There is now new hope for republican idealists

[RisenBelfast]

There is now new hope for republican idealists

Liam Duggan (April 25) used the famous James Connolly quotation, “We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times”, to bolster his own analysis of the contemporary political landscape.

His usage goes to the heart of the challenge facing republicanism in Ireland today. For those who believe we live in ‘normal’ times the only avenue open to them is that of ‘constitutional’ action – or perhaps, more accurately, ‘institutional’ action (or inaction) – within Stormont. For those of use who believe there is nothing normal about partition; nothing normal about a ‘permanent’ garrison of 5,000 British soldiers; nothing normal about a heavily armed colonial police force; nothing normal about MI5 spy rings and nothing normal about discrimination, exploitation and poverty the only action open to us is revolutionary action.

Republicanism is now in a state of flux as republicans all across Ireland come to terms with the new political landscape. For many there has been bitter disappointment with how little has been achieved over the last 40 years.

For some that disappointment has turned to disillusionment with the entire concept of organised political struggle. For others, however, that disappointment has been replaced by hope and by a renewed commitment to the long-fought-for objectives of Irish republicanism.

For myself, and others in south Derry, Dublin, Belfast, Armagh and elsewhere, éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic.

Is éirígí the ‘credible alternative’ that Liam refers to in his letter? Perhaps not yet, but to quote another father of Irish Republicanism, Fintan Lalor, “Somewhere and somehow, and by somebody, a beginning must be made.”

In my opinion that beginning was made two years ago when a group of republican activists in Dublin launched éirígí as an alternative not only to Sinn Féin but also to Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the SDLP and all the other establishment political parties on this island.

CATHY JACKSON
Leas Chathaoirleach
Éirígí, Doire Theas




Irish News (http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/576/2008/5/2/586736_344259132697Thereisn.html)

[Comrade Ryan]

Irish News (http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/576/2008/5/2/586736_344259132697Thereisn.html)

Good stuff.

[RisenBelfast]

Good stuff.

Certainly is.

[andreas]

In all seriousness, why are the 32's or especially the IRPS not the credible alternative? or as we believe why is collaborative action not the credible alternative. I think that particularly if Eirigi are promoting themselves as the Socialist Republican alternative they perhaps need to outline what they have that other socialist republicans such as the IRSP do not.

[lorgadan]

Andreas it is not eirigis intention to engage in some sort of a contest between other groups on the Republican left. Please stop trying to get people on this forum involved in such a childish argument. You're one of the most transparent and infantile trolls I have ever come across.

eirigi is not in competition with other groups, please cop on and realise this.

[conghaileach]

Good stuff.

The Irish News or the letter in it? ;)

Seriously though, it was a very well-written piece.

[andreas]

Andreas it is not eirigis intention to engage in some sort of a contest between other groups on the Republican left. Please stop trying to get people on this forum involved in such a childish argument. You're one of the most transparent and infantile trolls I have ever come across.

eirigi is not in competition with other groups, please cop on and realise this.


The point is why do we need another group, there are already too many.
If we do need another is it childish to ask why?

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]Andreas it is not eirigis intention to engage in some sort of a contest between other groups on the Republican left.

thats not what andreas said . he asked why a republican unity project was not a credible alternative to constitutional nationalism , and why its an eirigi spokespersons opinion that no alternative to constituional nationalism existed until 2 years ago when they claim they provided it .


Please stop trying to get people on this forum involved in such a childish argument. You're one of the most transparent and infantile trolls I have ever come across.

I dont know your affiliation or membership but if it was the case that eirigi have a problem with someone asking a simple question about a press release then maybe they shouldnt release statemnts to the press . However I doubt thats the case and the problem is simply your own one. I also do not remotely reagrd andreas as a troll . Asking a simple and straight forward question is quite normal political interaction among civilised people . There was nothing micheivous at all in what he asked .

eirigi is not in competition with other groups, please cop on and realise this

He didnt say they were . He simply asked for clarification on a political position made in a press release . You seem wholly unable to provide it , a pity you didnt simply say this in the first place instead of resorting to insults .

[Hildy]

My question is, what exactly are they going to do that is different than these other groups? What makes them 'unique' and the 'party of the future'?? What will they be able to achieve that the other groups have failed to achieve? If their goals are the same, why will they succeed and the other's not?

[Mairtin Og Meehan]

Chara, I was just wondering what is éirígí's position on elected representatives taking seats in either Leinster House or Stormont?

Or

Its position on support for the Gardai and PSNI?

[Comrade Ryan]

Andreas it is not eirigis intention to engage in some sort of a contest between other groups on the Republican left. Please stop trying to get people on this forum involved in such a childish argument. You're one of the most transparent and infantile trolls I have ever come across.

eirigi is not in competition with other groups, please cop on and realise this.

