|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 24, 2008 22:38:51 GMT
MARY McAleese and the Irish government should not be let away with their policy of linking a royal visit to the Republic to the devolution of policing and justice, the Ulster Unionist Party has said.
UUP leader Sir Reg Empey said he would not be letting the matter drop and warned the Dublin administration that it was making "a grave error of judgement" which will "damage" north-south relations.
Meanwhile, UUP MLA David McNarry has submitted four written questions on Irish President Mary McAleese's visit, her meeting with the Queen, and her remarks on policing and justice to the Office of First and Deputy First Minister.
Among the issues he is seeking to address is whether or not OFMDFM was briefed on what Mrs McAleese would say and if it has or will be formally complaining to Irish Premier Bertie Arhen.
Sir Reg said: "As relations between the UK and the Republic have improved, why should there be any conditionality applied to such a visit?
"We are, after all, both members of the European Union, we are at peace, and we are next door to one and other as neighbours with deep-seated historical and family connections.
"In this context, visits by the respective heads of state to each other's countries should be the norm, especially ten years after we settled outstanding constitutional issues.
"Mrs McAleese is able to yo-yo in and out of Northern Ireland all the time.
"What Dublin is doing is deeply offensive and very antagonistic."
With the Irish government having confirmed to the News Letter that its policy is for a royal visit not to take place until policing and justice powers are devolved to Stormont, Sir Reg questioned simply why this politicisation of the visit is necessary.
In an editorial on Friday, one of the Republic's influential daily newspapers said "the only u
nusual aspect of a visit to the Republic by Queen Elizabeth II, mooted this week after her meeting in Belfast with President McAleese, is that it has not happened yet".
It also warned the Irish government that it is making "the whole issue far more fraught than it needs to be" by still delaying on a visit six years after Mrs McAleese first made an informal invitation to the Queen.
Sir Reg concluded: "Increasingly people are wondering what deals were done at St Andrews, deals that are regularly referred to by Mr Ahern and Gerry Adams.
"I appeal for those who may have been involved in such negotiations at St Andrews to come clean and tell the people what was going on.
"If the Irish government persists with this belligerent attitude with regard to a future royal visit to Dublin, significant damage will be done to Anglo-Irish relations.
"I hope wiser counsel will prevail."
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 25, 2008 3:37:36 GMT
Reg Empy is the leader of a dead party, he has no worthwhile opinion when it comes to relations. He is in absolutely no position to say it will damage anything, his party isnt in power.
Surprise surprise. I'm surprised the word "Dublin" doesnt offend him and his wannabe tory party.
Maybe he should take a trip to my estate, I'll invite him, even break out a wee union jack, then we will see why we need to control our own police force. He can talk, living in his posh fucking mansion out in the middle of no where. Maybe I should send round wee marty, wee janty, couple of bags of glue and the keys to his car and see how fast he wants to control the police. Arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 25, 2008 6:18:44 GMT
What Dublin is dfoing is offensive? To whom? To the people who march and agitate because they can't abide to admit that Nationalists are their equal? Jesus, there really is no hope for NI. Shut the doors, and send the bill to a different government. As bloody usual...
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 10:58:21 GMT
Bollocks Jim, his opinion is shared by alot of people even though his party is a dead one. What about those involved in the Easter rising and their opinions? Were they not a tiny group etc etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 10:59:17 GMT
What Dublin is dfoing is offensive? To whom? To the people who march and agitate because they can't abide to admit that Nationalists are their equal? Jesus, there really is no hope for NI. Shut the doors, and send the bill to a different government. As bloody usual... Now that is one of the most twisted and one sided posts I have ever read from you. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 11:21:42 GMT
Our Majesty lost a relation in the troubles, she has visited and wrote to many who have lost lives and been injured on both sides here, she has as much right to visit the republic as your president or pm. All the people who suffered at the hands of republican pogroms and like me fully support the Queen have a right to see their Queen and her family treated with equality and respect as republicans expect their leaders and president repsected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 25, 2008 14:15:13 GMT
Bollocks Jim, his opinion is shared by alot of people even though his party is a dead one. What about those involved in the Easter rising and their opinions? Were they not a tiny group etc etc? Not really no, and it eventually spawned an entire movement of people. |
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 25, 2008 19:28:43 GMT
What Dublin is dfoing is offensive? To whom? To the people who march and agitate because they can't abide to admit that Nationalists are their equal? Jesus, there really is no hope for NI. Shut the doors, and send the bill to a different government. As bloody usual... Now that is one of the most twisted and one sided posts I have ever read from you. Ah I can be much more twisted than that WASP. But seriously, offensive to whom? To unionism, according to Reg Empey, who are clearly the only ones whose opinion counts in Reg's little world. All this despite the fact that Unionism is itself offensive to many nationalists. What's one-sided about pointing that out? |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 19:40:28 GMT
You compeltely generalized the Unionist people by saying 'to people who march and agitate because they can't adbide to admit that nationalists are their equal'. How did you reach that broad swiping conclusion.
