Have Sinn Féin truly reformed?

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

The Irish state accepts the legitimacy of the rising. What are your reasons for not? You don'thave to answer - just curious.

There is o legitimacy of the civil war it was an event of great saddness but historical fact.

OK so, I don't accept that it was necessary to take up arms in 1916, The people who did this did not have anything like widespread support and were not elected representatives, Home Rule had been granted (and I know that there were real concerns about whether it was to be established post war), so we should have waited to see what happend after WW1 was over. The whole buisness of calling Germany "our gallant Allies" is really galling too. it's well documented that at the time the leaders were spat on by local Dubs when they were being led to Jail. The British forces then made a mess of it (as only they can), and we got a war of independence, which gave us partition and civil war, then isolation and stagnation (thanks Dev )

So that's why.

Voipjunkie

Jon wrote:

I don't get you here though. FF when elected to power systematically tried to close down the Republicans, which included jailing and killing many. As for the 'Officials' I'm not sure what relevance that has to O'Bradaigh. Maybe you could clarify.

When Dev walked out and set up FF did he not have the support of the majority of republicans and BTW when dev came to power he legalised the IRA first it was only later that he turned on them after he had used them to defeat the blueshirts

When O'Bradaigh walked out and set up the provisionals the majority of the republican movement stayed with the sticks at that time of course the provos turned out to be the far larger group later but at the time the provos were the smaller.



These are regular arguments put forward by people who have not been involved in party debate. However a revolutionary must use what ever means necessary to achieve their goals. They have accepted Stormont - surely you are not referencing the Stormont of the 1970's???
The UNionist Veto is all but gone, British Parliament has passed legislation ensuring that the assembly can no longer by suspended. What will the unionist do now with their veto? walk out?
Partition? How exactly?
They are supporting the crown forces?? Very selective language there chara. You mean they are in a position to hold the croen forces to account, not support every move they make.
They partook in the Dublin parliament, as a means to building political strength. The current position of RSF highlights how important a move for SF that was in 86. For reference, RSF polled lower than the Christian Solidarity Party at the last dip.

So what alternative would you produce to furthering the objectives?

When Dev walked out and set up FF did he not have the support of the majority of republicans and BTW when dev came to power he legalised the IRA first it was only later that he turned on them after he had used them to defeat the blueshirts

When O'Bradaigh walked out and set up the provisionals the majority of the republican movement stayed with the sticks at that time of course the provos turned out to be the far larger group later but at the time the provos were the smaller.

I am not arguing right or wrong merely that the mantle of republicanism stayed with those who stood by the republic and not based on who was a majority.
And the argument that you use the institutions to bring about revolutionary change is the same one that Collins made that Dev made and the same one that McGiolla and Garland were making back in the 60s not to mention Clann na Phoblachta what happened to them is the same as what will happen to SF it can already be seen in how quickly they changed their tax proposals to come in line with FF.

The term crown forces has always been the term republicans used for the British army and the british police force in Ireland.

And selective use of the term the unionist veto I am talking about the unionist veto over Irish unity not the voting regime in stormont.

I'm not arguing that RSF are right it is that SF are taking a well worn path by people that they class as traitors the difference between SF now and Collins ,Dev,Mcbride or McGiolla is time.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Voipjunkie

Victor Meldrew wrote:

The whole buisness of calling Germany "our gallant Allies" is really galling too.

Why Germany was no worse than Britain in 1916 they were both empires

Victor Meldrew wrote:

it's well documented that at the time the leaders were spat on by local Dubs when they were being led to Jail.

By some dubliners particularly those with husbands in the crown forces it is also well documented that they had widespread support not only in Dublin but around the country.

Victor Meldrew wrote:

The British forces then made a mess of it (as only they can), and we got a war of independence, which gave us partition and civil war, then isolation and stagnation (thanks Dev )

So that's why.

The brits made a mess but there was support there for them already the brits just helped to harness it.
We got a war of Independence because the Brits would not just leave peacefully if they had packed their bags and gone after the 1918 election or even attempted to negotiate with the elected representatives of the Irish people then there would not have been any war.
The Idea of partition was around in the British establishment before 1916 nevermind the war of Independence it was introduced in the 3rd Home rule BIll in 1914 which exempted a number of Northern counties from the bill to the exact number to be decided later.
There was this thing called the Wall street crash Ireland was not the only country in stagnation nor isolation.

Voipjunkie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That was pretty much my point SF no longer considered FF or OSF or CnaP to be Republicans as they betrayed the Republic and RSF do not consider SF to be republicans anymore they refer to them as Free State Sinn Fein.

What is the difference between Collins or Dev or Adams other than they accepted the compromises earlier and promised to work within the institutions to change them.

Liam Byrne

I'm curious, Jon - you accept that "there was no need for violence, and that [in your opinion] diplomacy was the best route to take" at the time of Omagh.

So therefore you criticise Omagh.

But yet you complain about those of us who have a different opinion about the time that the "no need" came into view ?

And when we do have a time that's further back than Omagh, you ask us why we don't go further back ?

