Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Irish Republicanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish Republicanism. Show all posts
Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ There is no homogenous brand of Irish Republicanism, despite what each individual group may wish people to believe.

Each of the many organisations, from Fianna Fail – ridiculous as that may sound – to the once revolutionary Sinn Fein Provisional. Even though this title was dropped back in 1990 I shall use it to differentiate from the still revolutionary Republican Sinn Fein reportedly linked to the “Continuity IRA”. We then have comparatively recently formed groups like Saoradh, believed to have close links with an organisation styling itself the “New IRA” and many more smaller splinter groups which have come about, with the exception of RSF, since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. We then have the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, probably the only group which stands by, at least on paper, the five basic tenets of Irish Republicanism. All the groups, as I see it, including Fianna Fail qualify for at least one tenet, despite what they might claim to be. Let us now look, in brief, at the five tenets of Irish Republicanism. These do not exhaust the ideological principles because from these trunks spring many sub-tenets or branches.

Nationalism

This is perhaps the most ambiguous tenet of Irish Republicanism. James Connolly once implied the Irish socialist and Irish nationalist are not necessarily “antagonistic” towards each other. We must remember Connolly was writing before the rise of aggressive nationalism epitomised in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during the 1920s and 30s. He saw the two, ordinarily antagonistic strands, as complementary to each other in the case of Ireland due to the fact it was/is the working-class who are the greatest patriots. This assertion was in evidence back in 2008, ninety-two years after Connolly’s death, when it was the working-class who (foolishly) took pay cuts and pay freezes, in “the national interests,” to help the capitalist class out of their economic hole they had dug themselves.

Nationalism today has many dangerous connotations, and has had since the days mentioned above in the 20s and 30s. Today chauvinistic nationalist movements around the globe are springing up, many like Combat 18 (named such after the first and eighth letter of the alphabet, A H – Adolph Hitler) are openly Nazi as are the AfD – Alternative for Deutschland – a far-right party in Germany. These are the dangers of nationalism in today’s world, unlike the time of James Connolly whose arguments, used properly as they were meant, are as relevant today as they were then. The nationalism of Nazi Germany – Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer (one land, one people, one leader) is not the nationalism of Irish Republicanism or any strands within. It should be warned and because of these connotations such a form of nationalism could evolve out of this nationalist tenet if not unchecked. Lines become increasingly blurred and it is easy for the far-right to infiltrate under the guise of nationalism. 

Perhaps it is time to rename the nationalist tenet what it really is, national liberation as opposed to just “nationalism”. National Liberation is aimed, as the name suggests, at freeing Ireland completely of British military and governmental rule. For thirty years in the North of Ireland, Sinn Fein gave political expression to the IRA towards this end. Today they are a constitutional party, sitting on the left-wing of parliamentary politics and no longer advocate the armed struggle.

Republican Sinn Fein still believe in the armed struggle to achieve national liberation in Ireland, or, perhaps more accurately, they still give political support to the actions of the Continuity IRA. The organisation split from Provisional Sinn Fein at the 1986 Ard Fheis over the latter’s decision to end abstentionism into the twenty-six county Dail.

Non-Sectarianism

In Ireland today, particularly, though not exclusively, within elements of the unionist and loyalist populations there exists an evil strand called sectarianism. One principle of Irish Republicanism, which all parties would sign up to is that this is wrong. James Conolly branded anti-Semitism and sectarianism as two of the same evils and opposed both vehemently. Sectarianism divides the Irish people, those who allow or wish it to, on religious denominational lines, Protestant versus Catholic and offers national liberation nothing. This is why perhaps those in the loyalist paramilitaries hold sectarianism so dearly to their vicious hearts to oppose such liberation and certainly Irish unification. Irish Republicanism places combatting sectarianism high on its agenda and stands by the principles of the 18th century Protestant Irish revolutionary, Theobald Wolfe Tone, who led the United Irishmen during the 1798 rebellion. What sticks in the gut of many ultra-loyalists is that Tone and many of the leadership of the United Irishmen were Protestants and Presbyterians (Dissenters) whose aim was to unite “Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter” under the banner of Irishmen.

Sectarianism may be rife in areas of the six-counties today and, to a far lesser extent in pockets of the twenty-six counties as anti-protestant attitudes exist, but not within Irish Republicanism. It is one of the aims of republicanism to remove this stain from Ireland.

Secularism

Secularism is another of the five major tenets making up Irish Republican ideology. Secularism compliments anti-sectarianism in so far as it opposes all forms of discrimination against any religion and denomination thereof. Secularism also advocates separation of church and state while at the same time advocating freedom of religion and religious practice. No religion, no matter what, should be allowed to interfere with the mechanisms of the state, whatever that state may look like or in the case of socialism, no state as such.

Until recently the 26 county Irish Free State has been dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. This state of affairs could not continue and in modern more enlightened times this influence has been eroded enormously. It was understandable at one point the unionist and loyalist fears of this influence which they used as an argument against Irish unification. However, this argument no longer exists as the twenty-six counties are now a multi-religious state which includes, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, as well as the traditional major Christian denominations. So strong was the influence of the Catholic Church in the twenty-six counties that James Craig, the first Prime Minister of “Northern Ireland” once boasted, for all the wrong reason and using the church as an excuse, “a Protestant Parliament, for a Protestant people”. This in itself, no matter what his reasons were, was a sectarian statement, one which hard line unionists and loyalists still prefer today. These people hate Roman Catholics, their church and style of worship, in much the same way as Hitler hated Jewish people. James Connolly spotted the similarities between sectarianism and anti-Semitism long before the emergence of the Third Reich, once again being ahead of his time by three decades.

Separatism

Perhaps this tenet holds most historical connections, dating back to the United Irishmen of the late eighteenth century whose aim was to break the connection with England (by that time Britain) and form an independent Irish Republic. The separation, or divorce, from Britain has been and still is a major aim of republicanism. It is central to its existence, which makes a little bit of a mockery sending Arthur Griffith, who was a dual monarchist, to the treaty negotiations for an Irish Republic in 1921. Griffith believed in the dual monarchy approach based on the Austro/Hungarian model of pre-First World War.

It is a historical fact that the policies of various English, then British, administrations have been a major cause of Irelands ills. The great hunger of 1845-51 known as the Famine, which strictly speaking it was not as other foods apart from the potato were present, was very much down to policies for Ireland enacted in Westminster. The potato blight was not sent by Britain but it was exploited by them almost to the point and arguably beyond this nadir, of genocide in Ireland. They did not bring the blight, but they were responsible for the famine! They were responsible for turning the hunger into a famine by exporting most other food stuffs out of Ireland. 

Another aspect of British policy detrimental to Ireland, and during the hunger which exasperated the situation, was the Encumbered Estate Acts of 1848 leading to the Encumbered Estates Courts of 1849. These acts, enforced by the courts evicted many destitute and starving peasants living on the land, as the owners, new and old, tuned their lands over to grazing. The Act did nothing to better the lot of the Irish peasant - in fact it achieved the opposite. “Tenants were evicted in large numbers and their homes demolished” as these starving wretches who owned little to nothing in the way of material possessions were basically put out to die or, at best, emigrate. The ‘Encumbered Estate Acts were the product of the British law makers for Ireland.

Today we see a living testament to British policy in Ireland, dating back to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, partition. This division of the island of Ireland has failed, certainly in the six counties as the result of Brexit proves as it begins to bite. Despite the fact most people in the occupied six counties voted to remain within the European Union back in 2016, the powers that be, totally ignoring the supposed “Northern Ireland” Government, the Stormont Assembly, in Westminster are still taking these unwilling same people out of the EU.

These, among many others, are the reasons for separatism being one of the major tenets of Irish Republicanism. An Ireland free of British interference and 32 counties, not 26, would prosper as the United Kingdom itself begins, it appears, to disintegrate.

Socialism

Socialism in Ireland has a past which pre-dates Karl Marx, often credited as being the “father” of socialism and communism. William Thompson (1775-1833) was an Irish political and philosophical writer and social reformer. He was a critic of capitalist exploitation and was influenced greatly by the ideologies of cooperatives and trade unionism. Thompson came from County Cork and recognised the flaws within capitalism and the exploitation of the many by the few which was/is central to capitalist production. James Connolly, a Marxist himself, described Thompson as “the first Irish socialist and a forerunner of Marx.”

Socialism is an international concept though various countries have their own methodology to bring it about and what form of governance it should take. Various countries material conditions differ, for example the largely peasant environment of Russia at the time of the revolution could not be transported to industrial Germany. This was something Lenin advised Rossa Luxemburg about when socialist revolution in Germany, after the First World War ended, looked a distinct possibility.

