Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Republican Sinn Féin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Sinn Féin. Show all posts
Des Dalton sets out his reasons for leaving Republican Sinn Fein 

Statement from Des Dalton

Following on from my interview given to the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Irish Studies Civic Space, excerpts of which were carried by Henry McDonald in The Observer, the Ard Chomhairle of Republican Sinn Féin voted to suspend me from membership of the organisation.

To accept such a suspension would be to renounce the ideas I put forward in my interview and that is something I cannot do. To do so would be untrue to myself and to ideas that I passionately believe are necessary to advancing traditional Irish Republicanism in the Ireland of 2021 and beyond. Therefore, I have now tendered by resignation from Republican Sinn Féin. 

Resigning from an organisation to which I have rendered over 30 years of service, and within which I have built strong personal relationships, is not something I do lightly. However, I believe it is now time for me to find my own voice and advance my ideas and analysis in the wider discussion about the future of traditional Irish Republicanism.

There are major opportunities opening up. The constitutional question is centre stage in a way it has not been for over 40 years. In Scotland, the move towards independence has accelerated to a point where the future of the whole so-called ‘United Kingdom’ is seriously in question for the first time in over 300 years. In such a scenario, to what union will unionists be loyal? Traditional Irish Republicanism has roots deep in Irish history and has a reach that is often underestimated. Without the distraction of sporadic armed actions, I believe its message can resonate even wider.

Irish Republicanism needs to free itself of the shrill voices who shout “sell out” or “slippery slope” when any initiative or fresh thinking is advanced for discussion. This is irrational and simply stifles the kind of honest and open debate that is necessary if the ideals of Irish Republicanism are to be advanced. Such debate must take place in an environment which is honest and rational, underpinned by a firm grasp of what the fundamental principles of Republicanism are. These are set out in the 1916 Proclamation. 

I am confident and secure in my Irish Republicanism as I have been my entire adult life. My allegiance remains with the All-Ireland Republic proclaimed in 1916. I believe that by refusing to engage with objective realities Irish Republicanism risks isolating itself further. I believe those who advocate for perpetual armed action without clear short term and long-term objectives do a disservice to Irish Republicanism as by their actions they serve only to copper fasten the institutions of partition.

I believe Irish Republicanism has so much to offer the Irish people in terms of political, social, and economic justice. I hope that the analysis that I shared in my interview can begin and contribute to an open, informed, and constructive debate about the way forward in the struggle for the All-Ireland Republic.

An Phoblacht Abú

⏭Des Dalton is a long time republican activist.

Des Dalton Resigns From Republican Sinn Féin

Republican Sinn Fein ➠ On September 3, Gavin McKenna, a member of the Ard Chomhairle of Sinn Féin Poblachtach, was arrested by heavily-armed members of the RUC/PSNI on the Lough Road, Lurgan, Co Armagh as he made his way to work. 

 
His family home was also subjected to a heavy-handed raid by the Crown Forces.

The following day he was charged with coordinating a petrol bomb attack on police aiding and abetting the throwing of a petrol bomb with intent to destroy property and personal injury. He was refused bail and was remanded to Maghaberry jail along with three others.

Gavin was held in isolation in Maghaberry for 14 days before he was moved not to the Republican Roe wing but to Bann House which houses loyalist as well as non-political prisoners. He was strip-searched and assaulted by prison screws. Since his incarceration he has not seen any of his family and has not received fresh clothing. He is still wearing the work clothes he was arrested in. The only contact with outside the jail were two phone and a Zoom call in 14 days, one of which was terminated after a few minutes.

He requested to see the doctor as he has a stomach ulcer for which he takes medication. His request was refused and he has also been refused medication which has resulted in severe vomiting every night.

The regime in Maghaberry to which Republican prisoners have been subjected has led over the years to many protests. Sinn Féin Poblachtach condemns the treatment of Gavin McKenna and demands that he be seen by a doctor immediately; that he be allowed visits from his family and that he be moved without delay to the Republican wing, Roe House, in the prison.

Medical Help Refused For Gavin McKenna In Maghaberry

New Year Statement from the leadership of Republican Sinn Féin.

