Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ZeitgeistGlee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭ZeitgeistGlee


    sparky42 wrote: »
    I think there might be a minor difference about arguing about x amount of money being spent in another county, and going to war where thousands of our people are killed or wounded, tens of thousands if not more on the other side are killed or wounded, and tens of billions are wasted in said war.

    You know you could have far more easily countered my point by comparing like for like with their military spending instead of jumping straight back to your Afghan and Iraq war examples.

    Frankly I think the money we spend on our peacekeeping abroad would be far better if diverted into frontline public service in this country. No worries of our soldiers dying abroad and the possibility of being involved in pointless conflicts (or the aftermath).

    Doesn't matter, it's clear you've no interest in actually debating this in anything other than an emotive, combative manner and I have no interest in such a discussion.
    sparky42 wrote: »
    Plenty of our economic performance is because we are separate from the UK, why do you think NI and Scotland are demanding Corporate Tax rate rights from London to compete with us.

    And if they did I'm sure a lot of TNCs/MNCs would suddenly look at NI and Scotland with a lot more interest than they currently do. However should NI and Scotland manage to get a similar Corporate Tax rate to us, what would prevent us from retaining it if we joined the UK?

    That though doesn't even mention the focus France and Germany have on getting us to increase said tax rate which will likely continue to be a goal for the long-term future.


  • Options
    #63
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭sparky42


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    You know you could have far more easily countered my point by comparing like for like with their military spending instead of jumping straight back to your Afghan and Iraq war examples.

    Frankly I think the money we spend on our peacekeeping abroad would be far better if diverted into frontline public service in this country. No worries of our soldiers dying abroad and the possibility of being involved in pointless conflicts (or the aftermath).

    Doesn't matter, it's clear you've no interest in actually debating this in anything other than an emotive, combative manner and I have no interest in such a discussion.

    How was that combative? Those two wars have been defining geopolitical events in the last decade with results that will be with us for many more decades (both for middle east relations and the reduced US engagement that we are seeing right now). Ignoring that while talking about ability to shape policies in a rejoined UK is ignoring an elephant in the room.
    And if they did I'm sure a lot of TNCs/MNCs would suddenly look at NI and Scotland with a lot more interest than they currently do. However should NI and Scotland manage to get a similar Corporate Tax rate to us, what would prevent us from retaining it if we joined the UK?

    That though doesn't even mention the focus France and Germany have on getting us to increase said tax rate which will likely continue to be a goal for the long-term future.

    I said they are arguing for it, they haven't gotten it and it's only an option if Devo Max happens. You could also look at the fact that NI only just got an Enterprise Zone in the UK budget, would IDA plans be interfered with by London for example?


  • Options
    #64
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


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

    Unionist influence is dying! Unionist students are leaving for main land UK, Queens is mostly Nationalist, the Union Jack is only flown on special days, as per the procedures for other UK citiies, with Unionists vote being scatered among themselves the big winners are Sinn Fein.

    So, ya, Unionist days are numbered.


  • Options
    #65
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭sparky42


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Unionist influence is dying! Unionist students are leaving for main land UK, Queens is mostly Nationalist, the Union Jack is only flown on special days, as per the procedures for other UK citiies, with Unionists vote being scatered among themselves the big winners are Sinn Fein.

    So, ya, Unionist days are numbered.

    Call back in a generation and find out if the Catholics support changing the status quo, from memory right now they don't by a wide margin.


  • Options
    #66
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Are the Scottish, English and Welsh any less nationally identifiable for being part of the UK?

    Pure nonsense. It is an insult to intelligence to even utter the words Wales and Scotland in the same context when discussing Ireland and it's relationship with England, past and present.

    Besides, the Welsh and Scots are pathetic , what they do is their business.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    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.

    And yet, if they go abroad, they won't be considered Welsh, but British. People won't even know what Wales or a Welshman is (despite Tom Jones) For all their ability to sing, speak the Welsh language, play rugby and shag sheep, the real world says that their laws are and have been (for a very long time) dictated to by Westminister and the House of Lords/Supreme Court. The English legal Judiciary is the Common law of England AND Wales. At least the Scots have more independence on that front (While Ireland can be influenced by English law - why not, if it is good logical stuff - we are not bound by it) Little or no efforts have been made by the Welsh to leave the Union.

    "hughely obvious"? They barely celebrate St David's Day! (well its better than St George's day)
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    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.

    Never mind 800 years, you don't even have to go as far back as 120 years! And, that is not even talking about The Troubles.

    Far too many Irish people have too much respect for themselves and their country and their identity and policitical freedoms to contemplate union with Britian in any way other than the EU. Disgenuious posters will cry, "oh you are not mature enough". The poster that you referred to is correct, this is not a case of populism, it is a case of National Identity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Call back in a generation and find out if the Catholics support changing the status quo, from memory right now they don't by a wide margin.

    When you are finished having your panic attack and hissy fit, you will note that the very statement that I made which you highlighted, acknowledged that I did not suggest that Catholics are automatically in favour of a UI. I also conceeded that Nationalists might not be in a rush either - why when they enjoy power - which annoys unionists - sure both would be ignored by Dublin and PR Cork if there was a UI , just like Donegal and Cavan and Co)

    It shows how pathetic it is that you and people like you refer to the groups as Catholic / Protestant! It is a bit more complex than that.

    All that I am saying is that the Nationalists are out doing the Unionists. Even if the Nationalists who look to Dublin for "spitrual" guidance don't press on a UI, what harm, so long as Unionists are disemated! Personally, I foresee a Rory McIllroy attitude - a sense of Northern Irish, by both Nationalists and Unionists.

    Unionism and Ulster for the Protestants is dying - you don't have to wait for a decade to see that coming.


  • Options
    #68
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Unionist influence is dying! Unionist students are leaving for main land UK, Queens is mostly Nationalist, the Union Jack is only flown on special days, as per the procedures for other UK citiies, with Unionists vote being scatered among themselves the big winners are Sinn Fein.

    So, ya, Unionist days are numbered.

    Unionist students always favoured British universities. Queens has been nationalist-biased for decades. The Union flag on Belfast City Hall is flown in accordance with UK norms sure - but why does that suggest unionist's 'days are numbered'? It would suggest that UK norms are becoming mainstreamed. The unionist vote may be divided between a number of parties, but it still forms an electoral majority, and the actual union itself (dependent on individual voters - not party politics) is secured by a majority of voters - extending into notionally nationalist voters.


