South Armagh 32csm urges republicans to reject British institutions in Ireland

by The Insider Sun Oct 02, 2005 23:32

Education, Transport, Social Welfare, Economic Development, Bin CHarges, Garda Reform, Urban Planning etc etc etc?

by Barry Mon Oct 03, 2005 01:11

32CSM arent a political party ,

by southsider Mon Oct 03, 2005 01:46

Was he trying to let on he had inside info on the cokes ?

by Fintan Lawlor Mon Oct 03, 2005 03:25

The lesson the last 30 years is clear to all but the most obtuse: the absolute futility of armed struggle.

by Sharon. - Individual. Mon Oct 03, 2005 08:26

" The lesson the last 30 years is clear to all but the most obtuse: the absolute futility of armed struggle."

And when will the lesson of the "absolute futility" of claiming jurisdiction in another country be 'learned' by those in Westminster ?

Sharon.

by Tne Insider Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:11

But they have policies on all those issues.

by Mark C - Teacher Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:32 mark at markconroy dot net

No matter how big or how small a step you think the IRA Decomissioning thing is it is still a step forward and the sooner the so-called hardliners (Paisley and the 32CSM et al on both sides) recognise this the better for all on all sides.

If even only one gun is decommissioned isn't one more than was previously decommissioned? The Unionists should think this is a good thing. It allows Nationalists more entry into devolved government. The Republicans should think this is a good thing.

Mark Conroy.

by Barry Mon Oct 03, 2005 13:40

the vast majority of 32csm members would be trade union members also . Therefore they are well able to address all the issues concerning the policies you outline within those and other forums such as community groups etc . There really isnt a need at present for yet another political party .

However they all agree that the implementation of these policies should be implemented by the Irish people acting as a unit and not by a foreign government backed up by armed force . Believe it or not some Irish people feel the need to point out the denial of Irish sovereignty by foreign governments , and its dismissal by native politicians and organise against this . Just as socialists and radicals in most countries around the world would do the same . And many do . Particularly in Latin America today many radical groups and figures also emphasise sovereignty and the control of national resources by the people themselves as opposed to foreign capital .

All in 32csm are firmly agreed that the British occupation of one part of the country , the use of shannon as a military base by the US and the theft of our national resources by Shell and others constitutes the utter denial of any concept of either Irish sovereignty or national democracy . This is worth not only pointing out but worth organising around as subjects of national importance . More important than using 32csm as a debating forum for different left wing opinions on social housing policy etc . There are manyu other worthwhile forums for 32csm members to engage on those issues as opposed to defending Irish sovereignty and all that entails .

As for Mark Conroy Id respectfully point out that Irish republicans accepting the right of a foreign gvernment to rule part of this nation is not a step forward for Irish republicanism or the concept of Irish sovereignty . Its a very backward thing to do . Practicing British politics in Ireland isnt progressive at all and certainly wont bring peace or closure to the conflict or advance Irish sovereignty in any way ..

by Mark C - Teacher Mon Oct 03, 2005 16:37

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about how we should accept a foreign government ruling Ireland. I only said that decommissioning weapons should be a welcomed step for people all over the two islands.

Mark Conroy.

by yadda Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:22

The majority of people in the North consistantly vote for Unionist parties. Regardless of all the 32 county romanticism (and frankly scary dialogue here) you won't see 32 county ireland until a clear majority up north are nationalist/republican.

Anyway, could you imagine would happen if we in the Republic had to cope with approx 1 million people who didn't want to be here? I shudder to think...

Pragmatically, it would cripple the county, gain us a massive unemployment problem which unlike the UK we don't have the resources for, and a paramilitary problem that i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Frankly, I don't ever want it back.

32 county ireland just won't happen in next 50 years, it won't wash with the people.

by up north Tue Oct 04, 2005 15:03

I hadn't heard that the electorate in Donegal were voting for unionist candidates . Another scoop for indymedia ireland.

by Barry Tue Oct 04, 2005 16:16

I can understand that the concept of actually having sovereignty for ones country can be quite daunting for many in Ireland . Northerners arent really Irish after all (strange people) , and sure , who cares if a friendly neighbour (whose never murdered any of our citizens even ) occupies our country illegally . Theyre so helpful they seem to control Irish security services , which is why we dont need any accountability in that quarter either .

Why rock the boat I suppose .Shell might have everyone thrown in jail too if Irish people really wanted control of their resources . Itd be rude beyond imagination to ask for them back . Bad for the economy most likely .

And god forbid if we told Bush to get stuffed while we're at it and exercised neutrality at Shannon . Rude beyond imagination . Its not like its really our airport , sure theres more yanks in it than Irish people . Leave well alone . And itd be bad for the economy dont you know .

Better to let the politicians get on with it and leave evrything the way it is . Sure havent we sorted out the priests now which proves Ireland isnt a backward country of subservient peasants . We've got rubber johnnies , BMWs and everything . We're in the big league now . We're coool ! sovereigntys for losers .

by Mark C - Teacher Tue Oct 04, 2005 16:42

Hi Barry,

I hope you don't think that I'm being too bourgeois or anything, but I'd really appreciate it if you could learn to use the humble apostrophe. It isn't an anti-imperial punctuation mark, really. The only time that you have used it correctly is whenever you use the term "we're".

Just a note.

Mark Conroy.

by Barry Tue Oct 04, 2005 19:41

Erm...Ive used the humble apostrophe on 5 other occasions . Perhaps I could humbly suggest a trip to specsavers ?

And fear not , I dont regard you or anyone else as bourgeois . Anyone seriously using that term as an insult has a pointy goatee beard and wears strange clothes , most likely .

by wexford cira Tue Oct 04, 2005 22:12

we demand shameful comments about wexford pows in portlaoise from the leadership of cira be withdrawn immediately

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Oct 05, 2005 01:51

Could I ask the poster (Kevin Murphy) to define the word "Republican" as used in this Press release please.

by betty williams Wed Oct 05, 2005 02:48

Would that be because you wish to start a sub argument about how people like Mickey McDowell and assorted pro british types are truly republicans and those who want the British government to cease its occupation arent ?

Are you the same peace people that spat on the photographs of the Irish children murdered by the British army and RUC that time outside the GPO ? When youse had the protest about the Warrington bombs . I was there y'know . Remember it well .

