“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.”

, , , ,

  • DC

    Amen.

  • joeCanuck

    Sounds like he’s trying to build support for the TUV.
    Divide and conquer.

  • cut the bull

    There was dyslexic loyalist on the lower Ormeau Road last week pleading with security staff to allow him to enter Havelock House as he wanted to join Jim Allister and the UTV.

  • dodrade

    The irony is Jim Allister and his mates are the only people who will believe those comments, including McGuinness himself.

  • In your dreams!

    In your dreams McGuinness!

    The fact that the DUP are the controling party in NI politics is thet barrier stopping you and your party fom achieving many of your unachievable goals. The mere fact that you are sitting in a British government i.e. Stormont is a contradiction of you republicanism.

  • Greenflag

    “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.

    Slight but important error there from Mr McGuinness.

    ‘it means the end of the union as they KNEW it and they are absolutely right,” he said.

    The ‘old union’ is at an end from the perspective of the political power relationship between those for and against the Union. But the Union can’t be undone without a majority of votes from within Northern Ireland so in that sense the Union is not at an end but at a new if uncertain beginning. That beginning could be the beginning of the end or the end of a new beginning or the beginning of a new end ?

    As for March being ‘unstoppable ‘ Also unstoppable is April , May and especially July . It would appear that the DFM is playing to the gallery a little in advance of his FM having to play to his ‘gallery’ as we approach the ‘march’ season yet again which unusually for March is held in July .

    Warning shot across the bows for the new FM. The ‘battle a day’ has begun . And we already know in advance how it will end .

  • truth and justice

    I dont even think McGuinnes believe those comments he has to say it because he knows Sinn Fein have signed up to a British state and a british Police force he must keep up the protence to keep his followers on board

  • Ahem

    Gosh, isn’t getting cheaper and cheaper to gull the gullible? All it seemingly takes these days to shut the sheep who vote Sinn Fein up is words, words, words. Well done MI5: you lot certainly haven’t gone away.

  • Bigger Picture

    I give to Tuesday for a piece on Jim Allister’s website about this. However I will not believe him, unlike others, I will see what is happening in Stormont were unionists have stopped many of the Republican incentives that the British and Irish Govt’s handed to them.

  • Dave

    Sinn Fein isn’t a party which seeks the end of the union with Great Britian, they are a tool of the United Kingdom which seeks to consolidate the union with Great Britian by ensuring that a formerly disenfranchied minority are fully integrated into it.

    A major part of that integration process is constantly reassure the formerly disenfranchied minority that the best expedient to reject the legitimacy of the union is actually to accept the legitimacy of it. That way they will be fully integrated by the time they realise the Machivellian machination by which their original aims were cleverly but abjectly betrayed.

    It was rather tactless of Ahern to admit that voodoo, magic, emergent processes, organic developments, etc, were not an effective laternative to bluprints and plans.

  • Dave

    Maybe I’ll report that without the hurried typing. Sorry!

    Sinn Fein isn’t a party which seeks the end of the union with Great Britain; they are a tool of the United Kingdom which seeks to consolidate the union with Great Britain by ensuring that a formerly disenfranchised minority are fully integrated into it.

    A major part of that integration process is constantly reassuring the formerly disenfranchised minority that the best expedient to reject the legitimacy of the union is actually to accept the legitimacy of it. That way they will be fully integrated by the time they realise the Machiavellian machination by which their original aims were cleverly but abjectly betrayed.

    It was rather tactless of Ahern to acknowledge that voodoo, magic, emergent processes, organic developments, etc, were not an effective alternative to blueprints and plans.

  • Danny O’Connor

    Well, what would you expect him to say,the truth is that he is dFM in a NI executive,committed to exclusively peaceful means,supporting the PSNI,and the principle of consent.

  • Steve

    Pete I do not see how the two statements are repdiating each other.

    Marty is saying that nationalism will become dominant

    Bertie is saying when it becomes dominant they will be welcome with open arms

    To me the statements are complimentary

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>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<< Call me one of the sheep if you like, and aye my mind might not be very Machiavellian, but for the life of me where is the falsehood in the above statement? Unionists have fought tooth and nail not to acquiesce to power sharing because to do so was a step towards a united Ireland.

