Public Meeting "Where next for Republicans?"

by Tony - None Tue May 02, 2006 13:12

The speakers for this event have not been finalised. We are expecting another two speakers to confirm this week.

by john Tue May 02, 2006 14:12

The speakers should be discussing where next for anti Good Friday Agreement republicans. They know what they are against but do not seem to know what they are for as an alternative.

by 4Provinces1Country Wed May 03, 2006 20:30

True republicans know what the believe in - A UNITED IRELAND.

The Good Friday Agreement has given true republicans nothing.

But we have surrendered Articles 2 & 3, Fire Arms, Explosives...

They even wanted us to surrender the streets of Dublin to the loyalists thugs,

so they could march past the GPO in the ultimate act of triumphalism.

Fortunately there are still a few true republicans left who put a stop to that :-)

by Red&Green Thu May 04, 2006 00:54

Mr Des Dalton , Republican Sinn Fein will also speak at this valuable public meeting. There will also be an opportunity for audience members to speak.
see you there.

by regular reader Thu May 04, 2006 11:03

indymedia film night is on the same day as this... what time is this talk starting at?

by Red&Green Thu May 04, 2006 19:14

7-30 sharp

by james Thu May 11, 2006 17:02

Welcome initiative. The Cork meeting had a crowd of about 70. Good luck with this.

by Red & Green Mon May 22, 2006 19:52

Veteran Republican and Prison spokesperson during the '81 Hunger Striker, Richard O'Rawe has been confirmed as an additional speaker at next Thursday's Meeting in the ATGWU Hall.
Richard O'Rawe, a major figure in the 1981 Hunger Strikes will speak at next Thursdays Public Meeting in the ATGWU Hall in Dublin. The meeting is about " What Future for Republicans ?" and will see a cross section of Republican speakers outline their views on where the future of Irish Republicanism lies.
see events guide for full details

by Red & Green Mon May 22, 2006 19:57

Richard O'Rawe, veteran republican and prison spokesperson during the '81 Hunger Strikes will be speaking at next Thursday's meeting. The meeting begins at 8pm sharp . See you there.

by Barry - 32csm Mon May 22, 2006 20:11

No republican should be excluded on grounds of being pro or anti GFA. Its vital that wide ranging debate and dialogue between all republicans is embarked upon . Its encouraging to see a wide range of views represented on the platform .

by Other Speakers are: Mon May 22, 2006 21:48

What Future for Republicans?"

Public Meeting Announcement

Thursday May 25th 2006
ATGWU Hall
Middle Abbey Street
At 8pm Sharp

Speakers are:

Tommy McKearney - Former Hunger Striker and Writer

Anthony McIntyre - Former POW and Writer

Finian McGrath - Independent TD

Des Dalton - Vice-President Republican Sinn Fein

Ray O'Reilly - Provisional "Sinn Fein"

Dr. Brian Hanley - Historian and Author

Aodhan Perry - Chairperson

The format of the meeting will be that Dr. Hanley will give a brief outline of the history of Republicanism since the 1916 Rising and the affects of the 1981 Hunger Strikes. Each of the other speakers will then be asked to give their views on the future of Republicanism. The discussion will then be opened up to the floor.

by Peter Mon May 22, 2006 23:17

A debate on Richard O'Rawe's controversial views is at the link below

by Peter. Mon May 22, 2006 23:25

See the link below

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 16:38

Wouldn't it be great if Gerry could attend this meeting and give his side of the 1981 Hunger strikes. If he wasn't up to it maybe Bic, Laurney or one of the others could go instead. The Families of the 10 Hunger strikers deserve an answer.

by Malachy Steenson Tue May 23, 2006 18:27

Phil, cop yourself on,
Members of t he Provisionals are not able to clear the air on any subject, lies, fudge and deceit are the tools of their trade.

Having Adams or anyone else from the Provisionals speaking would surely defeat the purpose, the meeting is entitled "Where next for Republicans" that automatically rules out Adams & others who have accepted partition and British rule

The line up of speakers, may lead to one of the best meetings in many years, all Republicans should attend and voice their opinions, and not get bogged down as on some other sites over who was invited or not, or whether the organisers are a committee or not.

A very useful debate can be had, as nothing similar has been had in Dublin since process began

by Cynic Tue May 23, 2006 18:42

You might also clear the air about the suspicious manner in which you broke with COCAD in the Iner City. You ended up defending pushers. Some of the COCAD stalwarts will be at the meeting so you can a right old chat.

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 19:31

Sure I know that! I was putting out the challenge in the knowledge that they didn't have the courage to put across their side of the story in a public debate. It's OK when they can have time to seek the assistance of others in their replies but when you are asked awkward questions in a public forum there is no place to hide.

by Tomas mac Cormaic Tue May 23, 2006 23:37

This should be an interesting meeting. The only pity is that there is too many speakers. It would have been better if it was organised as a full day event, but hopefully that can be achieved out of this meeting. Its time Republicans/Nationalists/Socialists came together and fully debated the policies they have in common for the development of our nation.

by Ngomo Abele Tue May 23, 2006 23:54

There should be no room for facists, racists, homophobes or sectarians within republicanism. It is a great oppurtunity for those assembled to give voice to republicans great history of fighting such trends in Ireland and further afield. It is why Irish republicanism with such a great anti imperialist history is so admire by those of us of africa descent.

by Malachy Steenson Wed May 24, 2006 10:54

Cynic

I've no problem debating on another thread, why I rejected COCAD, so start a thread if you want. I have always defended addicts not pushers, I would suggest that your contribution is designed to again muddy the waters and attempt to villify those who reject and stand outside of Provisionalism, and as a pre-emptive strike against a frank exchange of ideas which will hopefully occur at thursdays meeting.

Unlike yourself I have no problem in making my comments and signing them.

by T Mc Wed May 24, 2006 12:01

There has been a series of articles, letters etc in Daily Ireland in recent months on this topic. Tommy McKearney has a weekly column and also interestingly Frank Connolly has just joined them as a columnists.

See links to debates re future of republicanism

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75523

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75837

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73907

by Barry - 32csm Wed May 24, 2006 12:01

SF out of touch with grassroots — ex-prisoner

(Seamus McKinney, Irish News)

A former republican prisoner has accused the Sinn Féin leadership of moving the party away from its roots.

Brian McFadden (53), a son of veteran Derry republican Barney, said the party was even closing its last remaining office in the city's Bogside.

He claimed a growing number of former prisoners are becoming increasingly unhappy at the direction in which Sinn Féin is moving.

A member of a well-known republican family, Mr McFadden and three of his brothers are all former prisoners.

His father Barney McFadden was for decades the face of Sinn Féin in Derry and was frequently interned.

Mr McFadden said he felt compelled to speak out after Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams called on four republicans who failed to turn up at court to be sentenced for the abduction of Belfast man Bobby Tohill to give themselves up.

"I am worried Sinn Féin is determined to join the Policing Board and they have not realised that 25 years after the Hunger Strikes they still have not got the British government to admit we were prisoners of war," Mr McFadden said.

"And those who are on the run still cannot come home.

"My four brothers were all in jail; my father was interned. Did we go through all that to make Sinn Féin a good political party? Where is the united Ireland?"

Mr McFadden claimed there was growing evidence that the leadership was moving further from its grassroots, with activists recently told of plans to close the party's Cable Street centre and move operations to the Rath Mor Centre in Creggan and its Glen office.

This, he said, would leave the Bogside without a Sinn Féin office.

"In my eyes they have forgotten about the people. A lot of former prisoners are questioning what is going on," Mr McFadden said.

But Sinn Féin general secretary Mitchel McLaughlin insisted there was no question of the party moving away from its roots.

"Brian is entitled to his opinion, the same as anyone else. If he has questions he can ask them of the party. A number of the leadership live in Derry and if there are concerns they are available to deal with them," he said.

The Foyle assembly member said that while Sinn Féin was closing its Cable Street office, this was to ensure a better use of resources.

He said it was in need of major refurbishment and it made more sense to move services to the Rath Mor centre, which was close by. ""

Is this another sign of sinn fein moving futher away from its traditional working class base and further courting of a new middle class replacement ? Is it likely Mr McFadden was unaware of a supposed few refurbishments before he made his statement to the press ?

by Saoirse Wed May 24, 2006 17:43 Derry

It's noticeable how many middle ranking Sinn Fein people are moving out of the Bogside, indeed out of Derry altogether, to the more middle class estates that have sprung up all around the Donegal side of the border. It leaves places like the Bogside with very few people who have jobs or a spare tenner to lend a neighbour. It's typical though of capitalist parties.

by Peter Davis Wed May 24, 2006 18:29

Why was it not used above to advertise the meeting?

Poster for meeting

by Feb 25th Thu May 25, 2006 18:19

It was, leafletttings were carried out at various locations over the last few weeks,- this website isn't everything

by pat c Fri May 26, 2006 11:24

Meeting went well, one racist Justin Barrett fan who is also in Youth Defence was ejected. (He gave his name as Brendan, if anyone got a picture of him then please post it here.) I'll give a fuller report later but approx 100 in attendance. The SF speaker wasa unable to turn up due to TU committments. Richard O'Rawe, Brian Hanley, Finian McGrath, Anthony McInytre, and Des Dalton of RSF spoke; the meeting was chaired by Ado Perry. Speakers from the floor included members of the IRSP and the 32 CSM. The veteran Republican, Joe Dillon, was one of those who contributed.

Obviously not much crime in Dublin last night as the Branch were able to spare six boneheads to harass those who were attending the meeting.

by Jimmy Fri May 26, 2006 14:19

As well as the ejected racist there were also some people in attendance who were outside St. Patricks cathedral during the Afghani hunger strike who were there protesting against the men and who felt strongly that they and the rest of the "immigrants" were the cause of inner city community problems such as poor housing and crime. Some of these "racists", as they were refered to later, wore metal easter lilly badges last week and dismissed arguments that the 1916 men, especially Connolly, would have supported the Afghan men and also refuted the arguments that the 1916 men and women were fighting for international justice and equality.

Perhaps there are growing and worrying ideas of racism starting to come to the surface of republicanism? If so what measures are being taken in these inner city communities to counter this?

by Planet of the Irps Fri May 26, 2006 14:25

I thought it was a very good night, especially for members of the public who otherwise might not have known about the ant-GFA lobby that exists. For followers of Republican politics, I think a lot of the contributions were to be expected.

Positives:

- The event itself. It was heartening to see so many strands of Republicanism coming together.

- The views and contributions from the floor, especially from representatives from the 32CSM and IRSP.

- The call for a form of Broad Front or at least the idea of a broad front strategy.

Negatives:

- The lack of balance, with no one from Sinn Fein (P) being present or speaking.

- The lack of analysis as to why after thirty years, armed struggle had failed and why had the Provisonal movement capitulated? This linking up to the class nature of the struggle that took place.

- Little mention of a socialist Republican or Republican Socialist alternative.

by pat c Fri May 26, 2006 14:28

I didnt notice those characters. I was at St Patricks last week quite a few time and know what the racists look like especially those who were wearing Easter Lillies. I was collecting money at the door on the way out so I'm surprised I missed those guys. I would have enjoyed having a few words with them.