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:31

from the original poster who wrote, I think, under his own name and who asked for an open and far-reaching debate among republicans.

by Mark C - Teacher Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:47

Yes Barry, you did manage to use five apostrophes, but from my reading of that one comment above alone you should have used thirteen more. At least you didn't misuse them (for example using them every time you have a plural). Advice that I give to my students is: If you don't know if an apostrophe should be used then don't use it - advice that you used without being given it.

You could say that you have more pressing issues to attend to, but remember that Roger Casement was 'hanged on a comma'.

http://www.tes.co.uk/section/story/?section=Archive&sub_section=TES+Teacher&story_id=386406&Type=0

The Roger Casement section is about half-way down this article.

Mark Conroy.

by James Wed Oct 05, 2005 13:07

Justin M:
Could I ask the poster (Kevin Murphy) to define the word "Republican" as used in this Press release please.

Not a republican myself, but persumably it refers to those who uphold the Reublic as proclaimed in 1916 and reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence in 1919. This Republic was subsequently replaced by the Free State in 1922. Republicans have never accepted that replacement as legitmate and indeed fought the civil war to preserve 'the Republic'. Ever since then they have been consistent in their use of 'republican' to describe their political position.

This is why RSF etc do not accept the Provos as republicans; they have accepted the Free State intitutions in the South and the British ones in the North,

Obviously, the term 'republican' has a wider meaning, going back to the French Revolution and Wolfe Tone. Republicans argue that their vision is most faithful the original republicanism than Fine Gael etc, which reinforces their confidence in using it.

by mr semantic Wed Oct 05, 2005 15:08

Please Mr Conroy sir I don't understand what you mean by:
"It isn't an anti-imperial punctuation mark, really. "
Would you explain please ?

by Mark C - Teacher Wed Oct 05, 2005 16:04 mark at markconroy dot net

Basically saying that Barry (not sure if that is you, Mr Semantic - since you like to hide behind a pseudonym) can feel free to use the punctuation mark (i.e. the apostrophe)without betraying his cause. I, perhaps wrongly, thought that he knew how to use it but believed that perhaps he thought it would be supporting an Imperialist agenda if he did so. Many people don't use semi-colons because they believe them to be too middle-class. Obviously I was wrong and the simple answer is that Barry doesn't not know when an apostrophe should be used or how to use it.

Sincerely yours,
Mark Conroy.

by Barry Wed Oct 05, 2005 16:25

That I was drinking a cup of tea and smoking a fag while typing with one finger , which made my punctuation unforgivably sloppy . For this I humbly apologise .

I agree with teacher that the slaughtering of the english language (as opposed to its occupation forces) is one of todays tragedies . Ignorance and an inability to express ones self succinctly is a prison in its self .

by mr semantic Thu Oct 06, 2005 13:41

Shouldn't you have written "anti-imperialist" instead of "anti-imperial?"

by Kevin Murphy - 32 CSM Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:28 sarmagh32csm at hotmail dot com

Apologies to Justin for the delay in replying to him as I hadnt seen his request for a definition of republicanism .

Essentially Irish republicanism as we in 32csm would generally define it is a secular and radical social ideology . Republicanism is based upon the belief that only the Irish people , acting as a unit and without foreign interference , have a right to determine the future of the Irish nation .

Broadly defined it encompasses those who like Wolfe Tone believed in the necessity to " break the connection with England the never ending source of all our evils " and that sovereignty of the people should be vested in the people alone and not for example a monarch , foreign or native .

Republicansim would entail agreement with the position of the 1916 proclamation ( which guarantees equality for all citizens) and Irelands right to full independence from foreign rule as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence . Republicanism , being secular , entails a rejection of clerical interference or dominance in the affairsof government and law making .

Irish republicanism , in general would also have a socialist outlook . One which believes Irish resources are the property of the Irish people and should be used to their benefit first and foremost and not foreign (or even native) capitalists , and that all citizens of the Irish republic are entitled to equal rights and opportunities .

Im not trying to define the 32csms position , but give as broad as possible a definition of what we would regard as Irish republicanism . Irish republicanism includes many strands of thought , some of which emphasise socialist beliefs more strongly than others for example . However its generally not the 32csms position to tell people whether they are or arent republicans or what they can regard themselves as . It is broadly to the people who agree with the positions outlined above that our call for debate on the way forward has been issued .

However we welcome constructive debate from whatever quarter , including certainly the Peace People . In the past we have met with figures such as Julitta Clancys Meath Peace Group for example and found the exchange of views worthwhile and even pleasant . I hope this very broad definition has been of some use to you ,

Is mise ,

Kevin Murphy .

by Mark C Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:05

No, I should have written 'Imperial' not 'anti-imperial'. But at least mine is an honest mistake; it has not come about because I don't know how to write properly; it was not laziness.

I hope you are never hanged because of a punctuation mark.

Mark.

by mr semantic Fri Oct 07, 2005 16:03

Mark ,no matter what anybody tells you , Roger Casement was not hanged over a comma:
"O lordly Roger Casement you gave all a man could give
That justice not be sneered at and that Liberty might live
But you hurt the high and mighty in pocket and in pride
And that is why they hated you ,and that is why you died "

by RobbieS Sat Oct 08, 2005 07:05

the lack of constructive engagement with this article, highlights for me, the strength and perseverence needed to champion the cause of the people, when most of them would sooner have their heads turned by immediate trifles.

there is a paradox in having faith in the people as their own arbiters, and also realising that they are malliable, fickle or just too nice to rock any boat of power. the Irish people consistently get it wrong at elections (I mean in terms of their own health, welfare, transport, sovereignty, trusteeship of their funds in common, environment etc).

FF appeals to the gullible, and FF-voters are often those least served by FF "policy:-)". So, the swiftness with which many in the south left their comrades in the north to their own fate is shameful, but not surprising. If the Six Counties had been in another part of Ireland, the other 26 would still have given them the short shrift - that is, except for a minority.

Back to the paradox: Republic comes from the Roman version of Democracy (Ancient Greek), or vise versa, since Rome became a Republic in 509 BC. Too often has Republicanism attracted and been derailed by those intent on leading the people and ignoring what the people have to say. That great republican democrat de Valera for instance :-), if he wanted to know what the Irish people were thinking, just looked into his own heart (St. Patrick's Day speech, 1943 i think). The list doesn't begin or end with dev.

