Caoimhín Ó hÓgáin casts an eye of the strategic terrain of Irish Republicanism. 

Irish Republicanism is at a crossroads. It can go several ways and its future cannot be taken for granted. Indeed before I go further I must clarify that when I say Irish Republicanism I am of course referring to traditional Irish Republicanism, an ideology that is founded on the principle of: “the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland”, rooted in the progressive ideas of the enlightenment, interpreted and adopted to Irish conditions by patriots such as Theobald Wolfe Tone.

Irish Republicanism is about breaking the connection with England, not reforming it. 

The fact that it is necessary to clarify what Irish Republicanism is, points to the myriad of problems and challenges that are faced by Irish Republicans today.

Honesty! That is what is demanded of us all as republicans in facing up to the challenges that lie before us. We are faced with the survival of republicanism as a living, vibrant political ideology that is relevant to the Irish people in the 21st century. It is time for real debate, hard talk about the future of republicanism. This demands that we are honest in our assessment of where we are. It also requires that we face up to what being a republican means in the Ireland of 2019. The recent death of Lyra McKee threw into stark relief the futility of continued sporadic armed actions and the possible tragic consequences of the use of uncontrolled and undisciplined force.

The use of armed action is an issue that must be confronted in an honest and open manner.

Already within wider republicanism there are polar views, at one end are those who view it as not justifiable under any circumstances. On the other are those for whom armed force itself has become a matter of principle. For those on this latter extreme, to even question the viability, let alone the morality of armed actions, is tantamount to transforming into another version of Provisional Sinn Féin. Phrases such as “the slippery slope” and “sell-out” will be bandied about. Comparisons with Cathal Goulding or Gerry Adams will abound. None of this is rational and it is certainly not helpful to any debate about the future. We need to face up to this debate in an honest, open and rational manner. We must do so with a firm grasp of who we are and what the central principles of republicanism are.

We need to be comfortable in our own skin as Irish republicans in order to approach such a debate honestly, confidently and accepting the bone fides of all republicans concerned.

As Irish Republicans our allegiance is to the principles set out in the 1916 Proclamation. We reject both partitionist states. The national integrity and sovereignty of the Irish nation and its people are our guiding light and the mark against which we measure every political step we take. These are the essentials of Irish Republicanism and something we must never lose sight of. We are faced with many daunting challenges and opposed by powerful forces on both sides of the British imposed border. However, there are great opportunities also. People are open to a fresh political vision, something which appeals to their highest instincts and aspirations for a new Ireland based on ideas of social, political and economic justice. These are the very essence of Irish Republicanism; we have something worthwhile to say to the Irish people. We have a tradition coupled with ideas for the crafting of a New Ireland. However, that progressive message of hope for the future is often clouded by the fallout from the latest armed action.

Each time there is a death or casualty arising from armed actions the result is always the same. The status quo is strengthened whilst the position of traditional Irish Republicanism is further weakened, and support eroded. 

We are isolating ourselves by refusing to engage with the fact that there is virtually no support for such sporadic armed actions. Those engaging in such actions are incapable of sustaining anything even approaching a campaign. They are devoid of coherent leadership, clearly set out goals or objectives, and anything even resembling a strategic vision. To engage in armed actions, encourage or instruct others to do so, and to inflict casualties in such circumstances is immoral. It is unworthy of the noble Irish Republican tradition. The human cost can be counted in lost lives. It can also be counted in the lost years suffered by republican prisoners away from families and loved ones; individuals are spending years in Maghaberry, Portlaoise or Limerick prison, the majority on membership charges rather than for any armed actions. These individuals are then released under draconian conditions which isolate them from fellow republicans and stops them from continuing with republican activity. This is an exercise in futility. The talents, energy and moral courage of these republican men and women would be utilised far more effectively in building a strong republican base capable of sustaining and advancing the republican message among the mass of the Irish people.

Those in leadership should be asking themselves-is it morally right that individuals are losing years of their life in prison for a campaign that isn’t happening?