Are you sure that other throwbacks from St Pats were there?

by Jimmy Fri May 26, 2006 14:42

Pat C- Yes, i had a discussion with one, lilly badge wearing, lad in particular outside the cathedral who argued his point about poor housing and other important issues , he seemed to blame immigrants for all the problems. I asked him did he think supporting McDowell's agenda would help this situation. I outlined how the US model, which the PD's seem to work toward, is only good for those with buckets of cash while the rest suffer massively due to very poor public health, housing and education measures. He argued that community organising from the bottom up was needed. Perhaps he and the others now blaming the new scapegoats, the immigrants, for the governments faults will get wise, see it is the government who are shafting inner city communities and join with the growing body that is saying enough is enough.

by tom Fri May 26, 2006 14:47

If true, it is likely that racist organisations that adapt and harness 'national' sentiment to an idea of racial purity will leech off the popularity of 1916. In the 1930s the Blueshirts, put forward an idea of catholic and Irish religious and racial purity in opposition to the “communism” of Fianna Fail and of the IRA.
When they latch momentarily on to Irish republicanism, such incoherent babblers do not last long as they are disabused of their notions and are chased out of it in double quick time (as I presume happened last night). Without an ideological anchor, apart from shadowy racist and fascist organisations too scared to come out into the open, these people either get political education (in the best sense), stay disgruntled but isolated, or just go away.
The scenes outside St Patrick’s last week gave a latent racist sentiment an opportunity to emerge into the open, due to the geographical location. While the economy is booming this sentiment will have no organised pole of dissatisfaction. If it goes into downturn, the employers and the politicians currently extolling the plentiful supply of cheap labour from outside these shores will change their tune and adapt to racist sentiments. That is the time to get really concerned about an organised racist-fascist current in Irish politics. The more that non-national workers are members of the organsed trade union movement today the better.

by tom Fri May 26, 2006 14:51

Working class people who are exploited and denied resourcces and amenities are encouraged by establishment politicians to scapegoat someone else, not the system. The guy you (jimmy) encountered sounded like one of these.

by republican Fri May 26, 2006 14:59

was not able to get there last night however I think any rumours that organised racists are trying to get involved with republicans is very worrying.

People should be on their guard, up to now all the republican organisations have been quite good on race and racism and refugee issues in Ireland.

also all the parties publications as far i have seen have been good on the issue, and Daily Ireland seemed to be the most supportive daily paper of the Afghan men in St Pats.

Republicanism= anti-racism ....lets keep it that way!

by Planet of the Irps Fri May 26, 2006 15:08

People should keep their guard in relation to racists, but as anyone who was at the meeting last night, the lone racist who was there had no support whatsoever from the floor.

by joe Fri May 26, 2006 15:26

Is that all the meeting was about last night then? Can anyone give a fuller report or was it just concerned with racists and racism?

by mb Fri May 26, 2006 18:55

I haven't got much time to write this up . Please excuse gaps ,typos etc. There were about a hundred people present at a meeting which (apart from the provocateur ) was conducted in a non-sectarian dignified manner. Congratulations to the organizers
Brian Hanley opened the meeting with a historical overview of
republicanism and asked whether the looseness of the term prevented a
thorough appraisal of the movement. He questioned the motivating force of republicanism
citing the hunger strike marches that had at the most only thirty
thousand in attendance compared to the massive tax marches.Dr Hanley
thought that militarism would not lead the youth of Ireland anywhere
saying that it would be better for youth to spend five years studying and
working in their own communities than wasting five years in prison.
Finian McGrath called for a modern republicanism . He explained his own
radicalization at the time of the hunger strikes and the pervasive
anti-republicanism of the media .McGrath saw the GFA as a compromise on
the basis of which republicans could make a strong case for the end of
partition which he said was not working . Finian called for a broad
front that would include Provisional Sinn Fein . Such a front would
oppose sectarianism , adapt sensible solutions and work with all to
oppose sectarianism.
Anthony McIntyre criticized the provos for allowing the murder of Robert
McCartney to sully the Sinn Fein centenary last year and for letting
Bertie Ahern steal the thunder on the Easter Rising commemoration this
year.He saw the provos campaign as a response to British behaviour rather
than to the British presence in Ireland. The GFA had not been a compromise but
a historical defeat for republicanism which copper-fastened partition
and achieved nothing that hadn’t been on offer at Sunningdale in 1974.
Anthony saw Ruari O’Braughdie and Marion Price as the “last
republicans” – true to the end though outdated in a sell-out process that had seen
republicans (provos) included but republicanism excluded.
Des Dalton rejected the notion that Rauri O Bruadaigh and Marion Price were the
last republicans or the notion that Irish people no longer had the right
to oppose British armed forces militantly . At a recent republican
commemoration in the north he spoke at there had been plenty of
youth present .He would not condemn any of those youth if at sometime in
the future they confronted British military forces . Des warned against
diluting republican principles in any attempt to form a broad front .
The British presence in Ireland must not be treated as “the elephant in
the room” – ignored in the pursuit of a spurious unity . Des agreed that
the GFA had increased sectarianism in the north and quoted from RSF’s
federalist Eire Nua programme to counter claims that there was no
alternative to the GFA .
Richard O' Raul called for innovative thinking from republicans in a period
Where “ it had to be recognized that armed struggle as well as
constitutionalism had failed” .He argued that it would be neccessary to
persuade unionists of the material gains a united republican Ireland
would bring them and thought that the two governments could help
persuade unionists in that direction. Richard recalled the words of
Bobby Sands : that a capitalist Ireland was not worth a single Irish life
. He saw the GFA as a betrayal of the ideals that Sands and his comrades
had died for.

Speakers from the floor questioned the lack of representatives from the IRSP and 32 CSM on the platform . The chair explained that the original intention of the meeting’s organizers had been to facilitate a debate between pro and anti GFA speakers. A Provisional Sinn Fein’s speaker was booked to attend but had cancelled .That led to an unintended imbalance of speakers which may have given the impression that one republican group had been given preference over the others.
From the floor, 32 CSM supporters argued that a British withdrawal from Ireland would have to be followed by a convention of the Irish people . This democratically convened body would be the only legitimate power to decide the future of an independent Ireland and that it would be premature to draw up a program for a post –united Ireland until a withdrawal of British forces .
Kevin from the IRSP raised the issue of the US military presence at Shannon .He suggested that the days of the British military presence in Ireland were numbered but that Britain’s role was being replaced by US hegemony.
Speakers questioned the limitation of democracy in a republican movement based on a military perspective and called for the development of a broad social movement in Ireland - the increases in social inequality within Ireland was raised in this connection. Another speaker thought that republican involvement in the Civil Rights movement should be reassessed , suggesting that civil rights may have been a diversion from the struggle for independence .
Con asked what the state of play would be in 2007 . Would provisional Sinn Fein go into government with Fianna Fail and if so what should be the response from republicans ?

I hope I haven’t left anybody out.

by editor - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group Fri May 26, 2006 19:07

We don't get enough feed back from meetings that are advertised on indymedia, so thanks for taking the time to write that up.

by Barry Fri May 26, 2006 23:06

I believe Joe Dillon from 32csm made his opinion clear that the withdrawal of the Sinn Fein speaker and the lack of a replacement came as little surprise . They seem to have run away from the debate . Hopefully theyll put this impression to bed and turn up to the next one . Surely its good to talk ?

by Barry Fri May 26, 2006 23:08

http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id...32csm

by DOD - Sinn Féin Fri May 26, 2006 23:29

With all due respect Barry, that is nonsense. SF are not running from debate. It is unfortunate that Ray couldn't attend but I am sure he had genuine reasons. SF did miss out by not having a speaker and more people at this debate. That said, from what I have seen of many RSF, 32 CSM types, they don't provide much of a challenge in terms of a debate. O' Rawe came across on the hidden history docs as someone who had convinced himself of something so much, he spoke of it as fact. I'm sure he's a good republican, but his credibility is questionable. MacIntyre has no credibility left whatsoever, given his reputation now as a media whore. This is a pity, as I used to correspond with him frequently at one stage and found many of his points to be relevant. McKearney must have been a joy to listen to, I could listen to that man for hours. If I can go to my grave being one-quarter the republican that man is, I will die happy. Don't know much about Dalton, but RSF don't overly thrill me normally. Pity to not have someone like Willie Gallagher there.

It was definitely an own goal for SF to not have a speaker, but I'm sure the reason for Ray's absence was unavoidable.

by x Sat May 27, 2006 00:00

i was at the indymedia film night, but hope that there is another one of these talks/events coming up soon, was sorry to miss it. maybe a day seminar with a few workshops in the teachers club or the pearse institute? maybe invite some people from other political strands, anarchism or socialists? just to mix things up a bit.

in light of recent events outside st patricks cathedral, would also be interesting to hear republicans responses to racists and fascist organisers.

by Tom Barry Sat May 27, 2006 10:44

I am surprised at the choice of Bian Hanley as a speaker. He supports the revisionist historian Peter Hart who wrote a pro-British account of the war of independence and who wrote made up stuff about Tom Barry. Other historians have exposed him. Indymedia carried a lot of info on this guy that Hanley supports. That thing he said about people spending time studying instead of in prison seems a bit patronising. Did anyone ask him about this? I suppose it was not directly a part of the meeting.

The link is here.

by Liam Deasy - Dead patriots Sat May 27, 2006 12:06

Jesus Tom, your still with us. Fair play to you boy. And such a constructive comment....

by Jimmy Sat May 27, 2006 14:22

1916 - Connolly, blood sacrifice and defeating British imperialism
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75643
1916 - just what are we celebrating? - Freedom, left republicanism and anarchism
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75404

Time to Reclaim the 1916 Commemoration - it's already been hijacked by imperialists and capitalists
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74702

Inside the world of Dissident Republicanism
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75378

Dublin Riots: What Happened and Why (Analysis) + 13min Video Footage
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74528

by 4Provinces1Country Sat May 27, 2006 16:05

“A Public Meeting to discuss various opinions on the future for Irish Republicans”

Was I at the right meeting, the expected discussion about the FUTURE of Irish republicanism never materialised.
What we heard was yet another rehashing of Irish history over the past 100 years.
I would have thought anyone who turned up for that meeting was already well informed on such matters.

If the only purpose was to spend an evening wallowing in maudlin reminiscing then I’d sooner have spent the evening in a pub listening to a ballad session.

The FUTURE is what’s in front of you!

by Seán de Barra Sat May 27, 2006 17:13

I would have gone to it if I had have known.

I spend more of my time on politics.ie because you actually get to challenge FF/FG/PD members, and some councillors, there. They don't come onto this site.

You should have posted up a link there as well.

by pat c Sat May 27, 2006 19:43

If you read Brian Hanleys work then you would not regard him as a revisionist. Just because he is not prepared to make a ritual denunciation of Hart some zealots call Brian a revisionist. My experience of Brian is that hes a Socialist Republican and a committed Anti Fascist. He interviewed Hat for History Ireland and while I think he could have been sharper in his questioning, HI interviewers are not expected to act like Gestapo interrogators.

I suggest you read Brians book: The IRA, 1926-36 .

"THE IRA hoped to launch its own air force in the 1930s, in a doomed plan that was closer to Biggles than Cathal Brugha.

According to a new history of the republican army, five men were sent to a flight training school in Chicago in the early 1930s because the IRA believed the revolution required an air force.

The air force plan was contained in a communiqué, sent by Sean Russell, then the IRA's quartermaster, to the army council. Russell, who visited the trainee pilots in 1932, justified the high cost of the training by their strategic importance.

The existence of the IRA fliers is revealed in a new book, The IRA 1926-36, by Brian Hanley, a research fellow at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. The work draws on the previously unpublished papers of Moss Twomey, the IRA's longest serving chief of staff. Twomey, from Cork, kept copious notes and detailed records of the IRA's operations.

The papers confirm long-held rumours of unprecedented links between republicans and their unionist enemies in Belfast in the 1930s. The IRA supplied the B-specials - an exclusively Protestant paramilitary wing of the RUC - with bombs to attack railways during a 1933 strike. "

Full article at the link.

