Should the Republic return to the Commonwealth?
There is so much bad cultural blood between Unionism and nationalism, it’s good to see a few areas of common good will emerge at the weekend, or indeed across this whole six nations rugby championship, when the Irish rugby team won the grand slam for the first time since 1948. Politically, of course, the Irish team is a chimera. It isn’t quite what it says on the tin. But it says enough to most of us to command our undivided loyalty not to mention affection. It may have been that thought that prompted a multi signature letter to the Irish Times yesterday, which pleads an old cause:
Ireland’s membership of the Commonwealth would, we are sure, be welcomed by the unionist community in Northern Ireland as a significant gesture of reconciliation. It would add to the collaborative framework established by the Belfast and St Andrew’s agreements. It would demonstrate unequivocally that the Republic has finally drawn a line under the troubled history of Anglo-Irish relations that led to Ireland’s self-exclusion from the Commonwealth 60 years ago. It would represent a further important step along the road to a pluralist Ireland in which different identities are recognised and respected, a country that celebrates its multi-cultural heritage and diverse history.
The response maybe something less than the signatories hoped for.
Could the case for a return to the Commonwealth (greatly republicanised since 1949) be couched as a form of leadership by Irish nationalism in the round? Would it be a viable act of reconciliation? It would certainly constitute a form of reconciliation, but would it be viable?
No one I’ve spoken to in the DFA relishes the extra burdens it would bring… Although having a separate Irish interface with Africa might be desireable, it’s not clear that the payback would be worth the extra investment… That’s not to say there is not a significant shortfall in the country’s diplomatic effort…
However the question of how nationalism (and/or vice versa) takes leadership on rapprochement with Northern Irish Unionists abides…
In the meantime the biggest obstacle to joining the Commonwealth may not be history or the bad blood, but for want to a reason to just to do it. Mark Sugrue’s letter in today’s paper just about covers it:
“Commonwealth citizens” have no extra rights of travel or work — for instance, they need to apply for a visa to visit member-state Australia, just as Irish people do. There are no extra rights on the movement of goods or capital — the Commonwealth is not a trade organisation. And despite its claim to support democracy, it includes many countries which fall far short of being functioning democracies.
It seems that the Commonwealth exists in name only and provides, at best, an excuse for an annual foreign junket for politicians. Until the Commonwealth finds a reason to exist, there is no reason for Ireland to join.
H/T to Conchubar who takes up his own case as Gaeilge…
Mick enough of this egotistical nonsense. None of the above are mine. This is getting boring for all concerned. Please do the necessary to remove this evil. This is self-indulgent tripe of the highest order and must be eradicated.
I just KNEW there was more than one John O’Connell. No one entity could contain that much sh*t.The scary thing is that he is starting to replicate himself. Mother Ireland, have we not enough troubles without this?
The very fact that nutters like Ruth Dudley-Edwards and Eoghan Harris (“the Sindo’s finest!”)are signatories to this petition is reason enough for it to be taken about as seriously as the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
Membership of the Commonwealth would provide no tangible advantages that the EU doesn’t already provide – and those that it doesn’t – are in any case provided by the Council of the Isles. As proven by this very thread, unionists here have said it would make no difference to them in anyway.
And I very much doubt that Sonia O’Sullivan et al will lose much sleep over continued exclusion from the Commonwealth Games.
Those signatures could have been shorted to…
‘Yours sincerely, Reform.’
Does anyone know why this was c/o UCC history department?
I suspect that would be due to Geoffrey Roberts.
There are a number of Northern names on the list who might be mildly persuasive on their own where middle-of-the-road Southern opinion was concerned (David Ford, Roy Garland, Brice Dickson).
The problem is that the majority of Southern names on the list are people who are not held in particularly high public esteem, along with a sprinkling of frequent letter-writers who might aptly be described as the orange ink brigade.
And the fatal flaw is that it’s from the orange ink brigade and their associates that the initiative is actually coming.
Ok, I admit, the joke’s going over my head here. Could someone please clue me in?
It will happen — it practically has to — but not any time soon. It’s the final card to play right before reunification.
The actual agenda behind it has nothing to do with pluralism or tolerance for diversity. Those attributes have always stood proud in Irish culture, as they have in most other European nation-states. None of the 250,000 British people who have chosen to live in an Irish nation-state are found complaining about it, so there is no evidence presently whatsoever that an Irish nation-state is oppressive to others who have chosen to live in it or that any ‘reform’ should be considered.
