Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Tagged under: , ,

Some Form Of Resistance

Tony Mc Philips with his take on the legitimacy of partition.

Might I begin by stating that I am old school in that I believe that so long as there is a British occupation of any part of our national territory in whatever guise, (Stormont as an example), then history teaches us that there will always be some form of resistance to it, be that armed or political.

Having outlined my belief as above I should also expand on that by stating that I have come to the conclusion that armed actions, sporadic in nature, as they are at this moment in time, are in my opinion counter productive to attempts to rebuild a meaningful and relevant Irish Republican platform and that they only feed the prejudices of those who oppose Irish Republicanism. There has always periods in our history where armed insurrection against the occupying power have being both appropriate and necessary but the present circumstances dictate and indeed are conducive to building a political republican campaign to end British rule on the island and to seek to build an Ireland completely different than the one that we have now.

It is important to remember that what we have at the moment are two British imposed statelets, as of 1921, on this island, neither of which command real democratic legitimacy.

I outline all of the above as a premise to what I now have to say about questions on Brexit. I might initially state that as an Irish republican who believes in the sovereignty of a nation and its people I welcome the decision of any nation to remove themselves from what is nothing more than an undemocratic, bureaucratic, Franco/German power grab that seeks to build a United States of Europe where sovereign nations would no longer exist and where the people would have their lives dictated to by demagogues who are only interested in world domination to the detriment of a nation and its people.

The question of a hard border or soft border here in Ireland is in my opinion an irrelevance because the border imposed by partition in 1921 is still in existence and in all of this debate that is the "elephant in the room". I have outlined to you before that in terms of an effective and a strategic armed campaign to be resurrected here like in the past it requires a clearly identified catalysis as in the denial of Civil Rights in the late 60s or Bloody Sunday etc. Now some would suggest that the continued existence of British rule here is in itself a catalysis, however I don't believe that it is seen as a sufficient catalysis to engender what would be required to prosecute that effective and strategic armed campaign.

Having said all that, this is where it gets interesting, if the British sought to impose a more public manifestation of their occupation by the imposition of a visible militarised border on the island then I believe that this in itself could indeed be the catalyst required to embolden an armed republican campaign. Regarding your question as to whether there are people or groups capable of engaging in this, well you have only to look at our history for the answer to that.

In conclusion it is worth pointing out that when Britain and the Freestate joined what was then the EEC in 1973, they were joining a trading bloc, which is a far cry from what it has evolved into today. I am opposed to all forms of imperialism and unlike former republicans I am not seeking to replace British imperialism on our island with European imperialism.


Note: I am 54 year old I have being involved in the promotion of Irish republicanism from I was 18 years of age, in various ways. I was an independent republican councillor on FDC and I opposed the GFA in 1998, addressing public meetings and press conferences throughout Ireland on the matter. I subscribe to the ideals contained within "Eire Nua", presented by the late Ruairí Ó Bradáigh and the late Dáithí O Conaill as the way forward for our island.

Follow Tony Mc Philips on Twitter @dixie1916    

19 comments :

Wolfsbane said...

Tony is consistent with his ideals in deploring the EU agenda, unlike the other republicans moaning about Brexit.

I'm glad to be able to tell him that the UK has no intention of militarising the border - nor even hardening it. All the talk of that comes from the EU. I do hope Ireland does not implement a hard border at the EU's behest.

That leaves the paths to a UI a peaceful persuasion of the Prods, or outnumbering them and imposing it against their wishes. How either can play out against the background of attempts to establish a socialist republic is an interesting problem.

eurofree3 said...

"it is worth pointing out that when Britain and the Freestate joined what was then the EEC in 1973, they were joining a trading bloc, which is a far cry from what it has evolved into today".

Please be aware that you (and many other people) are mistaken on this point.

This type of affirmation is just brexit-type propaganda.

Please see
The 1957 Treaty of Rome, the founding Treaty of European Union, mentions that the following heads of European states

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
were
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,


https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

Steve R said...

Oh Wolfie,

If a UI is democratically voted for by the people of NI then bleating about it being forced upon them is hypocrisy!

You really don't think too much old bean, do you?

Niall said...

I'm a remainer. No-one has yet convinced me of otherwise by putting forward an argument as to why we should leave. THe British can't even explain it and as for Unionists, we just have to take Nelson McCausland's statement on why we should leave to realise that we should definitely stay!!!!!

Henry JoY said...

Tony

we evolved of herding animals ... its normal that some people have a greater drive to merge as part of a group than others. Its a given that there's a variable but innate need to merge ... and for some that's with a national or political identity.

Oftentimes members unquestionably swallow whole the beliefs, ideals and assumptions of the group. Occasionally over time that collectiveness comes to lack potency and alas descends into dysfunctionality before finally becoming obsolete.


