Posted by Jim on October 24, 2017
Dáil Éireann (English: Assembly of Ireland) was the revolutionary, unicameral parliament of the unilaterally declared Irish Republic from 1919–1922. The Dáil was first formed by 73 Sinn Féin MPs elected in the 1918 United Kingdom general election. Their manifesto refused to recognise the British parliament at Westminster and chose instead to establish an independent legislature in Dublin. The convention of the First Dáil coincided with the beginning of the War of Independence.
The First Dáil was replaced by the Second Dáil in 1921. Both of these Dála existed under Irish law and it was the Second Dáil which narrowly ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The status of the Third Dáil of 1922–1923 was different as it was also recognised by the British. It was elected under the terms of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty as a provisional parliament to pave the way for the creation of an independent Irish state. With the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, a new parliament called the Oireachtas was established, of which Dáil Éireann became the lower house.
First Dáil (1919–1921)
In the 1918 general election a large majority of 73 out of 105 representatives returned in Ireland were members of the Sinn Féin party. In accordance with their manifesto, these representatives gathered in the Mansion House on 21 January 1919 for the first meeting of new assembly called Dáil Éireann. Owing to many of its number being in prison, only 27 TDs (MPs) were able to attend. At its first meeting the Dáil issued a Declaration of Independence, declared itself the parliament of the Irish Republic and adopted a short constitution.
On the same day, but in unconnected circumstances, two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were ambushed and killed by Irish Volunteers at Soloheadbeg in Tipperary, acting on their own initiative. In this way the Irish War of Independence began. Shortly afterwards the Irish Volunteers were renamed to the Irish Republican Army, a force nominally under the control of the Dáil. In August the Dáil was declared illegal by the British government and thereafter met only intermittently and in secret.
Second Dáil (1921–1922)
In May 1921, elections were called in Ireland to two new bodies established by the British government. These were the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. These legislatures were brought into being by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act in a vain attempt to placate nationalists by granting Ireland a limited form of home rule. However, both parliaments were rejected and boycotted by Sinn Féin, who instead treated them as elections to Dáil Éireann.
The Second Dáil (made up of Sinn Féin members elected to the northern and southern parliaments envisaged by the British) met in August 1921 and in September it agreed to send envoys to negotiate a peace settlement with the British government. These envoys returned from England with the Anglo-Irish Treaty which, after prolonged and acrimonious debate, was narrowly ratified by the Dáil on 7 January 1922.
Third Dáil (1922–1923)
To implement the Anglo-Irish Treaty the Third Dáil was elected in September, 1922. This Dáil was not recognised under British law as Dáil Éireann but merely as a provisional assembly. Unlike previous Dála, the Third Dáil did not include members elected in Northern Ireland. The election was effectively a referendum on the Anglo-Irish Treaty in the southern partition of Ireland but the pro-treaty members of Sinn Féin won a majority of seats. After this result the anti-treaty faction refused to recognise the new British controlled assembly and the Irish Civil War followed shortly afterwards.
In October, acting as a constituent assembly under British Law, the Third Dáil ratified the Constitution of the Irish Free State. The new state was officially established in December and thereafter the Third Dáil served, not as a unicameral parliament, but rather as the lower house of new parliament called the Oireachtas. It was dissolved in August 1923.
Until the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 it was the mission of Dáil Éireann to create a parallel system of government in Ireland that would gain the allegiance of the public and eventually supplant the British state. Some success was achieved in this goal. For example the Dáil was able to persuade many Irish people to boycott the British judicial system and instead seek justice in a network of Dáil Courts. Nonetheless, the Irish Republic was not quite a true de facto state and received no support among the Unionist majority in North-East Ireland.
However, for its members the role of Dáil Éireann was symbolic as well as concrete. By winning the 1918 general election they were able to claim that the Dáil was the legitimate parliament of Ireland, and that from the Dáil they derived legal authority to wage war against British rule. This was not merely an abstract philosophical point. At this time many Irish people were devout Roman Catholics whose church taught that war was sinful unless waged by a legitimated authority and for a just cause. Part of the reason for convening Dáil Éireann was therefore to satisfy the requirements of Jus Ad Bellum and to make it easier to win the support of both clergymen and the general public. Despite this, the Catholic hierarchy was outspoken in its condemnation of the IRA during the war, although individual priests were supportive.
The Dáil Constitution adopted in 1919 was a brief, provisional document that placed few limitations on the power of the Dáil and could, in any case, be amended by a simple vote. Under the constitution the executive of the republic consisted of a cabinet led by an official called both the President of Dáil Éireann and the Príomh Aire. In 1921 the constitution was changed to rename this official President of the Republic and make him head of state.
