Saturday, April 19, 2008
“I have no doubt about that..”
Is it May yet? In the Derry Journal we hear what the Northern Ireland deputy First Minister, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, has been telling the people of Londonderry.
“The march towards Irish reunification is unstoppable. I have no doubt about that. The people who know that best are not the people here tonight or the people who vote for us but they are the people who vote for the DUP or the UUP. “There are unionists who believed that if you give power to nationalists it means the end of the union as they know it and they are absolutely right,” he said.
There are, of course, alternative opinions on that. Still, no better time to remind readers of what out-going Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had to say on the prospect - in the absence of Longley’s “opposite of war” approach.
“That can only happen in the long term future. How long that will be I don’t know. If it is done by any means of coercion, or divisiveness, or threats, it will never happen. We’ll stay at a very peaceful Ireland and I think time will be the healer providing people, in a dedicated way, work for the better good of everyone on the island. If it doesn’t prove possible, then it stays the way it is under the Good Friday Agreement, and people will just have to be tolerant of that if it’s not possible to bring it any further.”
Pete Baker @ 09:57 AM
George, the referendum to alter Articles 2 & 3 was not a referendum on support for unity. Indeed, it’s just silly to even attempt to argue that a referendum that erased Ireland’s claim to the territory of Northern Ireland from its constitution was tantamount to an endorsement of that claim.
Article 3 states: “It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.”
I have no idea how you could deduce that I do not support Article 3 from my posts on this thread since I paraphrased the content of Article 3 in my post, particularly in regard to the “expressed wish” of the Irish people to “to seek unity by exclusively peaceful and democratic means” (post above) and in regard to “any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland which seeks to annex that entity to the Republic of Ireland is subject to a veto that is held by the voters of the Republic of Ireland” (my third post) as it also expressed in Article 3.
As for your last sentence/conjecture: it is a non-sequitur.
““That part of the United Kingdom” is part of my country as far as I’m concerned and I have no problem whatsoever with my Government giving financial assistance.” - sammaguire
Northern Ireland may be a part of your country “as far as you are concerned” but your concerns does not establish the legal and sovereign authority in this matter. A penny paid in tax to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is a penny that is lost to the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, a penny (or 14 billion as in Ireland’s national development plan) in taxation that is raised from the labour of workers in the Republic of Ireland and that is then donated to the citizens of another jurisdiction rather than spent on the purpose for which it is raised (the benefit of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland) is an act of charity that should not be entertained when there are far more worthy projects within the Republic of Ireland wherein the taxes should be spent. If we must donate money to charity in other jurisdictions, then let us donate it to third world countries and not to countries within the first world.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 03:56 PMBut the free state is still a third world country when you look at its health services and its endemic corruption and unhealthy political culture of nepotism, dynasties etc
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 04:02 PMGaribaldy, perhaps it is on ‘Garibaldy’d Insular Index of Free States’ but it isn’t on any objective measure, wherein it is one of the world’s richest countries.
One other point, George, in regard to your final non-sequitur: your own logic would dictate that the constitution has “given up” on the constitution, since that constitution no longer makes a claim to unity and, indeed, specifically states that it is a matter that will be decided by a poll of the public “in both jurisdictions in the island.” Do you see that the constitution is now neutral on the issue?
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 04:19 PMGaribaldy, I actually agree with you about the dismal state of Ireland’s health service; and as I said above, “there are far more worthy projects within the Republic of Ireland wherein the taxes should be spent.” We should not be donating billions of Euros of Irish taxpayer’s money to the United Kingdom when we have urgent requirements within the Republic that are far more deserving of the money.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 04:29 PMDepends on where the money goes. Is investing in the border region really a bad thing for the citizens of Ulster that live in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal?
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 04:38 PMA referendum in the South would be over 95% successful I’m sure - I’ve yet to meet a single Mexican who would not welcome re-unification with open arms.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 06:28 PMI guess this is up there with George Bush’s comments that ‘we are winning the war in Iraq’. The respective DUP and SF spin machines have been relentless over the past year as they continue to try and hoodwink their grass roots into thinking that they haven’t been seduced by the lure of power in exchange for their principles.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 09:49 PMDave,
the referendum to alter Articles 2 & 3 was not a referendum on support for unity.It was a referendum to change the Articles to their current wording. Does the current wording support unity?
