Pádraig O Maonaigh ✍ The chief architects of Eire Nua were men of the highest Republican credentials who recognized that Irish Independence alone would not fully achieve republican objectives. 

Partition has never been the only problem. The 26 county state also stands opposed to The Republic and what the spirit of The Republic means to the lives of the Irish people.

The authors sought the creation of completely new governmental structures with a rights based constitution to deliver a “New Ireland”, controlled by the Irish people alone. A true democracy, which eradicates the crony neocolonial, clientelist system in place since 1922, and ending the ongoing British presence in Ireland. This vision included the active participation of all traditions in the democratic institutions of Ireland.

Since the 1970s, the 26 county State has continually traded National sovereignty to Imperialist (EU) and Globalist/Capitalist constructs at the long term expense of the Irish people, while the six county state has become re-normalized as a continuing colony within the British State. Eire Nua identified these trends and sought to address them. National wealth creating resources have been continually sold off to private interests while developmental grants from the EU were used as incentives towards integration, manifesting, in repayment terms, with eroding National sovereignty.

Today in the 26 counties it seems that there are no areas of incompetence, or corruption, capable of toppling a government within its term. Record homelessness and unprecedented health crises are only two examples of consistently shocking governance that reflect the lack of a functioning democracy as they are clearly not results of the people's will, and due to longevity of crisis cannot be explained away as anything other than, at best, the indirect result of neoliberal policy.

Without a petition to recall those elected, the five year term allows governments in Leinster House to invariably readjust their agendas after assuming power, safe in the knowledge that they only need to appease their junior coalition partners to remain in office. If this is not by design. it is a reoccurring coincidence that the electioneering promises are abandoned.

Perpetuation of this position of privilege is an obvious motivation for the continued suppression of genuine participatory democracy. The system works for those who profit. It also works for the neoliberal powerhouses located in London, Brussels, Washington and other influential think tanks who gather annually in Davos and who, alongside global corporations and bodies, hold huge influence over significant economic and strategic policies in Dublin with scant reference to the people or their democratic will.

Examples of these economic and strategic policies are: the bank guarantee scheme which repaid those responsible for the Irish banking crisis of 2008/2009 - which was caused by International Finance speculators and the Irish State joining PESCO, the prelude to a European army in spite of the popularity of Irish Neutrality. These massive issues should be mandated by referendum if we truly claim to believe in democracy.

Centralizing power can lead to the erosion of democracy very quickly as occurred disastrously over the last century, where consolidation of power both communist and fascist reached its ceiling resulting in dictatorships and millions of deaths. The world over, democracy is thrown around as the absolute, to safeguard against the rise of totalitarian power. Éire Nua is focused on democratizing and decentralizing power back into the communities, the essence of democracy, so who should fear it? Perhaps those who are benefiting from the current increasingly centralized system. Centralization realistically prevents broad participation in government. When unelected bureaucrats or Corporate directors have more power than the people we are not living in a genuine democracy.

If one needs proof of the anti-democratic and neo-colonial intentions of a centralized federal EU, just consider the views of Guy Verhofstadt, ex-prime minister of Belgium and former leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, who, in an interview with journalist Michał Matlak in October 2019 when discussing Brexit and Sovereignty revealed his thoughts:

Matlak: Are member states ready to renounce their sovereignty?

Verhofstadt: Well, their sovereignty doesn’t exist in a globalized world. Sovereignty means that you can decide your own path. European states on their own are not able to do that. There’s only European sovereignty, if any.

This is an example of views where a European superstate is envisaged. And it's clear from comments from the EU commission president Ursula Von der Leyen that it is a strategic goal of the EU to supplement this superstate with a European army which collaborates in synchronicity with NATO.

Ireland today is deeply ingrained within this EU construct by the consent of Irish politicians but what about the consent of the people? Lisbon and Nice were rejected before being run a second time quite undemocratically. If an unbiased and fully informed referendum were held on the implications to sovereignty what would be the outcome?

What we should avoid is a Brexit style reassessment of the EU on divisive lines. Ireland must re-assert its sovereignty and Independence and reform its role in the EU as guided by the Irish people if the EU is to be compatible with Irish Sovereignty.

It's been slow incremental change that's relinquished Free State National Sovereignty. It is certainly a deliberate political direction if remarks around "backward sovereignty" by Fianna Fáil Leader Mícheál Martin are to be understood. Sovereignty and Liberty should not be traded for membership of any external construct as it is not for any one generation to trade. This by no means limits the natural inclination of the Irish people to participate in a vibrant, collective, international community which respects national boundaries and sovereignty as equals in search of common goals. Indeed it's in our best interests. Éire Nua recognized the supreme authority of the Irish people to govern Ireland and without contradiction be internationalist.