Perhaps the best-known socialist, though certainly not the only one, in Ireland was James Connolly. Connolly took a leading role in the Easter Rising of 1916 leading the Irish Citizen Army, formed some years earlier as a worker’s defence force, along-side the Irish Volunteers to fight the British forces. Connolly recognised that huge differences were present politically and economically between the two sets of Irish combatants. Before the rising he told the ICA; ”in the event of victory hold on to your rifles”, meaning that the day may well come when the once allies would have to fight each other over what kind of Ireland, socialist or capitalist, would be better. Connolly firmly believed in the common ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange under democratic worker’s control. This differed greatly from mere nationalisation of said means of production, which would still have unelected bosses and exploitation of the workers at the point of production albeit on a lesser scale to private industry. What would be the point of replacing one set of exploiters with another? At the time Connolly and Marx before him were writing capitalism was very much localised. Today it has stolen the socialists clothing of “internationalism” and operates internationally. An employer in Dublin could well be the same employer and exploiter of workers in Manchester, Paris, New York and countless other locations.

Perhaps the republican organisation mostly associated with this tenet is the Irish Republican Socialist Movement. Sinn Fein (Provisional) once advocated, at least publicly, a “32 county democratic socialist republic” a concept very rarely if ever mentioned by that organisation today, if they were ever serious about this ideology? I always had my doubts. The statement of James Connolly you can remove the English Army from Ireland tomorrow, raise the green flag over Dublin Castle and paint your letter boxes green, unless you organise the republic on socialist lines your efforts will have been in vain is as relevant today as it was back then. 

The Irish Republican Socialist Movement’s military wing is the Irish National Liberation Army, the emphasis here being on “national liberation” as opposed to plain nationalism. The organisations political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party go by the motto; “national liberation and socialism” which unites the two tenets of nationalism (liberation) and socialism, common ownership of the means of production etc, etc. Under socialism the state as we know it will cease to exist. Under socialism, states, territories, or provinces will exist only as “geographical expressions” and, for those who need it, identity. These will have no existence as sources of governmental power:

though they may be seats of administrative bodies. In short, it blends the fullest democratic control with the most absolute expert supervision, something unthinkable of any society built upon the political state (The Axe to the Root 1914: James Conolly P19).

In Ireland today of the parties who claim the republican mantle, which one, if any, comply to these five major tenets? Fianna Fail, who still call themselves “The Republican Party” are not serious contenders. On Nationalism they are certainly not supporters of national liberation, hence their weak stance over the occupied six-counties. Nobody could accuse them of sectarianism therefore they do match the non-sectarian principle of Irish Republicanism. They are still weak on secularism, though not as bad as they once were when de Valera was kissing the hand of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. Fianna Fail still have a long way to go on this one! They are also weak on separatism particularly, again, regarding the six-counties. They still accept British jurisdiction on part of this island. Fianna Fail are certainly not a socialist party, with the wildest imagination and agile mind there is no way the party fit this bill! In fairness they do not pretend to. Fianna Fail in reality only qualify for one of the five tenets, non-sectarianism. Maybe they should drop the pretence of being “The Republican Party” because they clearly are not!!

Sinn Fein as mentioned once advocated a 32-county democratic socialist republic. This has long been forgotten since they joined the capitalist club of candidates to govern the free-market capitalist economy. To quote Karl Marx, echoed by James Connolly, governments are mere “committees to govern the affairs of the entire bourgeoisie”. Sinn Fein today wish to be the incumbent committee. I have yet to hear their finance spokesperson, Pearse Docherty, mention the nationalisation of the banks under workers democratic control, or the party talk of the common ownership of the means of production. Sinn Fein today, certainly in the 26-counties, are more of a slightly left-wing alternative to the status quo. It should be remembered that left and right wing are parliamentary terms dating back to the French bourgeois revolution, they are not revolutionary today.

Republican Sinn Fein qualify on the national liberation ticket, that is unquestionable as they do not accept any sobs to the British (or Irish) states. On secularism they are questionable as many of their members are devoutly Roman Catholic. Would RSF accept a secular state? Perhaps not though whether they would violently oppose it is doubtful. RSF would claim to oppose all forms of sectarianism but given the religious devoutness of some members could they deliver on this? Perhaps only they can answer this question, because that is all these are, questions.

The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, at least on paper, are perhaps the only republican movement which qualifies for all five major tenets. They are clear that nationalism means “National Liberation”, not the chauvinistic variant practised by various fascist groups around the globe and are on the rise in Ireland today. No republican organisation, including Fianna Fail, in Ireland practices this abhorrent variant of nationalism. The IRSM link the national liberation struggle to that of socialism thus fulfilling the two tenets. The movement are clearly non-sectarian and oppose sectarianism vehemently. Many Protestants have filled the ranks of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, including their military wing. 

On separatism, again the movement come out with flying colours pointing out that a major barrier to socialism is the British presence in the six-counties. That same presence fosters sectarianism within certain strands of unionism and loyalism. If any of the tenets the republican Socialist Movement are a little weak on it may be secularism. Though not overtly supporters of any religious denomination they do adhere to church rules and authority at times of their funerals. INLA volunteers do tend to be taken into church and, if the Priest requests or demands, the starry plough flag, beret and gloves are removed from the coffin. Such actions could be seen as a sop to the Catholic Church and should not be adhered to irrespective of the Priest's demands.

Are these five trunk tenets relevant to Irish Republicanism today? Yes, more so than ever especially with the rise of the far-right in recent weeks, months and years. Perhaps there is a new role for the once combatants and that may be organising structured opposition to these fascist gangs who must be stopped. “No pasaran” (they shall not pass) perhaps should be added to the vocabulary of statements in today’s Irish Republicanism.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

The Five Major Tenets of Irish Republicanism

Dr John Coulter ✍ so-called dissident republicans who disagree with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the peace process need to recognise the concept of ‘armed struggle’ is well past its sell-buy date and only democratic politics can further the aspirations of the dissident republican movement.

Dissident republicans are not stuck historically in 1916 and the failed Easter Rising; they are stuck in 1956 and the failed Border Campaign which began that year and eventually fizzled out in 1962.

Four years ago in 2019, I penned an article emphasising the futility of ‘armed struggle’ by dissident republicans.

The Official republican movement realised the futility of terrorism in 1972 when the Official IRA called a ceasefire. Nine years later in 1981, the Provisional republican movement realised the advantages of the ballot box when hunger strikers won seats in the Dail and Westminster, especially the victories of Maze PIRA OC Bobby Sands and his election agent Owen Carron in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone Commons by-elections.

As a young cub BBC Radio Ulster freelance, I covered Carron’s victory. Could you imagine what his reaction would have been if I’d told him that one day the Provisional republican movement’s former Derry IRA commander Martin McGuinness would operate a successful partitionist power-sharing parliament at Stormont with DUP boss Rev Ian Paisley!

Or, that opinion polls would indicate that the Provisional republican movement’s political mouthpiece, Sinn Fein, would be odds-on to form a coalition government in the next Dail General Election in the Irish Republic, let alone Sinn Fein TDs taking their seats in the Dail!

But Sinn Fein has worked the ballot box to its advantage to the point where in Northern Ireland, with the exception of a couple of constituencies, it is electorally eclipsing the moderate nationalist SDLP in the same way the SDLP eclipsed the old Irish Nationalist Party from the original Stormont Parliament which was prorogued in 1972.

After the Provo ceasefires of the 1990s in the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, republicans who vehemently disagreed with the Sinn Fein peace strategy formed a series of terror gangs and political wings.

In those years, we have seen the New IRA, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and Oglaigh na Eireann (ONH) to name but a few of the splinter groups. Their reasoning for so many groups was to try and make it more difficult for the intelligence community to infiltrate their ranks.

But as the security forces on both sides of the Irish border have demonstrated, surveillance techniques have developed to such a capacity that infiltration of the dissident movement has become almost second nature and dissident terror leaders are having to try and rely on new, young republicans for whom people such as Martin McGuinness and Rev Ian Paisley are now merely names in their history books.

For a start, dissident republicans will have to rebrand themselves. Just as Provisional Sinn Fein abandoned the ‘ballot box and Armalite’ tactic in favour of the ‘ballot box and honours degree’, so dissident republicans will have to create a new identity for themselves as the Alternative Republican Movement - but with no violence!

Two decades ago in 2003, there was some hope so-called dissident republicans might adopt this path when during the Northern Ireland Assembly election of that year, a number of republicans entered the fray under the banner of Concerned Republicans.