Related Link: http://www.four-courts-press.ie/theiratext.html

You can also read the full papers delivered by Brian Hanley and Diarmid Ferriter at :85th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72677

by Barry Sat May 27, 2006 20:39

The reason for Rays non appearance may well have been unavoidable in that he was simply ordered not to attend by his leadership . The sinn fein leadership have consistently run from debate with our membership and done all in their power to thwart and stifle such crucial debate. It is a matter of record they have pulled out of previous panels including 2 radio interviews when informed our spokespersons would be in attendance , not to mention suspending and expelling our members from Sinn Fein immediately prior to the Ard Feis were the GFA was being debated ( or rubberstamped without debate to be more precise).. They have yet to even acknowlege receipt of never mind respond to a detailed submission put to them by 32csm earlier in the year which I suspect is one of the main reasons Ray may have been instructed to make his excuses. This form of public debate has been urged by our membership for years and now they pull out at the last minute . No-one in 32csm is remotely surprised at the development .

I dont know for sure what a "32csm type" is and an explanation of what constitutes or identifies such a "type" as opposed to an actual member of an open political organisation would be helpful . It sounds like you have a little personal radar that can identify our membership by the general cut of someones "jib"?

As regards the criticism of Richard ORawe for sounding like he believes hes telling the truth , I dunno how thats an actual criticism. The criticism of another man for being a "media whore" , frankly astounds me when I see the media whores of the SF leadership . Perhaps a self publicist would be a more apt criticism but then again for a man to get his point accross requires publicity . And quite often Mr McIntyre has a valid point , I agree though sometimes he doesnt . As for Tommy McKearney its interesting to note youve singled out a writer for the Daily Ireland as worthy of listening to . Mr McKearney indeed makes some valid and crucial observations . However he also has a fondness for scientific Marxism as the cure to our ills that frankly I couldnt spend hours listening to no matter what a mans record of sacrifice and struggle is. And I agree Tommys is formidable . As is Marion Price and Joe Dillons who have gone to the trouble of making a detailed submission to the Sinn Fein leadership which they wont engage in debate upon or even respond to .

Its heartening to note that 32csm will be included on the next panel at these public meetings and hopefully Sinn Fein will be able to attend the next gathering where a courteous response to the case put to them at the start of the year can be heard and aired .

by Barry Sat May 27, 2006 20:56

SINN FEIN
&
IRISH NATIONAL SELF DETERMINATION

A Submission to Sinn Fein (Provisional) by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement

Preface

In this the centenary year of the founding of Sinn Fein the most pertinent question facing Irish republicans today is why Ourselves Alone remains unrealised. In a series of political submissions to the various political groupings the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is attempting to address the failure to achieve this realisation and to realign political thinking along a separatist heading. We do this because we believe Irish unity is our fundamental right and that such unity represents the proper democratic framework in which to resolve divisions amongst our people. These divisions are in fact the principle strategic mechanism by which our unity remains outside of our control.

In devising the various submissions the 32CSM were mindful of two facets concerning the political interests involved;

1. Their stated public position.

2. This position set against their political actions.

In attempting to put forward credible political alternatives the 32CSM felt it necessary that any inconsistencies or contradictions in the above facets had to be resolved, both to bring clarity to the political theatre, and to allow our alternatives be measured against this clarified environment. We are also acutely mindful that the political theatre in which all the interested parties practice is one where conflict pervades. To this end the 32CSM will outline, in clear and concise terms, our political position and correlate that position with our political programme to achieve our ends.

In any conflict resolution process the relationship between clarity of position and purpose of action is essential if the core cause of conflict is to be addressed. The 32 CSM contend that the violation of Irish sovereignty is the core cause of conflict in Ireland and that the legitimacy of our demand for national self determination for the Irish people is what the legitimacy of the republican struggle to achieve this end is predicated upon. For our part the 32CSM lodged formal representations to the United Nations with the dual purpose of legally challenging Britain’s claim to sovereignty over part of Ireland, and upholding the right of the Irish people to sovereignty over our national territory, the island of Ireland. (see document appendix). The challenge is open to any political interest to either refute its contentions or support them. This invitation is extended to Sinn Fein also.

In consequence the 32CSM seeks the engagement of Sinn Fein in the following areas;

1. Democratic Debate within Republicanism.

2. The Cause of Conflict in Ireland.

3. The Good Friday Agreement and Self Determination.

4. Irish Democracy and Irish sovereignty.

Histrionics makes for bad politics, history teaches us this. The engagement by republicans with all political interests to the conflict is essential in bringing about its resolution. Isolation of the separatist position is as detrimental as subordinating it to a ‘Home Rule’ ethos. That being said history cannot be ignored, as one of the more indelible aspects of the Irish conflict is the failure of repeating history. All political movements must be accountable to their interpretation of their history through word and deed. What runs in tandem with one hundred years of Sinn Fein, and others, is one hundred years of occupation and both continue to exist. This fact in itself is an indictment of Irish republicanism to which perfidious albion is not a sole defence.

For our part the prefix ‘provisional’ does not identify a Sinn Fein in any sense that the name Sinn Fein identifies a practitioner of separatist politics. Given the centenary year there will exist a distraction in the body politic of claim and counter claim as to who represents the party’s true heirs. Given the continued violation of our sovereignty, and its electoral ‘endorsement’ in 1998, the separatist analysis will no doubt tell the body politic, in fact, who is not.Democratic Debate and Republicanism

There exists a state of affairs in which longstanding members of Sinn Fein remain suspended from the party for endeavouring to have the issue of Irish sovereignty debated within the broader party structure. These events came to pass in the run up to the ratification of the GFA where said members wished to voice genuine concerns about the fundamental ethos of the peace negotiations, so called, themselves. Having identified in the talks a critical deficiency as regards the issue of Irish sovereignty their attempts to raise these concerns at an Ard Fheis were greeted with prohibition.

The basis of their suspension, as relayed by party officials, was that membership of the 32CSM was/is incompatible with membership of Sinn Fein. Given that the 32CSM is concerned primarily with defending Irish sovereignty it would seem that the issue of sovereignty itself is what is deemed incompatible. Given also that the establishment of a sovereign independent Ireland is the declared aim of Sinn Fein could it now, in that light, address the following observations;

1. What is the basis of incompatibility between membership of Sinn Fein and the 32CSM?

2. Is the issue of Irish sovereignty a prohibitive subject for debate within Sinn Fein?

3. Will Sinn Fein engage, officially, with debate on the issue of Irish sovereignty with the 32CSM?

4. Who constitutes the Republican Family?

No one who holds to a credible political position need fear democratic debate. Democratic debate can only strengthen the political viewpoint of those who engage in it. In a genuine conflict resolution process the 32CSM contends that the stronger the republican viewpoint the more potent its impact at negotiations. We equally contend that not to engage in democratic debate on the republican position is incompatible with seeking a just resolution to the Anglo Irish conflict.

Cause of Conflict in Ireland

The longevity, colonial nature and perfidy of the Anglo Irish conflict has given rise to a strategic masking of its core cause. The intermittent success of this strategy was most pronounced when practiced by domestic Irish politics. The legacy of this success is the perpetuation of the conflict.

The 32CSM hold that Britain’s violation of Irish sovereignty is the core cause of the Anglo Irish conflict and the resultant conflicts between different sections of the Irish people. Sourced from this violation is the denial of our right to self determination, our right to resolve our differences within an Irish democratic framework and our right to establish peaceful relations with our neighbouring island. We equally hold that clear recognition of the core cause of conflict is essential in seeking its resolution. The politics of conflict resolution must be constructed from outside the politics which the conflict has engendered.

Not all Irish politics holds or practices this view. The two basic trends of political thought which evolved around the conflict was a view which seen a British dimension as intrinsic to it and the view which rejects this premise. In their workings there were those who opposed;

1. The manner of British occupation.

and those who opposed,

2. The fact of British occupation.

It was the separatist tradition which arrayed itself against the fact of occupation whereas the Home Rule tradition contented itself with constructing an acceptable manner to it. As a declared separatist party we call upon Sinn Fein to address the following,

1. Is the fact of British occupation, irrespective of manner, a cause of conflict in Ireland?

2. Is the manner of British occupation a strategic device for preserving the occupation?

3. Is the practice of Home Rule politics a practice of British politics in Ireland?

4. Is the practice of Home Rule politics incompatible with the pursuit of the separatist objective?

The 32CSM calls upon Sinn Fein, as a declared separatist party, and others, and for Sinn Fein to call upon others, to formally declare that;

The British violation of Irish sovereignty is the cause of conflict in Ireland

The 32CSM invites Sinn Fein to join us in seeking to have the above declaration form the basis of the Irish political dimension in a peace process between the peoples and political representatives of the two islands.

Good Friday Agreement & Self Determination

Sinn Fein is a negotiator, signatory and continued adherent of the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Fein was instrumental in securing, from a partitioned Irish electorate, the GFA’s popular endorsement. Sinn Fein negotiated and accepted the GFA’s terms from a position of prolonged conflict, engaged in to defend and implement the Irish people’s right to national self determination. Clearly this gives rise to political implications pertaining to the legitimacy and pursuit of the republican struggle. To give clarity to these political implications we call upon Sinn Fein to outline in detail a response to the following enquiry;

To what extent is Sinn Fein bound, legally and politically, to the terms it negotiated and endorsed in the GFA?

From our analysis of the terms of the GFA the 32CSM deduces the following;

1. Our right to national self determination without external impediment is refuted.

2. British occupation can be legitimately permanent.

3. The use of armed force to defend Irish sovereignty is a criminal act

4. Britain is the legitimate sovereign authority in the occupied area.

The basis of the 32CSM’s political strategy to progress the republican struggle is founded on two premises;

1. The legitimacy of the republican struggle.

2. A separatist analysis of prevailing politics.

We now set our analysis against that of Sinn Fein. We address the following political observations to you;

1. How is our right to national self determination defended and promoted by signing a treaty which states that no such right exists?

2. How is our right to national self determination defended and promoted by securing an electoral endorsement thereon from a partitioned Irish electorate?

3. By what authority does Sinn Fein sign a treaty which states that British occupation in Ireland can be legitimately permanent?

4. What was the legitimate pretext for the republican struggle up to the signing of the GFA?

5. Is the use of armed force defending and seeking to restore Irish sovereignty a criminal act?

6. What part of the GFA challenges Britain’s claim to sovereignty over part of Ireland?

7. Which other signatories to the GFA views it as a mechanism for, or a mechanism to, securing the unity of our national territory?

The 32CSM calls upon Sinn Fein to repudiate any stance on the national question which subverts Irish sovereignty. We call upon Sinn Fein to assist the 32CSM in realigning the Irish political position to this basis and to create a peace process wherein this position is resolutely defended.

Irish Democracy & Irish Sovereignty

The central focus of the political programme of the 32CSM to pursue the republican objective is the concept of an Irish Democratic Framework (IDF). Given that democracy is the strongest and most just criteria for securing a settlement to the conflict we submit that Irish democracy, at its maximum expression, offers the only realistic and just opportunity to resolve the conflict and the conflicts engendered thereof. An Irish

Democratic Framework represents;

1. The ultimate expression of Irish sovereignty.

2. Maximum and secured democratic inclusion for all sections of the Irish people.

3. A peaceful alternative.

4. A firm foundation for national and political development.

Alternatives to the status quo require alternative politics predicated on fundamentally alternative concepts. Tinkering with existing and previously failed agendas is merely to invite repeated failure. The IDF offers new and secure ground upon which to construct a political viewpoint which can address the conflict afresh. Most pertinently it challenges each political view point in the conflict as it relates to;

1. Democratic accountability to and from government.

2. Democratic inclusion to and from government.

3. Constitutional and political stability.

4. Sovereign integrity.

5. Justice.

Inherent in the concept of democratic integrity is sovereign integrity and any derogation in either field is a derogation of the other. The 32CSM submit to Sinn Fein that an Irish Democratic Framework is the vehicle upon which the republican struggle can be progressed because the IDF ensures that advocacy of Irish unity would be synonymous with its pursuit. We look forward to your considered response.