What does “firm will” mean to you and how do you square with your comment that “in reality, the agenda is that people will accept the unalterable nature of the constitutional status quo over time”.
The Constitution says the State has to do the opposite.
One other point, George, in regard to your final non-sequitur:
Could you elaborate?
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:44 PMGaribaldy, I actually agree with you about the dismal state of Ireland’s health service; and as I said above, “there are far more worthy projects within the Republic of Ireland wherein the taxes should be spent.” We should not be donating billions of Euros of Irish taxpayer’s money to the United Kingdom when we have urgent requirements within the Republic that are far more deserving of the money.
Posted by Dave on Apr 20, 2008 @ 05:29 PM
Enough money has been thrown at the health service already. Money is not the problem. It’s more a management/organisational issue and a failure to deal with the very many vested interest groups. Throw another billion a year at the problem and it’ll end up in the arse pockets of the consultants and nurses rather than putting the patients first.
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 12:08 AMBut the free state is still a third world country when you look at its health services and its endemic corruption and unhealthy political culture of nepotism, dynasties etc
Posted by Garibaldy on Apr 20, 2008 @ 05:02 PM
What you on about.... nepotism, dynasties? Its the same the world over...at least we have friggin elections (Fidel & Raul in Cuba, Papa Doc & Baby Doc in Haiti/NI, Bush Sen & Jun in U.S., British royal family, Bhuttos in Pakistan,Gandhis in India etc etc etc). If you’re elected by the people I’ll respect you for it full stop.
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 12:57 AMIf the US can’t afford socialized medicine for its own people, it should stop throwing billions at HIV in Africa, the Vatican, as number two ( or perhaps number one provider) in the region, should focus on restoring painting?
It’s a view
G.
“A penny paid in tax to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is a penny that is lost to the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, a penny (or 14 billion as in Ireland’s national development plan) in taxation that is raised from the labour of workers in the Republic of Ireland and that is then donated to the citizens of another jurisdiction rather than spent on the purpose for which it is raised (the benefit of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland) is an act of charity that should not be entertained when there are far more worthy projects within the Republic of Ireland wherein the taxes should be spent. “
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 01:16 AM“If you’re elected by the people I’ll respect you for it full stop.”
The problem with slugger is that you’ve closed your minds to radical reform, depedestrianization, forcible conversions via inquisition to the faith, there are a lot of wonderful possibilities you are missing.
Voting is like that trash can in the street. It keeps the litter from blowing about, it looks tidy, but does it really work? Look at Mugabe, he is definitely not impressed with it, and he has been a famous world leader for years.
What is this democracy thing? Don’t you think the Pope for example, should become a real Roman, why shouldn’t a Cardinal or Archbishop, or oriental Patriarrch out in the provinces,
simply cut his way through to Rome, and announce at the Senate house, that he is the restorer of order, and that the deposed was caught littering, or reading PG Wodehouse? You people chat away here like the wives on the Sopranos, you don’t want to take the hard brutal decisions.
Look at the IRA, they blow the City of London to bits, they are in sight of driving them out of Ludgate, never mind Ireland, and what do they do, they decide to become gay, it is terrible, the gays didn’t want them because, well just look at the way they dress, so they basically just surrendered.
LOok at the graffiti on the wall at Skipper street, “The IRA don’t do anal”, their rejection by mainstream queerdom was a precursor to Squinter demanding that Gerry be stoned as an absentee landlord.
That’s my view.
G.
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 01:30 AM“Does the current wording support unity?” - George
No, it is neutral on the issue of the territory, leaving it up to the people to decide. That was the change from the former position: the constitution made a claim to the territory, making the decision for the people. It may just have well been amended to state that France can unify with Ireland subject to “the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions” since that is also a redundant statement.