We do not say that the Irish people do not have the right to resort to arms in order to defend their right to national independence. That is a principle we uphold without apology. We are rightly proud of Ireland’s long tradition of armed resistance to foreign occupation. Recognising this fact and acknowledging our history, we must also recognise that present circumstances do not lend themselves to sustaining armed actions, let alone anything even approaching a campaign. There is no principle attached to such analysis. The right to engage in armed actions is a principle that is upheld by all nations, and Ireland is no different in this regard. The question of when to exercise that right is a matter of pragmatic tactical analysis of the objective conditions, including support and capability. At the present time neither support nor capability is there.

I would argue the continuance of armed action is acting as an obstacle to the building of a critical mass of support for progressive Irish Republicanism.

We need to recognise this fact and act accordingly. In 1916, 1923 and in 1962 republican leaders took the decision to cease military activity due to the prevailing circumstances in order to save human life and to give the Republican Movement the breathing space to consolidate and rebuild. The 1962 statement from the leadership of the Republican Movement concluded by stating that the cessation of military operations would lead to: “a period of consolidation, expansion and preparation for the final and victorious phase of the struggle for the full freedom of Ireland.” On each of these occasions a cessation of military activity did not equate to a surrender of political objectives or principles.

Let us enter this debate secure in our republican beliefs. Speaking for myself I know I am the same republican I have always been. My allegiance is to the All-Ireland Republic and always will be. I am excited for the future of republicanism if we can meet head on the challenges that face us today with honesty and clarity. We have much to offer this and coming generations. We are inheritors of a proud tradition, with roots deep within the psyche and history of the Irish people.

Don’t let us be the last generation of traditional republicans. Instead let this be the generation which builds a robust progressive movement which carries our struggle forward to a brighter dawn for all of the Irish people. 

⏭ Caoimhín Ó hÓgáin is "a Legionnaire of the Rearguard."

Honest Debate Needed To Secure Future Of Irish Republicanism


Caoimhín Ó hÓgáin casts an eye of the strategic terrain of Irish Republicanism. 

Irish Republicanism is at a crossroads. It can go several ways and its future cannot be taken for granted. Indeed before I go further I must clarify that when I say Irish Republicanism I am of course referring to traditional Irish Republicanism, an ideology that is founded on the principle of: “the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland”, rooted in the progressive ideas of the enlightenment, interpreted and adopted to Irish conditions by patriots such as Theobald Wolfe Tone.

Irish Republicanism is about breaking the connection with England, not reforming it. 

The fact that it is necessary to clarify what Irish Republicanism is, points to the myriad of problems and challenges that are faced by Irish Republicans today.

Honesty! That is what is demanded of us all as republicans in facing up to the challenges that lie before us. We are faced with the survival of republicanism as a living, vibrant political ideology that is relevant to the Irish people in the 21st century. It is time for real debate, hard talk about the future of republicanism. This demands that we are honest in our assessment of where we are. It also requires that we face up to what being a republican means in the Ireland of 2019. The recent death of Lyra McKee threw into stark relief the futility of continued sporadic armed actions and the possible tragic consequences of the use of uncontrolled and undisciplined force.

The use of armed action is an issue that must be confronted in an honest and open manner.

Already within wider republicanism there are polar views, at one end are those who view it as not justifiable under any circumstances. On the other are those for whom armed force itself has become a matter of principle. For those on this latter extreme, to even question the viability, let alone the morality of armed actions, is tantamount to transforming into another version of Provisional Sinn Féin. Phrases such as “the slippery slope” and “sell-out” will be bandied about. Comparisons with Cathal Goulding or Gerry Adams will abound. None of this is rational and it is certainly not helpful to any debate about the future. We need to face up to this debate in an honest, open and rational manner. We must do so with a firm grasp of who we are and what the central principles of republicanism are.

We need to be comfortable in our own skin as Irish republicans in order to approach such a debate honestly, confidently and accepting the bone fides of all republicans concerned.

As Irish Republicans our allegiance is to the principles set out in the 1916 Proclamation. We reject both partitionist states. The national integrity and sovereignty of the Irish nation and its people are our guiding light and the mark against which we measure every political step we take. These are the essentials of Irish Republicanism and something we must never lose sight of. We are faced with many daunting challenges and opposed by powerful forces on both sides of the British imposed border. However, there are great opportunities also. People are open to a fresh political vision, something which appeals to their highest instincts and aspirations for a new Ireland based on ideas of social, political and economic justice. These are the very essence of Irish Republicanism; we have something worthwhile to say to the Irish people. We have a tradition coupled with ideas for the crafting of a New Ireland. However, that progressive message of hope for the future is often clouded by the fallout from the latest armed action.

