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 @ 05:00 AM
Rory,
Let’s have the blade from a workshop in the Titanic quarter and a rope of Belfast linen.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 01:16 PMI’m not particularly hung up on monarchies myself, logically they do appear to be somewhat anachronistic, but I get a good chuckle out of people saying republics are by necessity better than monarchies. If that were the case then republics, no matter how bad, would be better run places than monarchies, no matter how benevolent.
So then Argentina would have a happier history than Australia, Haiti would be a shining beacon compared to Bermuda, New Zealand would be a hovel compared to the magnificently administered Madagascar, poor old Canada would forever be regretting they hadn’t the enlightned government of the Soviet Union, Albania would scoff in derision at the shitehole of Denmark, Bosnians would wonder what on earth was to be done about that hopeless basket case Sweden, Norwegians would be applying for asylum in Belarus, the Dutch would be studying intently the constitution of Serbia and the Spanish would be wistfully looking back to the days of Franco before that bastard Juan Carlos took control, worst of all would be the poor Japanese, not just subject to a monarchy but an emperor no less, oh how much must they regret not being part of the Peoples’ Republic of China!
Republics are a logical answer but don’t believe the logical answer is necessarily always the happiest one.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 01:19 PMIn relation to the royal family, if you substitute england for zimbabwe and protestant for black:
QE2=Robert Mugabe
Can anyone else think of any similar comparisons
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 01:21 PMYes the point is taken that monarchies are irrational and a waste of time. Soap operas always are, but people still continue to watch them. It’s like the child of Atheists saying, does God know that we don’t believe in Him? Note how many times the phrase “the Queen” has been used on this thread to refer to Bessie Battenberg, as if she were the only exemplar of that species. Unless Ireland has its own monarch to gawp over, people will continue to turn to the British one.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:02 PMPaddy - you’re not suggesting our very own Irish queen are you?! Don’t you know that we already have one - the Rose of Tralee! What more do you want from a Head of State but a pretty face and a personal wish for world peace?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:14 PMBut ... in a UI - with due sensitivity to ‘cultural diversity’ - perhaps “Rose of Tralee” should be re-named, “Belfast Thistle” (in recognition of Scottish symbolism). Could I suggest a crown of thorns too?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:18 PMIJP
“.....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.”
What about this for a compromise:
Why doesn’t the UK re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ulster (I believe there is even a direct male descendant knocking about in Spain somewhere).
This will have the happy consequence of…
1. Being good for local tourism.
2. It would increase opportunities for photographers.
3. It would prove that unionism and allianceism were capable of compromise, generosity and making the kind of grand gestures.
4. It would satisfy republican monarchists.
5. Not only would it revive Ulster’s (and Europe’s) oldest royal family - they could then give their royal assent to any legislation passed by a future assembly.
6. It would be such a success that it might persuade the authorites in the republic to rejoin the commonwealth.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:19 PM“Why doesn’t the UK re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ulster (I believe there is even a direct male descendant knocking about in Spain somewhere). “
No his name is Conor O’Neill and he lives in Ramsay Street, Melbourne, AUstralia.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:24 PMDan - ‘QE2=Robert Mugabe
Can anyone else think of any similar comparisons’.
Yes, you to a fuckwit
(crash, there goes the man)
What an illogically reasoned and farcical argument. By making ridiculous comparisons you do yourself no favours what so ever.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:27 PMIllogically reasoned indeed mo chara. The English monarchial dictatorship did a lot more damage than their Zimbabwean/Rhodesian counterparts ever have or will. About 100million peope died as a result of the British/English Empire.
Nick J,
I tried to make the analogy simple, for it is a simple and correct one. The way in which some people in this island pledge blind loyalty to such a barbaric institution is reminiscent of the Japaneses’ relationship with Hirohito during WWII.Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:33 PM‘QE2=Robert Mugabe’
I didn’t get much sleep last night, I couldn’t figure out why a ship was being related to Mugabe!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:41 PM100 million eh, thats more than the Nazi’s, the Soviets, the Imperial Japenese, WW1 and WWII killed all together!
You would have thought somebody would have done something about that wouldn’t you.
Seems to me like another huge dollop of hyperbole with little or no historical evidence or facts.
‘I tried to make the analogy simple, for it is a simple and correct one.’
So did I(Oh, and last time I looked it was a constitutional monarchy, not a babaric monarchical dictatorship, perhaps its all changed since Breakfast News this morning?)
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:42 PM“Seems to me like another huge dollop of hyperbole with little or no historical evidence or facts.”
Perhaps. But the death toll of the British Empire certainly numbers in the millions.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 02:50 PMI think Unionists imagine that the rest of Ireland is opposed to Monarchy simply because the Brits have one. That’s just not true, we’re opposed to Monarchy full stop in any form.
If some politician stood up and said we should re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ireland he’d be laughed right out of it.
Monarchy, to us, is a primitive superstition, akin to adults believing in Santa, thunder being created by hairy Norwegian dudes with hammers, or studying chicken entrails.