At all times the Republic’s executive consisted of members of the Dáil and was theoretically answerable to it. The most important tasks of ministers were to command the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and, during 1921, to communicate and conduct negotiations with the British government. While notionally answerable to the cabinet, in practice individual IRA units enjoyed a high degree of autonomy.
After the election of the Third Dáil in 1922 the role of the Dáil changed substantially. Under the Anglo-Irish Treaty this body was intended to prepare the ground for the creation of an independent state called the Irish Free State. Powers were therefore progressively transferred to it from the British administration over a short period. The Third Dáil also had the role of acting as a “constituent assembly” to adopt the new Free State constitution.
The Irish Republic and its cabinet continued to exist right up until the Irish Free State came into force, though under British law the Third Dáil was charged with electing an executive called the “Provisional Government”. For a time, until they were effectively merged, this Provisional Government and the old republican administration existed side by side, with significant overlaps in membership.
Today the First and Second Dála continue to have symbolic importance for the most radical Irish republicans. The general election of 1918 was the last occasion on which a single general election occurred across the whole island of Ireland and is seen by these republicans as granting a mandate for violent resistance to British rule in Northern Ireland that is unextinguished even to this day.
Because the Third Dáil and its successors have not been elected on an all-Ireland basis, in republican ideology they have not been legitimate. In this view, the Second Dáil has never been dissolved and those (minority) of members of the Second Dáil who rejected the Anglo-Irish Treaty have granted the group that is today the Provisional IRA explicit authorisation for its campaign. Its breakaway fragments continue to hold this view, even though the main body is on ceasefire. Opinion polls have shown that the majority of the population of the Republic of Ireland reject this view.
The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, established the modern Irish state, referred to today as Ireland. Under the constitution a new legislature retained the title Oireachtas, and its lower house remained Dáil Éireann. The first Dáil to meet under the Constitution of Ireland was described as the Ninth Dáil.
Posted by Jim on October 22, 2017
Patrick Murphy. Irish News. Belfast. Saturday, October 21, 2017
If there is no deal on the return of Stormont, there would appear to be no political future for Arlene Foster.
Predicting politicians’ prospects is not an exact science, but it is difficult to see her surviving as DUP leader, unless she returns her party to a fully functioning executive.
It will make little difference to Michelle O’Neill whether Stormont returns or not because, for Sinn Féin, Stormont is an option. For the DUP it is a necessity, despite its influence in Westminster. So the outcome of the current talks will also significantly determine the political fortunes of the party and thus the future direction of Unionism.
So what does the future hold for Arlene, the DUP and Unionism in general? All three face a number of political challenges, but there does not appear to be a clear strategy to address them. While the Unionist bus has loads of passengers, no-one appears to be driving it.
Arlene Foster’s current problems come from two sources: history and her own behavior. History shows that post-partition Unionism is largely founded on a siege mentality, so a Unionist leader can easily be undermined by suggesting that he/she is conceding too much to a real or imaginary enemy.
It was a tactic first exploited by Ian Paisley, who drove Terence O’Neill from office in 1969 and ensured that every future Unionist leader became a prisoner of his/her own right wing. (That wing includes those who oppose Irish language legislation but sing in Irish on July 12: Lile ba léir é, ba linn an lá, meaning that the lily was theirs and they won the day.)
This siege mentality arose because in defending a self-invented politico-religious purity, Unionism failed to develop a broader political base beyond the issue of the State’s existence, particularly from 1922 to 1967. Arlene Foster is now a prisoner of that history.
But she has also contributed to her own problems. Although the DUP gained two extra Westminster seats in June, she presided over the loss of Stormont’s unionist majority in March. Her ill-judged “crocodiles” remark boosted Sinn Féin’s vote.
(She then attempted to defuse Nationalist concerns by visiting a convent school, a tactic also used by Terence O’Neill. But, like him, she merely antagonised her own supporters in yet another re-run of Unionist history.)
More damaging than her electoral performance has been her party’s record in ethics and probity in government. At least some of the RHI scandal appears to have been her responsibility and her failure to discipline Stormont speaker Robin Newton is disturbing, particularly since he is receiving £87,000 a year for a non-existent job.
Then there are the apparent links between some in her party and loyalist paramilitaries, an untenable position while loyalists are driving Catholics from their homes in Cantrell Close.
Political leaders need two skills: leadership and a sense of politics. Mrs. Foster has not impressed in either and she now faces a choice of two career evils. She can agree to a stand-alone Irish language act and lose the support of her party, or she can witness Stormont’s cold storage and lose the support her party.
