Standing Outside The Peace Process

GRMA

The Ard Comhairle of Republican Network for Unity wishes to thank you for taking the time to read this, our position paper on what is commonly referred to as the ‘Irish Peace Process’.

This piece is intended as a precursor to a much more substantial and substantive set of policy documents that will be collectively entitled ‘Revolutionary Republicanism’, due to be released in early 2013.

Standing outside the peace process is a basic outline of where we believe Republicanism stands within today’s Irish political system, how we think it arrived at this position and why as Irish Republican Socialists, we do not conform to the modern political set up In Ireland.

The main aim of this position paper is to lay the groundwork for the release of ‘Revolutionary Republicanism’ as well as to provoke and encourage debate and critical engagement on a wide range of issues which that work intends to address.

Issues addressed within ‘Revolutionary Republicanism’ will range from our position on Armed Struggle to suggestions for possible socialist economic frameworks for a New Ireland.

RNU would urge all republicans and socialists to engage with our future policy documents as well as to bring their own visions of the revolutionary alternative, which Irish society requires now more than ever.

Read on...

http://thepensivequill.am/2012/12/standing-outside-peace-process.html


The full thing is worth a read imo, if one wants to try and understand where some "dissident republicans" are coming from.

I disagree with a lot of what is said in it, but I thought I'd share it here as it is a well written and thought provoking piece and may act as stimulus for an interesting discussion.

I hope people will read the document before commenting, otherwise we are all wasting our time

oscarBravo

A shining example of doublethink, tbh. Republican terrorists are "revolutionaries"; loyalist terrorists are "death squads". Our terrorism is good; theirs is bad.

Beyond that, it's using tired Marxist rhetoric to justify murder. It's a well-written load of bollox.

GRMA

Where do they justify murder in it? What murder? Murder today, tomorrow or what happened during the troubles?

This position is a non-starter as it is at best doomed to perpetuate failures of the past and at worst, take us to oblivion. If some are not committed to the revolutionary path - and merely wish to return (solely) to the war politics of the past - then there is no reason to expect that the lure of the economic incentives mentioned above (which did compromise republican leaderships) could not take their toll on them too in future decades.

Seems to me like they are attacking those who want to go "back to war" and are instead highlighting the prospect of cross community working class unity (they give and example from 1936) which they say the "sectarian" GFA and its "I want what they have" mentality is preventing.

Now I dont necessarily agree with that but from reading the document I dont get the impression that they are trying to justify dissident campaigns at all

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Where do they justify murder in it?

Oh, they couch it pretty carefully, using pretty euphemisms like "all available means of struggle".

If you choose to interpret that document as rejecting violence as a means to their ends, feel free. It's not how it reads to me.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, they couch it pretty carefully, using pretty euphemisms like "all available means of struggle".

If you choose to interpret that document as rejecting violence as a means to their ends, feel free. It's not how it reads to me.

Why am I not surprised....

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....

I don't know.

If you believe that a document written by people opposed to the peace process is in no way advocating violence - if you believe that "all available means of struggle" actually means "all available means of struggle except violence" - can you explain why you believe this?

Death and Taxes

Lovely chaps altogether, tried to blow up a policeman and his family yesterday!:mad:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2012/1230/ireland/psni-bomb-under-car-clearly-intended-to-kill-579468.html

.jacksparrow.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Lovely chaps altogether, tried to blow up a policeman and his family yesterday!:mad:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2012/1230/ireland/psni-bomb-under-car-clearly-intended-to-kill-579468.html

Can we wait until further information comes out before another one of these threads descend into disaster.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote: »

A shining example of doublethink, tbh. Republican terrorists are "revolutionaries"; loyalist terrorists are "death squads". Our terrorism is good; theirs is bad.

It's the same as your narrative really only the difference is that you broadly defend the British state's position while simultaneously decrying Republicans as a shower of terrorists.

One can be opposed to the current political situation in Ireland and not identify with armed struggle. Most Republicans with a degree of sense would.

Death and Taxes

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Can we wait until further information comes out before another one of these threads descend into disaster.

What further info do you need?
Gang of murderous thugs, same types who murdered Mr Black a short while ago.
Criminals, nothing else, just criminals.

junder

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Can we wait until further information comes out before another one of these threads descend into disaster.

According to bbc news the police are blaming dissidents

.jacksparrow.

junder wrote: »

According to bbc news the police are blaming dissidents

Looks that way alright,cowardly act.

Son Of A Vidic

Anyone remember one of the Key lines from The IRA's Army Council annual Easter statement every year?

Here's a reminder...

"In the absence of a political alternative, the armed struggle will continue."

Once a political alternative was finally offered, they gave it a chance and the rest is now history. Now we have these so called 'dissidents' some of whom were either hiding under their beds when the war in the North was at its height. Or the vast majority, who simply aren't old enough to remember the bad old days.

