Posted by Jim on October 9, 2018
“This joint survey by the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff is most revealing…. Just what do ‘ nionists’ in both England and Northern Ireland mean when they go on and on about their devotion to ‘ the Union.’ Not to mention what it reveals about their attitude to the Irish Peace Process.
The article from today’s Irish News of Belfast states:’The joint survey by the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff University found that 87 percent of the overwhelmingly unionist advocates for leaving the EU believe the collapse of the peace process is justifiable if Brexit is delivered.’
And, in regards to the Unionists/Loyalists/”Protestants” in Northern Ireland, the article says:’If even Unionists in Northern Ireland care less about the territorial integrity of the UK than pursuing Brexit, then it really raises questions about the type of union we’re in, and, indeed, what unionism means.’ That recalls the old saying,’Unionist loyalty is not to The Crown, but to the half-crown’ (‘a former British coin and monetary unit equal to two shillings and sixpence’ as my online dictiianary says). In other words, the Union was all about guaranteeing their economic advantage and Orange supremacy. In a way, like how Jim Crow laws guaranteed White supremacy in the Deep South.The Unionists in The North must start building up the Beloved Community, embracing equality, justice and solidarity. They must finally shed the George Wallace mindset.“—Fr. Sean McManus
North’s Leave voters would “sacrifice the peace process”
John Manley. Irish News. Belfast. Tuesday, October 9, 2018
LEAVE voters in Northern Ireland regard sacrificing the peace process as an acceptable price for Brexit, new research claims.
The joint survey by the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff University found that 87 per cent of the overwhelmingly unionist advocates for leaving the EU believe the collapse of the peace process is justifiable if Brexit is delivered.
According to one of the academics who conducted ‘The Future of England Study’, unionists’ preference for Brexit over the territorial integrity of the UK “raises questions about the type of union we’re in, and indeed what unionism means”.
Styling itself the largest and longest-running study of English constitutional attitudes, the research shows that self-professed unionists, most notably Leave-voting Conservatives, were largely unconcerned about the risks to the union posed by Brexit.
It highlights how Theresa May’s “precious union” has little meaningful support among the British prime minister’s own supporters or those in other parties who regard themselves as unionist.
The research found clear majorities of English Conservatives would support Scottish independence (79 per cent) or the collapse of the Irish peace process (75 per cent) as the price of Brexit.
In Northern Ireland, 86 per cent of Leave voters believe Scottish independence would be acceptable if meant securing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Professor Ailsa Henderson from the University of Edinburgh said the data suggested that, in the pursuit of Brexit, Leave supporters across the UK would be relaxed about a fundamental transformation of the union.
She said there was evidence that Brexit was “dislodging long-held red lines about the union”.
“If even unionists in Northern Ireland care less about the territorial integrity of the UK than pursuing Brexit, then it really raises questions about the type of union we’re in, and indeed what unionism means,” she said.
Posted by Jim on
This Editorial, below, from the Irish News of Belfast on the 50th anniversary of the origins the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland is important reading for Members of Congress and Staffers.
“What might have been” is a refrain that haunts all of us involved in the struggle for justice, equality and peace in The North… what might have been if those in power—the British Government, the Unionist Government, and the discredited RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) had acted differently, with respect, decency and fairness. What if basic justice had been established in the Protestant State of the Six Counties?
Alas, that would have been a contradiction in terms, because the whole purpose of carving out those six counties —violently ripping them away from the rest of Ireland—was to institutionalize sectarianism and anti-Catholicism, thereby maintaining England’s foothold on the island of Ireland, and Unionist supremacy in the Six Counties.
Even now, 50 years later, the Unionists/Loyalists/“Protestants” are doing everything possible to make sure the Beloved Community is not built up in Northern Ireland. And that, combined with Brexit, is making a United Ireland inevitable.
—Fr. Sean McManus
Fateful march cannot be seen in isolation.
