It does not mean our daily lives are democratically directed or that the proletariat as a class have any meaningful say in what direction our lives take in the broader scheme of things. Actually, in the 26 County Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent.
In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 County’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative Party with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 County’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour, or Fine Gael with Labour and the Greens forming a coalition, either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War 1922-23) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up. Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up, with the two old enemies Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world as do most of these would-be stooges of the rich and powerful while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this verbal bullshit and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to implement their policies.
One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a ‘fully costed single tiered nationalised health service’ based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful occupants of the 26-County state, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health provision of service (not to be confused with level of health care) in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account is when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and people demanded better. Today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands, though various governments deny this charge.
It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics, many think they are the same, they are not, courting couple yes, husband and wife no. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in the general scheme of any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals and companies belonging to them. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary to name three and the rest of their business-class have larger private bank accounts collectively than the rest of the population combined, most of which is banked outside the state collecting huge interest on their base capital. Ignoring these people’s personal wealth and take the value of their gross capital, buildings and means of production therein (push pull economics), along with the annual profits made by these companies their wealth is astronomical. Banking outside the state is beneficial to these bandits so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike illegal tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the 26-County state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government and the Dail administration wish to remain friends with these conglomerates! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment! Eventually the European Commission intervened in the case of Apple forcing the government to take the money, upwards of €13 billion! These brigands are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ in society and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail, or any parliament, these people will still be in charge, certainly economically, and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy.’
So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all take ourselves back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote! Karl Marx once stated, rightly so, “All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy”. Marx continued; “The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Put simply, the government sitting in Dail Eireann or any other parliament are simply agents to ensure the well-being and economic stability of the capitalist-class, the exploiters of labour, and this democracy charade is perhaps the biggest work of fiction since the Bible. Perhaps a comparison can be made with a ball of clay? Imagine a huge ball of clay which represents the global proletariat in today’s post-modern world. The governments of the planets liberal democracies represent the Potters who, through their policies, mould the clay into a shape in this case worker who produces products the international capitalist-class demand. The shape of this once ball of clay must be suitably adjusted to produce the needs of the ‘market’ which the bourgeoisie, or capitalist-class, profit from. Former coal miners or steel workers who had worked most of their lives down the pit or in the steel works coking a blast furnace, with the closure of their industries, are remoulded to work in the new small post-industrial units. Occasionally the working-class do not wish to be ‘moulded’ into the shape the potters are trying so they go on strike, switching off the kilns. If this strike continues for too long, costing the capitalist economy money, the government on behalf of the wealthy send out the police with batons to chastise the workers. This analysis may sound a little ‘Heath Robinson,’ or over complicated, but it is nevertheless correct. We are all pieces of clay to be manipulated and moulded into a shape of benefit to the minority capitalist-class!
What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. More recent examples would be Mussolini’s fascist Italy and Pinochet’s Chile. Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures in place. Perhaps only socialism and the overthrow of the capitalist system would provide such democratic structures in the workplace (please do not use the former USSR as an opposition argument). In truth the only democratic structure in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward.’ These representatives of the employees are voted into their positions, or out of them, every year or sometimes longer but never in excess of five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the workers labour-power, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or ‘collect your cards’! If it is not a democracy it must then be a plutocracy?
Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics, Hugo Boss fashion designers who designed the uniforms of the SA then the SS, and many other mega rich exploiters of labour. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business! Trade unions were closed down and were replaced by the Nazi ran ‘Labour Front’ which in real terms was controlled by the Nazi Party and the bosses.
If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government or opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister (as Jeremy Corbyn almost did in 2017), they will economically undermine that person’s credentials and governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person in to governmental power. The elected Salvador Allende was shot dead in Chile and General Augusto Pinochet put in charge and the policies beneficial to exploitation continued. As Karl Marx said over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive,” this is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, and Engels. Workers are forced into jobs they hate and pay low wages or lose their benefits. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?
To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party or parties to government who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class. A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Perhaps modern liberal democracies could be described as; plutocracy with liberal democratic impressions and forms, they are dressed up to look and feel like democracies? Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!” How very true that quote may well prove to be.
One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a ‘fully costed single tiered nationalised health service’ based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful occupants of the 26-County state, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health provision of service (not to be confused with level of health care) in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account is when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and people demanded better. Today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands, though various governments deny this charge.