The war is long over and these irrelevant clowns should be just starved of publicity. Because I have no doubt that if we turned the clock back 25 years, when the war was in full flow. You would probably see a rapid dwindling of their numbers.

.jacksparrow.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Anyone remember one of the Key lines from The IRA's Army Council annual Easter statement every year?

Here's a reminder...

"In the absence of a political alternative, the armed struggle will continue."

Once a political alternative was finally offered, they gave it a chance and the rest is now history. Now we have these so called 'dissidents' some of whom were either hiding under their beds when the war in the North was at its height. Or the vast majority, who simply aren't old enough to remember the bad old days.

The war is long over and these irrelevant clowns should be just starved of publicity. Because I have no doubt that if we turned the clock back 25 years, when the war was in full flow. You would probably see a rapid dwindling of their numbers.

Very naive to think these groups don't consist of ex pira and old generation people.

To dismiss them as kids and clueless is dangerous.

Zombrex

GRMA wrote: »

The full thing is worth a read imo, if one wants to try and understand where some "dissident republicans" are coming from.

Cuckoo-land seems to be the answer.

This question is presented in the article -

We should all at this point ask ourselves the serious question, are we really committed to the Revolutionary Republican Socialist path?

For the vast majority of Republicans, "no" would seem to be the answer to that one, as if they ever where :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

It's the same as your narrative really only the difference is that you broadly defend the British state's position while simultaneously decrying Republicans as a shower of terrorists.

That's not an entirely unfair assessment. I would broadly defend the right of a sovereign state to defend the integrity of its territory against armed insurrection; I wouldn't defend its right to deny human or civil rights in the process, counter to the expressed opinions of those who have, without a shred of justification, accused me of being indifferent to the events of Bloody Sunday.

If you're going to claim that there's no difference between an army of uniformed soldiers that's at least nominally answerable to a democratically-elected government (and I accept that that answerability sometimes fails disastrously) one the one hand, and a group of self-professed "freedom fighters" who are answerable to nobody but themselves, knock yourself out.

I'm conscious of the fact that this post will be stored up and used against me by yet another group of republicans who have a mental filter that translates the above into "the sun shines out of the British governments arse", but there's not a lot I can do about republican confirmation bias.

One can be opposed to the current political situation in Ireland and not identify with armed struggle. Most Republicans with a degree of sense would.

How hard can it be to modify "all available means of struggle" with the qualifier "other than violence", and make it clear that violence is out of the question?

FTA69

I would broadly defend the right of a sovereign state to defend the integrity of its territory against armed insurrection

I would content that that sovereign state has no business being in Ireland whatsoever, and that it maintains its presence here through an artificial political mechanism of its own creation (partition) and by force of arms and every other available means whenever that was challenged. Bear in mind the exact sentiment you have expressed above was also used by the British in the 1920s and centuries before and comes from the inherent position that their occupation of Ireland, or today a part of it, is simply an "internal dispute" within the UK. It is however, something much bigger and much more complex than that.

In other words, to rearrange your above expression, "I would broadly defend the right of a people to defend the integrity of their territory against armed occupation."

counter to the expressed opinions of those who have, without a shred of justification, accused me of being indifferent to the events of Bloody Sunday.

No, but unfortunately if you choose to side with the British government and take the position that their activities during the conflict in Ireland were largely in the right then unfortunately people are going to pull you up on things like Bloody Sunday, or collusion, or internment, or shoot to kill, or torture because those things were part of the reality of what the British state did while "defending its integrity" as you put it. I believe the IRA campaign was justified, while I won't defend the likes of La Mon etc, I couldn't declare that it happened in a bubble with a straight face.

If you're going to claim that there's no difference between an army of uniformed soldiers that's at least nominally answerable to a democratically-elected government (and I accept that that answerability sometimes fails disastrously) one the one hand, and a group of self-professed "freedom fighters" who are answerable to nobody but themselves, knock yourself out.

The fact a military is answerable to a state while a guerilla group is not is inconsequential. The fact is the British Army was never answerable to the people of Ireland but yet it (along with the police and Loyalist surrogates) were the primary instruments with which the British state kept its grip on the country whenever it was challenged. This has been the case for centuries. I am not saying there is not a difference between the IRA and the British Army. There is a huge one. One is a state-sponsored armed force of occupation and the other was a native expression of resistance to that. Likewise there was a massive difference between the "democratic" US Army and the Viet Cong, or the National Liberation Front in Algeria and the French Army. In many cases the "self-professed freedom fighters" had more of a just cause than the people they were fighting, in Ireland and in countless other colonial situations.

How hard can it be to modify "all available means of struggle" with the qualifier "other than violence", and make it clear that violence is out of the question?