Irish News Editorial.Belfast. Saturday, October 6, 2018
The 50th anniversary of the civil rights march in Duke Street, Derry, on October 5 1968 has provided an opportunity to reflect on the events of that day, regarded as pivotal in the history of the Troubles, and to assess if the lessons of that turbulent period have been learned.
Reading and listening to the accounts of those who witnessed that fateful march, there was a strong element of regret that matters unfolded in the way they did and played a part in the catastrophe that engulfed us in the ensuing decades and led to the deaths of almost 4,000 people.
Could it all have been avoided? If the march hadn’t been banned by Stormont or if it had been cancelled by the organisers, which the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association advocated, or – crucially – if the RUC had not attacked peaceful protesters in full view of television cameras which broadcast images of police brutality around the world, would we have been plunged into the nightmare of violence that followed?
Certainly, the march and its bloody outcome cannot be viewed in isolation. These were times of tumult and unrest, not just in Northern Ireland.
Many Catholics felt they were treated as second-class citizens by the unionist regime at Stormont. The campaign for civil rights was non-sectarian, calling for an end to gerrymandering, discrimination in housing and one man one vote, which also applied to working-class Protestants.
These were legitimate grievances and reform was long overdue. Had Stormont acted sooner and reacted differently, perhaps decades of pain could have been avoided.
In looking back to that time, it is depressing to hear some unionists continue to dismiss the concerns of nationalists, particularly in housing allocation which was a touchstone issue.
The obduracy, arrogance and state of denial that existed then caused those in power to make serious misjudgments.
They read the situation wrong, failed to make timely and justified concessions and, as we know, militant forces subsequently took hold, with disastrous results.
It was 50 years ago but we still need to learn from our history.
Posted by Jim on October 6, 2018
By Bernadette Devlin McAliskey
My personal acquaintance and friendship with Seamus Costello began in
1973. Before then I knew him only, as most people in Ireland, by
reputation.
On hearing of his death, I could find no words of my own to express the
deep sense of loss I felt, both personally and as a revolutionary
socialist committed to the struggle for Irish freedom. I took therefore
the words of a fellow revolutionary on the death of Malcolm X, the black
revolutionary champion of black liberation and socialism in the U.S.A.:
“Without him, we feel suddenly vulnerable, small and weak, somewhat
frightened, not by the prospect of death, but of life and struggle
without his contribution, his strength and inspiration.”
There is no doubt that the struggle continues and its victory or defeat
is not measured solely by the number or quality of our fallen comrades
individually. Yet it is equally true that in every generation of
struggle the combination of circumstances, history and the nature of the
struggle itself, produces from the ranks of its rebels a few, and a very
few individuals who, notwithstanding the fundamental principles of
organisation, political correctness and practical ability, common to
many, rise head and shoulders above the rest, with a potential for
leadership, far beyond the ranks of the already committed. Such a
comrade was Seamus Costello.
Brutally murdered by petty, small-minded men of no vision whose only
place in history is to serve as a warning to others how revolutionaries
gone wrong can degenerate into worse than nothingness, Seamus Costello,
for all that he was and did in his lifetime, was only at the beginning
of his potential contribution to the achievement of national liberation
and socialism in this generation. That is not to say that Seamus was
above making mistakes or that he was always politically correct. There
were many questions on which I disagreed with him, and which I
considered crucial to the development of the struggle. These remain
unresolved.
Nonetheless, in leaving the Official Republican Movement and taking the
initiative of forming the IRSP, Seamus Costello proved his ability in
practice – once convinced that the approach of the organisation to which
he belonged was wrong and could not be altered from within – to take on
the daunting, but necessary task of building an organisation capable and
willing to carry the struggle forward. The fact that he was capable of
it underlined his key position in the struggle, and his recognition of
the need to forge a revolutionary force in Ireland from the unification
of the republican and labour movements.
