Monday, August 21, 2006
What role a monarch in a 32 county Ireland?
Thanks to Boland’s Ghost for pointing us in the direction of Gay Mitchell’s latest kite flying exercise, when he asks if there would be a role for a monarch in a 32 county Republic. It is, as Boland notes, a role back from the position held by Collins in treaty negotiations, since the Irish Republican project has never had more than a derisory response from the island’s original republicans (ie Ulster’s Presbyterians), it may be the least it can do to at least picque their interest.
Mick Fealty @ 07:00 AM
No we don’t want the Queen back. However we would be willing to concede in a UI that NI could remain in the Commonwealth without the rest of the island, and of course the Queen is the permanent head of that body. Bringing back the monarch for the whole island is never going to be acceptable because of the tyranny inflicted over many centuries by many of her predecessors in that role. The successor to the Famine Queen (the latter of whom blocked aid shipments during the Famine for years and presided over a system that impoverished the Irish) would not be acceptable as having a role in Southern Ireland. Sorry.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:06 AMWell if we are to regress to instituting a monarch for all-Ireland why not go the whole hog and reintroduce Druidism as the official religion. And let’s reintroduce a colony of snakes while we’re at it (though some might say there’s no need given the nest in Leinster House).
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:22 AMIt is an absoultly crazy suggestion and I doubt any unioinist are thinking sure do that and we will walk into the dail tomorrow. I put me thoughts here. http://www.irishelection.com/08/fine-gael-the-monarchist-party/
None of the papers seems to have picked up this story
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:27 AMOne might equally ask what role for the President when the Republic rejoins the UK?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:55 AMElvis lol dream on.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:06 AMAs you know, Mick, I’ve suggested such countless times on this site.
The objective was to see, just see, if Nationalists would even consider the idea - in the context of a compromise necessary to make such a new state stable.
Since few Nationalists would even countenance re-entering the Commonwealth (remember lads - compromise), the answer was not impressive.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:28 AM“No we don’t want the Queen back. However we would be willing to concede in a UI that NI could remain in the Commonwealth without the rest of the island, and of course the Queen is the permanent head of that body. “
Its good to see nationalists finally recognising the permanency of partition.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:28 AM“Since few Nationalists would even countenance re-entering the Commonwealth (remember lads - compromise), the answer was not impressive.”
I think re-entrring the Commonwealth would be disliked, but probably accepted as part of a deal. Having a role for the monarchy in relation to the head of state is a bridge too far, however. Ireland is a Republic, we vote in our leaders, and any other suggestion is frankly bizarre. I’d suggest it would be in Britian’s interest’s to do the same.
Can’t think how else you would fit it in.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:39 AMUnionists are a minority - 15% of the population, if even that. Suggesting that 85% are to give up their republican philosophy to please unionists is - well, unionist in mindset.
The future is an end to london rule on this island. That means they can take their soldiers, their queen, their interfering and destabilising spies and piss off back to blighty. Unionists have no existential threat to fear, no threat to their right to remain british subjects/citizens, no fear of religious oppression or political or economic exclusion. In fact Ireland united in all its pluralism will be a holy relief. We can all then begin to make something truly impressive of this country.
Mitchell’s a supine buffoon.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:51 AMWhy would we want a permanently, unelected and permanently protestant head of state? The only place for the queen of england in ireland is dublin zoo….
The sad sight of deluded micks waving the butchers apron at the sight of a german monarch is truly appalling.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 09:53 AM‘Why would we want a permanently, unelected and permanently protestant head of state?’
Need one say anymore? Well, I’ll just add one more…
Anachronism.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:38 AMI have noticed the Irish citizens in Northern Ireland are more racist and less sympathetic of their own kind when contrasted with their brother’s whom share the same racial group as theirs in the Republic.
It is a well established maxim that Ireland will rejoin the Commonwealth if there is ever a reunited Ireland.Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:41 AMWell established by whom? And are you seriously suggesting that there are racial differences amongst the people who live here? Nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:45 AMCould you imagine the scenario where britain had an elected president then suddenly the law is changed that one family performed a coup d’etat and said we shall rule for generations to come and you the taxpayer will pay for our lifestyle.
Its not an antibritish thing, where there a president of GB then I would certainly consider such an idea.
Bring back a monarchy??? Nonsense
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:06 AMHarry Hewitt king of Ireland. I don’t think so.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:20 AMJust because 900,000 people on the island pledge blind loyalty to a rabble family doen not mean the rest of the island should be inflicted with this mental condition. Would they be so loyal were she a Catholic or Muslim? i doubt it.
Institutionalised racism??
No thanks.Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:26 AMIf it is OK for the Ozzies, Canadians, New Zealanders and the rest of the independant countries where the Queen is the head of state, why is it such a massive deal for the republic.