Very good, consistent and succinct definition of republicanism Kevin. How to reconfigure the resistance? How to convince the ignorant , beautiful people...to rouse them from their involuntary sloth?

bail na déithe ar an obair

by cod Sat Oct 08, 2005 14:16

Surely you are messing with poor old Barry et al here Mark? Your own writing seems remarkably ordinary so I'm thinking that you are being a gagster? ...Distracting but a gagster nonetheless.

by non troll Sat Oct 08, 2005 14:44

the teacher is a troll

by john derg - 32csm Wed Oct 12, 2005 15:12

no your right the 32csm are not a political party we never said we were as it says on our website we are a political Movement.

by strange_but_true Wed Oct 12, 2005 19:16

Reading this website you would think that many of the contributers cannot understand why everyone doesn't just see sense and be a good "republican".

Is it because many people are just too busy with trifles or is it that they are disgusted by the "deeds" of our gallant Sinn Fein / IRA / 32csm "defenders". I don't even have to specify a particular "deed" because any one reading this will know what I mean. Sinn Fein / IRA / 32csm have betrayed the principles of Irish republicanism time after time - they seem to think its better to plant a bomb and run, the complete opposite of 1916.

The general disgust of any normal person for SF/IRA/32csm is not all down to British propaganda you know, no matter what you might think. Its down to their own actions.

(As for British organisations in the south that should be rejected by southern citizens, why not start with a boycott of Manchester United supporter clubs.)

by Barry Wed Oct 12, 2005 22:30

Well planting a bomb and legging it makes much more sense than planting one and standing there till it goes off . And brave and inspirational as 1916 was , standing in a neat line to be picked off in seconds by todays modern technology may not be an wholly successful military tactic . ( although in 1916 they were still spat upon and denounced as cowards) .

The central principle of 1916 was that Ireland as a nation is entitled to full independence and that the British governments armed occupation of any part of it is a denial of national sovereignty . 1916 affirmed the principle that Irish people have the right to oppose the British government by arms .Whether they took up static positions or resorted to hit and run was a tactic , not a principle . And I doubt seriously if the reals occupied Belfast city hall in the morning anti - republican critics would be on their way up the motorway to be handed a rifle . The principles of 1916 and the declaration of Independence which followed it are the central principles of 32csm . They havent betrayed those principles at all .

And I understand fully why so many people arent republican in outlook . Very few were in 1916 either . Certainly there have been shameful deeds carried out in the name of republicanism over the last 3 decades which disgraced its name . As well as that the blanket censorship of section 31 ensured that people in the 26 counties never even heard what was going on in their own country or what was being done by Britain to their own people . 30 years of blanket censorship and an RTE newsroom run by the likes of Eoghan Harris and co undoubtedly had a major effect on peoples views . What else could it do .

But very few people are up in arms over Rossport , Shannon or the Dublin Monaghan bombing scandal either . It doesnt mean that its wrong to raise these very important issues too . All these issues are clearly tied into the overall issue of national sovereignty every bit as much as the north . All these national scandals are a direct result of the lack of Irish sovereignty accross the board . Thats why we maintain sovereignty must be upheld and protected .

Finally Ive little time for Man Utd but the last I heard they werent claiming sovereignty over Ireland and occupying part of it militarily . Football clubs of any nationality arent the cause of the problem . A foreign government occupying part of Ireland ,and the resulting lack of sovereignty that entails for everyone is the problem . People can support whatever team they like for all I care .

by RobbieS Thu Oct 13, 2005 01:49

It seems to be the bombs and targeting of civilians you disagree with - so we can take it that 'Security Forces' are fair game in your 1916 worldview - that would be consistent.

Before 1916, it gets a bit murcier. Civilians were seen as fair game by some on both sides in 1798. Scullabogue is perhaps the most infamous, but an estimated 10,000 (10%) of Wexford's population was killed in the rebellion and its aftermath, and the vast majority of this was done by forces of the crown and their confederates.

Similar contexts should be remembered before you spit bile at those marginalised you don't understand.

Your venom would be better spent if you saved it for the British government who perpetrate attrocities under the cloak of legitemacy, and are one of the world's leading arms manufacturers; or for the irish government indeed, who will not prosecute its own police force when innocents die in Garda custody, and which lets a thousand troops per day travel through Shannon Airport on the way to an illegal war, not to speak of 'extraordinary renditions' (those to be tortured) through the same place.

I cannot defend the strategy of bombing civilian targets during the troubles, but some in the Provisional Movement would argue that it achieved a degree of success by keeping the "North" on the public agenda, eventuallly leading to the Good Friday Agreement...

by R.Isible Thu Oct 13, 2005 02:45

If you argue that "The central principle of 1916 was that Ireland as a nation is entitled to full independence and that the British governments armed occupation of any part of it is a denial of national sovereignty . 1916 affirmed the principle that Irish people have the right to oppose the British government by arms ."

then presumably you don't see the principle of self-determination and the right to assert it by force of arms as being unique only to the "Irish".

In which case the loyalists/unionists are perfectly within their rights to use kidnapping, robbery, assassination, etc in order to defend their right to remain self-determinedly part of the UK?

The only argument that I can see against that rests on the idea the unionism/loyalism is a bigoted, racist philosophy that denies the rights of Catholics. I can however imagine a non-bigoted version of unionism that avoids those problems.

by Barry Thu Oct 13, 2005 16:30

The 6 counties is an artificially created entity , created simply because Britain refused to recognise the right of the Irish people as a whole to national sovereignty in the first place . Northern Ireland was never a nation in any way , it has no historical claim to be one , and even its very existence has always been a matter of major and often bloody dispute .

The right to Irish sovereignty was firmly expressed with a huge majority at the ballot box and the right to full Irish independence from British sovereignty was affirmed a democratic mandate . It is illegal for another country to then undermine national sovereignty by force or the threat of force .

Ireland even under British rule was always recognised and administered as a distinct unit . Historically it has always been one nation .The creation of the British statelet itself relied purely on a sectarian headcount and contradicts international law on national sovereignty . It wasnt even created for humanitarian reasons , as the British themselves actually boasted it was simply to maintain control of the entire island and prevent Irish sovereignty from being established . It had , and has , no other purpose .