A year ago this column confidently asserted that she was the most secure Unionist leader since Lord Brookeborough. She was, but she confused personal ability with political arrogance and lost the plot.
(That same column wondered why SF was not challenging Robin Newtown for failing to reveal his links to Charter NI, while using his position as speaker to prevent the SDLP from raising questions about it. How the fortunes of Sinn Féin and the DUP have changed since then.)
Only Sinn Féin can rescue Arlene now. Martin McGuinness might have, but Gerry Adams is unlikely to. Her only hope is that Sinn Féin might want Stormont’s return to influence the Brexit deal on The North, but there is little sign of that happening.
Unionism’s problem is that, for 100 years, its leaders failed to move its electorate away from the ‘not-an-inch’ philosophy. Mike Nesbitt tried and his party suffered the consequences. Arlene Foster did not try and may be about to personally suffer those same consequences.
It is too late for her to change now, but if her successor is not to repeat her same mistakes, he/she must re-position Unionism as outward looking and inclusive rather than defensive and divisive.
Sadly, there does not appear to be anyone in the DUP’s ranks who has suggested such a move and without a return to Stormont, the party is destined to curse the darkness rather than light a candle.
The DUP may be in the darkness for a while.
Posted by Jim on October 7, 2017
Sinn Fein could be facing a damaging split over its internal party
management, according to reports. A number of rows and expulsions in
recent months has seen some members already link up in a potential new
national structure.
Meetings of those angry at the party over alleged bullying, control and
marginalisation are believed to be already underway.
Between 30 and 40 people are said to have turned up at one meeting in
Waterford to share grievances. The meeting, organised by Melissa
O’Neill, a councillor who was expelled from Sinn Fein last December,
agreed to form ‘support hubs’ in towns around the country. Meetings have
been planned in Athlone, Tipperary and Limerick.
The prospect of setting up a rival republican party to Sinn Fein was not
ruled out, according to Ms O’Neill. She said dozens of members and
former members attended who felt disrespected or disenfranchised from
the party.
There have long been accusations of a clique in the Sinn Fein leadership
expelling or marginalising individual activists using a tactic known as
“the big shaft”. Management processes have been described as dictatorial
and intimidating, with the goal of isolating and removing any potential
challenge or dissent.
There have been not yet been allegations of a political motivation, but
some have drawn comparisons to the Provisional IRA’s so-called “nutting
squad”, which maintained PIRA discipline during the conflict.
Last month, three Wicklow councillors were expelled from Sinn Fein after
they challenged the party in a dispute over internal leadership roles.
Lisa Marie Sheehy, who was Sinn Fein’s youngest councillor, also
resigned from the party last month, claiming she had been “undermined,
bullied and humiliated”.
Sinn Fein has repeatedly denied that there is a culture of bullying
within the party. But internal disputes which previously took place
behind closed doors have become more public.
Sinn Fein housing spokesperson Eoin O Broin denied there was a culture
of bullying within the party.
He said there were “some people who went into the role of elected
representatives and found it was much more difficult that they
originally thought,” he said.
“We also have really good republicans, really long-standing republicans
who for very long periods of time were the only Shinner in the village.
Now that the party has grown, and there are younger people there, they
are finding it difficult to adjust.”
But one councillor who left the party in County Cork said that the party
had been routinely trying to replace established party figures with more
biddable people. Cork East councillor June Murphy said the “reason they
pick them so young is because they’re perfect for grooming”.
Melissa O’Neill claimed she was aware of hundreds of Sinn Fein people,
young and old, who are not happy with the party structures but were
fearful of speaking out.
“We don’t want anyone to go through what we went through,” she said.
“The sense of the weight of the world off their shoulders, the energy in
the room of a psychological sense of relief, after being gagged for so
long. The people leaving that room were different to the ones that came
in. We all felt it.”
Tara Reynor O’Grady, a human rights campaigner who was expelled from
Sinn Fein in June, said people felt “emancipated” as a result of the
meeting. “There was a sense of encouragement, and a tremendous
conviction that they were justified in their grievance,” she said.
The management and control problems have been picked on by Sinn Fein’s
opponents recently as a reason to rule out the possibility of a
coalition with the party. Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin has
described Sinn Fein as “a cult”, while Fine Gael leader Leo Varadkar
suggested Sinn Fein politicians were only allowed to deliver
pre-prepared texts in parliament.
The party is expected to address the matter at its Ard Fheis [annual
conference] in November.
Posted by Jim on
The PSNI has been forced to admit unionist paramilitaries were behind
threats which caused four Catholic families to flee their south Belfast
homes.
After coming under pressure over the force’s non-committal response to
the intimidation, PSNI chief George Hamilton finally pointed the finger
at the UVF murder gang this week.