It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics, many think they are the same, they are not, courting couple yes, husband and wife no. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in the general scheme of any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals and companies belonging to them. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary to name three and the rest of their business-class have larger private bank accounts collectively than the rest of the population combined, most of which is banked outside the state collecting huge interest on their base capital. Ignoring these people’s personal wealth and take the value of their gross capital, buildings and means of production therein (push pull economics), along with the annual profits made by these companies their wealth is astronomical. Banking outside the state is beneficial to these bandits so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike illegal tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the 26-County state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government and the Dail administration wish to remain friends with these conglomerates! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment! Eventually the European Commission intervened in the case of Apple forcing the government to take the money, upwards of €13 billion! These brigands are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ in society and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail, or any parliament, these people will still be in charge, certainly economically, and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy.’
So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all take ourselves back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote! Karl Marx once stated, rightly so, “All forms of the state have democracy for their truth, and for that reason are false to the extent that they are not democracy”. Marx continued; “The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Put simply, the government sitting in Dail Eireann or any other parliament are simply agents to ensure the well-being and economic stability of the capitalist-class, the exploiters of labour, and this democracy charade is perhaps the biggest work of fiction since the Bible. Perhaps a comparison can be made with a ball of clay? Imagine a huge ball of clay which represents the global proletariat in today’s post-modern world. The governments of the planets liberal democracies represent the Potters who, through their policies, mould the clay into a shape in this case worker who produces products the international capitalist-class demand. The shape of this once ball of clay must be suitably adjusted to produce the needs of the ‘market’ which the bourgeoisie, or capitalist-class, profit from. Former coal miners or steel workers who had worked most of their lives down the pit or in the steel works coking a blast furnace, with the closure of their industries, are remoulded to work in the new small post-industrial units. Occasionally the working-class do not wish to be ‘moulded’ into the shape the potters are trying so they go on strike, switching off the kilns. If this strike continues for too long, costing the capitalist economy money, the government on behalf of the wealthy send out the police with batons to chastise the workers. This analysis may sound a little ‘Heath Robinson,’ or over complicated, but it is nevertheless correct. We are all pieces of clay to be manipulated and moulded into a shape of benefit to the minority capitalist-class!
What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. More recent examples would be Mussolini’s fascist Italy and Pinochet’s Chile. Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures in place. Perhaps only socialism and the overthrow of the capitalist system would provide such democratic structures in the workplace (please do not use the former USSR as an opposition argument). In truth the only democratic structure in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward.’ These representatives of the employees are voted into their positions, or out of them, every year or sometimes longer but never in excess of five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the workers labour-power, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or ‘collect your cards’! If it is not a democracy it must then be a plutocracy?
Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics, Hugo Boss fashion designers who designed the uniforms of the SA then the SS, and many other mega rich exploiters of labour. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business! Trade unions were closed down and were replaced by the Nazi ran ‘Labour Front’ which in real terms was controlled by the Nazi Party and the bosses.
If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government or opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister (as Jeremy Corbyn almost did in 2017), they will economically undermine that person’s credentials and governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person in to governmental power. The elected Salvador Allende was shot dead in Chile and General Augusto Pinochet put in charge and the policies beneficial to exploitation continued. As Karl Marx said over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive,” this is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, and Engels. Workers are forced into jobs they hate and pay low wages or lose their benefits. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?
To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party or parties to government who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class. A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Perhaps modern liberal democracies could be described as; plutocracy with liberal democratic impressions and forms, they are dressed up to look and feel like democracies? Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!” How very true that quote may well prove to be.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
Standing here today does not make you an Irish republican. If we choose to stand in this hallowed spot as Irish republicans then we must relay to the Irish people, in clear and concise terms, our justification and credentials for doing so.
We cannot claim to act on behalf of the Irish people if we cannot explain to them why and how a sovereign Irish republic affords our people the political, social and cultural framework within which Irish society can progress along genuine republican principles.
The supreme lesson bequeathed by those who fought in 1916 is a line of clarity, a fundamental starting point from which Irish republicanism must commence, and from there, cultivate its core philosophy to impact on the current political climate in which we find ourselves.
That line of clarity determines that the Irish people must reject any British dimension, influence or agency in the sovereign affairs of the Irish people. It also declares that no such interference can form any part in a just and democratic conflict resolution process. In the words of the 1916 Proclamation Irish sovereignty is inalienable and indefeasible; it cannot be bartered or given away for any purpose especially for political and constitutional expediency.
Grattan’s Parliament, Home Rule, Partition, Leinster House and Stormont are all manifestations to serve British strategic interests in our country. They originated and were nurtured with the direct and dependant collusion of a domestic Irish politics which has flourished for its own ends and has placed its own welfare above the welfare of our people.
