Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Fine Gael the Monarchist party?
Read more about: Fine Gael, Republicanism, Unionism
I am a republican in much the same ways as I think the vast vast majority of people in Ireland are. i.e. Everyone is created equal and no body by virtue of their birth should be considered better then someone else. You would think most Irish people would agree with that however it seems that Fine Gael are hinting that they would like to see Queen Elizabeth retake the Irish throne.
Speaking at the Annual Collins-Griffith Memorial at Glasnevin Cemetery today Fine Gael Dublin MEP and Dublin South-Central Deputy Gay Mitchell spoke about What Role For a Monarch in a 32 County Ireland?
Without taking from the dignity or status of the role of President of Ireland how would we accommodate those Irish who also see themselves as British and have a strong attachment to the crown?
Like most Irish people Gay fails to get what the Unionist actually want. Quiet simply they are British and want to be ruled from Britain. The Crown is merely a symbol of that Britishness. If for instance the UK became a republic nothing would change in the unionist mindset. In the 1920s the King was still the king of Ireland. Did the unionist have any desire to be ruled from Dublin even though the king was there? No of course not. Trying to suggest that all we need to is have some airy fairy monarchy link and Paisley will walk into the Dail is stupid and insulting to Unionist views.
He goes on
“One thing is certain, his ‘Hungarian Policy’, for which he was sometimes ridiculed, and upon which Sinn Féin was founded was considered and imaginative.”
Basically Griffith’s idea of Dual Monarch was that Ireland would be seperate but the King of England would still be head of state. Mitchell goes on to suggest various ways that this could work pointing out various parts of the constitution.
Interestingly, Articles 29.4.1. and 29.4.2. of Bunreacht na hÉireann continue to provide that external relations of the State shall be exercised by or on the authority of the Government and they may ‘avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure’, as used for like purpose by any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes associated for the purposes of international co-operation in matters of common concern.
“Clearly the State can confer certain powers on the British monarch. By constitutional and parliamentary authority, it continued to do so until 1948.
I am sure it could be that doesn’t mean it should. That provision covers the UN and EU not Queen Elizabeth. Saying that the constitution allows it suggest to me that he seems to be saying “look we can bring in a monarchy without a referendum”. But their are other parts to think about like.
Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
or
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
He also says
“The oldest State in Europe, the Republic of San Marino, has dual Heads of State. Though this is the third smallest country in Europe it shows that different constitutional models can work.
The two heads of state are elected by the Grand and General Council every 6 months which is elected by popular vote. So basically the two heads of state are co-presidents which is a big difference to two countries have the same monarchy and says feck all about how different constitutional models can work.
Is this election going to come down to a vote between Fianna Fail the Republican Party and Fine Gael the Monarchist party? It will be interesting how this speech goes down with the people in the polls. The next Sunday Business Poll should be done next week, if much media coverage is given to this, that Fine Gael are in favour of bringing back the queen watch their numbers slide. It will be interesting to see can Labour take these votes back for the coalition or will the government see a bump. I bet FF and the PD’s are loving this.
I am a citizen of Ireland I’ll be dammed if I come a subject to the house of Windsor.
Interesting discussion over at Politics.ie
And on Slugger.
I find this argument about appeasing Unionists idiotic.
Yes, it is true that the Unionist population is sceptical of Dublin rule however the idea of re-joining the Commonwealth or becoming a part of the British Isles again is pointless; as you say, the fact is they are sceptical of the advantages of a Dublin Government (ie Oireachtas) and it doesn’t make a difference if it’s the President or British Queen signing their laws into reality.
I think we should stop obsessing ourselves with the Unionist question and get on with being good neighbours to each other and working as closely as is advantageous to both sides. Joining the Commonwealth would do nothing to help the Irish Republic, nor would taking the Queen on as our figure-head (the fact is the royal family in the UK will be on borrowed time anyway once the current leader passes on, but even if the UK became a republic it wouldn’t make unification in Ireland easier).
I’d be all for the Irish government making moves that are positive to the Unionist community, but only if they’re doing it for the good of the country (with the Unionist issue being a happy coincidence).
