“There is no quick fix nationalist route to a ‘New Ireland’.”

While the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, made his speech praising “the peoples army” in Belfast on Sunday, his former comrade-in-arms associate, Marian Price, made her speech in Londonderry on Monday. From the Irish Times report

The main speaker at the rally, Marian Price, criticised Sinn Féin’s involvement in the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly by saying that “lions cannot be led by donkeys no more than republicans can be led by quislings”. Ms Price said revisionists were working hard to ensure that partition and the proclamation could in some way be harmonised.

“We know they can’t but that is not enough. We too must prepare and because our resources are not as great as theirs, we must prepare in Fenian fashion. Our intellectual objections to this deliberate misinterpretation of our history must be matched with action on the ground that leaves our people in no doubt that 1916 is unfinished business,” she added.

“We are not anti-peace, we are not anti-politics but we are against any process which seeks to violate our sovereignty as a quick-fix to the conflict in our country. “We will talk to the British about one issue only, Irish national sovereignty and Britain’s violation of it. We will seek the UN’s intervention as guarantor for the integrity of such talks so that Perfidious Albion can be left outside of the room. Our door remains open, our resolve remains fixed,” Ms Price continued.

Meanwhile, WorldbyStorm has the Official Republican Movement’s Easter statement

Judging by the latest statements from many of the Sinn Fein leadership they are content with the political status quo for the foreseeable future. The majority of adherents to the last phase of Nationalist rebellion have at last admitted their aim was the “smashing of the Orange State” with an add on of some sort of unspecified united Ireland sometime in the future.

While agreeing with their lack of urgency on the National Question, we pose the question, “is there an alternative form of Irish Republicanism to Tone’s unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter?”

All those throughout Ireland who voted for the Good Friday Agreement realise there is not. There is no quick fix nationalist route to a “New Ireland”.

A united Ireland is not something to threaten Unionist political opponents with, or to infer that it will happen “whether you like it or not”. Because it won’t happen like that, the vast majority of the Irish people will not agree to it without a coming together of the two traditions in agreement about future political constructs on this island.

It is these discussions and dialogues about the agreed future political form and content of the governance of this island that the representatives of the various strands of Unionism must contribute to. New conversations regarding Irish and British identities and their acceptance of sharing the land of this island in peace and prosperity will be vital to future understandings and agreements.

Is it not time for all political parties to openly admit to this fact of life and encourage the acceptance and growth of a more realistic non tribal political rationale?

The Official Republican Movement welcomes the recent series of decommissioning. It seems that at last the clearly expressed wish of the vast majority of the people, North and South, has been acknowledged and acted upon by the mainstream paramilitary groups.
Of course the so-called dissident groups are continuing to ignore the expressed wish of the majority of people on this island and are hell-bent on re-living the 1970s when we found ourselves staring into a sectarian abyss.

Official Republicans were the first to realize that armed conflict was counterproductive and that it was inevitably leading into a futile and bloody sectarian cul-de-sac that was driving communities further and further apart. As Liam Mc Millen said at Bodenstown in June 1973, “We stand not on the brink of victory, but on the brink of sectarian disaster”.

Official republicans were right in the 1970s, the Provisionals finally got it right in the 1990s but unfortunately continuing violence is evidence that some are still stubbornly getting it wrong.

If the past forty years have taught this society any lessons then surely the most striking lesson of all must be that there is nothing to be gained through killing and bombing. Despite all the set-backs and the party political brinkmanship of the last 15 years the benefits of dialogue and debate are clear, even to the most reluctant observer.

The political systems that are now in place, though far from perfect and hardly the finished product, have demonstrated that, given the will, politics can work.

However, we as a society cannot afford just to leave it all to politicians. We know only too well that for politicians of all colours, party and electoral survival are the main items that still dominate the political agenda. If sectarianism and tribalism serve to keep these parties in power, they have no reason to acknowledge its destructiveness and move to politics that serve the whole of society. [added emphasis]

  • Reader

    Does Marian Price think she is making her position clear? For instance – what is her position on shooting donkeys?

  • Fabianus

    Generally speaking I’m easy about a United Ireland. I’d much prefer to remain in the UK but hey if the majority in NI wish it, then…

    That said, Marian Price’s words raise my hackles. This is the convicted bomber, right? I want no part of any society she advocates.

  • Henry94


    It sounds like she doesn’t want you to be any part of it either.

    We are not anti-peace

    Just this particular peace the Irish people have been apparently duped into giving their overwhelming support to.

    we are not anti-politics

    Get on the ballot paper then.

  • Seosamh913

    Price’s speech is just worthless self-pitying nihilist trash.

