Irish Unity The Solution To Brexit

Posted by Jim on September 2, 2019

lWith the British state set to prorogue its parliament, to force through a ‘no deal’ Brexit, Sean Bresnahan argues that Republicans must be better positioned, advancing, thus, his longstanding argument for the election of a constituent assembly.

The continuing Brexit crisis in Britain — its tearing at the fabric of the British Constitution — is to be welcomed by those who hold as their object the constitution of a 32-county republic. For Irish Unity is, of course, the natural solution to Britain’s Brexit conundrum — and with it to the pending impact that a ‘no deal’ Brexit will have on Ireland.

In these tumultuous times now before us — with political change now a real possibility — we must prepare, and be better prepared, for the event of change and must have our ducks in a row. We cannot afford to be found wanting, in this moment, and must grasp and seize the initiative. In this moment of historic import, we must present and position the Republic front and centre. In the words of the great James Connolly, it must be made a word to conjure with.

Should we manage to achieve Irish Unity, or agreement towards such being effected, we must move speedily to the election of a 32-county constituent assembly — to the drafting, there, of a new constitution for an independent 32-county republic. A charter of fundamental rights should likewise here be set towards. The outcome of this deliberation — the political arrangements there set towards — can then be put to the Irish people by national referendum.
In an Irish Unity scenario, we must work to ensure that the future is forged by the Irish people alone — inclusive of our differing identities and traditions but with no role for Britain to be granted, come this process. In the context of movement towards Irish Unity, the only forward role for Britain can be to leave Ireland entirely — as she ought to have done long ago.

Sean Bresnahan, Chair, Thomas Ashe Society Omagh

Free Yankee Tickets

Posted by Jim on

The ‘94 Cessation – how it happened

Posted by Jim on

Gerry Adams looks back at the historic peace initiative of August 1994 when the Provisional IRA declared a ceasefire. (For Léargas). The IRA cessation is 25 years old this week. August 1994 was an intense month. I was involved, along with Martin McGuinness, and others in the Sinn Féin leadership, in intense, mostly private, efforts to persuade the SDLP Leader John Hume, the Irish Government and allies in Irish America to establish an alternative unarmed strategy to pursue republican and democratic objectives. Fr Alec Reid was central to this. And Fr Des.

The Sinn Féin aim was to open up the opportunity for a meaningful peace process that could bring about fundamental political and constitutional change. At the same time we were intent on advancing our republican objectives of ending partition and bringing about Irish Unity.

August 1994 was the month when it all began to come together. To be honest, neither Martin nor I really knew if we would succeed. We were attempting something unique and exceptional – to construct a series of agreements which together could persuade the IRA leadership that there existed an alternative to armed actions capable of achieving republican goals. The danger was that if we pulled everything together and the Army said NO then the process was over before it really started

Our discussions involved the Irish government; I was meeting John Hume; we were negotiating with the US administration through a variety of channels, and there was a delegation of Irish Americans – the Connolly House group – who were lobbying the Clinton administration to develop a new Irish agenda. We were also in contact with the British government though they were not part of the effort to develop an alternative.

At a briefing in early August with the IRA leadership Martin was able to tell it that the Irish government had provided written assurances that if there was a cessation there would be an immediate response on practical matters. Sinn Féin would be treated like any other political party. This would include a speedy meeting between the Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, myself and John Hume.

Incidentally, after the cessation was declared and before that meeting Albert contacted me to say that Seamus Mallon had asked him to put our meeting back until he met with John Hume and Seamus. I dismissed this. The Taoiseach did not press it.

The Connolly House group had also passed back to us a document which set out a serious programme of work and commitment from them and Irish America. Entitled ‘Policy Statement by Irish American leaders’ it said that in the event of a ceasefire they would commit themselves to ‘the creation of a campaign in the United States dedicated to achieving’ a number of specified goals. Among these were an immediate end to all visa restrictions and the provision of unrestricted access for the Sinn Féin party leader.

The IRA leadership listened attentively to what we had to say. It agreed to meet again to receive an update from us. It was coming close to make your mind up time. Everyone at the meeting knew this. Some of the leadership were against a cessation. They had been very frank about that. It was going to be a close call.

I believed that we had to choreograph a series of statements, actually more public initiatives than statements, from John Hume, An Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, and the Connolly House group, which would signal the coming together of the different pieces of the jig-saw. We also needed a visa for Joe Cahill. It was one of the issues which the Army leadership had raised with us. Fundamentally it was a test to see if the Irish government was prepared to take on the British and if it could win such a political battle with the British within the US administration. It would also be an important indicator of how seriously the Clinton administration intended to take the issue of peace in Ireland.

The Connolly House Group returned to Ireland on August 25. The following Sunday John Hume and I met and issued another joint statement. Later that evening the Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds issued a statement in which he also expressed a belief that a historic opportunity was opening up.