Because I suppose people don't want to ever take a position where they say it's wrong for people in Ireland to ever use force while the British maintain the right to use it in their interests whenever they deem it necessary. I can't see a mass armed struggle in my lifetime and I think the current campaigns are prosecuted by politically illiterate organisations with a nasty underbelly. I say that as someone who has been involved in Republican politics since my early teens. However, I'm not going to engage in moral condemnation or posture politics on the issue of violence when the far bigger question, in my eyes at least, is a state that claims part of the Ireland and has used and will use violence at a whim.

gallag

FTA69 wrote: »

I would content that that sovereign state has no business being in Ireland whatsoever, and that it maintains its presence here through an artificial political mechanism of its own creation (partition) and by force of arms and every other available means whenever that was challenged. Bear in mind the exact sentiment you have expressed above was also used by the British in the 1920s and centuries before and comes from the inherent position that their occupation of Ireland, or today a part of it, is simply an "internal dispute" within the UK. It is however, something much bigger and much more complex than that.

In other words, to rearrange your above expression, "I would broadly defend the right of a people to defend the integrity of their territory against armed occupation."



.

No buisness being there? Did the majority of people in n.i not want to be part of the uk? Is that not why republicans are now talking about the tide turning with more nationlists being born? Would that mean the iras terror campaign was againdt democracy?

FTA69

gallag wrote: »

No buisness being there? Did the majority of people in n.i not want to be part of the uk?

Partition had nothing to do about democracy, it was about retaining as much territory in Ireland as possible because they realised they it was no longer viable to keep the rest of the country within the UK. It was an exclusively British creation that went against the democratic wishes of the Irish people. In other words if for instance half of Tipperary wanted to remain in the UK the British would have no more right in claiming that.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

I would content that that sovereign state has no business being in Ireland whatsoever, and that it maintains its presence here through an artificial political mechanism of its own creation (partition) and by force of arms and every other available means whenever that was challenged.

And there's the difference between us. My views are grounded in the internationally-accepted territories of sovereign nations, including acceptance by both governments involved, and by the vast majority of the population of this country in a referendum. Yours are grounded in a convenient fiction.

In other words, to rearrange your above expression, "I would broadly defend the right of a people to defend the integrity of their territory against armed occupation."

Sure - once you've accepted your convenient fiction as a premise.

No, but unfortunately if you choose to side with the British government and take the position that their activities during the conflict in Ireland were largely in the right then unfortunately people are going to pull you up on things like Bloody Sunday, or collusion, or internment, or shoot to kill, or torture because those things were part of the reality of what the British state did while "defending its integrity" as you put it. I believe the IRA campaign was justified, while I won't defend the likes of La Mon etc, I couldn't declare that it happened in a bubble with a straight face.

There's some fairly glaring hypocrisy in there: apparently I'm not allowed to support a government's right to defend its national territory without having to accept the accusation that I applaud its every action, however atrocious; but you're allowed to support a guerrilla group while distancing yourself from its worst atrocities.

I guess I should be used to that sort of doublethink by now.

The fact a military is answerable to a state while a guerilla group is not is inconsequential.

Of course it's inconsequential - if you feel the need to justify the actions of an undemocratic terrorist organisation.

GRMA

When was the British army ever held accountable for its actions in Ireland? Or Mi5, or any of the security services?

In theory the BA are accountable, but in reality they never have been

markesmith

It's interesting how the dissident viewpoint is totally swept under the carpet as 'Marxist terrorism' or whatever...it doesn't make this viewpoint go away.

It's interesting that the respondents are not quoting from the source document...I wonder how many of you read any of it?

Knee jerk reactionism to what isn't the accepted viewpoint. "More Orange than the Orange themselves", as someone once said.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote: »

And there's the difference between us. My views are grounded in the internationally-accepted territories of sovereign nations, including acceptance by both governments involved, and by the vast majority of the population of this country in a referendum.

And as I said by your definition every single independence or anti-colonial movement in history would thus be immediately designated illegal and terrorist. MK in South Africa, the IRA of the 1920s, the FLN in Algeria, the Viet Cong etc. Basically your world view seems to be state/power/official = good and that's the end of that. Regardless of the actions of that state and more importantly, the motivations behind them.

There's some fairly glaring hypocrisy in there: apparently I'm not allowed to support a government's right to defend its national territory without having to accept the accusation that I applaud its every action, however atrocious; but you're allowed to support a guerrilla group while distancing yourself from its worst atrocities.

Eh no mate. I was saying exactly the opposite. I said that if you are going to decide to side with the British state then people are going to pull you up on things like Bloody Sunday and collusion and torture. I said I supported the IRA campaign and as such I wouldn't seek to duck out of every unsavoury action they did. That would make me a hypocrite and a bullsh*tter. I can rationalise that things happen during the course of a conflict, but I wouldn't seek to pull the wool over my eyes over what that exactly entails. Similarly you can't seek to escape Bloody Sunday while simultaneously defending the British Army in Ireland.