  • old school

    “Nihilist trash”?
    Of all the rallies and all the speeched over the weekend, this rally and this speech came the closest to evoking the memory of 1916.
    Price’s speech was in spirit and essence the closest to the words of the Proclamation.
    She demanded her right to National Sovereignty, and didn’t shelve it as an “aspiration”.
    Adams “You’re Spartacus. No, you’re Spartacus” speech, came nowhere near it.

  • british citizen

    I’d love to get a chat with Marion and her fellow heroes some day. They obviously have no understanding of the Unionist position.

    The British government could leave tomorrow but you’d still have 1 million British people who would stop a United Ireland from coming into being.

    Marion, if you’re reading this – you will only get a United Ireland when people like me accept it (regardless of 50% +1). Instead of excusing terrorism in an aggressive manner, start behaving like the kind of people we would want to share a country with and you might start to get somewhere.

  • Michaelhenry

    not anti peace,but the real are not pro war,no armed british soliers killed in there 12 years,no cops killed in there 12 years,no loyalists killed in there 12 years,none of the above attacked by the real this year,its april,any wonder they attack what gerry adams says,when they attack no police.

  • Some people seem to think there is almost something wrong with gaining a united Ireland through the ballot box.

    I would have thought Ms Price had seen enough of violence to know better than most what the appalling and often life long results are.

    Does Ms Price think that more fighting will cure the wounded. Will it some how all go away and everyone emerge fully recovered because I doubt it. The message I get is she does not care who gets hurt or how bad the wound. She does not even care how futile it would be.

  • old school

    Iknow you’re baiting Michael and sounding people out.
    Care to comment on the crux of Price’s speech?
    Can a partitionist internal settlement and the Proclamation be harmonised?

  • Nordie Northsider

    Perfidious Albion?! Jesus wept.

  • Michaelhenry

    what inernal settlement,the people of the 32 counties voted yes for the good friday agreement, the english got no say.

  • old school

    The 26 counties voted Yes to change Articles 2 and 3 nothing else.They were not allowed to vote for the GFA as the GFA alluded to the 6 Counties only, and muppets like you voted to remove the 6 Counties from the National Territory.
    Most people voted because they were hoodwinked by the media and political class.
    The same way they were hoodwinked into the property bubble by the same people.
    An internal settlement is a settlement within the confines of partition. Know your history, Michael.

  • old school

    One day (may it come soon) people will recognise the Irish are not nearly as Green as they are Cabbage Coloured. We knew, we liked it, we voted for it.

  • old school

    pippakin, in pre GFA debates I had with Republicans most were against it but voted Yes, because Paisley was voting No. They have since retracted and regretted their decision.
    Few actually read what they were supporting.
    One MLA only found out after he took his seat in Stormont that Republican prisoners were to lose political status, as laid out in the GFA.
    The vast majority of Irish people define Ireland as the Island of Ireland.
    You’ll have to ask those who voted to change Articles 2 and 3 to explain their contradiction. My conscience is clear.

  • old school

    Anyway, the British showed what they thought of the tens of thousands of Irish votes in 1998 when they renogotiated the whole thing with he DUP in St. Andrews.
    The referendum was just window dressing in their eyes, and no doubt Bertie would’ve called another had the people voted No.
    There is no democracy. You will vote till you get it right.

  • british citizen

    Old school,

    Many concessions were made on the Unionist side also. That’s why it’s called an agreement.

    You can’t get everything your way.

  • Michaelhenry

    articles 2 and 3 are still there old school,do not take the word of journalists who said otherwise,im irish i have an irish passport,history tells us that the good people of the 32 counties voted yes for the good friday agreement.

  • old school

    On another thread on Slugger someone told me that 50% of Irish people were below average intelligence!

    I was and am outraged at such a suggestion.

    Sorry if I am having a go but I believe in the Irish people to know what they are voting for. I believe in Ireland, especially its people, all of them.

  • The Raven

    “1916 is unfinished business”

    I must have missed the bits about “shared futures”…an Ireland of all faiths….a tolerant society. Preaching to the faithful as she was, I can’t say that this does much for Martina’s unionist engagement role…

    “We knew, we liked it, we voted for it” because Alistair and Tony spun faster than a Zanussi, and demonised everyone who questioned it.

  • old school

    Sinn Fein’s Rep. on Slugger now telling us Articles 2 and 3 is still there.

    “I believe in Ireland, it’s people, all of them.”
    Still stand by that Pippakin?

  • The Raven

    Not sure about that. I always thought TB was a lying little toe rag and I dont believe anyone would believe him about anything.

  • old school

    Why not? we are allowed to debate, to disagree and even, on occasion to be wrong. Not that I am wrong of course, just that, in such an unlikely event, it is allowed. 🙂

  • Michaelhenry

    read page 4 of the agreement old school.