That was the election in which Sinn Fein overtook the SDLP as the leading voice for nationalism, and Concerned Republicans failed to win any seats.

Rather than focusing on an ill-fated terror campaign, those republicans who do not agree with the Sinn Fein peace strategy should bond together and form a new alternative and united republican party capable of giving Sinn Fein a run for its money in future elections.

Then again, does the old jibe come to mind - that when a new republican group is formed, the first item on the agenda is ‘the split’! This brings to mind the comic scenes from the 1979 Monty Python blockbuster film, The Life of Brian, featuring the Judean People’s Front, the People’s Front of Judea, and the Popular Front of Judea!

With each of the dissident republican terror gangs having a so-called political wing, could a combined new Alternative Republican Party be a non-starter as each of these political groups would claim to be the true political descendants of the 1916 Rising, or even the United Irishmen of 1798.

What would really throw a spanner in Sinn Fein’s works would be if any new Alternative Republican Party opted to take its ‘fight’ right to the very heart of the British Establishment by taking its seats at Westminster. Look at the impact which the then Bernadette Devlin had when she took her Mid Ulster Commons seat as a Unity candidate in the late 1960s. If the Scottish National Party and the Welsh nationalists as well as republicans within the Labour Party can take their Commons seats, then imagine the impact an Alternative Republican Party could have especially after the next Westminster General Election if either Labour or the Tories have only a wafter-thin majority?

Just as former Tory PM Theresa May needed a ‘confidence and supply arrangement’ with the DUP to keep her administration in power, could Labour boss Sir Keir Starmer need a couple of Alternative Republican Party MPs to hand him the keys to 10 Downing Street? Where would that leave Sinn Fein’s strict abstentionist policy?

With the cost of living crisis biting hard and so much being decided at Westminster because of a lack of a Stormont power-sharing Executive, each vote in the House of Commons will be vital in the coming months of 2023.

Put bluntly, given the importance of such votes, Sinn Fein MPs are meaningless at Westminster no matter how much they might chuckle on about influence in the corridors of power! Makes you wonder that one of the main reasons the SDLP still have Commons seats in Foyle and South Belfast is because its MPs take their seats?

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Time For A New United Dissident Republican Party

Charlie Kerr ♮ It is safe to say that the tradition of Irish Republican - or rebel - folk music is a long time dead, being flogged by a collection of opportunists and self-seekers who have recognised the potential in the nostalgia and romanticism of a dying dialectic. 

Extortionists exploit this market using limited musical skill to execute torturous versions of songs long since played out and now lacking in any substance or meaning. With no longevity in a very niche market, the real victim of this vagabondery will, undoubtedly, be the music and the songs, certainly not the bar trade or the unprincipled. The sheer fact that on any given night the Republican favourites will be rattled out several times, each one less meaningful than the last, highlights the finite staying power that these songs have outside of an ever decreasing circle, stagnant as life moves on without it.

To start, it would be inappropriate to label these usurpers as “artists” or “musicians”. Terms such as these should be left to those who study their music and evolve their skills and who can produce a performance. These Musical imposters masquerading as Republicans and hiding behind three chords and a few notes in their head have quite clearly found a niche market open for exploitation. Those who still attend “Rebel” evenings do so to drink heavily, loose talk, and belt out a party piece like “Boys of the Old Brigade” or “Grace”, which is their song, undoubtedly. Musical talent and skill would be wasted in such an environment, and more often than not, streaming a Youtube playlist would be both a cheaper and preferable option if not just economically. As well as that, the pub-goers associate the musicians with memories of a great evening as opposed to remembering them for their musical ability, although in the case of a few of these Musical Imposters, that’s probably for the best.

What has become cliché now amongst this cadre is to whack the Gaeilge on their name. People without a word of the language feel it appropriate to exploit not only the Republican tradition, but also the Gaeilge tradition. As they slowly murder all cultural facets of the Republican dialectic, they understand the attraction that the “uniqueness” of a name “As Gaeilge” gives a “talent” amidst the soaring levels of Irish language growth among the children of former Irish Republican activists. Being the populists that they are, they recognise the benefit of appearing as “so Irish my name is in Irish” while they speak in English, promote the forwarding of our culture and history through a foreign language and charge exorbitant amounts of the Queen’s pound to sing songs about Revolution against the very state of which she is head. That being said, it would be remiss to avoid the conclusion that “Stiofán” has a better ring to it than “Big Stevie from the flats”.

The truth of the matter is that the level of exploitation currently ongoing will ultimately lead to the destruction of the cultural form of expression, but is that a bad thing? We all love a rebel song and we are naturally a rebellious people. We love the history of revolution here on the part of our proud people. However, a cultural expression that does not evolve will die. The epitome of this comes through the traditional Irish form of music, which has had no problem adapting and evolving, taking in other cultural expressions to continue its development. 

Republican culture is now destined to follow the path of the Orange Order, although they are two explicitly different cultural realms. The development they share is the lack thereof, moreover the stagnation of both cultural identities. Both are currently stuck in a time bubble of the late eighties and early nineties when both reached a pinnacle, and neither can escape. The numbers drawn in culturally will naturally decline and the cultural identities will gradually become subsections of other cultural identities before dwindling out, mainly because neither is the natural cultural expression of either national identity.

The biggest problem that Republicanism faces is the fact that it has been replaced by the Irish language as the current mass movement in the North, one which has universal appeal across the island, and is growing concurrently. This development would be worth studying more thoroughly but in the context of this analysis, the shift from revolution armed with weapons to revolution armed with words has been gradual and took a generation. As such, the Gaeltacht has replaced the Jailtacht as the Republican University and the struggle has evolved. From The Boys of Wexford, to Sean South, to the Loughgall Martyrs, the tradition has always had reasons to write new songs, creative expression of the grief and sorrow felt, capturing the revolutionary ethos of the era in word. Singers now either regurgitate the same songs, or write absolute meaningless guff, because there is a lack of subject matter. 

In comparison to the geopolitical work of Ciaran Murphy (long since retired) in the 00’s, we now have Damien Quinn writing songs about his residencies. The last of the real revolutionary song writers, Pól MacAdaim, has long since peaked in terms of popularity, nowhere near the current scene. Instead, singers are more worried about creating merchandise to bolster their revolutionary image as opposed to creating revolutionary imagery to bolster the Republican dialectic.

Whilst some Republicans wish to cling on to the musical days of yesteryear, it will not be a startling revelation that the vast majority have very little time for the Rebel folk scene in Ireland. The current crop is woefully inept and focussed on their careers leaving listeners longing for the days of the Barleycorn, the Flying Column and even Eire Óg. Ireland may well long to be free, but not just physically. Spiritually and culturally we long to be free, but whilst we are culturally tied to appeasing the “Glasgow Celtic” Irish, there is no development and there is marginalisation of the dialectic. 

The days when proper singers like “Geek” Ó Halloran or Terry Ó Neill would play for a pittance to support the cause are long gone. The ex-POW’s have been replaced by the upwardly mobile, entrepreneurial young go-getters in the chambers of parliament, the coistí of Republican organisations and on the stage singing Republican songs and it “makes me sick, Motherfucker, how far we done fell”.

⏩Charlie Kerr Hails from Derry's Bogside.

The Day The Music Died

Irish Politics Forum  Brendan Flynn Interviews 
Dr. Marisa McGlinchey, winner of the 2020 Brian Farrell PSAI “Best Book” Prize for 2020.
 
Dr. Marisa McGlinchey, is the author of Unfinished Business: The ‘Politics’ Of ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism, Manchester: MUP. (2019) ISBN 978 0 7190 9698 3. She is based at the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University. 

Her research interest lies in Irish politics with a focus on ‘dissident’ Irish republicanism and constitutional nationalism, with her most recent work published by Manchester University Press and the Swiss Political Science Review. Since publication of Unfinished Business she has provided expert commentary in various broadcast and print media outlets including the BBC, UTV, RTE, Al Jazeera and Spotlight. 

 

BF: Hello Marisa, congrats on winning the Brian Farrell Book Prize, I hope it was some nice news for you and your family amidst all of this Covid doom and gloom?

MM: Thanks Brendan. I’m absolutely delighted! It was wonderful news to get and it has been really nice celebrating something so positive amidst all the doom and gloom. A big thank you to the judges! 

BF:  Marisa, tell us about the origins of the book-why did you write it, what was the academic background to the book as it were?