SoulandForm

The fact is that the GFA has not only failed to help heal the tribal division in Northern Ireland but it has arguably made things worse. Has it led to a greater integration of Northern Ireland back into the rest of Ireland? Im not sure. It has though given partition a legitimacy that it never had before. People voted for because after decades of violence it was put forward as the way to peace. Temporarily it was that but it set up circumstances for renewed and probably more savage conflict.

Opposition to the GFA does not equal militarism necessarily.

Zombrex

FTA69 wrote: »

Partition had nothing to do about democracy, it was about retaining as much territory in Ireland as possible because they realised they it was no longer viable to keep the rest of the country within the UK. It was an exclusively British creation that went against the democratic wishes of the Irish people. In other words if for instance half of Tipperary wanted to remain in the UK the British would have no more right in claiming that.

Er, no it is the other way around. The south left the UK.

It would be more a kin to Cork legally leaving Ireland but then saying "We are also taking Tipperary with us" and the majority of people in Tipperary saying "Er, no you aren't"

thecommietommy

oscarBravo wrote: »

A shining example of doublethink, tbh. Republican terrorists are "revolutionaries"; loyalist terrorists are "death squads". Our terrorism is good; theirs is bad.

Beyond that, it's using tired Marxist rhetoric to justify murder. It's a well-written load of bollox.

So cop killers Micheal Collins, Dan Breen etc were 'terrorists ' in your book while the Black and Tans, SAS and Parachute regiment etc were merely benign ' peacekeepers ' helping old ladies across the road while trying to stop the Paddy's from killing each other ?

And ofcourse you'll ignore that the very same British dirty tricks dept/SAS were arming and directing the loyalists right thoughout the troubles.

thecommietommy

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, no it is the other way around. The south left the UK.

It would be more a kin to Cork legally leaving Ireland but then saying "We are also taking Tipperary with us" and the majority of people in Tipperary saying "Er, no you aren't"

Since when is county Donegal in southern Ireland

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

If this is just going to be a retread of the Ellis thread, this thread will not remain open much longer.

Zombrex

thecommietommy wrote: »

Since when is county Donegal in southern Ireland

Touche :P

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Partition had nothing to do about democracy, it was about retaining as much territory in Ireland as possible because they realised they it was no longer viable to keep the rest of the country within the UK. It was an exclusively British creation that went against the democratic wishes of the Irish people. In other words if for instance half of Tipperary wanted to remain in the UK the British would have no more right in claiming that.

If democracy had anything to do with it, none of Ireland would have left the UK.

.jacksparrow.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If democracy had anything to do with it, none of Ireland would have left the UK.

How can you get away with stuff like this on here?

Fratton Fred

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

How can you get away with stuff like this on here?

at the 1918 general election, 53% of the country voted for either unionist parties, or home rule parties. Sinn Fein, the only party that wanted independence received only 47% of the overall vote yet still went ahead and formed the Dail.

Then, in 1922, pro treaty candidates were overwhelmingly voted for by the population.

yet partition is still somehow seen as being undemocratic.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yet partition is still somehow seen as being undemocratic.

First off you should realize that Michael Collins sent guns north and there was a Pro-Treaty IRA fighting against the British state and Orange mobs in Ulster. Accepting the Treaty for the south did not equal accepting partition. Secondly though Im going to have to check your figures the remains that voting for Sinn Fein was also a vote for war with the greatest super power of the time- it was an incredibly brave vote when you sit down and think about it. If Britain did not have its gun pointed at the head of the Irish people Im sure a lot more people would have voted for Sinn Fein.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

First off you should realize that Michael Collins sent guns north and there was a Pro-Treaty IRA fighting against the British state and Orange mobs in Ulster. Accepting the Treaty for the south did not equal accepting partition. Secondly though Im going to have to check your figures the remains that voting for Sinn Fein was also a vote for war with the greatest super power of the time- it was an incredibly brave vote when you sit down and think about it. If Britain did not have its gun pointed at the head of the Irish people Im sure a lot more people would have voted for Sinn Fein.

or, maybe, most people didn't actually want independence. Second guessing the electorate is very undemocratic.

The guns, by the way, were generally being held by the Sinn Fein activists.

The Corinthian

SoulandForm wrote: »

Accepting the Treaty for the south did not equal accepting partition.

Well, it did. It might have been only accepting said partition as an interim solution, but it was ultimately accepting it. That's how treaties work; you don't sign one and cherry pick which parts you really accept. Which of course is a side issue on why despite democratic support for said treaty, some decided they didn't want to respect this democratic choice anyway.