We also believe it is psychologically invidious - by accepting Monarchy in any form you accept that some people are superior to you by right of birth, that you are inherently inferior and should Know Your Place. It is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic.
Irish republicanism (in the broadest sense, i.e. everybody from RSF to the PDs) is based on the ideals of the French and American Revolutions. We’re not in favour of Republics just to annoy the Brits you know. Ironically the republican ideal largely stemmed from European Protestant thinking in the 17th century which gave birth to the Enlightenment. We consider the fundamental ideals of our Republic to be from that European tradition.
I’m perfectly willing to talk about new flags and anthems (though I think these are fluffy symbolic issues with no real weight and certainly no real protection for Unionists post-Unification, and if Unionists really want to do away with a flag that is supposed to represent them as equal partners well who am I to argue?), happy to discuss Constitutional protections, cultural inclusion programmes, discrimination/equality oversight mechanisms, interesting institutional reforms (say of the Seanad, or of local tiers of Government having Swiss Canton/German Lander style foreign treaty powers), possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states…
But spare me a load of mystical quasi-religious wibbling about Monarchies.
Incidentally, the point about dual citizenship isn’t a matter for the Irish, it’s a matter for the British. The current Irish Constitution has no problem with citizens holding multiple other citizenships. It’s up to the British State to promise to allow the children of current Unionists access to British citizenship post-Unification. There’s really nothing we can do about it.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 03:59 PMCiaran- ‘possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states’
Such as what? Am interested to know what formal linkages would be on offer which arn’t already available through the EU?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 04:37 PMI, my family, friends and most of the people I work with are all Irish Republicans. We look forward to the peaceful reunification of a 32 county Republic. ‘Hopefully it isn’t that far away! If, as someone has said, the Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary and the Commonwealth can accommodate a Republic, then I just don’t see the problem. If all this is true and it is a compromise that can bring peace, I have no doubt that if it went to a referendum, it would be endorsed by a majority of Irish Republicans. It might not be an ideal form of government but then neither is the one we have now and if it really means we would get the peaceful reunification of a 32-county Ireland – it definitely gets my vote! I couldn’t care less what the politicians say. They’re getting their salaries for doing nothing and despite massive wages they can’t agree on anything.
Commonwealth? Bring it on!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 04:39 PM“Ciaran- ‘possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states’
Such as what? Am interested to know what formal linkages would be on offer which arn’t already available through the EU? “
Well at the moment, AFAIK, there are certain rules wrt voting rights that UK Citzens have in Ireland and vice versa. Perhaps something along those lines, or fast track Naturalisation for citzen’s if so desired?
Also probably little things - British Army recruiting in Ireland, perhaps some formal University schloraship funds etc.
What would you like to see, if the situation arose?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 05:59 PMNick J - no idea! :-)
I’m just wondering aloud on ways to have some sort of linkage to Britain that Unionists could make use of to still feel like they have some real involvement in this “British Family” youse believe in, but that wouldn’t be an intolerable imposition on the rest of us!
Seats in the Lords, a different role for the BIIPB, allowing a ceremonial role for the Monarchy in opening sessions of Unionist-controlled local councils…stuff like that maybe. It’s kindof up to Unionists to come up with ideas though, we simply do not understand or believe in the whole concept of a British Family, and have absolutely no interest in tying ourselves back into the UK, so any ideas we come up with will probably sound daft to youse!
Personally I think youse would be better off focusing on constitutional and institutional rights and cultural protection mechanisms - real stuff - rather than getting in a lather over fluffy abstract symbols that at the end of the day don’t put food on the table or keep your family secure. But that’s just me.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 06:06 PMdantheman: No such requirement exists in any other HoS in europe so in this respect the royal family is clearly the most racist in this aspect.
(1) What on earth makes you think there is no such requirement elsewhere in Europe?
(2) What is racist about it? There are English Catholics and Irish Protestants…
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 06:08 PMKensei
I would not want to countenance living in a UI with a significant still “Unionist” minority. That’s a recipe for instability, and there’s only one place that’ll lead…
I would countenance living in a UI where “Unionists” have been persuaded that a new all-island state is at least tolerable and takes full and genuine account of their British (and Protestant) identity. That might be stable.
And to achieve it, you would have to re-enter the Commonwealth and much more, not as a “sop”, but as part of building the new state that is fully embraced by all.
Because in the end, a UI is worthless if it doesn’t overcome our divisions and enable us all to feel affiliated to the same flag, the same anthem, and the same institutions.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 07:36 PMdantheman
QE2 = Robert Mugabe?
New candidate for the “Pathetic attempt at the ‘Most Oppressed People Ever’” award.
Get a grip, you’re better than that.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 07:38 PMCiaran
You’re playing the Nationalist game there.
This is not about “sops” to the British identity - that’ll just create mass instability. It’s crazy tokenism.
A UI will only be successful if it positively embraces the British identity that is part of all of us - whether currently we care to admit it or not. And that identity is not to do with that other island or its institutions, but to do with this island and the people who live in it.