MM: I did my PhD at Queen’s University Belfast on the electoral decline of the SDLP in the post Good Friday period and I’m currently working on turning that into a book for Manchester University Press. I’m enjoying updating that and conducting more interviews for it. But I had always intended my first book to be on the topic of so-called ‘dissident’ Irish republicanism. I grew up in West Belfast, a political hotbed of republican activity and as I got older I became more and more aware of republicans who were critical of Sinn Féin or the wider Provisional Movement and my intellectual curiosity grew about what I saw developing around me and these former comrades who became so bitterly divided. I wanted to conduct an academically rigorous piece of research on radical / traditional republicanism; an in-depth study of who so-called ‘dissidents’ are and what motivates them. For me it was important to go out and interview republicans throughout Ireland to really delve into the psyche of ‘dissident’ republicanism and understand it and so I began travelling around Ireland and meeting with people and identifying interviewees and it grew from there.

BF: I wonder could you tell us about how you wrote the book, the research design, because it seems to me a real strong point of the design was the focus on interviews-you got extensive access to a lot of diverse Republican views and you did 90 interviews-how on earth did you manage that?

MM: Yes I think a key strength of this work is the interviews contained throughout. The research took several years as so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism is a diverse base comprising of different organisations and independents and so it took some time to accurately capture that. I conducted 90 interviews and in-fact I had to stop at 90 to get the book written. More potential interviewees continued to come forward. After the Boston College project there was a lot of speculation that a project like this couldn’t be done but I found republicans very willing to talk and to put their position forward. I also followed some valuable advice to never allow any interviewee to disclose anything illegal about themselves or anyone else. I started every interview asking interviewees not to disclose anything of that nature and I think that helped establish trust. It was really important to me to gather those voices and present their views in their own words throughout the book which really brings the work to life. I approached various republican organisations and individuals and I attended various Easter commemorations and events throughout Ireland. In fact the book cover is a photo which I took at a Republican Sinn Féin commemoration outside the GPO in Dublin in 2016.

The more I travelled around and attended various events the more potential interviewees I met and it snowballed from there. There is a tendency to talk about ‘dissident’ republicanism as simply a Northern phenomenon which of course is inaccurate and so it was important to get a good geographical spread of interviewees as well as gender, age and individuals at different levels within organisations from leadership to grass roots. I interviewed individuals from different generations with the youngest being a 19 year old Na Fianna member in Dublin and the eldest was 93 year old Billy McKee in Belfast who had been imprisoned in every decade between the 1930s and 1970s. Other interviewees include Phil O’ Donoghue who was on the Brookeborough raid with Seán South in 1957. I also interviewed a significant base of independent republicans as well as those involved in armed groups, which naturally were the most difficult and sensitive to arrange. I asked spokespersons for armed groups what they hoped to achieve, as well as where they take legitimacy from. Further, I asked (given altered structural conditions within the North) do they feel any present campaign is morally sound. Their views on those issues are presented in their own words.

I also interviewed some republican prisoners in Maghaberry prison regarding their ideology and motivations which was also an important part of the work. Their families kindly gave up their visits to me so that I could go into the prison and conduct my interviews. I wanted to move beyond simple stereotypes to really understand ‘dissident’ republicanism and I believe the best way to gain insight and understanding is to speak to the people involved. The interviews revealed ideologically held positions fused with very personal testimonies. This work has effectively created a valuable oral history of a particular point in time and some of those interviewed had never given an interview to anyone else, some of whom have since died. The book presents those voices throughout whilst also drawing on the historical tradition of republicanism; and locates so-called ‘dissident’ republicanism within that longer trajectory.
 
BF:. You write in the conclusion: 

Presently, radical republicanism can be characterised by a high level of individual movement between organisations, which is not conducive to the establishment and sustainable development of radical groups.

Do you think ‘radical republicanism is doomed to remain factionalized and on the political margins, or what future trajectory do you see?

Radical (or traditional) republicanism has witnessed a high level of movement between the groups with some individuals having been a member of several groups, sometimes fuelling suspicion in a world that is ever guarded about potential infiltration by the security services. Over the years there have been some calls for the base to come together so that some collective strength can be drawn from that. But it is unlikely that will happen as the organisations have distinct identities with clear tactical water between them, often arising from the different conditions in which the organisations emerged. As well as the organisations there is also a significant base of independent republicans such as Tommy McKearney, Gerard Hodgins, Richard O’ Rawe, Anthony McIntyre and others. And so, when people talk about so-called ‘dissident’ republicans they tend to focus on the groups or more specifically the armed groups. But there is a much wider base there including a spectrum of views within, ranging from those who profess complete support for current armed actions through to those who are very vocal and vociferous in their condemnation. It is highly likely to continue in that manner rather than any coming together of the base, beyond loosely working together around prisoners’ issues. While united in traditional republican objectives groups remain tactically diverse.

Radical republicans fundamentally reject both the Northern and Southern states created out of partition, as well as their associated structures and so by their very nature they will remain on the margins. In fact radical/traditional republicanism continuously cautions against any actions which would draw them into the system and in their view put them on the ‘slippery slope to constitutional nationalism’.

MM: Finally, you mention how Brexit has created opportunities for radical republicanism as regards their political and ideological mobilization, but has Covid-19 have had any similar impacts?

MM: I don’t see any impact of Covid-19 on radical republicanism. Any politically or economically destabilizing event will always be assessed for possible opportunities but to date I haven’t seen any impact of Covid-19 on the trajectory of republicanism. Technically Brexit does not alter anything for traditional republicanism. But what it has done is put the issue of the border in Ireland back into the mainstream in a way in which it hasn’t been in recent years. Spokespersons for republican groups have called it a much needed shot in the arm for Irish republicanism and have stated that it serves as a reminder to those who may need it that Ireland is still partitioned. One republican is quoted as describing Brexit as the biggest chance republicans have had since 1916. Brexit resulted in renewed international attention on the border, focusing on republican groups, and drew news crews and documentary makers from around the world. When asked about the impact of Brexit a member of one of the groups in Derry said to a news crew ‘well that’s why you’re here interviewing me and listening to our position’.

Republicans will always seize an opportunity that presents itself and Brexit was one such opportunity. Republicans will be aware that some within the North may now be asking whether they would be better off in a united Ireland within the EU rather than remaining in the UK on the outside. Republicans are also keenly watching developments in Scotland and the possibility of a second independence referendum in future. For some, Brexit has raised the old mantra - ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’.

⏭ Irish Politics Forum is the blog of the Irish Political Studies / The PSAI. 

Brian Farrell Book Prize Awarded To Marisa McGlinchey

Gowain Reid Patrick McKenna discusses Irish republicanism. 

Road To No Town

Part One: Preamble

Firstly, this piece is not written to undermine or question any existing ideological standpoints. The content herein adheres to the historical ideals of Irish Republicanism in all its forms, albeit this is an admixture of those ideals that are best suited as to be relevant to modern day Ireland and the complex political environment we now find ourselves in.

Secondly this piece is for all people of Ireland no matter what religion, colour or beliefs therein held; for those are personal issues that should bear no relevance on the task at hand: to free our people from the oppression of British interference and imperialism!

Finally, this would not have been possible without many discussions with comrades and intellectuals over the last 10 years or so, and although it may not have seemed like it I do in fact listen with great intent. My task was to put such ideas together in such a way that made the most sense to me and hopefully to you the reader, the Irish people. So let us begin.


Part Two: Past struggles - history repeating itself, so what is failing us?

The old adage “Ireland unfree shall never be at peace” rings true, but we cannot be at war forever and risk the future of our sons and daughters on a continual basis. There has to be a solution, one last collective push.

Without going into intricate details I wish to use the following few examples as a basis to explain as to why history in Ireland, and perhaps all over the world, has a tendency to repeat itself. Such cyclic changes only fall into the hands of imperialism, who are well versed to this longstanding pattern by now. So how can we help break this pattern together?

Example 1:

In the 15th Century it was prophesied that Red Hugh O’Donnell, this great son of Ireland, along with sons of the O’Neill clan were the greatest threat to British interference in Ireland, and indeed they successfully brought British influence to its knees on more than one occasion. However such battle lines were religiously based, and all romanticism cast aside such efforts failed, and under such a premise will continue to do so.

Example 2:

Fast forward to the late 18th Century and Wolfetone and Henry Joy McCracken, amongst other notable leaders, influenced by the success of the French Revolution, helped to unite ‘Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter’ under the battle cry ‘Death or Liberty.’ Across the country many uprisings and battles were successful, and indeed I am of the view that this may have been the closest we have come to ridding Ireland of British oppression. This is because of the ‘United Front’ approach adopted by the leaders and the fact that so many at the time could relate deeply to the oppression from wealthy landlords and other covert manipulation tactics. This was a class war, and that made it powerfully effective. However, all romanticism cast aside such efforts failed.