  • old school

    Those who called for a YES Vote were as follows,
    Tony Blair,
    at the time hugely popular, but we now know is an accomplished liar and charlatan.
    Bertie Ahern,
    again, at the time, hugely popular, but we now know to be a perjuror, liar and crook.
    Gerry Adams,
    fairly popular at the time, probably at his most popular in his lifetime, who again, we now know to be a pathological liar, a political scheemer and narcissist.
    The people were misled, and threatened with terrible violence if they voted No. Mo Mowlam even alluded to Loyalist car bombs in the South if they voted No.

  • aquifer

    Osama Bin Laden also knows what is good for us.

  • old school

    Michael, the people in the 6 Counties voted for the GFA. Those in the South voted to change Articles 2 and 3, with Adams advice.
    I hope if I repeat it a few times it might touch down on you.

  • old school

    Now I’m Osama Bin Laden.

  • Michaelhenry

    you can lie all day if you want to old school,but the truth is that the people of the 32 counties voted yes for the good friday agreement,why is this a problem for you.

  • Halfer

    I agree with old school in that the people who voted yes for the GFA/BA, were not voting in a scrutinising manner. In my opinion those who voted yes were expressing a desire for a peaceful political climate. Creative ambiguity allowed for drones like michaelhenry on both sides to claim victory.

    Whilst I shared a desire for a peaceful settement, I voted No to the agreement as I believed it rewarded the Unionist Veto which by extension rewarded and encouraged sectarianism and scuppered the prospect of a 32 county democratic act of self determination. Perhaps most importantly, the Agreement left the crucial economic decision making in London.

    To Michaelhenry, (surely SF can do better here on slugger)… here are the facts as to why the Good Friday Agreement was not a 32 County wide act of Self Determination.

    First, it was not freely negotiated as it was the British state (democratically unaccountable to any Irish constituency) which determined the parameters of the negotiations, restricting them to those of the 1993 Downing Street Declaration, the 1995 Framework Document, the 1996 Mitchell Principles and 1998 Head of Agreement document. The paramount principle expressed in those documents, to which all participants in future talks had to pledge their adherence and commitment, is the principle of consent. Therefore, all participants to the process were committed to partition before the talks commenced, which was in effect a negation of the expression of self-determination.

    Second, the political package on offer was subordinate to the British state’s approval. The Belfast Agreement had to be accepted and ratified by Westminster before it was presented to the people of Ireland for acceptance or rejection. An external power had the power of veto over the sovereignty of the people of Ireland, leaving aside any objections they may have. Irish objections, whether raised or not, are meaningless to the British government under this wholly undemocratic arrangement.

    Thirdly, there were two referendums held in two different states for different purposes and with different sets of questions. The fact that they were held concurrently did not make them a single event and even less an act of self-determination, with the Six County referendum having the power of veto over that to be held in the Twenty Six Counties. The referendums in 1998 are therefore of a totally different nature than the 1918 elections. For those three reasons, the “triple lock” as Blair called them, the Agreement was not an exercise in self-determination, but instead, was a copper-fastening of partition.

  • Michaelhenry

    halfer takes the word of tony blair next,david trimble made the same mistake.

  • Halfer

    S copper fastening of partition? Unless surely the people vote for a united Ireland. Have we so little confidence in what we offer we have to use force to get what we want? No, force is not the way.

  • RobertEmmett


    halfer takes the word of tony blair next,david trimble made the same mistake.
    Posted by Michaelhenry on Apr 06, 2010 @ 08:10 PM

    Gerry Adams takes the word of jonathan Powell, he even lets Jonathan wrrite his Ard Fheis speeches

  • aquifer

    The Irish people are getting sick of having their hopes and futures circumscribed by sectarian criminal gangs who imagine that the skillset required to murder and maim equips them to dictate how we should live.

    This Open Plan internment is not tolerable to us.

    The alphabet soup of separatist remnants need to re-evaluate what they are doing.

    They may have considered themselves soldiers, but the ability to take and execute orders makes them ideal accomplices in fascism.

    Leaderless? Lost?

    The old cultural certainties and stories for the soldiers about socialism are way past their sell by date.

    Get a life, a job, a girl.

    Or your very own intelligence handler.

  • Cynic2

    ” no quick fix nationalist route ”

    …. indeed…they are all dead ends as they all ignore that the Brits you want out live here

  • Michaelhenry

    jonathan powell supports a peacefull ireland,robertemmett,just like gerry adams.

  • Panic, these ones like it up em.

    Would the United Ireland achieved by further violent means be a United Ireland that many people on the island would want to be part of.