So here's the same question to you ? Why don't you go further back ?

No-one gave the "republican movement" the right to choose when it was OK to stop violence, just as no-one gave the "republican movement" the right to choose when it started. We didn't elect them, we didn't give them a mandate to kill and maim and destroy.

That, in essence, is the reason that I don't think Sinn Fein have reformed; they still believe that everyone should follow what THEY believe, and there's no greyish area in between unless you agree with their core views, timeline or interpretation of history.

And, as was stated above, FG might commemorate Collins's contribution - that's allowed; for feck's sake, some people still applaud Haughey's contribution, despite him screwing the country. If I were living in 1916, I would have to decide whether to vote for him or not, and likewise I'd have been stuck in the middle of the effects of his actions, so it might well be a closer call.

Sinn Fein can commemorate whosever contribution that they like, but if they want to convince the more moderate population that they've changed, they should not be selling **** like this from their website.

But it does beg the question whether Sinn Fein do actually want to convince anyone that they've changed ? Who said that they do ? Maybe they're only looking for the votes of those people who secretly support the use of unauthorised violence and those who would like a "united Ireland", even if it involves killing off all of the Gardai and people who disagree with them (North and South) in order to have the place all to themselves ?

I don't know, but maybe they're not in the business of convincing anyone that they've changed ? And maybe they haven't - maybe the whole "peace process", where they got concession after concession in relation to illegal activities, has made them more arrogant ?

Victor Meldrew

Voipjunkie wrote:

There was this thing called the Wall street crash Ireland was not the only country in stagnation nor isolation.

I was asked by Jon for my reasons, there is a Redmondite tradition in FG and B Identify with that, I always have.

With respect to stagnation, it lasted longer than the 30's and 40's and Dev was not exactly a dynamic leader, we had to wait for Lemass (I know he's FF, but they are not all bad all of the time) to kick things along.

yomchi

When O'Bradaigh walked out and set up the provisionals the majority of the republican movement stayed with the sticks at that time of course the provos turned out to be the far larger group later but at the time the provos were the smaller

O'Bradiagh walked out in 86. The main people involved kicking Goulding out etc were MacStiofan, Twomey, Cahill etc. Although O'Bradaigh followed suit. But he's better known for leaving in '86.

the argument that you use the institutions to bring about revolutionary change is the same one that Collins made that Dev made and the same one that McGiolla and Garland were making back in the 60s not to mention Clann na Phoblachta what happened to them is the same as what will happen to SF it can already be seen in how quickly they changed their tax proposals to come in line with FF

Time will tell and history will decide, still what is the alternative?

But yet you complain about those of us who have a different opinion about the time that the "no need" came into view

I have not once complained. May I state again that I respect everyone's beliefs. I just did not like baseless arguments relying on incorrect facts.

No-one gave the "republican movement" the right to choose when it was OK to stop violence, just as no-one gave the "republican movement" the right to choose when it started. We didn't elect them, we didn't give them a mandate to kill and maim and destroy

The Republican movement received its mandate from the first and only national parliament established in 1919. The IRA were the national army before the civil war. For some that legitimacy carried forth, with the last survivning member of the first dail passing on the the legitimacy to the provisional army council. - Thats historical fact.

But it does beg the question whether Sinn Fein do actually want to convince anyone that they've changed ? Who said that they do ? Maybe they're only looking for the votes of those people who secretly support the use of unauthorised violence and those who would like a "united Ireland", even if it involves killing off all of the Gardai and people who disagree with them (North and South) in order to have the place all to themselves

allah knows what your point is here?

I don't know, but maybe they're not in the business of convincing anyone that they've changed ? And maybe they haven't - maybe the whole "peace process", where they got concession after concession in relation to illegal activities, has made them more

jeez, you started off well, but then your post just babbled into inane drivel. Concessions inrelation to illegal activity???

Voipjunkie

Jon wrote:

O'Bradiagh walked out in 86. The main people involved kicking Goulding out etc were MacStiofan, Twomey, Cahill etc. Although O'Bradaigh followed suit. But he's better known for leaving in '86.

O'Bradaigh led the walkout from the 1970 Sinn Fein Ard Fheis and was elected president of what became known as provisional Sinn Fein a position he held until 1983 he subsequently led a separate walk out when he again found himself in a minority within Sinn Fein again it was the issue of abstention that led directly to the split just as it had 16 years earlier of course abstention was just the public split there was a lot more behind it as there was in 1970.

Jon wrote:

Time will tell and history will decide, still what is the alternative?

That is my exact point that is what Collins said and what Dev said etc etc what SF don't seem to grasp is that they have arrived at the position that Collins found himself in back in 1922 and Dev in 1927 and Mcbride 20 years later and the sticks 20 years after that.
Can I ask do you believe that Collins was wrong do you believe Dev was wrong it seems to me that they have the exact same position that SF have now that the time for armed struggle is over and that the aims of the republican movement can best be achieved by peaceful means and that somehow the IRA ceases to exist with you and that the (R)IRA or (C)IRA have no legitimacy just exactly as FG and then FF go on with the OLD IRA nonsense they believe that the IRA they supported had legitimacy but those who stayed by the republican principles had no legitimacy.