:eusa_clap:

[Comrade Ryan]

In all seriousness, why are the 32's or especially the IRPS not the credible alternative? or as we believe why is collaborative action not the credible alternative. I think that particularly if Eirigi are promoting themselves as the Socialist Republican alternative they perhaps need to outline what they have that other socialist republicans such as the IRSP do not.

Can you point out where eirigi have said others are not an alternaitve of that they are 'the' alternaive.

They merely stated that they were formed as an alternative, and that is what they are.

There is no grandstanding here, so can the trolls return under the bridge please?

[Comrade Ryan]

thats not what andreas said . he asked why a republican unity project was not a credible alternative to constitutional nationalism , and why its an eirigi spokespersons opinion that no alternative to constituional nationalism existed until 2 years ago when they claim they provided it .

Perhaps if people wish to question a letter, it would be best that they read it first.

Can you, andreas, or anyone else here, please tell me where eirigi stated that they were 'the' alternative, because if that was actually said, I clearly missed it.

[Comrade Ryan]

Chara, I was just wondering what is éirígí's position on elected representatives taking seats in either Leinster House or Stormont?

Or

Its position on support for the Gardai and PSNI?

No decision has been taken on elections, period. But i'd doubt, as a group opposed to the GFA, that they'd have much interest in taking seats in Stormont.

But it can be argued out using the Lenin 'I'll stand in any pig stye' reasoning.

They do not support the Gardai nor the RUC-PSNI.

They're 'Brits Out' leaflet should clear up their position on british occupational forces.

[CMe]

Perhaps if people wish to question a letter, it would be best that they read it first.

Can you, andreas, or anyone else here, please tell me where eirigi stated that they were 'the' alternative, because if that was actually said, I clearly missed it.

"éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic."

And the headline, which eirigi is not responsible for, implies it also. The section about being the start of the "credible alternative" could be read as implying as much, too.

HTH

[RisenBelfast]

"éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic."

And the headline, which eirigi is not responsible for, implies it also. The section about being the start of the "credible alternative" could be read as implying as much, too.

HTH

As you point out the title was by the Irish News. However, the main thing all those sniping over an éirígí member writing to a paper presenting the party as a 'credible alternative' are neglecting to mention is this was a specific response to another letter by Liam Duggan declaring there was no alternative to Sinn Féin. If others have a problem with éirígí challenging that claim or fail to counter it themselves that's very much their problem.

The éirígí member was rightly highlighting the party being an alternative, if others aren't going to enter the field to defend their own initiatives that is their failing, not éirígí's. It isn't éirígí's job to write letters on behalf of other parties.

[Comrade Ryan]

"éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic."

And the headline, which eirigi is not responsible for, implies it also. The section about being the start of the "credible alternative" could be read as implying as much, too.

HTH

So its down to implication of headline they did not write and interpretation then.

Well the quote you supply is out of contaxt for a start, why is that?

It actually stated that in the opinion of the letter writer and others in South Derry, eirigi represented the best vehicle...

This is opinion.

It is the start of a credible alternaitve, no where does it state the only credible alternative.

So there's nothing to this but intepretation which looks for negative implication as a starting point.

Nothing to see here....

[conghaileach]

Perhaps if people wish to question a letter, it would be best that they read it first.

Can you, andreas, or anyone else here, please tell me where eirigi stated that they were 'the' alternative, because if that was actually said, I clearly missed it.
"éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic."

And the headline, which eirigi is not responsible for, implies it also. The section about being the start of the "credible alternative" could be read as implying as much, too.

HTH
Of course, it doesn't say anywhere there that éirígí are the only vehicle or 'the' vehicle.

[CMe]

So its down to implication of headline they did not write and interpretation then.

Well the quote you supply is out of contaxt for a start, why is that?

It actually stated that in the opinion of the letter writer and others in South Derry, eirigi represented the best vehicle...

This is opinion.

It is the start of a credible alternaitve, no where does it state the only credible alternative.

So there's nothing to this but intepretation which looks for negative implication as a starting point.

Nothing to see here....

You asked for where and I pointed to how it might be implied, nothing more, nothing less. No value judgement made on my part; I was not making any interpretation, negative or otherwise, on the letter. Just to be clear.

The semantics and nuance is for you and the others to argue over, and of course that will be down to interpretation. If you want to deny the implication is there, however, I do think that's being a bit precious. Even the sub-editor of the Irish News picked up on it. They would hardly have an axe to grind against eirigi? If the letter's purpose was not to assert itself then what was it?

[Comrade Ryan]

You asked for where and I pointed to how it might be implied, nothing more, nothing less. No value judgement made on my part; I was not making any interpretation, negative or otherwise, on the letter. Just to be clear.

The semantics and nuance is for you and the others to argue over, and of course that will be down to interpretation. If you want to deny the implication is there, however, I do think that's being a bit precious. Even the sub-editor of the Irish News picked up on it. They would hardly have an axe to grind against eirigi? If the letter's purpose was not to assert itself then what was it?