ADDENDUM

In tandem with this submission to Sinn Fein the 32CSM has compiled other submissions to the various political interests with analysis and political initiatives we see as pertinent to them. Specifically we sought of the following;

1. British Government: A Declaration of its Long Term Intentions Toward Ireland.

2. The Irish Government: A Declaration of, and Programme for, the Realisation of its Political Preferences.

3. The Broad Unionist Community: To Address the Probability of Irish Unity.

In these submissions we offered our analysis of the prevailing political climate, we outlined our basic position and we proffered political initiatives to advance a settlement. We called upon each to respond formally to our legal submission to the UN concerning Irish sovereignty and we once again invite Sinn Fein to do likewise. Also we urge Sinn Fein to encourage the other political parties to engage positively with these submissions.

by hs - sp (per cap) Sat May 27, 2006 21:32

military tactics

what is the 32csm attitute to the use of bombings as a political tool. (as bombings have proven useless in either uniting catholic and prodestant and defeating the British army). Do the 32csm still see bombings in civilian areas as legitimate and if so how do bombings such as omagh push forward the republican goal of uniting ireland. I would imagine its extremely counter productive as far as it's victims and their families and their communites are concerned. 30 years of bombings has done little or nothing towards uniting the people of ireland. As even if you could bomb away the british army, the loyalists, unionists and those within the prodestant community who oppose unity would still be there. Would the use of extreme repression be legitimate in that case?

the other elephant

The other elephant in the room is the mass of prodestant working class people who are so far opposed to a united ireland and have elected the ultra sectarian paisley's dup as the biggest party. Republicans must deal with question of the prodestant working classes. The truth is with a united working class the brits would be gone or could be gotten rid of very quickly and easily.
First and foremost the people have to be united, without that we are looking at the status quo, re-partition or at worst a low level civil war and then repartition. The main questions that I think those who wish for a united ireland have to face is first the prodestant working classes and secondly the british. it s been a mistake of republicanism in the past to focus solely or mainly on the british while ignoring the people living in N.Ireland opposed to unification.

by pat c Sat May 27, 2006 21:37

Anyone who stopped by the Special Branch after the meeting should consider contacting Finian McGrath about it. Lets cause as much hassle for the Harriers as we can.

finian.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie
Phone Finian Mcgrath: 6183942
Fax Finian McGrath: 6184993

by Barry Sat May 27, 2006 21:45

just out of interest what do you mean by bombings in civilian areas ? Are there demarcated military zones in which you believe the use of explosives is appropriate or are you referring to the commercial bombing tactic practiced by the provisionals for 30 years ?

As far as Im aware 32csm merely upholds the right of the Irish people enshrined under international law as regards all peoples to resist the foreign occupation of their country . I believe they also demand that anyone exercising that right does not engage in activities which could be referred to as war crimes .

by Barry Sat May 27, 2006 21:56

anyone being harassed for attending an open political debate should kick up a stink over it, its an attempt to inhibit legitimate democratic debate

by hs Sat May 27, 2006 21:57

That was quick!
I meant bombings in areas where civilians are. Town centres may be commercial zones but the are also town centres, where people live and work. And although bombers may do their best to avoid civilian casulties (or may not), its inevitable there will be civilian casulties. A commercial strategy could attack warehouses, factories etc when they are closed and empty. But this would be probably just as counterproductive.
This is opposed to attacking military areas such as barracks, airbases etc. Its pretty straightforward. Although it's unlikely any group in ireland would have the possibility to do this any way effectively. Morally for most people their is a difference between attacking and killing civilians compared to army personal, for many reasons. One in being civilians are defenceless.

On the second point about occupation, it still ignores the half of the population living in Northern Ireland who oppose unity and want the british presence their. These people i thnk are the really question.

Militarism will divide the population of Northern Ireland on religious lines, so as well as it being an ineffective strategy it is extremly counter productive.

by Republican Sat May 27, 2006 22:06

When I first seen the lineup for this meeting I predicted that O’Reilly would be pulled and no SF speaker would turn up. The lack of independent thinking within SF is so pervasive that hardly anybody from them turned up to the meeting. It’s hard to imagine that there was no interest within the SF ‘rank and file’ in this meeting.
Why do you call McIntyre a ‘media whore’? Is it because he highlights aspects of SF that people like yourself would like hidden? I am an admirer of McIntyre and his writings even if he sometimes focuses on SF a little too much but to be fair to him he has also criticised the Real’s and the Continuity. I can understand his point of view though, after all he lost 18 years of his life for the GFA, a settlement less than was on offer in the 1970’s. I’m also an admirer of Tommy McKearney and his viewpoint was missed.
Interesting that you consider Richard O’Rawe’s credibility as questionable. Was this always the case or is it just since he has begun to ask questions about the ‘leadership’ during the hunger strikes? It’s funny that graffiti has gone up in Belfast attacking O’Rawe, most likely put up by people who never did a day in jail for the cause. If O’Rawe is wrong in his recollections of 1981 why won’t Adams or Morrison debate with him?

by Barry Sat May 27, 2006 22:22

Well firstly military tactics are a matter for those who are employing them , 32csm neither employs such tactics nor influences them . Commercial bombings were unsurprisingly abandoned as a tactic by Ógliagh na hEireann in 1998 after the disaster in Omagh in which state agents and agencies such as MI5 and Special branch are heavily implicated in . Its doubtful in my opinion that 8 years later they would seek to re-employ such a tactic that is so open to abuse by the enemy forces .

The GFA has quite successfully divided the population of the 6 counties along religious lines , just as it was highly divided prior to hostilities in 1969 so attempting to blame republican militants for sectarian division in Ireland is more than a tad disingenuous . The historical record more than ably points out that the British establishment fostered and maintained those divisions for centuries . As the late Sean MacBride has also pointed out British interference in Ireland , both military and political is calculated to do just that . Any country would be greatly destabilised were it subjected to the resources Britain has committed to keeping Ireland divided and under its control and influence . Removing that destabilising factor would seem to a step in the right direction as regards removing sectarian division particularly given Britains record in arming and directing sectarian killers they recruited to sectarian organisations. Britain imported large quantities of arms for loyalists in the mid 80s for precisely such a purpose . Imposing the GFA has led to nothing more than polarisation of the community in the north even further and sectarian killings are still occuring .

Rather than simply throwing green papers at them 32csm has engaged the unionist community directly with a detailed submission similar in ways to the one given to the Sinn Fein leadership , asking them essentially do they believe Britain may ever withdraw from Ireland ( as they , especially Paisley have consistently warned of) and asking them how they would see their future in such a society , what political structures do they believe would be necessary in the event of such a withdrawal . It seems a sensible approach .

by hs Sat May 27, 2006 22:36

I wouldn't soley blame republicans for the problems in N. Ireland and it's obvious the british state holds the greatest responsiblity. I would bring up points critisising republicanism when speaking or debating with republicans, just as I would debate the points of british involvement when speaking with british people etc From the republicans point of view, to move forward they have to see what and where their tactics have led and where they will lead in the future. The Brtish state may have created the divisions in N. I society. But that doesn't mean those divisions are not real, and it doesn't mean republicans cannot reinforce those divisions by their actions.
The republican movement needs to face the realisity of those divisions and the mass of the people who are opposed to a united ireland because of those divisions. Its not a siomple case of cause and effect, ie the british casued the divisions therefore remove them (the british, and the divisions will cease. They won't. its a question which goes into the very culture of Northern ireland. and yes you are right the GFA has added to the divisions, but any return to war or miltary tactics of any type would be alot worse.
You can talk with SF and SF can talk with the irish gov. and the British one. But the mass of people opposed to a united ireland are still there and unless they are convince there will be no united ireland.

by Barry - 32csm Sat May 27, 2006 22:47

Interesting points given that since the release of state papers its ben revealed that both the Churchill and Wilson administrations made offers and plans behind the unionists backs to abandon them without prior consultation. I believe the GFA is also viewed by some as means to a united Ireland whether the mass of unionists consent or not .

As you admit the British governemnt is responsible for sectarianism historically and their current meddling in Irish affairs keeping division going how do intend to resolve the situation while they continue to divide people along religious affiliations for political reasons ?

In an effort to get to crux of this problem the following submission was made to the unionist community -

A Submission by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement to the Broad Unionist Community

Preface ;

The purpose of this submission is to seek positive political engagement amongst different sections of the Irish people concerning the probability of the ending of the British claim to sovereignty over the six north eastern counties of Ireland. The outcome of such a probability, let alone the veracity of such probability, will incur profound change in the political and social landscape on the island. The 32 County Sovereignty Movement submit, that in light of this potential alteration, it would be politically prudent for political representatives to address all contingencies regarding this matter and to construct proposals as to how such a future state should be formatted and developed.

The probability of change to the sovereign status of the six county region is not an idle reference. In this submission the 32CSM will outline its analysis as to why such change is probable, and hence its need to be addressed, in tandem with our view as to the necessity of such change if a lasting and stable peace is to be achieved amongst our people and between Ireland and our neighbouring island. In particular we will focus on the following;

· British commitment to its sovereign claim in Ireland

· Unionists in a British Democratic Framework

· Unionists in an Irish Democratic Framework

By any definition, against any international standard, the six county region has failed. It has resisted, consistently, each and all attempts at conformity to political normality. It has witnessed a destructive cycle of political ‘initiatives’, scuppered by resistance and suspicion from its people, resulting in bloodshed and deepening divisions. The litany of failed changes in its political administration throughout its history only serves to underline the need for radical change effecting the very existence of the state-let itself. The issue of sovereignty needs to be addressed. In consequence of this empirical view the 32CSM petition the broad unionist community to address the following questions with urgency;

1. Is the ending of the Union inevitable?

2. Is the ending of the Union probable?

Most, if not all, unionists have contemplated these scenarios but invariably addressed them as to their avoidance which has merely added to the destructive cycle alluded to earlier. We submit that they cannot be avoided indefinitely and should be addressed positively as they are central to the longterm interests and future of unionists and their fellow Irish people.

British Commitment To Sovereignty
From our analysis of the political discourse which culminated in the signing of the Good Friday Accord the 32CSM noted that the issue of sovereignty was to be dealt with outside of the negotiations. British sovereignty was to be accepted by all parties to the negotiations as a precondition for entry into same. From our perspective the cause of conflict was not to be addressed. In response to this deliberate omission the 32CSM sought to defend Irish sovereignty as it relates to the national territory of Ireland by lodging a legal challenge in the United Nations against British claims of sovereignty over part of Ireland. (See Document Appendix).

The submission to the UN challenged the British sovereign claim under various precepts of international law. Following on from the signing of the GFA the submission was complimented by an addendum outlining the basic flaws and violations of the GFA as it related to Irish sovereignty. (See Document Appendix) To date the British government has made no formal response to this legal challenge against its claim of sovereignty in an international forum. Why is this?

Sovereignty is of fundamental importance, as is its defence. Claims of sovereignty carry onerous responsibilities as to its administration and its defence is reflective of the claimants commitment to it. In consequence the 32CSM petition the broad unionist community to;

A. Address the UN challenge to British sovereign authority in Ireland

B. Urge the British government to respond to the UN challenge. In December 2004, under the thirty year rule, British State papers relating to the six county region in 1974 were released for public scrutiny. Within these documents was found a proposal from the then British Prime Minister Harold Wilson for the disengagement of the six counties from the United Kingdom. It was a proposal irrespective of repeated assurances from the British establishment that no change in the constitutional status of the six counties could come about except by the express wishes of a majority of its inhabitants. In short it rendered these repeated assurances as meaningless.

Although the proposal foundered it underlined the fact that British interests, as they pertain to territories outside of their island, are not predicated on any semblance of democratic expression within the territories involved. The 1974 proposal was not an isolated incident. Similar overtures were made during the Second World War as an enticement for the Irish Free State’s entry into that conflict. The overtures were not realised but are indicative of a pattern of Britain prioritising British interests regardless of public pronouncements to the opposite. What equally must be considered is the possibility of similar proposals which will never enter the public domain or have yet to do so.