You ask what the alternative is I don't know but it makes me wonder what the struggle was for if after 4000 people die we end up back where Collins was 85 years ago

RalphCifaretto

The Republican movement received its mandate from the first and only national parliament established in 1919. The IRA were the national army before the civil war. For some that legitimacy carried forth, with the last survivning member of the first dail passing on the the legitimacy to the provisional army council. - Thats historical fact.

Yes it is historical fact. It is also historical fact that Maguire subsequently conferred this legitimacy upon the Continuity Army council.

Voipjunkie

RalphCifaretto wrote:

Yes it is historical fact. It is also historical fact that Maguire subsequently conferred this legitimacy upon the Continuity Army council.

It is actually the 2nd Dail not the first as Jon suggested

It is also a fact that the provisionals who had used Maguires backing as proof that they were the heirs to the 2nd Dail and as such the legitimate government of the Irish Republic laughed when Maguire handed it on again just as others had laughed when the mantle had been passed to them.

This nonsense goes back to the fact that the 2nd Dail was never officially adjourned or dissolved so in the 1930s the 7 remaining people who still considered themselves to be members of a Government handed authority to the army council of the IRA as set out in the rules of 2nd Dail should their numbers fall too low too continue to act on behalf of the people.

RalphCifaretto

It is actually the 2nd Dail not the first as Jon suggested

My apologies, I didn't read the post properly.

This nonsense goes back to the fact that the 2nd Dail was never officially adjourned or dissolved

Republicans maintained that the 2nd Dáil had no right to accept the Treaty. By accepting the treaty, members of Dáil Éireann were denying the mandate and the very existence of the parliament itself. It makes absolutely no sense. The treaty was signed on behalf of the Irish people with the authority of Dáil Éireann, which accepted that said institution had absolutely no power to act on behalf of the Irish people.

yomchi

My mistake it was the 2nd Dail.

You ask do I think Collins was right. I believe I probably would have supported Collins if I were around at the time. I believe he had every interest i re-unifying the country and that the treaty was indeed a stepping stone. Alas Irish history is well known for repeating itself, but we are here now today, its up to this generation to make it work right.

Rock Climber

Lads at this stage,I'm moving this to the main politics forum where it would be more appropriate.

yomchi

I think its probably winding down anyway. I'm off to occupy the Four Courts, I'll wait for Victor to arrive with the canons

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

I think its probably winding down anyway. I'm off to occupy the Four Courts, I'll wait for Victor to arrive with the canons

Delighted to oblige old chap

I think we can consider the dead horse flogged at this stage.

Voipjunkie

Jon wrote:

My mistake it was the 2nd Dail.

You ask do I think Collins was right. I believe I probably would have supported Collins if I were around at the time. I believe he had every interest i re-unifying the country and that the treaty was indeed a stepping stone. Alas Irish history is well known for repeating itself, but we are here now today, its up to this generation to make it work right.

Thanks Jon for the honest answer

yomchi

I think its a credit to this forum that this kind of debate can be had rationally. Something thats completely impossible on politics.ie!

FTA69

I never bought into the whole "legitimacy" lark within Republicanism, as far as I'm concerned the Republic was destroyed after the Civil War, I believe that an Irish Republic is inalienable and as such I would have supported the Republican Movement as opposed to the Free State.

I believe the IRA drew its legitimacy from the fact it was the spearhead of a national liberation movement that was resisting British imperialism in Ireland, of course historical precedent is important but that doesn't mean that everything hinges upon a Dáil long dissolved and forgotten by the majority of the Irish people.

In short, those oppressed have the right to resist that oppression, without having to seek justification in archaic legalistic arguments.

yomchi

spot on chara

Voipjunkie

FTA69 wrote:

I never bought into the whole "legitimacy" lark within Republicanism, as far as I'm concerned the Republic was destroyed after the Civil War, I believe that an Irish Republic is inalienable and as such I would have supported the Republican Movement as opposed to the Free State.

I believe the IRA drew its legitimacy from the fact it was the spearhead of a national liberation movement that was resisting British imperialism in Ireland, of course historical precedent is important but that doesn't mean that everything hinges upon a Dáil long dissolved and forgotten by the majority of the Irish people.

In short, those oppressed have the right to resist that oppression, without having to seek justification in archaic legalistic arguments.

So can I take it that you would not condemn even though you might not support a renewed armed struggle by a group such as (r)IRA or (c)IRA or do you believe that the oppression of the Nationalist people in the 6 counties is now over or can be addressed without the recourse to armed resistance at this time.

Dyr

get back on topic

ive heard that not only have Sinn Fein reformed but they're planning a best of tour

Voipjunkie

Bambi wrote:

get back on topic

ive heard that not only have Sinn Fein reformed but they're planning a best of tour

Well they are never going to be able to really reform I believe a couple of the original members have died.