  • Dave

    I must have missed the ‘welcome with open arms’ part of Ahern’s caveat. He is fully aware that 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. That’s how democracy works. Persuading a portion of Northern Ireland’s Protestants to vote for a united Ireland is a small part of the battle. You also have to persuade the overwhelming majority of Northern Ireland’s Catholics and the electorate of the Republic of Ireland to vote for it. In reality, the agenda is that people will accept the unalterable nature of the constitutional status quo over time, seeing it as impracticable to amend it further and contented with the improvements in the political and social status quos that have been granted to the formerly disenfranchised minority, particularly regarding formal links to the Republic of Ireland. Ahern acknowledges that Sinn Fein’s violent past served to make unity impossible, and that if they (and others) continue to behave themselves, then there is a slim prospect that the attitudes of Northern Ireland’s protestants to unity may soften. That’s what Ahern is referring to.

  • Greenflag

    PE ,

    ‘Unionists have fought tooth and nail not to acquiesce to power sharing because to do so was a step towards a united Ireland. ‘

    Remember old chinese saying journey of thousand miles begins with first step. Mathematics say if one step (one yard approx ) takes 40 years then how many years in journey of thousand miles ?

    1,760 x 1,000 x 40 = 70400000 AD or about 70.5 million years. Somehow I have the feeling that we all may have lost interest in a UI by then .
    If Northern nationalists want a UI sooner they need to spend more time in bed with their wives -less time in the pub and also follow the pope’s pronouncements re contraception , condoms etc down to the last letter (no pun intended)

    Dave ,
    ‘Ahern acknowledges that Sinn Fein’s violent past served to make unity impossible, and that if they (and others) continue to behave themselves, then there is a slim prospect that the attitudes of Northern Ireland’s protestants to unity may soften. That’s what Ahern is referring to.

    That’s the Ahern message in a nutshell . And also the proviso that if it never happens we need to be ‘tolerant’ of the fact .

    Of course GF has another solution which would replace the political objective of a UI with a ‘different ‘ objective ‘ but as it has recently been aired on another thread and gave rise to some agitated responses it will be left unmentioned on this occassion.

  • doctor

    As a republican I do believe that where we are today is far better than a decade ago, both on a day-to-day basis and in terms of the larger political picture. I’m not going to put a arbitrary date, say Easter 2016, and say there will be a UI by then. But I do think much will happen in the next 10-15 years that will move things in the right direction (from a nationalist perspective).

    I’m not much for the “Sinn Fein abandoned republicanism by administering British rule/law” argument. The SNP never had the same historical hangups about recognizing the police or taking part in governments that esentially were part of a “British” administration. Their situation is no different from Sinn Fein’s. However, you don’t hear anyone claiming today that the SNP is somehow less serious about their core belief in independence, or less effective in achieving it, because they are entered the nefarious “system”. Because Irish republicanism in the 20th century has been so dogmatic about certain issues for so long, when these policies are dropped for a more pragmatic approach some people treat it as selling the family silver.

  • Briso

    Posted by Dave on Apr 19, 2008 @ 04:19 PM
    “A major part of that integration process is constantly reassuring the formerly disenfranchised minority that the best expedient to reject the legitimacy of the union is actually to accept the legitimacy of it. That way they will be fully integrated by the time they realise the Machiavellian machination by which their original aims were cleverly but abjectly betrayed.”

    I see. Us taigs are thick.

  • Eddie

    Us taigs aren’t thick; but we taigs might or might not be. I dunno.

  • Gregory

    “Sinn Fein isn’t a party which seeks the end of the union with Great Britian, they are a tool of the United Kingdom which seeks to consolidate the union with Great Britian by ensuring that a formerly disenfranchied minority are fully integrated into it. ”

    It is a Pax Romanus, thing, Rome eradicates a serious inconvenience (trouble in the forum) by handing out a few senatorial honors to a difficult province.

