The secretary-general of the Commonwealth has paid us some nice tributes as part of the process of wooing us into his organisation. We are, Chief Emeka Anyaoku told the BBC, "strong backers of democracy" and "committed to human rights and socio-economic development, particularly in the developing world". The process to "re-admit" Ireland would for these reasons, he said, be "easy and quick" once Dublin had made its decision.
Chief Anyaoku's commitments to the Commonwealth and to democracy are to be commended and his compliments to this country are welcome. One can't help feeling, however, that his knowledge of the idiosyncracies of the democracy that exists in this State is, understandably, limited.
Chief Anyaoku may not realise that suggestions from some quarters, even hints from the Taoiseach that Commonwealth membership might be a possibility, can be placed in a peculiarly Irish democratic category called "kite-flying".
The "Commonwealth kite" is now aloft for all to see. It gives the illusion of willingness to foster an even closer relationship with Britain while the Taoiseach, with the line firmly in his hands, can haul it in at any time. And he will haul it in, for he realises that membership is not going to happen.
There are some serious reasons for this and there is no point in pretending that Queen Elizabeth's position as head of the organisation is not the most important one. The head of the Commonwealth, to put it bluntly, was selected through the genetic rather than the democratic process. We should be aware also that the head of the Commonwealth is obliged by law to belong to a specific religious denomination.
Many of the republics within the Commonwealth have been able to accept this essentially undemocratic and sectarian situation as some sort of quaint throwback to the late middle ages. To suggest we simply follow the lead of other republics, some of them not patently democratic, without making our own decision is a pretty weak argument. Queen Elizabeth has, and presumably her heirs and successors will have, another role to play which does not support claims to impartiality within the Commonwealth. One of her main jobs is to promote British exports against the products of other Commonwealth countries, something not appreciated in Australia where she is also queen. A possible remedy would be for the Commonwealth to elect a different head each year regardless of sex, race, religion or genetic provenance. Perhaps such a proposed change may be contained in the "major speech on the modern Commonwealth" which Chief Anyaoku has promised to make during his visit to Dublin this week. One could, however, expect strong objections from certain quarters to such an eminently democratic and non-sectarian proposal.
But even if the Commonwealth were to make such dramatic moves towards democracy and non-sectarianism it would be difficult to see any advantage to our joining.
Would we not, by joining, be doing precisely what we have been advised so often not to - stepping back into our past when our future clearly lies in Europe?
Claims that membership would greatly increase Ireland's diplomatic contact list are patently false. Our representatives and those of all other independent states have the opportunity to meet daily at the United Nations in New York. Commonwealth membership would, of course, expand world travel opportunities for our politicians and for this reason might gain some support.
The suggestion that the organisation, at New Zealand's behest, has been a leading body in the fight against nuclear testing is manifestly proved false by the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan, both members of the Commonwealth.
Those who feel that Commonwealth membership would make a united Ireland more achievable are naive in the extreme. Such a gesture towards the unionist community would be seen precisely for what it was - a mere token and an insult to the intelligence. Membership, if taken up for this reason, would be greeted with angry and justified accusations of duplicity.
There are also those who feel joining the Commonwealth would bring us closer to the United Kingdom and would act as a symbol of reconciliation. But we are already close geographically and linguistically. Our legal systems are the same. We support the same football clubs but different national teams. We are also bound closely as members of the European Union.
Do we need to send a message to our EU partners that we regard one member, and the Union's most recalcitrant one at that, more highly than the others? Are we prepared to antagonise a large section of our own population for an illusory gesture of friendship with the UK?
Much has been made of President Mandela's role in South Africa's return to the Commonwealth but no realistic parallels can be drawn from this. Mr Mandela's loyalty to those who supported the struggle against apartheid was one of the main reasons for the return. South Africa's continuing friendly relations with Muammar Gadafy can be explained in the same way.
Ireland, like many other former British colonies, can remain outside the Commonwealth while maintaining excellent relations with the UK. The US provides a perfect example of this. Its reluctance to become a member of the Commonwealth, despite its British colonial past, is not in any way regarded as stemming from a sense of national immaturity. The opposite is probably the case in that the US regards its relationship with Britain as being even stronger than that of many Commonwealth countries. Britain realises the US would become the dominant force in the Commonwealth if it joined and therefore makes no suggestions it should do so.
Lastly, and most importantly, this State's "strong backing for democracy" should be put to the test. If there is to be any serious move towards membership of the Commonwealth it should be placed before the people in a referendum. My bet is that the proposition would be roundly defeated.