Some people are fanatics and always have been. If it isn't God, it's some ideology that cannot be compromised no matter what.

If Britain did not have its gun pointed at the head of the Irish people Im sure a lot more people would have voted for Sinn Fein.

Not really. People a century ago weren't a lot different to people today. My grandfather didn't have a lot of time for Sinn Fein, back then, but mainly because they were a bunch of crypt-socialist revolutionaries who beyond nationalism and a few hair-brained ideas about how to run a country, didn't have much of a clue about government.

Not much has changed, TBH.

GRMA

Fratton Fred wrote: »

at the 1918 general election, 53% of the country voted for either unionist parties, or home rule parties. Sinn Fein, the only party that wanted independence received only 47% of the overall vote yet still went ahead and formed the Dail.

Then, in 1922, pro treaty candidates were overwhelmingly voted for by the population.

yet partition is still somehow seen as being undemocratic.

You frequently say this, yet leave out he fact that there was an election pact which was in place to prevent the election being a referendum on the treaty.

GRMA

Can we get back to talking about the position paper linked in the OP?

Fratton Fred

GRMA wrote: »

You frequently say this, yet leave out he fact that there was an election pact which was in place to prevent the election being a referendum on the treaty.

Oh, ok then. The 1922 election was rigged.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or, maybe, most people didn't actually want independence. Second guessing the electorate is very undemocratic.

The guns, by the way, were generally being held by the Sinn Fein activists.

You have to admit though wanting Sinn Fein took a lot of guts and inner determination.

Interesting that where the Home Rule Party did strongest was is in what is today Northern Ireland and yet now the strongest "Nationalist" Party are Provisional Sinn Fein. What does that say about Partition?

SoulandForm

Everyone on the nationalist side believed that partition would be only temporary. In the civil war fought in the south partition was not a major issue.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, it did. It might have been only accepting said partition as an interim solution, but it was ultimately accepting it. That's how treaties work; you don't sign one and cherry pick which parts you really accept. Which of course is a side issue on why despite democratic support for said treaty, some decided they didn't want to respect this democratic choice anyway.

The Corinthian

SoulandForm wrote: »

Everyone on the nationalist side believed that partition would be only temporary. In the civil war fought in the south partition was not a major issue.

That's a wee bit revisionist, TBH.

OMD

SoulandForm wrote: »

You have to admit though wanting Sinn Fein took a lot of guts and inner determination.

Interesting that where the Home Rule Party did strongest was is in what is today Northern Ireland and yet now the strongest "Nationalist" Party are Provisional Sinn Fein. What does that say about Partition?

Provisional Sinn Fein?
Sinn Fein only became the more popular nationalist party after they accepted partition, (by their support for the good Friday agreement)and the IRA surrendered.

K-9

Lads interesting as it is, we are venturing into Historical territory here rather than discussing the topic.

Bertie Woot

K-9 wrote: »

Lads interesting as it is, we are venturing into Historical territory here rather than discussing the topic.

True. I read the document entitled "Standing Outside The Peace Process" last night, and once again this morning, and must state from the outset, that although I come from the Unionist community in NI, but unlike the vast majority of Unionists in NI am in favour of peaceful Irish reunification, with the emphasis on peaceful, I must make it clear that I oppose dissident Republican violence, just as I opposed PIRA and indeed Loyalist violence throughout the conflict. However, I didn't disagree with all of RNU's analysis of the current political situation in NI, and in fact, to my utter surprise, found myself agreeing with much of what they put forward, albeit with some exceptions and question marks.

In particular:

In conclusion therefore; RNU view the so called ‘Peace Process’ as in fact inherently sectarian, inherently partitionist and inherently capitalist, promoting ultimately communal division, a continuation of British rule and the dominance of a greedy capitalist class who care little for the economic well being or welfare of the Irish people north or south.

We on the other hand, intend to propose a programme of Revolutionary Republicanism, the encouragement of the Irish working class to peruse a Free Socialist Republic, via all available means of struggle. Not for nationalist or emotional reasons, but for practical and humane reasons and as part of the progressive struggle for control of Irish resources, to be worked for the welfare and future integrity of all our people.

We believe such a path to be the true republican & non-sectarian path, the route towards healing our Nation, and freeing it from Imperial and colonial evils; from corruption, poverty and privilege, instead taking us towards true Irish freedom.

Viewing the "peace process" as "inherently sectarian" sounds like a nonsense statement for a start. Life in Northern Ireland has been inherently sectarian, and those who cry "sectarianism!" the loudest are usually the least conscious of their own sectarianism. If RNU thinks for one moment that Unionists do not perceive their organisation as intrinsically sectarian, they are not very self aware.