In a UI I would want nothing to do with the institutions of the British state, but I would want a fair reflection of my personal British identity within the institutions of the Irish State - without being patronized!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 07:42 PMCiaran Irvine
Your 5.59 post illustrates to me that you have absolutely no notion of how the British regard the monarchy.
Your
“Monarchy, to us, is a primitive superstition, akin to adults believing in Santa, thunder being created by hairy Norwegian dudes with hammers, or studying chicken entrails.
We also believe it is psychologically invidious - by accepting Monarchy in any form you accept that some people are superior to you by right of birth, that you are inherently inferior and should Know Your Place. It is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic”
shows a complete lack of understanding of the British mindset.
The monarchy exists in its present form because the people allow it to do so.
If we really thought there was a better and a necessary way then it would be given consideration.However when all things are considered why not - it provides continuity with our past - good and bad.
The Queen is respected throughout the UK and of course the world (except Irish Republicans of course).
Any nonsense about them not being worth the money is blown apart by the huge tourist attraction.I dont for one minute consider Charles as superior to me - Ultimately it is the position he holds that I defer to not him. That position is that he has been permitted, by the people, to represent all the people and by paying homage to the King I am doing so to my country - its laws, traditions and values - and of course the people itself.
A 1000 year old tradition going back to when my ancestors wished/had to be goverened by kings adds a bit of weight to the matter - better than Galloway or Livingstone or maybe somebody from Big Brother.
Anyhow as I said earlier spare me the stuff about Irish Republicanism being on a par with American and French thinkers.
If this had been the case then post 1921 De Valera would not have been talking about a Catholic Constitution for a Catholic people. There would have been true separation of State and Church and the lack of that is the real danger of superiority of one citisen over another.IMHO the deference shown by Irish Catholicism to the Vatican is evidence of wanting to be goverened by an earthly king.
What kind of Republic enslaved thousands of Irish women to drunken abusive marriages and a life of 13 plus children - was it what the people wanted or was it what an unelected and foreign king dicated ?In many ways I would say Irish Protestants are more deservinbg of the Republican mantle and its not just the 1798 rebellion.
Just look at our churches and how we elect our leaders and elders. Look at the autonomy and democracy within institutions like the UUP and the Orange Order.
Infact Paisleyism and paramilitarism are modern day scourges on those traditionsUnionism decisively changed its allegiance to the monarchy in the 19th Century because it was a Protestant monarchy that helped secure their right on the Island. In addition the power of that king had been made subject to Parliament.
The kind of stuff you are talking about and the attitide to Royalty was what the English Civil War and ultimately the Glorious Revolution were all about.
You really need to get inside the mindset of those who support a constitutional monarchy before you go sounding off about it.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 07:58 PMAgain a meeting of minds seems impossible given the diametrically opposed nature of the views.
It is, for an irish nationalist, not about unionists in a way. It’s about the british government’s presence on this island, its influence and its army. In particular it is about the way the british have used ireland for their own ends even when this is detrimental to the furtherment of the quality of life of the majority of people.
From that point of view a monarch and all the other aspects of IJP’s “you would have to re-enter the Commonwealth and much more” is unacceptable to very many - perhaps the vast majority - of us.
However IJP’s “In a UI I would want nothing to do with the institutions of the British state, but I would want a fair reflection of my personal British identity within the institutions of the Irish State - without being patronized!” sounds interesting. If I knew exactly what he meant that might be worth talking about.
John East Belfast makes some valid points regarding the kind of catholic triumphalism which was allowed to flourish under deValera and his ilk but his vitriol is unbalanced overall and takes away from the power of what he is saying. I guess that’s because he’s a committed unionist with a profound dislike for irish nationalism.
All in all there is one other way to deal with these issues - we can face down unionism’s intimidation and defeat them.
That too is an option for the irish people of the island of ireland if they want to build a future free of debilitating influences and free from the english who see our land as something to be toyed with for their own strategic ends.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:25 PMJEB - Well of course I’ve no understanding of the British mindset and views on the monarchy, I’m an Irish republican! Sheesh!
I was trying to explain to you Monarchists how we view Monarchy, and hence why we reject re-introducing it into the fabric of society. It was an attempt to explain that rejection of Monarchy isn’t done just to be “anti-British” but because we have a very different philosophical basis for our society with deep roots in European philosophy and the French and US Revolutions. That’s where we look to as the source of our political philosophy and ideals, not London.
You will have to understand and accept this too. And spare me the “Papist Plot Rome Rule” wibbling, please. It isn’t the 1950s you know. Oh, and Republicans aren’t naughty children pretending not to be British. That goes for you too Mr Parsley. I was quite open in saying that any proposals we can come up with will almost certainly be flawed because we simply don’t “get” either Monarchism or Britishness. They don’t make any sense to us. If youse want them incorporated into the state youse will have to explain why you value them (and even then it probably won’t make sense). It’s up to Unionism to make proposals here on post-UI linkages to Britain, because anything we say will be from a position of complete bafflement and incomprehension about what youse actually care about!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 08:34 PM