For example even in kosovo , despite the wish of the majority to break away from serbia , it is still recognised internationally as a province of serbia . Historically it has always been part of the serbian nation . Its just a province the serbian government cant control with lawful methods, hence the need for a UN presence . While it has autonomy it would be illegal for Albania to annex it . Albania hasnt even made any claim of sovereignty over it . And its doubtful whether Kosovo is viable as a sovereign entity itself .

Unfortunately not since 1921 has any Irish government challenged Britains claim to sovereignty in an international forum . And when challenged in a UN forum in recent years a British government spokesman defended their claim to sovereignty simply on the grounds that it hadnt been challenged under international law .

In the event of a united Ireland or simply a British withdrawal loyalists would though be perfectly entitled to seek a referendum on independence for the 6 counties from Dublin , and to make a case for recognition of the 6 counties sovereignty as a distinct national entity . They could even make a case for basic autonomy from Dublin rule . But I personally doubt it would be successful . I dont believe an independent 6 counties would be at all viable as a nation in any conceivable way .However the existence of a national minority , and Britains claim to sovereignty over Ireland are different issues . As are national sovereignty and national hegemony .

by Joe Public Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:06

When the British or the Irish republic or Unionists or Americans do it its murder. When we do its its a blow for Republicans.

If the government, military, police arent controlled by us we wont recognise it.

If we dont like a law we will ignore it but our political side will demand tough laws and justice.

We will demand proof of every accusation but will never produce any for our accusations.

We will make the citizens of the Irish republic feel ashamed to be citizens, we will fight a PR battle against everyone but accuse them of this tactic and if all else fails, we will claim to be the legitimate government directly from 1916.

Now listen to the real history of Ireland.

1. In 1916 our brave boys fought a valiant war for freedom.

2. In 9121 Michael Collins set up Fine Gael but we didnt like that so we called ourselves the IRA and are the legitimate government.

3. In 1926 after we lose another war for power our leader will set up Fianna Fail but we dont like that so we will call ourselves the IRA.

4. In 1969 the IRA call an end to war but we dont like that so we call ourselves the Provisional IRA.

5. In 1994 the Provisional IRA will declare a ceasefire and enter politics but we cont like that so we will call ourselves the Real IRA.

6. To gain Irish unity for you people (thats the traitors) we will bomb and kill 28 people then cry foul when the pigs arrest us.

The pigs are the Gardai which was established by the traitors (FG) and many of the original IRA traitors. The PSNI which is the so-called police force in Northern Ireland.

You see, we dont control the Gardai or the PSNI so we dont recognise them, we didnt go with michael Collins and FG so we dont recognise them, we left Eamonn when he established FF so we dont recognise the current government and we didnt like Gerry so we no longer recognise the Provisional IRA/SF.

Now you see why your scum and we are the only true Irish government/Military/Police force? Now you see why the opinions and wishes of the majority dont count and only ours do?

by Mr. Memory Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:29

Michael Collins died in 1922. Fine Gael was set up in the 1930s sometime. Even Cumman na Gaedhael didn't exist in 1921.

The IRA lost the civil war in 1923, not 1926.

It was de Valera who left Sinn Fein. Republicans simply stayed with their postions, for good or for ill.

The IRA call an end to the war in 1969. In fact it restarted in 1969. The Official IRA, i.e. the majority faction, only declared a ceasefire in 1972 and even then there was a split a few years later when the INLA split off from them and started a campaign.

The Real IRA was founded in 1997, not 1994.

by Mr Memory Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:32

The IRA _didn't_ call an end to the war in 1969. In fact it restarted in 1969. The Official IRA, i.e. the majority faction, only declared a ceasefire in 1972 and even then there was a split a few years later when the INLA split off from them and started a campaign.

by Joe Public Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:47

Your missing the point memory and presuming things I dont say.

1. FG roots is within the 1921 pro-treaty side. (FG website) - The actual party was 1933.

2. Fianna fail founded in the La Scala Theatre,O’Connell Street Dublin in 1926. (FF website) - I didnt state the war was lost then just the parties start date.

3. Fianna Fail was formed by those who opposed the 1921 treaty that partitioned the island (http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/ireland.html) - As stated

4. 1969 Provisionals emerge (BBC website) - True the ceasefire was only official in 1972 but the split was a result of the Officials decision to declare a ceasefire and enter talks.

5. Again, I state the ceasfire of the Provos, not the official start date of the Real IRA.

Your presuming too much in order to fight my point. Events arent so neat as to happen all on the same day.

by Barry Thu Oct 13, 2005 18:24

Britain still directly occupies part of Ireland . It refuses to recognise the right of the Irish people to sovereignty over their own country .

I916 , the declaration of independence , the subsequent outbreak of hostilities between the British and the IRA were all simply due to the key issue of Irish sovereignty vs Britains denial that there is such a thing .

The 1916 proclamation clearly and unapologetically identifies upholding Irish sovereignty as the key issue in theirs and others decision to take up arms . It was the very issue why armed force was resorted to .

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland , and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be SOVEREIGN and indefeasible . The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished that right , nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people . In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and SOVEREIGNTY ; six times during the last 300 years they have asserted it in arms . Standing on that fundamental right , and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world , we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a SOVEREIGN independent state " .

I dont think the issue can be made any clearer than that . However youve made it clear myself or indeed anyone else who holds to this position is indeed a "traitor" of some description in our mind . Its clear you determine politics through following personalities rather than any key principles or fundamental positions . If 32csm are traitors its only to those corrupt politicians youve mentioned and the political directions they persued which in practice didnt include the concept of Irish sovereignty as outlined in 1916 or the DOI . I for one couldnt give a damn for political personalities and stick to the issues at hand .

And by the way the Real IRA do not regard themselves as the legitimate government of Ireland .

by R. Isible Thu Oct 13, 2005 18:30

But I don't understand your use of "artificially created" and "nation" as concepts that somehow validate one set of people's use of violence as legitimate and invalidate another set of people's use of violence.

Self-determination seems like the important principle to me and it has to be admitted that there are large numbers of people living now in the area known as N.Ireland who do not wish to be part of whatever it is that they think "Ireland" represents.

I'm happy to let them do whatever they want as long as they don't violate other people's right to self-determination, or discriminate against them.