You would still have your 32 county un-partitioned country, and it would be a great appeaser to unionists who still see the republic as a place they could never call home, and whos history, culture and ideology is diametrically oppsed to theirs.I would have thought the pragmatist nationalists out there would seize this as one of the few ways to show how a ‘new ireland’ would look to those million odd irish men and women of Northen Ireland who at the moment want nothing to do with your state.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:44 AMEither Gay Mitchell is sweeping for the last vestiges of empire in the south or he is drawing the blueprint for a Fianna Gael electoral incursion into Northern politics. Presumably in an attempt to unify the West of Britain vote i.e, DUP UUP and Fianna Gael. Unlike the MEP I firmly believe in the independence of Ireland as a separate state within the European Union including the interdependence between Ireland and England, but to become interdependent nations, those nations must be free to decide who they wish to depend on, need and respect. Interdependence assumes a mutual need, demand, supply, respect and a mutual right. It must be borne in mind that a right does not exist unless there is a duty to provide that right. Consequencely, Britain has no right to make laws in Ireland because it has no duty to make laws in Ireland. Of course, Fianna Gaels MEP Gay Mitchell has every right to voice his opinion. As a Nationalist, I feel it is my duty to inform him, on this issue, he is wrong.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:52 AMcan I be the Govenor General?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:53 AMMonarchy has no future role in the Irish Republic. And that applies regardless of the Queen/King of England’s religion . If Queenie or her successor became RC the opposition of the vast majority of Irish people to having a monarch would continue .
They’re welcome to visit and we know they help to boost Britain’s tourist numbers .We can understand the historical fact of the ‘monarchy’ giving ‘political ’ stability to England but in Ireland their ‘historical’ contribution/legacy has for most of the last 500 years been ‘division’.
No thanks . As for the Commonwealth ? At one time I’d have been in favour of rejoining if only for the sake of the ‘Irish ’ diaspora throughout the world . I now see that as some kind of a sop towards ‘unionism’ and thus best forgotten .
Roll on repartition !
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:57 AM“If it is OK for the Ozzies, Canadians, New Zealanders and the rest of the independant countries where the Queen is the head of state, why is it such a massive deal for the republic.
You would still have your 32 county un-partitioned country, and it would be a great appeaser to unionists who still see the republic as a place they could never call home, and whos history, culture and ideology is diametrically oppsed to theirs.”Because unlike those countries, Ireland is a Republic. It is built on republican ideals. The key players in the foundation of the state were Republicans. Because monarchy is a complete anachronism in the modern world. Republican ideals basically sprung from Protestantism, and I’d much prefer to convince my neighbours of it’s worth - UI or no UI.
Australia will become a Republic eventually, btw.
“I would have thought the pragmatist nationalists out there would seize this as one of the few ways to show how a ‘new ireland’ would look to those million odd irish men and women of Northen Ireland who at the moment want nothing to do with your state.”
Not by doing something they find complete abhorrent. Again, Unionism would represent 15% of the new state, and forcing an unelected head of state on the other 85% against their will does no one any good. There are certainly things we can do, like re-enter the Commonwealth, but that seriously is a step too far.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:58 AMWhen Mitchell talks about us adopting the British monarchy, I assume (this being a Europe of equals) that he also expects the people of Britain to adopt our presidency?
Gay Mitchell… proving difficult to play the ball and not the man! Just about managing it…
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:01 PMkensei - the republic was formed on seperatist and socialist ideals too. It wasnt a problem to abandon those.
Always find it amusing how nationalists are quite happy to accept the “vast majority” argument when it works in *their* favour.
Doubly amusing when people assume they know the opinions of everyone else and feel free to speak on their behalf and ridicule those who disagree.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:03 PMAustralia will become a republic. South Africa is a republic and is in the commonwealth, why not ireland??
What the hell is wrong with unionists?? Why do they not wish to have the opportunity to be HoS for the land they live in???16th century nonsense
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:07 PMNickj,
‘If it is OK for the Ozzies, Canadians, New Zealanders and the rest of the independant countries where the Queen is the head of state, why is it such a massive deal for the republic.’
Two words - Irish history.
‘and it would be a great appeaser to unionists who still see the republic as a place they could never call home, and whos history, culture and ideology is diametrically opposed to theirs. ‘Appeasement of ‘unionism ’ in Ireland is a waste of time and money . If ‘Unionists ’ don’t feel at home in Ireland /N.Ireland then that’s their problem .
‘I would have thought the pragmatist nationalists out there would seize this as one of the few ways to show how a ‘new ireland’ would look to those million odd irish men and women of Northen Ireland who at the moment want nothing to do with your state. ‘You would have thought wrong then . Pragmatic Irish nationalists have long since moved past your ‘way of thinking’ on this issue . Irish Nationalists do not need NI or those ‘odd ’ people in order to have a functionig prosperous democracy. All the political signs we see point to the fact that the ‘addition’ of these ‘oddies’ (your term) would do more harm than good both economically and politically .
Roll on the new Seven Councils as a harbinger of an agreed Repartition .
Irish Nationalists need have nothing to say to the DUP or their ilk other than where a new border should be drawn.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:09 PM