Example 3:

In 1803, the charismatic and flamboyant Robert Emmet attempted an uprising, it was doomed to failure from the start yet nonetheless spectacular in it’s romanticism and inspiration for future generations. Emmet was martyred and his speech at the dock left a great impression on the consciousness of the Irish people and Irish republicanism, one that remains to this day. However, all romanticism cast aside such efforts failed.

Example 4:

In 1848 amidst the Great Hunger, and from inspiration provided by revolutions elsewhere in Europe, Thomas Francis Meagher and the Young Irelanders staged a small uprising that was doomed to failure. It is of interest considering his involvement he avoided the death sentence and instead was exported for life to Van Dieman’s land in Australia. I suspect this was because the British knew that to make a martyr of him amidst such a time as the ‘famine’ would surely incite widespread rebellion while also risking the possibility of mass subversion of work houses and the interests of the wealthy. Indeed, revolutionary support and fervour is most probable during such times of upheaval and oppression, and the time to strike is when the iron is hot, but in this case the people were too weak and down-trodden to unite effectively. A lesser known fact is that during this period Meagher and Young Irelander’s brought back the Irish Tricolour from a Masonic Lodge in France where it was adopted as our national flag. Our national flag is said to represent the peace (white) between Catholic (green) and Protestants (orange) but it could also be viewed entirely opposite depending upon how one chooses to look at it. One must ask oneself is this helpful long term and this divide will be touched on later. However, all romanticism cast aside such efforts failed.

Example 5:

Arguably the most intriguing developments arose off the back of Thomas Clarke who joined the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) in Dungannon in 1878 and fled to the United States where O’Donovan Rossa trained him and others in the use of explosives. The subsequent dynamite campaign began on English soil in 1883, but Clarke was quickly arrested on the word of an informer and imprisoned for 15 years penal servitude. There he witnessed his comrades lose their minds one by one, yet managed to keep himself sane by counting the bricks in his cell, or throwing a button from his prison uniform on the cell floor in the black of night only to get down on hands and knees and find it again, and of course to repeat the process over and over. He also adopted mathematically based thought experiments, and as word would have it he counted the bricks in the entire prison block. Upon his release he was lauded as a hero by the young idealistic rebels who acknowledged his willingness for self sacrifice and the price he paid, yet no hero was he to himself for his want for revolution had failed. He was a frail looking and modest man that would pose the greatest threat to the British in Ireland in the years ahead. In those subsequent years it was precisely because he was so unassuming and vulnerable that made him so dangerous to the enemy.

Example 6:

It is well known that due to Eoin MacNeill’s counter order, which resulted in most of the Irish volunteers staying away from battle lines, the uprising of Easter 1916 was practically doomed to failure. Indeed, this was MacNeill’s rationale for the counter order. He was afraid to die. I will not pass judgement on MacNeill nor speak ill of the dead. This fact was known by the remaining leaders who met on the morning of Easter Sunday, 23rd of April to vote on whether or not the planned rising should go ahead. It was decided to do so the following day, for it was agreed to take a representative and dramatic stand against the British in what was also a time of War for them amidst World War One. It was hoped this would put enough pressure on them to solve the Irish question of independence while also garnering international support. The former was somewhat successful and the latter absolute. This would come but not until many years later, and many people would have to die. What is telling is the fact that the ‘hard left’ socialists in the ‘Irish Citizen Army’ under James Connolly, and the traditional more ‘left to centre’ leaning Irish republicans in the ‘Irish Volunteers’ coalesced for the uprising. Although ideological differences were apparent, both sides understood the importance of a united front amidst widespread oppression, and knew the majority of Irish people had been cowed into submission over centuries of oppression and how their last stand would eventually consolidate the ideals of Irish freedom in man, woman and child. It is said the IRB ‘kidnapped’ Connolly, although I doubt he would be the type to to go unwillingly, yet whatever happened when he finally heard plans were in place for an immediate rising he delightfully agreed to join the IRB Army Council and play a leading role, such was his stature. It is also no secret that Connolly and Pearse were at loggerheads in the years prior over many issues, yet it is fitting that both of them led the storm on the General Post Office (GPO) in Dublin on that Easter Monday morning as brothers in arms. This is something to take note of for future discussion in the remaining sections. The uprising of 1916 was successful in so far that it put the cause for Irish freedom on the international stage, and it’s purity at heart could not be denied! The proclamation of 1916 has consequently inspired countless others to take up arms in pursuit of this ideal. As symbolic as the rising was it was not supported by the majority of Irish people at the time. It was only, at the orders of General Maxwell, when the 16 staggered executions followed that the desire for Irish freedom was stoked in the hearts of the Irish people. The image of the rising could not be denied and remains to this day, yet it would be hubris of me to say that such an image was not hijacked to suit certain agendas, in particular those of the Catholic Church, the wealthy classes and interests of British imperialism. The image of the rising was turned into one of religion, and any socialist ideals therein were swiftly and conveniently swept under the rug by the subsequent Free State and British influence thereof. This was our biggest mistake, and explains the pains and struggle of subsequent events up to the modern day.

Conclusions so far drawn in Part Two:

From the above illustrative examples we can see that such uprisings involved prominent leaders and leadership that were well known, yet still not fully representative of the Irish people they represented. This made it easy for the masses to follow, if they chose, but also made it easy for the enemy to make a hard example of the prominent leaders so as to put the fear of God into the Irish population, at least for another generation or so. This cyclic failure can therefore be explained by a lack of a cohesive and collective movement led by ordinary Irish people where egos are cast aside. The closest this came to post 1916 was arguably the Civil Rights Movement which preceded the looting of Bombay St. in 1969 and the subsequent 29 years of sectarian bitter conflict.

Part 3: Republicanism in late C.20th and the modern day - fractured by sectarian agendas placed here by the state

As previously alluded to, post 1916 the symbolism of The Rising was hijacked by the Free State and their lackeys to such a degree that it no longer resembles any Ireland I wish to be apart of. The Free State turned into a conduit for British rule and influence in Ireland, and one of their first agendas was to instil a sectarian agenda and mindset into our own people. Sectarianism was never apart of Irish culture and never should be. Being a Republican is not about being a Catholic it is about equality in all remits of life for the likes of you and me. The consequence of British interference, religion and mass media was the subversion of the Civil Rights Movement and the 29 years of ‘tit for tat’ sectarian killings which played into our enemies hands, and will continue to do so. As long as we are divided we can be controlled. Working class Protestants and Catholic’s face the exact same social issues, deprivation and oppression and our politicians tell us to blame each-other!

Too much time has and continues to be wasted on ‘the past’ as well as unhelpful rhetoric which reinforces duality (us versus them). This has to stop. The exact same social issues and pressures are being faced by people on ‘both sides of the proverbial fence’ - we are not so different yet our educational system makes us believe otherwise. For example: Where is the education in schools on the role Protestants played in the formation of Irish Republicanism in the late 18th Century? Where is the education in schools on the role Catholic’s played in the Monaghan Militia in the torture and murder of United Irishmen? Why isn’t William Orr taught in schools across the country? Such a founding Presbyterian revolutionary would surely eradicate the ‘us and them’ mentality that appears to be on the rise for our young people today. This is just one facet of a myriad of profound problems faced by our society today, and worse still all such things can be addressed if we had unity and direction.

Leinster House tears down Moore Street and turns our capital city into a tax haven for multinational corporations, and utilises Shannon airport for an imperial war machine. For the vast majority of people this is not the Ireland they want to be apart of, only the small number of elites thrive under such a regime while the rest of us suffer. Modern day republicanism is totally fractured and siloed, we must build some bridges and show the real threat we pose. This will take community meetings, arguments and much courage, but there is much worse should we remain like this. We may as well gift wrap our country to drug king pins and cartels. This can’t be allowed to continue.

Part 4: United front and the dismantling of egos and the incorporation of ordinary people in ‘their’ struggle

Woody Guthrie, one of the worlds most prominent socialists once said: ‘left wing, right wing, chicken wing.’ In other words, such duality in our way of thinking actually impedes the struggle for international socialism, and in our case Irish Republicanism. To think in such ‘black and white’ terms is criteria for disorder. There are in fact many shades of grey. For example one can be hard left but disagree with abortion. Again, we must not bring personal preferences into politics for this muddies the waters, and what we need is crystal clarity and unity on the direction we are going.

Fascism is a different matter altogether and needs opposed at every turn, indeed fascism is not just aligned to right wing thinking, for history shows us the further right or left one goes the more fascistic one has the potential to become. We must not become the oppressor in the pursuit of liberating the oppressed. This is a trap people fall into time and time again.