Each time there is a death or casualty arising from armed actions the result is always the same. The status quo is strengthened whilst the position of traditional Irish Republicanism is further weakened, and support eroded. 

We are isolating ourselves by refusing to engage with the fact that there is virtually no support for such sporadic armed actions. Those engaging in such actions are incapable of sustaining anything even approaching a campaign. They are devoid of coherent leadership, clearly set out goals or objectives, and anything even resembling a strategic vision. To engage in armed actions, encourage or instruct others to do so, and to inflict casualties in such circumstances is immoral. It is unworthy of the noble Irish Republican tradition. The human cost can be counted in lost lives. It can also be counted in the lost years suffered by republican prisoners away from families and loved ones; individuals are spending years in Maghaberry, Portlaoise or Limerick prison, the majority on membership charges rather than for any armed actions. These individuals are then released under draconian conditions which isolate them from fellow republicans and stops them from continuing with republican activity. This is an exercise in futility. The talents, energy and moral courage of these republican men and women would be utilised far more effectively in building a strong republican base capable of sustaining and advancing the republican message among the mass of the Irish people.

Those in leadership should be asking themselves-is it morally right that individuals are losing years of their life in prison for a campaign that isn’t happening?

We do not say that the Irish people do not have the right to resort to arms in order to defend their right to national independence. That is a principle we uphold without apology. We are rightly proud of Ireland’s long tradition of armed resistance to foreign occupation. Recognising this fact and acknowledging our history, we must also recognise that present circumstances do not lend themselves to sustaining armed actions, let alone anything even approaching a campaign. There is no principle attached to such analysis. The right to engage in armed actions is a principle that is upheld by all nations, and Ireland is no different in this regard. The question of when to exercise that right is a matter of pragmatic tactical analysis of the objective conditions, including support and capability. At the present time neither support nor capability is there.

I would argue the continuance of armed action is acting as an obstacle to the building of a critical mass of support for progressive Irish Republicanism.

We need to recognise this fact and act accordingly. In 1916, 1923 and in 1962 republican leaders took the decision to cease military activity due to the prevailing circumstances in order to save human life and to give the Republican Movement the breathing space to consolidate and rebuild. The 1962 statement from the leadership of the Republican Movement concluded by stating that the cessation of military operations would lead to: “a period of consolidation, expansion and preparation for the final and victorious phase of the struggle for the full freedom of Ireland.” On each of these occasions a cessation of military activity did not equate to a surrender of political objectives or principles.

Let us enter this debate secure in our republican beliefs. Speaking for myself I know I am the same republican I have always been. My allegiance is to the All-Ireland Republic and always will be. I am excited for the future of republicanism if we can meet head on the challenges that face us today with honesty and clarity. We have much to offer this and coming generations. We are inheritors of a proud tradition, with roots deep within the psyche and history of the Irish people.

Don’t let us be the last generation of traditional republicans. Instead let this be the generation which builds a robust progressive movement which carries our struggle forward to a brighter dawn for all of the Irish people. 

⏭ Caoimhín Ó hÓgáin is "a Legionnaire of the Rearguard."

24 comments:

  1. Sounds great. Maybe a document of some kind is needed to help focus the honest debate you imagine? Perhaps call it Tactical Use of Armed Struggle (TUAS) or something?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caoimhín - fine piece. Welcome to TPQ. A much needed discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Go raibh maith agat Anthony. DaithiOD simply makes by point for me. Any attempt to put forward a reasoned argument for republicans to assess the present efficacy of an armed campaign or sporadic armed actions is met with this lazy broad brush accusation of being a crypto "Gerry Adams" etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't this more or less the Shinners stance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve - no it is not the Shinner stance. To say it is leads to a situation where those who advocate thinking republicanism rather than the moribund stuff are opened up to having their observation rejected on the grounds that they are simply dressed up Shinners. The writer talks about a republican future not a Shinner one where republicanism is merely a useful discursive tool with the substance hollowed out. There are many republicans totally dissociated from the Shinners who would share much of what is expressed above.