    If the violence worked and thats a big “if” then perhaps in time this new “United” Ireland might become workable but it certainly would be a hard road.

    The eternal call for a return to violent methods shows that those that propose such methods do not have confidence or belief that the pro United Irelanders have the ability to achieve this United Ireland other than through violence.

    If the so-called republican party that goes by the name of Fianna Fáil had any All- Ireland policies then it would at least open up peoples imaginations. Alas they are a dead loss on all fronts.

    Other political parties and the Irish people particularly in the south should have an all island perspective.

    Sadly the political parties and the southern electorate do not grasp their responsibilities in this regard. The political vacuum left by this laissez faire attitude leaves the door open to the one trick pony performers.

    We need politicians and leaders in the south with an all island perspective and persona. You would think that we could produce the occasional candidate but for whatever the reason candidates with these credentials do not make headway in their political parties or in the media.

  • RobertEmmett


    jonathan powell supports a peacefull ireland,robertemmett,just like gerry adams.
    Posted by Michaelhenry on Apr 06, 2010 @ 08:28 PM

    he supports the british interest in ireland. a peaceful province where its constitutional position in the union has been settled

    actually, yeah..

    just like gerry adams.

  • What happened to Johnathan Powell, Tony Bliar took himself off to be a, ahem, world statesman, but what happened to his minions. Is Johnathan Powell selling speeches now? How are the mighty fallen!

  • Halfer

    Panic @ #11

    “Other political parties and the Irish people particularly in the south should have an all island perspective.

    Sadly the political parties and the southern electorate do not grasp their responsibilities in this regard. The political vacuum left by this laissez faire attitude leaves the door open to the one trick pony performers.”

    I agree..It’s one of the reasons why I disagree with the parameters of the GFA/BA. It’s view of Irelands future is entirely introverted on a six county basis. Republicans are supposed to try and convince the Peter Robinsons of the North that their best interests are best served in another democratic unit. Bonkers!

  • Halfer

    Panic @ #11

    “Other political parties and the Irish people particularly in the south should have an all island perspective.

    Sadly the political parties and the southern electorate do not grasp their responsibilities in this regard. The political vacuum left by this laissez faire attitude leaves the door open to the one trick pony performers.”

    I agree..It’s one of the reasons why I disagree with the parameters of the GFA/BA. It’s view of Irelands future is entirely introverted on a six county basis. Republicans are supposed to try and convince the Peter Robinsons of the North that their best interests are best served in another democratic unit. Bonkers!

  • Halfer

    michaelhenry @ #5

    Where, how, when do I take the word of Tony Blair?

  • nollaig a chara

    I have to ask where the politics of the 32 CSM is going to take us as yet they have not released a paper/document on how they will achive reunifaction, what there policies are on EG: Health, education, social develepment etc etc….

    There current strat will only bring them to where Sinn Fein were 15 yrs ago…. to the negotiating table….

    I’m not saying i’m a fan of everything that Sinn Fein does however as a republician there is yet anyother creditable strategy put forward about how we gain reunification of Ireland just lots of talk

  • RobertEmmett

    SF hace a creditable strategy? really? what is it? seems to be; hope and pray.

    at least the old Nationalist party got a wild bird act for their time in stormont.

    sf have following this credible strategy since 1994, before if we include Hume /adams. and what have they produced for nationalism?

    not even the use of the long gallery for a commemoration for Volunterr M Farrell.

  • Henry94

    Are the dissidents now claiming to be fighting for Articles 2 & 3 of a constitution that republicans didn’t recognise until Gerry Adams got Sinn Fein to take seats in Dail Eireann. That prompted a walkout by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh in 1986!

    Our demand for national freedom pre-dates DeValera’s constitution and has never relied on it. Are they honestly saying that their version of Irish unity is simply the extension of the jurisdiction of the 1937 constitution over the whole island? Really?

    I think they better think it out again.

  • aquifer

    I think if you imagine the sacred dead are writing your political manifesto you are a member of a small cult.

  • old school

    “Are the dissidents (sic) now claiming to be fighting for Articles 2 and 3?” Henry 94
    Only in your head, Henry.
    You’ve been posting here for quite a while, and you don’t know the Republican aims??

  • old school

    Aquifer, the 32 CSM have an annual AGM where people can debate and vote for any policy changes or amendments.
    I don’t know where you are getting your education on the matter.
    A better question would be why Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael etc continue with the charade of reading the Proclamation (in complete contradiction to the GFA) and honouring people they would call “traitors” if alive today.

  • Drumlins Rock

    you lot are nuts, I though die hard “no surrender” loyalists were crackers but least they dont waffle such tripe, if you want a United Ireland argue its case on its own merits not based on some vote a century ago with all the voters dead!