  • Options
    #69
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    alastair wrote: »
    Unionist students always favoured British universities. Queens has been nationalist-biased for decades. The Union flag on Belfast City Hall is flown in accordance with UK norms sure - but why does that suggest unionist's 'days are numbered'? It would suggest that UK norms are becoming mainstreamed. The unionist vote may be divided between a number of parties, but it still forms an electoral majority, and the actual union itself (dependent on individual voters - not party politics) is secured by a majority of voters - extending into notionally nationalist voters.

    Unionists demanded the flag to be flown essentially every day of the week . That is no more, big kick in the teeth to Unionists. They are no longer getting the bounce of the ball and getting their way every time, no matter how many riots or protests that they kick up.

    Many of the Unionist son's and daughter that go to mainland UK, don't tend to go back tp NI, (would you blame them)

    A electorate majority? Just. They are also running scared of the Alliance Party. That Chinese MLA (or city council?) lady from Alliance got awful treatment for the scum supporting Unionists (to be far, they were working class filt, you can't expect anything else)


  • Options
    #70
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Unionists demanded the flag to be flown essentially every day of the week . That is no more, big kick in the teeth to Unionists. They are no longer getting the bounce of the ball and getting their way every time, no matter how many riots or protests that they kick up.
    And how does that imply that Unionists days are numbered?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Many of the Unionist son's and daughter that go to mainland UK, don't tend to go back tp NI, (would you blame them)
    Same applies to Nationalists.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    A electorate majority? Just. They are also running scared of the Alliance Party. That Chinese MLA (or city council?) lady from Alliance got awful treatment for the scum supporting Unionists (to be far, they were working class filt, you can't expect anything else)
    Yep - an electoral majority. All indicators are that the union is quite healthy.
    650px-NILT_NIRELND2.png

    http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2012/Political_Attitudes/UNTDIREL.html


  • Options
    #71
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭sparky42


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Unionists demanded the flag to be flown essentially every day of the week . That is no more, big kick in the teeth to Unionists. They are no longer getting the bounce of the ball and getting their way every time, no matter how many riots or protests that they kick up.

    Other Unionist areas have been following UK norms for years so I don't see how that equates to a great loss, though the winding up of the poorer Protestants could/will back fire on them.
    A electorate majority? Just. They are also running scared of the Alliance Party. That Chinese MLA (or city council?) lady from Alliance got awful treatment for the scum supporting Unionists (to be far, they were working class filt, you can't expect anything else)

    They are in no way threatened by the Alliance, its the 4th party with 5% of the vote in the last election (compared to 30% for the DUP), and who knows how that will hold up next election with NI21 trying to garner the moderate Unionist vote. And it's the working class protestants that were a core of the flag protests and remain so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    alastair wrote: »
    And how does that imply that Unionists days are numbered?

    You really have to ask that?

    Would this have become an issue 20 years ago? No, the first sight of trouble or a strike,the British would have pandered to the Unionists and the Loyalists, not any more.

    Unionism is much more than a link to Britain (they can have it) It is based on absolute spite, hatred and paranoia and belief of domination and superiority over the other community. Not any more.
    alastair wrote: »
    Same applies to Nationalists.

    Nationalists ain't crying about it though, old time Unionists are crying about the brain drain.
    alastair wrote: »
    Yep - an electoral majority. All indicators are that the union is quite healthy.
    650px-NILT_NIRELND2.png

    http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2012/Political_Attitudes/UNTDIREL.html

    Face palm. I was not, at any stage talking about Nationalists seeking a UI, I was talking about Nationalists begining to dominate politics and NGO positions in NI . Who would have taught that one day, Belfast City Hall would be mostly ruled by Nationalists.

    You either misunderstood what was said (for the second time) or intentionally ignoring the point

    No one in their right mind, whether Nationalist or Unionist would agree to jump down to Dublin at this time. And Dublin and the South does not, when push comes to shove, want the North. I acknowledged this already. However, so long as the UUP, DUP and TUV of this world no longer enjoy the influence that it once had, what harm. That is coming


  • Options
    #73
    ZeitgeistGlee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭ZeitgeistGlee


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Pure nonsense. It is an insult to intelligence to even utter the words Wales and Scotland in the same context when discussing Ireland and it's relationship with England, past and present.

    Besides, the Welsh and Scots are pathetic , what they do is their business.

    I won't even bother responding to that nonsensical tirade. :rolleyes:
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    And yet, if they go abroad, they won't be considered Welsh, but British. People won't even know what Wales or a Welshman is (despite Tom Jones) For all their ability to sing, speak the Welsh language, play rugby and shag sheep, the real world says that their laws are and have been (for a very long time) dictated to by Westminister and the House of Lords/Supreme Court. The English legal Judiciary is the Common law of England AND Wales. At least the Scots have more independence on that front (While Ireland can be influenced by English law - why not, if it is good logical stuff - we are not bound by it) Little or no efforts have been made by the Welsh to leave the Union.

    :rolleyes:

    By your logic does that mean Ireland doesn't exist because there are people abroad who haven't heard of it? Similarly does it make all of us Irish Republicans seeing as we come from the Republic of Ireland? Given the existence of another country called Northern Ireland it's not like we have exclusive use of the term.

    Whether or not the Welsh want to leave the UK or are happy as they are (the latter seeming to be the case) is irrelevant. They have their own defined identity which is separate to that of the overarching British identity, and that of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland which is what I was replying to Sparky about.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    "hughely obvious"? They barely celebrate St David's Day! (well its better than St George's day)

    So what? Maybe they're just not particularly religious? We didn't celebrate Paddy's Day to the same extent we do now with all the parades and ****e until the Yanks did it in Boston/New York.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Never mind 800 years, you don't even have to go as far back as 120 years! And, that is not even talking about The Troubles.

    Does that mean the Germans and French should constantly be at one another's throats because they've historically been so? Can we not accept that yes, our relationship with the UK has not always been a fair or favourable one but that we are as nations capable of moving on and forging a newer, amicable, equal relationship, something which should be celebrated as a mutual achievement. I'm all for granting those who have fought for Ireland in any way shape and form the respect they deserve but at some point we need to move on from it and look at what benefits Ireland now and for the future.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Far too many Irish people have too much respect for themselves and their country and their identity and policitical freedoms to contemplate union with Britian in any way other than the EU. Disgenuious posters will cry, "oh you are not mature enough". The poster that you referred to is correct, this is not a case of populism, it is a case of National Identity.

