Republicanism’s RUC moment?
Peter Robinson has made his position crystal clear:
“We still take the position that the structures must be removed completely. There is no purpose of having a structure if you do not intend to operate in a paramilitary fashion.”
The Belfast Telegraph editorial agrees arguing:
“The IRA needs to be definitive and decisive. Why? Consider the transformation of policing as an example. Disposing of the RUC’s name was largely a symbolic matter — a painful one for most unionists — but one that was considered utterly necessary to win the support of nationalists and republicans. And so it proved to be.”
Ending with the instruction:
Go back to the plough. Slán abhaile.
Its a good editorial, who could argue with the points. Along with the Army council SF also needs to shed its republican mantle and declare themselves to be constitutional nationalists…
Time to drop the pretence and play it straight. Time to govern for as long as they stay in power….
This looks hopeful.
We are ,possibly, being treated to more Peace process charades and the deal-in principle-has already been done.
Anne,
There are some republicans who are not nationalists, in the broader senses of the terms. I know that in Ireland it is assumed by many that to be an Irish Republican is to support political violence and to be a constitutional nationalist is to not support the use of political violence, but the term republican neeeds to be rescued from this misuse.
I support the establishment of a new nation on the island of Ireland which is not monarchical in any way, even in symbolism, and that makes me a republican, yet I don’t support the use of armed struggle to achieve that objective.
I want that nation for other reasons too, however, I’m not particularly nationalist, insofar as I would drop that nation in a flash, if something better came along. How could something else be better? Well, it could offer me more political stability, creater democratic particpation, material opportunity, cultural expansion etc.
rankly, I hate nationalism. Nationalism divides human society in an arbitrary and irrational manner. I’m no lees different from any English man than I am from any Irish man, just because we live in different political jurisdictions. If I thought that the UK represented the best deal for me and my family, I’d support the union. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.
I’m not trying to be pedantic here. I just think that a new debate is necessary on the national question and I think that it is very important that some terms are properly defined. And the sooner we ditch nationalism, whether British or Irish, the better.
“If they don’t disband outright, a similar change for the IRA would have enormous symbolic value”
Are the BT just saying that the IRA need a name change?
Northern Brigade Veteran’s Association?
Republican Irish Legion?
If they’re going to match the RUC they need an ombudsman married to a unionist politician and a 50% protestant intake too.
Arguably the army council should have gone way by now, but it looks like good tactics for SF to offer something in return for DUP moving earlier than they would like on Police and Justice.
Phil, I agree. Deal has probably been in the bag since Downing St meeting with El Gordo as timing of IMC report indicates. The DUP probably wanted to wait until after the marching up and down season has finished. Robbo’s recent blusterings a little bit of puzzle but probably told SF he would to be giving it some during the summer to keep the troops happy.
Ann
Its a good editorial, who could argue with the points. Along with the Army council SF also needs to shed its republican mantle and declare themselves to be constitutional nationalists…
Actually, not hey don’t. I should add that a lot of the bad things about Nationalism stem from constitutional Nationalism and not republicanism. It was O’Connell that made “Irish” synonymous with “Catholic” and not Tone. It was the SDLP that pushed hardest for the structures that resulted in a carve up. Constitutional nationalism can also be institutionally conservative where Republicanism is progressive.
Of course there have been plenty of constitutional nationalists that have had enlightened ideas, and plenty of Republicans that have dishonoured its principles. But it is simply wrong to suggests that Republicans should become constitutional nationalists. They have plenty of overlap but are not the same thing.
For my part, what they should do is go back to first principles. Flags and identity and all that guff will get people riled and is important in its way, but Republicanism caught on because it offered better, more just and fairer government. the ideals expressed by say, the US Declaration of Independence remains possibly the most revolutionary thing ever written down.
Damien
“I know that in Ireland it is assumed by many that to be an Irish Republican is to support political violence and to be a constitutional nationalist is to not support the use of political violence, but the term republican neeeds to be rescued from this misuse.”
Hear hear. I’m an Irish republican (identifying with Tone, the French Revolution and liberté, egalité, fraternité etc.) but I’m fervently anti-nationalist. Nothing annoys me more than to be assumed to support violence because I describe myself as a republican. I think ‘nationalist’ is a relic of the 19C and should be dropped – if you say you’re a nationalist in Europe now people edge quietly to the door. Consitutional Republican is the most accurate description…
“Consitutional Republican is the most accurate description…”
How about plain old Liberal, Democrat or Internationalist…or even. as those early American Independence winners called themselves, “Whig”?
Damien,
How do you have cultural expansion if you’d drop your nation and hate the idea of nationalism?