However, RNU are correct in their analysis of the peace process and the GFA as being "partitionist", as partition of the island is being permitted to be sustained by the terms and conditions of the GFA, and although there is provision for a referendum (border poll) whenever the British SOS feels that unification is a real possibility via a democratic mandate, the GFA does effectively sustain the Unionist veto, as the GFA was constructed within the framework of the manufactured majority in the manufactured 6 counties of Ulster we refer to as "Northern Ireland". In other words, the GFA guarantees the continuation of partition by legitimising the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 and which is responsible for partition. You could however attribute blame for partition on Michael Collins, who bowed to British governmental demands, and by acknowledging the fact that both Unionism and Nationalism were opposed to partition in 1921, but of course for very different reasons.

The RNU's commentary on capitalism rings true, and is an aspect of Irish Republicanism which was abandoned by Sinn Fein and which should re-constitute a vital aspect of the Irish Republican ideal. There is no point in engaging in "revolutionary Republicanism" and ending British rule in NI, then reunifying Ireland and permitting the parasitical capitalist class to exploit the situation and by sustaining their ruthless exploitation of the proletariat and thus sustaining social class divisions; divisions which were sidelined and ignored during 30 years of bitter conflict in NI. There is a place for class politics in every country, and Ireland should be no exception.

I agree with RNU's Socialist and indeed Republican objective, I do not however agree with their means and feel that their commitment to physical force Republicanism, which they have euphemised with the phrase "all available means of struggle", is outdated, futile and redundant. Violence failed the Provos, and the Provo's paramilitary capacity was much greater than today's dissidents. Murdering the occasional Police Officer, Prison Officer or "Brit" is not going to bring about a united Ireland, and I am convinced that all of the former dissident factions which now constitute the RNU know that too. The occasional murder of a Brit is nothing more than an intentional reminder to the British establishment that physical force Republicanism hasn't gone away, is still committed to its objective, and is still capable of carrying out an operation; but that is all.

If the RNU wants to create a free, post colonial Ireland, which is free of British imperialism, and free to determine its own destiny, they need to make reunification attractive to Unionsim as an arrangement which shall accommodate the Unionist people and their culture. The RNU's analysis contains a lot of truth, but they need to get a grip on reality and realise that the most effective barrier to Irish reunification is the continuation of armed actions. Murdering more people in the name of "Irish freedom" is not the way to get Unionism on board the United Ireland express. The PIRA tried that, and failed. What makes the dissident's think that they can achieve reunification with little man-power and close to zero support is beyond most thinking people's comprehension.

Their objections to SF's participation at Stormont contains a lot of validity and truth, but SF-IRA played the violent game for 30 years and failed, and now have no option but to play the peaceful, strategic, long game; and young dedicated Republican hot-heads who have no time or patience for SF strategy are not going to achieve the Republican objective with further futile violence.

That is the reality.

GRMA

Bertie Woot wrote: »

True. I read the document entitled "Standing Outside The Peace Process" last night, and once again this morning, and must state from the outset, that although I come from the Unionist community in NI, but unlike the vast majority of Unionists in NI am in favour of peaceful Irish reunification, with the emphasis on peaceful, I must make it clear that I oppose dissident Republican violence, just as I opposed PIRA and indeed Loyalist violence throughout the conflict, However, I didn't disagree with all of RNU's analysis of the current political situation in NI, and in fact, to my utter surprise, found myself agreeing with much of what they put forward, albeit with some exceptions and question marks.

In particular:



Viewing the "peace process" as "inherently sectarian" sounds like a nonsense statement for a start. Life in Northern Ireland has been inherently sectarian, and those who cry "sectarianism!" the loudest are usually the least conscious of their own sectarianism. If RNU thinks for one moment that Unionists do not perceive their organisation as intrinsically sectarian, they are not very self aware.

However, RNU are correct in their analysis of the peace process and the GFA as being "partitionist", as partition of the island is being permitted to be sustained by the terms and conditions of the GFA, and although there is provision for a referendum (border poll) whenever the British SOS feels that unification is a real possibility via a democratic mandate, the GFA does effectively sustain the Unionist veto, as the GFA was constructed within the framework of the manufactured majority in the manufactured 6 counties of Ulster we refer to as "Northern Ireland". In other words, the GFA guarantees the continuation of partition by legitimising the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 and which is responsible for partition. You could however attribute blame for partition on Michael Collins, who bowed to British governmental demands, and by acknowledging the fact that both Unionism and Nationalism were opposed to partition in 1921, but of course for very different reasons.

The RNU's commentary on capitalism rings true, and is an aspect of Irish Republicanism which was abandoned by Sinn Fein and which should re-constitute a vital aspect of the Irish Republican ideal. There is no point in engaging in "revolutionary Republicanism" and ending British rule in NI, then reunifying Ireland and permitting the parasitical capitalist class to exploit the situation and by sustaining their ruthless exploitation of the proletariat and thus sustaining social class divisions; divisions which were sidelined and ignored during 30 years of bitter conflict in NI. There is a place for class politics in every country, and Ireland should be no exception.