    What makes political union with the EU so much more attractive though? We'd represent a tiny fraction of the population out at the very edge of the territory and historically having been at odds with the central powers over quite a few issues. As I said earlier I am a supporter of EU integration but I'm not blind to the fact that doing so would require giving up our sovereignty to a central government we'd have precious little influence on in real terms.


  • Options
    #74
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Other Unionist areas have been following UK norms for years so I don't see how that equates to a great loss, though the winding up of the poorer Protestants could/will back fire on them.

    The only group that has to worry about the poor and lazy of East Belfast is the DUP and in particular it's leader. Sinn Fein don't need to worry about them (of course do need to worry about their own poor), even the main land British can't understand their thugery. The more the Unionist vote gets tossed about different parties (no doubt the Jim McAlister will try to sweep up) the better for Nationalists. Of course, Robinson is only too aware of that, thus seeking unity amongst Unionists. They tried gerrymandering in the last election in Tyrone, but failed.

    sparky42 wrote: »
    They are in no way threatened by the Alliance, its the 4th party with 5% of the vote in the last election (compared to 30% for the DUP),

    Why then have two members of the Alliance party being attacked? One of whom , a MP, was required to leave her home. The other, gets reminded of her Chinese background alot. It ain't the Nationalists attacking them.
    sparky42 wrote: »
    and who knows how that will hold up next election with NI21 trying to garner the moderate Unionist vote. And it's the working class protestants that were a core of the flag protests and remain so.

    Fun times ahead


  • Options
    #75
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You really have to ask that?

    Would this have become an issue 20 years ago? No, the first sight of trouble or a strike,the British would have pandered to the Unionists and the Loyalists, not any more.

    Unionism is much more than a link to Britain (they can have it) It is based on absolute spite, hatred and paranoia and belief of domination and superiority over the other community. Not any more.

    Ahh - now I understand. You're actually referring to a personal and highly imaginative 'interpretation' of what unionism actually is. Along with your concept of Nationalists 'ruling' Belfast City Hall, and the whole 'filt' business, I'll file this one under 'walk slowly away'.


  • Options
    #76
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I won't even bother responding to that nonsensical tirade. :rolleyes:

    And yet , you feel the urge to make a comment in such an arrogant manner. You threw out an extremely bland remark and refuse to address it.

    Wales and Scotland are nothing countries. They are hand and glove part of a Union with England, are happy to do so (that is their business), and their "cultural" identity is minimal outside a few songs , and kilts.

    It is an absolute insult to compare the relationship between Ireland n Britain, with the relationship of Wales / Scotland and Britian.



    :rolleyes:
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    By your logic does that mean Ireland doesn't exist because there are people abroad who haven't heard of it?

    You proclaim that their identity and culutre is "obvious" ie distinct from England.

    I put it to you that is nonsense to say that it is "obvious" and even separate

    I put it to you that there is a better chance that people will know of Ireland quicker than Wales (maybe not Scotland) or anything about their countries.

    So no, it is not "obvious".

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Similarly does it make all of us Irish Republicans seeing as we come from the Republic of Ireland?

    "Irish Republican" as in the Ra? As in Political Beliefs? No

    I means that you are an Irish Citizen and your government is de facto, Dublin, you are a citizen of an Independent Country, that tried to obtain Independence from Britian , despite opposition in Ireland and Britain for many hundreds of years. Unless you are from the North or a parent from Britain, you don't have a right to British Citizenship.

    The Republic is a description of the country, not the name of the country. The name of the country is Ireland. The description is widely used to differienate between the North and South.
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Given the existence of another country called Northern Ireland it's not like we have exclusive use of the term.

    How much would you like to wager that most people all over the world, when asked about "Ireland" will think Dublin, Cork and not Belfast?

    Either way, you are scrapping at a barrel in reference and comparison to an "Irishman" (whether Northerner or Southern, the former have no relevancy at all) and a "Welshman"
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Whether or not the Welsh want to leave the UK or are happy as they are (the latter seeming to be the case) is irrelevant. They have their own defined identity which is separate to that of the overarching British identity, and that of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland which is what I was replying to Sparky about.

    Wishful thinking and whatever the context, it still does not get away from the reality of the laughable attempt to speak of Welsh identity with that of Ireland

    Separate Identity? Yeah...

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    So what? Maybe they're just not particularly religious?

    It's a national day, you don't need to be religious. People in Wales do partake in some events to pass the day - in honour of guys like Dylan Thomas and other Welsh hero's. It is not wide spread in Wales, so much for celebration of their "obvious" , "separate" identity so.
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    We didn't celebrate Paddy's Day to the same extent we do now with all the parades and ****e until the Yanks did it in Boston/New York.

    We, are less than 100 years old as a State. Don't think the Brits were too keen on Irish people gathering in a crowd during the Defence of the Realms Act days. Parades and band fanfare is essentially an American thing anyway. In Ireland is was traditionally a day that the Army paraded and people went to Mass. It was low key. Shops closed.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Does that mean the Germans and French should constantly be at one another's throats because they've historically been so?

    It was you and your pal who were making dismissive comments about "800 years" "ra ra ra".

    Germans and French were always able to get back at each other. Both were colonial super powers, rivals. Ireland, not so. Never stops the British for being nose out of joint with both France and the Germans, on the political sphere.

    Neither country were asked to become part of their historical colonies either - EEC favoured both, and the French ARE ALWAYS weary of Germany, they still think that they have the moral authority to keep an eye on Germany.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Can we not accept that yes, our relationship with the UK has not always been a fair or favourable one but that we are as nations capable of moving on and forging a newer, amicable, equal relationship, something which should be celebrated as a mutual achievement.

    All achievable without the need to join a Commonwealth. No need to be getting balls deep with them.

    Deal with them as we are now. Both on equal standing.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I'm all for granting those who have fought for Ireland in any way shape and form the respect they deserve but at some point we need to move on from it and look at what benefits Ireland now and for the future.

    You can start by getting the dishonest and tripe nonsense that some how joining a Commonwealth will benefit Ireland. Maybe it will benefit traitors and Unionists, but as stated thousands of times, it does not and can not benefit Ireland, bar giving them a warm fuzzy feeling inside

    You evidentally have no respect for those who faught and died for Irish Independence. That is not what they faught for. Cumann na nGaedheal (who don't get as much credit as they should) and Fianna Fail did not fight to dismantle its links with Britain for nothing, in threat of economic and political pressure.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    What makes political union with the EU so much more attractive though?