The notion of "nationhood" seems an imprecise and quaint one to me that can be twisted to mean whatever one wants and doesn't help in ensuring that individuals and groups are not oppressed.

by pj Thu Oct 13, 2005 18:35

Our self determinism went the day we joined the EEC/EU

by Barry Thu Oct 13, 2005 19:17

Well , Britains claim to sovereignty over Ireland is not the same thing as self determination for protestants in the 6 counties . First and foremost the entire island is geographically and historically recognisable as a unit . Its provinces which still exist today were always part of one distinct unit . Although they may have frequently squabbled they were still inextricably linked through key sacred sites , language , culture and customs for 1000s of years and still are today . The ancient Irish word for province , cuige , which means a fifth clearly means that evry province was part of one distinct nation .

Even under full British administration the island was governed as a recognisable unit . Even pro British loyalists and monarchists in Belfast and Derry prior to partition proudly called themselves Irish and the Orange Orders hq was in Dublin . So the concept of an Irish nation covering the entire national territory has always existed and still does today . Britain always recognised this fact too , but they claimed sovereignty over it . It was a colonial possession .

Therefore the reason why the 6 counties can be called artificial was that it was created arbitrarily , and resulted in the wholly contradictory phenomenon of people who had just previously called themselves Irish for 100s of years declaring they suddenly werent and never were . However despite this many uster protestant orangemen in 3 counties actually were still Irish , and still are ! And it can be called artificial on the basis that it was created illegally and contrary to principles of international law .

When the British government partitioned the country both states still had to swear allegiance to the British crown as head of state on British insistence ( the south didnt even call itself a republic unil 1948).. This was despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the nation that even they recognised as such , had clearly voted for national sovereignty and formally declared their independence in accordance with international law .

Therefore partition itself is based upon the British insistence that the Irish people as a whole have no right whatsoever to national sovereignty or national self determination . Northern Ireland itself does not exist because of the unionists right to self determination , it exists solely due to the fact Britain doesnt recognise the right of Irish people to national sovereignty and never has done . Not only is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not based upon the principle of self determination , it never has been .

However if unionists wish to claim the right to seperate national self determinaton they can of course go to the UN and make a case for it . As yet they havent called for actual self determination , simply agreed with the British government that Irish people have no right to national sovereignty or self determination and never had . By the way R Isible thanks for responding to these points in an intelligent manner . An example to us all , myself included .

by Joe Public Fri Oct 14, 2005 00:43

But Barry,
How can you demand that northern Ireland be returned to Irish hands without alienating a very large portion of the population?

If a day comes when the majority of Northern Ireland wishes to become a part of the Irish Republic then it will happen however to force such a move by means of violence will not end anything, it will simple move the battle lines.

You condemn the actions of the British but yet want to copy those actions.

Surely you can see that murder is wrong and will not accomplish peace? Surely you can see that a Northern Ireland of peace is preferable to another 30 years of death and destruction?

This is what the majority of Irish people want so why force an alternative?

by Saor Uladh Fri Oct 14, 2005 00:44

"the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland". When the economy, and the livelihood of the people, is based on the inflow of foreign capital, advocating political self-determination is meaningless. In a globalized world what does 'self-determnation' mean? Platitudes are not enough. Those who seriously advocate self-determination must spell out what is their alternative to globalization. Provo Sinn Fein is but the Fianna Fail party of the 6 cos., and their talk of self-determination is spurious. The other minor, 'dissident' republican groupings have not any real economic alternative either. They're all just chasing after moonbeams.

by Barry Fri Oct 14, 2005 03:42

Does Joe Public seriously believe that the problem of unionist refusal to accept Irish sovereignty will be any way diminished if 51% vote for unity ? You cant be serious , surely .

And its clear that a substantial portion of the islands population already are alienated . For example the children of immigrants to this country . These people are going to grow up every bit as alienated from the country of their birth which rejects them as any loyalist , as will their kids . Its clear these people , under our current system , will need some co-ercion at some stage in the future .

The failure to persue Irish sovereignty has meant that the 26 county state has solved the challenge of diversity on this island by simply burying its head in the sand . Never once did it attempt to create political structures which could demonstrate to unionists they wouldnt be dominated and have their Ulster identity eliminated in a united Ireland . And thats because the southern state rejects the notion of Irish sovereignty and therefore doesnt want unity .

The southern state never attempted to create these necessary structures simply because it was never created to exercise Irish sovereignty or to promote the concept at all . Just look at Shannon and Rossport - the notion of sovereignty simply doesnt exist . It simply parked the demand for unity in its constitution and carried on practicing British politics as before. Just as it parked the notion of Irish neutrality .

Its system of government is based upon a central British model , the model the British decreed wed live under , with a gaelic veneer . And just as it has legislated the children of Immigrants out of existance , it did the same with northerners , especially nationalists . It shamefully turned its back on a section of the Irish people , failed to defend Irish sovereignty and abandoned them to foreign rule and British mercies .

Therefore in the event of Irish unity it would be patently necessary to create totally new political structures on this island to accomodate the diversity which exists . A 32 county free state is incapable of tackling this challenge , that much is clear . However any political structures which are capable of accomodating everyone are a matter solely for the people of this island as a whole . The people of this island as a whole are more than capable of solving this problem should they find the political will necessary to do so . British interference in our affairs , and its entailing denial of sovereignty are at the root of the problem . The current situation , held up as a final solution , has simply created more uncertainty and not solved this problem in any way . Its just more burying the head in the sand until the problem returns .

As for Saor Uladh Id remind him of this belief which is central to the republican concept of Irish sovereignty .

"The nations Sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the nation, but to all its material possessions; the nation’s soil and all its resources, all the wealth and the wealth producing processes within the nation"
Padraig Pearse.

It cant be expressed any cleaer than that what sovereignty entails .One presumes from his comments he believes in socialism without Irish sovereignty . Socialism with a monarchy as head of state for the north . Socialism with the British PSNI and British military controlling a section of the Irish populace . Moonbeams indeed .

Heres a socialist who believes defending the principle of national sovereignty can accomodate diversity as well as securing econimic rights for the people as a whole . National sovereignty is an essential ingredient of his socialist solution to his countrys ills . A privileged minority in his country who dont believe in national sovereignty threaten civil war and their fellow citizens also .