If anything it is republicans or rather violent republicans who see Unionists as below them.
It is offensive to Unionists and the British people, well those who love the Royals etc, that's who. These nationalists that you say Unionism offends could you explain why Unionism offends them and in what context?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Mar 25, 2008 19:51:51 GMT
I don't remember any preconditions being put on the fair (as in pretty) Mrs McAleese on her many vistis back to Belfast, or for that matter to the Irish Prime Minister on his vist to the ICTU Bienial deligate conference, which I attended at the Waterfront Hall, and shook him by the hand. He was accorded the respect he deserved at that meeting by many unionists. No terms where put on his ability to attend by any unionist party or grouping. He was here on official business which had sweet fanny adams to do with the hatred of the Irish for the British. Just as the queens visit to Dublin was.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 25, 2008 19:59:49 GMT
Because unionism is an automatic negation of nationalist aspirations that's why.
And I reached my braod sweeping conclusion from watching years upon years of rioting, protest, striking and general uproar whenever Unionism's protected status was challenged, so it's based on observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 20:04:58 GMT
Earl on another thred you stated'Yes WASP, Swallow the lies that the BT spreads. I seen the President talking about this last night on the news. They had the full interview on it, and I can tell you that she's been mis-quoted.
She had stated that the idea of a Queens Dublin visit would be the icing on the cake for devolution, and that the governments were the ones who had really come to this decision about the queen's visit.
the president does as she's told by the government. That's just common sense. Mary has little input in this decision. T
Quote:
And the DUP's Stephen Moutray said it seemed almost every statement by Mrs McAleese actively sought "to antagonise the unionist population."
Looks like unionists winding themselves up again to me. Do Unionists not understand that the decision of when the queen visits is not even a decision the queen can make, nevermind the president! The governments decide when she visits, and all Mary can do is repeat what she's been told. Some common sense please!!'
Now take a look at part of an article below please.
With the Irish government having confirmed to the News Letter that its policy is for a royal visit not to take place until policing and justice powers are devolved to Stormont, Sir Reg questioned simply why this politicisation of the visit is necessary.
In an editorial on Friday, one of the Republic's influential daily newspapers said "the only u
nusual aspect of a visit to the Republic by Queen Elizabeth II, mooted this week after her meeting in Belfast with President McAleese, is that it has not happened yet".
It also warned the Irish government that it is making "the whole issue far more fraught than it needs to be" by still delaying on a visit six years after Mrs McAleese first made an informal invitation to the Queen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 20:08:47 GMT
So Unionist aspirations are offensive, so what are nationalist aspirations then?
A very onesided and at times old observation. Yes of course Uionists would try to protect their position within the Union, what about nationalist/republican uproar where there was years of rioting, protesting etc etc. Or is that part ok to happen so it doesn't need to be mentioned or looked at?
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Mar 25, 2008 20:51:18 GMT
Of course it doesn't. Don't take me for a wrap-the-green-flag-round-me republican apologist, WASP. And yes, either side's aspirtations are offensive to the other, although that seems to be a product of NI's stiflingly incestuous politics, where it is not enough that one side gain, but the other must also lose. But as far as offensiveness goes, it wwas Reg empey who brought the word up, not me. I was merely pointing out that just because you don't agree with something does not make it offensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 25, 2008 21:06:29 GMT
I don't and TBH you are probably the fairest republican minded person here. But you do have a tendancy to make broad swiping exaggerated statements that are at times out of date and out of tune with reality.
To disagree does not equate offensiveness but Reg has a valid point concerning this issue and it is a bit different than just disagreeing on something, it is an insult.
|
|