We wish to extend fraternal New Year greetings to friends and supporters at home and abroad for 2020. The coming year is one that will see several important centenaries of momentous events in Irish revolutionary history. It is also a year that presents opportunities to advance discussion of a New Ireland. The year just past was one that began with the centenary of the revolutionary First All-Ireland Dáil. As Irish Republicans we marked this pivotal moment in our history, a true expression of the democratic will and sovereignty of the Irish people.

Last year drew to a close with the uncertainty surrounding whether the British state is to exit the EU removed. The Westminster election results also point to a shifting of the demographics in the Six Counties and with it opening the possibility of real debate about the possibility of a new and independent Ireland. Not one of the constitutional nationalist parties possess a coherent plan for a New Ireland. Indeed, the majority of that constituency have expressed their reluctance to even discuss the idea of ending partition as they fear the new political dynamic that would create and the effect it would have on their grip on political power. The coming year is one ripe for Irish Republicanism to make a proactive lead in such a debate as we possess in Éire Nua a credible alternative structure for a post-British-withdrawal Ireland.

Not for the first time, the leadership of unionism has been led up the garden path by the British Conservative establishment as it furthers its own selfish agenda. Now that the British Tories have secured an over-all majority in Westminster they are prepared once again to discard unionism. This has resulted in feelings of insecurity and betrayal within grassroots unionism. Their leadership has left them in the invidious position of being pledged to the British state, a state they have no trust in and has shown scant regard for their concerns. We share their distrust of the 26-County Administration and the idea of “Dublin rule”.

We say to the unionist/loyalist community that now is the time to take their place in meaningful discussions about their future in a New Ireland. We invite them to bring their ideas to the table just as we will bring ours. In such discussions we would present to them Éire Nua as a viable and credible alternative to the present failed and undemocratic partitionist states. Rather than being used as pawns of the British political elite, they can join in open and democratic discussions about a New Ireland. 

Such discussions would be predicated on the principle of All-Ireland democracy and the sovereignty of the Irish people acting as a unit. Such talks, and the New Ireland that would emerge from them would not be subject to the whims of an alien parliament or government. Instead all sections of the Irish people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, would determine their own future. 

This coming year marks 100 years since the year of revolution that was 1920. We will be marking these events, including amongst others, Bloody Sunday; the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork, Tomás Mac Curtáin; the death on hunger strike of Cork Lord Mayor Terence MacSwiney; and the martyrdom of Kevin Barry. We will be holding a series of events including a seminar in Dublin on February 15, 2020 to mark these momentous events in our history. We call on the Irish people to take ownership of their own history, just as they did in 2016, and not allow it to be sanitised by the revisionist Leinster House political elite. We should commemorate the deeds of the revolutionary generation of a century ago with pride and without apology.

As we commemorate the centenary of the revolutionary events of 1920, we think of those who suffer today because their commitment to the same cause and ideals. We take this opportunity to extend greetings to Republican POW Jonathan Hawthorn in Portlaoise Prison and commend him for his steadfast adherence to Republican principle.

We extend fraternal greetings to all those in Palestine, Catalonia, the Basque Country and wherever people struggle for the right to national independence. We pledge them our ongoing solidarity.

In the coming year we must redouble our efforts in support of the campaign to secure the right to housing and homes for the Irish people. Our struggle is for social, political and economic democracy and justice.

The most fitting way to honour the patriots of the past is to struggle to right the wrongs they fought against and build an Ireland that is worthy of their sacrifice.

An Phoblacht Abú.

Time For All Sections Of The Irish People To Determine Their Own Future

Des Dalton with the paper that formed the basis of his contribution to The Way Forward seminar held by Republican Sinn Féin in the Teacher’s Club in Dublin on Saturday July 27.

'nationalism' is a word that still signifies all sorts of undifferentiated things, but it serves me quite adequately to identify the mobilizing force that coalesced into resistance against an alien and occupying empire on the part of peoples processing a common history, religion, and language -  Edward Said (Champion of Palestinian independence and anti-colonialist)

Today’s seminar has been stimulating as well as challenging, engaging with ideas about the future direction we believe that Ireland should take. I believe that we agree on far more than separates us. However, that is not to say that we can simply ignore certain first principles. I believe that to do so is dishonest and will never provide the basis for meaningful and ultimately fruitful engagement.