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE8B31F6-68F5-4128-B360-D5CAC9824BEA.htm

But of course Irish sovereignty is a concept so many on the left here refuse to persue or make central to their vision of the future . Its a lot easier to simply deride those who do and carry on avoiding the issue altogether .

by Shipsea Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:34

If 51% in the North vote for a united Ireland, that would put everything in different perspective there, from a contemporary point of view. In that circumstance the British will have to accept the wishes of the majority. That's built in to the Good Friday agreement. I know what you're going to say: if I think the British will stand by that I must be mad. Well, maybe so but what we'd all hope would happen would be that mechanisms for a transfer of sovereignty would then have to be put in place. It would involve a major realignment of the Irish constitution and this would be the optimum time and circumstance in which to deal with any ambiguity it embodies at present in realtion to sovereignty.
Very likely, the loyalist community would not go quietly as you say but you cant really behave as though that were a fact until it actually is. That's what Bush etc are doing all over the shop, isnt it?
You're making a caluclation based on the assumption that loss of life is inevitable, so why not take what you see as the cleanest path through the mire? Most of us simply dont want to do anything that involves taking lives. There are people walking around today because of the GFA who would otherwise have died in violent and shocking circumstances. You can't ask us to believe that this isnt a good thing.
But behind all of this increasingly marginal and outdated debate, is the issue of Ireland's strategic geographic location in relation to Europe. Given US perceptions of itself as a unilateral superpower and with its focus on other things altogether, the freedom to use Ireland as a staging post is not something it will give up lightly. Look at what McDowell has done to us? We're Americans now. The fact is the views and wishes of the loyalist and nationalist communities simply do not feature in any of this. The situation has changed completely and the British and Irish governments dont actully have a lot of power over it at the moment. The US are the people who are driving the politics in the North.

by Me Fri Oct 14, 2005 13:43

Former Senior RIRA man and current Pow in Maghaberry Prison, Ciaran MacLochlainn, has called for an end to the armed campaigns being waged by the RIRA and CIRA. It is the front page story on the Irish News and in Daily Ireland. Here are some excerpts from what he had to say.

“Looking retrospectively,one cannot pin-point exactly the reason for the collapse of these military initiatives, so complex and varied are their nature,but collapse they have,of that there can be no doubt.

“Perhaps it is safe to say that the structures around which these initiatives were built simply could not bear the pressures of what such an immense task brings. “Ultimately what made the structure fragile was an absence of popular support.” While insisting that republicans had a moral right to use “armed struggle ”,MacLochlainn said their war should now be brought to an end. “Sometimes the truth hurts and is hard to accept,” he said.

“But the fact is that out of these initiatives no credible military or political alternative has emerged that would justify any of the sacrifices made in its name.” The grandfather said dissidents were now caught between an “illusion of war and an aspiration to wage war,but there is no war ”.

Warning that they were becoming an increasing irrelevance, he said:“Somewhere inside this negative transition,the decision to place the lives and liberty of young republicans at risk stops being merely wrong and becomes immoral. “What was once called a sacrifice simply becomes a waste. “There is no shame in admitting and accepting the truth,but to ignore it is to misrepresent original aspirations and can only lead to disgrace. “The vast,vast majority of republicans now believe that the war,as we have known it,is now over. “For what it is worth,I and many more of my imprisoned comrades agree.”

Anthony McIntyre,who served a separate jail term with MacLochlainn in the 1980s,supported the call for an end to the dissidents ’ campaign. “I am pleased that Ciaran has come out and called for an end to the war,” he said. “It took courage for him to say it and I hope that the Real IRA and Continuity IRA heeds what he has said.”

by Barry Fri Oct 14, 2005 21:37

Unlike Gerry Adams I can confidently predict Ill not be smoking my pipe for a while yet .

Ciaran McLaughlin fully supports the GFA and Provisional Sinn Fein . Indeed he made it clear a number of years ago he intends to join Provisinal Sinn Fein when he is released . The only people he associates with inside are sinn fein prisoners imprisoned for fundraising . He disassociated himself completely from the RIRA years ago after he was stood down as a prison leader ( he failed to honour his compassionate parole , endangering other prisoners ) .

He now supports Sinn Fein and their acceptance of Stormont and British rule and openly has done for years . One must also assume he supports the surrender of arms and the imminent move to join the British police . Why he even joined the RIRA in the first place is a mystery to most people today , including his fellow prisoners . He most definitely is not a "dissident " republican , never mind a senior one . He is firmly pro - Stormont and pro Sinn Fein .

However if the papers had to print the story "sinn fein supporter calls for rira ceasefire " I doubt anyone would be paying much attention . This media " scoop" is seen as no more than a storm in a tea cup within republicanism and directly linked to Sinn Feins decision to surrender arms join the PSNI . Had he issued this statement a couple of years ago it would be on the middle page somewhere . Timing as we know is crucial to choreography .

Anyone who has read Laurence McKeowns book " out of time" would be well aware that prison splits , fall outs and ceasefire calls have been a fact of life since the beginning of the provo campaign . Nothing new to any of this whatsoever . People with beliefs and principles dont dance to a pro British media tune , unlike the provos . Its a non issue despite the hype .

As for Shipsea unfortunately you seem to miss the point again . Irish sovereignty must be defended full stop , not only against Britain but whoever tries to undermine it . If you seriously think unionism will calmly accept a vote for unity by whatever margin your deluded . If you think that Britain will ever recognis Irelands right to sovereignty you are even more deluded . Neither Britain or Unionism has ever recognised either , nor have thye paid any attention to democracy . All they will do is as before , move the goalposts again and then call that democracy . The fact that the population of 2 and a half counties can determine the future of the rest of the nation is not democratic at all .

If Ireland as a whole isnt entitled to its sovereignty then you may as well shut up about Shannon and Mayo , neutrality and whatever else . Such principles only apply in countries with actually have a regard for their national sovereignty and move to protect it . If you agree with a system which doesnt include it as a key principle accross the board then you shouldnt be surprised if your countrys a plaything for foreign governments and multinationals .

by Saor Uladh Sat Oct 15, 2005 02:39

In tribute to Connolly: If you hoist the green flag over all of Ireland but do not own nor control the economy, Anglo-American imperialism will still rule you.

The above quotation from Pearse is fine as an aspiration but it don't put no potatoes on the table.