" ... the Northern state is not the failed political entity. Republicanism is the failed political entity. The only thing that can bring about Irish unity is constitutional-nationalism which Republicanism was always opposed to."

Dr. Anthony McIntyre Interview on Radio Free Eireann , THE TRANSCRIPTS - Published 21/09/2017



If such a catalysis, as you hope for Tony, were to emerge and could in fact precipitate unification then that process will most definitely be managed and implemented by constitutionalists ... whilst 'old school Republicans' watch on from the ditch.

Wolfsbane said...

There are two nations in Northern Ireland, Steve. If you refuse to accept that, maybe you will concede there are at least two communities, the Planters and the Gaels. If all the Gaels come to outnumber the Planters and vote for a UI, that is forcing it upon the Planters.

Same principle was catered for by partition. The majority of each in Ireland got their bit. It did leave smaller minorities unhappy, but was the best of available solutions.

Or are you suggesting that the majority nation ought to take all? That if the Planters had brought many more over to Ireland and had outnumbered the Gaels, that Ireland should still have been British? No self-determination for the Gaels?

I'm for self-determination for every nation. If they choose to ally with other nations to make a group of nations/bigger nation (as with the UK), then that is up to them. If they choose to go their separate ways, that's fine too.


Steve R said...

Wolfie,

Democracy. Look it up.

Wolfsbane said...

Naill, when Ireland is required to abandon its neutrality and send its troops to Eastern Europe, maybe they will regret not leaving too. The EU is heading, by its own plan, towards a United States of Europe. Maybe most Irish people will like that, I don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, the UK should be re-thinking its NATO presence, never mind becoming a cog in a Fourth Reich.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve, so you hold that a minority in any nation-state has no right to self-determination. That the majority rules every time. I disagree most strongly.

I hold that the right to self-determination is complementary to democracy; and that a democracy that overrides the national rights of its minorities is a very poor democracy.

I hold it was the right of the Irish people to secede from the amalgamation of nations that was the UK of Great Britain and Ireland, even if a majority of the UK opposed that. It was a pity that Unionists did not from the beginning support that right and negotiate an agreed partition of the island on national/ethnic lines. As it turned out, partition was seen as a very poor compromise, imposed on the threat of force. Perhaps if it had emerged from a Unionist support of Irish secession it would have been better received.

Jews and Arabs, Kurds and Turks, in whatever form the self-determination problem arises, a winner-takes-all solution is not right.


Steve R said...

More waffle Wolfie.

To be absolutely crystal clear, if the people of Northern Ireland vote in a democratic manner to leave the Union with Great Britain then no amount of bullshit linguistic gymnastics about "two nations" is going to cut it.

If that hypothetical vote is ignored then it's not democracy but a dictatorship. You can foist as many straw-man arguments as you like but when it comes down to it, you either accept the principle of consent which is democracy, or ignore the will of the people.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve, your evasion of my questions says it all. Well, not all - I'm not sure whether you believe in self-determination for your chosen nation/s only, or you don't believe in self-determination at all.

Maybe you would clarify - is it the majority population of Turkey that has the right to determine the future of the Kurds or the majority of the Kurds themselves? Same for other nations within nations.

Wolfsbane said...

A question for any here who are still honest Republican Socialists:

If Ireland is united in by 2021 as a Socialist Republic, will you stay in the EU? If so, how can you square that political & economic regime with your beliefs?

Tony has given a logical answer - Irexit. What about the rest of you?

Steve R said...

What questions Wolfie? All I read was you attempting Strawman arguments on me? State them clearly next time.

And using other regions conflicts is deflection, pure and simple.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve, sorry if I was too vague. Here's my central question to you:

'Or are you suggesting that the majority nation ought to take all? That if the Planters had brought many more over to Ireland and had outnumbered the Gaels, that Ireland should still have been British? No self-determination for the Gaels?'

I went on to give specific examples:
'Maybe you would clarify - is it the majority population of Turkey that has the right to determine the future of the Kurds or the majority of the Kurds themselves? Same for other nations within nations.'

You then said, 'And using other regions conflicts is deflection, pure and simple.'

No, I'm just trying to see what your view of the right to self-determination is. Simple question.

But I take it from your reply that you go with the John Mitchel option - the principle of freedom for the Irish in Ireland does not apply to freedom for the negroes in America.



Steve R said...

Wolfie,

"'Or are you suggesting that the majority nation ought to take all?"

I support the strange notion that if the majority of the people of my country, Northern Ireland, vote via free and democratic means to leave the Union with Great Britain and join the other 26 counties then that vote should be respected. Are you saying you don't Wolfie?

"That if the Planters had brought many more over to Ireland and had outnumbered the Gaels, that Ireland should still have been British?"

