An interesting statement was made by the UK’s Minister for European Affairs, Kevin Murphy, which appears to have been missed by most of the N.Irish media:
"We have a unique relationship with Ireland, based on our shared history. Were it to happen, Irish membership of the Commonwealth would provide a new context for that relationship."
Marc Coleman in today’s Independent on Sunday for two main reasons argues against the ROI joining the Commonwaelth at this particular point in time.
Firstly, the 1704 Act of Settlement, which stops any Roman Catholic from becoming British king or queen and also prevents any British monarch from marrying anyone of that faith. As I’ve argued before, some of the provisions of the Act of Settlement are, indeed, a sectarian anachronism, so Marc has a point here.
But regarding his second reason...well...
"But perhaps the most problematic issue for Ireland joining the Commonwealth is a statue that still stands outside the Houses of Parliament: the statue of Oliver Cromwell."
When all is said and done, a statue is a lifeless piece of stone and all over the British Isles, there are statues of people who perhaps don’t deserve the honour.
But to use the "provocation" Ollie standing outside Westminster as a reason for not joining the Commonwealth? Really, a degree of political maturity is sadly lacking on the part of Mr Coleman here.
With regards to my own opinion of the Republic joining the Commonwealth, I’m going to quote liberally (hope the two authors don’t mind;)) from this document, which was published last year:
We believe, despite their turbulent shared history, it is in the best interest of both the Republic of Ireland and the UK as a whole, that they formalise and strengthen their already solid political, economic, social and cultural links.
The UK has never completely viewed the Free State/Republic of Ireland as a ‘foreign’ country (in the truest sense of the word), either legally or culturally, and we believe that these people (like citizens of Northern Ireland) have the right to be considered as Irish, British or indeed, both.
We also feel that he time is right for the Republic to consider the question of rejoining the Commonwealth. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the Republic, like many present members of the organisation, has shared an often troubled history with Britain. The Commonwealth is however now home to more than 30 per cent of the world's population, including many millions of Irish descent in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. About one quarter of world trade takes place between the countries in the Commonwealth and by joining, the Republic of Ireland would also receive cultural, political, social and sporting benefits However, we believe that the decision whether to ultimately join the Commonwealth should be one taken by the citizens of the Republic by the means of a referendum.
Northern Ireland, as the part of the United Kingdom closest geographically to the Republic, would obviously gain from the above measures.
But we also believe that ever closer ties between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland can change the parameters of political discussion within Northern Ireland itself.
As this rapprochement continues, Unionists will no longer be able to point to an anti-British ethos within the Republic of Ireland as an over-riding reason for maintaining the link with the United Kingdom. This should help remove some of the sectarianism and tribalism from internal Northern Irish politics and move the debate more towards socio-economic issues.
Now, this is perhaps not the traditional view held by many Unionists in Northern Ireland....but the Union cannot be weakened by stronger ties between the ROI and the UK as a whole (emphasis on the east/west links). The Union would not be weakened by the Republic joining the Commonwealth, it would be a win-win situation for both nations, economically, culturally and politically.
5 comments:
O'Neill,
I can think of much better arguments for the Republic not joining the Commonwealth than a statue and the arcane workings of the British Monarchy (neither of which bother me in the slightest). Surely Mr Coleman can do better than that.
2 main reasons:
1) Pointlessness. Why? To help the Peace-process? Give me a f***ing break.
2) National embarrassment. It would be like joining a battered wives club presided over by the (now reformed) errant husband. That's not anti-Britishness; it's just self-respect.
2 main reasons:
1) Pointlessness. Why? To help the Peace-process? Give me a f***ing break.
No sod the Peace Process, try:
a)Economic, the total GDP of the Commonwealth is about US$7.8 trillion (about 16% of the total world economy. Although the 100% free-trade agreement between members no longer exists, there is more trade between members than would be expected otherwise, the Lome Convention also guarantees preferential access to commonwealrh
b)The Commonwealth is an international organisation which represents a cultural bridge between first-world countries and poorer African/Asian nations with diverse social and religious backgrounds. Might broaden some outlooks in the Republic.
c)Via Wiki: “Commonwealth countries share many links outside government, with over a hundred Commonwealth-wide non-governmental organisations, notably for sport, culture, education and charity. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is an important vehicle for academic links, particularly through scholarships, principally the Commonwealth Scholarship, for students to study in universities in other Commonwealth countries.”
d)Provide an extra cultural-link with the huge Irish communities in places like Australia, Canada and New Zealand
e)For no extra charge, you can prove the ROI’s political maturity, linking up with many other countries with even more of a “chequered” history with the UK.
f)At least pretend there is such a concept as collective, ethic foreign policy. Blackballing rogue states like Pakistan, Fiji and Zimbabwe instead of awarding them seats on Human Rights Committees a la the UN.
2) National embarrassment. It would be like joining a battered wives club presided over by the (now reformed) errant husband. That's not anti-Britishness; it's just self-respect.
I’d like to see you accuse a typical Aussie or Cannuck or Kiwi or Springbok of that lack of national self-respect.
They seem happy enough to stop in our club, I think it’s called national maturity and self-confidence.
Sorry for the curt replies - have to get back to work!
Economic argument. - I don't believe it would make any difference. Our trade with Commonwealth countries wouldn't change significantly if we became members. The EU is a signatory to the ACP agreement anyway - it gives 3rd world countries access to EU markets (as a kind of post-colonial penance).
Cultural argument. - Ireland can have cultural links with African/Asian etc countries outside the Commonwealth.
Irish Diaspora - Mary Mac was in NZ last week meeting it (and others)!
"you can prove the ROI’s political maturity"
No need. Also, your angry Aussie, Kiwi, Canadian example is flawed. They are British colonies - why wouldn't they want some connection to the motherland? Ireland was conquered by the British not created by them.
(BTW, I agree entirely re the UN!)
Economic argument. - I don't believe it would make any difference. Our trade with Commonwealth countries wouldn't change significantly if we became members.
A closer contact with English-speaking nations at the various conferences certainly wouldn't harm your trade-prospects, but the bigger potential is with the developing nations, such as South Africa. If their economies take off in the future, they won't be limiting their trade to solely Commonwealth countries, but it would certainly be another factor they would be considering.
"Cultural argument. - Ireland can have cultural links with African/Asian etc countries outside the Commonwealth"
Of course it can, but the ROI is a small country with a corroespondingly small diplomatic and "cultural" service, what it can do on its own is limited.
The Commonwealth, on the other hand, acts as an umbrella for many different culture and people, a kind of collecting house, such links forged would again again be easier to facilitate.
"No need. Also, your angry Aussie, Kiwi, Canadian example is flawed. They are British colonies - why wouldn't they want some connection to the motherland?"
They are all modern, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural liberal fully-independent democracies, they ain't "colonies" anymore. Also interesting to see that old colonial Alex Salmond is determined to keep up the Commonwealth link even in the event of independence- why would he be wanting to do that?
"They are all modern, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural liberal fully-independent democracies, they ain't "colonies" anymore."
Indeed they are. My point is still valid though - they originated as colonies.
I can't speak for Alex Salmond. Maybe he's a closet royalist? ;)
Anyway, the Scottish relationship with the UK was generally less, er, coercive than the Irish experience (in more recent centuries at least).
Post a Comment