Martin and I met the Army Council again. The meeting was inconclusive. People needed more time to consider all the issues. Joe’s visa became an even greater test. Then late on Monday night, August 29th, President Clinton cleared Joe’s visa.

Martin and I again travelled to meet the Army Council. A package had been agreed. It was now over to the IRA leadership. Everyone at the Army meeting was a little tense. Martin McGuinness spoke eloquently. So did others. For and against.

One of Martin’s great qualities was his sense of conviction and confidence. He could bring a strength to a debate which was very, very compelling. Even if you might not agree with him you knew he was going to deliver on any commitment he made or die trying. The struggle wasn’t ending we told them. They knew that of course.

In many ways, I said, the easy decision was for the IRA to continue to fight. That was the low risk option. The high-risk option was the one we were arguing for. It meant uncharted waters. It would involve compromises. It could mean risking – and losing – everything. But we could also be the generation who would win freedom. We could set in place a process which could create new conditions for a genuine and just peace and from there build a pathway and a strategy into a new all Ireland republic.

A formal proposal was then put to the meeting. The vote was for a cessation. It was not unanimous but those who voted against pledged their support to the new position. Unity, they said was essential.

On Wednesday August 31st at noon the IRA declared its “complete cessation of military operations… We believe that an opportunity to create a just and lasting settlement has been created”.

The peace process and the dramatic changes that have taken place in the last 25 years owe much to the courageous decision by the Army Council and those other Volunteers who followed the path chosen by the IRA leadership.

A quarter of a century later much has changed. Ongoing political and demographic changes have increased the demand for more change. Political Unionism has lost its majority in the Assembly. Nationalism has rejected Westminster. There is a greater confidence and optimism. The demand for equality, for rights for all citizens is now part of our DNA. Support for a referendum on Irish Unity is growing. Nationalists and republicans will never again tolerate a second class status. Many within unionism have also come to accept the need for power-sharing and reconciliation and inclusiveness. And some are publicly speaking for the first time about the possibility of a new Ireland, a shared space which embraces the unity of all our people.

There are of course still challenges to be overcome. Brexit looms. The power sharing government is not functioning. There are still those within political unionism who see everything as a zero sum game in which any change – however innocuous – is a defeat. The British government is allied to the DUP and refusing to honour commitments made when the Good Friday Agreement was achieved. The Irish government and the southern political establishment could do much more to fulfill their obligations as co-guarantor of the Agreement. So, there is still much work to be done.

Looking back twenty five years ago to that period of our history and experience it is clear that dialogue, inclusive and based on equality, is central to any conflict resolution process – to any process of change. It is very telling that the then Leader of Unionism James Molyneaux described the cessation as ‘The most destabilising event since partition.’

Twenty five years later this assertion remains an insightful reminder of the worm at the heart of political unionism. That is the fear of positive political change. It is self-evident now that if it had been left to the Unionist leaders and the British Government there would have not been a cessation.

Thankfully they did not have a vote at the IRA’s Army Council meeting which took that decision.

British police to be sent into Brexit front line

Posted by Jim on

PSNI and courts seen defending loyalist paramilitaries

Posted by Jim on

A man who removed a loyalist hate banner which paid tribute to a sectarian killer has been sent for trial on charges of theft. Frank McGirr is accused of taking the banner from a street light in June 2017. He was told the banner featuring the UVF man Wesley Somerville in the County Tyrone village of Moygashel was valued at 150 pounds.

Somerville and fellow UVF killer Harris Boyle – who were also members of the British Army’s Ulster Defence Regiment – died while carrying out the Miami Showband massacre in July 1975. They died after their own bomb exploded, killing both, while the rest of the UVF gang opened fire on the band members, murdering three.

In May, Mr McGirr appeared in a wheelchair at Dungannon Magistrates Court charged with theft of the banner. At that time, he did not enter a plea, instead electing to have the matter proceed to a higher court.

The continuing prosecution of the case against Mr McGirr comes after a summer in which the PSNI were accused of acting in concert with loyalist paramilitaries in other hate crimes. They helped erect banners in support of the Bloody Sunday massacre soldier known as ‘Soldier F’.

The PSNI’s protection of the Somerville banner, an annual controversy, is also in line with the force’s policing of this summer’s loyalist bonfires. The PSNI caused a scandal after they backed down in the face of UVF threats against the lives of contractors tasked with removing bonfire material from a leisure centre at Avoniel in Belfast in July.

The PSNI agreed with loyalist figures, including one man alleged to be the leader of the east Belfast UVF, to allow the bonfire to go ahead as planned.

And this week, the PSNI were also seen to back away when UVF threatened a contractor involved in work at a second leisure centre where sectarian loyalist bonfires have taken place. The contractor was prevented from building a perimeter fence at the site due to paramilitaty threats.

A group which claims to “mediate on behalf of ex-combatants formerly linked to the East Belfast UVF” said they had been working find a “solution”.

The PSNI refused to accept that threats had been made against the contractors, even after one nationalist councillor described the situation as “vile intimidation”.