  • Marcionite

    Dear me, while we indulge over the finer points of sovereignty, our young men and women who work in call centres have to press a button to mark when they go to the toilet.

    And you say we;re not oppressed? Shame on you all.

    You think fascism only exists when a man in a funny moustache comes on the scene

    You think oppression only exists when a military uniform pulls you over and abuses you


    The only definition of freedom and sovereignty is having a parliament?


    There are thousands of subtle ways we are oppressed every day and not one of them is a cop, soldier or politician but maily numpty middle managers who eat triangle-shaped sandwiches whose idea of a good time is having an extra pint of harp or spritzer at the Christmas party who during the week, treats their staff like dirt.

    Wake up.


  • aquifer

    We had votes north and south, we now live and let live in accordance with those most recent acts of self determination.

    The DUP and your associates lost.

    And if you have a problem with your abandonment by the self-declared Republic to your south, take it up with them, don’t pretend it is the fault of some British people living here or elsewhere.

    The 26 counties had choices, and they usually made them with faint regard to those who happened to live in Ireland with a British allegiance, or to the Catholics living in the North.

  • Scaramoosh

    The Catholics in the North were abandoned by their fellow Irishmen at the time of partition. It took Gerry and his mob twenty five years to realise that they are still not wanted, and that their best and only hope was compromise (stasis).

    The dissidents, who I believe to be led by people raised on council estates in Dundalk and South Armagh, hark back to 1916 and ignore every change that occured on the island in the interim; they ignore the fact that the cute hoors have robbed and pillaged dear old Mother Ireland; they ignore the fact that the dear old Church was nothing more than a perverts charter; they ignore the fact that the country is at the mercy of criminal drug gangs.

    And hey, why face upto reality, when you can get a couple of pages in the Sunday Tribune every couple of months; no questions asked.

    Truth be told, the entire country is something of a joke; essentially lost at sea.

  • old school

    Aquifer, if everyone accepted referendum, and changed their politics to suit, we’d still have no Divorce in the South, women would still be unable to vote in Britian. Do you know how many failed votes took place before slavery was abolished in Britain?
    Politics is about having a belief or a principle and fighting for it. You think politics is like the X Factor, and based on popularity.
    Incidentally, have you forgot the Governments rode roughshot over the GFA referendum, when they re wrote it in St Andrews, a few years later? Ther DUP lost you say haha.

  • old school

    Scaramoosh, we can’t blame the 26 Counties for selling us out this time.
    Northern Sinn Fein activists worked overtime to woo traditionalist Republicans to vote Yes. It was Adams who toured the South to tell Southerners to sell us out.
    Pat Doherty even called to the Blaneys (Ind FF) in the dead of night in Donegal, when it looked like they would vote No.

  • Michaelhenry

    yes old school,anything to win, you just want to be beat,not us,make sure you always stay away from us.

  • Jud

    I’m sure this discourse bears similarities to pro/anti treaty discussions almost a century ago.
    I wonder how those commenting would have voted in terms of the treaty.

    The fact is the world changes around us and we need to adapt or become irrelevant. The terms of the treaty were far from a republic but Collins was right to see it as a first step. National self determination and the declaration of a republic came in the end.

    If the pragmatic Collins had lived and become influential rather then the dogmatic Dev we would be having a different discussion today.

    The place of the church and a cult of austerity brought in by Dev has done damage that still needs to be completely undone. On that point I agree with our unionist colleagues.

    And therein lies the win-win for the unity argument. There is much to be improved when the time comes to discuss a shared and optimistic future. Only by a process of genuine politics can the republic become all it can truly be – and a unity dialogue where everything is up for discussion is a one-off opportunity for everybody.

    Articles 2 and 3 should not be held onto dogmatically in the way the oath became an issue 90 years ago. I do feel an emotional attachment to the comfort they gave me as a member of an oppressed minority, but the real world progress of recent years is far more important, and in practical terms I’m not sure anything has changed as a result of their revision.

    Like it or not the principle of consent cannot be tallied based on the 1918 poll. We were robbed in that regard – of that there is no doubt, but there is no going back.

    Consent now means a majority in the North and a majority in the South, which I do believe is achievable in the relatively near future.
    That is the objective, and that is where nationalist energy should be focused.

  • Alias

    There is a fundamental misunderstanding in play here.

    The proclomation declares that there is one nation but two traditions. That was very important because it allowed one nation to share one state, forming a nation-state for the Irish nation. There is only one right to self-determination per nation, and the state is the means by which that nation exercises it.

    The GFA declares the exact opposite: that there are two nations. That rules out a nation-state, and rules out a right to self-determination for both nations if both nations only have one state.

