Posted by Jim on September 9, 2017
By Gerry Adams (for Leargas)
In the cut and thrust of negotiations there is always the risk that
someone will say something that makes the process of achieving agreement
more difficult. Sometimes they do that deliberately. Sometimes they are
just stupid. Or tongue in cheek. During the negotiations leading to the
Good Friday Agreement in 1998 the Ulster Unionist politician John Taylor
famously dismissed proposals from Senator George Mitchel saying he
wouldn’t touch them with a ’40 foot barge pole’. Taylor was renowned for
such hyperbole.
Last week he was at it again claiming that nationalists in the North
‘are not equal’ to unionists. He wasn’t alone in making outrageous and
stupid comments. The morning after the DUP leader Arlene Foster made,
what some in the media described as a ‘new offer’ and a ‘compromise
proposal’ to Sinn Fein, her Westminster colleague Sammy Wilson was in
fine ‘Taylor mode’. He said: “They (Sinn Fein) are not a serious party…
we now have the spectacle of a party with seven MPs who don’t go to
their work and 27 MLAs who won’t go to their work – why on earth would
anyone vote for such a bunch of malingerers.”
That’s Sammy doing what he does best. Messing. His problem of course is
that more and more people in the North are voting for Sinn Fein, as
evident in the Assembly and Westminster elections earlier this year.
More crucially, Arlene Foster’s ‘new offer’ – her ‘compromise’ proposal
was nothing of the sort. It came during a period when Michelle O Neill
was exploring the potential of the next phase of talks with other
leaders, including Arlene and the two governments. The same proposal,
that Ministers be put back in place while negotiations continue in
parallel, was suggested by DUP negotiator Edwin Poots in June and raised
some weeks ago by his party colleague Simon Hamilton. It was rejected
then and Arlene Foster knew it would be rejected last week. It wasn’t a
serious effort to resolve the crisis.
And when you think about it why would Sinn Fein agree to go back into
power sharing with the DUP with no agreement in place? On the vague
possibility of possible legislation that may or may be agreed by a DUP
party which thus far has shown no real desire to agree. And if it
doesn’t work we pull the whole edifice down again. That’s not a recipe
for progress, but for disaster.
In addition, as it has tried to put the blame on Sinn Fein for the
current crisis the DUP, and elements of the media, have claimed that
Sinn Fein doesn’t really want to be in the power sharing institutions.
They accuse us of not wanting to have to manage the mess that Brexit is
already creating for the economy of the North, and in particular for our
rural and farming families, and for those living on both sides of the
border corridor. They also say that being in government in the North
undermines our political project in the South.
This is patent nonsense. From the time of the Good Friday Agreement Sinn
Fein’s political strategy has been built on the need for an Executive
and Assembly and all-Ireland institutions. For almost 20 years we have
worked to ensure that these are viable and effective. For ten years –
first with Ian Paisley, then with Peter Robinson and latterly with
Arlene Foster, Martin McGuinness stretched himself and our party to keep
the institutions in place through the most difficult of circumstances.
Martin’s decision in January was reluctantly taken.
It is also a fact that Sinn Fein’s electoral fortunes in the South are
assisted by an Executive and Assembly in place.
In the Oireachtas our political opponents, especially the Fianna Fail
leader Micheal Martin, cynically exploit the absence of the institutions
to attack Sinn Fein. Martin doesn’t care that the status quo continues
to discriminate against nationalists; or that Irish speakers are being
treated as second class citizens; or that commitments in Agreements,
which a Fianna Fail government of which he was part, have not been
implemented; or that LGBT citizens in a part of this island do not have
the right to marriage equality. Martin’s only interest in the current
crisis is to exploit it in his electoral battle with Sinn Fein in the
South.
So, let me be very clear. Sinn Fein is fully committed to the power
sharing institutions agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. However, the
institutions can only work if they are based on equality, respect and
integrity.
Last week’s proposal by the DUP Leader Arlene Foster for a parallel
process did contain a welcome acknowledgement that the Irish language
threatens no one. The crocodiles will be delighted to hear that. And she
did include a promise of legislation. This is welcome also. But more
than soft words are required. So, to ensure there is no misunderstanding
let me repeat what I said last week. There will be no return to the
Assembly or Executive without a stand-alone Irish Language Act and the
resolution of the other outstanding issues.
Posted by Jim on
——————————————————–
The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) has said it is supporting a
‘border poll’ on unity as part of a new campaign for a United Ireland
outside of the EU. The following is the first section of its new policy
document, ‘Britain out of Ireland – Ireland out of the EU’.