      Delete
  5. We need an honest debate around honest debates. It is the PSF dialectic pertaining to Armed Struggle around the summer of 1994. And current laws around speech will ensure the 2019 dialectic is as one sided as PSF would of liked it to have been then.
    Tell them to stop, force them to stop , or suck it up it seems are the options available.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Anthony that the knee-jerk accusation of "sell-out" etc which is liberally thrown at any attempt to engage in a debate about where traditional republicanism is today and where it is going is based on a false premise.

    At no point have I suggested moving away from republican principle. I am a traditional republican who rejects both partition states. It is because I care passionately about the very survival of Irish Republicanism, and after much reflection that I chose to articulate the need for a debate on this issue.
    Indeed I would say that the accusation of being a "sell-out" at times is used to silence any reasoned discussion from the outset.

    The invoking of TUAS is a false analogy as that was merely a device used by a reformist leadership of a movement that at the point had already accepted the legitimacy of the 26-County state and was firmly set on the road to their ultimate destination, that of administering British rule in Ireland. I am suggesting nothing more than that we come to terms with the same issues republican leaderships in 1923 and 1962 were faced with. A frank appraisal of where we are and what is required to give us the space to grow, all the while holding firmly to out core beliefs. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ps my own view :

    Just because had PSF advocated a similar proposition too, it needn’t be automatically dismissed for that reason alone. For example, a complete cessation of armed activities in return for the early release of all the boys and girls doing serious sentences would surely be the best outcome at this juncture. I hope this in an option, though I fear it’s politically expedient to make an example of them.

    The terrain for current armed groups is vastly different from the one PIRA departed from. One fundamental change is the abolition of the Irish as a distinct people’s, being Irish now only relates to where you pay tax, though in reality, more where you claim state benefits from. It’s not worth serving a single day in jail for such an irromantic ideal.

    There is too much work to be done in the ‘meta’ field before armed actions in service of such a people can be understood or effective. The aftermath of the tragic killing of Lyra McKee, or similar in the future, cannot it seems be borne by the groups (who are already disadvantaged in terms of materials and size etc) in a way their opponents are able to.

    It’s time to get our boys and girls back from the torturous prison regimes. They tried to effect change , and have endured longer than any of their opponents could of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. O'Hogain's tract could have been written in the 1950s. He is preaching to the converted - who still seem to think that a united Ireland can be brought about without unionist consent. He does not address the virtual certainty the the citizens of the Republic (a state that O'Hogain does not appear to recognize) will not vote to force 900,000 unionists into the Republic against their will.
    There is no evidence that Republicans are making any attempt at persuading unionists of the advantages of a united Although O'Hogain down not actually mention the democratic will of the people, he must surely realize that no unionist consent means no united Ireland.
    This piece is as fine a piece of navel-gazing as I have read in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I whole heartedly agree that the release of prisoners is an imperative as I have already argued in my piece. I believe that the continued imprisonment of these young men and women is a waste of valuable years when their energies and idealism could be so much better directed. I disagree that Ireland has lost its sense of identity. However that national identity is most certainly under threat, and that is the battleground we have to fight. Because a people without a sense of identity are more compliant, easy prey to the whims of the political elites in Dublin, London or Brussels.

    Regarding the democratic will of the Irish people, that is something that has been ignored and subverted by almost a century of imposed partition. The imposition by Westminster of a gerrymandered unionist veto, whereby 18% of the population have a political veto over the other 82% is certainly not an exercise in democracy.