There is nothing more to it than what it actually says.

That it is an alternative, which the letter writer is honest enough to say isn't fully developed.

It does not state anywhere that it is the only alternative. And thats it really.

People can try and imply things that aren't there if they wish, but its of little value and is not based in fact.

Doesn't every party/org view themselves as an alternative? Of course they do, or they would have little reason to exist.

So if they declare themselves as an alternative, is this really them claiming the ground for themselves or simply stating the reality of the situation.

[seosmc]

No decision has been taken on elections, period. But i'd doubt, as a group opposed to the GFA, that they'd have much interest in taking seats in Stormont.

But it can be argued out using the Lenin 'I'll stand in any pig stye' reasoning.

They do not support the Gardai nor the RUC-PSNI.

They're 'Brits Out' leaflet should clear up their position on british occupational forces.

could they not stand on an abstentionist policy?it would at least gauge what support they have.

who would they suggest their supporters go to if they had a problem regarding anti-social,rape burgalry,etc etc?(26 or osc)

i dont think theres anybody on this forum who doesn want the brits out
what is their mechanism for acheiving it ,i havent seen their leaflet

[CMe]

There is nothing more to it than what it actually says.

That it is an alternative, which the letter writer is honest enough to say isn't fully developed.

It does not state anywhere that it is the only alternative. And thats it really.

People can try and imply things that aren't there if they wish, but its of little value and is not based in fact.

Doesn't every party/org view themselves as an alternative? Of course they do, or they would have little reason to exist.

So if they declare themselves as an alternative, is this really them claiming the ground for themselves or simply stating the reality of the situation.



Auugggghhh.......I don't want to get into an argument of semantics......I don't, really.....but....but......er..........ok.......

If it were just a matter of being "a" alternative, as you seem to be suggesting, I don't think anyone would be taking any sort of issue with it (Please note: I am not. I am just engaged in parsing the wordplay).

Likewise, the issue does not seem to be around the idea of being "the" as in the only alternative.

No, what I think the issue is that the letter is implying that eirigi is "the best" alternative, the beginning of "the credible alternative", and the use of the word "now", which implies, as the Irish News sub-editor picked up on, that prior to eirigi there was no credible alternative [to Sinn Fein or for Republicans].

It is all down to semantics and interpretation. Those who are in republican organisations will be reading it differently from those who aren't, I imagine. You do agree the letter was seeking to assert eirgi's position?

[Comrade Ryan]

could they not stand on an abstentionist policy?it would at least gauge what support they have.

A possiblity.

who would they suggest their supporters go to if they had a problem regarding anti-social,rape burgalry,etc etc?(26 or osc).

This is the great difficulty isn't it?

There are currently no alternative structures in our communities - people are being forced to call the RUC-PSNI.

This is a reality but not necessarily a new one. For years people had to deal with the RUC over specific matters, it didn't mean that they supported them or gave them credibility, they didn't seek to make them more acceptable, but merely dealth with them when forced to.

The challenge facing everyone, that doesn't see the RUC-PSNI as a panacea for all our ills, is to develop alternative structures.

i dont think theres anybody on this forum who doesn want the brits out what is their mechanism for acheiving it ,i havent seen their leaflet

The leaflet really deals with some realities of the occupation, facts and figures, some people will already know the facts others won't.

The mechanism is through conciousness raising followed by sustained activism. There's no magic wands or master plans on offer - thanks be to lord.

[RisenBelfast]

Auugggghhh.......I don't want to get into an argument of semantics......I don't, really.....but....but......er..........ok.......

If it were just a matter of being "a" alternative, as you seem to be suggesting, I don't think anyone would be taking any sort of issue with it (Please note: I am not. I am just engaged in parsing the wordplay).

Likewise, the issue does not seem to be around the idea of being "the" as in the only alternative.

No, what I think the issue is that the letter is implying that eirigi is "the best" alternative, the beginning of "the credible alternative", and the use of the word "now", which implies, as the Irish News sub-editor picked up on, that prior to eirigi there was no credible alternative [to Sinn Fein or for Republicans].

It is all down to semantics and interpretation. Those who are in republican organisations will be reading it differently from those who aren't, I imagine. You do agree the letter was seeking to assert eirgi's position?

I've pointed out you are reading it without context, it is a specific reply to a previous letter by Liam Duggan, referenced at the beginning, claiming there was 'no credible alternative to SF'. That is what the writer is contesting, not the credibility of any other project.

[CMe]

I've pointed out you are reading it without context, it is a specific reply to a previous letter by Liam Duggan, referenced at the beginning, claiming there was 'no credible alternative to SF'. That is what the writer is contesting, not the credibility of any other project.

Do you have the first letter? For context?