    In effect, you end up with a mini-UK comprised of two non-sovereign nations, neither of which have a right to national self-determination, and both of which veto each other’s cultural and national identity at state level. It is simply an extension of the same dysfunctional dynamics that exist in Northern Ireland into Ireland, thereby making that state as dysfunctional as Northern Ireland (but without a rich sugardaddy to pamper and finance the dysfunctional).

  • Alias

    Technically, of course, Northern Ireland is not comprised of two non-sovereign nations. The British nation is sovereign since it is this nation which holds sovereignty over the State. It is only the Irish nation within Northern Ireland that is non-sovereign. However, that nation has declared that it has no right to national self-determination as part of the Irish nation, and I see no problem with that declaration. Unity, as that nation proffers it, is simply a demand that the Irish nation in Ireland should follow the pitiful example of the Irish nation within Northern Ireland and declare that it too has no right to national self-determination as a sovereign nation, and should therefore convert itself into a non-sovereign nation within a unified territory that is shared with another non-sovereign nation, the British. The loss here is for the British nation since it is the nation which must give up British sovereignty of its state and the Irish nation which must do the same, whereas the winner is the non-sovereign Irish nation within Northern Ireland which will then find itself among 85% of one unified non-sovereign nation compared with being 45% within the existing arrangements. Essentially, the Irish nation is being asked to give up its right to a nation-state so that those who have renounced their national rights can gain a bit more clout over the Protestant locals. It is pure self-serving hogwash.

  • Davros

    “On another thread on Slugger someone told me that 50% of Irish people were below average intelligence!”

    Statistically speaking 50% of people are below average intelligence. Normal distribution, bell curves, symmetry etc.

  • wild turkey

    ‘Can a partitionist internal settlement and the Proclamation be harmonised? ‘

    well of course they can OS. on the head of a pin with an infinity dancing angels.

    surely you know the tune. and i suspect that your old friend Hugh Bris and doppelganger demands that we all dance to the tune while you sing self righteous tunes of liberation.

    but i have a problem. it is this. your political handjobbery would readily accepts putting my children, and many others, in danger. they are in still in school.. and learning. by your own moniker, you acknowledge that being of the old school you have learned, and know, everything that may be relevant and necessary. eh?

    i love my children. you don’t. so what? but how should i respond to the threat you readily present?… how would you? kill people? not an option on my part.

  • Brian MacAodh


    So if there ever is a United Ireland, it will be one unified non-sovereign nation. If its sovereignty won’t lie with it’s people were will it lie?

  • Alias

    That all depends on how successful the present covert campaign is to reintegrate Ireland into the UK is, particularly Strand 2 (the extension of British sovereignty over key institutions of the Irish State) and Strand 3 (the reintegration of Ireland as a ‘British Isle’ into existing British constitutional structures). Since those who are British will not be required to assume Irish citizenship after unity, this will require British constitutional structures to manage such a large volume of non-citizens who will owe no loyalty to the state wherein they will reside. The easiest way this could be achieved is by the reintegration of a unified Ireland into the United Kingdom with the extension of devolved cosociational government from Northern Ireland to Ireland. In other words, the 3rd version of Home Rule.

    If two nations share one state with parity of esteem between them, which of the two nations would be sovereign? Neither, of course. How will that be achieved? It is difficult outside of the British constitutional structures that are designed for non-sovereign nations but it is not impossible. For example, the developing Strand 2 areas where sovereignty over the institutions of the Irish state is given to the United Kingdom could allow the North/South Ministerial Council to serve as the emergent government of the island of Ireland, with the gradual transfer of sovereignty of the Irish nation to this joint Irish/British entity.

    The British-Irish Agreement is a treaty that imposes a binding legal obligation on the government in any unified entity to exercise the powers of the unified State with “rigorous impartiality” in regard to both British nationalism and Irish nationalism. That excludes Irish national self-determination and an Irish nation-state since a government that is required to act with “rigorous impartiality” between two competing nations cannot be partial to the Irish nation, so it cannot promote Irish national interests unless it secures the permission of the British nation to do so.

    Essentially, it imposes a condition that the government of the unified entity must act as a neutral arbitrator between two competing sets of co-equal national rights. That could only be accomplished if a body such as the North/South Ministerial Council took on the role of the government of “the island of” Ireland with the two parts of the island having a devolved administration within a federal Ireland, neither of which had any sovereign powers.

    That way, the “the island of” Ireland would be sovereign with its sovereignty jointly owned between the British and Irish nations, neither of which would be sovereign. However, the most likely option is the first one – a unified Ireland within the UK.

  • aquifer

    Aquifer: Osama Bin Laden also knows what is good for us.