Multiculturalists in a multicultural Europe?
If other peoples come to the west and bring their own culture with them as is their right, why do the countries that make up the west have to give up the idea of a nation state with its own culture and identity?
It leaves me cold. I don’t want to be divisive, I just want to be Irish in a world made up of many cultures, what is wrong with that.
I get your point on a debate needed, but somehow this agreed Ireland translates for me into a multicultural pot with no one in it being able to identify with anything.
Thoughtful comments though.
Ann. Multicultural Ireland is a reality.
There are Dublin schools with dozens of national/ethnic groups in the classroom.
Of course the army council should go – it should have gone on 6 December 1921 because that was the high tide of physical force republicanism. Since that point all the physical force mob have given us are graves.
Incidentally, the BT editoral seems to be a month old. but is it the first ever time that paper has published as gaelige?
Anne:
[i]How do you have cultural expansion if you’d drop your nation and hate the idea of nationalism? [/i]
I really don’t understand your question, but I’ll say this in the hope of clearing the point up.
Cultures are not set in stone. They are fluid and ever-changing. What I don’t want is a narrow ethnic nationalism which links membership of a nation with an ethnic identity.
Culture is simply the way people live and I’m open to changing how I live as I discover new and betters ways to live. It’s got nothing to do with what nation I live in or any form of nationalism. persuasions.
Damien, for me, (I’m not saying its this way for everybody, or that is should be this way)nation and culture are not all that far apart.
You say culture is not set in stone, neither is nation if you judge it only on borders.
You say nationalism divides, does multiculturalism bring people together? No it’s multiculturalism that divides, and I don’t want to be divisive. I want to live in my own culture within my own nation.
If you don’t want to be divisive multiculturalism is not the way to go.
I’m also a republican but the reason I’m not an Irish republican is that I associate it with narrow catholic nationalism.
It would be great to see a new genuinely prod friendly republicanism emerge, not something which pays lip service to parity of esteem whilst at the same time frothing at the mouth any and every time unionists wave a flag they identify with, wear a sash or support a football team they identify with.
Irish republicans as represented by Sinn Fein have a perfect opportunity to seize the high ground, all they have to do is ditch the inherent bigotry that is such a feature of their current raison d’etre.
So a new type of Irish republicanism free from catholic nationalism will be able to embrace unionists ? They’ll go for a UI if catholics drop their nationalism. Forget about the border, we can all live on the island under one banner free from nationalism and catholicism and live happy ever after?
I thought it was only marxists who wanted a utopia.
Culture is simply the way people live and I’m open to changing how I live as I discover new and betters ways to live. It’s got nothing to do with what nation I live in or any form of nationalism.
A shared culture facilitates a harmonious society. It is important for people who live in the same area to have similar expectations of how one should behave. Nation and culture are therefore intrinsically linked.
On the other hand, multicultural societies are generally divided societies. Different cultures tend to self-segregate rather than blend.
Ann.
I don’t speak for all Unionists, just myself.
Was the plan to reduce the number of police stations in Fermanagh a means of pressurising the DUP into moving on P & J?
‘all they have to do is ditch the inherent bigotry’
taf
That comment could actually relate to those who wear the sashes and support the football team.
A shared culture facilitates a harmonious society. It is important for people who live in the same area to have similar expectations of how one should behave. Nation and culture are therefore intrinsically linked.
On the other hand, multicultural societies are generally divided societies. Different cultures tend to self-segregate rather than blend.
We’ve had two experiments in Ireland since 1912 in monoculture, both have been failures. Both those experiments, in different ways, are more or less over. But in both cases there are lots of people either clamouring for their return or refusing to face up to the extent of their failure.
As a “modern democratic republican” – very much in the spirit of the enlightenment I think those of us who hope for a united Ireland have to be prepared to specifically embrace a multicultural view of the island and that means a lot of changes – everything from the Angelus at 6pm to the status of a “first national language” will go.
In the past, when i’ve said this here, people have accused me of seeking to create a united Ireland that wasn’t Irish at all. well, bollocks am I. I am just telling people that engaging with the 750000+ irish men and women who don’t subscribe to your view of Ireland doesn’t mean giving them a bád and “Tá sin Álba”
“It would be great to see a new genuinely prod friendly republicanism emerge”
We’ve had two experiments in Ireland since 1912 in monoculture,
No we haven’t.
NI has two cultures not one, therefore I don’t see it as a monoculture. If two cultures are having difficulty embracing each other how difficult will it be to embrace many?
Has multiculturalism as an experiment succeeded? I don’t think so.
As a “modern democratic republican”
Modernity, that too could be a problem if some of the cultures we are trying to embrace and assimilate won’t embrace modernity.