If I did not accept his arguments on how it could be done, I remained
confident that he, again, if he found himself mistaken, would move
further in his political analysis to another approach. He did not live
to see the test of theory in practice.
Much is said of his single mindedness, his ruthlessness and
organisational ability. At his hardest, Seamus Costello was never
hateful, nor was there a fibre of his being that was petty or personally
malicious, and despite the slanders of his enemies, he was neither
politically nor religiously sectarian.
He owed his first allegiance to an ideal – a 32 county socialist
republic. His enemies he defined only as those who consciously strove to
suffocate, distort or deny _expression to that goal, and prevent its
achievement. As an orator, he was brilliant and inspiring. In debate, he
was uncompromising, skilled and learned. As an organiser, he was
efficient and did not easily tolerate idleness or half-hearted effort.
Yet in my mind’s eye, when I think of him, I see him laughing. A sense
of humour, the ability to laugh at oneself, and the predicament in which
we find ourselves, is sadly too rare a quality among revolutionaries.
Seamus possessed it in good measure.
His single greatest attribute was, however, his ability to relate to the
mass of the people. His potential as a leader of mass struggle is not
easily replaced. He could inspire not only the dream but the confidence
of its achievement, and the commitment to work towards that end.
From the ranks of mass struggle, others will come. From the experience
of struggle, the political programme, organisation and method of
struggle will come. But another Seamus Costello may never come again.
When our freedom has been won, let us guard it well, remembering it was
paid for in the blood and the lives of those now dead, but whose memory
lives forever in the hearts of us who loved them for all that they were
and all they might have been, had they been allowed to live.
Posted by Jim on
–
The following address was delivered by Sean Bresnahan to the Ruairi O
Bradaigh Memorial School in Roscommon.
First of all, may I begin by thanking the organisers for the opportunity
to speak here this afternoon. It is a privilege to do so, given who this
event stands to commemorate. Though he has gone, Ruairi O Bradaigh
remains an inspiration to Irish Republicans, the ideas he stood over
remaining, for us, the footing and template on which to advocate
continuing Republican struggle, on and into the future.
As Ruairi knew well, Irish Republicanism sets towards a 32-county
republic in Ireland, premised on the line and image of the 1916
Proclamation. For ourselves as Irish Republicans, then, any future
United Ireland to emerge must be mounted on the same, with the
Proclamation to be upheld as its constitutional basis.
We are out for the Irish Republic — the Republic of 1916. While its
governmental structure has yet to be determined, its political line, as
O Bradaigh stood over throughout the entirety of his political life, has
already been carved in stone.
But with Brexit and demographic change in the North speeding new and
unheralded political realities, Irish Republicanism, while having much
on paper to offer the ‘change process’, finds itself outside the loop.
By no means has this been arrived at by happenstance.
For on the back of a disorganised Republicanism — splintered and with no
clear sense of its purpose in the Ireland of 2018 — revisionist forces,
intent on limiting the scope and extent of any future all-Ireland state,
find the task of restricting the parameters of change much easier than
ought to be the case. This is a failing on all of our parts and is the
primary challenge faced by Republicanism at this key time in Ireland’s
political development.
The task at hand, in the context of the above, is for Republicans to
forward a political strategy relevant to 2018, though without being
absorbed by revisionism. In particular, with broader nationalism focused
on a United Ireland to be achieved via Good Friday’s border poll, we
must ensure not to internalise that vehicle — not because it would
signal that we were wrong, while others where right, but because that
mechanism contrives towards a revised continuum of the Good Friday
Agreement, not the Irish Republic.
As O Bradaigh himself said in 1986, when the Provisional Movement
embraced a political shift that would shunt it into constitutionalism,
‘we have not been wrong — we have been right’. But being right is not
enough on its own, as many here can attest to.
With that in mind, building on the foundation that correct political
theory affords, the Republican function must be to embed in the public
mind that the Irish Republic should constitute the ‘new Ireland’. We
must gain support for same through hard work on the ground — hard work
married to a clear political charter formed upon clear political theory.