    Old School: So now I’m Osama Bin Laden

    It was a general comment on separatist cults and their methods, not for you specifically.

    Do you like narratives that put you at the centre of things?

  • Cynic2


    I know. Its truly shocking that employers expect employees to work for a living. It’s a clear breach of their rights and they should immediately contact the blessed Monica for help, counselling, etc

  • JR

    1916 was unique in Irish history. Socialists, trade unionists, Republicans and Celtic revivalists were fighting against a common enemy but for very different outcomes. It is totally nuts to try to frame the nationalist aspirations in the North at the moment within the mishmash of ideologies behind the rising of 1916.

    In a way we have much more than those in 1916 ever dreamed of. Devolution (Home rule) in the North and an independent republic in the South.

    I believe in a United Ireland because I believe it is the best option for the future of the people of this Island and agreement and compromise is the only way I think it should be achieved. As regards to Articles 2 and 3. On a practical level what good were they? Give me cross border institutions over them any day.

  • Halfer

    “yes old school,anything to win, you just want to be beat,not us,make sure you always stay away from us.”……once again, nothing but slabber and ganch.

    “Consent now means a majority in the North and a majority in the South, which I do believe is achievable in the relatively near future.
    That is the objective, and that is where nationalist energy should be focused.”

    As I said before, with the internal setttlement, your trying to convince Peter Robinson that his best interests lie in another construct where he holds less power to line his pockets. Your also trying to convince a loyalist working class whose democratic aspirations are secondary to their ‘cultural identity’ and memory of the Somme. Bonkers! The future of the nation needs to be contemplated and decided on a national basis, without an internal or external veto.

    “As regards to Articles 2 and 3. On a practical level what good were they? Give me cross border institutions over them any day.”

    What good are cross border institutions? What have they contributed to the building of the nation?

  • Jud

    I don’t see a scenario where we get back to a straightforward all-Ireland vote (which I think is what you are alluding to).
    Persuading Peter Robinson is unlikely to get anywhere I agree – although recent events have shown he can very likely be bought if required.

    It’s a majority in the 6 counties that is needed, and with a catholic majority I believe you have a nationalist majority.
    If you want to call it an internal settlement fair enough. But it’s an internal settlement to end the union and form a UI which is more than good enough for me.

  • Halfer

    “But it’s an internal settlement to end the union and form a UI which is more than good enough for me.”
    Fair enough position to have Jud,,,,,, but I can’t understand how any successful unification process can take place with an external veto hanging over it and without the input or desires of the southern population taken into account.

  • Brian MacAodh

    “That way, the “the island of” Ireland would be sovereign with its sovereignty jointly owned between the British and Irish nations, neither of which would be sovereign. However, the most likely option is the first one – a unified Ireland within the UK. ”

    But before the Republic voted to drop it’s claim to the 6 counties in 98 this wasn’t really possible, right? It seems that the GFA and the referendum in the South made all this mudding of the sovereign waters possible.

    And if 50+1 does equal a vote for unity in the North, than the loyalists will not have to become Irish Citizens in a UI? WOulndn’t they have to? Sure they could keep their British passports but…

  • Jud

    “I can’t understand how any successful unification process can take place with an external veto hanging over it and without the input or desires of the southern population taken into account”

    I see two referenda – one North and one South.
    A majority in each would represent agreement to form a UI.

    If you assume that is the target then I think the consent concept agreed in recent times is a considerable step forward for nationalists. Consent now cuts both ways, and as the demographics change I believe we constantly move towards the goal.

  • old school

    Wild Turkey, don’t get all Richard and Judy on me.
    Yes I have kids in school also, and yes we Republicans love our children. No we don’t eat them for breakfast.
    It’s pathetic that you find an opposing opinion threatening. I don’t go weak kneed when debating with Unionists here.And no I won’t come and kill you and your kids.
    Take some Prozac, and remember “Hug a Republican Day” is coming soon.

  • wild turkey

    “Wild Turkey, don’t get all Richard and Judy on me.”

    how directive. a product of the christain brothers perhaps? i will do what i want to do.
    although it would never would occur in your socialist republic, i will say what i want, when i want to whatever vicious and souless marionettes who are past their sell by date.

    the emotionalism is on your part, not mine. back from the pub bro? or was it just another briefing session?

    “Hug a Republican Day” is coming soon. ”

    it is already here, i hug my kids every day. they are true. and you haven’t a clue.


  • I have to say considering all the evidence available to everyone, I find it hard to believe anyone can love children and still believe in a violent struggle. It is a contradiction. It is also hard to believe considering the useful shields many children in republican areas were treated as.

    Hug a republican? Hug your children and keep them safe from harm.