But it is not enough for Irish republicans to simply quote from those who went before us. All generations of our people have the inalienable right to exercise their sovereignty in the face of the circumstances in which they live. And equally, all generations of Irish republicans have a right and duty to articulate their voice so that those generations take notice of it. History has given us our foundations; what we build on them is a matter for us.
Where is the voice of Irish republicanism today? What are we saying that is remotely quotable to those who will come after us? What ideas do we possess to advance the objectives of those buried here, who faced British firing squads in the sure confidence that such ideas would follow and secure the Republic they died for? If you cannot answer these questions, then you must remain silent. Marching bands are not a republican dialogue.
Our first task is to liberate Irish republicanism itself. We have mired it so deeply in the past that we have strangled any relevance it can have today. We have surrendered its future to historical decisions that were noble and relevant to their time but are, nonetheless, done and receding. There is no redemption in pointing at betrayal, in the comfort blanket of ideological purity or claiming heredity succession, which in itself is a deeply anti-republican concept. The core reasoning of republicanism is not traditional opposition but pragmatic progression.
The Republic proclaimed in 1916, democratically ratified in 1918, convened in 1919 and usurped in 1922 no longer exists both in fact and influence. The Proclamation of 1916 has been neutralised by the current political class who can claim empathy with its sentiments but will suffer no political consequences by refusing to pursue them. If we do not accept this reality, then we cannot begin to address the current realities which Irish republicans now face. It is not a question of republicanism going back to basics but rather Irish republicans taking those basics and moving forward.
If Irish republicanism is to have any chance to progress it needs to close the chapter on the First Republic, and the unsuccessful struggle to re-establish it, and open a new chapter for a Second Republic and initiate a new struggle to realise it.
The struggle to end the violation of our national sovereignty by the Westminster Parliament and the struggle to forge a viable and functioning Republic are one and the same. A so-called United Ireland is too vague a description to render it an objective, in any sense, of Irish republicanism. Building what we mean to establish is the surest means of defeating all those who stand in our way, both British and Irish.
By seeking to establish a Second Republic we address our people from a starting point of modernity. We make events in their lifetime relevant to their future and in turn to the republican project itself. Our duty to republican history is fulfilled because only those who have ideas to advance that history can inherit its mantle.
A Second Republic must serve its people and not itself be a servant to the political class; its own proclamation must state this and how it means to achieve it. It is not an altar at which to exalt historic patriotism but a living blueprint to build, foster and administer genuine republican ideals. The Proclamation of 1916 did not discard the Fenian Proclamation of 1867, it was a natural progression of it. That natural progression, once again, needs to be made manifest if the status quo is to be effectively challenged.
The Ireland of today is far removed from the vision of either proclamation, and more alarmingly, drifting ever further away. And once again British strategic interests have their hand on the tiller.
The political reasoning behind partition alters and adapts to the differing needs of the British establishment to preserve it. And because the Good Friday Agreement does not oblige the Twenty-Six County State to pursue the ending of Partition those British needs will go unchallenged.
More nefariously the dominant narrative on the constitutional question is now ingrained with the flawed need for a British citizen dimension to any future 32 County State. It is abundantly clear that British long-term thinking is looking beyond partition and modeling a so-called unitary state that will continue to serve its strategic interests in Ireland.
The British are no longer dependent on Unionist consent to guarantee its strategic interests in Ireland because under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they have secured nationalist consent for the very same ends.
This British strategy is clearly audible in the language and actions of constitutional and establishment nationalists. Gone is the language of sovereignty and self-determination instead replaced with terminology such as ‘Agreed Ireland’ and ‘Shared Island’ couched in the emotive rhetoric of peace and reconciliation.
The relentless assault on the policy of neutrality, to enmesh present and future Irish Armed Forces in Western Military Alliances, further underscores Westminster’s long-term intentions and nationalist compliance with same.
This is precisely why the British retained complete control over that aspect of the Good Friday Agreement which deals with constitutional change. The primary purpose of a Border Poll is not what establishment nationalists hail it to be, but rather a mechanism by which the British can determine the nature of any state that results from such a poll.
This is an Ireland in the Commonwealth. An Ireland as the western flank of NATO. An Ireland as a sub-entity in a capitalist financial system. An Ireland whose ancient culture and identity will be deliberately eroded for political expediency.
Here is where the Republican Movement must step up to the mark. Any republican critique of the British occupation of our country must be cognisant of British long-term planning and its use of domestic Irish politicians to make that planning effective.
If the British establishment is thinking forward to shape future events so too must republican strategies to challenge them. Waving history at the British is as effective as using old medicines to treat modern ailments; if anything, British history has taught us this.