I think that we are now in a changed political landscape, I am not naïve enough to believe that Brexit and all the political upheaval and potential economic upheaval that accompanies it will somehow magic a New Ireland into being. But again, we should not be blind to the possibilities that it does present to Irish Republicanism. At a minimum it has shone a spotlight on the illogicality of partition and has begun the first serious discussion about the possibility of a free and united Ireland in over thirty years. In the Éire Nua programme we have something substantial to contribute to that discussion. Indeed, amid this current political upheaval in Anglo-Irish relations between Dublin and London I believe that as traditional Republicans we have a duty also to continue to articulate the aspiration for real All-Ireland democracy.

To begin I would like to establish a couple of first principles. Beginning with parameters and definition. Language is not inconsequential, as all with even a cursory interest in Irish politics or history will readily agree. Even how we refer to Ireland is loaded with meaning. Language frames the entire debate around defining the Irish nation. Over the past twenty years at least there has been an increasing usage of the term “the island” to refer to Ireland. It appears that even to refer to Ireland, or even All-Ireland is simply too much of an acknowledgment that such a thing as the Irish nation exists as a geographic entity, let alone a political or cultural one. During the current Brexit debate I have detected an even further shift, with many within the media and the Leinster House political class referring to the 26-County state as Ireland. Previously even the most died in the wool “Free Stater” would always refer to the “state” never to “the country” when referencing the 26-County state. This was a recognition that Ireland as a nation extended beyond the border. Now the air is laden with references to Ireland and “Northern Ireland”, with the underlying idea being of course that two countries exist on “the island”. This is where the importance of language comes in. Once we accept these labels, we accept the parameters of the debate as set by the partitionist political class. Having done so we abdicate the very idea of Ireland. We have essentially been defeated before we even start, we have conceded the very basis of Irish nationalism let alone Irish republicanism. Once this language enters everyday parlance it soon became a way to think of Ireland and so it goes on.

This no idle academic debate about terminology. This is key to our starting point, our first principles. Because the definition of the Irish nation ipso facto defines the unit of decision making which brings us back to the heart of the matter. Parameters and definition. The importance of the unit of decision making has never been lost on the British government. Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell hammers home this point in his memoir of the so-called “peace process” Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland.


One of Tony Blair’s attributes as a leader was his ability to go back to first principles (…) Tony had zeroed in on the fundamental principle: what was the unit that had the right to self-determination? Was it Northern Ireland (sic), the island of Ireland, or the islands together including Britain? He believed the key point to be that of the consent of the people being ruled, and that meant it had to be the people of Northern Ireland (sic) who should have the say. For the unionists this was of fundamental importance, unlike the issue of decommissioning, which was purely transient because, after all, any group that gave up its weapons could easily acquire new ones. The principle of consent, which had been accepted by the Irish government in progressively stronger terms in the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and in the Downing Street Declaration of 1993, would be the most difficult concession for Republicans to make.


To quote from the contribution of Sylvie Kleinman of the Department of Modern History, Trinity College, Dublin, to a volume entitled “Reinterpreting (Robert) Emmet” with particular reference to Emmet’s mission to France:


A common thread runs through the extensive manuscripts detailing official attitudes in France towards Ireland and the United Irishmen, namely that they were consistently described as representing une nation, un people, which to French perceptions could already claim its place among the nations of the earth.

Documents issuing from the Irish College in Louvain, in what is now Belgium, 400 years ago used terms “náisiún” regarding Ireland and “Éireannach” instead of “Gael” and “Gael-Ghael” in reference to an Irish person. We are not a revolted colony nor as Thomas Davis said, “a sandbank thrown up by caprice of wind and earth”, but an ancient people.