If Duggan claimed there was no credible alternative to SF, and eirigi pops up and says, "We are!" does that not imply that, like Duggan, they think others aren't credible?

Of course it could always be a "We don't know about any other groups but we're credible" kind of statement, too. Which is a bit better than the former but not by much if you're one of the other groups.

Anyway, what is so wrong with eirigi saying it's the best, or that it thinks it's the most credible? You are competing with other groups, why would you pretend otherwise? Pretend that you aren't in competition or that you don't think that you're the best group going?

[Comrade Ryan]

Auugggghhh.......I don't want to get into an argument of semantics......I don't, really.....but....but......er..........ok.......

If it were just a matter of being "a" alternative, as you seem to be suggesting, I don't think anyone would be taking any sort of issue with it (Please note: I am not. I am just engaged in parsing the wordplay).

Likewise, the issue does not seem to be around the idea of being "the" as in the only alternative.

No, what I think the issue is that the letter is implying that eirigi is "the best" alternative, the beginning of "the credible alternative", and the use of the word "now", which implies, as the Irish News sub-editor picked up on, that prior to eirigi there was no credible alternative [to Sinn Fein or for Republicans].

It is all down to semantics and interpretation. Those who are in republican organisations will be reading it differently from those who aren't, I imagine. You do agree the letter was seeking to assert eirgi's position?

Well the facts are important and the absence of 'the' says all that needs to be said.

If others wish to play word games, they are welcome to.

In relation to 'the best vehicle', it was clearly written from the opinion of the letter writer and the others in the group in South Derry. I is so clear its their opinion that it actually states that it is their opinion. Can't get much clearer thna that, but for some reason that point has been missed out by you twice.

Now what would be strange would be for a member of eirigi to write a letter stating that they don't believe it to be the best vehical for them nor do they believe it to be a credible alternative.

Some people are going to pick holes in everything in an attempt to ensure that it fits with their view of eirigi and themselves.

They are welcome to those games.

[Comrade Ryan]

If Duggan claimed there was no credible alternative to SF, and eirigi pops up and says, "We are!" does that not imply that, like Duggan, they think others aren't credible?

See its implication plain and simple, an implication which suits the view the person implying it already holds.

It is not what was factually written but what people wish was written.

Eirigi can only speak for themselves, no-one else. Thus they answered the challenge that there was no credible alternative by saying they believe they are currently building one.

It is for others to lay their stalls out, i'm sure they do not wish eirigi to make statements on their behalf.

[RisenBelfast]

Do you have the first letter? For context?

If Duggan claimed there was no credible alternative to SF, and eirigi pops up and says, "We are!" does that not imply that, like Duggan, they think others aren't credible?

Of course it could always be a "We don't know about any other groups but we're credible" kind of statement, too. Which is a bit better than the former but not by much if you're one of the other groups.

Anyway, what is so wrong with eirigi saying it's the best, or that it thinks it's the most credible? You are competing with other groups, why would you pretend otherwise? Pretend that you aren't in competition or that you don't think that you're the best group going?

I have the paper but I'm sure you'll understand I'm not going to type it in.

If anyone has a sub to the IN they can get it here:

http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/576/2008/4/25/586155_343577683026SinnFein.html

and give us a copy and paste?

[CMe]

Well the facts are important and the absence of 'the' says all that needs to be said.

Actually, it does say "the":

Is éirígí the ‘credible alternative’ is the question posed by the letter writer who answers in the affiirmative.

In relation to 'the best vehicle', it was clearly written from the opinion of the letter writer and the others in the group in South Derry. I is so clear its their opinion that it actually states that it is their opinion. Can't get much clearer thna that, but for some reason that point has been missed out by you twice.

I have no problem with that, I don't know why this is an issue?

Now what would be strange would be for a member of eirigi to write a letter stating that they don't believe it to be the best vehical for them nor do they believe it to be a credible alternative.

I agree, I don't know what the fuss is with a representative of eirigi publicly claiming eirigi's the best alternative out there. Of course they will.

Some people are going to pick holes in everything in an attempt to ensure that it fits with their view of eirigi and themselves.

They are welcome to those games.

I'm not picking holes, I am just answering your query about where in the letter it said eirigi was the tops.

[Nijinsky]

CMe: Is éirígí the ‘credible alternative’ is the question posed by the letter writer who answers in the affiirmative.

Actually she doesnt CMe. What she actually says is

"Perhaps not yet"

[Hildy]

I have the paper but I'm sure you'll understand I'm not going to type it in.

If anyone has a sub to the IN they can get it here:

http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/576/2008/4/25/586155_343577683026SinnFein.html

and give us a copy and paste?

Is this the article you are discussing?

Sinn Fein is the only credible show in town
Liam Duggan, South Derry
Irish News - Letters (http://www.irishnews.com/articles/540/576/2008/4/25/586155_343577683026SinnFein.html)
25/04/08

Laurence O’Neill (April 23) once again gave me a lot to think about.