Instead, you have a small bunch of political, media, and academic hacks who are proffering an agenda that is aimed at undermining the Irish nation-state, and aimed at promoting British nationalism. That form of organised subversion would not be tolerated in any other nation-state but would be properly regarded as treason. However, since most of the hacks reside in a foreign state, it matters not which intelligence agency rewards them or whose national interest they serve.
Basically, the agenda they serve is to promote the censorship of Irish culture with the aim of undermining Irish nationalism and its supporting nation-state. Since this campaign of censorship of Irish nationalism can no longer be inflicted by force (thanks to independence), their tact is to encourage the Irish to engage in self-censorship, both cultural and political. This, of course, cannot be specified as the agenda, so it is cleverly disguised as promoting pluralism, multiculturalism, reconciliation, a shared future, an Ireland of equals, etc.
The self-styled “Reform Movement” states its aims as:
[i]i) Re-thinking the national symbols like the anthem to reflect Ireland’s changing face and new diversity;
ii) Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations;
iii) Promoting membership of international bodies such as the Commonwealth;
iv) Supporting initiatives like the Council of the Isles as a genuine way of healing ancient divisions;
v) Review of the Constitution with particular reference to the preamble and its narrow view of Irishness;
vi) Fostering pluralism, democracy, and tolerance among all people of the island;
vii) Questioning the compulsory role of Irish in our schools and making Irish and English equal official languages[/i]
You can see, for example, that the promotion of Irish culture by the Irish state is to be disallowed, nullifying a core principle of the nation-state. That is a profound agenda that seeks to eradicate the claim of the Irish nation to a state, and to their right to national self-determination. In effect, the agenda is to encourage the Irish nation to renounce its claim to a nation-state and to get them to place themselves among the stateless nations of the world. It’s the War of Independence refaught by the losing side by other means.
It is also an agenda that is complete violation of international law, specifically Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” And it is a direct violation of first article of the Irish constitution.
Now, let’s look at a couple of this despicable organisation’s Q & As:
[i]Are you unionists?
No. Reform is a rights based organisation, which is trying to achieve constitutional change within the Republic.[i]
They are British nationalists whose agenda is aimed at suppressing the culture of another nation. If they cared about “pluralism and secularism” then should seek to promote those elements within their own state, promoting the “constitutional change” that removes the claim of the English nation to their state, and promoting the removal of British culture from their shared states so that the 99% of the world’s population who are not British may enjoy “pluralism and secularism” within that territory.
[b]Continued[/b]
[i]Why would you want a British passport if you are Irish?
On the flag of this republic are the colours of green and orange, symbolising the two traditions of our Island. Many Southern Irish people, though a minority, through history, conscience or decent feel part of the British tradition in Ireland. It is our belief that though a minority, these people should be entitled to claim British citizenship, Irish Citizenship or both. We believe that this fundament principle of allowing people to choose their identity, which is extended to members of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, should be extended across the whole Island.[/i]
This undermining of Irish sovereignty is promoted here as “allowing people to choose their identity.” Except, of course, that anyone can choose any identity they want, but they can’t choose their nationality as that is determined under international law in the country of their right. Identity is deliberately obfuscated with citizenship. Even in Northern Ireland, everyone born there is born as a British citizen, since that is their birthright as determined by sovereignty. They may, under the GFA, apply for Irish citizenship, but it is NOT conferred upon them by birthright (a birthright is the default, requiring no action on the part of the person who is born there), so the actual ‘birthright’ of those born in Northern Ireland under the GFA is not Irish citizenship but the right to apply for (and be given) Irish citizenship. There are far more Poles in Ireland than there are British and they unlike these MI5 stooges do not seek to undermine Irish sovereignty, so those born in Ireland will just have to remain as Irish citizens or go apply to whatever other country they feel they would like to belong to.
Ireland needs to start promoting its nationalism in an organised manner to counteract the foreign agencies that are acting to undermine it from within and from without. They’re rebels without a bloody clue.
It’s amazing how quickly the thought police on the internet and the newspapers letters pages react to [i]any[/i] raising of Ireland and the Commonwealth.
Why have some nationalists/republicans have such a brittle sense of identity that somehow an independent Ireland can be washed away by even considering the idea of the Republic being involved? Beats me.
Eoghan Harris is a Senator, Palpatine is one as well but in a galaxy far, far away, and he does not understand that it is up to the British government to decide the qualifications to get a British passport and that it is up to the British Embassy to see whether people qualify or not.