The British state is in the midst of an existential crisis as a result of Brexit. The fault lines that lie at the heart of the British state have been exposed by the whole debacle. The undemocratic nature of the so-called United Kingdom is exposed for all to see. The narrow jingoistic little England nationalism of the Eton and Oxbridge elite trumps the sovereignty of the people of Ireland, Scotland or Wales. None of this will come as any surprise to Irish Republicans, who have never been under any illusions about the true nature of English government’s relationship with the Irish people. But now it has been laid bare for all to see.

Once more the “Irish Question” has come back to bite the British establishment as they try to square the circle of British occupation of the Six Counties and its consequent denial of the inherent unity and sovereignty of the historic Irish nation. The call, by characters such as Jacob Rees Mogg etc, to protect the integrity of the so-called United Kingdom are breath taking in their lack of historical or political awareness. They do so, sure in the knowledge that their imperialistic bluster will go unchallenged. Where are the voices raised in defence of the territorial and political integrity of the Irish nation? The British Tory elite know only too well that even a basic Irish nationalist position was long ago abandoned by the Irish constitutional nationalist parties on both sides of the British imposed border under the terms of the 1998 Stormont Agreement.

The silence of the constitutional nationalist establishment on even the most basic tenets of Irish nationalism is damning. Not for the first time, it falls to traditional Irish Republicans to articulate the right of the people of Ireland to national independence. Unequivocally we take our stand on the principles of the 1916 Proclamation.

Brexit has also exposed the 1998 Stormont Agreement as an empty shell. It’s promised guarantees of enshrining Irish nationalists’ right to exercise Irish citizenship has been exposed as yet more empty rhetoric. Once more the nationalists of the Six Counties have been abandoned by so-called constitutional nationalism, including the 26-County state. In the Six Counties the Stormont Assembly has fallen into abeyance while the British government abandoned any pretence of neutrality on the issue of their continued occupation of north eastern Ireland by forming an unholy alliance with the DUP. Indeed, in recent weeks the historian Paul Bew, in a paper for the policy think tank Policy Exchange, argues that the incoming British Prime Minister must consistently make the case for the union between the Six Counties and Britain. Professor Bew contends that the preservation of the union should be the “absolute priority” of the next British Prime Minister. Paul Bew, as a key adviser to David Trimble, played a central role in the negotiation of the 1998 Stormont Agreement. That entire “peace process”, which culminated in the 1998 Stormont Agreement was predicated on the notion, as set out in the 1993 Downing St Declaration, that the British Government had: “no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.” Consequently, Paul Bew’s intervention is not insignificant. His candour and honesty are to be welcomed as it helps further to debunk the myth that the British Government is in any way neutral on the question of the constitutional position of the Six Counties.

Once more history repeats itself, this time as farce, as the British Tory elite cling to power by “playing the Orange card”. However, and again in a repeat of the past, the DUP have discovered already that their Tory “friends” are more than willing to abandon them whenever political expediency dictates. A Boris Johnson administration will have even less scruples in discarding them when they have outlived their usefulness. This has always been the attitude of the British ruling elite to unionism. That is why Irish Republicans have continually pointed to the New Ireland that is provided for in the Éire Nua programme. Here the sovereignty of all sections of the Irish people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter is enshrined. Those within the broader unionist community are invited to take their rightful place within the Irish nation, here their full participation in the exercise of democratic decision making will not be subject to the whims and caprice of a foreign parliament. A new Ireland can never emerge from either Stormont, Leinster House or Westminster.

In terms of the wider debate around Brexit and the EU, Irish Republicans have always recognised the EU for what it is. A club of former imperial powers whose primary purpose is the consolidation of their economic and political power. It is imperialism in a modern form. Republicans have consistently argued against Ireland’s participation in this project. In Ireland we have experienced both forms of imperialism and still do. In the Six Counties British military occupation represents the old imperialism while in the 26 Counties we have seen the social and economic ravages of the new imperialism of the EU.

The result of the British referendum on Brexit was of course welcomed by Irish Republicans on two levels. Firstly it exposed the inherent fissures that exist within the so-called United Kingdom. From our point of view, it will hopefully hasten its demise. We welcome the increased likelihood of a referendum on Scottish Independence. Secondly it strikes a blow against the EU project and gives encouragement to other progressive forces throughout Europe.