———————————————————
Demographics in the north of Ireland are changing.
Conceived by Britain in 1921 as a gerrymandered state with built in
Unionist majority; generational based political shifts in the six
counties have presented a scenario wherein for the first time ever,
progressive sentiment may tip the balance of public opinion in favour of
ending partition itself.
Since its inception, the Irish Republican Socialist Party have
challenged and rejected the right of the six-county state to exist in
any form, this remains our position today.
In 1998, we opposed the Good Friday Agreement, it’s so called ‘principle
of consent’ and the triple lock system which saw the sectarian state
known as ‘Northern Ireland’ consolidated as a quasi-legitimate entity.
Our outlook in this regard remains constant and standing on the platform
of anti-imperialism, we remain committed to the dismantling of the
British state in Ireland, be that by the utilisation of ‘constitutional
methods’ or outside the confines of the GFA if needs be.
THE CASE FOR A ‘BORDER POLL’
Central to the project of revolutionary change however lies a duty to
recognise political and social reality as it exists at every juncture of
historical development.
The IRSP have traditionally held a sceptical attitude towards electoral
solutions to the British imposed border in Ireland and unlike the
parties of mainstream nationalism, we do NOT recognise the Good Friday
Agreement’s ‘principle of consent’ which in reality amounts to a
reactionary veto on progress towards Irish National Liberation, nor do
we believe that there can be any parliamentary road to Socialism.
In the event of any failure to end partition via so called
‘constitutional’ means, Republican Socialists would be under no more
compulsion to recognise the Unionist Veto than we are today, holding
that it was founded upon the fraudulent coercion of the Irish people who
under a state of duress were compelled to accept the unconstitutional
division of Ireland in 1921.
Such a corrupt constitutional set up never has and never will receive
recognition from the Irish Republican Socialist Party.
However, the demographic and subsequent political shifts currently
being witnessed in the north are occurring at a pace unpredicted by any
political party when the Good Friday Agreement was conceived. It is our
belief that rising progressive sentiment (particularly amongst our
youth) which today seeks an end to partition in our lifetime can
conceivably be harnessed to significantly weaken, discredit and
eventually play a part in dismantling the sectarian northern state
itself.
The fact that this momentum may express itself via the Good Friday
Agreement1 (that is via a ‘border poll’ or unity referendum) presents no
ideological or principled difficulty for the IRSP. Progressive popular
opinion is of greater revolutionary importance than the past or current
programs of any political party and for Republican Socialists to ignore
the sentiments of a progressive section of the Irish working class would
represent no less than arrogant posturing on our behalf. We have no
intention of retreating into such an intellectual morass.
Since our inception ours has been a party that has rejected
abstentionism for its own sake, favouring critical engagement with
established political institutions, when and where to do so would weaken
the power of the state and advance the Irish revolutionary position.
Such were the teachings of our founding members James Connolly and
Seamus Costello in whose tradition we today stand.
It is the considered opinion of the IRSP that in the current
environment, there is more to be gained in actively calling for and
campaigning around a ‘border poll’ for an end to the sectarian state
than there is to be lost.
Similar initiatives in Scotland and Catalonia have introduced thousands
of previously apolitical youths to the concepts and merits of radical
politics there, bringing them onto the streets and into the ways of
progressive activism, arguably changing the political landscapes and
future fortunes of those nations forever.
Thus far, no movement on the left has added their weight to calls for a
border poll here, leaving centrist nationalist parties like the SDLP and
Sinn Fein free to promote their own concept of a United Ireland; united
under the flag of the European Union and so subsequently (and
unavoidably) bereft of Socialist principles or values. Such a setup is
anathema to Republican Socialism and or even basic principles of Irish
independence.
In such a dynamic, it is the duty of the left to intervene, not least to
point out the inherent contradictions in a pro-EU/pro-independence
position, but to harness and mobilise those who wish to challenge in a
non-violent fashion, the ongoing partition of Ireland, while rejecting
the constricted and pro-capitalist values of the EU.
The IRSP understand that the prospect of an immediate and successful
outcome in a border poll is not assured, however it is our belief that
the mobilising of significant numbers around such an initiative (along
with the popular public debate which will undoubtedly follow) may with
time set off a popular momentum for Irish unity which cannot be
reversed.
We feel that such a prospect, however remote in the immediate term, is
vastly more desirable and credible than a return to sporadic armed
actions, which in the current environment can offer nothing but a return
to suffering for Republicans and the Irish working class in general.