He comments that some things aren’t what they appear to be.

In my view – no matter what age or stage in life you are at – there is always that danger.

Hence it is vital to look at things with a rational view as well as with a view from the heart.

I can only give my opinion, which is that people were committed to the armed struggle then (and still are to a degree) and wanted to see it through to an end.

So the idea of the agreement behind Sunningdale was right but the timing and what was in it wasn’t.

I believe the war got to a point where the British army couldn’t beat the IRA and the IRA couldn’t throw the Brits out.

There was a stalemate and the people behind the armed campaign on all nearly all sides realised that there was going to have to be a political agreement. As Connolly said ‘‘We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times.’’

I think that also runs true today.

I remember the 1916 proclamation where it says “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 key word for me there is indefeasible, because it doesn’t matter at what year or anniversary a united Ireland comes about.

Hopefully it will be in my lifetime – but it is inevitable.

Laurence seems to have so much knowledge of who owns what but I cannot talk about something I don’t know about.

As a youth I want a republican movement that is progressive and forward moving and embracing the challenges ahead. At present I don’t see a credible alternative to Sinn Fein which will bring a true Irish republic closer.

Liam Duggan

South Derry

[Comrade Ryan]

Actually, it does say "the":

Is éirígí the ‘credible alternative’ is the question posed by the letter writer who answers in the affiirmative.

She doesn't use 'the' in the context of saying that it is the 'the' credible alternative but rather in response to the previous letter writer.

She asks is it 'the' credible alternative that Liam Duggan alludes to and says perhaps not.

So really that position falls on the sword so to speak.

You have said you don't know what the fuss is about, but its quite plain to see.

The fuss is people attempting to misrepresent the position of this eirigi activist even though the language used is quite clear and concise.

Makes me wonder what fuels such attempts apart from ignorance.

[Comrade Ryan]

Is this the article you are discussing?

yes thanks for that.

[RisenBelfast]

Hildy,

That's it. GRMA.

The éirígí letter was a direct reply to Liam's claim there is no credible alternative to SF. It was not a response to the role of others.

Others should have contested the claim if they have a problem. Sniping about perceptions on how éirígí challenged it doesn't hide the fact that there was no desire to challenge the person making the original and very specific claim on credible alternatives.

[CMe]

CMe:

Actually she doesnt CMe. What she actually says is

"Perhaps not yet"

She doesn't use 'the' in the context of saying that it is the 'the' credible alternative but rather in response to the previous letter writer.

She asks is it 'the' credible alternative that Liam Duggan alludes to and says perhaps not.

So really that position falls on the sword so to speak.

You have said you don't know what the fuss is about, but its quite plain to see.

The fuss is people attempting to misrepresent the position of this eirigi activist even though the language used is quite clear and concise.

Makes me wonder what fuels such attempts apart from ignorance.


The two paragraphs have to be taken in conjunction - she does not say "perhaps not yet" and leave it at that, she says "perhaps not yet, but" she imagines eirigi is on the road to becoming such.

Anyway, I am not that interested in this, I was only interested in answering your query about where people got the interpretation they did from, and I did so without making any judgement. I'm not interested in playing footsie with semantics so you guys could defend a position I am not challenging. Those that are interested can take the discussion up with you two.

Thanks Risen Belfast and Hildy for getting the original letter.

[CMe]

Hildy,

That's it. GRMA.

The éirígí letter was a direct reply to Liam's claim there is no credible alternative to SF. It was not a response to the role of others.

Others should have contested the claim if they have a problem. Sniping about perceptions on how éirígí challenged it doesn't hide the fact that there was no desire to challenge the person making the original and very specific claim on credible alternatives.

You're right. Duggan threw down the challenge and Jackson picked it up for eirigi. Other groups may or may not do the same.

Personally I think the whole "One True Church" argument is pointless, whoever is doing it, or thinks someone else is doing it. I can see how some might have read Jackson's letter as such, but so what? I don't see why eirigi has to get defensive over asserting themselves.

Really a better response (in this thread) should have been "Of course eirgi members think that eirigi is the best, and will write letters saying so. So what?" Instead of all this denying that an eirigi member thinks eirigi is hot stuff, and getting all het up about it. So what? They should think that, otherwise why are they in the group? Since when did groups start writing letters promoting other groups? So why should eirigi start doing so?

[RisenBelfast]

You're right.

If you start with that assumption you'll not be wrong often.

Duggan threw down the challenge and Jackson picked it up for eirigi. Other groups may or may not do the same.

We agree again.

Personally I think the whole "One True Church" argument is pointless, whoever is doing it, or thinks someone else is doing it. I can see how some might have read Jackson's letter as such, but so what? I don't see why eirigi has to get defensive over asserting themselves.