The relationship between the unionist people and the British establishment it professes loyalty to is grounded in profound mistrust and reciprocated mistrust. It is a grotesque scenario with deep political implications for the unionist people. For our part it renders our original contention concerning the probability of the Union’s end as an active reality and further renders unionist attention to it as imperative. The 32CSM, as an incentive for unionist engagement with this reality, would seek their consideration on the following observations;

A. How can constitutional and sovereign stability, and by default political stability, be secured under such deceptive and volatile conditions?

B. In light of this constitutional and sovereign volatility surely prudent political planning is warranted?

C. What future does such constitutional and sovereign volatility hold for the people under its auspices?

D. Can such constitutional and sovereign volatility be resolved without fundamental change in either of these areas? Unionists in a British Democratic Framework

There exists at the heart of unionist affiliation to a British Democratic Framework a fundamental contradiction which runs contrary to the very basic tenets of democracy itself. The ‘Unionist Veto’, long held and promoted as a ‘democratic’ bulwark against Irish unity, is actually a mechanism by which unionists insulate themselves against decisions which could be taken by the very democratic framework it claims allegiance to. And, as has been demonstrated, the probability of such unilateral British decision making, regardless of perceived powers of veto over them, remains a political fact. The ‘Unionist Veto’ secures neither veto nor democratic inclusion for the unionist people within a British Democratic Framework.

The broader ethos of the unionist people deserves a more secure and substantive democratic expression than such an arrangement is offering. A superficial democratic analysis, as it pertains to the unionist affiliation within a British Democratic Framework in areas of accountability and inclusiveness, would demand an immediate end to the affiliation itself. A more thorough democratic scrutiny would expose causes of conflict.

The 32CSM would now ask the broad unionist community to address this democratic deficiency.

Does the ‘Unionist Veto’, a cause of conflict, guarantee the constitutional position of unionists within the UK? Democratic inclusion is not solely concerned with membership of a democratic framework but with influence upon, and accountability from, such a framework itself. The fundamental necessity of this inclusion and accountability, in realising a truly democratic framework, cannot be reduced to mere numerics or flawed mechanisms of veto and exclusion. Democracy and inclusiveness are inseparable. ‘Ulster’ is not as British as Finchley.

1. Do the unionist people exercise inclusive influence in, and on, a British Democratic Framework?

2. Does a British Democratic Framework exercise inclusive accountability to the unionist people?

3. Can such a framework offer unionists a democratic future?

Unionists in an Irish Democratic Framework
The unionist people are Irish people. Unionism is a political reality in Ireland since the Plantations of the seventeenth century. Unionists have sought to dominate the economic and political landscape in Ireland both as a minority on the island and as a majority within part of it.

Notwithstanding the inherent injustice of this domination the inescapable conclusion to be drawn is that unionism, as a political entity, gauged itself against an Irish political backdrop and not a British one. The political centre of gravity of the unionist people is in Ireland. The 32CSM submit that the centre of gravity of its true democratic expression is to be found in Ireland also.

In consequence the 32CSM now invites the broad unionist community to formulate proposals on how an Irish Democratic Framework, given the reality of its probability, should be constructed to reflect the diversity of all the people on the island. Most notably it should address;

1. Distribution and makeup of Central Government

2. Electoral Format

3. Economic Ethos

4. Church and State

5. Cultural Diversity

6. International Relations

7. Education and Academia

8. Social and Health Policy Unionist inclusiveness and influence within an Irish Democratic Framework is both real and permanent. It offers unionists a unique opportunity to formulate a truly democratic society with its broad ethos at its heart. The drafting of such proposals is an exercise in political prudence and opens new chapters for other parties in the conflict to prudently address their real political probabilities also. The 32CSM look forward to your engagement.ADDENDUM

In tandem with this submission from the 32CSM to the broad unionist community we have submitted a similar submission to the British government on the central theme of,

British Longterm Intentions Toward Ireland
In brief, the submission addresses British responsibility to its claim of sovereignty over the six county region and seeks its political projections as to its role in administering that sovereign claim in the future. As the claimant of sovereignty over the region the longterm political intentions of the British government are of immense relevance and importance to the unionist people also. With this in mind the 32 County Sovereignty Movement would urge the representatives of the broad unionist community to encourage an active engagement on behalf of the British government with the submission concerned. A full copy of the submission to the British government is contained in the Document Appendix.

by hs Sun May 28, 2006 19:42

i'll have a read of the papers. But british intent still doesn't create a united ireland. Republicanism has always presumed british withdrawal will lead to a united ireland. This is not definite as many unionists would still resist any unification process, british army or no british army. The most likely scenario would not be a peacful reunification. Nationalism and communalism will have to be removed from our collective culture before a peaceful unification will take place. Armed struggle can only add to the problems rather than remove them. And if it is the case as you seem to put forward, that the british wanted to leave, what is the point in bombing them when the opposition to unification is coming from the prodestant masses, and how would any armed struggle against this community (which would amount to civil war), create unification without repression?

by Barry Sun May 28, 2006 22:26

Firstly the case I put forward was from British state papers . They only proposed to withdraw on those occasions when to do so was clearly in their own selfish immediate interests . Outside of those two brief periods they have sought to maintain their illegal and undemocratic presence here by whatever means necessary including mass murder and directly asisting and arming terrorist groups .
Youve missed the point that these questions youve put to me are precisely what we have put to the unionist community , how do they regard their future in such a scenario .

Why are you asking me , I dont speak on their behalf? Surely youd be better off asking them to resond to these crucial questions about their future ? Is it not in their political social and economic interests as well as the entire islands to spell out what their response would be and what political structures they would advocate ?

by hs Mon May 29, 2006 23:42

Whether the British leave out of selfish interests or not is irrelevant, the point I was making is that even if the brits leave, the masses of people against a united Ireland will still be there. Basically that the major obstacle to a united Ireland is the fact that so many of the population of N. I are opposed to it. I'm not saying that in a negative or positive sense but just laying down the fact.

I was asking your opinion as a republican, and how you see the removal of the british leading to a united ireland and how you would see armed struggle playing any positive role in that process. Especially an armed struggle which would be little more than bombings and assasinations.

The reason I ask this is republicanism places the British state as the main obstacle to a united Ireland and consistently misses or ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are opposed to a united Ireland and a minority would most almost certainly revert to violence to prevent it. And in my opinion today the main obstacle to a united ireland is the unionist people not the british state. Would you agree with this analysis? And remember I speak of the contempory situation.

Republicans should by all means engage with unionism, it makes a lot more sense than attempting to force them into a united ireland by coercian. Irish unity I think will only be achieved when we do away with nationalism and communalism. I'm not saying that thats something easily achieved but I can't see it happening otherwise.

by Barry Tue May 30, 2006 00:14

It will only happen when Britain leaves . Britain has the resources to destabilise Ireland in perpetuity as long as it remains and has used those resources consistently to that end . Unionism doesnt need to construct a relationship with the rest of the island while the British government guarantees to remain. In fact that is what unionism demands of Britain , that Britain acts as a bulwark against Irish democracy.

Britain not only allows but actively encourages them through its aggresive interference to insulate themselves from democracy throughout the rest of the island . Whether the pressure on Britain to leave comes from armed force or political challenge the reaction of unionism is just as threatening , bellicose and hysterical . Their reaction to proposed mild home rule and the civil rights struggle amply illustrates that , and in both instances British policy and interference encouraged and allowed them to do exactly that . Unionists were quite happy with a united Ireland for 100s of years providing it was profoundly undemocratic in nature and they were insulated from any democratic decision making throughout the island or even in Britain .
No-one is trying to force unionism into a united Ireland , simply remove Britain from the equation , it should NOT be there . It is in unionisms interests to spell out how they intend to live on this island in the event of a British withdrawal and what structures they would find necessary . It is in everyones interests . We are the only movement asking them these questions , no-one else is bothering .
It perfectly evident that British policy in Ireland is contributing greatly towards sectarianism and communalism and is never going to change in this regard . The situation will only continue to deteriorate in that regard , sectarianism becoming ingrained and institutionalised in every day life . It has failed the Irish people unionist and nationalist alike and should be removed as the utter failure that it is out of sheer necessity. Irish people will never be united under British rule .

by hs Tue May 30, 2006 00:27

Obviously a united ireland cannot come about without a british withdrawal. (unless we turn republicanism on its head completely!) But a united Ireland is not the only thing on the cards, an independent six county state is possible in theory. But a more likely scenario could be repartition after civil disturbances and sectarian fighting and possible exodus of peoples.

I don't think sectarianism would disappear with the British and theres plenty of potential for it south of the border. I think sectarianism and communalism has to go before a united Ireland not after. Whether the British are there or not. With a united people the british would be gone very quickly whether they wished it or not.

What would your opinion be of an autonomous six countys within a united ireland, within the UK or within joint soveringty or semi independence within the European Union?

by Barry Tue May 30, 2006 00:50

the notion of seperation along religious lines , and that democratic decisions on this island must be subject to religious seperation is sectarian in itself . Whatever decision is taken on Irelands future political structures it must be without foreign interference and foreign preconditions . while that happens youll have conflict and resistance to that interference .
Again you seem to advocating the acceptance of insulating unionism from democracy by creating undemocratic political structures .This matter should be settled by the very people whom it directly concerns - the people of this island . the people of his island whatever their persuasion are more than capable of devising political structures that will ensure harmony . its up to them to decide . Its up to Britain to bring the Anglo Irish conflict to an end and allow this process to take place . The only way Britain can resolve the conflict is to fully remove itself from it and not attempt to interfere abd destablise any further . For unionism to secure the interests of its followers its up to them to spell out what structures they wish to live in under those circumstances .

by seedot Tue May 30, 2006 00:59

"Irish unity I think will only be achieved when we do away with nationalism and communalism."

hs, while no-one would say you were wrong and all the unionists and residents of the six counties who identify as British were only messing and it would be an easy path to unity, I think you are being a bit unfair by simplistically equating republicanism with nationalism and comunalism. It is a political tradition which is much richer and deeper than that. By focusing on the barriers to Irish Unity rather than trying to defend the union I am assuming that you would see the achievement of Irish unity as a progressive step.

I know you're not an anarchist (they believe you don't just stop with the six, you remove all borders I understand) so you would see the nature of the state that the people live under as being of relevance - even in achieving the unity you speak of which implies much wider cultural and economic change.

My version of the republican argument would be a pomotion of the republican ideal for the state, that within an agreed rather than inherited polity we are more likely to progress towards other forms of unity. When you move around on this island you sense the change of state, we are partitioned because there is a British State presence. You say British withdrawal is not the issue but the existence of unionists. When would you call for a British withdrawal - a simple minority of unionists in the north, a qualified minority, 50,000, 1,000? Or are Irish people linked against their will with our UK comrades and we must have their system of government until they achieve the workers republic we can all federate with, in unity.

Because, reading all this material, it becomes less and less relevant to me what the exact relationship of any individual sinn fein or other member is to the British state (or indeed others to sinn fein as Phil Flynn and Frank Connolly have found). It matters whether it is possible to have a republican project which is not a social project. If the leadership adopt the practices, lives and culture of the other leaderships they negotiate and work with then there will be a betrayal of the original ideas and motivations, a counter revolution if you will - whether in the name of realpolitick and compromise or because of a more blatant harmonising of interests. Either way the republican project is betrayed.

by hs Tue May 30, 2006 01:06

I'm not saying it's a good thing or in any sense an ideology i would support. But sectarianism is still a fact. It was long used by the british ruling class, and also lets not forget by the southern catholic bourgeois when it suited them too. So we are left with a problem, on the one hand as you say it is sectarian to run politics on sectarian lines and to put all political questions to a sectarian headcount. But on the other hand we are dealing with two fearful minorities, one the catholic minority in Northern ireland and two the prodesdant minority in the island of ireland. Both of these minorites will want guarentees within any political framework. Where the representatives of the wider catholic community are asking for powersharing arangements which are historically unworkable, and the prodestant minority are holding onto the UK, which as you pointed out aren't too bothered about them.

