Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Republicans have waited for this moment since 1916. It's not a bluff
Thursday, 10 December 2009
The Assembly and Executive have survived, if uneasily, for more than two years since the putative deal on devolution of the powers - more exactly, agreement on the necessity of a deal - was struck at St Andrews, presaging the reformation of the institutions in May 2007. Why couldn't it continue to operate while negotiations continued, however unnecessarily prolonged by a grudging DUP?
After all, the DUP has a point when it insists that, whatever the expectations of other parties and the two governments, it didn't commit itself to devolution of the powers by any particular date, certainly not by May last year.
In the Commons a month after St Andrews, in October 2006, Peter Hain spelt it out: "The St Andrews agreement also included a clear commitment, and a target of May 2008, for the devolution of policing and justice powers to the restored Executive."
The commitment to devolution of powers, then, was clear and time-specific, the date for delivery merely a target. Whatever the level of anger at the DUP's dogged prevarication, Peter Robinson is strictly within his rights.
Why, then, the talk of meltdown and collapse?
The key to understanding the republicans' difficulty has primarily to do not with a generalised impatience to copper-fasten the institutions, but with the movement's core ideology. Sinn Fein is not generating a crisis. The crisis for the party is real, and arises from the basis on which the IRA took the series of steps which eventually led to disbandment.
PIRA effectively abandoned armed struggle when it declared in July 2005 that it would henceforth use "exclusively peaceful means". This cleared the way for the long road to St Andrews.
Thus the Assembly was able to meet on May 8, 2007 and elect a First Minister and deputy First Minister. Just four days later, the Sinn Fein Ard Chomhairle confirmed the party's support for the PSNI by nominating three MLAs to the Policing Board.
In October last year, the target having already been missed by a lengthening mile, the IRA played what it must have accepted as its last card and opted to go out of existence. The International Monitoring Commission reported that the armed struggle was "well and truly over". NIO Secretary Shaun Woodward declared without equivocation that "PIRA has met its commitment". Each step by the IRA had been greeted and analysed as designed to "move the process forward." This was true but missed the historical enormity of what the movement's leadership was delivering.
The IRA, as 'dissidents', and not only 'dissidents', regularly point out, had not fought its war to win power-sharing and an all-Ireland dimension. The war aim reflected a belief - held with dogmatic certainty - that the Republic had come in to existence on the steps of the GPO in Dublin at Easter 1916.
The war of independence, the civil war to thwart the emergence of the Free State and every phase of armed struggle since had been conducted in defence of the Republic as an actually-existing entity. Developments that others might have seen as major steps towards the achievement of the Republic were regarded by the IRA as shameful abandonment of the Republic - treasonous behavior.
In this context, the IRA army council was seen as the repository of the 1916 tradition and thereby the only legitimate political authority on the island, with a legal monopoly on the use of arms and the right to coercive authority.
Most commentators and historians regard all this as fantastical nonsense and assume that the IRA didn't really operate on the basis of such ridiculous notions. They are wrong.
Only a minority of the community in whose name the war was waged may have swallowed the ideology whole, but it provided the hard political spine of the movement and the basis in political morality for sending out volunteers to kill and risk death.
It is the notion which sustained the struggle at times when there was little in the surrounding circumstances to offer encouragement. It is why the IRA saw captured members as prisoners of war and why volunteers hungered to the death rather than accept any different designation.
It can be argued that even if devolution of policing and justice had been delivered by May 2008 and coercive power taken away from Britain and put into Irish hands, this couldn't reasonably be represented as vindication of the Republic.
But, although the feat must have required a breathtaking display of conceptual gymnastics, the IRA leadership managed - just - to persuade the membership. This is what makes the issue of huge significance and urgency for the Sinn Fein leadership now.
Having dismantled the constructs which had underpinned the IRA for almost a century, the movement in its now exclusively political manifestation finds that its partners in government treat this momentous change as of little account, requiring no practical acknowledgement.