What we are witnessing in Ireland today is the counter-democratic outworking of the Good Friday Agreement. Even if the terms of that agreement fall into obscurity the political direction it initiated will continue to prevail.
The strongest argument that Irish republicanism currently possesses is a democratic one. We must now focus our attentions and resources into developing this argument to its fullest potential. As it stands, Partition is seen as being democratically endorsed via the so-called principle of consent. Achieving that consent is the red herring which both governments would have all interested parties endlessly but fruitlessly pursue.
A modern Proclamation, setting out in clear and precise terms, the sovereign democratic premise upon which a Second Republic must be founded, should by default graphically expose the counter-democratic nature of this consent fallacy.
If we resort to ideological abstractions or historical rhetoric as the primary focus of our efforts, we will only be talking to ourselves; an ever decreasing and irrelevant circle. What we need to articulate is not what the principle of consent is supposed to give us, but what it actually denies us, in real terms.
Peace on the island of Ireland should not be held hostage to a compromise on the integrity of our national sovereignty. If, as republicans, we recognise the people as the nation then it is through the people that our vision of nation and statehood must traverse if it is to have any relevance to them at all.
And for this to happen we must speak and understand the language of the people, the language of need, of necessity and of priority. The welfare of the people must constitute the social imperative of the Second Republic.
Ukrainian activist Hana Perekhoda says there is a fundamental contradiction in European leftist thinking: opposition to European rearmament based on its presumed status as an imperialist power, while reality reveals an alarming military vulnerability.
In the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine and within an increasingly unstable geopolitical context, the author invites us to rethink our conception of European defence and the consequences of a moral abandonment of Eastern European countries.
She makes an urgent call to reconcile the preservation of the European democratic framework with an internal struggle for its social transformation.
I observe, in Western European leftist circles, a principled opposition to any strengthening of European military capabilities. The argument is clear: Europe is supposedly an imperialist power, and it would therefore be morally unacceptable for it to rearm. France’s current role in the Congo, for example, illustrates this. This horrible reality fuels legitimate resentment in many regions of the world and demonstrates the persistent blindness of most Europeans.
I observe, in Western European leftist circles, a principled opposition to any strengthening of European military capabilities. The argument is clear: Europe is supposedly an imperialist power, and it would therefore be morally unacceptable for it to rearm. France’s current role in the Congo, for example, illustrates this. This horrible reality fuels legitimate resentment in many regions of the world and demonstrates the persistent blindness of most Europeans.
Continue @ ESSF.
|
|
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
The mandatory coalition of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael (FFFG) are guaranteed to govern the 26 counties beyond 2035. The interdependence of each party upon the other will ensure a continuation of this parasitic relationship unless a merger evolves.
FFFG have rubbished the notion that a border poll will be called by 2030, and in the current context it is impossible to imagine the UK Government (UKG) ceding to this request by bitplayers from the backwater that is the north. The UKG will not steer a course that will bring it into conflict with its nearest neighbour and EU member State, at a time when their global priority is to repair the EU relationships that were almost destroyed by the Tories and their calamitous handling of Brexit.
The Border Poll 2030 “project” has been lost. The change in NSF tactics both in the north and the south is an indication that NSF accept that a different approach is needed.
In the south, the privately schooled O’Broin appears to have been the only casualty following an electoral postmortem that should have seen more heads roll. Unfortunately for comrade Eoin, dressing up as a factory worker and talking patronisingly about the “working class” no longer cuts it with the electorate or it seems within the “party”.
NSF (Southern) appear to have internalised the criticism that from 2020 to 2024, they were “the worst opposition party in the history of the state”. Having successfully chosen to become the SDLP in the north, this ruse became their Achilles in the south where the decision to mimic FFFG saw the party shred its traditional republican vote and at the same time fail to attract the centrist voters upon whom their victory would depend.
The backtracking from a position where one could not distinguish between the establishment and a supposedly revolutionary party is happening at pace. SF, with the bizarre sponsorship of Labour and PBP, have become quite the shouty party. TD Carty has become as verbose and belligerent as he was during his Ogra days by disrupting the business of Leinster House in a manner best suited to the Student’s Union, one which is unlikely to convince anyone that the party of opposition could be trusted in Government.
The tactic of disruption, aggression and antagonism in the south is the antithesis of what the party is trying to portray in the north. The inherent contradictions of being in government in one part of the island and opposition in another part become more evident daily.
Mary Lou, who has become more vainglorious in defeat than Trump, excoriated Simon Harris for his handling of the building of a children's hospital in Dublin and calling out his signing off a tender for the now discredited BAM Group shouting that: “The national children’s hospital “fiasco” is rooted in Government incompetence”
Meanwhile in Belfast, The BAM Group, handed over the keys to a new maternity hospital to the Health service a mere 10 years after being awarded the contract under the patronage of a NSF Health Minister.