Unfortunately, the British right were allowed to frame the debate, there are of course very progressive arguments to be advanced against the EU, but they were lost in a cacophony of right-wing voices clamouring for position within the British Tory party. We are proud of our record of consistently opposing the construction of a militarised and undemocratic super state in every referendum held in the 26 Counties since 1972. This is the only position Irish Republicans can hold if we are serious about creating an independent Ireland based on the principles of the 1916 Proclamation. Talk of a United Ireland is meaningless, we have had unity under British Rule and indeed under the EU both parts of Ireland were largely under the same EU law. The sovereignty and independence of the Irish people is the goal of Irish Republicanism. There is no point in removing the shackles of British imperialism only to replace them with political and economic imperialism of the EU.

Éire Nua builds from the ground up. It is a model of real participatory democracy. Ensuring that the people are involved in the decision-making process from local or community level, through region and provincial, all the way up to national level. Éire Nua addresses the various partitions that have been inflicted on Ireland. Not simply the north south political partition imposed in 1920/21 but also the social and economic east/west partition that has existed since the foundation of the two partition states. Following the old British colonial model, all political and policymaking was centred in Dublin and ergo was in the main Dublin centred. Decisions on economic development, education, health, social services, the environment and employment were and are being made at a remove from the people most affected.

This has been further exacerbated by the further centralisation of power from Dublin to Brussels. The historian, political activist and biographer of James Connolly, C. Desmond Greaves regarded the nation state as the ‘locus of democracy’ arguing that it was only within national communities that people could exercise democracy in a meaningful way. It was the largest or optimal political unit within which rights of minorities could be protected. In building democracy from the ground up we must not, to paraphrase Parnell, set a boundary to the march of democracy. It is not enough merely to create democracy within nations, we must work for a real democracy between nations. A community of free nations as envisaged by Connolly, with cooperation in fair trade, protection of human rights and the environment. The First Dáil in its Message to the Free Nations of the World set freedom and justice as the “fundamental principles of international law,” and declared Ireland’s unshakable belief in “a frank co-operation between the peoples for equal rights against the vested privileges of ancient tyrannies.” This should remain as the basis of our internationalism.

Ireland is part of Europe and has been for tens of thousands of years. As Irish Republicans we draw on a political philosophy whose roots lie within the European Enlightenment of the 18th Century. This European culture of music, literature and philosophy predates and transcends the EU. A Europe that, in the words of Charles De Gaulle, stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Far from looking inward we as Irish Republicans are looking outward and into the future. We have a vision of the type of Ireland we wish to create. We believe Éire Nua provides the framework within which such a new Ireland can be constructed by all sections of the Irish people.

We are entering a period of radical change which presents opportunities for those committed to fighting for real political and economic democracy not only within nations but between nations. Let a New and free Ireland take its rightful place within such a community of free nations.

⏭Des Dalton is a long time republican activist.

First Principles: Defining Ireland And The Search For A Way Forward

Sean Bresnahan spoke at RSF's The Way Forward event at the end of July. 

A chairde. First off, a word of thanks to the organisers, Republican Sinn Féin, for the opportunity to speak here today — to forward my slant on how Republicanism needs to progress in what are times of historic import.

The new terrain that is Brexit

As Brexit, coupled with shifting demographics, speeds the prospect of constitutional change — and here we are talking about a meaningful likelihood there be change, not a mere rhetorical notion — it is imperative that Republicans speed a vision of the Republic that can impact this unfolding process.

Some form of ‘Irish Unity Now’-type initiative, that can better position the Republic in this context, is a fundamental if we are to succeed. Building that platform, though ensuring its ideological compatibility, is the ‘way forward’ at this critical time. On here — on such a project — the Republican effort must focus.

The design of constitutional nationalism

Republicans, however, are far from alone in seeking to impact the process of change. Indeed, if anything, we are far behind our rivals and opponents, the ‘agreed new Ireland’ of constitutional nationalism the frontrunner of proposals for change. But what and to where does this ‘agreed’ Ireland set towards?