I agree with RNU's Socialist and indeed Republican objective, I do not however agree with their means and feel that their commitment to physical force Republicanism, which they have euphemised with the phrase "all available means of struggle", is outdated, futile and redundant. Violence failed the Provos, and the Provo's paramilitary capacity was much greater than today's dissidents. Murdering the occasional Police Officer, Prison Officer or "Brit" is not going to bring about a united Ireland, and I am convinced that all of the former dissident factions which now constitute the RNU know that too. The occasional murder of a Brit is nothing more than an intentional reminder to the British establishment that physical force Republicanism hasn't gone away, is still committed to its objective, and is still capable of carrying out an operation; but that is all.

If the RNU wants to create a free, post colonial Ireland, which is free of British imperialism, and free to determine its own destiny, they need to make reunification attractive to Unionsim as an arrangement which shall accommodate the Unionist people and their culture. The RNU's analysis contains a lot of truth, but they need to get a grip on reality and realise that the most effective barrier to Irish reunification is the continuation of armed actions. Murdering more people in the name of "Irish freedom" is not the way to get Unionism on board the United Ireland express. The PIRA tried that, and failed. What makes the dissident's think that they can achieve reunification with little man-power and close to zero support is beyond most thinking people's comprehension.

Their objections to SF's participation at Stormont contains a lot of validity and truth, but SF-IRA played the violent game for 30 years and failed, and now have no option but to play the peaceful, strategic, long game; and young dedicated Republican hot-heads who have no time or patience for SF strategy are not going to achieve the Republican objective with further futile violence.

That is the reality.

RNU have released another interesting document entitled "Revolutionary Republicanism" which is very much worth a read:

http://www.republicanunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Core-Principles-of-Revolutionary-Republicanism..pdf

GRMA

Fair play to RNU, it must be said. For too long all republicans of this hue have offered is a "no to SF" with the implication being we (republicans) should go back to a pre cease fire mindset and tactic.

RNU however have contributed to and kickstarted a debate among republicans with these documents which is to be welcomed

.jacksparrow.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

True. I read the document entitled "Standing Outside The Peace Process" last night, and once again this morning, and must state from the outset, that although I come from the Unionist community in NI, but unlike the vast majority of Unionists in NI am in favour of peaceful Irish reunification, with the emphasis on peaceful, I must make it clear that I oppose dissident Republican violence, just as I opposed PIRA and indeed Loyalist violence throughout the conflict. However, I didn't disagree with all of RNU's analysis of the current political situation in NI, and in fact, to my utter surprise, found myself agreeing with much of what they put forward, albeit with some exceptions and question marks.

In particular:



Viewing the "peace process" as "inherently sectarian" sounds like a nonsense statement for a start. Life in Northern Ireland has been inherently sectarian, and those who cry "sectarianism!" the loudest are usually the least conscious of their own sectarianism. If RNU thinks for one moment that Unionists do not perceive their organisation as intrinsically sectarian, they are not very self aware.

However, RNU are correct in their analysis of the peace process and the GFA as being "partitionist", as partition of the island is being permitted to be sustained by the terms and conditions of the GFA, and although there is provision for a referendum (border poll) whenever the British SOS feels that unification is a real possibility via a democratic mandate, the GFA does effectively sustain the Unionist veto, as the GFA was constructed within the framework of the manufactured majority in the manufactured 6 counties of Ulster we refer to as "Northern Ireland". In other words, the GFA guarantees the continuation of partition by legitimising the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 and which is responsible for partition. You could however attribute blame for partition on Michael Collins, who bowed to British governmental demands, and by acknowledging the fact that both Unionism and Nationalism were opposed to partition in 1921, but of course for very different reasons.

The RNU's commentary on capitalism rings true, and is an aspect of Irish Republicanism which was abandoned by Sinn Fein and which should re-constitute a vital aspect of the Irish Republican ideal. There is no point in engaging in "revolutionary Republicanism" and ending British rule in NI, then reunifying Ireland and permitting the parasitical capitalist class to exploit the situation and by sustaining their ruthless exploitation of the proletariat and thus sustaining social class divisions; divisions which were sidelined and ignored during 30 years of bitter conflict in NI. There is a place for class politics in every country, and Ireland should be no exception.