In recognition of the above principles, the IRSP takes this opportunity
to call for (at the earliest opportunity) a ‘border poll’ on the issue
of partition in Ireland, and declare our intention to campaign
pro-actively and from a revolutionary socialist platform for a
progressive result, namely an end to partition in Ireland.
Posted by Jim on
A belligerent British government statement, apparently ruling out a role
for the 26 County government in the running of the Six Counties, has
cast a shadow over efforts to restart powersharing talks in Belfast.
Dublin’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney had said that full
direct rule from London could not be reimposed without the input of the
26 County government.
Under both the Good Friday and St Andrews’ peace agreements, the British
government is under a legal obligation to consult Dublin if
power-sharing in the North fails to function. The DUP/SF Executive in
Belfast has not met for seven months after the late Martin McGuinness
resigned as deputy first minister in a row over a financial scandal and
unimplemented previous agreements.
“There can be no British-only direct rule, that is the Irish
Government’s position,” Mr Coveney said. “It would be very difficult to
even contemplate how direct rule would function in that context.”
However, within hours of his statement the British government issued a
terse retort, saying: “We will never countenance any arrangement, such
as joint authority, inconsistent with the principle of consent in the
agreement.”
In an ominous sign for ongoing talks efforts, it appears the DUP
influenced the British decision to issue a statement rebuking Coveney.
Senior Sinn Fein representative Alex Maskey said the British
intervention represented a “slapdown” for the Dublin government’s
position.
Sinn Fein’s leader at Stormont, Michelle O’Neill criticised the British
government’s statement on power-sharing. She said both governments are
“co-equal”.
“They have a joint and equal role in the process, in safeguarding rights
and implementing the agreements,” she said.
“The Irish government must assert that role and the British government
acknowledge that they are partners in that process.”
The SF leader in the North added that the 2006 St Andrews Agreement had
ended the British government’s ability to suspend the institutions and
impose direct rule.
“It also committed in the event of no agreement to a new British-Irish
partnership to implement the Good Friday Agreement,” she said.
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said unilateral British direct rule would
amount to “joint Tory-DUP direct rule” and undermine the principles of
the Good Friday Agreement.
“The rapid and extreme response to Minister Coveney’s reasoned statement
bears all the hallmarks of a British government politically controlled
by the DUP,” he said.
“The SDLP are clear that our first choice has always been and will
always be restoring our devolved institutions. We believe that local
decisions on behalf of local people are best made by our local
institutions.”
South Armagh-born Labour MP Conor McGinn accused the British government
of overreacting to Mr Coveney’s “matter-of-fact remarks”
He also claimed it was the latest indication that the DUP was “calling
the Tory tune”.
“The Irish government has a legitimate and constitutionally enshrined
role to play in the north as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday
Agreement,” he said.
‘READY FOR TALKS’
Last week, a DUP proposal to bring back the northern Executive straight
away while discussing culture and corruption issues in a “parallel
process” was dismissed by Sinn Fein.
However, Sinn Fein’s leader at Stormont, Michelle O’Neill, said Sinn
Fein is ready to restart formal negotiations with the DUP, other parties
and the two governments.
Ms O’Neill said: “The Sinn Fein and DUP leaderships have for more than a
week now been engaged in intensified dialogue to determine whether
political progress is possible.
“We do believe progress is possible and are therefore ready to re-engage
in formal negotiations together, and with the other parties and both
governments, to try and reach agreement in a short, sharp and focused
negotiation.
“This process should begin immediately.”
Posted by Jim on
Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams has made the first step in his gradual
withdrawal from front-line politics in a historic shift which he
believes will help pave the way for a new generation of party leaders.
Mr Adams ended years of speculation over his leadership by confirming
that he will set out his future intentions at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis
[annual conference] in November, a move which will lead to him stepping
aside from the day-to-day political work.
The announcement came at Sinn Fein’s annual ‘think in’ at the Citywest
Hotel in County Meath. Mr Adams said he would detail the party’s
“planned process of generational change” after November.
At the same event last year, both Mr Adams and lifelong ally Martin
McGuinness indicated that they were working towards retirement. Mr
McGuinness passed away in March, and it is now thought likely that Mr
Adams will begin to take on an ambassadorial or honorary role.
Commentators also believe a ‘new generation’ of party figureheads will
be in a stronger position to negotiate possible coalition deals, without
the distraction posed by the allegations of IRA activity often directed
against Mr Adams.