As you said it's not a good situation, but it continues to be a fact. As far as I can see nationalist politics can only add to this, as Sinn fein represent Catholics and the DUP prodestants and the two sides can fight over resources quite happily. But until some sort of party comes along that can win the support of workers from both sides they won't be challenged in this arrangment. Of course this sort of thing is far easier said than done.

But in the end as things stand a victory for republicanism is a victory of one community because as things stand republicanism only represents one community. By leaving out the other community we'll just be replacing british soldiers and police in west belfast with irish soldiers and police in east belfast. (if the south was even prepared to do so).

Without taking the minority with us ireland will be united in name only, and it's unlikely the irish state could hold the north without the consent of the majority there.

by hs Tue May 30, 2006 01:17

I think the provisional movement which is what most people define as republican in contemporary terms is communalist in the sense they aim to win representation for one community.

On unity, I would absolutely support a united ireland, but I recognise for historical reasons accomodations will have to be made. For my own personal view I would like to see a united ireland within a socialist european federation which would include england scotland and wales.

I don't disagree with anarchists in the sense of doing away with the capitalist state, but it's replacement whether a centralised or federated system of workers councils and/or community councils would inevitable take the formation of a type of state.

But at the moment the idea of socialist united europes or theoretical states is, well, just theory. right now the two biggest blocks in N. Ireland are certainly communal and the left is a miniscule minority, and these are realities that have to be faced. We need a huge cultural and political change within Ireland before a peaceful unity is possible.

Because as much as the British state created sectarianism, we still remain a divided people.

by Barry Tue May 30, 2006 01:18

and maintain it . While they do we'll remain divided .

by seedot Tue May 30, 2006 01:35

not a progressive thing to campaign for hs?

All the time we campaign for lesser demands than the workers republic. If the left was part of a republican campaign, as it is part of many other campaigns, would both the left and republicanism not gain. Staying tied to Liz Windsor seems to be a step too far for some in what they will challenge on the doorsteps, while they face up against all of the global hegemony that the advance of capitalism puts in their way. The left arguing for a republic would surely bring a part of your platform closer while holding the republican movement closer to what often feels like rethoric rather than principles of their stated social policies.

If people disagree with you, does this mean you are less likely to achieve your objectives if you continue or if you give up? Should republican seperatism stop demanding a British withdrawal?

by Niall Meehan Tue May 30, 2006 11:44

Historian by Tom Barry Sat May 27, 2006 09:44
"Tom Barry" by pat c Sat May 27, 2006 18:43

Just came across the exchange above.

I am not aware that anyone accused Brian Hanley of being a revisionist historian - 'Tom Barry' above does not (he merely asserts that Brian Hanley supported one). Unless you have found a "Zealot" who has so accused Brian Hanley, perhaps you might withdraw the comment. Someone might, inadvertently attribute your comment to my reply to Brian Hanley's seeming defence of the revisionist historian Peter Hart, entitled "Playing Handball Against a Haystack: A Response to Brian Hanley's defence of Peter Hart" (reproduced at: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70063).

Brian Hanley interviewed Peter Hart for History Ireland (followed by a debate over the next four issues – links below), but he also spoke at the Ireland Institute on the subject of Peter Hart's research on the War of Independence. In the talk Brian Hanley was generally supportive of Peter Hart on the substantive points, though he said he disagreed with him on some issues that were left unspecified. However, Peter Hart's critics' views were caricatured and the critics not named - denying his audience the capacity to look up and then weigh up the alternatives. I felt that approach needed to be countered, so I wrote the response. The best I can offer on the matter, in the absence of other evidence, is that Brian Hanley was taken in by Peter Hart's methodology or style that seemed to intertwine history and sociology to produce an apparent 'history from below'. However, once the omissions and distortions are exposed, which they have been by Meda Ryan and by Brian Murphy (and now by John Borgonovo, below), it quickly becomes clear that the work is a thinly disguised apologia for 'firm' imperial government. Brian Hanley could have clarified his view in the debate in History Ireland, but he chose not to do so.

Brian Murphy's book on British propaganda (a propaganda Murphy suggests that Hart was reliant on in his survey of the Kilmichael ambush) has been published (see David Miller's forward at www.spinwatch.org - link below – also see http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75117). In an appendix Murphy criticises Peter Hart's unorthodox use of source material (reproduced at: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75885).

Besides Meda Ryan's Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter (2003 HB, 2005PB), there is John Borgonovo's recently published book on the intelligence war in Cork (linked below) and his forthcoming book (August, Irish Academic Press) on the unionist anti-Sinn Fein societies in Cork. The latter will extinguish firmly and finally Peter Hart's contention that such bodies were simply the RIC/Auxiliaries in mufti. Borgonovo's work demonstrates that the IRA's targeting of informers and spies in Cork was not the irredeemably sectarian and deferentially social class ridden exercise that Peter Hart portrays (a view that Brian Hanley, it seems to me, appears to support).

Incidentally, while many secret British papers from he 1916-21 period have been put into the public domain, the official list of British spies and informers has not – leading to speculation to this day as to their supposed identity. The latest is in 'Michael Collins's Intelligence War' by Michael Foy, who suggests that Erskine Childers' US born wife Molly was a British spy. It made for good newspaper fodder: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2114790,00....html.

A lot of people seem to like spy stories of this sort and like to comment on them endlessly.

In terms of fiction, I am sure there will be a lot of truth in Ken Loach's new film, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, on the War of Independence and Civil War in Cork, which won the Palme d'Or in Cannes on Sunday. I look forward to seeing it.

FURTHER READING

Playing Handball Against a Haystack: A Response to Brian Hanley's defence of Peter Hart:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70063

Reference to John Borgonovo book on the Intelligence War in Cork
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75711

David Miller Forward to Brian Murphy book
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=sh...d=471
see also:
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=art...=2552

HISTORY IRELAND debate – Brian Hanley, Peter Hart, Meda Ryan, et al

Peter Hart was interviewed by Brian Hanley in History Ireland Vol. 13 No. 2 March/April 2005:
http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.2Fea....html

Three letters critical of Peter Hart were published in History Ireland Vol. 13 No. 3 May/June 2005:
http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.3Fea....html

Peter Hart replied to his critics History Ireland Vol. 13 No. 4 July/August 2005:
http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.4Fea....html

Meda Ryan answered Peter Hart in History Ireland Vol. 13 No. 5 September/October 2005:
http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.5Fea....html

There were also four letters in critical of Hart's response in the same issue History Ireland Vol. 13 No. 5 September/October 2005:
http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.5Fea....html

Wind that Shakes the Barley actors Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney

Wind that Shakes the Barley Director, Ken Loach, accepts Palme d'Or from Cannes awards presenter Emmanuelle Beart

by pat c Tue May 30, 2006 12:26

I have nothing to withdraw. Tom above was trying a guilt by association attack on Brian hanley. On previous threads Brian has been attacked as being a revisionist. Thats why I posted his paper on Bloody Sunday 1920 on the thread I mention.

You never accused Brian of being a revisionist nor have I ever suggested that you did so. As you aware, I am also opposed to Hart and I have posted a lot of stuff critical of him. Including the information that Hart did not consult the Collins/Kiernan Letters in Cork City Museum when he was writing his Collins Bio.

I do however get a tad annoyed when comrades of mine are libelled and tend to issue a robust response in such cases.

Keep up the good work in fighting the revisionists.

by DOD - Sinn Féin Tue May 30, 2006 18:48

If you think there are no independent thinkers in SF, perhaps you should come a long to a Cúige Mumhan meeting. If SF had forced Ray not to speak, that would be indeed worrying, but I don't think this is the case. I know mackers criticises the real and contos as well, he had a lot of good things to say, but I really think that now he is just critical for the sake of it. To be honest with you, before last year, I had never heard of Richard O' Rawe.

by Phil Tue May 30, 2006 18:57

That's what they all say!

by Willy Nilly Tue May 30, 2006 20:19

Wasn't Francie Molloy punished for speaking out against Sinn Fein's backing for Repartition, namely the Super councils were as Sinn Fein would control west of the Bann and Unionists would control the East?

by Barry Tue May 30, 2006 20:24

Its one thing to accept partition but repartition was a bit too far . They let him back in though .

by DOD - Sinn Féin Tue May 30, 2006 21:28

On that particular issue, Francie contradicted party policy publicly. Rules are rules and they apply in all organisations. That said I think it was a bit harsh myself.

by Willy Nilly Tue May 30, 2006 21:32

Do you believe that the Super councils are a form of Repartition?

by Brendan Tue May 30, 2006 21:57

--"Anyone who stopped by the Special Branch after the meeting should consider contacting Finian McGrath about it."--

What are you on about; contact Finian McGrath if you have suffered harassment.
I spent an hour and a half listening to McGrath and others whinging about the harassment nationalists had suffered over the years and then when they saw an act of harassment and intimidation taking place before their own eyes, what did they do about it? NOTHING.

What a pathetic sight, six grown men rooted to the spot because they just didn't have the balls to stand up for what "they claimed" they believed in.

Talk about plastic paddies, how about rubber republicans; ready to bend with the prevailing mob.

by Willy Nilly Tue May 30, 2006 22:09

Is Brendan on the drink?

by Republican Wed May 31, 2006 00:26

Fair play to you for replying to my questions, the easy way out would have been to just ignore them.
I’m fairly sure that O’Reilly was pulled, too many coincidences. Anyway, if he wasn’t pulled how come SF couldn’t provide a replacement speaker? They had enough time.
If you only heard of O’Rawe last year how do you know enough about him to doubt his credibility?
I don’t understand your comment about McIntyre. How has he changed? Has he become more critical than 4 or 5 years ago? I don’t think so, I think the stuff he predicted about SF is happening now and it’s making the ‘independent’ thinkers very uncomfortable. The term “media whore” is a typical putdown used by people who can’t pin any real accusations on someone.

by Donnchadh Wed May 31, 2006 04:32

The big problem with the 32csm is that they didnt see the woods from the trees in 1986. In 1987 you were members of an organisation that recognised the Free State law which said that the IRA was a criminal conspiracy and that all IRA volunteers were criminals - including the Hunger Strikers. It took a very very long time for that penny to drop, and sad to say you still behave towards the Provisional leadership like younger brothers. Of course Adams/McGuiness stood down PIRA and took their seats in both partitionist asemblies - that was the whole point of the 1986 Ard Fheis.

by DOD - Sinn Féin Wed May 31, 2006 12:24

Perhaps I was being a bit crude describing Macintyre as a media whore. I used to correspond regularly with him and actually got on quite well with him. I just feel the way he jumps on every bandwagon to attack SF undermines his credibility. Is joining forces with anti-republican revisionists on prime time specials the way to bring his views across? Also, I never remember him providing any evidence for claims. McKearney on the other hand is a joy to listen to, always fair in his analysis, yet firm. I don't recall ever disagreeing with the man on any substantive points.