It becomes clearer, month-on-month, not only that the Good Friday Agreement bedded down British position in Ireland but that it guarantees it into perpetuity. The developing notion that there are two nations on Ireland, as opposed to two traditions, is a vehicle to ensure any future United Ireland is tempered by a forward role for Britain.

How far this is to be entrenched within its constitution has yet to be determined but the British, here, will seek to maximise whatever hold they are left with. There, in that forward role for Britain, lies what has still to be ‘agreed’, as opposed to the governmental structures of a future Irish republic.

This ‘agreed new Ireland’ — to be mounted come a ‘Yes’ vote border poll — is effectively Britain’s ‘backstop’ should the unionist veto fail to hold. This is the realpolitik confronting us. Republicans must thus be careful, in terms of the initiatives we partake in.

For under the border poll process, rather than Ireland becoming fully independent, instead she is to be bound within a structural relationship with consequences for her sovereignty. The so-called ‘totality of relationships’ is the framework designed to effect this. Nowhere, there, can be found the republic envisaged by the 1916 Proclamation, to which we are pledged as Republicans. An alternative must be developed.

The Republican alternative

In the context of the above, while our efforts must ward against such an outcome, we must, though, offer more than the ‘politics of rejection’. We must empower, through hard work and endeavour, a credible alternative that attracts mass support. This is a necessary counterweight to the designs of the British state. Criticism alone, be assured, won’t cut it.

In the first instance, Republicans must set out the steps to be taken were constitutional change to proceed. We are speaking, here, of our ‘roadmap’. We must give substance to what physical process should action a 32-county republic, campaigning in turn that this go forward come all or any circumstance.

Through such, while cognisant of changed political realities and seeking to impact the same, we need not internalise British constitutional constraints — constraints which seek to place permanent limits on the sovereignty of Ireland for the purposes of imperialism, not just in the here and now but even under a so-called United Ireland.

And while Republicans, of course, must endeavour to impact the emerging Irish Unity conversation, the lessons of the past must be learned. Where Republicans have embraced the state and its mechanisms, as Tony here once put it, Republicans have been included but Republicanism Excluded. We can’t let this happen again. We must remain beyond the state. We must stand behind the Republic.

In search of the Republic

But through what political means or mechanism do we intend to depose the current order — in all of its parts — including the jurisdiction of what Ó Brádaigh described as the ‘southern twin’ of British oppression — and restore in turn the Republic?

There is no unified thought process, here, as to how a constitutional ‘re-mapping’ would unfold, should Britain withdraw, creating space for the ‘agreed new Ireland’ of constitutionalism to thrive. This demands, on our part, that a ‘white paper’ on Irish Unity be issued, detailing the technical process of how constitutional change is to be managed, which can be stood over in ANY eventuality, regardless of how it be triggered.

In this sense, more important than the virtues of any constitutional trigger is to where, in turn, it intends toward. Rather than focusing on the merits of any trigger, of itself, we must look to the process beyond it. For unless it leads onto the removal entire of Britain’s constitutional footprint then what use? Here is where our ‘roadmap’ comes in.

Fundamental here is that the parameter for any future negotiation with Britain should not encompass the workings of a United Ireland but should extend no further than how her withdrawal is to be effected. No less than full Irish Unity under a full 32-county republic should be contemplated. The future from there is a matter for Ireland — inclusive of her differing identities and traditions but free from external impediment.

Setting towards the future

Republican cohesion can only be formed around the substantive of the Irish Republic. Whether the Republic is on offer through the initiatives we partake in is the only question that matters — and it is very hard to see how a republic of any kind can emerge out of the Good Friday process. As Mellows rightly called it, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Worse again is that the revisionist compromise certain to emerge is sure to stand for at least a further 50 years. That’s 50 years forward with again no Republic, if not more. That compromise, of course, is the spoken of ‘agreed’ Ireland — where Britain gets to stay, though in reduced capacity, while her fools in Ireland agree to it. Nowhere in this lies the Irish Republic — there is only its forward usurp.

We must take our cue accordingly and, instead, must chart our own path — upon the solid foundation of the Republican Constitution. The idea, here, is that we organise not for a British border poll but for the reconstitution of the Irish Republic, upon an end to Partition rule.