At the party gathering, the 68-year-old told grassroots members of a
plan to achieve “strategic objectives” that includes an “orderly
leadership change”.
He said that if again confirmed as party leader at the Ard Fheis in
November, as expected, he “will be setting out our priorities and in
particular our planned process of generational change, including my own
future intentions.”
Mr Adams said the plan was “about preparing the party for the next ten
years and to ensure that we are better able to achieve our strategic
objectives”.
It is the first time he has indicated a timeframe for the transition,
which could potentially see Sinn Fein’s next leader in the Dublin
parliament become Tanaiste [Deputy Prime Minister] in a future coalition
government under Fianna Fail’s Micheal Martin.
Senior Fianna Fail figures have stressed that as long as Gerry Adams
remains as Sinn Fein leader, the party would be blocked from supporting
them in a coalition government because Mr Adams would then automatically
take on the role of Tanaiste. Despite two decades of peace work, that
would still be politically unacceptable for many Fianna Fail members.
‘TOXIC’
However, another series of bullying allegations against Sinn Fein
management cast a shadow over Mr Adams speech and undermined the
prospects of coalition.
Earlier this week Lisa Marie Sheehy, Sinn Fein’s youngest elected
councillor in the 26 Counties, resigned from the party, citing a
“bullying culture” and a “toxic atmosphere”.
It is estimated about 20 Sinn Fein councillors in the South are
currently affected by various disputes, out of a total of 159, amid
claims of bullying, sham investigations, kangaroo courts, whispering
campaigns and diktats.
A number of senior Sinn Fein politicians, including Martin Ferris,
Pearse Doherty and David Cullinane, have been implicated in the
increasingly public disputes. Ms Sheehy, a 23-year old Limerick
councillor and postgraduate student of politics, described the process of
investigation as a game of “pass the parcel”.
Prominent Tipperary councillor Seamie Morris said his mental health had
been affected by the party’s “dirty tricks”, while Westmeath councillor
Paul Hogan claimed he had received a death threat.
Senior Fianna Fail figures have denounced Sinn Fein’s Machiavellian
approach to internal party dynamics as “cult-like” and requiring
fundamental change before coalition can be considered.
Sinn Fein has denied there is a problem. In each of the instances, a
spokesperson has insisted the issue is localised and a result of
constituency splits, personality disputes, or communication issues.
Questioned about the latest incident by journalists at the ‘think-in’,
Mr Adams responded to the allegations of bullying from Sheehy by
insisting that no such culture exists.
“There is no culture of bullying within Sinn Fein and it’s actually
very unfair to the members of this party that this allegation has been
made,” he said.
Posted by Jim on September 7, 2017
Open Letter to Steve Bannon
From Fr. Sean Mc Manus, President, Irish National Caucus)
Mr. Steve Bannon
Breitbart
September 7, 2017
Dear Steve,
I’ve been wondering if you were any relation to Fr. Bannon (1829-1913) — the “Confederate Chaplain,” who was born in County Leitrim, Ireland.
Your last name and politics might indicate a close relationship.
However, I now doubt it, because at least Fr. Bannon would not have been anti-Catholic, something which you have, almost stereotypically, declared yourself to be. (And, yes, Catholics can be anti-Catholic).
Your crass and vicious charge alleges that the Catholic bishops are supporting immigrants out of “economic interest” and because “they need illegal aliens to fill the churches.” In other words, the Catholic Bishops are using one of Jesus Christ’s most sacred commands, “Do this in memory of me” — The Mass/ The Eucharist — not in fidelity to the Gospel but to make money (from the poorest people in the country?)
No anti-Catholic outburst could possibly be more offensive to lay Catholics, priests, and Bishops. It is also one of the oldest anti-Catholic tropes in America — and in England, with its historic anti-Catholic oppression in Ireland, and since 1920 in “Northern Ireland.” … So, Steve, get ready to be inducted into the Orange Order, the anti-Catholic, secret-oath-bound, organization in Northern Ireland. You would find it a congenial home: it is almost seen as respectable— like how the White Citizens Council in Alabama and Mississippi were a bit more respectable than the KKK.
Also, of course, to charge that The Mass/The Eucharist is all about making money is like the Nazi’s accusation that the Jews were sucking money out of Germany, which brings us back to another historical foundation: the historic targets of the KKK are Catholics, Blacks and Jews.
Well, this Fermanagh-born Irishman takes his stand with Catholics, Blacks and Jews against the KKK. As Martin Luther, himself, said in 1521,” Here I stand, I can no other