That is what Republicanism still has to offer and that is what we now
must be about. We must be of and about a political campaign with the
Irish Republic as its masthead.
The Good Friday Agreement has as its core concern the containment of
Irish Republicanism. It was designed to bring Irish Republicans into a
political process which had as its parameters the acceptance of British
rule, while at the same time excluding Republicanism.
It could do so by holding out the prospect of change, should certain
conditions be arrived at, while in reality serving as an instrument to
ensure the permanence of Britain’s hold on Ireland, in particular of its
political theory. While this arrangement has served British power for
the best part of 20 years, more recent times have seen it run aground,
due to the impact of Brexit coupled with shifting demographics in the
still-occupied Six Counties.
The creates new opportunities which Republicanism must avail of. While,
rightly, we must guard against encroaching revisionism, which seeks out
our embrace of British constitutional constraints and our acceding to
their line of legitimacy, we must still have more to offer than the
politics of mere ‘rejectionism’.
The core of our programme in this regard should centre on the
constituent assembly — a longstanding plank of Republican theory going
back to the times of the revolution. For Irish Republicans it is
automatic that, should Ireland be reunited, British withdrawal from the
North should be coupled with the restoration of Dail Eireann, a position
worth holding to with political change now upon us.
The starting point for ourselves, here, is that the substance of a ‘new
Ireland’ is a matter alone for the Irish people, in all their diversity
and no matter their differences. Britain, with her line of theory,
should be afforded no role in determining or participating in any future
all-Ireland arrangement. While the rest is up for discussion, that is at
the core of what it means to self-determine and must be fully
non-negotiable.
An all-Ireland constituent assembly should thus deliberate on the form
and structure of any future United Ireland, for only such an entity has
the democratic right and qualification to undertake such a task. All and
every citizen, party or interest group will have the same option and the
same opportunity to either stand for election to this body or, at the
very least, to present a submission for its consideration.
It is that process which should agree the new Ireland — one that upholds
the rights to freedom and sovereignty laid down under the Proclamation;
an Ireland, no matter the scheming of Britain and her quislings, that
remains the birthright of our people.
A functional constituent assembly, rather than a mere consultative body
among our own, would be a legally-established entity vested with the
full authority of the Irish Republic. What we are talking about here is
a Third All-Ireland Dail, sitting as a constituent assembly, its sole
remit to draw up a new constitution for the Republic — which would at
that point have been reconstituted upon full British withdrawal from
Ireland.
An all-Ireland election is the only mechanism that can unlock such a
forum. Republican policy must set this in stone and then work to have
those who hold power in Ireland commit or bend to this position, holding
that this must proceed should constitutional change become a reality —
no matter what ‘vehicle’ sets such in motion.
What we should work toward and look to set in place here is some form of
‘white paper’ on Irish Unity. This should encompass a renewed demand for
a full British withdrawal alongside a structured proposal as to what
should happen in that event. ‘Towards A Peaceful Ireland’ has the broad
framework in place. With that as our base and guide, what is needed is
to bring things up to speed and present its ideas in the context of
today.
As the British ‘solution’ to her Irish problem comes apart at the seams,
mired in the quicksand of sectarianism and its poisonous role in
upholding continuing British rule here, the time is now for Republicans
to forward a bold approach, to set out our own brand of politics as the
alternative to the ongoing farce at both Stormont and Leinster House.
It’s time for new ideas and the people want new ideas. It’s time for a
workable constitutional arrangement that serves Ireland and her people,
which respects and upholds the rights of both, rather than the interests
of those who obstruct democracy in this country. All of such demands the
redundant strategies and tactics of the past make way for something
fresh — for a campaign that people can support and believe in.