    The EEC and later EU helped Ireland to wheeze off its over reliance on Britian, for a start and helped Ireland become more confident and Independent. Which, it did, for a very long time during 1993-2007.

    Not keen on political union per se as Union got larger, but the Economic Union has given both Ireland and Britain more opportunities than any Commonwealth could ever give. Who think kips like India are going to solve our problems? Reckon Australia's boom will last?
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    We'd represent a tiny fraction of the population out at the very edge of the territory and historically having been at odds with the central powers over quite a few issues. As I said earlier I am a supporter of EU integration but I'm not blind to the fact that doing so would require giving up our sovereignty to a central government we'd have precious little influence on in real terms.

    Whether we were to join the Commonwealth or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with our relationship with EU

    You are simply not worth responding to if you think that leaving the EU for some cermonial institute will solve Ireland's problems. And you have the nerve to make the arrogant roll eye gesture.


    But yes, you are right to discuss the problems of the EU, but that is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with the Commonwealth and does nothing in a discussion on the commonwealth


    Kind regards.


  • Options
    #77
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    recipio wrote: »
    ;) If you leave emotion out of it then re-joining the UK has a lot going for it.
    A better standard of living, a free health service and an end to partition once and for all.
    This state was founded on a wave of nationalist emotion and if we could supress that and think more logically it is feasible.
    We are all moving to a global economy anyway - I'm going to guess there will be a bridge/chunnel to the UK by 2050. Who is happy with the two dysfunctional states we now have, north and south. ? I'm not.

    The discussion is about joining the Commonwealth. The discussion is not about joining the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you need to be told that there is a big difference between the two, seriously, leave this thread and go back to something more suitable. No body has suggested joining the UK, itself.

    To most self respecting people, there is more to a nation than economics! You are perfectly welcome , as an EU citizenship , to high tail it to the UK should you wish.

    It evidentially has not dawned on you that even the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are not too keen on a London / English centeric Westminister; do different to a Donegal man moaning about being neglected by Dublin.

    "Surpass" this Nationalistic emotion? Very arrogant. What was the Independence of America based on? South Africa? India?

    Even if there is a bridge or channel tunnel between Ireland and Britain , that in no way suggests Unity. Britain and France have one and always seem to publicly hate each other

    Anyway, all your whinging has nothing to do with the Commonwealth, and no way would Britain take Ireland back

    I bet your the type to be happy to run to the local politican to look out for what is in it for you.

    Ryanair, Aer Lingus , British Midlands and British Airways are all easily findable on the net. As are Irish Ferries and Stella Line, should you feel the need to be more closer to free health etc in UK

    I am sure the dolers who love to live off lower social welfare payments (right attitude though)


  • Options
    #78
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    alastair wrote: »
    Ahh - now I understand. You're actually referring to a personal and highly imaginative 'interpretation' of what unionism actually is. Along with your concept of Nationalists 'ruling' Belfast City Hall, and the whole 'filt' business, I'll file this one under 'walk slowly away'.

    The filt business, to be fair, refers to the "working class", whether Nationalist or Unionists

    You want to remain in denial of what Unionism is, fine, be my guest. Jim McAlister (to be fair , just one voice of Unionism) is a lovely example

    Last time I checked, the Nationalists along with Alliance are running rings around Unionists at City Hall.


  • Options
    #79
    ZeitgeistGlee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭ZeitgeistGlee


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    And yet , you feel the urge to make a comment in such an arrogant manner. You threw out an extremely bland remark and refuse to address it.

    I responded to Sparky's comment that Ireland as part of Britain would have no cultural identity, this is patently and observably untrue. Is there anyone from Ireland or the UK wouldn't nearly instantly be able to tell anyone from the five nations apart?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Wales and Scotland are nothing countries. They are hand and glove part of a Union with England, are happy to do so (that is their business), and their "cultural" identity is minimal outside a few songs , and kilts.

    And what are we comparatively? I don't seem to recall Enda getting an invite to attend the G20.

    One could quite easily describe our cultural identity as nothing outside of a few songs and drinking, it would however be equally intellectually vacuous and untrue.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    It is an absolute insult to compare the relationship between Ireland n Britain, with the relationship of Wales / Scotland and Britian.

    Hardly, both Scotland and Wales were integrated into the UK by military force and plantation the same as we were. The fact that we had a very obvious border to our territory in the form of the Irish Sea made it a bit easier to separate "our land" from "their land".

    I'm also sure there are plenty of ardent Scottish and Welsh nationalists who'd disagree with your notion that their relationship with the UK/England bears no resemblance to that of Ireland.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You proclaim that their identity and culutre is "obvious" ie distinct from England.

    I put it to you that is nonsense to say that it is "obvious" and even separate

    I put it to you that there is a better chance that people will know of Ireland quicker than Wales (maybe not Scotland) or anything about their countries.

    So no, it is not "obvious".

    When you say "people" will know Ireland quicker than Wales who exactly are you referring to? The almighty "They"?

    When I go abroad I am generally mistaken at first glance for German due to my appearance, and then English when I open my mouth. Why? Because I'm speaking English.

    walrusgumble wrote: »
    "Irish Republican" as in the Ra? As in Political Beliefs? No

    Irish Republican as in you are a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Another term could be Southern Irish I suppose to balance the North/South divide.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    I means that you are an Irish Citizen and your government is de facto, Dublin, you are a citizen of an Independent Country, that tried to obtain Independence from Britian , despite opposition in Ireland and Britain for many hundreds of years. Unless you are from the North or a parent from Britain, you don't have a right to British Citizenship.

    The Republic is a description of the country, not the name of the country. The name of the country is Ireland. The description is widely used to differienate between the North and South.

    I'm well aware what the term means I was being disingenuous to counter your own facetious point.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    How much would you like to wager that most people all over the world, when asked about "Ireland" will think Dublin, Cork and not Belfast?

    I imagine most people when they think of Ireland imagine the idealised rolling green fields and thatched houses along with any other nonsensical throwback the Americans have cemented into popular culture along with leprechauns and rainbows. There's a reason for the term Oirish after all.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Wishful thinking and whatever the context, it still does not get away from the reality of the laughable attempt to speak of Welsh identity with that of Ireland

    Separate Identity? Yeah...