This brings me onto the need to dismantle egos and the belief that we are ‘supermen’ who have a ‘God’ given right to defend the people. This mentality has to be removed. For it is the ordinary people who hold the power not any one else, and any political party who puts itself up for election should know that, whether they wish to admit it or not. The idea that strong revolutionaries should be immune from the same problems as those they represent is hubris at best. Such thinking will only distance us from the task at hand and the people we are to represent! In fact, such a mindset should be completely eradicated because the revolution cannot be led by one group or individual, but by the masses and on a collective basis, and the more vulnerable the masses, the more powerful the revolution will be! Our egos have to be smashed! All the leaflets in the world won’t beat honest dialogue, this will take self-sacrifice, the willing to travel across the country with genuine intent, and most of all a great love for the land and the people. For people are not fools they know the real thing when they see it.

Part 5: Future directions - proposals and the need to facilitate a free ireland for all Irish people for all walks of life

Moving forward, the worse things get the more exposed and vulnerable Stormont, Leinster House and British Rule in the 6 counties becomes. This is already happening and we are on the verge of an upheaval. But for it to be a success we must cast personal beliefs aside and focus collectively on what is important. This will take dialogue between groups who might not see eye to eye, and the subsequent inclusion of all those who wish to live in our great country free from discrimination and fear. We must give unionism and loyalism their say, we must give people from all creeds and walks of life the fundamental right to their beliefs and place of worship, albeit providing nobody harms or offends one another. Yet we must show those whose opinions differ from our own, by example that we are all Irish and belong in Ireland and the real enemy is the oppressor, not each-other.

There is a space for us all. The worse things get all the better. We are on the verge of a tipping point, and we must not waste this opportunity. This land was made for you and me. Let’s take it.

Gowain Reid Patrick McKenna is a M.Phil. M.Sc B.Eng (Hons).

A Novel Approach To The Implementation Of The Revolutionary Road To A Socialist Irish Republic In Modern Ireland - Moving Forward

Alex Homits on partition, the Good Friday Agreement and Irish republicanism.

Introduction

The decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union shone a spotlight onto its continued occupation of six counties of Ireland. This occupation is mired in contradictions.

They begin as far back as 1913 when Irish people who identified with loyalty to the British crown -- with the support of the British crown, formed the ‘Ulster Covenant’ . This Covenant pledged over a quarter of a million people to armed resistance to any introduction of devolved government in the form of ‘ Home Rule ’. Home Rule was postponed by the outbreak of inter-imperialist rivalries of the British Empire and the German Empire, but it was offered on the premise that the Irish fight in the imperial war machine of Britain. The Irish Parliamentary Party, the official representative body in Westminster for Irish Nationalists, championed recruitment and delivered almost 100,000 Irish people for fodder. The elements committed to Revolution and Insurrection remained in Ireland. The first proper outbreak and attempt to overthrow the British Empire commenced in 1916 -- today we remember the Easter Rising as a ‘blood sacrifice’ that the leadership knew they were going to. This would be an accurate description if it were true, but the truth is that nationalist elements with little to no interest in social change such as Eoin MacNeil undermined their comrades in Dublin and ultimately guaranteed their execution and failure of the rising. The 1916 Rising birthed the electoral victory of the party that at this time sought to collectively represent the interests of all of Ireland: Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin candidates stood on a platform of declaring an Independent Irish Republic. This mandate delivered 73 seats out of the 105 that Ireland had for the House of Commons. Otherwise, a clear majority. This majority then set about convening and declaring an independent parliament that would decide and exercise sovereignty over Ireland. With this extraordinary set of events -- came the whip, boot and rifle of the Empire. Ireland, despite returning a majority of representatives under Britain’s own ‘democratic’ model of parliamentarianism, was not afforded the right to determine its own destiny.

War, Partition, Dependency 

A War for Independence began in January 1919. In North-East Ulster, the Unionist community was frenzied into anti-Catholic and anti-Nationalist action by it’s leaders. While this is not the origin of cross-community sectarianism in Ireland, it is a pivotal moment in Irish history. The Government of Ireland act of 1920 partitioned the country, giving majority control to one community in the southern parliament and northern majority in the northern parliament. The Anglo-Irish Treaty which was brought back by Michael Collins and the delegation is an enhanced and slightly tweaked version of the Government of Ireland Act.

The 1921 election was held on the basis of a partitioned political unit, copper fastening the incoming partition of the country and minor breadcrumbs The southern statelet was given Dominion status, swore an oath of allegiance to the crown and maintained all of the pompous and arrogant traditions of the British Empire while North-East Ulster was maintained within the British Empire with some devolved powers.

Partition ushered in a ‘carnival of reaction’ as James Connolly predicted. The northern state openly and brazenly discriminated against a sizable Catholic minority. Tommy McKearney describes it as an “orange fascist state” in his book From Provisional IRA to Parliament. This is an accurate enough description that captures the extraordinaryy policing powers, the immense discrimination and inequality that persisted in the six counties.

In the South, the Unionist political forces in the Irish Unionist Alliance merged into the political party that came to represent the staunch pro-treaty forces of Sinn Féin. This political entity was called Cumann na nGaedhal. This entity maintained the economic exploitation of the Irish working class, looked after the gentry and effectively replicated the rule of Britain in Ireland. Ireland remained economically dependent through it’s financial institutions and it’s currency on Britain. How the economy functioned, who held wealth and who dominated political life did not change. Northern Protestants and Presbyterians also looked on in horror down South at the intricate role of the Roman Catholic Church in influencing the decisions being made in the South.

For all intents and purposes, Ireland was successfully partitioned and each majority interest given rule over a specific geographic area, otherwise, North and South. All socially progressive forces, from the women's’ organisations, to the trade union movement or to the Communist Party fell into the background as partition deepened and attitudes hardened.

Civil War 

Inevitably, conflict erupted in the North. The demand for some modicum of equal treatment transformed into street protests and the formation of NICRA, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. Inevitably and like many times before, the response of British Empire was fire, blood and death. In 1972, peaceful protesters were gunned down by British paratroopers. The response of the Irish community, in Ireland and abroad was one of complete shock and outrage. The response also came militarily, as the IRA at first responded, then split over it’s response, and then responded again. Civil war erupted. Internment (imprisonment), arrest, pogroms and torture, backed once more by the British State were normal methods of dealing with the ‘terrorists’. As the saying goes, collusion is no illusion.

An attempt at an agreement in 1973 to create a power-sharing cross-community executive was boycotted by the political representatives of Unionism and a loyalist general strike in 1974. This permanently scuttered the prospective agreement. A referendum on unification or continued membership of the United Kingdom in 1973 was boycotted by the non-loyalist community and delivered an obvious result.

It took another 25 years for an agreement, titled the Good Friday Agreement to take shape and be ratified, thus disengaging the largest participant in this conflict, the Provisional IRA and paving their transformation into a constitutionalist and parliamentary orientated political entity.

Peace, But Actually War

The agreement released prisoners belonging to specific paramilitary organisations that were linked to the political parties leading the negotiations. It did not take away any of the militaristic or police state powers that led to their imprisonment, nor it did fundamentally alter the manner in which the police services operated and who composed and led them.

The Good Friday agreement provided for a devolved government that would be focused on power sharing, a Northern Ireland Assembly that would in turn fill out a Northern Ireland Executive. This is referred to as ‘Strand One’ in the Good Friday Agreement. The powers that Stormont exercises are essentially the powers that a Home Rule entity would have exercised in 1919. The statelet remains an integral part of the United Kingdom and administers British rule in Ireland.

Brexit and Ireland

The complications that British departure from the European union brought to Ireland are straightforward. It should be reiterated that the central contradiction for unification is the historical invasion of Ireland and contemporary occupation of six counties. Nevertheless, the fact that both Ireland and the United Kingdom were in the European Union ensured that all rules regarding the freedom of movement within the EU were uniform. The Free Trade Agreement unites the European economies into one economic trading bloc internationally. Internally it gets rid of custom tariffs and other pesky obstacles to moving money about between large financial institutions.

The question of whether another border would emerge in Ireland dominated political discourse. Would the British State re-introduce secondary and tertiary borders in the form of customs points, checkpoints and tariffs? Nobody on the island of Ireland wanted that primarily because the majority of those living in the 6 counties voted to remain in the European Union. Multiple contradictions opened up and the question of unity and sovereignty arose with it.