If Peter Robinson doesn't deliver, and soon, Sinn Fein may well have no option but to walk away.
Martin McGuinness isn't bluffing.
- Text Size
Comments
69 Comments
Realist, don't worry about people voting for a United Ireland in 2016 - the only thing a majority of people will ever vote for these days are bigger flat screen televisions (to be able to see the bigger picture I'm sure ...) or larger sized crisps bags ...
And incidentally, it's Sinn Féin. Know your enemy.
Posted by Disillusioned | 06.01.10, 14:58 GMT
Open your eyes everyone! These are serious comments as Sein Fein want it all before 2016, the 100th anniversary. I don't care if the majority vote peacefully for a united Ireland in 2020, but please don't let it happen on 2016. I would hate to see the Seinners all happy and smiling.
Posted by Realist | 03.01.10, 20:57 GMT
I have not read anyone speculate on how the deal between the Conservative party - who are widely tipped to be in power in six months time - and the UUP, will translate in political reality at Stormont.
Is it the case that without the NuLab engine pushing the various protaganists toward devolving police and justice, an old style conservative mindset may reverse the torque on this issue and this is the very reason the Unionists are holding out?
Posted by RUI | 30.12.09, 16:53 GMT
mark's nemesis,
The British Empire is gone, and it is not coming back. Reading between the lines of your comments, it is clear to me that you believe that the UK still has some sort of territorial claim over Ireland. If I am correct, then you are quite clearly delusional. Whether or not it is self-delusion, we shall probably never know.
All of our comments so far have assumed that the UK and Ireland are sovereign states. What is a sovereign state? A sovereign state, I am informed, is a state that is not under the control of any other state. A sovereign state administers its own government. A sovereign state can sign treaties with other countries without interference. In essence, a sovereign state is not beholding to any other power.
Therefore, as both the UK and Ireland are member states of the EU, and given that the Lisbon Treaty has just been ratified, are the UK and Ireland really 'sovereign states' in the true meaning of the term? I don't believe so.
Posted by WH | 23.12.09, 14:33 GMT
Most people accept that while she ain't perfect and needs a bit of work (which country doesn't?) NI is what it is, with an economy regularly boosted by shoppers from Southern Ireland no less.
NI is in the here and in the now. Make of it what you can. "Unpalatable" as this may be to some, deal with it, move on or move out. Quit girning about your perceived injustices 'way back when'. Zzzz
Apart some old guff from 1801 (!) I've still yet to read a decent argument against Southern Ireland joining the UK "even if equal rights for all its people, regardless of race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality" was offered - despite being told by the same people that a "united" (sic) Ireland is more desirable...
Posted by mark's nemesis | 23.12.09, 10:06 GMT
Mark's N,
Since most of the Brazilian flag is green I see your point.
Ah these ubiquitous Paddies ! We literally built much of your "mainland' as well as the US Australia and Canada (rail networks etc). But unlike some we've moved on. We're high tech. innovators now.
As for your UK, that was tried - remember ? (and you probably do) It was a disaster. By the 1830s there was a strong nationalist move to Repeal the (imposed by force) "Union"
The problem is that like your masters you scornfully ignore the fact that we are a EUROPEAN people and not some African tribe of the 19th century, subdued with a few beads and false promises in exchange for mega plunder.
In our hundreds of thousands - including hundreds of school groups - we regularly fly over your "mainland " to experience the astonishing wonders of our European civilization.
Why not give it a try - but watch out for those green white and orange flags - much respected in Europe.
Posted by Evergreen | 23.12.09, 00:38 GMT
Mark's N.
NI is synonymous with major civil strife and injustice worldwide and has been for since it's artificial creation.
The people living there in this 21st century deserve better. In its present form it is inevitably dying. If you are "quite happy" with that then good luck to you.
The Republic on the other hand, while not without faults is a peaceful tolerant democracy, looking to the future and happy to integrate into a united Europe.
Visit Europe sometime. It leaves your increasingly shambolic and disintegrating UK for dead in most every way.