    No more bombs in London. That’s success.

    The traditional importance of Ireland was the symbolism it had to Britain, and Empire and latterly Royal Navy. It is EU politics these days. A different empire so to speak.

    G.

  • Dave

    “…it will be left unmentioned on this occasion.” – Greenflag

    Now I’m curious about what it was. Incidentally, the working position of the mandarins within the Irish DoFA is that no solution other than a federal Ireland would likely be practicable. Essentially that means that Northern Ireland remains as British as it is but that the cost of financing that nationalist indulgence transfers to the taxpayers of the (Federal) Republic of Ireland.

    “But I do think much will happen in the next 10-15 years that will move things in the right direction (from a nationalist perspective).” -doctor

    The problem with this thinking is that it is purely of the wishful variety. We know that unity is subject to a poll, so if the thinking was to be based on the actual rather than the wishful, then it should be supported by polls that show that there is an increase in support for unity. I think it odd that no one who proffers this sentiment commissions a Mori poll, for example, to support it.

    The other problem you have is that improving the status quo will ensure that people are more supportive of it. That has the corresponding effect of ensuring that there is less incentive to change it. I suspect that if you could compare support for unity as it stands now and as it stood 10 years ago, that you would see a marked drop in support for it rather than there being any tangible gain.

    “Because Irish republicanism in the 20th century has been so dogmatic about certain issues for so long, when these policies are dropped for a more pragmatic approach some people treat it as selling the family silver.” -doctor

    On the contrary, Irish republicanism always supported working for constitutional change within the system. The Provos had their own agenda, but they never were Irish Republicans. Currently, that agenda is to integrate their violent membership into the United Kingdom via the machinations of their political wing, Sinn Fein. Again, their aims are utterly irrelevant to Irish unity, just as the always were.

    “Us taigs are thick.” – Briso

    It’s a case of being genuinely naive rather than thick. But then again, attempting to bomb your way to a united Ireland was pretty thick as a strategy, wasn’t it? Ah well, British Intelligence helped the leaders of Sinn Fein to see the light about that one. I agree with the poster above who said that Martin McGuinness doesn’t believe a word of his own bullshit. He knows who really controls the agenda and it isn’t him or his party.

    “It is EU politics these days. A different empire so to speak.” – Gregory

    Spot on. And an empire that is being created simply because people don’t beleive it is an empire. It shows how much people will surrender when they don’t beleive they are surrendering anything.

  • doctor

    “The problem with this thinking is that it is purely of the wishful variety. We know that unity is subject to a poll, so if the thinking was to be based on the actual rather than the wishful, then it should be supported by polls that show that there is an increase in support for unity. I think it odd that no one who proffers this sentiment commissions a Mori poll, for example, to support it.”

    Yes, except when I talked about things getting better from a nationalist viewpoint I was talking about the increasingly closer ties between north and south and the fact that the southern establishment seems to have ended their mentality of pretending the north doesn’t exist. To name just a few things. “Britishness” as a concept has come under some heavy scrutiny in the last few years throughout the UK; I don’t think it will ease in the years to come.

    “The other problem you have is that improving the status quo will ensure that people are more supportive of it. That has the corresponding effect of ensuring that there is less incentive to change it. I suspect that if you could compare support for unity as it stands now and as it stood 10 years ago, that you would see a marked drop in support for it rather than there being any tangible gain.”

    Is there any tangible proof of any of this? Or is of the purely wishful thinking variety? At any rate, if things do get better I think people who are “soft” nationalists would see unity as something achievable rather than something that would be nice years down the road. It would also mean some unionists, even if the union is still their preferred option, wouldn’t see Irish unity as the coming of the apocalypse.

    “On the contrary, Irish republicanism always supported working for constitutional change within the system. The Provos had their own agenda, but they never were Irish Republicans. Currently, that agenda is to integrate their violent membership into the United Kingdom via the machinations of their political wing, Sinn Fein. Again, their aims are utterly irrelevant to Irish unity, just as the always were.”