Eh?

"No self-determination for the Gaels?"

If you are talking about "self-determination for the Gaels" Wolfie, you need to include the inhabitants of Western Scotland, the Isle of Man, and various settlements in Wales&Cornwall. Migration was never a one way street.

"'Maybe you would clarify - is it the majority population of Turkey that has the right to determine the future of the Kurds or the majority of the Kurds themselves? Same for other nations within nations.'"

I don't know enough about their situations Wolfie, and am not arrogant enough to cast judgement upon them either. I take it you must have extensive learning in the history of the region for at least the last few hundred years, yes?

"No, I'm just trying to see what your view of the right to self-determination is. Simple question."

See above. Very simple.

Invoking John Mitchel aye? How very contemporary of you. Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised given your colossal error of judgement on verifiable facts...like the Earth being only thousands of years old for one.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve said:

'[Or are you suggesting that the majority nation ought to take all?]
I support the strange notion that if the majority of the people of my country, Northern Ireland, vote via free and democratic means to leave the Union with Great Britain and join the other 26 counties then that vote should be respected. Are you saying you don't Wolfie?'

Yes, that vote should be respected. But the minority nation, in that case, would be entitled to secede from it and keep their bit. That is their right - but I doubt if a re-partitioned NI would be economically feasible. In that case, the minority should either throw in their lot with the new nation or leave.

'Eh?'

You appeal to numbers to establish national rights - so if we planters had brought over 5 million and today had a majority in all Ireland, would the Irish have no right to secede and have their own nation-state?

[No self-determination for the Gaels?]
If you are talking about "self-determination for the Gaels" Wolfie, you need to include the inhabitants of Western Scotland, the Isle of Man, and various settlements in Wales&Cornwall. Migration was never a one way street.'

No, I'm using 'the Gael' in the normal sense used by Irish Nationalists/Republicans - to denote the native Irish as distinct from the Ulster Scots/English Planters.

So, do you believe the native Irish would have had the right to self-determination even if the Planters came to outnumber them?

'[Maybe you would clarify - is it the majority population of Turkey that has the right to determine the future of the Kurds or the majority of the Kurds themselves? Same for other nations within nations.]
I don't know enough about their situations Wolfie, and am not arrogant enough to cast judgement upon them either. I take it you must have extensive learning in the history of the region for at least the last few hundred years, yes?'

No, but enough to recognize them as distinct nations. Even Gerry and his gang supported the Basques in their struggle for self-determination. And the Tamils in Sri Lanka - imagine that, supporting a partitioned island! And of course, he supported the right of the Welsh and Scots to partition the island of Britain! Oh, well - I'll not blame you for his hypocrisy.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve said:
'Invoking John Mitchel aye? How very contemporary of you. Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised given your colossal error of judgement on verifiable facts...like the Earth being only thousands of years old for one.'

So no comment on Mitchel's principle, just a hand-wave to my beliefs about forensic science?

OK, I understand why you wish to evade the Mitchel issue. So I'll answer your comment on 'verifiable facts'. You should know that forensic science - science dealing with past, unobserved events, is not the same as observational science - the science that tests theories by repeating the processes and observing the outcomes. Where if it isn't repeatable, it isn't science.

Forensic science is valuable, but it is not certain. It offers possible explanations for what we see today - it cannot say for sure that those explanations are correct. The processes giving rise to, for example, a massive block of many sedimentary layers may be different than we observe happening today in any place. The rate of deposition may be faster, slower or the same as we observe and measure today. The time taken for water to cut through a meter of the layer will correspond to the amount of water and the thrusts acting on the layers at the time it happened. Canyons can be cut and multi-layered depositions laid in a few days, or it may take many years.

An example: we see marine fossils even at the tops of the Himalayas. All the world was once underwater. The Creationist says that happened at the Flood, when it covered the Earth and the layers were later uplifted to their present height; The Evolutionist says it happened to each bit over deep time as the sea floors were uplifted to become mountains. Neither explanation is 'verifiable science'.

Steve R said...

The bastard about Science Wolfie, is that it doesn't give two shits about your "Beliefs" regarding its veracity. Experience tells me there's no point trying to reason with you on this, your belief in magic is stronger than your belief in science. What a wonderful world you must live in.

However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and you raise an interesting point.

If after a hypothetical UI there then was a separatist movement, would we be compelled to endorse it? Where do we stop? As interesting as hypothetical's are, going ad nauseum in their pursuit is folly when there are far more practical things to think about first.

Wolfsbane said...

Steve, I agree that one must work on the practical rather than every hypothetical problem. But beware seeing our own preferences as the practical and those we don't like as merely hypothetical. One could end up a total exceptionalist, having no principles except those that suit us.