Evidently, what constitutes FFFG incompetence in the south represents NSF good governance in the north.
Being in opposition in the south for a further 10 years might afford NSF the time and space to learn how to ride these two horses at once but is also becoming evident that there are tensions within the party in the north relating to their inability to effect any real change through the GFA institutions.
The provenance of the current internal tensions in NSF (Northern) can be traced back to the St Andrews Agreement, when the DUP effectively renegotiated core elements of the GFA and which NSF conceded without a whimper at that time. The outworkings of St Andrews coupled with the NSF inability to work the northern institutions to the benefit of all communities or to promote an all-Ireland agenda has left NSF with little option but to retreat into base sectarian politics.
Despite the all the posturing that Michelle would be the first “First Minister for All” she is consistently being outplayed by the DUP and Emma Little Pengelley, in particular, whose political nous is without compare in the current Executive.
When the new, NSF Economy Minister was recently questioned at the Stormont Scrutiny Committee on the impact of the Trump Tariffs on the North, the socialist republican Minister was unable to give a straightforward answer to a direct question from a junior DUP politician. Having fluffed her lines on whether she was in favour of the north paying the 20% EU tariff or the 10% UK tariff, the DUP man rightly proclaimed that “her party's position is all over the place".
The First Minister for All, expressed her concerns that the tariffs created “instability” and represented “a race to the bottom” seemingly unaware that her party’s pre-election manifesto in the south committed the party to taxation measures not dissimilar to the Trump tariffs and included the creation of a grandiose “wealth tax commission” and the introduction of a “solidarity tax”.
When Trump eventually reaches the bottom, there will be a multitude of NSF politicos keeping a seat warm for him.
The DUP accusation that the NSF position “is all over the place” is not without merit and extends well beyond the subject of taxation. The leader of the somewhat ineffectual Stormont opposition benches highlighted a further disconnect between what NSF say in their manifestos and policy and what they do when in power. The NSF socialist Finance Minister O’Dowd, when queried, in the assembly on his party’s failure to devolve any financial powers to the Executive after their almost ten years at the helm of the Finance Ministry, NSF Minister O’Dowd retorted: “I am not here to respond to the Sinn Fein manifesto in relation to any matters”
Only a matter of weeks before this admission that the NSF northern manifesto is not worth the paper it is was written on, the socialist Finance Minister who was at that stage the socialist Minister for Infrastructure noted that his then Department's inability to pedestrianise a street in Belfast was as a direct result of British Austerity.
Citing “competing business priorities” as a further contributory factor.
It was only after he left this Ministry that his former Department announced that it would have cost the grand sum of £5000 to pedestrianise a city centre street and that O’Dowd’s successor had reversed his decision despite the pressure from the Belfast Taxi lobby.
In a further daring blow for Irish Freedom, Irish speakers in the UK now hold the same rights as Welsh and Scots Gaelic speakers to look at bus timetables in their language of choice. Liz Kimmins, NSF MLA and New Minister, reversed another of O’Dowd’s decisions and placed Irish language signage on a bus station in Belfast. In a rumpus which is reminiscent of the NSF Councillors in Belfast failing to install dual language signage at Andytown Leisure Centre a few years back and then blaming the DUP. NSF have once again successfully shifted the blame from their Minister who seemingly forgot about the parties bi-lingual policy onto the DUP.
Not unexpectedly, the DUP, once again, took the NSF bait and complained about the process and the cost to the public purse, thereby allowing NSF to portray this issue as them bravely standing up to the arch bigots of the DUP and not remotely related to the impotence of their erstwhile Minister.
The same approach, of playing to base sectarian instinct was on display, when the NSF member - who also happens to be chairperson of South Antrim GAA and CEO of the “peoples festival” - organised a rally to put pressure on Communities Minister Gordon Lyons and Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn to do more to ensure the Casement football pitch is completed.
The aforementioned NSF activist who covered himself in ignominy during the ejection of Palestinian activists from a pro-Fatah NSF rally in the Europa Hotel in 2024 was apparently not aware that NSF hold both the Finance and Economy Ministries in NI and that as such are the only Minsters that can unlock the funding necessary to build a football pitch in West Belfast.
At the same time that the NSF proxies, the GAA and the community sector were crying foul about DUP discrimination and cursing the northern state that they now manage at the behest of the British Government, other prominent NSF members were telling the public what a great city Belfast was to live in. The best city on the island of Ireland and one where there is no longer a benign paramilitary influence or coercive control in the West of the City.