Come that event — the end of Partition — Dáil Éireann should be restored as a national parliament, for all Ireland, convening upon free elections across Ireland’s 32 counties. It would sit, initially, as a constituent assembly, tasked with framing the forward governmental basis of the country. Essentially we are speaking here about a new constitution and adjoining bill of fundamental rights.

What we lack, at this time, is the power to effect such an outcome but that doesn’t mean we change our core politics, that in turn we become more electable — which is surely the approach of the new Sinn Féin and of others set clearly on joining them. It means we work to popularise them — to build them into the mind’s eye of the people. Only through the hard work this requires will our day ever come.

The integrity of the Irish Republic

The political integrity and sovereignty of the Irish Republic must be the foundation on which a future United Ireland is built, including in regard to both its governmental systems and allowances for constitutional protections, for those who these might concern or be required.

Irish Unity should encompass, thus, a full expression of Ireland’s right to freedom and sovereignty. While constitutional guarantees can be built into any new political arrangements, these should be bound within a fundamental bill of rights — not in conceding a forward role for Britain, as the Good Friday Agreement envisages.

If we can successfully coalesce behind such ideas we can then begin building an effective strategy. But there must first be the correct analysis of events and a solid foundation that underpins all. As the prospect of constitutional change comes into sight, the stakes could not be higher — and nor could our own responsibilities. We must hold the line and now more than ever.

Go raibh mile maith agat a chairde — An Phoblacht Abú.


Sean Bresnahan is an independent Republican from Co. Tyrone who blogs @ Claidheamh Soluis. Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79


The Republic Remains Our Only Way Forward

Anthony McIntyre spoke at an Irish republican hosted event last Saturday.



I am not sure why I continue to come to these events. Before I folded tent in Belfast, and at the last meeting to discuss republicanism that I had attended in the city, there were two things I committed myself not to repeating: turn up at either a mass or another republican meeting. By that stage in my life I had concluded that both possessed equal ability to change material circumstances – none. I have remained faithful to neither commitment, but as I picked up from a Mexican television drama the other evening, not being able to keep promises is a realisation that comes with age.

Having breached both undertakings, I haven’t turned up at either type of event for reasons of belief in anything that was being said, but more out of courtesy. I have no more belief in the afterlife than I have in "The Republic." I would much prefer "The Republic" if it could ever be delivered, but I have as much expectation of seeing that as I have of seeing Heaven.

And no more would I turn up at a funeral mass to tell those there that I have come to share in their hope, than I would turn up at an event like this professing a sharing in the hope of those present, presuming they all do actually think "The Republic" has a future.

I thank the organisers for inviting me and I have no intention of besmirching their efforts. But I am a firm believer in ideational creativity and part of that creativity is the ability of ideas to navigate their way through difficult terrain. The challenge lies in hearing what some holders of ideas do not want to hear: alternative viewpoints, which if pushed to their limits might just pose an existential threat to the belief system which is home to the those ideas the householders seek to promote and protect.

I attended an Independent Workers’ Union meeting in Dublin last night, the body which asked me to appear here today. I do not speak on its behalf nor shall I attempt to lay out its vision for the future of "The Republic." In fact, I don’t think it has a collective vision of the future, members being left to think pretty much what they want on the matter. There are serious disagreements within the IWU but what struck me about last night’s meeting is that despite the clash of ideas, the trenchantly held positions, after the initial butt of heads many people retain a capacity to do business in the midst of a battle of perspectives without personal rancour or spite. I say this to capture a sense of the Camus sentiment and transpose it from the war of military battlefields to the war of ideas, that "even in destruction there is a right way and a wrong way – and there are limits." The limit has to be that we do not seek to annihilate our opponents nor their personal character while we are in the midst of seeking to destroy their ideas. People have rights, opinions do not.

I know there has been some online concern about inviting a member of Sinn Fein to today’s discussion about the future of "The Republic" when so many republicans with good reason think that the umbilical cord tying Sinn Fein to "The Republic" has long since been cut by the party’s leaders in pursuit of political careers. No-Platforming is an alarming and censorious position and should be robustly opposed. It constitutes a serious assault on freedom of inquiry and undermines public discourse. I am less concerned with defending Sinn Fein’s right to speak than I am with defending the right of others to hear what Sinn Fein has to say - even if for no reason other than impaling, discursively of course, the speaker.