Anne:
[i]You say nationalism divides, does multiculturalism bring people together? No it’s multiculturalism that divides, and I don’t want to be divisive. I want to live in my own culture within my own nation.[/i]
There is no such thing as a single, homogenous cultural group. It’s a fallacy, just as much as saying that human society is divided into biologically defined races. There are groups who share certain significant cultural traits, but even within these groups you can have considerable cultural differences. That is the nature of human society. It is tolerance which brings people together and intolerance which divides people.
I was once told by a man who went on to be a member of the UPRG that unionists and nationalists were so culturally different that only complete segregation would bring peace to NI. You sound like you’re sailing very close to that particularly bitter wind.
“Since that point all the physical force mob have given us are graves.” (CSP)
And Partition.
TAFKABO
“[i]It would be great to see a new genuinely prod friendly republicanism emerge, not something which pays lip service to parity of esteem whilst at the same time frothing at the mouth any and every time unionists wave a flag they identify with, wear a sash or support a football team they identify with.
Irish republicans as represented by Sinn Fein have a perfect opportunity to seize the high ground, all they have to do is ditch the inherent bigotry that is such a feature of their current raison d’etre.”[/i]
You’re definitely onto something TAFKABO, but I don’t think giving [b]it[/b] the title republicanism would justify what [b]it[/b] is.
United Irishman William Drennan held principles which we should learn today, for although Drennan had a major role in the founding of the United Irishmen (principles which became lost to the organisation over time) he never became fanatical about Irish Independence or determined to oppose Unionism at every given chance. Principles that every man should have a right to judge for himself in matters of religion and politics were more important to him than embarking on some struggle for Irish independence.
Now, I have no desire to see the island united in any shape or form, but if ever there was an Irish republican who Unionists could learn about, it would be the tolerant William Drennan.
“I thought it was only marxists who wanted a utopia.”
Yes, Ann – take us back to 1801 when Catholics supported the union and Ulster Protestants opposed it.
You sound like you’re sailing very close to that particularly bitter wind.
Yet you speak of misuse of the term republican. I’m not sailing close to any wind, I’m pointing out the holes in your argument, since you are the one who took me up on the term republican. Since you know nothing about me lets leave the assumptions (name calling?) to one side.
We had almost complete segregation and it didn’t bring peace, but you are still dodging the question. Will multiculturalism bring
political stability, creater democratic particpation, material opportunity, cultural expansion as well as peace? Yes or no would suffice.
Will ramming multiculturalism down peoples throats bring tolerance? Has it done?
[i]“Since that point all the physical force mob have given us are graves.” (CSP)
And Partition.[/i]
This is an extremely important point. The 1916 Rising and the ‘War of Independence’ were a fiasco in terms of the republican objective. They completely failed to unite the people of the island and, therefore, the actual territory itself as an independent state.
It would have been better had they accepted that the whole island had stayed under British rule and worked for eventual independence supported by the whole population of the island. Exactly what we are trying to do today.
It’s a complete nonsense that even today republicans of many hues in Ireland line up to commemorate 1916. How little they understand of republicanism.
Damien I take it you either can’t or won’t answer the questions put. Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, yet you took me up on one sentence and put out a very large stall in support of your argument, which is clearly full of holes and borders on fantasy. Either that or you’ve gone off to google…..
Back to topic as I said,
Along with the Army council SF also needs to shed its republican mantle and declare themselves to be constitutional nationalists…
Time to drop the pretence and play it straight. Time to govern for as long as they stay in power….
“Will ramming multiculturalism down peoples throats bring tolerance? Has it done?”
Before all that, is Northern Ireland a multi-cultural society that it may enjoy multi-culturalism? What are the significant differences between the two (or more?) cultures?
Northern Ireland a multi-cultural society
No its not multicultural, I’d say up until now it had two cultures.
What are the significant differences between the two (or more?) cultures?
Not a lot, but as I said before it’s still obviously difficult. (hat tip the last 30 years?
that it may enjoy multi-culturalism
The enjoyments being instead of sectarian riots we have riots similar to Lozzells?
Basically I’m questioning – before Damiens debate on how to go forward – if multiculturalism is the way to go.
It would have been better had they accepted that the whole island had stayed under British rule and worked for eventual independence supported by the whole population of the island.
By that logic, one unionist could veto the freedom of the entire nation.
Or perhaps you mean that, having won freedom for 26 counties, the Irish should have handed them back as a kind of protest vote.
Anne, I was typing when you posted your last post. I’ve no intention of trying to dodge your question. Indeed, I thought I’d answered it already when I said that tolerance brings people together and intolerance divides people.