It’s generally agreed that there is no desire for a harder partition of Ireland, but it’s impossible to predict right now. Sinn Féin of today, which is absolutely a different entity from the Sinn Féin of 1918, has brought the question of a border poll by stating that a hard border is not in the interests of the people. An obvious enough and an agreeable statement but not easily reconcilable in a pyramid of competing interests ultimately tied to the whim of the British Empire.

The GFA: Another Government of Ireland Act, Another Anglo-Irish Treaty

If Sinn Féin of today existed in the yesteryear of 1918, their political position would be closely associated with the Irish Parliamentary Party, who believed constitutional means and collaboration were the best means to achieve limited self-government. The Republican movement in the 1916-1922 movement was significantly more balanced between those seeking total non-negotiable separation and those interested in cutting various deals and agreements.

The treaties that Britain has imposed, through armed force and threat of war, have always maintained a strong British role in Irish affairs. The partition of Ireland and the creation of a ‘free state’ might have created a new political entity in the world, but it did not change social or economic relations. It in fact developed entirely as James Connolly predicted, flags changed and the English landlord and commercial institutions continued to rule Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement, negotiated during the civil war and agreed upon as a political and legal document, created a framework for the communities in the Six counties to live peacefully side by side. The agreement is a fascinating document because as identified by former Justice Richard Humphreys in Beyond the Border:

As a matter of international legal obligation, the Agreement institutions are permanent. They do not depend on any one party being ‘open to considering’ them, nor are they ‘transitional’ arrangements. Stormont is a permanent feature of the landscape under the Agreement, whether within a United Kingdom or a United Ireland.

This is not simply a question of a veto being given to one community -- it is a question of retaining all political and administrative functions of partition and nominally accepting unification. Even in the prospect of unification, even in the prospect of a triumphant social democratic and majoritarian victory in Dáil Eireann -- the Good Friday Agreement blockades all meaningful attempts at unification.

Conor Donohue perfectly summarizes this by stating that:

Should a United Ireland eventuate, this does not mean that the role of the United Kingdom in the North will cease. It will be continued in at least two ways, both of which will ensure that the interests of unionists are aptly protected. First, the Agreement creates cross-border bodies and forums, which allow the discussion of matters of mutual concern. As the Agreement will continue in force, these entities, too, will continue to exist … Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland will remain entitled to British citizenship. States have a right to invoke the responsibility of another state for wrongful acts done to one of their nationals. Theoretically, the United Kingdom could therefore invoke the responsibility of Ireland for any violations of the right to self-determination, or other fundamental rights, of unionists therein.


In short, the GFA ensures the role of Britain and continues the legacy of the gross violation of Ireland’s right to determine its own destiny. By manufacturing partition and creating two  gerrymandered statelets, it is almost guaranteed that one all Island approach cannot be legally or constitutionally taken -- even if you are politically active on both sides of the border.

Beyond British Empire and Partition

This creates a number of obstacles that have not been accounted for by any political entity in Ireland. The border poll has been supported by various campaigns, including the Connolly Youth Movement. Our motives for expressing support for the border poll vary wildly to the interests of other organisations. We see it as a minimal expression of imperialism and bourgeoisie democracy and it needs to be exercised -- mostly to demonstrate the futility of the exercise.

Above -- it’s clearly demonstrated that the Good Friday Agreement which is another Anglo-Irish Treaty in sheep's clothing, delivers nothing but further complications to the advancement of one all Island Republic. The role of the Republican movement is to identify that, much as it was identified by the anti-treaty forces in 1922 and 1923. Now that we have identified the contradictions, let’s identify potential methods of overcoming the trappings of Empire.

To further consolidate partition and refuse to challenge it, is to maintain the economic and political interests of the British Empire, the European Union and the American Chamber of Commerce. Ireland, divided, will remain pilfered -- an open market for the Cromwells of today to pillage as they see fit. A vision for the future has to confront the competing international financial interests and present a plutocratic, participative model of democracy that is linked to the social ownership of the economy on an all Island basis.

Many liberal, unionist and Imperial commentators repeatedly use the line that Unionism must be safeguarded in Ireland. This overlooks the immediate class contradictions within the Unionist community and tries to suggest that all unionists should fear the Republican movement. The fact of the matter is that, this is an argument that primarily benefits big house unionism i.e. the section of the unionist community that line their pockets by exploiting other humans, stealing the value they create as labourers and tenants.

The Workers Republic

The coming storm regarding the border has passed for now, but it will resurface as long as the country is partitioned and each time it does so -- will exist an opportunity to express and present viable and alternative means of unification. The priority for progressive forces should be to look far beyond the confines of the Good Friday Agreement and focus on the Ireland we are struggling for.

The process must begin by envisioning a new constitutional order for the entire island. This constitutional order must place social and economic rights above those of private property. It must guarantee housing, education, health, religious worship, employment and so on. We can draw on great inspiration from the Cuban Constitution and the Soviet Constitution. A new constitution that places the need of humanity and the environment by default challenges many of the contradictions that exist in Ireland today, including the clever treaties and agreements that maintain partition.

By placing social and economic rights at the centre of a new constitutional order, we will conclusively demonstrate to the working class of every community that our struggle is against the exploiters, as opposed to our fellow workers who choose to worship in a different church or fly a different flag. Rights of this constitutional order will stem from one, unitary Workers Republic.

This process of placing all law and regulation around human need has to be supplanted by rigorous and systemic organising across every community and district. This is not a fight between the Communist Party and the many forces of Imperialism -- but between every exploited inhabitant on the island of Ireland. Now is the time to consistently highlight the completely inadequate nature of the Good Friday Agreement for overcoming sectarianism and partition and present a viable, revolutionary and long-term alternative.

⏩Alex Homits is the General Secretary of the Connolly Youth Movement.

Beyond Borders ➤ Disunity in Unity

Des Dalton with the paper that formed the basis of his contribution to The Way Forward seminar held by Republican Sinn Féin in the Teacher’s Club in Dublin on Saturday July 27.

'nationalism' is a word that still signifies all sorts of undifferentiated things, but it serves me quite adequately to identify the mobilizing force that coalesced into resistance against an alien and occupying empire on the part of peoples processing a common history, religion, and language -  Edward Said (Champion of Palestinian independence and anti-colonialist)

Today’s seminar has been stimulating as well as challenging, engaging with ideas about the future direction we believe that Ireland should take. I believe that we agree on far more than separates us. However, that is not to say that we can simply ignore certain first principles. I believe that to do so is dishonest and will never provide the basis for meaningful and ultimately fruitful engagement.

I think that we are now in a changed political landscape, I am not naïve enough to believe that Brexit and all the political upheaval and potential economic upheaval that accompanies it will somehow magic a New Ireland into being. But again, we should not be blind to the possibilities that it does present to Irish Republicanism. At a minimum it has shone a spotlight on the illogicality of partition and has begun the first serious discussion about the possibility of a free and united Ireland in over thirty years. In the Éire Nua programme we have something substantial to contribute to that discussion. Indeed, amid this current political upheaval in Anglo-Irish relations between Dublin and London I believe that as traditional Republicans we have a duty also to continue to articulate the aspiration for real All-Ireland democracy.

To begin I would like to establish a couple of first principles. Beginning with parameters and definition. Language is not inconsequential, as all with even a cursory interest in Irish politics or history will readily agree. Even how we refer to Ireland is loaded with meaning. Language frames the entire debate around defining the Irish nation. Over the past twenty years at least there has been an increasing usage of the term “the island” to refer to Ireland. It appears that even to refer to Ireland, or even All-Ireland is simply too much of an acknowledgment that such a thing as the Irish nation exists as a geographic entity, let alone a political or cultural one. During the current Brexit debate I have detected an even further shift, with many within the media and the Leinster House political class referring to the 26-County state as Ireland. Previously even the most died in the wool “Free Stater” would always refer to the “state” never to “the country” when referencing the 26-County state. This was a recognition that Ireland as a nation extended beyond the border. Now the air is laden with references to Ireland and “Northern Ireland”, with the underlying idea being of course that two countries exist on “the island”. This is where the importance of language comes in. Once we accept these labels, we accept the parameters of the debate as set by the partitionist political class. Having done so we abdicate the very idea of Ireland. We have essentially been defeated before we even start, we have conceded the very basis of Irish nationalism let alone Irish republicanism. Once this language enters everyday parlance it soon became a way to think of Ireland and so it goes on.

This no idle academic debate about terminology. This is key to our starting point, our first principles. Because the definition of the Irish nation ipso facto defines the unit of decision making which brings us back to the heart of the matter. Parameters and definition. The importance of the unit of decision making has never been lost on the British government. Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell hammers home this point in his memoir of the so-called “peace process” Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland.


