppose. Comparing the Irish to a flu epidemic. A disease? Mother ireland is raring the self hating craw thumping shoe gazing neo colonialists yet.

Most American whites aren’t Irish of course so there’s plenty of “surplus kids” from our neighbouring island and Europe, but I feel that you wouldn’t compare them to a disease, and if you did you’d get a permaban.

Godot.

People want a United Ireland, but there's little talk of how we'll make it peaceful and successful. Sure we'll outbreed the Unionists to 51% and to hell what they think' is hardly a successful recipe for making it work in the long term. There will also need to be talk about changing the flag (many Unionists can't stomach the tricolour). Maybe even make July 12th a national holiday.

Compromise is the key here. We will be living in a new country. If the Commonwealth helps make Unionists more comfortable in our new country then I'm all for it. I would like to think we'd be grown up enough as a country to take that route if neccessary because the last point of contention between the Irish and the British will be removed forever by reunionification of the island.

If all these thoughts are repugnant to you then maybe you need to think more about what a United Ireland really means and if you want it.

Mad_maxx

lawred2 wrote: »

Backward looking not backwards. Unionists in Ireland are backwards looking. They want ever increasing Union not the opposite. They would love nothing more than sorting the border issues with a return to January 1900.

Big difference between remaining a member of such an organisation and reaffiliating with something this state left over seventy years ago.

We need a carrot and stick approach to coming to an arrangement with a million unionists in the event of a united Ireland, I believe joining the commonwealth is a carrot, we will need stick to deal with the inevitable loyalist terror campaign which would arise

lawred2

Squatter wrote: »

Would that have any linkage to the annual Saint Patrick's Day - "Aren't we great - we bred so many surplus kids that they have spread across the world like a Spanish Flu epidemic" - chest thumping mentality?

You're either engaging in self loathing or you're not Irish, have never witnessed a St Patrick's day parade anywhere and are basically been an anti Irish racist.

Does read as outright racism really to be conflating Irish emigration with a virulent disease.

Anteayer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

We need a carrot and stick approach to coming to an arrangement with a million unionists in the event of a united Ireland, I believe joining the commonwealth is a carrot, we will need stick to deal with the inevitable loyalist terror campaign which would arise

I'd say the carrot is continuing to move Ireland towards advanced economic and social development relative to the UK.

The only thing that will bring about a united Ireland in a sane way is to make the Republic far, far more attractive than the UK and that's not something that's unlikely to happen if we continue on the trajectory we've been on since the 1990s.

Also, I think we have to accept that there's an element of the unionist population that will simply never accept the idea of a United Ireland, under any circumstances whether Ireland's in the Commonwealth or not wouldn't be relevant. I mean there are some of them who barely recognise the modern UK and are harking after some bygone definition of British identity that's not even recognisable to most English people anymore and that is absolutely not a majority of those in the unionist community either.

McMurphy

Squatter wrote: »

Would that have any linkage to the annual Saint Patrick's Day - "Aren't we great - we bred so many surplus kids that they have spread across the world like a Spanish Flu epidemic" - chest thumping mentality?

Bit of the old self flagellation going on this morning, have you considered excluding yourself from a .ie website horse, or are you serving penance?

Skylinehead

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Reported.

I'll just type it up on my invisible typewriter.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

and you're off on one of your incoherent ramblings again.

Simple questions giving you difficulty or did you just need to deflect from giving your interpretation of what being in the Commonwealth means?

and yet more ramblings.

What internationally binding (whatever the **** that means:rolleyes:) agreements are being ignored Francie?

There is no certainty that they will uphold the GFA in their pathetic attempts to leave the EU.
I did say 'if' they go rogue nation.

Odhinn

Aegir wrote: »

there's is no one quite as arrogant as the Irish nationalists. :rolleyes:




I don't particularly, but it is amusing to see the uneducated get all upset about the mention of "The British Commonwealth" (it hasn't had that name for decades) and how it would mean having da Queen as the head of state etc etc.

I don't care if Ireland joins or not and I have no doubt they will never join. Mainly because there is nothing in it for Ireland and the Irish don't do anything unless there is something in it for them.

Yes, milord. I'm sure seeing the plebs agitated is almost as much fun as evicting them.

klaaaz

markodaly wrote: »

Like it or not there are 1 million Unionists in the north

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There are a million unionists we need to try and have an arrangement with

There are not 1 million unionists, exaggeration of their numbers does not help your argument.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

There are a million unionists we need to try and have an arrangement with, joining a tokenistic fraternity like the commonwealth isn't much of a compromise on our part

Mad_maxx wrote: »

We need a carrot and stick approach to coming to an arrangement with a million unionists in the event of a united Ireland

No, there are not. Far, far from it.

45.7%: How Northern Ireland lost its Unionist majority (The Spectator, 4 March 2017)

The population of NI was 1,810,863 at the last Census, so 45.7% of that is about 820,000 unionists. And this is the very, very highest estimate which is, much more importantly, a temporary situation given the now indisputable demographic change.

If you want to look at religion, as the Census does not ask whether somebody is nationalist or unionist, the "Total non-Roman Catholic Christian" population of NI in the 2011 Census was 752,555 people, or 41.6% of the population. Most outstanding of all, in every age group under 40 there are more Catholics than all Protestant denominations combined (Source: 2011 Census: religion by age). This latter fact is greatly overlooked. Everything demographically, therefore, is against a return to the "Protestant state for a Protestant people" days, which poses the question about what the point of NI is in 2019 for the self-declared "British" settlers and their self-declared "British" descendants there.


Where are you getting your "1 million unionists" figure?

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote:

Where are you getting your "1 million unionists" figure?

When it comes to NI the only unionist definition worth considering is the binary are you in favour of a UI of not.

If the unionist figure really was only 45% we'd be set for a UI.

The 45% may be a close approximation of the PUL community, but even some of the PUL will have voted Alliance or even strategically for the SDLP (in the hope of displacing SF).

However we also know more of the traditional CNR community are in favour of the status quo than vice versa. So, a million unionists is conceivable.

TL/DR the article is not a good indication of the unionist population.

RobMc59

Anteayer wrote: »

Well, nothing like hurling insults to make friends.

Also, on your second comment, Ireland has topped it in the recent past and is currently 2nd from the top of the "Good Country Index" which aims to calculate countries' per capita contribution to the common good of humanity. So, I think objectively speaking and based on independent analysis, your statement's the rather uneducated one. There's clearly a huge amount of altruism going on here.

The simple reality of it is that the Commonwealth is the shadow of a the British Empire. There's no getting around that. It is what it is. It may well have relaunched itself as a happy-clappy symbolic organisation, but the symbolism in Ireland is extremely negative for many people (probably most people).

I don't think anyone is going to loose any sleep if Ireland don't want to be in the Commonwealth-the negativity expressed by some posters shows the eternal "chip on the shoulder"attitude will never disappear even though membership of the commonwealth does have advantages .

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is going to loose any sleep if Ireland don't want to be in the Commonwealth-the negativity expressed by some posters shows the eternal "chip on the shoulder"attitude will never disappear even though membership of the commonwealth does have advantages .

When successive British governments stop interfering negatively in our progress as a nation and an island perhaps this 'chip on the shoulder' will dissipate.

Odhinn

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is going to loose any sleep if Ireland don't want to be in the Commonwealth-the negativity expressed by some posters shows the eternal "chip on the shoulder"attitude will never disappear even though membership of the commonwealth does have advantages .

What are they?