Talk of sovereignty and freedom is just empty talk unless you detail how the Irish people can own and control the Irish economy in a globalizing world of free capital movement. All the mainstream parties obviously have no answers: they have all been bought and sold long ago. None of the republican dissident groups have addressed this, nor have the various socialist sects.Those who ignore this crucial question or just mouth platitudes, are trying to light a penny candle from a star.

by Shipsea Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:08

Were you in a wax when you wrote that last comment?
You seem not to have read it or, unusually for you, substantially missed the point yourself in fact :-) There is a question to be answered about how this issue fits into the global situation, as the person above has said and other influences that are in play. Yes, national sovereignty is a complete joke where Ireland is concerned but its pretty much the same the world over. For the last 50 years or more we've all been living in a carefully constructed fantasy - aka the democratic nation state. It was never really about people but about securing economic advantage. The greed and violence of what we were about has revealed itslef stridently in the the current US administration. We all played our part in creating this vicious monster, if only through passive stupidity and exponential consumption. You're not fighting Brits, you're fighting corporations, oil barons and arms dealers, whose hand in all of this is a lot less hidden than it used to be. In this context, the original facts to which you devote yourself heart and soul are increasingly anachronistic. You ignore other wrongs taking place under your nose in favour of an almost nostalgic obsession with one particular set of circumstances. Which is only to say, really, that there is a lot more to it than you seem to want to admit.

by ede - Ograshinnféin Sat Oct 15, 2005 15:07 eiresaoirse32 at yahoo dot com

Barry it was the british media 'gov' and co that named or give the real Ira its very name smart then of you to follow there 'Real' Bad example .all you want to do in your message it seems is to attack all republican debate and spout brit propaganda
Beir Bua

by Barry Sat Oct 15, 2005 16:39

Firstly , the only reason I use the term Real is so people on this site , many of whom are not republicans , can differentiate between Ogliagh na hEireann and the group which have accepted Stormont and British rule in Ireland , surrendered their arms and advocate joing the British PSNI . That is the PSNI which is directed by MI5 , not the make believe version sinn fein say can be changed if catholics join it .
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page18.html

Also due to the fact some punter will derail the thread for a week claiming the free state army are the true IRA.

Secondly I certainly have not attacked any form of republican debate , something Ive called for continually . Ive pointed out simply that Ciaran McLaughlin makes no secret of his current support for Sinn Fein and has made clear he intends to join that organisation on release from prison . Therefore the opinion he has expressed must be viewed in that important context .

Ciaran McLaughlin is certainly NOT a "dissident " republican as he is being portrayed in the media . He supports Sinn Fein . But he most definitely does have every right to make his views known and express them . As someone who spent most of his adult life in jail he has certainly earned the right to .

However people are also entitled to challenge those views in return , as well as to express their bewilderment at his dramatic u turn . When Ciaran McLaughlin was first on remand Martin McGuinness publicly accused him on television of being a tout who regularly met with Branchmen in a Derry Hotel ffs !! Sinn Fein sources also repeated this claim regularly to the media . I was one of those who rebutted that slander and defended him . When 32csm members organised functions on his behalf provos threatened the owners of premises which were hosting them and removed POW collection boxes from others . At one stage the provos even took to the streets of Derry to attempt to force a function on his behalf to be cancelled ( they failed) . They even beat a close friend of his to within an inch of his life with steel rods and abducted another . So as someone who protested and picketed the court which was trying Ciaran Im entitled to express my bewilderment at his decision to join the very people who publicly vilified him in the sickest manner imaginable .

Unlike Sinn Fein I havent resorted to calling him a British spy when he was behind bars because I disagree with him . Ive always recognised that in the brief periods he wasnt in jail he was a tireless republican activist whom I still respect , but strongly disagree with .

by Dearbhla Sat Oct 15, 2005 22:21

Barry said

"The nations Sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the nation, but to all its material possessions; the nation’s soil and all its resources, all the wealth and the wealth producing processes within the nation"
Padraig Pearse.


Saor Uladh replied

"In tribute to Connolly: If you hoist the green flag over all of Ireland but do not own nor control the economy, Anglo-American imperialism will still rule you.

The above quotation from Pearse is fine as an aspiration but it don't put no potatoes on the table. "

SU hasnt seemed to grasp that what both Pearse and Connolly said amounts to exactly the same thing . Another case of mouthing quotes as platitudes but having no comprehension of their meaning ?


As for the other young boy from Ogra Shinn Fein , ede , who accused Barry of spreading British propaganda . He entitled his post as "Eire Amach " which means "Ireland Out" . A loyalist slogan if ever there was ?

I presume ede meant to say "Eiri Amach" , which means literally " get up and out " , which is the gaelic eqivalent for rebellion or rising . However any young man taking his political lead from the British ministers in the Sinn Fein leadership can be forgiven for not having much of a clue about rebellion .

By the way ede , what will Ogra Shinn Fein change their symbol to when the provisional movement join in with the PSNI ? Surely a petrol bomb would be more laughably inappropriate than it is now ? You seriously cant advocate throwing petrol bombs at your fellow shinners , can you ?

And will you be joining the PSNI yourself ? Is it a career you could recommend to your fellow activists in your oh-so-revolutionary youth movement ?

by Ms Bar Stool Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:51

The Provos like many groups that get the sniff of power didn't manage that balance, but since power is hardly a prospect for dissidents in the near future it should be possible to make a better go of it.

Barry, whatever about his present political alligience, what do you think about the substance of his comments? It seems kind of obvious that the present campaigns by the various IRAs are pathetic and in danger of reducing republicans' reputation for effective fighting down to the level of loyalists - who weren't called "the world's worst terrorists" 'cause they were sectarian murderers but because they were so inept!

From a purely strategic point of view, republicans would be better off halting the armed campaing and building a bigger political base. If your analysis is correct, then sometime in the future armed conflict will probably resume. Only by then republicans would have a much greater capacity to wage it given some degree of popular support.

Given that this was the case in 1962, it is hard to see why it is such a big deal. As it is, the IRAs are not in fact fighting a war. Maybe they are in their heads, but not in the real world. And since they haven't got the capacity to do so at present, the logical course is retreat and build up strength so that an armed campaign can be sustained when necessary. At the moment republcians are doing neither: not fighting a remotely effective war, nor buildng up strength. Probably the only people suffering are the volunteers themselves.

by Barry Mon Oct 17, 2005 20:03

As for Ciaran McLaughlinns comments he is perfectly entitled to make them . However the context in which he is making them are crucial in my evaluation of them . For a start the man has been incarcerated for a number of years and has no idea what people in the republican movement are doing internally . Secondly he is making those comments not only from captivity , but as someone who left the movement he was jailed over and adopted an analysis in complete contradiction to that postiton . He now supports Sinn Fein and makes clear hell be joining them upon release . Therefore he has no interest whatsoever in anti GFA republicans calling a ceasefire to build a political base . Thats something sinn fein simply dont want to see happening as the utter vitriol shown to the piece on Indymedia about independent republicans standing in the norths elections highlighted . Indeed many non republican commentators expressed how taken aback they were by sinn feins vicious reaction to it .

