Goodbye Ireland, hello Éire Ireland
It will no doubt please many to hear that in official European parlance the term “Ireland” will no longer be used in meetings. It seems following the decision to make Irish an official EU language that Ireland will now go under the name “Éire Ireland”. The Éire Ireland name change will apply to signage and name plates at Council of Minister meetings and leaders’ summits from January 2007 in what an Irish government spokesperson described as an “entirely consistent move”.
Gabriel “I’m guessing this comes from the assertion in the constitution that Éire/Ireland is the Republic’s official name, and it is most unfortunate that we didn’t have the foresight to change the official name of the state to “Republic of Ireland” at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, since claim was no longer being made to the whole island.
Actually the state is already called “the Republic Of Ireland”. From the 1948 act;
“It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.”
I do agree that this should also be inserted into the constitution and remove any lingering ambiguity.
Keith M
“Actually the state is already called “the Republic Of Ireland””
Doesn’t matter what it’s called, it’s not the official name.
I don’t see how it will remove any ambiguity, I think people will continue to use the terms they already do.
As far as I can see Eire is the most logical name for the Republic. If you’re not supposed to use it in English then why is it even included in the English translation of the constitution?
“The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”
Surely if you’re translating a whole document from the original, why leave the name in Irish if it’s not suppsoed to be used in everyday English?
Besidse, naming the Republic simply “Ireland” lends credence to those on the unionist/loyalist side who believe Ireland stops just the other side of Newry and Londonderry.
To be fair though, on that logic we should also probably talk about the Cote d’Ivior (sorry bout the spelling).
OK it’s off topic, but I just noticed in the article:
“The move follows last year’s EU decision to designate Irish as its 21st official and working language from 2007.”
I was under the impression only French, German and Englsh. Wikipedia has some contradictions, one source (Languages of the EU) saying all official languages are working languages, and then Working Language stating the three I mentioned.
‘I was under the impression only French, German and Englsh.’
beano:
Wikipedia is confusing issues. There are different Euro bodies and even they aren’t all on the same page. It’s the EC that uses only those 3 languages, and only for internal business.
This is from the Europa web-site (http://europa.eu/languages/en/document/59):
’5. Is every document generated by the EU translated into all the official languages?
By no means. Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions’ work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.’
‘Doesn’t matter what it’s called, it’s not the official name.
I don’t see how it will remove any ambiguity, I think people will continue to use the terms they already do.’
maca:
As for ambiguity, of course people will continue to use the terms they already use. That doesn’t mean they are right though. Irish Republicans will never call the ROI the ROI because that title has the word ‘republic’ in it, and they only want to recognize the 1916 Irish Republic, and not the partitionist ROI.
It is a good point however that there should be as litle official ambiguity as possible, and the Irish Constitution didn’t/doesn’t help in that respect with all this ‘Eire, Ireland, nation, national territory’ nonsense. It’s a very confusing document.
harpo
Yeah but who cares if they are right or not. I don’t see where it’s causing any problems. Any intelligent person knows the difference between the terms.
Harpo,
once you get your head around the fact that the Irish State doesn’t encompass the entire Irish Nation, the Irish Constitution is extremely simple to understand.
I think I’m seeing a bit more clearly now.
But I have more questions haha, I tried to make the distinction between the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916, and the Republic of Ireland established in 1948.
Two totally different things. One, a state of mind (still in existence in the mind of modern republicans) the other a State in fact. This is where my misunderstanding arose.
I always thought that wily old Dev was playing word games, rather than settle for calling the 26 county State the Irish Republic, he left a bit of wriggle room for himself and called it Republic of Ireland.
Thus leaving the IR in place (as a state of mind) to be renamed the Irish Republic if and when the country was unified, and the proclaimed republic became a fact.
Obviously after 85 years, Northern Ireland as a state is now a fact, and in my opinion the only way unification is going to happen, is through the two states joining together, to form a completely new country rather than Dublin annexing the North as Unionists seem to think is on the agenda, a merger rather than a takeover in businessspeak.
Perhaps some aspects of the long forgotten Eire Nua policy actually make good theoretical sense?