Mairtin O’Muilleoir, who recently re-entered the public eye after his much-publicised descent into embarrassing controversy following allegations about the nature of his relationship with those accused of being Romanian people smugglers, tried to take the Justice Minister to task on a campaign to tackle residual paramilitarism.
Mairtin proudly stated that he knows of no business in West Belfast that pays protection money, and I have no doubt that the businesses in West Belfast to whom he referred, do not pay protection money to the IRA, in much the same way that the Genco Olive Oil Company did not pay protection money to Vito Corleone.
Having made his millions on the back of other people’s toil, O’Muilloeir, who appears to spend most of his time in the States as a Human Rights envoy and bag man for NSF, and when in Belfast issuing legal writs against Republican Ex-Prisoners, bemoaned the fact that the campaign would hinder his ability to encourage investment and jobs in west Belfast.
On putting the skip rat from the Andytown News back into his box, the Justice Minister pointed out that the campaign had been agreed by all parties in the Executive including his own NSF.
That O’Muilleoir would go on a solo run is unthinkable: he remains a hugely influential figure in NSF and has unfettered access to Ministers in the Executive extending beyond NSF.
FFFG have rubbished the notion that a border poll will be called by 2030, and in the current context it is impossible to imagine the UK Government (UKG) ceding to this request by bitplayers from the backwater that is the north. The UKG will not steer a course that will bring it into conflict with its nearest neighbour and EU member State, at a time when their global priority is to repair the EU relationships that were almost destroyed by the Tories and their calamitous handling of Brexit.
The Border Poll 2030 “project” has been lost. The change in NSF tactics both in the north and the south is an indication that NSF accept that a different approach is needed.
In the south, the privately schooled O’Broin appears to have been the only casualty following an electoral postmortem that should have seen more heads roll. Unfortunately for comrade Eoin, dressing up as a factory worker and talking patronisingly about the “working class” no longer cuts it with the electorate or it seems within the “party”.
NSF (Southern) appear to have internalised the criticism that from 2020 to 2024, they were “the worst opposition party in the history of the state”. Having successfully chosen to become the SDLP in the north, this ruse became their Achilles in the south where the decision to mimic FFFG saw the party shred its traditional republican vote and at the same time fail to attract the centrist voters upon whom their victory would depend.
The backtracking from a position where one could not distinguish between the establishment and a supposedly revolutionary party is happening at pace. SF, with the bizarre sponsorship of Labour and PBP, have become quite the shouty party. TD Carty has become as verbose and belligerent as he was during his Ogra days by disrupting the business of Leinster House in a manner best suited to the Student’s Union, one which is unlikely to convince anyone that the party of opposition could be trusted in Government.
The tactic of disruption, aggression and antagonism in the south is the antithesis of what the party is trying to portray in the north. The inherent contradictions of being in government in one part of the island and opposition in another part become more evident daily.
Mary Lou, who has become more vainglorious in defeat than Trump, excoriated Simon Harris for his handling of the building of a children's hospital in Dublin and calling out his signing off a tender for the now discredited BAM Group shouting that: “The national children’s hospital “fiasco” is rooted in Government incompetence”
Meanwhile in Belfast, The BAM Group, handed over the keys to a new maternity hospital to the Health service a mere 10 years after being awarded the contract under the patronage of a NSF Health Minister.
Evidently, what constitutes FFFG incompetence in the south represents NSF good governance in the north.
Being in opposition in the south for a further 10 years might afford NSF the time and space to learn how to ride these two horses at once but is also becoming evident that there are tensions within the party in the north relating to their inability to effect any real change through the GFA institutions.
The provenance of the current internal tensions in NSF (Northern) can be traced back to the St Andrews Agreement, when the DUP effectively renegotiated core elements of the GFA and which NSF conceded without a whimper at that time. The outworkings of St Andrews coupled with the NSF inability to work the northern institutions to the benefit of all communities or to promote an all-Ireland agenda has left NSF with little option but to retreat into base sectarian politics.
Despite the all the posturing that Michelle would be the first “First Minister for All” she is consistently being outplayed by the DUP and Emma Little Pengelley, in particular, whose political nous is without compare in the current Executive.
When the new, NSF Economy Minister was recently questioned at the Stormont Scrutiny Committee on the impact of the Trump Tariffs on the North, the socialist republican Minister was unable to give a straightforward answer to a direct question from a junior DUP politician. Having fluffed her lines on whether she was in favour of the north paying the 20% EU tariff or the 10% UK tariff, the DUP man rightly proclaimed that “her party's position is all over the place".