“There are people using the guise of the UVF who we believe are members
of that organisation who are threatening people because of their
community background, because of their religion, to leave their home –
that is not acceptable,” he said.
Although Mr Hamilton said was not sure if the threats were supported by
the leadership of the UVF, which he described as “chaotic and
disorganised”, or if they were made by individual members, when
challenged outright if it was the UVF, he finally replied: “Yes.”
Sinn Fein’s Gerry Kelly, the party’s policing spokesman, vowed to
pressure the PSNI to bring individuals before the courts.
“It is 2017 and the UVF continues to be involved in murder,
racketeering, extortion, drug dealing and issuing sectarian threats,” he
said. “They have no other purpose than to serve their own ends.”
While sectarian intimidation remains common in the north of Ireland —
five Catholic families were recently burned out of the mainly Protestant
Waterside area of Derry — the Cantrell Close and Global Crescent
estates had been promoted as a cross-community ‘shared space’.
Despite efforts to hold up the development as an example for shared
living, loyalist paramilitaries had always sought to claim them as part
of their territory.
The attribution of blame by the PSNI comes after mounting pressure on
the force to confront unionist paramilitaries.
Their hands-off approach has been sharp contrasted by their harassment
of republicans, which has led to protests in nationalist areas. This
week, four men and a woman appeared in court charged with holding an
“unnotified procession” in connection with an Easter Rising
commemoration in Lurgan.
There is also little nationalist confidence in a new panel which began
work this week to monitor efforts to “stamp out” loyalist paramilitaries
and IRA groups. Set up as a result of a 2015 talks agreement, the
‘Independent Reporting Commission’ will report annually on progress to
the London and Dublin governments and will take over the role of the
former MI5-linked ‘Independent Monitoring Commission’.
The four IRC members are former US special envoy to the North of Ireland
Mitchell Reiss, ex-human rights commissioner and political leader Monica
McWilliams, lawyer John McBurney and former Irish diplomat Tim O’Connor.
Mr Reiss said he was grateful for the opportunity to again play a role
in the North of Ireland. “I hope the commission’s initiatives will help
to bring about the continued transformation envisioned by the British
and Irish governments, the local political parties and the citizens of
the North of Ireland,” he said.
Posted by Jim on
by Jude Collins (judecollins.com)
Oh dear. Was that another crocodile moment? As you probably know by now,
the potential First Minister Arlene Foster clashed with the potential
Deputy First Minister at the Tory party knees-up. Michelle was asked if
an Irish Language Act would make the north less British, to which she
replied “The north isn’t British”. Arlene, alert to insult even at
breakfast time, quickly told her “I don’t want this to turn into a row,
but Northern Ireland is British.” They can’t both be right. Which is?
It all depends on what you mean by saying our North-East Nest is
British. Arlene is right that this part of Ireland, while it has
devolved government, is ultimately controlled by Britain. So if you’re
saying “Who wields power in the NEN?” then the answer is Britain. No
ifs or buts. They haven’t gone away, you know.
But if you’re talking about the people here (remember how John Hume used
to say that the border was about people, not territory?) then while by a
small percentage the majority here regard themselves as British, a very
large (and growing) minority do not see themselves as British. Never
have, never will. Maybe if we apply the criterion offered by poor
deluded Maggie Thatcher and ask “Is the north as British as Finchley?”
the thing becomes clearer. Of course we’re not.
There are a number of interesting things about the exchange between the
two women. As UUP leader Robin Swann noted, Michelle’s comment “sucked
the atmosphere out of the room” – that short exchange is what the
question-and-answer session was reduced to. And as Swann also pointed
out, Michelle’s comment may have been deliberate. It could well have
been dangled to see if the DUP leader had shuffled away from her famous
and revealing crocodile comment. If that was the case, Arlene certainly
took the bait.
But the little introductory clause used by Arlene – “I don’t want this
to turn into a row” – is perhaps even more significant. She clearly felt
that Michelle shouldn’t have said our NEN wasn’t British, and if she did
there could be a row. Say you don’t consider this part of Ireland
British and you’re likely to provoke anger or at least heated dispute
from unionist politicians.
That’s the part that jars with me. No one is asking Arlene or any
unionist politician to deny that our NEN is British. Certainly Michelle
wasn’t. What is important is that nationalists and republicans should
have the right to express their views on the nature of the north. But
if a row is possibly going to break out any time a
republican/nationalist expresses the view that our NEN is really part of
Ireland, not Britain, we’re back just about where we started. Behind
Arlene’s correction lies an implication: taigs may be tolerated about
the place these days but they better mind what they say to those who run
the colony.