Looks like the Reform movement could do with a little, er, reform!
Ronald,
I also detect a brittleness within Irish nationalism generally at the moment… I would argue that it parallels a similar brittleness that Unionism was immersed in the pre 2003 period …
Politically, for the moment, there is little chance that the Republic is going to lead on this, anniversary or no anniversary. All of its small resources must be trained towards one thing and one thing only: getting through the recession in the best possible shape. That’s a level of responsibility that does not yet rest on any NI party’s shoulders.
And it is primarily a Foreign Affairs issue. And it should be judged primarily in those terms. When the signatories to the letter say “The country is going to need all the friends and connections it can get in the perilous economic times that lie ahead”, they strike a chord with me. Despite appearances, with the Peace Process more or less over, the Republic needs to find ways to up its international leverage.
A more effective way to attain that higher level of leverage would be to see the Lisbon treaty goes through this time, and move to a European Presidency and secretariat…
The Czech presidency has been a warning that the resources required by the various multilateral conferences and trade agreements required lie way beyond the resources on any of the smaller countries…
I’m aware (Dave et al) that this is anathema to many… but then the important thing is to have the debate out squarely and fairly in the open with all of the options on the table… The government tried it by stealth last June and got told in no uncertain terms where they could stick that treaty the Taoiseach hadn’t read…
There also needs to be a much wider public conversation on on vexed and difficult matters like sovereignty and it’s tradition of ‘neutrality’… The timidity and general reluctance of its politicians to lead in these areas is leading to serial indecisiveness.
Then maybe the Commonwealth option can be looked in a more sober light than the gingery discussion here would suggest it might..
Joining the Commonwealth?
No way!
It would mean nothing, bar partaking in the games every 4 years.
Besides we ain’t gonna have an incongruous English Queen as head of the Irish state. We’d end up like the Welsh at the 6 Nations Final with an English Prince representing them. An elected Irish representative suits us best.
Mick,
… Then maybe the Commonwealth option can be looked in a more sober light …
It is being looked at in a ‘sober light’ by most sensible people, and is found entirely unnecessary and pointless. What you clearly consider ‘sober’ is the light of your own reflecton. But most people can see through that!
Besides such a notion would have to be put to the Irish people in the form of a referendum…and the result would be a resounding NO. The media would be unable to control the outcome. BTW, watching O’Reilly’s TV3, anyone would think that the 26 counties were part of the UK.
Mick
There also needs to be a much wider public conversation on on vexed and difficult matters like sovereignty and it’s tradition of ‘neutrality’… The timidity and general reluctance of its politicians to lead in these areas is leading to serial indecisiveness.
No, the problem is that the EU is sharply diverging from what its citizens want. Refendums were lost in France and Holland, which should be sobering. Instead of examining the direction Europe is going in and the distance from the people Lisbon was forced through everywhere except Ireland. The current uncertainty will probably get it through here now. But the big, deeper issues that have not been resolved lie with a Europe that is pushing in directions its citizens do not want to go and not Ireland. I’m certain it can trundle on in present fashion for decaded, but eventually there will have to be a reckoning.
Let’s debate neutrality: it is a popular policy. A party that suggests dropping it will get hammered. The benefits of getting mixed up in the foreign policy of big players are somewhat nebulous and have downsides. If we are piggybbacking on US, UK and EU defense, great. As far as I’m aware, Ireland has no plans to relocate close to North Korea. Why exactly do you keep pushing this one?
Then maybe the Commonwealth option can be looked in a more sober light than the gingery discussion here would suggest it might..
Have you found a point for it yet? I am 100% certain that Irish Nationalism, Southern at least would be happy to jump on that bandwagon if it offered tangible benefits. It does not, and that type of gesture to Unionism makes no sense in the current context. In the context of a serious shift in balance between Westminster and Dublin, it makes sense a reasuring move.
What is not sober about this?
If our membership is as one (Northern Ireland + Republic of Ireland) then I for one would be all for Ireland being rejoining to the Commonwealth. If readmission is under the terms of partition then I don’t see much value in it. (I don’t mean that a united Ireland must preceded our rejoining of the Commonwealth, just that Ireland’s membership of the Commonwealth would be as one.)
What would also be nice is the recognition that we did not leave, we were kicked out.
“… join a victims’ association managed by the former abuser …”
True.
Why? Examining this rationally, we see the following:
- No extra rights for Irish people as outlined as the letter from Mark Sugrue
- Having an English Queen as new Head of State. How does this square with having a republic and is this not a slight dilution of independance?