One of Tony Blair’s attributes as a leader was his ability to go back to first principles (…) Tony had zeroed in on the fundamental principle: what was the unit that had the right to self-determination? Was it Northern Ireland (sic), the island of Ireland, or the islands together including Britain? He believed the key point to be that of the consent of the people being ruled, and that meant it had to be the people of Northern Ireland (sic) who should have the say. For the unionists this was of fundamental importance, unlike the issue of decommissioning, which was purely transient because, after all, any group that gave up its weapons could easily acquire new ones. The principle of consent, which had been accepted by the Irish government in progressively stronger terms in the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and in the Downing Street Declaration of 1993, would be the most difficult concession for Republicans to make.


To quote from the contribution of Sylvie Kleinman of the Department of Modern History, Trinity College, Dublin, to a volume entitled “Reinterpreting (Robert) Emmet” with particular reference to Emmet’s mission to France:


A common thread runs through the extensive manuscripts detailing official attitudes in France towards Ireland and the United Irishmen, namely that they were consistently described as representing une nation, un people, which to French perceptions could already claim its place among the nations of the earth.

Documents issuing from the Irish College in Louvain, in what is now Belgium, 400 years ago used terms “náisiún” regarding Ireland and “Éireannach” instead of “Gael” and “Gael-Ghael” in reference to an Irish person. We are not a revolted colony nor as Thomas Davis said, “a sandbank thrown up by caprice of wind and earth”, but an ancient people.

The British state is in the midst of an existential crisis as a result of Brexit. The fault lines that lie at the heart of the British state have been exposed by the whole debacle. The undemocratic nature of the so-called United Kingdom is exposed for all to see. The narrow jingoistic little England nationalism of the Eton and Oxbridge elite trumps the sovereignty of the people of Ireland, Scotland or Wales. None of this will come as any surprise to Irish Republicans, who have never been under any illusions about the true nature of English government’s relationship with the Irish people. But now it has been laid bare for all to see.

Once more the “Irish Question” has come back to bite the British establishment as they try to square the circle of British occupation of the Six Counties and its consequent denial of the inherent unity and sovereignty of the historic Irish nation. The call, by characters such as Jacob Rees Mogg etc, to protect the integrity of the so-called United Kingdom are breath taking in their lack of historical or political awareness. They do so, sure in the knowledge that their imperialistic bluster will go unchallenged. Where are the voices raised in defence of the territorial and political integrity of the Irish nation? The British Tory elite know only too well that even a basic Irish nationalist position was long ago abandoned by the Irish constitutional nationalist parties on both sides of the British imposed border under the terms of the 1998 Stormont Agreement.

The silence of the constitutional nationalist establishment on even the most basic tenets of Irish nationalism is damning. Not for the first time, it falls to traditional Irish Republicans to articulate the right of the people of Ireland to national independence. Unequivocally we take our stand on the principles of the 1916 Proclamation.

Brexit has also exposed the 1998 Stormont Agreement as an empty shell. It’s promised guarantees of enshrining Irish nationalists’ right to exercise Irish citizenship has been exposed as yet more empty rhetoric. Once more the nationalists of the Six Counties have been abandoned by so-called constitutional nationalism, including the 26-County state. In the Six Counties the Stormont Assembly has fallen into abeyance while the British government abandoned any pretence of neutrality on the issue of their continued occupation of north eastern Ireland by forming an unholy alliance with the DUP. Indeed, in recent weeks the historian Paul Bew, in a paper for the policy think tank Policy Exchange, argues that the incoming British Prime Minister must consistently make the case for the union between the Six Counties and Britain. Professor Bew contends that the preservation of the union should be the “absolute priority” of the next British Prime Minister. Paul Bew, as a key adviser to David Trimble, played a central role in the negotiation of the 1998 Stormont Agreement. That entire “peace process”, which culminated in the 1998 Stormont Agreement was predicated on the notion, as set out in the 1993 Downing St Declaration, that the British Government had: “no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.” Consequently, Paul Bew’s intervention is not insignificant. His candour and honesty are to be welcomed as it helps further to debunk the myth that the British Government is in any way neutral on the question of the constitutional position of the Six Counties.

Once more history repeats itself, this time as farce, as the British Tory elite cling to power by “playing the Orange card”. However, and again in a repeat of the past, the DUP have discovered already that their Tory “friends” are more than willing to abandon them whenever political expediency dictates. A Boris Johnson administration will have even less scruples in discarding them when they have outlived their usefulness. This has always been the attitude of the British ruling elite to unionism. That is why Irish Republicans have continually pointed to the New Ireland that is provided for in the Éire Nua programme. Here the sovereignty of all sections of the Irish people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter is enshrined. Those within the broader unionist community are invited to take their rightful place within the Irish nation, here their full participation in the exercise of democratic decision making will not be subject to the whims and caprice of a foreign parliament. A new Ireland can never emerge from either Stormont, Leinster House or Westminster.

In terms of the wider debate around Brexit and the EU, Irish Republicans have always recognised the EU for what it is. A club of former imperial powers whose primary purpose is the consolidation of their economic and political power. It is imperialism in a modern form. Republicans have consistently argued against Ireland’s participation in this project. In Ireland we have experienced both forms of imperialism and still do. In the Six Counties British military occupation represents the old imperialism while in the 26 Counties we have seen the social and economic ravages of the new imperialism of the EU.

The result of the British referendum on Brexit was of course welcomed by Irish Republicans on two levels. Firstly it exposed the inherent fissures that exist within the so-called United Kingdom. From our point of view, it will hopefully hasten its demise. We welcome the increased likelihood of a referendum on Scottish Independence. Secondly it strikes a blow against the EU project and gives encouragement to other progressive forces throughout Europe.

Unfortunately, the British right were allowed to frame the debate, there are of course very progressive arguments to be advanced against the EU, but they were lost in a cacophony of right-wing voices clamouring for position within the British Tory party. We are proud of our record of consistently opposing the construction of a militarised and undemocratic super state in every referendum held in the 26 Counties since 1972. This is the only position Irish Republicans can hold if we are serious about creating an independent Ireland based on the principles of the 1916 Proclamation. Talk of a United Ireland is meaningless, we have had unity under British Rule and indeed under the EU both parts of Ireland were largely under the same EU law. The sovereignty and independence of the Irish people is the goal of Irish Republicanism. There is no point in removing the shackles of British imperialism only to replace them with political and economic imperialism of the EU.

Éire Nua builds from the ground up. It is a model of real participatory democracy. Ensuring that the people are involved in the decision-making process from local or community level, through region and provincial, all the way up to national level. Éire Nua addresses the various partitions that have been inflicted on Ireland. Not simply the north south political partition imposed in 1920/21 but also the social and economic east/west partition that has existed since the foundation of the two partition states. Following the old British colonial model, all political and policymaking was centred in Dublin and ergo was in the main Dublin centred. Decisions on economic development, education, health, social services, the environment and employment were and are being made at a remove from the people most affected.

This has been further exacerbated by the further centralisation of power from Dublin to Brussels. The historian, political activist and biographer of James Connolly, C. Desmond Greaves regarded the nation state as the ‘locus of democracy’ arguing that it was only within national communities that people could exercise democracy in a meaningful way. It was the largest or optimal political unit within which rights of minorities could be protected. In building democracy from the ground up we must not, to paraphrase Parnell, set a boundary to the march of democracy. It is not enough merely to create democracy within nations, we must work for a real democracy between nations. A community of free nations as envisaged by Connolly, with cooperation in fair trade, protection of human rights and the environment. The First Dáil in its Message to the Free Nations of the World set freedom and justice as the “fundamental principles of international law,” and declared Ireland’s unshakable belief in “a frank co-operation between the peoples for equal rights against the vested privileges of ancient tyrannies.” This should remain as the basis of our internationalism.

Ireland is part of Europe and has been for tens of thousands of years. As Irish Republicans we draw on a political philosophy whose roots lie within the European Enlightenment of the 18th Century. This European culture of music, literature and philosophy predates and transcends the EU. A Europe that, in the words of Charles De Gaulle, stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Far from looking inward we as Irish Republicans are looking outward and into the future. We have a vision of the type of Ireland we wish to create. We believe Éire Nua provides the framework within which such a new Ireland can be constructed by all sections of the Irish people.

We are entering a period of radical change which presents opportunities for those committed to fighting for real political and economic democracy not only within nations but between nations. Let a New and free Ireland take its rightful place within such a community of free nations.

⏭Des Dalton is a long time republican activist.

First Principles: Defining Ireland And The Search For A Way Forward

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)