I’m not so sure about your use of the term multiculturalism in the context of the discussion about the definition of the term republican and, to be honest, I don’t see its relevance to the discussion at all.
That said, are you arguing, like the man I refered to earlier, that Nationalists and Unionists are better off living apart because they are so culturally different? Is that what you mean by living in your own nation?
“Is Northern Ireland a multi-cultural society?”
“No its not multicultural.”
So what is this trot about multiculturalism being the answer?
Now, pariety of esteem – that is a concept that I have always warmed to. If anything, it assumes that we belong to the same culture – but differ in our expressions of it.
To begin with, for example, all Irish people are hugely patriotic and nationalistic – only the centre of our affections differ. Still, whatever the object our nationalism, we can at least appreciate that quality in ourselves/each other – or, at least, learn to draw our horns a little knowing that it’s something that we have in common.
Runciter,
The objective of those who want to bring about a stable republic on the island is to have everyone on the island, at worst, begrudgingly accept it. Ideally, everyone would be for it, but falling short of that, which we inevitably will, at least if those opposed to it were not [i]violently[/i] opposed to it, then its a goer. That can only be achieved when Protests are persuaded that their interests would not suffer one jot in an all-island nation. The objectives of repubicans now must be to build that confidence.
Murdering Protestants didn’t seem to work in making them feel that all-island unity would be in their best interests.
Before partition, Unionists in the north were gearing up for a violent conflict over the possiblity of Home Rule, never mind all-island independence. So much for uniting Catholic, Protestant and dissenter. That state of affairs represented a failure by Republicans at the time in realising their objectives, as it does today with the current opposition of Protestant people in the north.
Hume was right, unite the people and the rest will take care of itself.
Ideally, everyone would be for it, but falling short of that, which we inevitably will, at least if those opposed to it were not violently opposed to it, then its a goer.
By that logic, one violent unionist could veto the freedom of the entire nation.
Hume was right, unite the people and the rest will take care of itself.
Hume was simply inverting the logic of the occupier.
The problem was that it was easy for the British to keep the people divided.
This meant that the diplomacy alone was never going to work for nationalists/republicans.
At least give the PIRA credit for bringing down Stormon in 72. They should have realized that was their highpoint.
I wouldn’t think that one violent unionist could represent a threat to the stability of an all-island state. That would not me logical at all and it’s not what I’m saying. It’s clear that I’m saying that whatever would allow for stability would suffice.
[i]This meant that the diplomacy alone was never going to work for nationalists/republicans. [/i]
So are you saying that political violence is necessary, or that an all-island state is unachievable?
It’s clear that I’m saying that whatever would allow for stability would suffice.
That’s not what you said, though. And now your meaning is less clear than ever.
The 26 counties had freedom and stability since they gained independence. Why should they have have foregone that? What would we have gained?
So are you saying that political violence is necessary, or that an all-island state is unachievable?
An all-island state is likely to happen, but it is not something that Northern nationalists have much power over.
It’s good that northern nationalists are catching on that endorsing the Unionist Veto means they now have to please British nationalists in order to have a hope of persuading them to support Irish unity, and that means they now have to suppress their Irish nationalism and replace it with something that pleases British nationalism and those who remain loyal to it.
Of course, British nationalists have no such dynamic to compel them to be disloyal to their nation, so are much as the Irish nationalists in NI make fools and quislings out of themselves in said effort, the dismal enterprise it is utterly wasteful.
On the other hand, they could recognise that they agreed to live as British citizens and get on with it. No-one in the Republic of Ireland is going to dismantle their nation-state and replace it what suits the feckless in NI who paid not a single penny in taxation to the success of that nation-sate, replacing the most successful state in Europe with a model of the most lamentable statelet in Europe, nor do they have any intention of entertaining engineering dynamics that have successfully converted Irish nationalists in NI into propagators of British nationalism beyond appreciating the bemusement value attached and marvelling at how the mob can be manipulated by skilful machinations of the state.
Semantics and let’s pretend games may work in NI, and this IMC mouthpiece may tell you that the wealthiest organised crime gang in Europe hasn’t a penny (or simply fail to mention who controls SF/PIRA’s vast accumulated wealth) but don’t confuse that expedient fantasy with reality or believe that your make-believe world exists or could ever exist outside of the carefully-engineered and masterfully-controlled entity wherein you reside.
You do like to use the word “quisling” – don’t you, Dave? In any case, as a citizen and resident of the Republic of Ireland, I can assure you that you don’t speak for me when you abuse and turn your back so coldly on my Northern compatriots – of both Orange and Green hue. I can tell the difference between my state and my country – just which one of us is being manupulated by “machinations” of the state?