I agree with RNU's Socialist and indeed Republican objective, I do not however agree with their means and feel that their commitment to physical force Republicanism, which they have euphemised with the phrase "all available means of struggle", is outdated, futile and redundant. Violence failed the Provos, and the Provo's paramilitary capacity was much greater than today's dissidents. Murdering the occasional Police Officer, Prison Officer or "Brit" is not going to bring about a united Ireland, and I am convinced that all of the former dissident factions which now constitute the RNU know that too. The occasional murder of a Brit is nothing more than an intentional reminder to the British establishment that physical force Republicanism hasn't gone away, is still committed to its objective, and is still capable of carrying out an operation; but that is all.

If the RNU wants to create a free, post colonial Ireland, which is free of British imperialism, and free to determine its own destiny, they need to make reunification attractive to Unionsim as an arrangement which shall accommodate the Unionist people and their culture. The RNU's analysis contains a lot of truth, but they need to get a grip on reality and realise that the most effective barrier to Irish reunification is the continuation of armed actions. Murdering more people in the name of "Irish freedom" is not the way to get Unionism on board the United Ireland express. The PIRA tried that, and failed. What makes the dissident's think that they can achieve reunification with little man-power and close to zero support is beyond most thinking people's comprehension.

Their objections to SF's participation at Stormont contains a lot of validity and truth, but SF-IRA played the violent game for 30 years and failed, and now have no option but to play the peaceful, strategic, long game; and young dedicated Republican hot-heads who have no time or patience for SF strategy are not going to achieve the Republican objective with further futile violence.

That is the reality.

Why are you focusing so much on dissidents when you yourself have said they are insignificant,killing the odd police officer here or there isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

There is more important factors to pay attention to in finding a solution to situation.

Bertie Woot

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Why are you focusing so much on dissidents when you yourself have said they are insignificant,killing the odd police officer here or there isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

There is more important factors to pay attention to in finding a solution to situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are RNU not the dissidents? They may be a marginalised group with little support, but their capacity to take more human life in the name of Ireland, and like the Provos before them; regardless of public opinion, makes them a continuing menace to society. Taking a human life is a very big deal indeed. There may be other factors to consider when looking at a resolution to the British-Irish problem, but none trump taking more human life in the name of Irish freedom.

The Provos soaked the Irish tricolour in a river of blood and the dissidents are hell-bent on continuing with the failed strategy of violence. The Provos were not viewed as 'freedom fighters' by a hell of a lot of Irish people; Protestant, Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, and neither are the dissidents. That is something that RNU need to take on board.

.jacksparrow.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are RNU not the dissidents? They may be a marginalised group with little support, but their capacity to take more human life in the name of Ireland, and like the Provos before them; regardless of public opinion, makes them a continuing menace to society. Taking a human life is a very big deal indeed. There may be other factors to consider when looking at a resolution to the British-Irish problem, but none trump taking more human life in the name of Irish freedom.

The Provos soaked the Irish tricolour in a river of blood and the dissidents are hell-bent on continuing with the failed strategy of violence. The Provos were not viewed as 'freedom fighters' by a hell of a lot of Irish people; Protestant, Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, and neither are the dissidents. That is something that RNU need to take on board.

But there has always been violence in Ireland's struggle for independence,its always been there and always will,its a sad realism.Some might say it worked in the war of independence so why won't it work now,clearly we can see it won't but the dissidents must think it will when they choose to take up arms.

Solutions to put a stop to it should be the main objective.

Bertie Woot

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

But there has always been violence in Ireland's struggle for independence,its always been there and always will,its a sad realism.Some might say it worked in the war of independence so why won't it work now,clearly we can see it won't but the dissidents must think it will when they choose to take up arms.

Solutions to put a stop to it should be the main objective.

Some people think that a united Ireland shall put a permanent end to Republican violence, as when the objective has been achieved there shall therefore no longer be any cause for violence. Whilst I'd like to see a peaceful transition to a united Ireland, and the establishment of a 32 county Republic where the Ulster British people can live free of persecution and play a vital role in the governance of the new Ireland for the benefit of all Irish people, I'm also a realist, and know that Ulster Unionism shall never under any circumstances even contemplate a UI, as it is the antithesis of all they are about.

How do you solve the problem of more than one million Unionists/Loyalists in N.Ireland continuing to oppose Irish reunification as much today as they did 40 years ago and expect to see peaceful Irish reunification? That's something I've asked myself. The dissidents obviously think that bombing and murdering British state forces into a united Ireland is the only solution, but then the Provos were of the same opinion with the armalite and ballot box strategy, and that failed.

Peaceful Irish reunification is possible, but it's a long term strategy, and even if the majority in NI did vote in favour of reunification in a referendum next week, you can bet your bottom euro that Unionists shall resist the democratic wishes of the people. Wishful, ideologically idealistic thinking to the side, without doubt, no matter how a UI is brought about, if ever; more violence lies ahead, and as much as I'd like to see Unionists embrace their Irishness and walk into a UI, I know that this is probably not going to happen.