|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 23, 2008 9:45:46 GMT
The PM and President are political figures, so they should visit. They are not solely ceremonial figures and dont carry that symbolism with them. Not only that but half the population of the north are technically their citizens so they have every right to visit, so no same logic there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 23, 2008 14:24:38 GMT
So what exactly is the Irish president? Technically they are not their citizens at all, more like wannabe citizens but that is for a different debate. Jim leaving here aside what about the pm or president visiting England? Are you saying the Irish pm or president do not symbolize anything Irish and the aspirations of the Irish.
The Irish pm and president do indeed symbolize Irish aspirations which Unionists find offensive and provocative. So why are you making a digfference with a head of state that has no real political power compared with the Irish pm who has political power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Mar 23, 2008 14:45:20 GMT
the president is not equivalent to the pm in british terms wasp - i believe you can find what their exact roles entail in a number of places. Here are the presidents powers and duties - more directly comparable to the British Queen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidentAlso although the term taoiseach is sometimes rendered as prime minister that's not a wholly accurate translation just a rough reflection of the reality of the position. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 23, 2008 14:56:37 GMT
So what exactly is the Irish president? Technically they are not their citizens at all, more like wannabe citizens but that is for a different debate. Jim leaving here aside what about the pm or president visiting England? Are you saying the Irish pm or president do not symbolize anything Irish and the aspirations of the Irish. The Irish pm and president do indeed symbolize Irish aspirations which Unionists find offensive and provocative. So why are you making a digfference with a head of state that has no real political power compared with the Irish pm who has political power. Their and my passport says differently. Wannabe my hole. Yes I am saying that actually. The Irish President doesnt have nearly as much symbolism as the Queen does. The Queen does not make political comments, she is not a member of any party, so what she does is purely cerimonial, so visits mean a LOT more. The Queens visit would easily be the most important since the Pope. If you're offended at my aspirations then you need something to do with your time mate, I'm not offended by your aspirations. The President changes upon an election if they arent voted in, the monarch changes when they die or abdictate, they're a lot more symbollic. They're the symbol of an empire, of the occupation of Ireland for centuries, the Irish President is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 0:41:55 GMT
We will never ever agree here so it is pointless discussing it.
The reason the Queens visit would be such a big thin g is because of centuries long hatred towards her office by many of the Irish people. But this is modern times and republican thinking concerning her visit is backward to say the least. Was Bertie Aherns visit such a big thing.
I am not offended at all at your aspirations, either you have misunderstood me or I have worded it wrong. To save arguement I will take the blame. From a Unionist perspective the republics claim over N.I was both illegal and offensive, the failure to xtradite was highly offensive and bordered on open collaboration, the Chrch's role in the republic is a nogo area for northern Protestants, failure to recognize the British/ Irish war dead etc etc. The list goes on. Do you see where I am coming from now?
And a symbol of occupation that should have died at partition, a symbol that lost 26 counties and the Irish people gained 26. Again it is something we are not going to agree on. I find it in this day and age totally backward, childish and hypocritical for republicans to be against a visit by the Queen when our two countries are meant to be good neighbours, trying to achieve peace and harmony, trying to show respect to bothsides etc, but that respect only works when republicans are on the receiving end, not the giving end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 24, 2008 11:37:26 GMT
All I'll say is my citizenship is recognised by every country in the world that has diplomatic relations with Ireland.
Yes Wasp, I'd say there would be a bit of hate in there too, considering her office and her family occupied my country for centuries ruthlessly. Thats something the Irish PM and President havent done to England.
How exactly would a symbol of occupation die at partition when me and other republicans see the north as being occupied and always will? We won't agree on that so lets not bother arguing that we know each others opinions on it.
I said earlier the time isn't right, its not just republicans, because the British Government obviously think so as she has to have their permission to shite nevermind visit a country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 17:05:10 GMT
NOW I am not comparing the royal family with the likes of Hitler and his ilk in Germany or those in Japan etc but do you have the same opinion of German leaders etc due to what their leaders did 60 odd years ago nevermind centuries. Or are you mature enough to know that you cannot blame people now for the actions of others centuries ago?
Fair enough but it is ahrdly an occupation if the vast majority of people living here class themselves as British.
If this is the case then all visits by the leaders, heads of state, the president etc should and must be cancelled if we have to deal with backward thinking which republicans are presently promoting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Mar 24, 2008 17:09:14 GMT
But the vast majority do not class themselves as British WASP - a majority do but not a vast majority - that misrepresents the facts. And republicans see Ireland as been one entity in any case not two states.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 17:42:09 GMT
Whether a vast majorit or just a majority no-one can call it an occupation. I am not occupying the country that I was bornm and bred in now am I? Or are the rest of us Brits?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Mar 24, 2008 17:43:24 GMT
it's an occupation mate- sorry ireland was the first colony and will be the last as is often said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 21:21:50 GMT
Far from an occupation and to accuse the British citezens of N.I as occupying their own country is both offensive and insulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Mar 24, 2008 21:25:08 GMT
yep nearly as offensive as saying those who are irish are british citizens i guess  |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 21:56:55 GMT
Oh so this is your wee game, ah well they always say the English don't have a clue about over here so it is hardly surprizing that you are all too often way off the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Mar 24, 2008 22:30:35 GMT
so Jim is English now to is he - he sees himself as an Irish citizen - no, let me rephrase that as it implies there is some doubt about the matter. Jim IS an Irish citizen just as much say Setanta or Earl. You can keep calling me English if it gives you a kick wasp or you can try and deal with the fact that although I'm happy enough to allow that you see yourself as British you have a problem see others whose identity is Irish in the north in that light.
As pointed out a fairly large percentage of people in the north are Irish citizens. Also, there ARE points I'd concede on the Queen visiting. If Stormont has been up and running for several more years I might be more amneable to it for example. Other suggestions are the Queen and Irish president visit the north together for example in future years. But right now is not the moment for the Queen to visit Ireland, it's too soon.
In the future when some motion can be seen towards some final solution or other to the state up there -whether it be joint sovreignty - federal union whatever the moment will be there when this visit might have more sense in it.
If she visited now I'd not be in favour of assualt or violence against her - I might protest it but that's all. I have no great personal antipathy towards the royals as individuals. For instance to take a historical example though I regard Mountbatten as having been a fair target I don't think anything was accomplished by killing him for example and think it was a mistake to have done so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 22:57:20 GMT
When did I ever say Jim was English? I have no problem with those born in N.I calling themselves Irish, none at all. I have said that technically they are British by birth, you are English by birth and I don't get a kick out of calling you English, I find your confusion of identity laughable. I don't care whether or not you are happy enough for me to see myself as British, the fact is I was born in the UK which makes me British by birth.
Ah more conditions, typical hypocricy.
Too soon for who? Or should I say too soon for thiose who are too backward and stuck in a hypocritical timewarp, flat earthers would be a better description.
Again just your own selfish point of view while ignoring the many who disagree. Your way or no way.
Oh yes Mountbatten, wasn't that where the ira knew their was kids on board and would have watched them being blown up. It is you who advocates not only the torture and murder of women but the murder and maiming of unarmed defenseless children just like the cowards you support. You are to be pitied for your love and support of violence against unarmed women and children. Your views are sickening and how any female could think of you as a man or a gentleman is beyond me.
|
|