    If you're so certain I solidly encourage you to head over to Cardiff and discuss the notion with a few Welsh speakers, see how you get on with that.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    It's a national day, you don't need to be religious. People in Wales do partake in some events to pass the day - in honour of guys like Dylan Thomas and other Welsh hero's. It is not wide spread in Wales, so much for celebration of their "obvious" , "separate" identity so.

    So even though they do celebrate their Patron Saint's Day (and yeah it is religious, the hint is in the name) which specifically celebrates Wales and Welsh people they have no separate identity? I really don't get that line of thought mate.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    We, are less than 100 years old as a State. Don't think the Brits were too keen on Irish people gathering in a crowd during the Defence of the Realms Act days. Parades and band fanfare is essentially an American thing anyway. In Ireland is was traditionally a day that the Army paraded and people went to Mass. It was low key. Shops closed.

    Your point was they "barely" celebrate St David's Day, I pointed out that we "barely" celebrated St Patrick's Day until we imported the American pomp and fanfare. In what was our "low key" celebration of Patrick's Day different to the Welsh "barely" celebrating David's Day?
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    It was you and your pal who were making dismissive comments about "800 years" "ra ra ra".

    I find the tendency of Irish people to repeatedly call back to "800 years" a disingenuous crutch for those who cannot properly articulate the relationship between that of Ireland the the UK outside of nostalgic rhetoric. The Civil War proved we were as capable of harming ourselves as the British were of harming us.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Germans and French were always able to get back at each other. Both were colonial super powers, rivals. Ireland, not so. Never stops the British for being nose out of joint with both France and the Germans, on the political sphere.

    Neither country were asked to become part of their historical colonies either - EEC favoured both, and the French ARE ALWAYS weary of Germany, they still think that they have the moral authority to keep an eye on Germany.

    And yet they seem remarkably in step with one another as far as expanding their own influence and position in Europe goes.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    All achievable without the need to join a Commonwealth. No need to be getting balls deep with them.

    Deal with them as we are now. Both on equal standing.

    Point out to me where I suggested we should join the Commonwealth. I made the comment that if it were a FTA similar to the EU (which is something the Commonwealth aspires to do) and they forgot about the 3 billion they loaned us after our crash that many Irish people might be more amicable to the idea. Frankly joining the Commonwealth as things stand would be nothing more than a showpiece with zero benefits.

    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You can start by getting the dishonest and tripe nonsense that some how joining a Commonwealth will benefit Ireland. Maybe it will benefit traitors and Unionists, but as stated thousands of times, it does not and can not benefit Ireland, bar giving them a warm fuzzy feeling inside

    Again, point out where I suggested we join the Commonwealth.

    And like a good man you can also define "traitors".
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You evidentally have no respect for those who faught and died for Irish Independence. That is not what they faught for. Cumann na nGaedheal (who don't get as much credit as they should) and Fianna Fail did not fight to dismantle its links with Britain for nothing, in threat of economic and political pressure.

    Please don't presume to tell me who I have or have not respect for, I lost relatives on both sides to the War of Independence and yet more to the Civil War afterwards. The fact is, however, that I don't allow that respect to colour my being able to look at what benefits Ireland in the here and now, which I'm sure my relatives would approve of given their view that independence was necessary for the benefit of Ireland then.

    I also notice you restricted you respect to only those who died for Independence, none of those who died fighting the fascists worth remembering? I suppose DeV and Fianna Fail were too busy ploughing the furrow of economic ruin through self-sufficiency to give them much thought.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    The EEC and later EU helped Ireland to wheeze off its over reliance on Britian, for a start and helped Ireland become more confident and Independent. Which, it did, for a very long time during 1993-2007.

    I'd argue that the huge levels of foreign direct investment in the form of multinationals and transnationals were a significant factor in that. However the UK still remains our largest trading partner both in and outside the EU.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Not keen on political union per se as Union got larger, but the Economic Union has given both Ireland and Britain more opportunities than any Commonwealth could ever give. Who think kips like India are going to solve our problems? Reckon Australia's boom will last?

    Of course it has, and the narrowing of the global economy along with emergent powers means we are obliged more than ever to invest further in international cooperation.

    Again however I'd love to see where you derived the notion I want us to leave the EU for the Commonwealth.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Whether we were to join the Commonwealth or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with our relationship with EU

    I never said it did.
    walrusgumble wrote: »
    You are simply not worth responding to if you think that leaving the EU for some cermonial institute will solve Ireland's problems. And you have the nerve to make the arrogant roll eye gesture.

    I'd love to see where you got the proof of that sentiment from.


  • Options
    #80
    turnikett1
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭turnikett1


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Hardly, both Scotland and Wales were integrated into the UK by military force and plantation the same as we were.

    I'm not going to get sucked into this debate - I'm happy out observing it - but I do feel the need to correct you here. Scotland was not integrated into the "UK" (didn't exist then) by military force. The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England joined crowns in the 1600s. James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. IIRC it was the Scottish parliament that suggested merging the two kingdoms together and it was the Scottish parliament that voted in favour of combing England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom (of Great Britain).

    Carry on!


  • Options
    #81
    ZeitgeistGlee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭ZeitgeistGlee


    turnikett1 wrote: »
    I'm not going to get sucked into this debate - I'm happy out observing it - but I do feel the need to correct you here. Scotland was not integrated into the "UK" (didn't exist then) by military force. The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England joined crowns in the 1600s. James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. IIRC it was the Scottish parliament that suggested merging the two kingdoms together and it was the Scottish parliament that voted in favour of combing England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom (of Great Britain).

    Carry on!

    Hmm, I've always had it in my head that Scotland was considered to be part of England until William Wallace and co. fought their war for independence. Perhaps that was only the English perspective though and not a universally held one.

    I know I shouldn't have used UK, it was more for the sake of referring to the entity of a united Britain as opposed to the specific post-Act of Union nation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    turnikett1 wrote: »
    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.

    Totally disagree.

    We have relinquished so much power to the European Union, not to mention giving up control of our Monetary Policy to the European Central Bank. We are anything but Independent.

    You say we are capable of handling ourselves on an International scale? We had to get a bail out from the IMF to the tune of billions. :confused:

    Get out of the EU, ECB, and forget about ever joining the Commonwealth. Then we'll be an Independent state once again.