The call for a constituent assembly, as part of a wider initiative for a
new Ireland, can fulfil that end, capturing the national imagination if
we forward a confident proposal, backed by a confident team of
hardworking Irishmen and women, who are never in short supply. We can
always do with more, though, and as such this campaign needs opened out
to include all. We need to look outward and not in.
Our work is to advocate for a ‘new republic’ that sweeps aside the
failures of the past, which presents a fair and just society as the
roadmap to a meaningful peace. The people of Ireland deserve nothing
less. Ireland and the Republic deserve, of us, that we establish the
unity of purpose required to make good on the same.
Towards that endeavour, in the context of demographic change ongoing, a
clear line is now required — one that states, without equivocation, that
should Britain’s imposed terms for leaving be met that obligations
incumbent must be acceded to, in full. Further negotiations or
agreements with Britain should not from there be countenanced — other
than to insist that she leave our country.
This need not attach any legitimacy to Britain’s conditions. It need
neither demand an acceptance from us of her border poll as a legitimate
constitutional vehicle. What it must, though, provide is a clear
understanding of what should proceed in the event that one should pass —
just as it should in any event, regardless how Irish Unity is arrived
upon.
Through all of this, we must be clear that when we speak of Irish Unity
we are talking about restoring the Irish Republic — that same Republic
born of the Proclamation and the Declaration of Irish Independence. The
sovereignty and unity of the Irish Republic must be the basis of a
United Ireland. We might negotiate and agree new political structures
but that fundamental is beyond revision. It is the Irish Republic we
seek and no less. As the General Liam Lynch rightly declared, ‘we will
live under no other law’.
While it is not a panacea and should not be mistaken for such, a
national constituent assembly, elected by popular suffrage by all of the
Irish people — acting as one unit — offers a practical means through
which this can be achieved. It would provide us the means to build a
true Republic, where all of the children of this great nation are
finally cherished as they ought to be. Great things could lie ahead if
we realise the opportunities before us. A ‘new republic’ for all is the
outcome we now must reach for.
Posted by Jim on
MI5 authorised its agents and informers to kill targets and commit other
crimes under a secret policy which operated throughout the conflict in
Ireland and continued until at least 2012, an investigative powers
tribunal in London has heard.
The policy, known as the ‘Third Direction’, has no legal basis and its
existence has been secret until now.
In November 2012, former British Prime Minister David Cameron asked for
the policy to be reviewed, but with an extraordinary impunity clause
regarding any potential prosecutions.
Writing to Mark Waller, the ‘Intelligence Services Commissioner’ who had
the job of oversight of MI5’s use of agents, Cameron wrote: “For the
avoidance of doubt, I should be clear that such oversight would not
provide endorsement of the legality of the policy; you would not be
asked to provide a view on whether any particular case should be
referred to the prosecuting authorities; and your oversight would not
relate to any future consideration given by prosecuting authorities to
authorisations, should that happen.”
The letter was sent two weeks before the publication of an independent
report into the 1989 murder of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane as
Cameron prepared to issue an admission that British state collusion was
involved in his murder.
The Pat Finucane Centre, a human rights campaign body named after him,
is among the claimants asking a judicial tribunal to order MI5 to
release information abou the legality of the ‘Third Direction’ policy.
In their submission, they cited Pat Finucane’s murder as an illustration
of the “considerable public importance” of the issues raised. It also
refers to allegations that Freddie Scappaticci was a former senior
member of the IRA and a murderous double agent working under the
codename Stakeknife.
MI5 has refused to answer questions on the policy, which allowed them to
engage in “murder, torture, sexual assault or other grave criminality”
in the name of the British national interest, the PFC said.
The revelations are a damning indictment of the British state’s
involvement in the conflict here, according to Sinn Fein’s Linda Dillon.
“It was only in 2012 on the eve of the Da Silva report exposing the role
of agents in Pat Finucane’s murder that the then British Prime Minister
David Cameron belatedly produced new and frankly inadequate guidelines
for oversight of intelligence agencies,” she said.