    The Provos came about in part because the Republican leadership of the late ’60s were planning to drop abstentionism and the general disdain for politics which dominated Sinn Fein/IRA for 40-50 years. Republican Sinn Fein today believe that they are carrying on that tradition. Btw, the Provos aren’t republicans? In that case, what is republicanism and how do the Provos not meet those standards?

  • Dave

    “Yes, except when I talked about things getting better from a nationalist viewpoint I was talking about the increasingly closer ties between north and south and the fact that the southern establishment seems to have ended their mentality of pretending the north doesn’t exist.” – doctor

    How could we not be aware that Northern Ireland existed when the Provos were busy robbing our banks, kidnapping our businessmen, and filling our TV screens with images of decapitated bodies? The economic cost of the Provos’ campaign of mindless violence was felt by every taxpayer in the Republic of Ireland. You’re lucky we can’t recover the costs in the form of a special tax on the citizens of Northern Ireland because if such were possible and put to a democratic vote, we surely would. The people would, but, of course, the politicans continue to donate large quantities of Irish taxpayers money and transfer Irish jobs to that part of the United Kingdom. The people know full well that you lot are taking the piss and couldn’t give a toss for the best interests of the citizens of the Republic, thinking only of your own interests.

    “Is there any tangible proof of any of this?” – doctor

    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.

    “In that case, what is republicanism and how do the Provos not meet those standards?” – doctor

    A Republican is anyone who supports the Republic of Ireland, supporting its constitution, its laws, its courts, its elected authority, etc, and who supports its founding principles, i.e. self-determination, independence, equality and non-sectarianism, and sovereignty. In case you failed to notice, neither the Provos nor their mouthpieces, Sinn Fein, supported the Republic or its institutions, seeking to overthrow it and replace it with a Marxist dictatorship by shooting protestant Irishmen in the back of their heads, wholly ignoring the principle of self-determination in regard to the right of the people to choose their own government and in regard to their expressed wish to seek unity by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. They are not Republicans by any objective standard. A Republican – and this part is optional – would seek unity between all of his fellow countrymen. As Ahern pointed out, the actions of the Provos served to make unity impossible in the short or medium term, meaning that a long term of quarter to half a century is needed to reverse the damage that Sinn Fein and the Provos did to the cause of Irish unity. Republicans, my arse. The Provos could not have done a better job of keeping Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom even if Carson himself had designed them for that purpose.

  • sammaguire

    The people would, but, of course, the politicans continue to donate large quantities of Irish taxpayers money and transfer Irish jobs to that part of the United Kingdom.

    Posted by Dave on Apr 20, 2008 @ 02:13

    Think you’re forgetting we elect the politicians. “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. The people of the North have suffered more than most. To me (from Dublin) I see no difference between someone from Donegal or Derry or from Cavan or Fermanagh. And my children and their children and their children will feel the same. That’s the difference. British people have zero emotional attachment to the North and therefore despise subsidising it.

  • George

    Dave,
    <1>I think it odd that no one who proffers this sentiment commissions a Mori poll, for example, to support it.

    The last poll in the Irish Republic was 1998 and 95% supported the idea of a united Ireland.

    You talk of loyalty to the State and its Constition but don’t seem to consider Article 3 relevant.

    It seems to me that you are the one giving up on founding principles of Irish Republicanism when you come out with comments such as “In reality, the agenda is that people will accept the unalterable nature of the constitutional status quo over time”.

  • Dave

    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.

  • Garibaldy

    But 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

  • Dave

    Garibaldy, 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?

  • Dave

    Garibaldy, 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.

  • Garibaldy

    Depends 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?

  • Dewi

    A 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.

  • Diluted Orange

    I 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.

  • George

    Dave,
    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?

  • sammaguire

    Garibaldy, 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.

  • sammaguire

    But 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.

  • Gregory

    If 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. “

  • Gregory

    “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.

  • Dave

    “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.

  • doctor

    “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.

  • Dave

    Doctor, 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.

  • Dave

    Doctor, 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.

  • doctor

    Let 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.

  • Gregory

    “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.

  • Gregory

    “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.