- Games. One valid point.
Also if we look at Reform’s aims’ list (post no. 7):
i) Why? Does it offend people having an Irish anthem for Irish people?
ii) This is already been dealt with today with good Hiberno-British relations and in an EU context.
iii) Again, no true benefits outlined. Why would people discuss or vote for something whose merits are inexistant or unknown?
iv) I don’t think anyone’s against political co-operation between states and if it helps heal ancient divisions, then great.
v) Hands up, who wants to reform the Constitution? Is this a priority for anyone at all today? And I only mean people within the state itself.
It would be nice to see the actual Constitution that they are proposing so that its merits or otherwise may be discussed.
vi) All already values of a republic.
vii) It’s ironic that intolerance of the Irish language should be used to promote … eh “pluralism, democracy, and tolerance” (vi). Brilliant.
Where are posters getting having the “English Queen” as head of state if the Republic joined the Commonwealth? Ignorance or spin designed to create a reaction?
It wouldn’t affect in any way the sovereign status or the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland.
Seeing as ignorance is so rife about it, and probably deliberately so, any suggestion is purely theoretical in any case. The reaction certainly points out the utter unwillingness of more vocal nationalists to accept any kind of compromise to facilitate a United Ireland.
RBinge:
The reaction certainly points out the utter unwillingness of more vocal nationalists to accept any kind of compromise to facilitate a United Ireland.
Ehm, the postings above from Kensei, 0b101010, and even the first posting from Oiliféar are not quite a die-in-the-last ditch “Never, Never, Never”. More a “not now”.
If a United Ireland was seriously on the table, I would expect Commonwealth membership to be a given.
But Reform and its acolytes, who are the ones pushing this initiative, are not in the least bit interested in “facilitating a United Ireland”, unless it was an alternate-reality one in which Irish nationalism had been forcibly crushed in 1921 and we were happy little British citizens under the Crown and Union Jack.
You can make a reasoned argument for closer ties with Britain or those Commonwealth countries with large Irish-descended populations – but I don’t see why Commonwealth membership would of itself make much difference to that.
But when the people making the argument in this case have a history of forcefully-expressed hostility to any expression of Irish nationalism and its associated national identity, and a completely uncritical take on British and Unionist behaviour over the last century, then the argument is going nowhere. Its proponents are, to use an in vogue term, toxic.
[/i]
Ollifear’s idea above is a good one. Ireland should join as a combo and send joint representitives from Stormont and the Dail to represent us.
“If a United Ireland was seriously on the table, I would expect Commonwealth membership to be a given.”
Yes, but I’m still mystified about two things. One, why do some posters believe that Commonwealth membership = the Queen as head of the Irish State and two, why the bashing of Reform and why does it matter? You might as well have a go on other matters at, for example, the Irish National Congress, the Aubane Historical Society or the Border Minorities Group. All are small societies with vocal views but none have any more weight than the other. What one group or another wants is part of any debate but no more than that.
Ultimately the say so with respect to Commonwealth membership is purely the responsibility of the Irish Government, and no one else.
RBinge:
Why the bashing of Reform and why does it matter? You might as well have a go on other matters at, for example, the Irish National Congress, the Aubane Historical Society or the Border Minorities Group.
I know nothing about the Border Minorities Group, but I know that if I was trying to persuade Northern Unionists of the benefits of Irish unity, I wouldn’t want people associated with either of the first two groups in charge of the operation for precisely the same sort of reasons.
John
Hhahaha god you crack me up man.
Never, Never, Never (as Paisley said)….. will an ENGLISH monarch be head of state of our Republic of Ireland…..and Fuck them all who proposes so (with a Capital F). I’ll put my life on the line for this one. There is no going back, a state visit of the Queen Liz to the Irish Republic I’m on for…but she will never be head of state of our Irish Republic. Unionists may love the thoughts, ie English Monarchy etc… but fuck that, Irish folk do have dignity and fuck any English royality as head of state of Ireland or the Irish people. Do I hear Unionists some seconding that too? Go on, we are not fucking lackeys….. we don’t need the symbolism either!
BTW…the italics are atrocious, whoever implemented them.
A hard-hitting Irish Times letter on this subject:
Madam, – The Irish State formally left the British Commonwealth in 1949 with the establishment of the Republic of Ireland. At that time, this policy was seen as a natural further step in the direction of a fully sovereign Irish state, separate from Great Britain. Yet today, almost 60 years later, there are Irish and British figures across a wide spectrum of Irish life calling for the restoration of the Commonwealth link (March 23rd).