The First Minister for All, expressed her concerns that the tariffs created “instability” and represented “a race to the bottom” seemingly unaware that her party’s pre-election manifesto in the south committed the party to taxation measures not dissimilar to the Trump tariffs and included the creation of a grandiose “wealth tax commission” and the introduction of a “solidarity tax”.
When Trump eventually reaches the bottom, there will be a multitude of NSF politicos keeping a seat warm for him.
The DUP accusation that the NSF position “is all over the place” is not without merit and extends well beyond the subject of taxation. The leader of the somewhat ineffectual Stormont opposition benches highlighted a further disconnect between what NSF say in their manifestos and policy and what they do when in power. The NSF socialist Finance Minister O’Dowd, when queried, in the assembly on his party’s failure to devolve any financial powers to the Executive after their almost ten years at the helm of the Finance Ministry, NSF Minister O’Dowd retorted: “I am not here to respond to the Sinn Fein manifesto in relation to any matters”
Only a matter of weeks before this admission that the NSF northern manifesto is not worth the paper it is was written on, the socialist Finance Minister who was at that stage the socialist Minister for Infrastructure noted that his then Department's inability to pedestrianise a street in Belfast was as a direct result of British Austerity.
My department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to underfunding and austerity by the British government.
Citing “competing business priorities” as a further contributory factor.
It was only after he left this Ministry that his former Department announced that it would have cost the grand sum of £5000 to pedestrianise a city centre street and that O’Dowd’s successor had reversed his decision despite the pressure from the Belfast Taxi lobby.
In a further daring blow for Irish Freedom, Irish speakers in the UK now hold the same rights as Welsh and Scots Gaelic speakers to look at bus timetables in their language of choice. Liz Kimmins, NSF MLA and New Minister, reversed another of O’Dowd’s decisions and placed Irish language signage on a bus station in Belfast. In a rumpus which is reminiscent of the NSF Councillors in Belfast failing to install dual language signage at Andytown Leisure Centre a few years back and then blaming the DUP. NSF have once again successfully shifted the blame from their Minister who seemingly forgot about the parties bi-lingual policy onto the DUP.
Not unexpectedly, the DUP, once again, took the NSF bait and complained about the process and the cost to the public purse, thereby allowing NSF to portray this issue as them bravely standing up to the arch bigots of the DUP and not remotely related to the impotence of their erstwhile Minister.
The same approach, of playing to base sectarian instinct was on display, when the NSF member - who also happens to be chairperson of South Antrim GAA and CEO of the “peoples festival” - organised a rally to put pressure on Communities Minister Gordon Lyons and Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn to do more to ensure the Casement football pitch is completed.
The aforementioned NSF activist who covered himself in ignominy during the ejection of Palestinian activists from a pro-Fatah NSF rally in the Europa Hotel in 2024 was apparently not aware that NSF hold both the Finance and Economy Ministries in NI and that as such are the only Minsters that can unlock the funding necessary to build a football pitch in West Belfast.
At the same time that the NSF proxies, the GAA and the community sector were crying foul about DUP discrimination and cursing the northern state that they now manage at the behest of the British Government, other prominent NSF members were telling the public what a great city Belfast was to live in. The best city on the island of Ireland and one where there is no longer a benign paramilitary influence or coercive control in the West of the City.
Mairtin O’Muilleoir, who recently re-entered the public eye after his much-publicised descent into embarrassing controversy following allegations about the nature of his relationship with those accused of being Romanian people smugglers, tried to take the Justice Minister to task on a campaign to tackle residual paramilitarism.
Mairtin proudly stated that he knows of no business in West Belfast that pays protection money, and I have no doubt that the businesses in West Belfast to whom he referred, do not pay protection money to the IRA, in much the same way that the Genco Olive Oil Company did not pay protection money to Vito Corleone.
Having made his millions on the back of other people’s toil, O’Muilloeir, who appears to spend most of his time in the States as a Human Rights envoy and bag man for NSF, and when in Belfast issuing legal writs against Republican Ex-Prisoners, bemoaned the fact that the campaign would hinder his ability to encourage investment and jobs in west Belfast.
On putting the skip rat from the Andytown News back into his box, the Justice Minister pointed out that the campaign had been agreed by all parties in the Executive including his own NSF.
That O’Muilleoir would go on a solo run is unthinkable: he remains a hugely influential figure in NSF and has unfettered access to Ministers in the Executive extending beyond NSF.
Belfast, like every city I presume, is a wonderful place for someone who has “more money in the bank than I could hope to spend in my lifetime” (direct quote) but it is a city where the poor, the needy and the vulnerable have been bypassed by the “peace dividend “. The jobs and investment that O’Muilleoir claims to have brought to the Belfast, are invisible to the naked eye.