For this reason, the organisers of today’s conference deserve credit for having invited a speaker from a party that RSF probably is more ideologically averse to than any other. It should also be said that it deserves credit in equal measure for inviting me, who has not the slightest contribution to make to its vision of a new Ireland. While I continue to self-define as a republican, it is of minimal interest to me how others might choose to view that definition. I am not a republican because I think it has a future but because it was part of my past. If Germany for example were to sink beneath the waves never to re-emerge, the inhabitants of the territory would not cease to be Germans: just Germans with no Germany to relate to. Pretty much as I see my relationship to republicanism.

There are of course aspects of republicanism that continue to inform how I think: the most prevalent being secularism, where I think the society in which we live has made great republican strides, but not ones fuelled by republicans. Nationalism, I have not the faintest interest in. The notion of obligatory nationalism no more appeals to me than the notion of obligatory Catholicism.

And so, to the meat of today’s event. Republicanism has failed. It is incapable of providing an answer to the question of partition that satisfies anyone other than the small coterie of true believers. The late Taoiseach Charles Haughey took to describing partition as a failed political entity. This has proven to be a wholly inverted reading of the issue that has so taxed republican minds since its inception. The failed political entity is republicanism. Merely look at its moribund state, flailing and marginalised while partition remains solid, threatened only by constitutional nationalism and then only in a limited way. Partition has survived and in my view is likely to continue doing so well beyond the foreseeable future.

Robin Wilson when editor of Fortnight once quipped that in the North no pessimist was ever proved wrong. Guided more instinctively by that thought rather than it being constantly at the fore of my mind, I have - with minimum effort expended - not faltered in my resolve to refrain from paying the admission price to the club of the incurable optimists: the abandonment of a reason, forged by the tempered steel of experience. True, it is impossible to make a stable prediction from the insanity of instability that the right wing Priti-Boris gang has engineered through in the interests of self-aggrandisement, but the most cohesive bloc in the North vis a vis the existence of partition, shows not the slightest inclination of weakening the power of its veto. It remains more opposed to Dublin than it is enamoured to Brussels. That is the status quo and no amount of republican rain dancing or praying at the abstentionist altar is going to fracture that monolithic core belief. The power of partition lies not in its desirability but in its strategic capacity to impose serious limitations on the options available for subverting it.

The partition moulded model for ushering in any substantive transformation in the constitutional status of the North is the suggested border poll. That it is the seemingly unassailable hegemonic model rooted in the partitionist consent principle is a damning indictment of republicanism, which seems to make nothing happen. Despite today’s event being plugged as the Way Forward, too often republicanism is seen as being intent on finding the way back, on occasion embracing strategicless militarism, an escalatory but regressive culture of honour, a monolithic nationalism.

Marisa McGlinchey’s striking book Unfinished Business could as easily have been titled Unfinished Business to Remain Unfinished. While the scholarship was excellent, too often, to my ear at any rate, the contributors sounded like Plymouth Brethren: devout and unswerving in their belief but without a spare sixpence of an idea to fumble for, in that memorable phrase of a Sean Ó'Faoláin character.

Republicans can find many ways to be politically productive, and many of them indeed do, without compromising their republicanism. But it comes with the rider that if they forever seek to have their actions guided by the holy grail of the core republican tenet of "The Republic", they will continue as equally to experience the limiting effects of worshipping such a god: small groups like ourselves meeting in small numbers, exhibiting the strategic sterility of those cows in a French field watching a train go by but without having an ability to do anything other than watch: strategically inconsequential, politically irrelevant.

Republicanism should not be a cultic idea where the gratification of cult leaders is the measure of success rather than republican goals and objectives; where rights against republicanism are given equal validation as the right to be a republican. If today’s event is the same old, same old, it prompts me to reflect on a quote by the late Mohammed Ali: A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.

Failed Political Entity




Seminar ⬌ The Way Forward

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)