Your brainwashed attitudes are beyond help, and I'm sure your eyes glazed over after my first
sentence. Unpalatable facts do that to some people. So bang on for ever and a day about flags etc. Who gives a stuff.
By the way Brazil is a beautiful country - why not move there ?
But be warned - they live in the real world.
Beannachtai na Nollag duit.
Joyeux Noel.
Frohe Weihnachten !!
Posted by Evergreen | 22.12.09, 22:43 GMT
Well, it doesn't look like we'll settle the flag issue - so Happy Christmas to all of you, wherever you are.
Posted by Sine | 22.12.09, 21:39 GMT
Mickey, I'm not sure what Southern Ireland is (Cork?), perhaps you mean the Republic of Ireland, the state known by law as simply "Ireland".
You say you're "happy" with N.I. Fair enough. Perhaps you can answer the following:
Why was a six-county state created when at least 2 of them had strong anti-Union majorities?
What do you base your state on?
Culture? Do "Ulster-Scots" make up a majority of "Northern Irish" people? How do they differ from the rest of the Irish/Anglo-Irish exactly?
Religion? Is founding a state under the guise of a state supported religious philosophy, Protestantism, a healthy state of affairs? When WH speaks of a state having "equal rights for all its people, regardless of race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality etc.", is he wrong?
The Union of 1801 was roundly rejected by Irish Protestants, not least the Orange Order. If Union was rejected then, why should it be sought now?
Is Unionism an identity or just a fear of losing power?
Posted by Dublin | 22.12.09, 18:03 GMT
mark's nemesis,
Northern Ireland has existed for less than 100 years. Why was NI formed? NI was formed in order to allow a Protestant minority in the NE of Ireland, to remain as part of the UK. A border was drawn-up to ensure that the Protestant/Unionist minority actually held a majority in the new NI. This is known as gerrymandering. That's why there are very few straight lines on the NI/RoI border.
What happened during the following decades was nothing short of a disgrace. Nationalists/Catholics were denied the right to vote, they were denied the right to work, they were denied the right to political representation, they were denied the right to housing, their children were denied the right to a decent education. This is why the Provisional IRA came into being.
What the IRA did is very difficult for me to accept, however, I know why they did it. If I had have been born a Nationalist/Catholic in the NI of the 60s or 70s, I may have even done something myself.
Posted by WH | 22.12.09, 15:53 GMT
WH, no I'm quite happy with Northern Ireland thanks. Unionist subborn pride? Nope, just quite happy with NI - and no less stubborn than a republican/nationalist who might reject the notion of Southern Ireland joining the UK, "even if equal rights for all its people, regardless of race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality" was offered.
And as the tricolour is the flag of Southern Ireland, it is no more representative of me than the flag of Brazil. End of really.
Posted by mark's nemesis | 22.12.09, 14:51 GMT
mark's nemesis,
Would you agree with me that the orange part of the Irish flag could represent you if you wanted it to?
I am a Unionist, I would also be perceived as being from the 'Orange tradition' (although, if the Orange tradition is truly represented by today's Orange Order, then I am quite embarrassed about that perception). I, even with all that 'baggage', can see quite clearly why the Irish flag could represent me if I wanted it to. At present, I simply do not want it to. If there was a referendum on a united Ireland tomorrow, I would vote No.
That, however, doesn't mean that I am completely closed to the idea. If I could be shown that it is in my interests to be a citizen of a united Ireland, then I would give it due consideration. A secular, united Ireland, with equal rights for all its people, regardless of race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality, etc. would be very tempting indeed. I wonder if I will have that choice someday? I hope so.
What about you?
Posted by WH | 21.12.09, 14:05 GMT
"The Union Flag contains the flag which represents the Kingdom of Ireland (the red criss-cross bit for those who didn't know)."
Represent Ireland it might, but it has no historical basis. The St. Patrick's Flag was a symbol of the Fitzgerald family, one which was later incorporated into the Union flag to represent Ireland in order to fit the Union flag colour scheme. It had no currency as an Irish flag before 1800 and little after.