  • Options
    #83
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I responded to Sparky's comment that Ireland as part of Britain would have no cultural identity, this is patently and observably untrue. Is there anyone from Ireland or the UK wouldn't nearly instantly be able to tell anyone from the five nations apart?

    Ireland is a completely different kettle of fish, thus the comparison with Wales and Scotland is nonsense. You went on to talk about the "obvious" different cultural identities of both Scotland and Wales. While you can make an argument for Scotland (they at least have an utterly different legal system to not only the Welsh and English, but also Ireland, more Continential) , bar the Welsh language, you are really stretching it when you refer to Wales. Wales can't called An Bhreatain Bheag for nothing (Obviously its Cymru in Welsh)

    So tell us, what is different between the Scots, Welsh, English? When you take out the accents and their own native languages? (From the point of view of other countries, bar maybe the French who have history with the five nations outside of rugby)

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    And what are we comparatively? I don't seem to recall Enda getting an invite to attend the G20.

    Eh, Ireland is a small country. Would Scotland and Wales get a ticket to the show if it broke links with England? I do not think so. Call us back when Wales and Scotland go it alone. My understanding is that the Country is a single unit called The United Kingdom of Great Britain (ie Scotland, Wales, England) and Northern Ireland (On que the miserable sods waffling on about how things apparenty haven't gone well for a young State like Ireland)
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    One could quite easily describe our cultural identity as nothing outside of a few songs and drinking, it would however be equally intellectually vacuous and untrue.

    Our own national sports, our language, our music, our heritage and histor (have you seen Newgrange? aware of Irish scholars travelling all over Europe setting up monasteries and schools?) and dare I say, religion - like it or not, our brand of "catholicism" and Protestentism formed a huge part of the Irish identity.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Hardly, both Scotland and Wales were integrated into the UK by military force and plantation the same as we were. The fact that we had a very obvious border to our territory in the form of the Irish Sea made it a bit easier to separate "our land" from "their land".


    Was Scotland and Wales fighting for complete Independence for the past 150 years? Could the disasterious attempts , alas attempts, of Irish people looking for Independence over the past 300 years be comparable to anything tried by the Welsh or Scots?

    There was an auld joke about Mel Gibson's film, Braveheart , about it being a start to many modern Scots of notions of Independence (obviously not accurate)

    So , yes, it is an absolute insult to compare Ireland with the Scots and Welsh.

    It seems evident that you are intentionally ignorning the obvious.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I'm also sure there are plenty of ardent Scottish and Welsh nationalists who'd disagree with your notion that their relationship with the UK/England bears no resemblance to that of Ireland.

    Could not care less, history speaks for itself! Ardent Scottish and Welsh nationalists? What all 260 of them?

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    When you say "people" will know Ireland quicker than Wales who exactly are you referring to? The almighty "They"?

    Ha, bless, cute statement

    They as in the International Community. Bless them why should they know any better, when Scots and Welsh walk into Immigration Control they don't hand in a red book that says, National of Scotland / Wales.


    So, for the third time (fourth) including this post, explain the "obvious" cultural identities of the Scots and Welsh
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    When I go abroad I am generally mistaken at first glance for German due to my appearance, and then English when I open my mouth. Why? Because I'm speaking English.

    Face palm. Did you utter the word "I am Irish" first? No.


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Irish Republican as in you are a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Another term could be Southern Irish I suppose to balance the North/South divide.

    To be fair, many ignorant foreigners generally haven't a clue about the North - South issues and the cultural issues there. That reminds me of a funny Youtube video of a Northie communicating his anger about being called "Irish" as oppose to "British" when he says that he is from Northern Ireland, while in America (poor sods didn't realise that that might cause offense). The wall adorned with a Rangers Flag. Worth checking out

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I'm well aware what the term means I was being disingenuous to counter your own facetious point.
    Sure
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I imagine most people when they think of Ireland imagine the idealised rolling green fields and thatched houses along with any other nonsensical throwback the Americans have cemented into popular culture along with leprechauns and rainbows. There's a reason for the term Oirish after all.

    Ya well, it brings the euro's into the country, and be fair, the Irish themselves ham it up . especially when abroad.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    If you're so certain I solidly encourage you to head over to Cardiff and discuss the notion with a few Welsh speakers, see how you get on with that.

    What the whole 500 ? (on que a poster bursting into spots posting up the true figures)

    History suggests different, sunshine. I prefer action and not talk. Wales has always being hand in glove in it's link with the English.
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

    So even though they do celebrate their Patron Saint's Day (and yeah it is religious, the hint is in the name) which specifically celebrates Wales and Welsh people they have no separate identity? I really don't get that line of thought mate.

    Cornwall has their thing too? Doesn't mean they have an identity that is separate from England/Britain

    No doubt, you take what was said literally. Belgium is a country, but as Farage says, "its a nothing country"

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

    Your point was they "barely" celebrate St David's Day, I pointed out that we "barely" celebrated St Patrick's Day until we imported the American pomp and fanfare.

    Eh, Ireland became a country of its own right in 1922. St Patricks day was very much celebrated shortly thereafter - alas Mass, Railway Cup (GAA event) Bank Holiday, Army lads parading around. The Gaelic League use to have events in Dublin hotels like Gresham, the Abbey did their bit too!

    As I already said, I don't think the British Tommies were too keen on public gatherings of Irish men on the street, espcially during the Defence of the Realm Days. I understand during O'Connell's time , O'Connell would makes speeches in front of hundreds, many men wore a green shash on their hats

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

    In what was our "low key" celebration of Patrick's Day different to the Welsh "barely" celebrating David's Day?

    Sweet Jesus. For a start, Defence of the Realm Act, Dublin Castle and RIC getting touchy on notions of Irish people publicly expressing their Irishness...

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

    I find the tendency of Irish people to repeatedly call back to "800 years"

    I despise the 800 years thing. It is nonsense. Battle of the Boyne was a fight for the right to who succeeds the throne of the Kingdom of Ireland, England , Scotland and Wales. Hugh O'Neill made it clear to Elizabeth II that his loyalty was to her, just he wanted his bit of land. No evidence of actual complete Independence from Britian.

    Start with Wolfe Tone, fine, the rest before that? bha
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

    a disingenuous crutch for those who cannot properly articulate the relationship between that of Ireland the the UK outside of nostalgic rhetoric.