While I admire Ciaran McLaughlins personal qualities and a lifetime of sacrifice , at the end of the day he made that statement as someone who is now aligned to sinn fein . And my original reaction of "Sinn Fein Supporter calls for ceasefire announcement " remains my position and that of many other republicans .

Furthermore its very clear the reals havent been engaging in any attacks for quite some time . That in itself is a defacto ceasefire . So people are entitled to wonder why the recent clamour has arisen on cue in the Daily Ireland and Irish News just as the provos have surrendered weapons and prepare to move into the British police . Because it is self evident that any ceasefire announcement in this climate will be gleefully seized upon as an affirmation of both support /acquiesecence for British rule and British institutions in Ireland . It will be used as a green light to encourage people who previously wouldnt consider the idea to join the PSNI .

In short it would be nothing more than a propaganda coup for the Brits and their provo allies - hence the unrelenting pressure for a RIRA ceasefire in the media since Adams surrendered weapons . It would be celebrated and gleefully welcomed by the enemies of reublicanism . As the statement above pointed out Adams actions have calculatedly given an affirmation that the only political and military institutions in the north that now have legitimacy are British institutions . By maintaining an attitude of unremitting hostility to those institutions , the challenge to their legitimacy remains .

Its also worth remembering that the only people who can call a Real IRA ceasefire are the Real IRAs volunteers themselves , those actual people who you curiously show equal distate and concern for . Unless you believe republicans should follow the example of Gerry Adams and make such decisions unilaterally , wihout seeking permission from IRA volunteers ? Because it simply wont happen if the volunteers on the ground don want to . And you also seem to assume this issue hasnt already been thoroughly discussed by the only people who can make such a move . You also seem to assume people are fighting an imaginary war in their heads rather than making preparations to launch a fresh campaign in the future . Perhaps you may indeed have inside knowledge of what the RIRA are saying , thinking and planning internally ? You sure like to sound like you think you do .

At the last council elections in the north a number of independent republican candidates polled credibly in traditional republican areas with virtually no preparation or resources . That itself highlighted a republican constituency unhappy with Sinn Fein . The fact the Real IRA havent called a ceasefire as Sinn Fein , Denis Bradley , IRSP and others now demand wasnt an issue at all on the doorsteps . It isnt even an issue within the RIRA from what I can see .
Republicans have more fully taken on board since then the need for a much firmer political base to be organised . Since then a number of initiatives have been undertaken within thise communities and are ongoing , such as the current campaign aimed at removing drug dealers from Creggan . Work to develop a stronger republican base in the community will continue on , but I sincerely doubt republicans will be calling any ceasefires to please Sinn Fein or anyone else .

Perhaps the acres of publicity being spun as regards this demand would be better used telling the British government to fuck off out of it . And the yanks too .

by Ms B. Stool Tue Oct 18, 2005 00:41

>Because it is self evident that any ceasefire announcement in this climate will be gleefully seized upon as an affirmation of both support /acquiesecence for British rule and British institutions in Ireland . It will be used as a green light to encourage people who previously wouldnt consider the idea to join the PSNI .

Good answer, hadn't thought of that one.

>Unless you believe republicans should follow the example of Gerry Adams and make such decisions unilaterally , wihout seeking permission from IRA volunteers ?
Nope

>Because it simply wont happen if the volunteers on the ground don want to
That's logical

>And you also seem to assume this issue hasnt already been thoroughly discussed by the only people who can make such a move .

No, I thought it had been discussed, but rejected. But not knowledgeable enough as to why. But when you say that
>its very clear the reals havent been engaging in any attacks for quite some time . That in itself is a defacto ceasefire .

Then essentially they are retreating, tactically. (not saying that in a defeatist way, just that from a republican point of view it's expedient)

>It isnt even an issue within the RIRA from what I can see .
But then the RIRA campaign is minimally effective. Might have been different if the RIRA had more reach.

by Barry Tue Oct 18, 2005 01:15

I dont have an insiders view but , if they have decided to sit back and build as well as not move until intelligence gaps have been plugged it sound quite sensible to me . As does the attempt to build a stronger political base .

But as far as I can see the refusal to declare an actual ceasefire is chiefly because of the reason outlined above which you said you never thought of . It should be remembered that the call made by Mickey McKevitt a few years ago was greeted with banner headlines such as "War over" " RIRA disband etc" , which caused major confusion within republicansim and was a total misintrpretation of the actual situation . The Brits and Sinn Fein had a field day .

Thats precisely why Ive pointed out how curious it is there is such a clamour in the Daily Ireland for it to be called despite there being no attacks . Theres only one reason that I can see and its a cynical and opportunistic one . Thats why DI and others have Ciarans statement on the front page , among other calls .

Im quite confident that the RIRA leadership arent fantasists with an imaginary war in their heads but quite hard headed individuals whove taken this into account and advised accordingly .

In the current context it would only strengthen British institutions . And it would most certainly create a major schism within the republican movement itself . It would be a backward move , not a progressive one which would be seized on by our enemies and used to obliterate any alternative republican anlysis . The Reals simply arent going to do it from what I can ascertain so its not really a viable issue for worthwhile discussion . It simply isnt going to happen in the current context .

Surely theres more productive points of discussion which can be promoted ? :)

Also thanks for your detailed and honest response .

by kevin murphy - 32csm Fri Mar 17, 2006 13:53

for some strange reason the e-mail address originally supplied with this article has been changed

the address is

sarmagh32csm@hotmail.com

by Nosey Flynn Fri Mar 17, 2006 15:49

To be against the Royal Dublin Society and the Royal Irish Lifeboat Association is really a little too much.

by Sebastian Melmont Fri Mar 17, 2006 17:42

'To be against the Royal Dublin Society and the Royal Irish Lifeboat Association is really a little too much. '

Why dont those august institutions merely drop the 'Royal' suffix? They can still go about their business.