The true "Irish" flag was a blue flag with a Harp in the middle, as in the standard of the Irish president today.
See the Commonwealth Protectorate Jack (1658-1660) as one example of its early incorporation into the "Union" flag.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_Jack)
"Would you be happy with it as a flag representative of the whole of the Island of Ireland?"
No, because it's not a representative flag. The blue Harp flag however is. Would you accept it as an island wide flag?
Posted by Euskal Herria | 21.12.09, 14:01 GMT
mark's nemesis,
if you'd kindly explain where the nationalist community is represented in the Union Flag, maybe we could talk ...
But it's probably a case of in the talk between us there's no communication. Your loss, mate.
Posted by Sine | 21.12.09, 07:52 GMT
WH, why do I not accept the tricoolour as a flag to represent me? Because it is the flag of Southern Ireland and no more represents me than the flag of New Zealand!
The Union Flag contains the flag which represents the Kingdom of Ireland (the red criss-cross bit for those who didn't know). Would you be happy with it as a flag representative of the whole of the Island of Ireland?
Or perhaps you believe the flag used by IFA and adopted by FIFA/UEFA (for example) is a more than acceptable representation of Northern Ireland.
Posted by mark's nemesis | 18.12.09, 19:55 GMT
How wrong was I, the BA result shows why people turn to the dark side.
Posted by David Johnston | 17.12.09, 17:06 GMT
mark's nemesis,
As has been stated before, the orange and green parts of the Irish flag are supposed to represent the two 'traditions' on the island of Ireland. What could be more equal or more representative than that?
The orange bit is exactly the same size as the green bit, this signifies that both traditions have equal standing within the Republic of Ireland. The white bit in the middle is supposed to represent the peace between the two traditions. The white bit is exactly the same size as the green and orange bits, that is supposed to represent the fact that peace is as important as any of the two traditions. If you put all that together, I cannot see for one second why someone from the 'orange tradition' (usually a Unionist) would have a problem with that. Do you agree?
If not, can you spell out exactly why you have a problem with the Irish flag? Would you be happy with a small Union flag in the top left-hand corner of the Irish flag (see New Zealand)?
Posted by WH | 17.12.09, 16:10 GMT
Cliff, I'll surprise you by admitting you have a valid point in saying that large numbers of Protestants left the Republic of Ireland during the 20th century. They weren't all forced to leave by you know who (sounds a bit like referring to Lord Voldemort there, can't help it), though - Ireland has had a pretty tough time economically etc., let's leave it at that. I was really referring to today's population, and the Protestants (South) I know feel Irish just like everyone else.
Posted by Sine | 17.12.09, 09:36 GMT
Should we all not be getting back to the substance of the article which is about Martin McGuinness potentially pulling down the Northern Ireland Assembly and the potential consequences? What a guy! Thanks Martin. And a Happy Christmas to you too.
Posted by Cliff | 16.12.09, 23:04 GMT
Cliff
"Check the 1911 census figures".
I'd prefer to check the last or next census figures in this 21st century.
Such comment summarizes much of what is wrong with your whole attitude, As for Protestant numbers in the Republic, this has been extensively dealt with in recent times through discussions such as this one. Have you been away somewhere Cliff ?
To briefly recap - Prod. numbers have been steadily increasing in the Rep. since the early 1990s. Well into the 1960s Prods. owned 60%+ of our wealth. Good luck to them for it. No one was burned out.
In the 20s SOME were burned out, but MOST left voluntarily fearing that they might be regarded as a 5th column in the new Ireland, or were loyalists anyway.
Most importantly, whether you like it or not, when the dust settled Prods. who stayed became a seamlessly integrated part of our society. Mostly we don't know, and care less, which if any religion is practiced by our coworkers etc. just as in any other NORMAL community.
Posted by Evergreen | 16.12.09, 22:15 GMT
69 Comments