There are no questions you could ask me that I wouldn't at least attempt to answer on a personal basis. If you wish to do so, you can PM me on politics.ie, I have the same name there as here.

by Ned Wed May 31, 2006 17:38

Some discussion about the ejection of "Brendan", the racist at the public meeting, some indymedia bashing, some interesting points made.

by Barry Wed May 31, 2006 18:56

For a start 32csm didnt exist in 1986 . Secondly the majority of its membership were probably too young to have attended that Ard Feis ( i was only there as a teenage visitor). Thirdly the slight matter of massive arms shipments from Libya and the fact those who walked out of the Ard Feis had no military organisation , never mind arms , as well the fact Mr OBradaigh publicly called on his supporters to continue giving support to the ongoing armed struggle were factors too . People including Jim Lynagh approached RSF looking to get involved in an armed project but were told there simply wasnt one to join . And there wasnt . Quite simply there was an ongoing liberation struggle that RSF as a body quite simply had no input into . Theres also the slight matter of quite a few 32csm members being former members of RSF , that is until they couldnt take listening to the pointless stuff youve posted one minute longer and walked .

As for the provos younger brothers and the rest - lay off the drink or explain yourself . If thats the case its been quite an abusive relationship . RSF will quite simply expell any member caught attending any broad front or congress project . With attitudes like yours , still fixated on an 86 ard feis , 20 years ago , that you most likely never even attended such a project may be better off without RSF quite frankly . Wise up man .

by Jimmy Wed May 31, 2006 19:47

All over the world people say "Well done Irish, you began the end of the empire", in relation to the British Empire. We were and still are a reletively small group on the world stage, but what we have done has been noticed and what we do and say in the future will also be.

What Future do republicans work toward?
Although understood and widely supported (@66% on RTE's poll last night), its a bit too easy to only insist on the old mantra "Brits out"- what happens if and when that is achieved. Perhaps its time for all groups to do more to demonstrate what a full island Republic would be like and also to strengthen the international aspects that Republicanism strives for. What relevance does it have to the Bosnians, the Chinese, the Indians, the French, the Nigerians, the Brazilians, the Irish Prodestants, who have made Ireland their home for the present, can they get invovled, have they valid inputs to make?

What about standing up to todays imperialist forces that are "occupying" Ireland and beyond today?
Shannon and Baldonnel are continued to be allowed to be used for the US war machine, could the republican groups do more to change this? Could we again become an example to the world?

Strange things are going on today, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuala, Bolivia, .......... all standing up and saying "No to Neo-Liberalism". Could Ireland become the next port of call for this Latin American wave, remembering our well forged links from over the years, and remembering also what those Zapatistas are pushing at, at the other end of the Mexican gulf stream... I wonder how many of the "rebels" of Cork identify with and support their Latin American brothers fight for justice and equality? perhaps many of them couldn't really give a damn, but then again remember post 1916 and how quickly the people of this island become radically politicised and put the mechanisms in place for our neighbours stepping down from their 800 year old roost. Perhaps with a little reminding the "ordinary" people of Ireland might once again wake up and break the chains of imperialism.

And what about a better time than right now - 90 years on and even Bertie is harping on about carrying on with the ideals from 1916. And on top of this, more global attention will focus here thanks to "Wind that Shakes the Barley "

So who knows? - we did it once, why not do it again.
90 years on, is it time to make another break in an imperialist chain?

by Barry - 32csm Wed May 31, 2006 20:21

but youve left out our resources too , a major issue .
Sovereignty in all its forms are the issue , thats what the struggles all over the world are about and thats what our struggle must be about , a NATIONAL struggle for sovereignty that confronts and dismantles every undemocratic position on this land which denies us our sovereignty - territory , resources , nuetrality . Thats the way to go .

by Barry Wed May 31, 2006 20:25

get back to fenianism

by Donnchadh Wed May 31, 2006 23:33

I agree 100% - your relationship with the provisional leadership has been an abusive one - they sent out brave and honerable volunteers to fight and die knowing that they had swept the idealogical ground from under their feet and that since the provisionals had recognised the Free State there could be no other end in sight but some form of GFA (which could never have justified the spilling of one drop of blood). I dont know if O Bradaigh said to continue supporting the PIRA campaign in 1986 but if he did he was wrong - that campaign had no further reason to exist. Sadly, noble patriots like Jim Lynagh would have been better dumping whatever arms they had and starting re-building the Republican Movement. If armed struggle dosnt have a basis in logic then its better to continue the struggle in other forms. If their was ten times the amount of Libbian arms, in the hands of the provisional leadership they were just getting young people killed for the GFA and making more work for Gen. De Chastelan. Once you recognise the law of the southern state you must become part of that law. The southern state law says Irish people do not have a right to engage in armed struggle against British forces.

by Barry Thu Jun 01, 2006 00:59

the motion wasnt about recognising state law , it was simply about sinn fein TDs taking seats . While there was most definitely an agenda behind the move that is not what people were voting on .
Your suggestions about what should have been done arent in the remotest bit realistic but whats more to the point is they werent done , so are therefore pretty much irrelevant to the way forward for republicanism. Furthermore " should have been done" republicanism is indeed a major past time within RSF , but not one Id care to spend much time at .

Luckily for us all RSF wont be participating in any broad front or congress strategy so the rest of us wont have to listen to it .

by Sharon - Individual Thu Jun 01, 2006 01:30

Furthermore " should have been done" republicanism is indeed a major past time within RSF , but not one Id care to spend much time at .
Perhaps you should invest a bit more time in that subject , Barry . It can't hurt to remind ourselves of past failures . Especially those failures that some of us recognise later in the day than others .

Luckily for us all RSF wont be participating in any broad front or congress strategy so the rest of us wont have to listen to it .
Well that should allow more time to discuss the case that was lodged with the UN general assembly eight years ago . Time that can be used to listen to a progress report on same .

Sharon .

by Barry Thu Jun 01, 2006 01:42

32CSM have no relationship whatsoever with the Provisional leadership , junior or senior . Furthermore if you want a progress report on the UN sumbmission the thing to do is write to the UN and ask them . Thats how pressure will be put on them . We arent allowed into New York to work on it .

As for failed strategies I should point out that RSF havent won either . Theres a lot more wrong with republican strategies than simply the ending of abstentionism .

by Donnchadh Thu Jun 01, 2006 02:21

Im really not trying to attack the 32csm - my point is that any new republican campaign has to be built on a solid theoretical foundation. When PSF decided to take seats in the 26 county assembly it was obviously recognising the right of that assembly to rule part of Ireland - it was recognising its law as The Law. Considering that the Free State was established by an act of British law, to accept the ligitimacy of the Free State is to accept the ligitimacy of the British law in Ireland which created it. Those who accepted the treaty in 1921 made a sacrifice when they accepted a limitation on / castration of the revolution, imposed by the British state. The British Empire laid down its law as The Law. The oath of allegiance was not an “empty formula,” but a symbolic castration, an integration into British law and a profound turning away from and deligitimisation of the principals on which the First Dáil was founded. In the same way the abandoning of the traditional Sinn Fein constitution in 1986 imposed a symbolic castration on the Provisional IRA and PSF - they became subject to Free State and ultimately British law.
An IRA volunteer is not a politically motivated criminal who recognises either direct British law or British law as handed down by British created partitionist assemblies. He or she is not a civil rights campaigner looking for equality under British law. As a Republican he or she stands completely outside British law as a radical alternative to it. He or she stands within the continuity of the republic declaired in 1916. It was that continuity which gave Bobby Sands and the 22 other hunger strikers of the 20th century the will, courage and confidence to face the greatest of hardships and sacrifices. The provisional leadership sacrificed that continuity in 1986, and it is a sad sight to see them trashing about now chasing the latest opinion poll and publicity generating sound bite. As far as I know the 32csm still recognises the Free State. Id be delighted if Im wrong. But if this is so then you are bound by its law and ultimately bound by British law.

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Jun 01, 2006 03:57

32 CSM recognises the free states legitimacy and is bound by British and free state law ? This is what they teach you in RSF ? WHere did you learn this ? Who is telling you this ? Or are you making this up off the top of your head ?

by Barry Thu Jun 01, 2006 04:04

and can you explain the actions of the continuitys prisoners in Maghaberry during the dirty protest a few years ago , the one they REFUSED to participate in . Y'Know , the one against criminalisation that virtually every Real IRA prisoner did. Is there a principle against dirty protest as well ? ?
Please explain to me the firm ideological foundation which prevented this ideologically superior organisation from fighting British criminalisation policies while its moral inferiors did?
Was the failure ideological or simply a lack of moral fibre ? Is talking shite preferable to sticking it on the walls ?

by Donnchadh Thu Jun 01, 2006 04:47

Well Barry if you tell me that the 32CSM dont recognise the 26 county Free State, Im delighted to believe you. And I dont suppose any republican is in a Brit gaol because of cowardice. It's not a question of who are the better republicans, its a question of standing on strong foundations so that the likes of Adams and McGuiness cant keep subverting the movement, in every generation, with promises of shiny, short-term prizes.

by DOD - Sinn Féin Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:46

I am a bit bemused by this obsession with SF 'recognising the Free State' So what? Recognising the 26 county state does not mean that we have confined ourselves to accepting the kind of state we have now. We can work within the structures to some extent, but we also have to be active in the communities, the Unions and on the Streets. What I want to see is a Socialist Republic, so obviously a simple extension of the current 26 county state will not do me; but could we not look at the possibility that maybe it was blind abstentionism that was wrong?

For all the flaws of the 26 County State and the intimidation of republicans by state forces, (thankfully my generation of republicans have avoided it) at least the 26 counties is free from British rule (well ostensibly anyway) and there is some semblance of a free franchise for the citizens of the 26 county state. The only way that the people of 26 counties can be republicanised is if they see activists on the ground prepared to work for them at all levels. With all due respect, the vast bulk of people do not even know the likes of 32CSM or RSF even exist.

For all the ideological muscle flexing, I have yet to hear any coherent alternative from 'true republicans' either here or on politics.ie. (although I must say that 32CSM and RSF contributions are a damned sight better here than on that site) If ye have such a great plan, tell us what it is? I mean everyone has the potential to change their minds if they think someone has a better plan.

by Donnchadh Thu Jun 01, 2006 17:48

In the first place I don’t want to be involved in any silly slagging match between 32CSM, RSF or PSF. It’s a question of examining the basis for what we believe. I think one of the major weaknesses of the Provisional position is that the Adams/McGuiness leadership has been dishonest about what they have been doing. If they had started their own party in 1986 and went into Leinster House nobody could condemn them, but they hijacked the Republican Movement with lies and fake promises. All through this so called peace process they lied about their positions in PIRA, about PIRA activities and the direction they were taking the movement. They used dirty trick against genuine republicans who saw what they were doing and opposed it. To the point now that the right wing media has an easy time poking holes in their tattered credibility. There was a time when anything the IRA said could be believed because men and women were dying and suffering in enemy prisons for the truth. But now PSF regard the truth as Fianna Fáil regard it – something to be used sparingly. DOD you say “so what” if we recognise the free state; “Recognising the 26 county state does not mean that we have confined ourselves to accepting the kind of state we have now. We can work within the structures to some extent” What does some extent mean – does it mean taking money from banks to pay for election posters? You know that being a member of PIRA is a criminal offence in free state law? Are you saying that all PIRA members are criminals? If you don’t accept that then you don’t accept free state law – you don’t recognise the free state. You say “but could we not look at the possibility that maybe it was blind abstentionism that was wrong?” There is nothing blind about abstentionism. You cant enter and operate a structure you claim you are against. De Valera tried it and failed. The Home Rule party before him. If you look at the progress of PSF over the last ten years it is they who have modified to fit the system – not the system to fit them. The best PSF can hope for is a coalition with Fianna Fáil – no doubt that will be much better for Irish people than the Rainbow coalition or what we have now – but is this the role of the republican movement? Certainly nobody gave their lives over the 20th century to give a Fianna Fáil government a slightly greener more left wing edge. You say that
your generation of republicans have avoided special branch intimidation – well those who have accepted the free state have – but not anyone else – and sad to say there has been intimidation of republicans who don’t follow the Adams/McGuiness line by members of PIRA. Then you say “At least the 26 counties is free from British rule (well ostensibly anyway) and there is some semblance of a free franchise for the citizens of the 26 county state.” Does it stick in your throat to call it the Republic of Ireland? Why do you have to qualify it with “well ostensibly anyway?” What does “some semblance of a free franchise” mean? Do you mean that at the very best Leinster House represents only 26 Irish counties, but in reality represents a much smaller group – so much so that Sir. Anthony O’Reilly could boast to Forbes magazine that because he is the biggest newspaper owner in Ireland he could get the politicians to give him whatever oil and gas fields he wanted (reported in Village Magazine 11 May) Or do you mean that the ruling class in Ireland is so fully confident in the performance of the universities, the corporate media and Leinster House in neutralising “issues,” such as the people of Rossport, that Tony O’Reilly Jnr., quoted in the Sunday Business Post on May 7, speaking of renewed interest in searching for oil and gas around Ireland says: “You have issues with Bolivia, Venezuela and the Ukraine. International oil companies are asking, where can we go in the world where we can find hydrocarbons and be sure that we can develop them and have a secure supply chain? Ireland has that.” And if you are talking about what the vast bulk of people in Ireland think then you must accept that they do not trust the PSF leadership. A major reason for this is that too many PSF members and supporters want their cake and eat it – they want to be inside free state law and outside it. Everyone in Ireland knows that Bobby Sands and his comrades did not die for the GFA. If Sands had seen the Good Friday Agreement he would have ordered himself a big Ulster fry – and who could blame him. When PSF links the GFA and the Hunger Strikes every Irish person, even the most ardent anglophile, feels a bit sick. Nobody wants to believe that such great men (agree with them or not) gave their lives for such a trifle.
I think PSF could do a lot more if their leadership was honest with their supporters and with the Irish people in general. They sould stop calling traditional republicans "dissidents" and stop all forms of intimidation against them. RSF and 32CSM should stop calling PSF traitors. Parnell managed to get British constitutional parties (and PSF is a British constitutional party - I dont mean it as an insult its just a fact) and the fenions to work together. I hope someone has the wisdom to do this again.