“The Constitution says the State has to do the opposite.” - George
It does not. It says that it is up to the people. That means, obviously, that there is opinion for, and opinion against, unity in both jurisdictions. As with all democratic decisions, whichever camp gets the most votes wins - providing they get a majority in both jurisdictions.
“Could you elaborate?” - George
Yes, observing that the citizens of Northern Ireland are being encouraged to accept the status quo does not disqualify me from being a republican (as I have defined it above). Likewise, have an opinion about whether unity is a good idea or not does not mean that I am anti-constitutional (since Article 3 accepts that there are divergent opinions on the issue). And besides, constitutions are amended because people disagree with a specific stipulation. The process of disagreeing with a stipulation does not make one anti-constitutional, either.
“What you on about.... nepotism, dynasties?” - sammaguire
He’s just showing his contempt for the Republic of Ireland. He’s honest, at least. Most northern nationalists share his contempt but deem it prudent to disguise it.
Gregory, you’re either brilliant or barking mad.
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 02:01 AM“On the contrary, Irish republicanism always supported working for constitutional change within the system.”
Yes, there have been plenty of examples: 1798, Emmet, 1848, 1867, the IRB, the Easter Rising, the War of Independence, the border campaign...!1916 in particular was all about working within the system; after all, they took over the GPO! Nobody even knew what “IRA” stood for until 1970.
“Yes, and there is much tangible evidence of it, not least being support for the PSNI, support for the economic development of Northern Ireland, and a very merry return to Stormont, etc. No longer do we hear Sinn Fein drumming up business for their party by saying that Northern Ireland is a failed state that can never be made to work. In practice, they’re busy reversing all of their previous mantras and policies.”
So let’s see here: the Provos were anti-republican because they didn’t work within the system for consitutional change. Now that they are, they are anti-republican for working within the system! Nothing like trying to cover all your bets.
Posted by on Apr 21, 2008 @ 10:35 PMDoctor, why did you bother citing examples of republicans who operated at a time when there was no republican constitution to support? We are talking about the constitution of the Republic of Ireland and the democratic wish of Irish republicans to unify north and south by exclusively peaceful means. The wish that was abjectly ignored by the Provos and the constitution that was abjectly ignored by those who also sought to overthrow the elected government of the Republic duly chosen in democratic poll by the people of the Republic, believing that the self-appointed and unelected “legitimate government of Ireland” (the Provo Army Council) was the sole authority of the state, remember? Like I said, the Provos were not republicans. But do continue acting as an apologist for brown shirts, if such is your particular fetish.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:01 AMDoctor, answer one question: how can you be an Irish republican when your aim is to overthrow the Irish republic? You might want to study Emmet a tad more closely: his aim was to establish an Irish Republic - not to overthrow it after it was established (the aim of the Provos). He believed that the right of the Irish people to decide their own destiny must be a guiding principle, whereas the Provos believed that the Irish people didn’t even merit the right to choose their own government.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:12 AMLet me ask this question: what year are we in, 2008 or 1969? The provos have inherently accepted the legality of the Irish Republic for twenty-plus years. They have several TDs in the Dail, a senator, and scores of councillors in the Republic. They take part in the electoral process and any changes they wish to make to the current setup is through the system itself. Outside of Ruari O’Braidaigh and a few others I can’t think of many republicans who have taken the “Army Council is the de jure government” line as dogma for quite some time. The most I hear about it these days is from Sunday Indo “journalists”. But hey, if people want to live in a 1960’s time warp where they think armed Commies are about to overthrow the state, feel free.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:33 PM“The last poll in the Irish Republic was 1998 and 95% supported the idea of a united Ireland.”
It is easy to support an idea. Please count me out of the SF reality though.
Let Special Branch run Ireland, why do we not just get it over with? SF are heading in that direction anyway.
They’re not so canny.
G.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:01 PM“He believed that the right of the Irish people to decide their own destiny must be a guiding principle,”
Do a FOI on guidance imported from the DfES.
The Brit spooks run DENI
G.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:03 PM