The fact that the present custodians of Éire Nua stand permanently and honorably opposed to entering the partitionist system means the potential of Éire Nua is effectively locked away until a revolution has been achieved. Today there is no realistic prospect of revolution such is the extent of State technological apparatus nor are there political conditions conducive to it becoming popular.

The final part of this article will speculate what dynamic participatory democracy could bring to bear on the big issues in the news today in Ireland.

Pádraig O Maonaigh is a social justice activist.

Éire Nua For Modern Times Ⅱ

Pádraig O Maonaigh ✍ The chief architects of Eire Nua were men of the highest Republican credentials who recognized that Irish Independence alone would not fully achieve republican objectives. 

Partition has never been the only problem. The 26 county state also stands opposed to The Republic and what the spirit of The Republic means to the lives of the Irish people.

The authors sought the creation of completely new governmental structures with a rights based constitution to deliver a “New Ireland”, controlled by the Irish people alone. A true democracy, which eradicates the crony neocolonial, clientelist system in place since 1922, and ending the ongoing British presence in Ireland. This vision included the active participation of all traditions in the democratic institutions of Ireland.

Since the 1970s, the 26 county State has continually traded National sovereignty to Imperialist (EU) and Globalist/Capitalist constructs at the long term expense of the Irish people, while the six county state has become re-normalized as a continuing colony within the British State. Eire Nua identified these trends and sought to address them. National wealth creating resources have been continually sold off to private interests while developmental grants from the EU were used as incentives towards integration, manifesting, in repayment terms, with eroding National sovereignty.

Today in the 26 counties it seems that there are no areas of incompetence, or corruption, capable of toppling a government within its term. Record homelessness and unprecedented health crises are only two examples of consistently shocking governance that reflect the lack of a functioning democracy as they are clearly not results of the people's will, and due to longevity of crisis cannot be explained away as anything other than, at best, the indirect result of neoliberal policy.

Without a petition to recall those elected, the five year term allows governments in Leinster House to invariably readjust their agendas after assuming power, safe in the knowledge that they only need to appease their junior coalition partners to remain in office. If this is not by design. it is a reoccurring coincidence that the electioneering promises are abandoned.

Perpetuation of this position of privilege is an obvious motivation for the continued suppression of genuine participatory democracy. The system works for those who profit. It also works for the neoliberal powerhouses located in London, Brussels, Washington and other influential think tanks who gather annually in Davos and who, alongside global corporations and bodies, hold huge influence over significant economic and strategic policies in Dublin with scant reference to the people or their democratic will.

Examples of these economic and strategic policies are: the bank guarantee scheme which repaid those responsible for the Irish banking crisis of 2008/2009 - which was caused by International Finance speculators and the Irish State joining PESCO, the prelude to a European army in spite of the popularity of Irish Neutrality. These massive issues should be mandated by referendum if we truly claim to believe in democracy.

Centralizing power can lead to the erosion of democracy very quickly as occurred disastrously over the last century, where consolidation of power both communist and fascist reached its ceiling resulting in dictatorships and millions of deaths. The world over, democracy is thrown around as the absolute, to safeguard against the rise of totalitarian power. Éire Nua is focused on democratizing and decentralizing power back into the communities, the essence of democracy, so who should fear it? Perhaps those who are benefiting from the current increasingly centralized system. Centralization realistically prevents broad participation in government. When unelected bureaucrats or Corporate directors have more power than the people we are not living in a genuine democracy.

If one needs proof of the anti-democratic and neo-colonial intentions of a centralized federal EU, just consider the views of Guy Verhofstadt, ex-prime minister of Belgium and former leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, who, in an interview with journalist Michał Matlak in October 2019 when discussing Brexit and Sovereignty revealed his thoughts:

Matlak: Are member states ready to renounce their sovereignty?

Verhofstadt: Well, their sovereignty doesn’t exist in a globalized world. Sovereignty means that you can decide your own path. European states on their own are not able to do that. There’s only European sovereignty, if any.

This is an example of views where a European superstate is envisaged. And it's clear from comments from the EU commission president Ursula Von der Leyen that it is a strategic goal of the EU to supplement this superstate with a European army which collaborates in synchronicity with NATO.

Ireland today is deeply ingrained within this EU construct by the consent of Irish politicians but what about the consent of the people? Lisbon and Nice were rejected before being run a second time quite undemocratically. If an unbiased and fully informed referendum were held on the implications to sovereignty what would be the outcome?

What we should avoid is a Brexit style reassessment of the EU on divisive lines. Ireland must re-assert its sovereignty and Independence and reform its role in the EU as guided by the Irish people if the EU is to be compatible with Irish Sovereignty.

It's been slow incremental change that's relinquished Free State National Sovereignty. It is certainly a deliberate political direction if remarks around "backward sovereignty" by Fianna Fáil Leader Mícheál Martin are to be understood. Sovereignty and Liberty should not be traded for membership of any external construct as it is not for any one generation to trade. This by no means limits the natural inclination of the Irish people to participate in a vibrant, collective, international community which respects national boundaries and sovereignty as equals in search of common goals. Indeed it's in our best interests. Éire Nua recognized the supreme authority of the Irish people to govern Ireland and without contradiction be internationalist.