    Since 1921, there have been five Anglo-Irish agreements, none of them have even gone close to achieving a settlement of the conflict in Ireland, because each failed to address the fundamental issue at the heart of that conflict, which is the continued denial of All-Ireland democracy. That is the necessary catalyst for any real advance towards a just and lasting settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Belfast Agreement (GFA) supersedes all earlier agreements covering the relationship between The North, the South and the UK. Invariably, when a political proposal is made that republicans of any shade do not like, they will say it violates the Belfast Agreement and threatens the peace process. 71% of voters in the North and 94% in the South voted in favour of the GFA. The Republic effectively withdrew its claim for jurisdiction over the Six Counties and accepted unification can only come by consent. All the republican wishful thinking in the world cannot overcome these facts.
    O'Hogain's references to the 18% who had a veto over a united Ireland is no more than an historical note, but it implies republicans believe in democracy. But do they? Republicans were represented equally with unionists at Stormont until the Shinners pulled the plug, for the most spurious of reasons - a heat scheme which benefited as many nationalists as unionists and which was extended by a Shinner minister to allow more nationalists to get their snouts into the trough. So where is democracy now in the North? Sidelined by the Shinners, that's where.
    In the meantime, Gerry Adams, accompanied by his two permanent acolytes, Ms McDonald an Ms O'Neill, set back unionist consent to a united Ireland for a few more years by eulogising a man who was responsible for countless bombings in public places, bombs which killed who knows how many innocent men, women and children, Protestant and Catholic, unionist and nationalist alike. Adams say we can never know exactly what foul deeds McKenna planned or approved, actions (like the Kingsmill massacre) which in a real war would be considered to be war crimes, but we all know only the Brits committed war crimes in the IRA's "war". How convenient.
    Overall, the contributions to this thread suggest that republicans have an awful lot of catching up to do if they are serious about a united Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 1998 Agreement simply underpinned the unionist veto and that was the principle reason that traditional republicans rejected it. It effectively binned the concept, and historic definition of Ireland as a nation, and the Irish people as a single unit of decision making. This again is a denial of Ireland's claim to a distinct national identity and a denial of All-Ireland democracy.

      Indeed the 1998 Agreement simply reinforced the sectarian divisions, leaving us with a situation today where the two most extreme sectarian blocs dominate the political landscape in the six counties.

      We need to break this cycle of partial agreements, followed by sporadic conflict and armed actions which inevitably follow. That can only come by dealing with the fundamentals of the problem.

      Delete
  11. Tonyol - there is really nothing in the piece that suggests unity is going to come about without consent of a majority in the North. The author might believe that it could but given that the entire article is a rejection of armed campaigning - a welcome perspective by most people's perspective - it looks unlikely that he is calling for a coercive policy, even one not rooted in republican armed force.

    Moreover, the consent principle in the GFA is not unionist consent exclusively but majority consent in the North. Seamus Mallon might be trying to have that changed but as Richard Humphreys argues in his book, what Mallon says is not on the tin. Although Humphreys introduces a whole raft of new challenges to a republican perspective.
    As for IRA war crimes, if you have been following this site for any time you will see that the issue has featured and people have in fact called Kingsmill for what it was.
    The challenge for republicanism as we have traditionally understood it is that it rather than the Northern state is the failed political entity. There is no republican answer to the question of partition.

    Still, a lot of good points there in your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh dear who mentioned Kingsmill? I still have have scars from years ago when I merely mentioned it was an atypical and counterproductive operation for the Republican Movement. AM’s record on denouncing it is pretty extensive too I might add.

    Caoimhín, the Irish identity is being reduced and redefined (as with the nations across the West) such that our only heritage will be a legacy we are all meant to yearn to disavow. Increasingly, we can only speak of group identity without challenge if it’s in the context of apologising for something; like Western colonialism for example.

    I think Ireland is a little behind the rest of Europe in manifesting this, perhaps because of the Troubles role in affirming a national identity in a visceral way. But our destination is one of a non-peoples in a borderless world, defined primarily by our consumption choices.

    Could you ever imagine this being allowed to be written now, by those who would love to serve Ireland ?

    “...We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people...”

    Obscurantists can claim since anyone can be Irish, the concepts advanced in this paragraph can be read in an inclusive way. Additionally, whilst we should not be obliged to abide something just because it’s of historical importance, it illustrates that while fashionable concepts and ideas can be lost overtime , a vigilant and distinct people’ won’t be.





    ReplyDelete
  13. Daithi - what is a distinct and vigilant people? There was something before national identities and there will be something after them. There is no particular reason that I can see why a nation or nationalism should remain in place forever. What if people through mutual agreement agree to break it up? I confess to not being much of a nationalist, instinctively feeling more European than Irish, so I am not going to feel any great attachment to nationalist sentiment. I might cheer the team if I don't switch off from the long ball tactic, but I am as easy following Sweden (my hope for the women's world cup). I no more like the idea of obligatory nationalism than I do the idea of obligatory Catholicism. Maybe I don't much like anything!
    On a side matter - did you follow the Women's World Cup and if so what did you think of the quality of the game? It was compulsory viewing here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Morning AM, a distinct people as in Irish, and I think of the Irish people as ones who have remained in the location long enough for the group selections according to the environment to be expressed through genetic adaptions that are passed onto their progeny. Its not the only definition, and since this isn’t my area of expertise im quite open to better definitions.