If Unionism ever softens to the idea of an Irish Republic it won’t be because they’re bribed into it, it will be because they see it as a better place to be in than Britain, and a safe place that understands their concerns. The only way we can do that is if we carry on carrying on…
I don’t see where you are getting your ‘monarchy’ references, and in any case what would be the difference from Fianna Fáil’s version of a king in the form of Bertie Ahern? The Unionist community and the republicans of the north have been raised in a bigoted racist environment for so long it’s unlikely there will be any reunification until the current leaderships of both sides are dead, and more moderate clear headed people take their respective positions. The joint stupidity and hatred will have to be a distant memory before peace will happen. It will be of little value in any case so long as the U.K. retains their currency, because there will be no economic motivations to reunite Ireland until England drops the pound in favor of the Euro.
‘Tis better to be thought a fool….’
The thrust of Gay’ speech is fine… have courage, go the extra mile, think outside the box etc. However he then ruins it with one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard with respect to the problems in the North. Its only merit is to highlight a large gaping hole in Gay Mitchells understanding of the situation in the North.
I concede however that he makes a good point concerning the merits of a “double” rather than “triple” lock system regarding the deployment of Irish troops.
Is it any wonder that a great many politicos don’t engage in debate on new ideas in Ireland? Gay Mitchell’s asked the question of what things we might not like would we be prepared to put up with for the sake of a united Ireland and refers to a proposal from 80 ago as an example of something that we might not like to swallow but which potentially Unionists might ask for in some new constitutional arrangement and what happens. We have posts about Fine Gael wanting the monarchy back. Choice.
Unionists might ask for in some new constitutional arrangement and what happens.
Why not talk about a new flag, a new athenm, a new federal arangement, dual citizenship, meembership of the commonwealth? All issues that require much more consideration and out of the box thinking then the shagging queen. No instead he brings up the monarcy the one issue anyone who thinks themselves as republicans can not tolerate. And the idea of dual monarcy that was considered unworkable 80 years ago.
You can not have a true republic and have a monarcy. Gay kept going on about constitutional nationalist. We are not we are republicans. The only reason we call ourselves nationalist is because the term republican has been hyjacked by the provos.
Also if you think this is what Unionist would need to join the republic you really should talk to a few unionist the state of the queen is least of their worries.
Also Dan I have to wonder you being a Fine Gael man and this came from a Fianna Failer would you react the same.
Surely, part of the point of the discussion is about pushing out an idea that most people in the republican would automatically have a immediate problem with. I know I would. However, that in turn raises the question for me of what I would accept in term of unwelcome changes for the sake of a united Ireland. There is an element of provocation in raising the prospect, something to get people thinking and discussing about what they could live with as a consequence of a united Ireland.
As for this”Also Dan I have to wonder you being a Fine Gael man and this came from a Fianna Failer would you react the same.” why not wait until someone from FF does start to propose something of note and see my reaction?
why not wait until someone from FF does start to propose something of note and see my reaction
Take to long to wait for that
Surely, part of the point of the discussion is about pushing out an idea that most people in the republican would automatically have a immediate problem with
If that was the point of the speech then he would have mentioned. some of the points I mentioned. I.e the flag, soliders song, commanwealth, federal government etc etc. But he didn’t he kept on one very narrow point the mononacry. I think I am going over old ground again here really I will let others advance the discussion.
relax - nobody takes that mitchell fella seriously do they ? !!!
i thought he was out of politics - hes in europe isnt he ? best place for him ……
@Tuathal: ‘I concede however that he makes a good point concerning the merits of a “double” rather than “triple” lock system regarding the deployment of Irish troops.’
I really can’t emphasise this enough: the “triple lock” is a matter of policy, not law, and therefore something the government can disregard at their whim. Mitchell’s comments indicate an inability to tell the difference between the two. It’s really little more than a way for the government to avoid having to take responsibility.
I really can’t emphasise this enough: the “triple lock” is a matter of policy, not law, Actually I think there might be a law that came into place with the second vote on the nice referendum with the Sevile declaration.
I agree with him on the point though. I talked about it before on occasions here is one. http://www.irishelection.com/04/irelands-neutrality/
It’s not, actually, but it’s the kind of thing that gets mistaken for law.
The declaration is simply just that: a declaration, and nothing more. It is not legally binding. It was simply an undertaking that our policy of neutrality would be respected.
Still would be difficult to change a policy people voted for.