And éirígí wasn't. Some were getting increasingly frustrated at misinterpretation.

Really a better response (in this thread) should have been "Of course eirgi members think that eirigi is the best, and will write letters saying so. So what?" Instead of all this denying that an eirigi member thinks eirigi is hot stuff, and getting all het up about it. So what? They should think that, otherwise why are they in the group? Since when did groups start writing letters promoting other groups? So why should eirigi start doing so?

Which is what I was saying.

So now you are on message the only thing that remains is for those that were getting ****ed off from other parties/groups is to stop their sniping when an éirígí member confronts an objectionable, dismissive pro-SF position through a response in a letters page and to stick up for themselves and stop expecting éirígí to do it for them.

[Liam Lynch]

éirígí now represents the best vehicle for the achievement of an Irish Socialist Republic.

How and why?

[CMe]

Which is what I was saying.

Funny enough in my first draft I had put that I thought you'd said as much already but couldn't find it when I was scrolling down and took it out before hitting send.

So now you are on message the only thing that remains is for those that were getting ****ed off from other parties/groups is to stop their sniping when an éirígí member confronts an objectionable, dismissive pro-SF position through a response in a letters page and to stick up for themselves and stop expecting éirígí to do it for them.

Well, now, I don't like to be considered "on message" by anyone, if you don't mind. Ahem. But yeah, other parties are free to write in and offer themselves up as another credible alternative if they feel that's what they are.

And everyone could also take a chill pill, enjoy the good weather, kick back and relax, instead of being so god-damned friggin sensitive all the time. I'll start. :beer2:

Bank holiday weekend, sunny skies, what more could we want? An online sectarian bitchfest? Perish the thought!!

:whoohoo:

[andreas]

If you start with that assumption you'll not be wrong often.



We agree again.



And éirígí wasn't. Some were getting increasingly frustrated at misinterpretation.



Which is what I was saying.

So now you are on message the only thing that remains is for those that were getting ****ed off from other parties/groups is to stop their sniping when an éirígí member confronts an objectionable, dismissive pro-SF position through a response in a letters page and to stick up for themselves and stop expecting éirígí to do it for them.


Well said mo chara, the republican challenge to the failed politics of the GFA must be a sum of its parts and all parts ought to be complimentary rather than confrontational. The collective republican argument ought to be the alternative and i think if we give each other (different groups) time to become aquainted with each other rather than viewing each other as competition then THE republican alternative can be developed as opposed to a series of alternative. I admit i perhaps have been a bit off with some Eirigi supporters but put this down to misinterpretation. Perhaps if we can see our way clear to working together on campaigns of interest in the near future it can lay the basis for a much more comprehensive and sustained chalenge to British rule in Ireland in the long term.

[CMe]

How and why?

Apparently eirigi is a 2016 Audi with room enough for 32 counties.

[Hildy]

Apparently eirigi is a 2016 Audi with room enough for 32 counties.

:icon_lol:

Spoken like a true 'smart-ass'! I like your quick wit, CMe, very good comeback! :eusa_clap:

[RisenBelfast]

Apparently eirigi is a 2016 Audi with room enough for 32 counties.

Vorsprung durch tecknik und agitprop dann erst die revolution.

(apologies for the bad german)

[Mairtin Og Meehan]

No decision has been taken on elections, period. But i'd doubt, as a group opposed to the GFA, that they'd have much interest in taking seats in Stormont.

But it can be argued out using the Lenin 'I'll stand in any pig stye' reasoning.

They do not support the Gardai nor the RUC-PSNI.

They're 'Brits Out' leaflet should clear up their position on british occupational forces.

Thanks for your clear and concise answer comrade,

[Comrade Ryan]

Well said mo chara, the republican challenge to the failed politics of the GFA must be a sum of its parts and all parts ought to be complimentary rather than confrontational. The collective republican argument ought to be the alternative and i think if we give each other (different groups) time to become aquainted with each other rather than viewing each other as competition then THE republican alternative can be developed as opposed to a series of alternative. I admit i perhaps have been a bit off with some Eirigi supporters but put this down to misinterpretation. Perhaps if we can see our way clear to working together on campaigns of interest in the near future it can lay the basis for a much more comprehensive and sustained chalenge to British rule in Ireland in the long term.

:eusa_clap:

[duggie-89]

As you point out the title was by the Irish News. However, the main thing all those sniping over an éirígí member writing to a paper presenting the party as a 'credible alternative' are neglecting to mention is this was a specific response to another letter by Liam Duggan declaring there was no alternative to Sinn Féin. If others have a problem with éirígí challenging that claim or fail to counter it themselves that's very much their problem.