“[i]my Northern compatriots – of both Orange and Green hue.”[/i]
Pity the Orange don’t think the same of you.
“No its not multicultural.”
So what is this trot about multiculturalism being the answer?
I never said it was…
I’m not so sure about your use of the term multiculturalism in the context of the discussion about the definition of the term republican
Damien you raised nationalism, cultural expansion greater democratic participation, you also tried to seperate culture and nation as if no link exsisted between them…
When you raised culture it was logical that multi and mono culture would enter the discussion.
Btw you still haven’t answered
Will multiculturalism bring
political stability, creater democratic particpation, material opportunity, cultural expansion as well as peace? Yes or no would suffice.
No I am not puting forward an argument for apartheid, I already stated we had almost complete seperation and it didn’t work.
I merely take issue with the model you present.
Oilifear, on a board where many commenters are mouthpieces for political parties or agencies, I guess you assume that all posters are spokespeople of sorts, but I can assure you that I am not a spokesperson for the Irish nation, the Irish government, or your uncle who emigrated to Canada, so you could save yourself the redundancy of pointing out that I am not a spokesperson for those whom I have not claimed to be a spokesperson for, hmmm?
Now, let’s look at this ‘shared future’. Does it just include British and Irish, or should it actually include the largest group from Eastern Europe? Is there an ethic quota that must be reached before ‘parity of esteem’ can be extended to them? Now I can see how parity is an expedient that suits the selfish interests of northern nationalists wherein there are two national groups of roughly equal mass, but parity doesn’t work in a context where the overwhelming majority (88% of the population) is vetoed by a tiny minority of 12%. Indeed, parity of esteem between competing nationalism doesn’t even work in a context where the two competing groups are of roughly equal mass where it translates as parity of contempt, so perhaps rather than foisting your failed machinations of the rest of us, you should try and knock your little hollow noggins together and find a solution that does work rather than just propagandising self-serving expediencies as universal new-order principles? Just a thought.
Ann, he fails to distinguish between liberal nationalism and ethnic nationalism, and fails to grasp that a state cannot succeed without a nationalism to unite its people, to promote loyalty to it, and to defend it from aggression. Notice, of course, that the anti-nationalism that is prompted by the EU as a means of stealing sovereign powers from its member states also promotes lack of loyalty to those states? He clearly has no loyalty to the Irish nation or its state, and he specifically stated that was the case, so he isn’t a nationalist. AS a journalist, however, I’m sure he has had an occassion to be in touch with the Irish embassy and probably travels on an Irish passport, so there are benefits to nationalism that he enjoys but doesn’t acknowledge.
Ulster my homeland
“Pity the Orange don’t think the same of you.”
Yes, pity. We’ve moved a long way from a Belfast Presbyterian leading the United Irishmen or his Londerderry co-religious leading Young Ireland.
—
Ann
“I never said it was…”
I didn’t mean to say you did. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
—
Dave
“I am not a spokesperson …”
Then please don’t make spokesperson-like statements such as, “No-one in the Republic of Ireland is going to …” You do not speak for everyone in the Republic of Ireland. You certainly don’t speak for me.
“…parity of esteem between competing nationalism doesn’t even work in a context where the two competing groups are of roughly equal mass where it translates as parity of contempt…”
So, to summate – parity of esteem doesn’t work when it is parity of contempt? Wow. You are clever.
At least give the PIRA credit for bringing down Stormon in 72. They should have realized that was their highpoint.
No, that was the 13 people shot down on the streets of Derry.
On partition: the men who were up in 16 knew that what they were doing made partition a near-certainty. But they also thought they could overthrow that by force. History has shown us how wrong they were.
For Irish partiots today the choice is much the same. There is no prospect of a united Ireland on the prospectus of the “Irish Irelanders” – a gaelic republic.
As the bould Bernie herself put it: “you won your freedom at the price of our slavery”. The contemporary SF myth is that they can finish the job of 1916.
But like the Kerryman said “I wouldn’t start from here.”
Advice to Unionists: have a titter of wit and be somewhat more confident in your dealings with the Republic. You could start by saying “we are Irish too, we just have a different view about what is right for our part of Ireland. Deal with it.” A Unionist dialogue that began on that premise and banished fear (you too UMH) would transform the debate on the island and not to the disadvantage of unionism (nor of Irish patriots who have actually thought about this)
“[i]You could start by saying “we are Irish too, we just have a different view about what is right for our part of Ireland. Deal with it.”[/i]
Since when did a dog born in a stable suddenly become a horse?
Since when does a person not born in Great Britain become british? How many generations does it take before the comfort blanket can be dispensed with?