    As an aside, there are also those in the gym showers that have bouncing todgers akin to leaping salmon yet will insist on being called female, so not everyone should be accommodated in every demand they make on identity. In terms of female football, this transgender situation brings a whole new meaning to the concept of females semi’s doesn’t it ?! But no, I am not watching the football, I don’t watch the men’s either at this stage. I am however taking in the UFC239 build up, perhaps the best fighter to have ever lived (Jon Jones) is fighting this weekend, and I devour his content greedily!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daithi - but how and who define them? Your definition seems like eugenics. It is too much a mythical concept. What rights over and above others would this preferred group have?
    I have not been convinced either by the transgender argument in all its facets. The biggest turn off for me is the attempt to suppress criticism or further inquiry into the phenomenon. If people want to be whatever they want to be I am usually relaxed about it so long as it gives them no power over me to make me think the way they think I should. The only power I want is not to control the lives of others but to enable me to stop others having the power to abuse.
    Haven't watched Jon Jones - rarely follow the fight game now. My son has an interest and tells me stuff I would otherwise not hear. The soccer is good.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AM, Eugenics! I wrote this story last night as part of reply I anticipated you would make, it’s kind of funny so I will paste part of it, I’m not remotely serious incase it needs pointing out:

    {scene}
    DD and AM take their kids to a play park. It’s sunny with a delicate breeze and the children’s laughter is carried on it :

    DD: I love watching our kids lost in play, I wish they could play forever

    AM: Aye. Aye.
    {Places hand on DD’s shoulder in a bonding moment....that becomes a fist clenched with clothes}
    But what about all the other kids there that are not ours? Would you have them leave? Do you wish them harm? How would ye remove them, ye wee bigoty bastard ye?

    DD : Please can we just...

    {interrupts DD}
    AM: ...Put them in a concentration camp? Diarrhoea Davy, DIARRHOEA DAVY!!!!

    DD: *sighs*

    {releases grip on shoulder}
    AM: C’mon kids we are leaving ... [defecates on park slide, putting it out of action] ... play with that, ye hateful bastard ye

    ReplyDelete
  17. LOL - you should have made it into a satirical piece for TPQ.

    A more worrying problem is that if I am unable to tell that you were not serious, how would others be expected to? It just seemed such a natural position, given your previous contributions, for you to hold. At least to me, anyway. I am relieved that you don't hold it.
    Have to get on the road to Dublin so if you post a comment I won't be able to put it through until this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The 1998 Agreement simply underpinned the unionist veto and that was the principle reason that traditional republicans rejected it. It effectively binned the concept, and historic definition of Ireland as a nation, and the Irish people as a single unit of decision making. This again is a denial of Ireland's claim to a distinct national identity and a denial of All-Ireland democracy.

    Indeed the 1998 Agreement simply reinforced the sectarian divisions, leaving us with a situation today where the two most extreme sectarian blocs dominate the political landscape in the six counties.

    We need to break this cycle of partial agreements, followed by sporadic conflict and armed actions which inevitably follow. That can only come by dealing with the fundamentals of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The biggest weakness on the current arrangement is that either side can shut Stormont down at the drop pf a hat. Would the Shinners have walked out if the knew the unionists could stay? Absolutely not.
    Stormont must be the only assembly in the world which ca be shut down indefinitely by a minority group
    This has to end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it will not be easy to end it in the context of mandatory coalition. Nor am I sure there is a great appetite either for it back or for the status quo to continue. Indifference seems the prevalent attitude. The municipal services still function much as before so the energy that would be needed to relaunch does not seem to be there.

      Delete
  20. Personally, I don't think Stormont should return unless we get LGBT rights, women's rights and language rights on a par with those in the rest of Ireland and in Britain.

    ReplyDelete