The éirígí member was rightly highlighting the party being an alternative, if others aren't going to enter the field to defend their own initiatives that is their failing, not éirígí's. It isn't éirígí's job to write letters on behalf of other parties.

yes i dont think it was a one off press release it was a response to my letter, and i would like to point out that i didn't say there was no alternative to Sinn Fein, i said that there was no creadible alternative IMO i personally thought the letter was well written and had a strong point.

but one of the things that sprung to my mind when see quoted Lalor "somewhere and somehow, and by somebody a begining has to be made" was that the begining has alreeady been made by SF by entering into powersharing, because it will only be though powersharing that the ultimate question will be answered.

so is eirigi anti GFA??? thats quite suprising because recently i have found out some of the people in eirigi and who they are and i have known them to have been in SF after the siging of the GFA. and its not like they were in for a year or two they were in right up until accepting policing when they left.

the more i seem to read and discover about eirigi the more boxes i seem to tick which makes it hard for me to support them.

[RisenBelfast]

yes i dont think it was a one off press release it was a response to my letter, and i would like to point out that i didn't say there was no alternative to Sinn Fein, i said that there was no creadible alternative IMO i personally thought the letter was well written and had a strong point.

but one of the things that sprung to my mind when see quoted Lalor "somewhere and somehow, and by somebody a begining has to be made" was that the begining has alreeady been made by SF by entering into powersharing, because it will only be though powersharing that the ultimate question will be answered.

so is eirigi anti GFA??? thats quite suprising because recently i have found out some of the people in eirigi and who they are and i have known them to have been in SF after the siging of the GFA. and its not like they were in for a year or two they were in right up until accepting policing when they left.

the more i seem to read and discover about eirigi the more boxes i seem to tick which makes it hard for me to support them.

éirígí are opposed to the 'Agreement' and this has been clear from the outset.

[duggie-89]

Well said mo chara, the republican challenge to the failed politics of the GFA must be a sum of its parts and all parts ought to be complimentary rather than confrontational. The collective republican argument ought to be the alternative and i think if we give each other (different groups) time to become aquainted with each other rather than viewing each other as competition then THE republican alternative can be developed as opposed to a series of alternative. I admit i perhaps have been a bit off with some Eirigi supporters but put this down to misinterpretation. Perhaps if we can see our way clear to working together on campaigns of interest in the near future it can lay the basis for a much more comprehensive and sustained chalenge to British rule in Ireland in the long term.

well said, that i would agree with!!!

[duggie-89]

éirígí are opposed to the 'Agreement' and this has been clear from the outset.

that i never knew, i always took them to be a more hardline pro-agreement like party, weather or not they agree with the currewnt agreement i am not sure but do eirigi agree to the principles behind powersharing?

[RisenBelfast]

Powersharing isn't the issue, that is just re-enforcing sectarianism, it is the copper-fastening of British rule in Ireland is the issue:

http://eirigi.org/campaigns/imperialism_paper.html

The most recent of such treaties, namely the Belfast and St Andrews Agreements, of 1998 and 2006 respectively, contain many of the features that have defined British treaties in Ireland for centuries. Three such features stand out most clearly.

*

Firstly, central to both of these agreements is an absolute acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. The constitutional status of Britain’s occupation will not change until a majority of those within the occupied six counties so decide– in effect one sixth of the Irish people will hold a veto over the other five-sixths.

*

Secondly Britain’s long history of nurturing false divisions in Ireland continues with power being allocated on the basis of a crude sectarian head-count designed to deepen and prolong false divisions along religious lines.

*

Finally, as with all British treaties, there is the apparent potential for those who support Irish freedom to achieve a long-term victory if they are willing to support the status quo in the short-term. In this the British government is at its most devious. Britain has conceded enough to convince some who oppose British rule in Ireland that these latest treaties are substantially different to all previous treaties and therefore worthy of support. In this the British draw upon their not insubstantial experience in negotiations and hope to neutralise the demand for British withdrawal and Irish Freedom. Failing this the British hope to lay the seeds of division among those who would nominally desire Irish freedom but disagree upon how it may be achieved.

We in éirígí are convinced that these two most recent treaties are considerably more likely to solidify British rule in Ireland than they are to end it.

Others have argued that Britain no longer has ambitions of empire and is in fact preparing to withdraw from Ireland, using the establishment of the Stormont assembly and increased levels of cross-border co-operation to support this hypothesis.

We in éirígí reject this analysis. We believe that the evidence indicates the opposite to be true. Britain is simply re-shaping and modernising the occupation and in doing so is attempting to portray her role in Ireland as neutral while simultaneously co-opting an ever larger section of the population into supporting the occupation. The current British government have over the last number of years implemented a policy of regionalised parliaments and assemblies with the objective of securing the long-term integrity of the so called “United Kingdom”. The British establishment has moved to neutralise the demands for complete independence for Scotland, Wales and Ireland by conceding limited powers to locally elected representatives. This tactic, and variations of it, has been successfully used on many occasions throughout history. This is the context within which the Stormont Assembly was established.