The fact that the present custodians of Éire Nua stand permanently and honorably opposed to entering the partitionist system means the potential of Éire Nua is effectively locked away until a revolution has been achieved. Today there is no realistic prospect of revolution such is the extent of State technological apparatus nor are there political conditions conducive to it becoming popular.

The final part of this article will speculate what dynamic participatory democracy could bring to bear on the big issues in the news today in Ireland.

Pádraig O Maonaigh is a social justice activist.

6 comments:

  1. That is a very good point, Padraig, "partition has never been the only problem". When the treaty was ratified the oath was as much a bone of cintention as was partition. We often get bogged down with partition, me included, when such burning issues as homelesness, health care and poverty in tge 26 conunties are of equal importance. Woukd, for example, anybody living in the six counties, republican or loyalist, swap the albeit shadow of its former self, NHS for this states HSE? Not if they've a modicum of common they wouldn't.

    I personally agree with James Connolly's analysis, that the state would not play any major roll in the governance of the country. Socialism does not advocate a powerful state, as detractors claim, in running the country or peoples lives.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin, my experience of the health service here is that is is better than the NHS but that is just my own personal experience of it. I find GP level here much more effective than in the NHS.
      How the state could avoid playing a major role in the running of any advanced society I simply don't understand. The bigger a society is, the need to integrate it and manage its complexities is going to require huge organisation. I have never been persuaded by the withering away of the state argument. There is nothing empirical that would seem to back it up. Would China ever have lifted as many people out of poverty as it has in such a short period of time without a strong state?

      Delete
  2. I'm talking about socialism Anthony, not China. I'm paraphrasing Connolly, as a Marxist, in the short pamphalet From the Axe to the Root, original copy which were found in the basement of Liberty Hall. You should be more imaginative about socialism, not Russia or China though gains were made over previous conditions in these countries. Alas China no longer prerends to follow Marxist theories of socilalism but, moreover, a "socialist market economy" whatever that means. This should not be confused with "Market Socialism", another contradiction. The Chinese authorities have already said, " it wil take 100 years for socialism to be achieved". And that was recently, not 100 years since their revolution of 1949. Have more faith Anthony.

    As for the NHS V HSE, my own experiences recently are the NHS, as far as provision of services go, still has the upper hand. This has nothing to do with the quality of health care, once access has been gained, but I never waited 10 hours in a hospital before I saw a Doctor in England. It is true the NHS is not what it was, and will get worse. Suggest read the Naylor Report to see what might be coming. On the other hand I am afraid to go to the Matter, as are many, unless I have an appointment at outpatients. I am speaking of medical card patients, we are the bottom of the league after VHI patients with various levels of cover. A nationalised health service would put an end to these double standards. Alas the NHS is heading backwards, pre WWII days and the gullible public are allowing it.
    The NHS has been in slow purposely made decline since the 1960s. It was formed in 1948 with a bed capacity of over 400,000. Today, caring for a larger population, the NHS has just over 100,000 beds. Even then, as far as medical card holders go, it is an improvement on the HSE. I must stress I do not mean the NHS Doctors and Nurses are better, no, just the provision of services.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile


    ReplyDelete
  3. A one tier health system for sure. Personal experience is never a good way to judge systemic issues.

    Socialism, I consider on what it has done or what those who claim to have been socialists have done. If all that is on offer is something as remote as Heaven, then I am going to give it a pass. You could be more imaginative about Heaven. This is the thing - even to ask that we be more imaginative suggests it exists only in the imagination.

    The concept is fine and I like the idea of an egalitarian society so much that I completely distrust those who claim they are going to deliver one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, "those who claim they are going to deliver one" yes, Anthony, personal experience makes me weary. If they wear little round glasses and woolly jumpers three sizes too big, be cautious! That does not make it an impossible ideal, after all capitalism, prior to its early mercantile stage, was once considered a non starter. The next stage of human development must be socialism, that is if there is a next stage. If capitalism continues, unrestricted, in its present direction then there will be no next stage. Capitalism has to go. Capitalism and greed are largely responsible for the planetary vandalism which is greatly to blame for the accellarated climatical changes we are witnessing. I refer you to my previous article on climate change, which nobody commented on.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your climate exchange one has been your most read this year. Don't judge a piece by the comments it gets.

    I no longer place any confidence in utopian promises. Socialism had a real chance of making itself the hegemonic politics on the planet and the Stalinists killed it off.

    I have never felt it was defeated by the ideologues of the Right but was done to death by its own advocates. If Stalinists didn't exists capitalism would create them.

    ReplyDelete