Many of the signatories to this letter are members or patrons of the Reform Movement and the Irish Unionist Alliance. They are a small, unrepresentative, Anglocentric, neo-unionist minority who wish to restore a “British Dimension” to the 26-county state, and appear to have influence out of all proportion to their actual size. The very fact that this topic is being openly canvassed by a group of influential people cannot be ignored and must be regarded as an open challenge to the continued existence of the Republic of Ireland state separate from Britain.
Rejoining the Commonwealth would be a backward step. It would gradually “re-British” the Irish State and would amount to a rejection of the separatist aspect of Irish nationalism. Because the British monarch is always head of the Commonwealth, this would mean that, symbolically speaking, the monarch would occupy a higher position politically than that of our own democratically elected head of state.
Despite claims to the contrary, there are no discernible tangible benefits for nationalist Ireland in rejoining the Commonwealth. For instance; there would be no big transfer of funds to Ireland, as with our membership of the European Union. There are no new trade, cultural or diplomatic opportunities to be had. In any case, our trade policies are largely determined by our EU membership.
The restoration of Commonwealth ties would not help the situation in the North, as its advocates would claim. Indeed, it could make matters worse by emboldening reactionary unionism and sowing demoralisation among nationalists.
Furthermore, the timing of this missive, as Ireland faces its severest economic challenge since the foundation of the State, is both cynical and disingenuous. It informs us that we will need all the friends and connections we can get to counter “the perilous economic times that lie ahead”. Having failed to keep the Irish people in subjugation by force of arms, Ireland’s British nationalists are now offering financial rescue as an inducement for Commonwealth re-entry. This is a further attempt to deconstruct the Irish state and restore the British dimension. It will fail. – Yours, etc,
TOM COOPER,
Delaford Lawn,
Knocklyon
Personally I could stomach it as a trade-off for a UI.
“Never, Never, Never (as Paisley said)….. will an ENGLISH monarch be head of state of our Republic of Ireland…..and Fuck them all who proposes so (with a Capital F). I’ll put my life on the line for this one. ”
No-one has proposed this. Nor is it remotely possible or desirable in any way. Please explain how you have jumped to this conclusion.
“Among the many practical advantages of membership of the Commonwealth is the right to compete in the Commonwealth Games – the only multinational, multi-sport event apart from the Olympics. The next games will be held in India in 2010. Ireland’s participation in those games would be good preparation for the London Olympics in 2012.”
So the World cup, the European athletics, auto racing, badminton, baseball, basketball, boxing,Brazilian jiu-jitsu,chess,curling,darts,equestrian,fencing, figure skating,football, gymnastic etc. championships are not “multinational, multisport events”? Is that what they are saying? Quite bizarre.
On the substantive issue, I see no compelling argument for rejoining the Commonwealth at present. My primary block to joining it is the permanence of the British monarch as the Head of State. Yes – it may only be symbolic – but as we have seen from the Northern Peace Process, symbols matter. We have long and bad memories of British rule in the 26 counties, and joining an organisation on the basis that the British king/queen is someone permanently and institutionally in a position of leadership – however symbolic – over us, is simply unacceptable to me. The European Union provides a timehonoured alternative for political-cooperation, as do the institutions established under the GFA such as the North-South and British-Irish Councils. While often a critic of the EU, the broadbased nature of support for its continuance – at least along the lines of the status-quo – is a testament to its relevance and benefits to its citizens. I am unaware of what benefits Commonwealth membership would provide to the people of the 26 counties in the context of overcoming the emotional-block of the link to the British monarchy, an institution whose past holders brutally oppressed the Irish people for hundreds of years.
smcgiff:
Does anyone know why this was c/o UCC history department?
And a follow-up on this point in today’s Irish Times:
Madam, – Lest any confusion arises from the institutional attribution of the letter “Time to rejoin the Commonwealth?” (March 23rd), I wish to confirm that the department of history, University College Cork, has no association with the campaign in question, nor, with one exception, are any of the signatories staff members of the department. – Yours, etc,
PROF DERMOT KEOGH,
Head,
Department of History,
University College Cork.
Slap on the wrist for Geoffrey Roberts.
Shame that Dermot is unacquainted with the use of the subjunctive in the English language.
the “are any” construction is also unfortunate. What has happened to our academics?