by DOD - Sinn Féin Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:20

Firstly, SF are not a British constitutional party; that is so ridiculous that I feel no need to dignify it with any further response; especially given that your broader points were fair enough.

I can understand your position even if I don't agree with it. Political systems all over the world are riddled with inequalities. The way I look at it, unless there are conditions conducive to a revolution, working within the system is the way to go. Is it not a lot better to have progressive parties in the chambers than to have the right-wingers' rule go unanswered? Again I ask, where is your alternative? Because you failed to provide one.

And who are you to speak for Bobby Sands? Incidentally; the vast majority of surviving hunger-strikers back the SF strategy. I'm glad to see you believe in co-operation though.

by Sharon - Individual Thu Jun 01, 2006 20:04

32CSM have no relationship whatsoever with the Provisional leadership , junior or senior .
And that is as I understand the position , too . I would imagine Mr. Adams and Co. would consider it 'dirtying their bibs' to do otherwise .

Furthermore if you want a progress report on the UN sumbmission the thing to do is write to the UN and ask them . Thats how pressure will be put on them . We arent allowed into New York to work on it .
I have e-mailed them twice in the recent past (within the last eighteen months) - both times they acknowleged receipt of my e-mail and promised that someone would be in touch regarding my query (ie the 32 CSM submission) . Am still waiting....

As for failed strategies I should point out that RSF havent won either . Theres a lot more wrong with republican strategies than simply the ending of abstentionism .
And RSF has not given-up trying to 'win' , no more than the 32 CSM or IRSP has . And it is in that direction that I would much rather prefer to employ whatever limited resources I have , rather than being diverted into having a verbal confrontation with those that I would regard as being of a similar frame of mind to myself .

Sharon .

by Barry - 32csm Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:03

I believe firstly that a revolutionary republican movement shouldnt go down the path of electoralism at all. Thats why 32csm prohibits itself within its own constitution from standing in elections . The simple fact is that as an anti colonial movement your entire raison detre should be to remove it entirely , rip out completely every last vestige of colonial rule in Ireland . Including Leinster house , a puppet parliament which serves British and American imperial interests in Ireland . That is what the post 1916 Sinn Fein project was about , that is why it held such revolutionary potential . A revolutionary anti colonial movement therefore should not as a body place itself in a position were it is working the system . In effect you are making the system you are pledged to destroy actually work . You become the interface , the negotiator between that system and the people . You make deals and accomodations with it . It swallows you and your struggle whole into a position were you are determined to make a failed colonial system work . And thats what we are dealing with in the south , a colonial construct . Forced upon us at the barrel of a gun . Updated by Devalera but a colonial construct nontheless .

What I personally am open to however as a concept is the creation of a new political party with aims similar to what has happened in Venezuela . The entire throwing out of the previous corrupt colonial structure , DeValeras useless constitution and the framing of an entirely new one based firmly upon the principles of the 1916 proclamation and the DOI with the interests of the Irish working class at its heart . A party that is openly pledged not to operate within that construct until a revolutionary constitution is put in place in its entirety with no dilution to vested interests. A constitution that makes expressly illegal the theft of our resources and takes them back for the people , for their use. That makes clear our resources and territory are the property of the Irish peoples and theirs only . That will put the national wealth at the disposal of the people and so they wont be lying in hospital corridors while billions are siphoned off for nothing . Or travelling to Dublin from Cork and Donegal for cancer treatment .That will re-instate national territorial unity as fundamental , as an imperative and will persue Britain under International law to validate its continued occupation of our territory , which it cannot . A constitution that will make it illegal for a British lord to own one shred of our national media never mind exert a major and unhealthy influence over our politics and subvert true democracy on this island . . That project is worth persung in my opinion . Post 1922 the Sinn Fein project has failed in all its manifestations , honourable and dishonourable . But failed it has and its time to construct a new project as republicans had to in the past . Sinn Fein is not "the republic" . We need a republic as a matter of life and death , quite literally .
A new revolutionary project is needed in my opinion that in itself would not be the revolutionary seperatist movement , that the movement is not absorbed into as a body , but will represent its interests as well as those of the rest of the Irish working class and that revolutionaries can participate in along with the rest of the Irish working class .
Thats why I have no problem encouraging meetings such as the one in Dublin , encouraging independent candidates that I might not necessarily agree with and a host of other campaigns which if brought together constitute one thing - Irish sovereignty . With all due respect I dont believe either PSF or RSF can hope to accomplish the task of seperatism . Nor do I believe either 32csm as a body or armed force on its own can either .
But I do believe with all certainty that a radical politicised wind is beginning to blow through Ireland seperate from us all . The mass of people are not angry about partition as such but I do believe they are angry about the undemocratic positions on this island which uphold partition , the theft of our resources , the dismissal of our neutrality , the incessant cover ups of Dublin Monaghan and other British atrocities . The privatisation of water resources in the north and the deliberate division of our countrys greatest resource - its people .
Frankly I dont believe republicanism as constituted at present is up to the task of tackling these issues , all of which fall under the banner of sovereignty . The solution seems to be to help build and encourage a project that not only can but most definitely will and will sweep all undemocratic nonsense and corruption away and into the dustbin of history . Its all colonialism at the end of the day and must be removed .

Thats why Im heartened to see the likes of Eirgí distributing proclamations for free , the anger over the Irish ferries dispute , the anger over Shels actions and the turn out behind 32csm on easter Sunday despite branch harassment . Remeber this stuff was all supposed to be a thing of the past under Bertie McDowell and the celtic tiger , it isnt . How does the sleeping giant get awoken ? Thats the way forward .

by j oconnor - none Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:18

A couple of months ago Martin Mc Guinness shared a platform with Henry Kissinger in the states, Kissinger is a war criminal.

The provisionals didnt see fit to send a speaker to take part in a debate on the future of Irish Republicanism, on the night it was the elephant in the room no one refered to, the provisionals were giving the two fingers to people who they now see as a block to their decontamination process, you know so they can get invited to British museums to enjoy the company of other members of the british government/ secret service community

On Mc Guinness, busted a gut laughing when I heard as is carried in the Belfast media today, that he was debriefed in Connolly House in recent days- who was one of his debriefers none other than Declan kearney- remember the guy who provided his property to a self confessed British agent of 20 years- Denis Donaldson so he could live it up after he was outed.

by Barry - 32csm Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:41 sarmagh32csm at hotmail dot com

anyone who may wish to contirbute ideas and the like on this subject can get in touch by e-mail

by Barry Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:43

for some reason Indymedias e- mail linking thing makes the address go weird

sarmagh32csm@hotmail.com

by seedot Fri Jun 02, 2006 00:17

The @ symbol gets changed to _at_ so that pieces of software that roam the internet collecting email addresses won't collect yours and send you loads of ads for drugs to promote risings and other spam.

But given your address Barry, I reckon you'll be getting loads of strange email anyway ;-)

by Donnchadh Fri Jun 02, 2006 02:40

Barry, I couldn't disagree with most of what you write, but what is the point of refusing to take part in elections and then backing independant candidates in the same elections?

by Barry Fri Jun 02, 2006 02:59

A seperatist revolutionary movement in a colonial situation cant without compromising itself . An independent candidate or even a freindly party with which you have influence can help further your aims and objectives . Much like the concept of the Fenians backing Parnell .

by Donnchadh Fri Jun 02, 2006 03:11

That would be good if another Parnell could be found - it would be nice to believe Gerry Adams could fulfill this function - but he hasnt shown much signs of it yet.

by Barry Fri Jun 02, 2006 04:16

and he wont . He and the provos are at best constitutional nationalists . They have demonstrated they will merely conform to undemocratic positions on this island ( tthereby strengthening them) rather than challenge and remove them .

We need a completely new project like Bolivia or Venezuela, not a failed , undemocratic and compromised one that feels at home with British vetoes , Henry Kissinger , Tony Blair and American Foreign policy advocates. Thats were Adams belongs . On the scrapheap of revolutionary history along with DeValeras constitution and Britains free state puppet institutions .

by pat c Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:59

The Brendan character who was thrown out of the meeting was also present at another meeting the next day heckling McDowell against gay rights . Looks as if hes a seriel disrupter.

by DOD - Sinn Féin Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:31

You want Adams to be more like Parnell? Are you serious? As far as I'm concerned Parnell was absolute political vermin of the worst kind. For what he did to the Land League, I don't think any socialist republican should forgive him for that. (In much the same way ye don't forgive Adams for what he is perceived to have done to the republican movement.)

Okay, so you don't believe in electoralism. Fair enough, but seeing as a military victory is out of the question and ye currently have no popular support worth talking about. How do ye plan to achieve your goals? It makes no sense to me. What makes even less sense is why ye stayed in the movement so long if ye had opposed electoralism even before 1998.

I don't mean to be smart but do the 32CSM actually have a strategy?

by Donnchadh Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:24

The point I was making about Parnell is that he saw the merits of combining the strength of the Irish republican military tradition and the British constitutional tradition in Ireland. PSF has chosen a course and must stick to it. Militant republicanism must re-organise, re-train and re-equip. Will PSF go the way of Fianna Fail - remember the IRA supported De Valera in the 1930s, but Fianna Fail were hanging IRA volunteers by the forties? Sadly the signs are that power is becoming an end in itself for PSF. Maybe there are people in PSF who can turn things around? And if we ever want to get the Brits out of this country refusing to forgive our former comrades - or even enemies is not a luxury we can afford. And, by the way, I dont have to talk for Bobby Sands - nor does anyone else - fortunately we have his writing which speak very well for themselves. For example, from his prison diary entry of March 1, 1981: "I am dying not just to attempt to end the barbarity
of H-Block, or gain the rightful recognition of a political prisoner, but primarily because what is lost here is lost for the Republic." Needless to say the republic he refers to is not the 26 county free state, and still less a six county free state set up by the GFA.