    As I said already, you don't need to look back even more than 100 years ago, and I ain't talking about The Troubles!.

    There are still plenty of 98 year olds alive today who remember The Tans and British Regulars barging into their homes, burning down their houses, knocking the crap out of their fathers; or fathers that went mentally awol after a session of torture in the RIC barracks, only to take it out of their kids (our grand parents) later on!

    So, no , it ain't disengenious. Your comment reeks of pig ignorance!

    And as for the Troubles... You realise how close the British Embassy in Dublin came to being burnt out in the 1970's but for the bravery of unarmed Gardaí to queel a very very very anger crowd (many of who were not Ra heads)

    Just over 30 years ago we had the Hunger Strikes spilling into Southern Irish affairs too.
    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    The Civil War proved we were as capable of harming ourselves as the British were of harming us.

    Ya, nasty business alright. But of course, why wouldn't there be bitterness when you risked your life during the Tan War only to have your leader and maybe your idol, betraying the Oath to the IRA, and in some cases, the IRB. Hard to take gob****es in Free State Uniforms willing to kick a prisoner down the stairs, but went hiding during the Tan War (even the Tan War veterans in the Free State got nose out of joint with many "new" recruits)

    In most countries, Civil War tends to be really really really nasty

    No doubt the Unionists enjoyed it. (bar the Protestants in the South who were wrongfully attacked - even if they were spies during the Tan War)

    But of course, in light of your obvious ignorance and blindness to history, you ignore some realities and facts - Downing Street Pressure to quell the rabble in Four Courts or ultimatium that they would be back in, Threat of continued War if the Treaty was not signed, equipping the Free State Forces with arms. The rushed nature of the Elections (which effectively was a Referendum to the Treaty - alas, the British Intervened to stop the Collins - De Valera Pact) , the complete rejection of Collin's more Republican version of the Free State Constitution of 1922

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    And yet they seem remarkably in step with one another as far as expanding their own influence and position in Europe goes.

    Do not kid yourself

    THere was no way that it would be France's interest to see a forever stagnant Germany. After all that is what lead to Nazism. The Coal and Steel Pact, that later became the EEC was a way for France to keep an eye on Germany

    Things worked out well for both, and what do you know, we have a faulty European Union, that is getting out of control ie Supporters of a single European Superstate and Supporters of retention of member state's soverignity in areas outside of European Control (that even the French and Germans want - on que the grossly ill informed comments about that)


    Anyway , anyway, how on earth does anything like that justify joining the Commonwealth?

    Everyone agrees, make up with Britain, but, joining a Commonwealth, sweet jesus, you make it sound like Ireland should be a bunnyboiler, a clingy ex.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Point out to me where I suggested we should join the Commonwealth. I made the comment that if it were a FTA similar to the EU (which is something the Commonwealth aspires to do) and they forgot about the 3 billion they loaned us after our crash that many Irish people might be more amicable to the idea. Frankly joining the Commonwealth as things stand would be nothing more than a showpiece with zero benefits.

    Why talk about "if"?. It is utterly pointless. It is not and can not be similar to the EU.


    If for example, Europe was to disintergate, a decision would need to be reached that a union of States join together. Ireland, Britain, Norway etc. Won't be called the British Commonwealth, and there will be no bowing down to Her Majesty a figure head

    Either that or Ireland goes out to individual countries and strike up their own deals

    Until all of that comes to furitition, the issue of joining a Commonwealth with Britain is moot and trolling

    We already had a many agreements in place with Britian, eg common travel, decision not to treat eachothers people as foreigners in the respective countries

    Commonwealth aspires to it , does it? long time aspiring to it so. Don't see to many Canadian, Indian , Australia Corporations landing into England much


    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Please don't presume to tell me who I have or have not respect for, I lost relatives on both sides to the War of Independence and yet more to the Civil War afterwards. The fact is, however, that I don't allow that respect to colour my being able to look at what benefits Ireland in the here and now, which I'm sure my relatives would approve of given their view that independence was necessary for the benefit of Ireland then.


    "I'm all for granting those who have fought for Ireland in any way shape and form the respect they deserve but at some point we need to move on from it and look at what benefits Ireland now and for the future"


    The "need to move on" is often a dismissive rebutal, akin to the "need to mature", often by proponents of people who have issues with Independence of the Country (not you)

    In case to have not noticed, Ireland did move on. It obtained Common Travel Arrangement, Beneficial treatment with British on nothing treating our people as foreigners/right to vote, and those benefits given to them, and of course, joining the EEC and EU , together

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I also notice you restricted you respect to only those who died for Independence, none of those who died fighting the fascists worth remembering? I suppose DeV and Fianna Fail were too busy ploughing the furrow of economic ruin through self-sufficiency to give them much thought.

    Well, there are two groups there, those who went staight into the armies of America and Britain for "adventure" and some for deep beliefs that what was going on in Europe was wrong, and some for job.

    The other group, were members of the Irish Army, or Reserves and went awol and deserted. They should have been shot, like any other solider to does that with another army. Join an army, leave your politics at the door. Their place was in Ireland, not swaning off to Europe

    We had no issue with Germany. Not our problem, why get involved in another Super State War?

    De Valera maintained a very delicate policy of keeping both sides on favourable terms for Ireland's benefit, and to avoid being attacked.

    As for Self Sufficiency, well, it is not like Ireland was the only nation on earth, during that time who developed Protectionist Economic Policy. They were all doing it!. Doesn't help when we get bullied by our trade partners who want us to take their sides in a war that had nothing to do with us.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    I'd argue that the huge levels of foreign direct investment in the form of multinationals and transnationals were a significant factor in that. However the UK still remains our largest trading partner both in and outside the EU.

    Ya, that would hardly change , since the nation is so young, England being our neighbours and centuries of trade history. Europe still helped us stand on our feet, and Institutes like the ECHR (different to EU/EEC) helped to referee the Troubles in certain cases where the British stopped Irish Delegates from raising the issues at the UN.

    ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »
    Of course it has, and the narrowing of the global economy along with emergent powers means we are obliged more than ever to invest further in international cooperation.

    India, emergent powers, do not hold your breathe.

    China was down with building a hub in Athlone, lol, look where that went


  • Options
    #84
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Conas wrote: »
    Totally disagree.

    We have relinquished so much power to the European Union, not to mention giving up control of our Monetary Policy to the European Central Bank. We are anything but Independent.