  • Michaelhenry

    dissident words at easter said that dissident actions in the coming year would be louder than a thousand words,this sounds like that tin pot hitlers speech that the nazis would last for a thousand years,we all know what became of that claim,hot air.

  • old school

    Pippakin,are you suggesting those British soldiers fighting a violent struggle in Afghanistan don’t love their children?
    What kind of claptrap is Wild Turkey and Pipp jabbering about?
    For the record, I’m not fighting a violent struggle, I’m a humble poster with an opinion.
    Wild Turkey encounters a conflicting opinion and assumes Im a child beating thug because I don’t agree with the Status Quo, or because I don’t just pay lip service to the Proclamation.

  • old school

    And there’s poor Michael with Godwins Law.
    On the same page traditional Republicans have been compared with Bin Laden and now Hitler.
    Anyone wanna go for the hat-trick.
    Jeez wheres the debate here?

  • old school

    Here we go with Afghanistan and Iraq again…

    In the 2nd world war the Brits evacuated children from the cities to the countryside to try to keep them safe.

    Tim Parry was ‘collateral damage’ that most disgraceful catchall phrase, which I am proud to be able to say did not originate in Ireland!

    I did not mean to wound or offend you. I would not do that, I meant only to hilight the risk to the children if we allow the past to repeat itself, again.

    We have to break the cycle of violence. If we do not more children will be hurt.

  • darragh derry

    old school why do you even bother replying to the immature schoolkid ranting and ravings of michealhenry with him being one of sinn feins retarded sheep your wasting your time they cannot de cooljouled or think about anything less other than their wee partitionist gerrymandered quadmire “settlement”[sic] of the six counties dont waste your breathe going by some of his replys i think hes about 15 years old

  • old school

    The British may have evacuated their own children (as did the Nazis btw) but they didn’t give up their National Sovereignty to the Germans in the interests of their childrens future. Churchill didn’t say,”In the interests of our children, we’ve decided to let the Nazis take Poland.”
    I’m defending Irish Sovereignty, and the right to full, National self determination.
    Hopefully my children will do the same.
    I certainly wouldn’t use them as vacuous emotional blackmail against my political opponents.

  • old school

    I know Darragh. But his posts…it’s like a car crash scene. I can’t help looking.
    15? He’s probably an MLA ffs

  • Michaelhenry

    when hitler made that speech the nazis lasted for another 12 years,1933to1945,what ever hitler was he was not psychic,guess what other group is 12 years old,late 1997 to now and is quoting the nazis,yup its the real.

  • old school

    I hope your children will grow to defend Ireland vociferously and above all non violently.

    I never suggested the Nazis did not do their best to protect their children. I like to think we all would.

    In the 2nd world war thousands of Irish people fought with the Allies to defeat Nazism and keep the world free.

  • old school

    Sorry I almost forgot! I dont use emotional blackmail. I just remind people of various outstanding allegations and a pending trial…

    As for Michael henry

    No one is that badly educated and still able to read. I think you are right. He may well be an MLA…

  • wild turkey

    pip @22. thanks for the comment. it resonates.

    “Wild Turkey encounters a conflicting opinion and assumes Im a child beating thug because I don’t agree with the Status Quo,”

    well OS, like you, i do not hold with the status quo. i suspect our definitions of the status quo may differ and diverge. so be it.

    for the record, i have never accused you of being a child beating thug. nor have i accused you of being a paranoid run of the mill tedious thug. nor have i accused you of over reacting. nor have i accused you of limited intellectual and empathetic powers. nor have i accused you of lacking in any meaningful humility.

    i have tried, however clumsily, to articulate my truth. if that gives you problems, well thats your problem. not mine.

    ‘Jeez wheres the debate here? ‘
    do you honestly think your comments encourage and facilitate any reasonable debate? FFS

    this has now become tedious.

    game, set and match to you OS. now there’s a victory.

  • wild turkey

    Not a problem. I sometimes forget we Irish have a temper, each of us. It is, to say the least, combustible!

  • seandubh

    Give credit were its due,Gerry Adams has helped greatly to bring about some sort of peace among our divided people.The Republican Clubs saw the dangers of sectarism years ago,but I am glad Gerry Adams stayed with the provos,he convinced them to get rid of the armalite for the ballot box,and people who do not realize the impact he has made in bringing this about ,bury their heads in the sand.I do not agree that the Provos are socialist,but maybe they have left the door ajar,for peoples socialist policies to once again come from over the parapets.

  • seandubh

    or even above the parapets

  • RJ

    the Island already Acts as a Confederacy
    for example the Northern ireland Assembly
    and Executive cant operate without the British-Irish Council
    and the North/South Ministerial Council and Vis-Versa.
    i dont much like this United Ireland but then Again its For Nagoriating .