Increased co-operation between the Dublin and London governments and increased co-operation between the business classes on both sides of the border is in reality simply part of a broader pattern of globalisation and European Union-wide integration and not evidence of a gradual British withdrawal.

[conghaileach]

so is eirigi anti GFA??? thats quite suprising because recently i have found out some of the people in eirigi and who they are and i have known them to have been in SF after the siging of the GFA.
Why is that so surprising? If SF is a democratic organisation then there should be room within it for an anti-Agreement element.


and its not like they were in for a year or two they were in right up until accepting policing when they left.
I don't know what it was like in South Derry but I know people who had been in SF who left long before the party decided to support Britain's colonial police force in Ireland.

[andreas]

[QUOTE=conghaileach;111448]Why is that so surprising? If SF is a democratic organisation then there should be room within it for an anti-Agreement element.


There wasn't room for those who disagreed prior to the agreement, hence the suspensions and expulsions of founder members of the 32CSM, they were even barred from attending an ard fheis despite some having delegate status.

[FTA69]

that i never knew, i always took them to be a more hardline pro-agreement like party, weather or not they agree with the currewnt agreement i am not sure but do eirigi agree to the principles behind powersharing?

Éirigi is two odd years old, and they have never been pro GFA.

[Comrade Ryan]

[QUOTE=conghaileach;111448]Why is that so surprising? If SF is a democratic organisation then there should be room within it for an anti-Agreement element.


There wasn't room for those who disagreed prior to the agreement, hence the suspensions and expulsions of founder members of the 32CSM, they were even barred from attending an ard fheis despite some having delegate status.

So when the votes were taken it was unanimous then?

[andreas]

[quote=andreas;111470]

So when the votes were taken it was unanimous then?

Votes at the AF? i don't think they were unanimous, however there organised anti agreement element within the party were removed, had those other anti agreement people who stayed within the party to try to change policy been members of supporters of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee (as was) then they too would have been expelled, or sidelined.

[Comrade Ryan]

[quote=Comrade Ryan;111642]

Votes at the AF? i don't think they were unanimous, however there organised anti agreement element within the party were removed, had those other anti agreement people who stayed within the party to try to change policy been members of supporters of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee (as was) then they too would have been expelled, or sidelined.

So there was room for anti-agreement people as is evidenced by the experience of many.

There just wasn't room for alternative organised groupings within the movement.

[Carlos McJackle]

as opposed to unofficial think tanks ,womens department , unionist outreach grouping, language etc . There are numerous bodies within the sinn fein party dedicated to persuance of a single issue . The primary issue of national sovereignty however also needed to be focussed upon . There was room for anti gfa people alright , just as long as they didnt try and oppose the gfa or highlight the issue of its denial of national sovereignty . ie they could stay there as long as they didnt focus upon the issue . I can assure comrade ryan that prior to the formation of the sovereignty committee people speaking at internal meetings here on the border were subject to ostentatious displays of militarist figures then close to the leadership producing notebooks and writing down what they were saying , obvious psychological intimidation . That prevented people I knew from even opening their mouths in public . People of undoubted physical courage in the past who buckled at the sight of a pen , notebook and stern face . That was the climate in which the sovereignty committee within sinn fein was founded in defence of national sovereignty .
In order to attempt to defend national sovereignty there was a most definite need for people to band together in a structured manner . An issue of such crucial importance to the country could and can only be addressed and persued in a structured manner .

[andreas]

[quote=andreas;111650]

So there was room for anti-agreement people as is evidenced by the experience of many.

There just wasn't room for alternative organised groupings within the movement.


I'd say that was the case, there at least to be needed some internal opposition to give the semblance of a democratic organisation, there always had to be a percentage voting against proposed party policy but staying with it in the interests of party unity. In fact i was surprised that the policing vote was endorsed as healthily as it was, i had thought about 70/30. Many people who were opposed to the GFA stayed with PSF and left in dribs and drabs over the last 10 years, there are probably a few still in it who are against aspects of the agreement and policing, every shinner i talk to in the pub tells me they do not support policing and never will, the only thing is they think that the party doesn't either and, like entering stormont, it is a ruse.

[FTA69]

I can assure comrade ryan that prior to the formation of the sovereignty committee people speaking at internal meetings here on the border were subject to ostentatious displays of militarist figures then close to the leadership producing notebooks and writing down what they were saying , obvious psychological intimidation

That still goes on, at a lot of these "consultation" meetings those on the top table (or someone next to them) will be writing down all of what is said and who said it, the positive as well as the critical. These I assume are then brought back to the high brass so they can analyse the situation in detail.

[Liam Lynch]

That still goes on, at a lot of these "consultation" meetings those on the top table (or someone next to them) will be writing down all of what is said and who said it, the positive as well as the critical. These I assume are then brought back to the high brass so they can analyse the situation in detail.

The lightbulb effect apparently.