    A decision Irish people freely entered into

    27 other States did like wise, inclduing Britain.


    But ya, like Britain, we should have opted out of the monetary union. And yes, Europe is getting out of control. And the EU, as oppose to EEC has failed (alas it was only 1992, so..)

    Conas wrote: »
    You say we are capable of handling ourselves on an International scale? We had to get a bail out from the IMF to the tune of billions. :confused:

    Eh, it happens to the best of them. IMF came into Britain in the 1970's! Guess what? It recovered!
    Conas wrote: »

    Get out of the EU, ECB, and forget about ever joining the Commonwealth. Then we'll be an Independent state once again.

    Very few countries, including America survive without some sort of economic union - then again, whatever party they go to, they will always be the boss.


  • Options
    #85
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,486 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    of course we should.
    there are no drawbacks and given the obvious economic and trade benefits that would stem from it it's a no brainer.


  • Options
    #86
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Ireland is a completely different kettle of fish, thus the comparison with Wales and Scotland is nonsense. You went on to talk about the "obvious" different cultural identities of both Scotland and Wales. While you can make an argument for Scotland (they at least have an utterly different legal system to not only the Welsh and English, but also Ireland, more Continential) , bar the Welsh language, you are really stretching it when you refer to Wales. Wales can't called An Bhreatain Bheag for nothing (Obviously its Cymru in Welsh)

    So tell us, what is different between the Scots, Welsh, English? When you take out the accents and their own native languages?

    Don't know why I'm bothering tbh, but:

    Different languages (not sure why you would opt to 'take out' out this difference?)
    Different political structures, and parties
    Different religions
    Different musical traditions
    Different monarchic traditions
    Different (national) sporting allegiances
    Different cultural touchstones

    In general - if you have to ask, it's an indication that you're not terribly well tuned into social and cultural distinctions. As mentioned earlier - try dropping into Cardiff, or Glasgow, and suggesting that they're no different to the English.


  • Options
    #87
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    of course we should.
    there are no drawbacks and given the obvious economic and trade benefits that would stem from it it's a no brainer.

    What "obvious economic and trade benefits"?

    How are they not achievable on the basis of Ireland being simply, being an English speaking EU State, as oppose to membership of the Commonwealth?

    Somehow, I doubt India and co will rush to enter trade agreements on sentimental bond and link of brothership of a Commonwealth, if Ireland does not or can not provide goods and services needed by the said potential trade partners at a competitive price.

    Tell us, about the man in Camden, is his life more enriched by links with the other Commonwealth State's?

    How is trade going to further increase with Britain, on the basis of Commonwealth membership?


    Load of bland tosh. No different to the rubbish spouted by the government as to how Lisbon = Jobs, when Lisbon had little to do with economic policy and more to do with HOW the EU was to run its business in light of expansion, along with seeking competence in new fields . Very similar waffle was thrown out about how great it would be when Hungary and Poland, countries that apparently we have alot in common with, join the EU -waffle about new trade links etc (Not saying Hungary and Poland's entry to the EU was bad) So far, it seems to be a case of one way traffic.

    No doubt, that despite it being "a no brainer" and how it is "obvious" that it will have benefits, an explantion as to how Ireland's ability to get better trade deals with Commonwealth Nations would greatly improve if inside the club as oppose to outside the club, will not be forthcoming with any evidence to support that.

    There are little or no uniformed free movement of goods/service/capital/worker/people policy with fellow Commonwealth countries. Britain ain't dishing out visa exemptions to many of their cousins in the Commonwealth (we have always had CTA and EEC/EU).

    Nothing ever stopping the IDA or Bord Bia to focus on India and Asia and set up camp enticing them to pick Ireland, as oppose to the usual places like the US.


  • Options
    #88
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    alastair wrote: »
    Don't know why I'm bothering tbh, but:

    Different languages (not sure why you would opt to 'take out' out this difference?)
    Different political structures, and parties
    Different religions
    Different musical traditions
    Different monarchic traditions
    Different (national) sporting allegiances
    Different cultural touchstones

    In general - if you have to ask, it's an indication that you're not terribly well tuned into social and cultural distinctions. As mentioned earlier - try dropping into Cardiff, or Glasgow, and suggesting that they're no different to the English.

    Wales' head of State, still is, and always has been , London. "Prince of Wales" is a mere title to keep the kiddies busy. The Queen is the Head of State of England and Wales.

    Politically and historically, no matter how many Davids protest about beign Welsh first, British second, they have always been hand in glove with England. They are British. They are not an independent Nation, but a glorifed Provinence (which they are happy about). There has rarely being a genuine on going effort to leave the Union, unlike Ireland - so to compare both countries is laughable!



    Labour and Conservatives have members in Wales! Their HQ is still London.


    Sure Scousers think that they are their own group. Of course they are different to Southeners, but it don't mean that they are a nation themselves. Their culture and identity forms a part of the Britain, but not their own nation. Guys in Rathfarnham Dublin may be culturally different to guys in Blachardstown Dublin - they are still Dubliners , still Irish

    There is no such thing as Citizenship of Wales, Scotland , Liverpool, Cornwall. You are intentionally ignoring the issue and waffling on. Comparing Ireland with the aforementioned countries is ridiculous . When the poster that you referred to complained about Ireland potentially loosing their "identity", you waffled about how Wales and Scotland not loosing theirs. The point that that poster meant was bigger picture issues like the identity of absolute political separation of the Union and not being bound by London or the Crown. Wales and Scotland don't have those hang ups because they are nothing countries who prefer to be ruled by London , England. Their parliaments are glorified talking shops, county councils. Credit to the Scots at least, they have a different legal system , but legislation drawn in London, in relation to the Nation of Britain may still be bound by

    It just shows the utter refusal to deal with the biggers things, as oppose to the pedantic


  • Options
    #89
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Wales' head of State, still is, and always has been , London. "Prince of Wales" is a mere title to keep the kiddies busy.

    Different monarchic traditions.


  • Options
    #90
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Sure Scousers think that they are their own group. Of course they are different to Southeners, but it don't mean that they are a nation themselves.

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    alastair wrote: »
    Different monarchic traditions.

    Same Head of State in the long run. Head of State live in London. Are English born themselves. When was a Welsh man the Welsh Monarch? Of course, who is to say there would not be another case of Monarchy Crisis which De Valera took great advantage of in the 1930's

    If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck


Advertisement