The city centre is derelict with the exception of vape bars, phone shops and the “Cathedral Quarter”. The doorways of the empty shops provide limited shelter to the huge population of people who are homeless and afford a semi-safe space for people with addictions to satisfy their habits. CastleCourt, which was once the jewel in the British normalisation crown, meriting numerous visits from IRA bombing teams, is half empty, dirty and jaded. Belfast City centre is more abandoned now that it was at the peak of the IRA’s bombing campaign.
The disconnect from reality, displayed by the millionaire branch of NSF is symptomatic of where party currently find themselves.
Signing off on a first Programme For Government (PFG) for the north since 2016, the First Minister for All described it as “ambitious and realistic”. The 2025 to 2027 PFG, which took two years to sign off, is the first Programme for Government from an Executive led by NSF. We were told pre-election and since that voting for NSF would bring seismic changes for “families and workers”, and that having a NSF First Minister was groundbreaking.
The PFG owned by the NSF led Government has committed to “start to build” 5850 social homes in the north by 2027. Where the homelessness crisis is spiralling out of control, no budget or timeframe for completion was included. Conversely, the FFFG plan to deliver 33,000 new homes per year during this tenure with a multi-billion Euro ringfenced budget has been derided by comrade Eoin of NSFs Southern wing as unambitious and unrealistic.
Pivotal PPF, the most influential think tank in the north, in a critique of the new NSF PFG stated that:
we are not seeing the same ambition to improve public services and economic growth that is happening in England.
and noted that following a public consultation there was: “an additional commitment to an anti-poverty strategy.”
The obligation to develop an anti-poverty strategy was inserted into the NI Act following the St Andrews Agreement of 2006. It was not even mentioned in a First Draft of the new PFG, agreed by Four NSF Ministers.
All of the shit housery in the world, all of the deflection onto the DUP cannot take away from the fact that a NSF-led Government in the north, was taken to court by a collective of Human Rights organisations because of its failure to develop an anti-poverty strategy that was agreed In 2006.
The First Minster for All and the NSF Ministers who held this portfolio from 2020-2024 are complicit in this debacle. Shamefully, the Executive led by SF was found by a British court to be “in breach of its legal obligation to adopt an anti-poverty strategy”.
Again Colm Gildernew, NSF MLA, was apparently oblivious to these facts. Mr Gildernew has promised to hold the current DUPs Minister feet to the fire and ensure that the incumbent DUP Minister publish “in the coming weeks” a critical NI Strategy that his party agreed a mere 19 years hence.
In a similar vein, the NSF press office stroked the ego of the then socialist Finance Minister Archibald for successfully securing additional funds from the UK to ensure that health workers in the north would receive pay parity with colleagues in GB for one year. Maybe it was the passing of time or the enforced change in personnel in the press office, but the fact is that it was the former NSF Minister for Health who unilaterally dismissed pay parity for health workers in 2017. This was before assuming the office of First Minister for All in 2024.
Many critics of NSF have commented on the levels of cognitive dissonance that the party displays, and I have written in the past about the big lies that have created a border poll fever. I have reviewed my position on cognitive dissonance and feel that the comparison with NSF is genuinely unfair to the many people with mental health challenges who experience dissonance.
I am now of the view that SF have brought more than bags of dollars to Ireland and fat millionaires to the “James Connolly Centre Ltd” back from the US of A. The big lie politics of the border poll that dominated the political messaging on the podiums over Easter is now accompanied by the” defactualised politics” of the USA.
Just as Trump blames Biden, NSF blame the Brits and the DUP. Lying in politics in nothing new, but it did not creep into the body politic of NSF by error or omission. The acceptance by the media and the public of the outrageous mega lies such as “I was never in the RA” or “we are on the cusp on constitutional change” allow totalitarian organisations like NSF the latitude to cut loose from any pretence of facts.
NSF have taken a strategic decision that to tell the base what it is they want to hear, and to make that dishonest message plausible, is more important than telling the truth. Why would they not, when they face no scrutiny telling mega lies? The problem with NSF is what they are saying is neither credible nor logical. Despite how hard the NSF sycophants such as draft dodger Donnelly, flatulent Feeney and acrimonious Andree defer to the big lies and the small lies on behalf of NSF, the truth will remain the truth and sooner or later rather than being comforted by the lies, the public will become outraged by their corrosiveness.
Maybe the first step in the journey to a new Ireland
“Truth forever on the gallows and wrong forever on the throne”
⏩Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
